Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself in the happy position again of agreeing with the Government. I commend them for these regulations, which go some way to addressing the risk of abuse of our asylum support system. These changes are a good start, but they could go further. I have one or two questions for the Minister, though, in respect of each of the regulations before the House today.

First, in respect of the asylum support provision relating to illegal working, perhaps the Minister could tell us how it is envisaged that the Government would defend a claim brought by an asylum seeker—or a failed asylum seeker under the other regulations—who has been found to be working illegally and has had their support removed. If they make an application, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has indicated, to have support restored, and then say that unless it is restored the Government will be in breach of their obligations under Article 3, how does the Home Office propose to defend the withdrawal of support in those circumstances?

The second question is in relation to the removal of the duty to provide accommodation, which came out of the EU reception conditions directive and has restored the arrangements in the 1999 Act to being a power to provide accommodation. How does the Home Office propose to examine the accommodation and support provided in our neighbouring countries? My recollection of reviewing that support is that ours is far more generous than that available in France, Ireland, Denmark or the US. Could the Minister ask his officials to look into the provision of asylum support in those countries and tell us how our present offering compares, and write back to me and put a copy of that letter in the Library, assuming he does not have those answers to hand?

I return to my main point that I am supportive of these instruments. They are a good start, and I thank the Home Office for bringing them forward.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Home Office on its direction of travel, but I have a few points I think it needs to consider to get this right. It would be helpful if the Home Office were to publish more regularly the gender breakdown of asylum seekers so that we can be clear that it is a representative proportion of those to whom we may have an obligation.

It would also be rather helpful for the Home Office to do more in the international context. I recall going with the former Bishop of Durham to Burundi, where a third of the entire population had sought asylum in a neighbouring Commonwealth country, Tanzania. It is part of the Commonwealth and was previously part of the Empire. It seems to me that part of our obligation to those seeking asylum is to ensure that those large numbers who temporarily felt obliged to move to a safe haven in Tanzania were able to return—as they did, but with some difficulty—to one of the most impoverished countries in the world, Burundi.

Similarly, I visited the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, where more than 1 million have fled from Myanmar—again, a country with which we have a very long-standing relationship. These are all asylum seekers, but it would be rather absurd for us to have a policy that suggests that the way to address those problems would be to facilitate those people coming here via organised crime gangs.

It is interesting to observe how low, or non-existent, the number of rough sleepers is in certain parts of the country. That is not correlated to wealth and income in those areas; it is correlated to the amount of casual work available—work on farms, for example, or in vape shops. There is a new mania in this country for everyone not to wash their own car but to pay someone else to do it. The evidence I have seen would suggest that many of these businesses are impossible to trace, and yet the Home Office is meant to have a system to ensure that illegal working is clamped down on. What further will be done about the registration of businesses to ensure that a business on a set and identifiable premises, which someone could go in and ask for work from, is in fact a legitimate business operating within the law, rather than a cash business facilitating the work of organised crime gangs in trafficking people to this country? In the same way that we have an electoral roll that we are required to be on, would it not be worth considering requiring a local authority to hold a business roll of who is operating a business, so that we can start to cut through? We have done this with some of the manipulation of Companies House from abroad in illegal working in this country. It would give both the country and those seeking refuge a better deal, and the criminal gangs a worse deal and less profit motivation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I was going to rise after the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Lister, to say that they gave two absolutely magnificent speeches. I agree with them both and I will not aim to repeat them. It is quite telling that I am now speaking after we have heard strong support from the Conservative Benches for the Government’s policy, and I suspect we may hear the same from the Conservative Front Bench. As I said, I do not aim to repeat what has already been said— I agree with everything that both noble Baronesses said—but I want to make a couple of points. One is to pick up on some words from the Minister, who rightly said that most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the Government are under pressure on these statutory instruments. On being challenged by our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Home Office said:

“We are developing our policy”


in this space. I have a question for the Minister on something that could save a great deal of the need to house asylum seekers. Is that “developing our policy” considering allowing asylum seekers the right to work, as they have in many countries?

I note that I am going to applaud the Government here, because we have seen a very small advance in the past few weeks. We saw three weeks ago that doctors and other medical professionals who have been seeking asylum for 12 months will now be able to work in the NHS. Well, that is great, although I have to ask why they have to wait 12 months, given our great need for their services and skills, and the fact that they would inevitably benefit from being able to use their skills as soon as possible.

