Retail Crime: Effects

Lord Razzall Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, there is clearly common ground on how important the issues are that the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, has raised, as demonstrated by a number of noble Lords’ speeches.

I think both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lord Tope indicated the known figures, as reported to the relevant committee, which are that 443,995 incidents of shop theft—as I will call it—were reported in the year up to March 2024. That was up 30% on the previous year. Of course, as noble Lords have indicated, they are only incidents that were reported to the police. Other figures suggest that there may have been up to 17 million incidents not reported in the same period. Other noble Lords have indicated that there seems to have been a change in practice, with a lot of shop theft now by organised gangs rather than by individuals. Other noble Lords also said that there has been a significant increase in violence and abuse towards retail shop workers.

It is unusual to sum up on a debate in which everyone agrees. I do not think that anyone has said anything that I disagreed with, with the possible exception of one thing by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I did not entirely disagree with her, but she stands out as maybe saying something different. Everybody else has been completely unanimous in what they have said, so it is an unusual role to sum up today.

I therefore thought that I would pin down the Minister on the record and ask him to confirm the extent to which the Government accept the recommendations of the committee on which my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have sat. The chair, my noble friend Lord Foster, unfortunately could not be here this evening. I would like the Government to confirm, if at all possible, whether they agree with the following major recommendations of that committee.

The first is to change the word “shoplifting” to “shop theft” in all circumstances, not just occasionally or where appropriate. Secondly, I think the Government have confirmed that they will create the offence of assaulting a retail worker, but perhaps the Minister can confirm the timing of that when he responds. Thirdly, do the Government support the repeal of Section 176 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, which limited prosecution for theft under £200? If so, what is the timing of that? Fourthly, what are the Government’s proposals to improve treatment for people where there is drug and alcohol involvement? A number of noble Lords have indicated that this is a key factor in increases in shop theft and violence, so perhaps the Minister can confirm what plans the Government have to improve and invest in that area. Fifthly, do the Government agree on the need to improve reporting systems between retailers and the police, which was a key recommendation of the committee? Sixthly, do the Government agree to legislate to regulate the ethical use of new technologies, especially by private companies, for crime prevention, which again was a recommendation of the committee?

There may have been other recommendations by the relevant committee, but those seem to have been the key ones and from these Benches we urge their implementation. I will just float two other possibilities that have not been raised by any noble Lord. First, will the Government find a way to end two toxic practices that affect many retail workers? The first is being forced, typically in the run-up to Christmas, to break the law in order to meet delivery quotas. The second is people on zero-hours contracts receiving less than one week’s notice of their working hours. Are the Government prepared to look at that?

Secondly, and this may not command universal support among your Lordships, what do the Government think of the idea of a higher minimum wage for workers on zero-hours contracts as compensation for their irregular working hours, particularly in the retail sector? I am delighted to have wound up on this report, and I am delighted that we seem to have unanimity.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Lord Razzall Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, as a member of the relevant committee, about which many compliments have been paid, particularly to the chair and the staff, I rise to support the two Motions in the name of our chair, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I first make a point that I am not sure anyone has made, which is the dilemma with which the Government are faced. If we go back to the beginning, the whole reason for the proposal to send people to Rwanda was that it was going to be such a hellhole that nobody would want to get on a boat if they thought they were going to go to Rwanda. The dilemma the Government now face is that, because of the Supreme Court, they have to demonstrate what a wonderful, safe place Rwanda is. I wonder whether this might just be a moment for them to reflect on the purpose of their policy.

Recent events go either way. First, as noble Lords indicated, six people from Rwanda have had to be granted asylum here. I do not know why; I do not know whether anybody knows why. If that is the case, it may somewhat help the deterrent argument: the hellhole argument. Conversely, RwandAir for the first time last week commenced non-stop flights between Kigali and Heathrow. Whether that is in preparation for taking people, who knows—and which way that goes on the argument of deterrence or safety, again I am not sure. But it does seem to me and to many of us that this a classic case of two and two adding up to five.

