Pakistan: Evacuation of Afghans

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in response to the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, the UK rightfully offered resettlement to those who had shown support and loyalty to British aims. For many who have made it here—some have come in small boats—this means being put into hotels and potentially facing homelessness. Reportedly, others who have been granted resettlement in Britain are stuck in Pakistan, facing deportation back into the hands of the Taliban. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why have there been such delays in settling people under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme? Has he confirmed whether any of those about to be expelled from Pakistan to Afghanistan are eligible for the ACRS? What assurances has he received from the Pakistani Government that those eligible for the ACRS will be allowed to remain in Pakistan until chartered flights can be completed? Finally, what measures is he taking to ensure that our asylum backlog is cleared and that suitable accommodation is secured for those applicants?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

The noble Lord is right: the Government have reacted decisively and swiftly to relocate people to safety in the United Kingdom following the collapse of Afghanistan the year before last. The Government remain committed to relocating eligible Afghans and their families under the ARAP scheme and the ACRS—we continue to honour this promise. The Government’s policy was to ensure that eligible Afghan families had secured accommodation in the UK before travel was facilitated for their relocation but, as a result of changing conditions on the ground, we are changing that policy. The Ministry of Defence has worked hard to stand up a total of over 700 service family accommodations for mixed purposes, or transitory and settled accommodation. I pay tribute to my friend in the other place, the Minister for Armed Forces, for his work on this. Our new plans will see approximately 2,800 ARAP-entitled personnel move from Pakistan to the UK by the end of December 2023.

The answer to the question on deportations is: not as far as we are aware. On conversations with the authorities in Pakistan, the British high commission is obviously monitoring the situation closely and is in frequent contact with the Pakistani authorities to ensure that no eligible ARAP or ACRS individuals are negatively affected while they await relocation to the UK—we are seeking assurances to that effect. On 27 October, the Foreign Secretary received assurances from Foreign Minister Jilani that they would be safe.

The noble Lord asked about the backlog. We referred to this in the humble Address debate yesterday to some extent. I will not go over old ground but, as he knows, we have increased the recruitment of decision-makers and committed to dealing with the backlog by the end of the year.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this is a UQ, so I will be brief. The Minister in the Commons said yesterday that he was working “night and day” to make sure that the Pakistani Government stuck with the commitment not to deport those who are ACRS-eligible. Could the Minister here say how promptly we can get the ACRS people out? Will the 2,300 include everyone, or should there be more flights as soon as possible?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am not qualified to comment on the operational dimensions of this policy, but I reaffirm the commitment to make sure that everyone who is eligible, without exception, is relocated by the end of this year.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, when I asked a Question on this topic on 18 October, the Minister said that there were then 3,000 Afghans in Pakistan who were eligible under ARAP and the other schemes and were awaiting relocation to the UK. Although I appreciate that some flights have begun to get some of them out, can the Minister please guarantee that every one of those 3,000 eligible Afghans and their immediate families will be relocated before the Pakistani authorities deliver them back to the Taliban in Afghanistan? One thing we can be sure of is that they are already suffering adverse conditions while they are waiting in Pakistan, and these are almost as bad as, if not worse than, those they were suffering under the Taliban: some live in hiding and are threatened.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have already made that commitment that the Government will move all those people to the United Kingdom by the end of this year. After the noble Baroness asked the last Question, the policy changed: we are no longer shipping people only when they have accommodation already approved. The object of the exercise is to get them out as quickly as we can.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, on 18 October, during the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the ARAP scheme, I and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the need for an urgent review of the rejected or rescinded approvals of settlement applications of members of the Afghanistan Commando Force 333. I understand that some of these applicants sought refuge in Pakistan, and their forced return to Afghanistan may, quite simply, mean a death sentence for them. I commend the Minister on his continued engagement with me after that Question. If he is now in a better position to answer our respective questions, can he confirm that all rejected applications or rescinded approvals are now being actively reviewed, considering the true context of CF 333’s relationship with UK forces and policies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I confirm to the noble Lord that I remember the question. At the time, I committed to write to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. That letter is being prepared and I will share it with him in due course if he will allow me a little more time.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, there is evidence that the Taliban are pursuing ethnocentric policies by ensuring that Hazara and Indo-Tajik people repatriated from Pakistan are settled among Pashtun communities, which has long-term consequences. Are His Majesty’s Government in touch with Pakistan about what it is effecting, because there will be future consequences of this policy in Afghanistan?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I am not really qualified to answer on that matter, which I would imagine falls very much within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I will take the question back and ask whether it can shed some light on it.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I know of an individual case of an Afghan interpreter who is safely here but his family, to my knowledge, is not. His wife and young son got almost as close as they could to the airport hotel in Kabul a year ago and I do not know whether they have got out. Is the noble Lord the appropriate Minister to write to about an individual case, or would he direct me to somebody else to make inquiries about that person, who gave great service to the military, and his family?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The honest answer is that I do not know whether I am the right person. It would depend on whether it is an immigration and visa situation or a defence-related situation, so I suggest that the noble Viscount write to me, and I will make sure that it ends up in the right place.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 151A and do not insist on its Amendments 151E and 151F in lieu.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motion B.