It is worth looking at the history of that, because it had been the case historically under the shortage occupation list, which the former Conservative Government replaced with the immigration salary list in April 2024. We have seen the BMA, REACHE—the Refugee and Asylum Seekers Centre for Healthcare Professionals Education—and others taking legal cases; it may have been that the legal pressure was enough to make the Government change their mind. But if the Government are doing that for doctors, even after 12 months, why not for engineers or scientific researchers? Why not for anyone who can contribute their skills, energy, time and talents to our country, which is, of course, everybody? Why not allow asylum seekers to work? The direct question that I put to the Minister is: in “developing our policy”, are the Government at least considering that?

I want to pick up on one other point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because it really deserves to be highlighted. It is the issue of support from friends and family, which picks up on the case study that the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, presented to us. Something that I have heard from visiting refugee support groups over many years is how often a situation where someone is offered free accommodation—possibly by quite distant family or friends, very loosely defined—can quickly turn into a situation that can only be equated with modern slavery. I am thinking of one case study that I heard of: a very small and frail older woman ended up sleeping on a mat in the kitchen and working 16 hours a day, seven days a week. It appears that the Government are trying to force people to create that kind of situation, from what is being suggested with the friends and family situation.

I have a final point to put to the Minister. Having looked at the impact assessments, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said how inadequate they are. I also want to repeat the point that the idea that there is no significant impact on the voluntary and private sector is just a nonsense. I am afraid that is a nonsense statement in the impact assessment. If we are to understand the impact of these rules, my simple question to the Minister is: how many people are going to end up homeless as a result of these statutory instruments? I think that is a question we should have the answer to.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

This is an absolutely key group of amendments. The many organisations which contacted us about the Bill always raised, without exception, training and information campaigns. Last week, I spoke to a friend who manages a theatre in east London. She told me that she has already put in place most of the measures contained in the Bill and already done the training. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, in reality that applies to the larger venues; these amendments are particularly targeted to the smaller venues, which have not yet put in place, or even thought about, many of the provisions in the Bill.

Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that the proper provisions are in place, so that staff at venues—especially smaller venues—are adequately equipped and trained to respond to threats. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, many smaller venues are run by volunteers or communities with little or no formal training in event management or public protection procedures. Amendment 26 would address this by ensuring that all venue staff and volunteers—whether in a pub, a church hall or another venue—would be equipped with the right training to prepare them to keep the public safe or to minimise casualties if there were to be an attack. Many organisations have expressed their concern to us about the lack of clarity in the Bill and said that, while the Bill would be helpful, training would be absolutely essential to make it work properly.

Amendment 26 would cover evacuation procedures, the monitoring of premises, physical safety and security, and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress was being made. Crucially, it would also ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need to plan. The public deserve to know that, wherever they are, staff are properly trained to respond to any such emergencies or attacks. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, it would be helpful to provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they have to meet under this law.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are concerns from many of the smaller venues and businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring, which is why the new clause that we have tabled proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden with scalable and specific training.

Amendment 29 is connected to this. As there is currently no specific requirement for training in this Bill—unlike the draft Bill presented by the previous Government—there is nothing to ensure that any training that could be provided is of a sufficiently high standard, quality or value for money. There were many speeches at Second Reading about the flourishing number of consultants offering their training services.

More tailored training will increase protection and raise awareness of the threat of terrorism for not only staff but volunteers. It is important to ensure that venues, staff and volunteers not only know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack but are confident that such training is delivered by competent and well-qualified professionals. In Amendment 29, we therefore suggest that an approval scheme is established for training—something that my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to as a sort of kitemark for training.

Amendment 27 requires the Secretary of State or the SIA to provide information and material to assist in the understanding of, and compliance with, the requirements under the Bill, including by way of an information awareness campaign. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide resources to implement this. Although advice is available online at ProtectUK, many businesses are unaware of this or find the information difficult to understand. This could lead to difficulties in implementing or complying with this legislation. A similar concern applies to parish and town councils, which typically own a range of premises—both indoor and outdoor spaces. They are also responsible for a large number of public events. It is therefore vital for the local council sector to have ongoing support and funding to assist with compliance with the new legislation.

Will the Government undertake a significant communications campaign to raise awareness of the new duties in this Bill? Will they provide a dedicated programme of tailored support and guidance? Will they undertake to provide clear, relevant and accessible information as well as online resources and tools on implementing and complying with this legislation?