There are a couple of peculiarities in the Rwanda treaty that noble Lords have touched on. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the rhetoric of the Government in defence of their policy and of the treaty has been that a number of other countries have done and are doing the same. Italy is cited vis-à-vis its current negotiations, and of course in the Tory party the highlight would be Mr Abbott winning the election in Australia all those years ago on the basis of processing migrants in Papua New Guinea—and I think also in Nauru. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, there was a fundamental difference, in that they were being processed by Australians who decided whether they would be given asylum in Australia. That is not the case with this treaty. Anybody who is sent to Rwanda and is granted asylum there can only, as we know, be kept in Rwanda and certainly cannot come back to the UK, except in exceptional circumstances.

The second point, which I do not want to labour but which several noble Lords, going back to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, have touched on, is that there seems to be a strange interplay in this treaty between the asylum rules and the refugee rules. I am not sure exactly how that plays out, but it is a complication.

The Government’s policy says, and the evidence they gave to us is intended to show, that the new treaty contains significant new protections to meet the Supreme Court objections. A number of noble Lords have mentioned them, and the Government have listed the new protections: first, a new system for processing asylum claims, with new institutional structures and a provision for free legal advice; secondly, the establishment of a first-instance body to hear claims, as well as a new appeals body with judges from a mix of nationalities; thirdly, an independent monitoring committee that will be set up, bolstered by a support team; and, most particularly, the new domestic legislation that will be required in Rwanda to implement the new system.

As noble Lords and our report have indicated, a large number of actions are now required: a new asylum law, a process for making complaints to a monitoring committee, the recruitment of the monitoring committee support team independent of the establishment and the hiring of independent advisory experts, the establishment and appointment of co-presidents of the appeals body and other international judges, training for the new appointees and the recruitment of legal advisers and interpreters. All of this, as noble Lords have said and as our report indicates, takes time and, in the committee’s view, should be established before ratification.

Noble Lords who are hesitant about voting for the second Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, should accept that this is not about the legislation, which has caused such rows in the Tory party; it is about the treaty. I remind noble Lords that none of the four Tory Members who have spoken—including the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is in his place—have dissented from this recommendation. It is a unanimous recommendation. From publicity, we are all aware of how the Tory party in another place has been tearing itself apart over this issue, but it is the Bill, not the treaty, that it has been tearing itself apart over. Noble Lords really need to take that on board.

In any rational world, this would not happen and the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would be followed. I wonder whether it is only the absolute determination of the Government to start flights to Rwanda before an election that is stopping this. I should add that I do not think our recommendation implies criticism of Rwanda in any way; we all accept, I think, that it has acted in good faith. It is a perfectly respectable member of the Commonwealth that seriously wishes to implement the desired protections.

My noble friend Lord Purvis referred to the best part of £400 million that we have committed to this project. In Davos, President Kagame indicated that, if no migrants from the boats were sent there, we could have the money back. I suspect that we will be asking him for it.

Rwanda: Memorandum of Understanding

Lord Razzall Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, somewhat cynically, that the Government have chosen this memorandum of understanding rather than a treaty so it should not be subject to parliamentary approval under the relevant legislation. That would mean a full parliamentary debate, permitting the treaty to be rejected. We have been unable to debate the Rwanda situation until today. Surely there should have been a debate on whether Rwanda is a safe country to send asylum seekers to, particularly in light of the recent history of genocide and ethnic cleansing in that country. It is even more important because many people do not realise that if a migrant seeks asylum in Rwanda and their application for asylum is granted, they only stay in Rwanda and lose the right to come here.

Few can doubt that our policy towards asylum seekers is in a mess. It is not just a failure to deal with migrant boats across the channel. I thought the Member of Parliament for East Worthing and Shoreham could not have put the problem better with his question to the Home Secretary at a recent Home Affairs Select Committee meeting. He asked her how a teenage migrant seeking asylum from an African country—and not Syria, Ukraine or Afghanistan—could apply for asylum. Her reply was that if the migrant arrived in the UK, they could put in an application on arrival; that would be the process. When Tim Loughton pressed her on how the migrant could arrive here legally, she had no answer. The disgrace of the current situation is demonstrated when the Home Secretary cannot answer a key question from one of her key supporters.