We are here again to discuss the Bill for what I am pleased to say is, I hope, the last time. As my ministerial colleague in the other place, Kevin Hollinrake, said earlier today, the House of Commons has expressed its strong will on these remaining issues three times now. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the Government’s Motions this evening. I will keep my remarks brief.

I start with government Motion A on the failure to prevent fraud threshold. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s amendment would have brought medium-sized organisations into scope by exempting only micro-entities and small organisations from the offence. The Government do not support any lowering of the SME threshold that we introduced, and I will briefly repeat the reasons why.

It is already an offence to perpetrate fraud. The objective of the new offence is to ensure that there is accountability where fraud occurs in large organisations, so there is simply no need to apply any such offence to smaller organisations, and it is more straightforward to use existing powers against smaller, less complex companies. Every time an offence like this is introduced, business owners end up distracted from running their businesses by the need to assess their compliance risks, which often involves taking professional advice. We assess that the revised threshold proposed by this amendment would cause medium-sized enterprises £300 million in one-off costs and nearly £40 million in annual recurring costs.

As my ministerial colleague flagged this morning, we have future-proofed this legislation by including a delegated power to allow the Government to raise, lower or remove the threshold altogether. As with all legislation, the Government will keep the threshold under review and will make changes if there is evidence to suggest that they are required. I therefore urge all noble Lords to follow the will of the other place and support the government Motion to reinsert the SME threshold.

I move to Motion B on the amendment tabled previously by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on cost protection in civil recovery cases. The Government remain of the view that this type of amendment would be a significant departure from a fundamental principle of justice—that of the loser pays—and therefore should not be rushed into without careful consideration. Furthermore, we have seen no clear evidence that this amendment would increase the number of cases taken on by law enforcement.

However, that is not to say that this type of amendment is necessarily a bad idea. That is why we have previously added a statutory commitment to the Bill to review the payment of costs in civil recovery cases in England and Wales by enforcement authorities and to publish a report on the findings and lay it before Parliament within 12 months.

Normally, with regard to civil cost reform in England and Wales, the Government would look to consult appropriate consultees, including the senior judiciary, the Law Society and the Bar Council. Enacting this reform now without a full review would not allow judges and relevant organisations, or their counterparts in Northern Ireland and Scotland, to comment on how it would be read and applied in practice. It would therefore be irresponsible for us to rush into making such a significant change at the end of the Bill without full consideration by Government and further scrutiny by Parliament. With that, I hope all noble Lords will agree that this is the responsible approach to take and therefore support the Government’s position.

In conclusion, I encourage all noble Lords to agree with the Government’s position on both areas. It is vital that we achieve Royal Assent without delay so that we can proceed to implement the important reforms in this Bill as quickly as possible. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their very generous remarks and I speak as well on behalf of my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who asked me to make that clear.

We agree that the Bill leaves the House in a better state. The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Coaker, are right that the Bill makes major changes, and we agree that the enforcement agencies have a major part to play. One of the aspects of the Bill that we can now start to get on with is making sure that Companies House is appropriately resourced, as obviously it will have a major part to play in any future delivery of the aspects of the Bill that we have been discussing for more than 400 days, I believe.

We should take this opportunity to thank the enforcement agencies for their past and future efforts. We know that this is a complex area, and without them we would all be in a much worse place. But, for now, this Bill leaves this House in a much better state. I thank, as I know my noble friend Lord Johnson would, both noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, and others from all Benches, for their engagement. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have worked hard to ensure the right balance between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. Having said that, I am quite sure we will return to some of these issues, as predicted—but, for now, I urge noble Lords to support the Government in their position.

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 161D in lieu.

Motion B agreed.

Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 11 September, contain measures that are intended to continue to cut unnecessary red tape in order to support the hospitality sector in light of the ongoing residual effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

As your Lordships may be aware, the Licensing Act 2003 enables licences to be granted to sell alcohol for consumption on site, for consumption off site, or for both. In the event that a business obtains an on-sales only licence and subsequently wishes also to do off-sales, it can apply to its licensing authority for a variation that would add off-sales to its licence.