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, my experience of smaller venues is that they are significantly more adept, knowledgeable and willing to explain security and safety procedures in advance of any event. I cannot recall this ever happening in a larger venue. This morning, I was at a once-Jewish theatre where, a very long time ago, a false alarm was called. There was some panic and 19 people were trampled to death while leaving the venue. In some of the large venues across the world—including in this country, specifically sports venues such as football venues—many major tragedies have taken place when there has been a chaotic leaving of a venue.

This Bill is highly appropriate and worthy. One can see the rationale and the urgency with which the Government—with cross-party support—brought it forward. However, it strikes me that there is a danger that we miss one key aspect. The risk of terrorist attacks is the risk of the attack, but it is also the risk of panic and chaos at any perception of one, however falsely or maliciously the panic or evacuation is created.

Judging from how things have been developing since this Bill was announced, I have noted that, for example, elderly, somewhat disabled football fans—those with walking sticks—have been told that they cannot sit in certain seats because their ability to evacuate in an emergency may not meet the time criteria. So, people who have willingly sat very safely and require—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently—assistance have in recent months been told: “You may not sit in this seat because you will be a risk”. I would put that as one of the unforeseen consequences.

Let me turn that round into the positive, in the context of Amendment 24 on training. If we take a football stadium of any team in the top two divisions in England, we find a set of stewards whose turnover—not always, but usually—is very high. I have met stewards who were not aware of the layout of the stadium at all and could not solve basic problems, because they were new and did not have that knowledge. Usually this is in attempting to get into stadiums, where one interacts with the stewards.

At the football stadium I go to most regularly, like most other major stadiums, two-thirds of the people who attend go every single week. They sit in the same seat in the same part of the stadium. I know where my seat is. I know the people alongside me. I know people in the row behind and the row in front. In any emergency, we know what the flow is at any one time when leaving the stadium. We know where to go because we are there on every single occasion. The average will be 20 to 25 times a year in the same seats and the same venue.

Therefore, if one wants to maximise safety in the context of terrorism—an actual attack or anything thought to be one which could create an emergency evacuation—should one train up 300 to 500 regular attenders in the basics of what to be looking out for and to do in any eventuality, I put it to the Minister that the chances of success would be significantly higher. That does not fit all venues: not all venues will have a majority of people who know the venue better than anybody because they go to the same seat regularly, but that is a strength that should be capitalised on. I would like to see customers who regularly sit in the same location in the same venue trained up; I have proposed it to one major football club, in this case suggesting 500 supporters. This would be a free resource, not instead of but additional. On the objective of this Bill, that would not just bring some buy-in but make major venues significantly safer for all of us. Training by the venue of those who attend on a regular basis ought to be part of the mix in taking this forward.

--- Later in debate ---

So, to all the noble Lords who have produced amendments, I would say that the legislation itself does not require training. It is designed to ensure that simple measures are understood by the responsible person. In order to do that, as has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the Home Office is currently producing materials based on the potential for this legislation. A bespoke Martyn’s law landing page on ProtectUK is in place now—

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

The Minister is giving a good explanation on bureaucracy and cost, which I think is rational, but I fear I am hearing too much of the Home Office mentality of an “authorised person”. When it comes to dealing with major risk, including dealing with terrorism, the message on the railways, on the London Underground and in airports is that everyone should be vigilant. A huge amount of resource has gone into that messaging.

With the example of parish councils, I do not think anyone is suggesting that parish councils should be required by law to have carried out a training session. Not that long ago, however, I represented about 60 parish councils, and I would expect somebody to be organising a training session for all 60 of those councils to make sure they are all clear about what they should and should not be doing in relation to this. That is a small but crucial event. Is there not a danger that the Home Office thought process of the “responsible person” leaves out the responsibilities of the rest of us and the key role for us to be playing in this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The purpose of this legislation is to provide guidance for the responsible person where buildings and premises are impacted at the time of a terrorist attack to ensure that the responsible person knows what to do. It is not designed to be worrying about the downstream elements of potential terrorism—although we all worry about these things. We all need to be vigilant on trains and in the street; we all need to understand what is happening; we all need to support the police and the security services. As professional forces, they are doing what they can to prevent an attack occurring in the first place—but, in the event of terrorists choosing to attack a village hall in my noble friend’s former parliamentary constituency, or another railway heritage site, what happens when that attack takes place? That is the nub of what this Bill is about.

The provisions under Clause 5, for smaller premises, and Clause 6, for larger premises, and the provisions on having a nominated person are linked to an understanding of what we do in that circumstance. The amendments today are about whether we need to ramp up training to do that. What I am saying to the House is that the Security Industry Authority and the Home Office will provide guidance on how to understand and implement that legislation, but the specific training and vetting and supporting specific training providers is not one of those obligations. Certainly, however, there will be guidance from the Secretary of State and the Security Industry Authority.

Indeed, as I was saying before my noble friend asked to intervene, there are government fact sheets currently. There is social media promotion of the leaflets and there is stakeholder engagement. We have had a massive consultation, in several incarnations, through different Governments and through various rounds of scrutiny by the public and parliamentarians. What we are trying to get to is an understanding of certain responsibilities that individuals have to have to make sure that there are protective measures in place in the event of an attack, which remains unlikely but could happen anywhere, at any time. When it happens, how do people understand their responsibilities and responses?

The two-year implementation period that we are likely to have before the Bill becomes implemented law, as opposed to Royal Assent law, will allow for wider discussion of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned around whether we need to tailor specific advice or not and will include widespread dissemination of the type of information that the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, have brought forward today. This is a valuable discussion to have, but the aim of the Government is to try to make this as simple as possible; to give guidance to ensure that it is as simple as possible; and not to overcomplicate things by making everyone think, “I have to have training to do this”. It is not about training, it is about responsibilities. Those responsibilities are set down in the Act and guidance will be given in due course.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for those comments. I think she will know that the Government want to put victims at the heart of the response to the recommendations. We debated mandatory reporting on Friday in this House, and it was clear that victims carry the pain of their victimhood through into adult life and beyond. It scars individuals. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned the many victims who do not reach adulthood because they self-harm and commit suicide. We need to address how we involve the experience of victims to ensure we do not create future victims. I see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in her place. The inquiry she established had a number of recommendations on how we can help support victims, and we will look at those between now and Easter. It takes time, but we will look at how we can respond to those recommendations in the best way, so as not to lose the knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, process is clearly very important in relation to statutory inquiries and to giving the recommendations some kind of parliamentary scrutiny and holding them to account. On Friday, the Minister identified that the Home Office was responsible for “four” of the 20 recommendations. Which member of the Cabinet will be responsible for leading on this inquiry and its recommendations? Will the Minister take it from me that there would be a lot of delight—widely across the House, I suspect—if he were to take responsibility among Ministers in this House for leading on reporting back progress on this inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister takes a keen interest in the progress of these reports, and he will monitor and hold to account Ministers in government on that delivery. But the very fact that I am standing here today, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was standing in the House of Commons, shows that we are responding on behalf of the Government to the IICSA response. That is where the lead and responsibility lie: with the Home Office. But we do not have the direct implementation of a number of recommendations, which require the engagement of the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and other departments. We have set out the timetable to meet those 17 other recommendations; we have accepted the four, and we are already implementing some. Very shortly, other legislation will be published by the Home Office that will give effect to the recommendations we have accepted. It is our job to see that through and to do so, I hope—putting out the hand of friendship—with the support of the Opposition Front Bench.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Mann Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I entirely back this Bill—the spirit of it but also the detail. The Government would be foolish not to do likewise.

When I got elected as an MP, the first thing that I did was to convene an inquiry into heroin addiction in my own area. I spoke personally to more than half of the 600 heroin addicts whom I represented as their MP—over half—and every single one had suffered some form of major trauma in their early years. That is a separate issue, but my point is that the consequences of any form of child abuse are major and, indeed, well beyond that child when they become an adult.

There is one pertinent point that has been rather lost in the last few weeks. The term “survivor” has been used. My experience is that very many who were badly abused as children have not survived; either they are not alive, or they are in a position where they are really not capable of doing anything coherent in advocating for themselves. When I took up issues relating to child abuse as an MP, which I did—I spent 30 days representing people at that inquiry—I dealt with people who were incapable of knowing exactly what had happened to them, because the trauma had been so great. I dealt with people whom I was unable to see, because of how the trauma had impacted on how they are, who were being cared for by others, sometimes by the state and sometimes by private institutions. I dealt with people who had been inside prison because the actions that they had taken—and they were evil actions sometimes—had a direct correlation with what had happened.

So this is not some kind of minor issue, and this Bill deals with only one of the 20 recommendations of that inquiry. If the Government—any Government, including this one—fail to implement those 20 recommendations, they will be held to account, and they should be. I will be one of those holding any Government, including this Government, to account.