The Business and Planning Act 2020 included a temporary provision that meant holders of licences that covered only on-sales would automatically be entitled to make off-sales, removing the need for businesses to apply for a variation, thus saving them time and money. In practice, this has enabled pubs and restaurants that have only an on-sales licence to sell alcohol for takeaway, to operate alcohol delivery services and to extend their service outdoors. Specifically, the measures have enabled businesses to serve alcohol in the area covered by any pavement licence they had, facilitated by a parallel but independent easement to pavement licensing. This parallel easement created a temporary streamlined process to apply for and have granted a pavement licence. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, currently completing its passage through Parliament, will make the changes to pavement licensing permanent.

The off-sales provision has benefited at least 38,000 licensed premises in England and Wales that previously did not have an off-sales licence, and, having previously been extended twice, it was due to expire on 30 September 2023. These new regulations extend this measure until 31 March 2025 to ensure that businesses will continue to benefit from these provisions for a further 18 months. During this time, the Government will explore the creation of a unified pavement licence that includes the consumption and sale of alcohol in the outside pavement area. Work is already under way to establish how this will work in practice. We intend to have permanent arrangements in place that can take effect when the extension expires.

I am confident that extending the off-sales provision is the right course of action in order to provide vital ongoing support to the hospitality sector. Although the immediate Covid-19 crisis has passed, the residual effects continue to have an immense impact, especially for businesses in the hospitality sector. Many continue to face high levels of Covid-related debt, with some reporting in July that their debt repayments exceeded 100% of their turnover.

For the purposes of clarity, I note that another regulatory easement set out in the BPA relating to temporary event notices—TENs—will not be extended. The provision temporarily increased the annual number of TENs that a licensed premises user can have in respect of a premises from 15 to 20 per year and increased the maximum number of days on which temporary events may be held at such premises from 21 to 26 per year. We have decided not to extend this easement for the simple reason that the additional TENs provided for in the BPA have been underutilised and are no longer deemed necessary. As such, on 31 December 2023 that easement will lapse.

These measures will continue to benefit a wide range of businesses, including pubs, restaurants, wedding venues and small festivals. The hospitality industry needs our support, so I commend these regulations to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing these regulations and I declare my interests as set out in the register. I rise briefly to add my support to my noble friend and this measure, and to thank the Government for the support given to the hospitality industry over the last few difficult years.

Personally, I am a supporter of these provisions becoming permanent, and I hope that will come, but in the meantime, I am happy that these regulations will bring 18 additional months of advantage to hard-working, tax-revenue-paying businesses. This extension enables businesses to continue to serve alcohol in the area covered by a pavement licence, for takeaway and for delivery, as my noble friend said, all without the need to apply for a variation to their licence. I am confident that this will continue to benefit thousands of licensed premises across England and Wales. I also applaud the Government’s commitment to explore the creation of a unified pavement licence that includes the consumption and sale of alcohol in the outside pavement area.

In the middle of one of the most joyless events known to mankind—“Sober October”—it is heartening to see some positive news for the hospitality industry. Clearly, the UK’s unelected temperance movement has decided that “Dry January” is no longer enough and wishes to spread even more misery. As far as I am aware, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that, when the regulations were first introduced and then extended, no increase in crime and disorder resulted. That shows that most people—the vast majority—can enjoy a modest drink without incident.

We know the hospitality sector has taken a huge hit in recent times; although recovering, there is still a way to go for the industry to get back on its pre-pandemic feet. The instrument, as extended today, has helped and will continue to help businesses diversify. Figures reveal that 383 pubs closed in the initial half of this year, to be demolished or converted, the equivalent of two every day. In the whole of 2022, 386 such venues ceased to exist. The overall number of pubs in England and Wales, including vacant ones, now stands at 39,404. The total number of closed clubs is currently not known but the social club sector has seen a number of closures, although not on the same scale.

The reasoning is clear. Let us continue to make things easier and give opportunities to businesses to survive and thrive—positives which we know trickle down to employed staff and to customers who still enjoy socialising. Let us also remind ourselves that, when the Licensing Act was passed in 2003 and introduced in 2005, it was hailed as a means to help create a café society, something which is more easily achieved with the ability to drink al fresco.