Four minutes is not a long time, but I shall make a couple of other points that need to made, because they may not be made by others. There is a lot of talk about girls; I dealt with boys as well. On the definition of children in sports, including in football, one thing that I found—and I think I had an influence, although I am sure that football would say that it did it itself and it was just a coincidence of timing—was about the grooming of 16 and 17 year-old girls by football coaches. That was another issue that I had to deal with. Age is also important, and that was one of the complications of that inquiry—the 16 to 19 year-olds, and who is and is not a child. That is fundamental, and certainly everyone aged 18 and under needs to be incorporated into everything.

Finally, I knocked on doors, electioneering, and people would say to me, “John, can I have a word?”. They would tell me what had happened to them, and they would say, “I’m not going to do anything about it”. These were people who had been married for 40 years and had not told their partner, but they told me. They said, “We’re telling you, because you’re doing something about it, and this can be of use to you”. They were not isolated examples. That was more the norm than not the norm, where I was the first who was told, and they said, “We’re not going to do anything about it—we’d like you to do something about it”. That is our responsibility.

Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: Recommendations

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Mann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse led by Professor Alexis Jay.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to the 7,000-plus victims and survivors who shared their experiences and helped shape the work and focus of the inquiry. Since taking office in July, this Government have worked to deliver an ambitious programme of activity, responding to the inquiry and on child sexual abuse more broadly. As the Home Secretary announced to the House of Commons on Monday, this includes delivering a new mandatory reporting duty in the upcoming crime and policing Bill.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I hosted over 400 child abuse survivors in this building, and I spent 30 days representing many at the inquiry, IICSA. I share their impatience with how quickly the 20 recommendations are being implemented. On recommendations 9 and 10, on DBS checks, does the Minister agree with me that Parliament should take a lead and that every parliamentarian should be required to have a DBS check, in line with those recommendations? On recommendation 19, on having a single redress system, does he share my anguish and anger that my friend Terry Lodge, who was given a public apology seven years ago—he was imprisoned and enslaved as a 10 year-old and forced to spend his teenage years not at school but working in a foundry—has still received not a penny of compensation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation deserve access to appropriate support and routes to compensation. As he mentioned, the inquiry’s report gives indications of recommendations to that effect. The experience of his former constituent highlights the need for that to be a matter of urgency, and we are working at pace in government to ensure that we identify how best we can deliver against the inquiry’s recommendations.

My noble friend mentioned DBS checks, which are one of the recommendations that we are still working through and looking at. Some of those issues in relation to this House will be for the parliamentary authorities. More generally, the report was commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, as Home Secretary in 2015. It came through in October 2022 as a major report and it was responded to by the Government in May 2023, but no progress has taken place until July this year, and we are now starting to exercise some energy in response to those recommendations. We will bring forward recommendation responses in due course.

Non-crime Hate Incidents

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

How about the half a billion pounds that was announced today by the Home Secretary? How about the focus on neighbourhood policing, with 13,000 police officers? How about the record levels of investment in policing, which were cut under the Government in which the noble Lord served? How about getting back to the levels of police officers that existed when I was Police Minister in 2009-10? That might help to deal with some of the issues the noble Lord addresses. He knows the serious issues that this Government have pledged to address.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, statistics have been essential in assessing and understanding the levels of anti-Semitism in this country, as endorsed by two all-party inquiries and by evidence from every major Jewish community organisation. Can I entice the Minister into a meeting to discuss how we can further improve the system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I would never resist a meeting with my noble friend Lord Mann, and he can have one. I always say that it is better to have an open door than to have one kicked down.

King’s Speech

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I reference my entry in the register of Members’ interests as the Government’s independent adviser on anti-Semitism, a role to which the Prime Minister reappointed me yesterday. I join the welcome to the three new Members of the House. I have known my noble friend Lord Hanson for a very long time and I have known the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for even longer. I have never been afforded the opportunity to meet my noble friend Lord Timpson in his many prison visits. I think all three will enhance the quality of this House.

I want to say a word on illegal immigration. There has been a bit of an old-fashioned debate going on recently about identity cards. We have identifiers in vast numbers of forms these days. The difference from when my noble friend Lord Blunkett raised the issue of identity cards nearly 20 years ago, when I was one of those who supported him, is the digitisation of the world. We have digital passports. The vast majority of people who wish to work in this country have digital passports and I am at a loss as to why I need digital identification for virtually everything I have to do in my life other than get a job. It seems to me that the pull factor in this country could be removed by requiring a form of digital identification for everyone who gets a job. I think that, rather than the various gimmicks that have been tried or huge expensive things, will in itself be the fundamental difference.

On the Government dealing with small boats, I say that we had a family business. We used to take trucks across the channel and to Holland regularly. They had 7 x 4 x 3 flight cases in which you could fit a body. In fact, we had a false body in them with ventilation. It would have been easy to smuggle people through, because trucks were virtually never stopped. There is some indication that the problem is being shifted back from small boats to lorries, which is where the problem was before. I think that the debate on identification and identifiers will take place and that this House should spend a good amount of time discussing how best that can take place. There is a certain inevitability, in my view.

I also want to talk about extremism. There is a new form of extremism in this country. It is not recognised across government, it is not recognised structurally and we do not put resource into it. We see extremism in relation to criminality and terror—rightly so. We are rather good at dealing with terrorism and that kind of extremism. We are not perfect and we never will be perfect, and the more resource is allocated to that, the better. That is one form of extremism, but there is what I call the soft belly of extremism as well: people who do not intend to break the law and who are not terrorists but whose entire approach and ideology is to destroy democracy, the system and society that we live in, and who have other aims and objectives. In my work, I am seeing the ongoing targeting of people in the Jewish community who dare not speak out because of what has happened to them, particularly in the workplace, purely because they are Jewish. That is organised, and it is done by extremists. The state does not know how they are organising, where they are organising or who they are because we have no system, unit or resources. It is imperative that government takes hold of this and understands who the people in this country are who wish to destroy our democratic system not by violence but by other means, who we will never catch through criminality and therefore who we will have to deal with in other ways. Critically, we need to know who they are and how they operate.

Anti-Semitism in the UK

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I would like to confirm with the Minister, and thank him if it is the case, that he announced three-year funding for the Community Security Trust. That is a welcome change of policy that for some years I have pressed the Government for, and it will make the trust’s work much easier.

In my view, there is a sinister change in what is going on with anti-Semitism beyond the noise, which is bad enough: it is the very specific, organised and co-ordinated targeting of individual Jewish people, at work and in their accommodation, in ways that we have never seen before. I do not mean awful random violent acts of anti-Semitism, which of course are dangerous and threatening for all of us and something that we need to deal with, but the co-ordinated targeting of people, isolating them and organising pile-ons to force them out of workplaces—in some cases off student courses and in other cases out of accommodation, but particularly from the workplace. That co-ordination is something that we have not seen in this country.

I urge the Minister to agree with me that, for the Jewish community to be safe, this crisis of anti-Semitism is going to require the maximum detailed co-operation between all parties in this House, because this scourge is already out of control and lives are being ruined that we are not even seeing. We are going to see more of that as they surface, because people are alone and terrified and are being picked off.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, if I make a correct the record, I may have said three-year funding but I should have said two-year funding. If I mis-spoke, I apologise.

On the points that the noble Lord raises, I completely agree. The targeted stuff that he refers to is a particularly pernicious form of anti-Semitism, and I too have seen evidence of it. The police are aware of it, and I hope they will crack down on the perpetrators. The noble Lord is right that it needs a cross-party response, but to some extent he is missing the point: it needs a cross-society response. It is not just us in here; everyone has to get on board with this.

Immigration Rules and Border Security

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

To answer the last question, I say that the date is soon. I am afraid that I cannot improve on that. They all require fact checking and a variety of other things. In terms of the Care Quality Commission, that is precisely what we are doing. It was made very clear the other day that, additionally, care workers in England will be able to sponsor migrant workers only if they are undertaking activities as regulated by the Care Quality Commission going forward.

Ukrainian family members can still come. It is just that we are unifying the schemes currently in existence. The old family scheme allowed settled Ukrainian sponsoring family members to come here. That settlement used to have only a six-month qualification. They can still come under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. The sponsors can now be British, Irish or settled in the UK, and that obviously includes family members. This scheme was greeted favourably and with some very positive comments from the Ukrainian embassy, which I am happy to recount if anybody would like to hear them.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my wife and I drove trucks for our family business regularly through Calais to Dover, and we are very aware of the weaknesses in the systems and pressures from people smugglers attempting to come in through commercial vehicles, trucks and lorries. What is the increase in the number of checks done on those vehicles this year compared with last year, and what is the increase in the number of people found to have been smuggled or trafficked through those routes using trucks or lorries this year compared with last year?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not have the statistics on trucks. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I said in answer to an earlier question, Clause 1(6) details international law. It includes the human rights convention; the refugee convention; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966; and the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984. I could go on. I suggest that we read Clause 1(6); it is very clear.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, will the refugees from Rwanda be put up in hotels?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I really do not know how to answer that.