--- Later in debate ---

We do not oppose these regulations on the extension, but they raise a number of questions about how the Government introduce legislation. The shoddy way this was done undermines their case in doing something that, as the Minister can see from the Committee, has cross-party support. The country deserves better and to understand why things are being done. I hope that, in the run-up to deciding whether this third temporary extension until March 2025 becomes permanent, there will be widespread public consultation which takes into account the various views there will be. Some clarification around things such as pavement licences—what area they refer to and so on—would be welcomed by all those who work in the industry and others. With that, we will not oppose the regulations.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am pleased that this measure, which ensures continued support for the hospitality sector, has been generally recognised as a positive move. I reassure my noble friend Lord Smith that I have no intention of embracing sober October, and I will happily join him in that.

As I have already indicated, the long-term goal is to create a unified pavement licence that includes licensing consent for the consumption and sale of alcohol in an outside pavement area. This 18-month extension will provide the time necessary to establish how this will work in practice to bring about the necessary legislative changes.

I will try to respond to the specific questions, starting with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the consultation. Earlier this year, the Government consulted on whether to make permanent the alcohol licensing regulatory easements that were set out in the BPA 2020. A majority of respondents indicated that they did not wish the off-sales easement to continue and the Government initially decided not to continue with it. Of those who responded, broadly speaking, industry was in favour and local residents and licensing were not. However, I do not have the precise proportions. The Government later reviewed this decision and decided to provide additional support to the hospitality sector by extending this off-sale provision for a further 18 months. I recognise that this has caused confusion for stakeholders, but it will ensure that the hospitality sector can maximise every opportunity to recover fully from the ongoing residual effects of the pandemic on an industry that, as has been broadly noted, is vital to our economy and culture. I will come back to the evidence of the economic impact shortly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about the broader health evidence that we need to seek. She made some very interesting and sound points about health, but we believe that the existing provisions to consider health matters in relation to licensing applications are sufficient at present. Difficulties remain in establishing direct links, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, alluded, between alcohol-related harms and specific premises. Evidence from Scotland so far is not particularly compelling, but we will consider any new evidence. As a general rule, directors of public health are responsible authorities under the Licensing Act.

I go back to the confusion that may have been caused between the publication of the consultation results and the decision to extend the provisions. We apologise for that confusion—I completely accept that it was not ideal. However, it is right that we considered all the relevant factors in detail, and we are confident that extending this easement for an additional 18 months represents the best outcome for the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked what the point of consulting is if we just ignore the results; I think there is a legitimate expectation that government will consult on matters of policy or legislative change to allow interested parties and citizens the opportunity to contribute their views. They are a vital part of how government engages with the public and stakeholders, and we have to acknowledge the role they play in decision-making. However, they are only one factor among many that must be considered and it is important that the Government retain the ability to make different decisions where other concerns need to be taken into account. The Government have the luxury of seeing the bigger picture, which local residents who object perhaps do not.

My noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made some very good points about the importance of the hospitality sector to the country and the difficulties it is facing. It continues to feel the effects of the coronavirus pandemic; there are no remaining restrictions in place, but many businesses continue to face significant debt burdens, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, as a result of the pandemic. Industry survey data shows that the hospitality sector emerged from the pandemic with, as has been noted, £10 billion of Covid-related debt. ONS data shows that 6.6% of hospitality firms reported that their debt repayments exceeded 100% of their turnover in July 2023, which is above the economy-wide average of 1.9% and up from 5.1% in May 2023.

Operating costs reached record levels in 2021 at 55.2%, compared with 52.5% pre pandemic. Industry data suggests that, while turnover was up 6.7% in the last year to £137 billion, when compared to 2019 it remains almost 20% behind in real terms when accounting for inflation. Following the withdrawal of Covid-related government support in autumn 2021, the number of hospitality business insolvencies has steadily risen, as my noble friend Lord Smith noted. According to Insolvency Service data, hospitality insolvencies in the six months to July 2023 were 58% higher than the 2019 average, as cost pressures place significant demand on profit margins. I think that makes a clear economic case for the reasons and rationale behind doing this now.

A number of noble Lords asked about our long-term plans and ultimate goal, which is to create a unified pavement licence that includes licensing consent for the consumption and sale of alcohol in the outside pavement area. The Home Office is working on a permanent solution in conjunction with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for pavement licensing. While related to these regulations, this is ultimately a separate issue that will be worked through over the coming months. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I cannot discuss that work in any detail at the moment, but I very much noted what my noble friend Lord Hayward said about the experience of the Lionesses and will make sure that that is passed back, in particular what he was saying about how common sense prevailed.

My noble friend also mentioned licensing extensions in relation to that situation. As he noted, extensions of licensing hours support communities who wish to come together to celebrate events, particularly those of national importance, by enabling hospitality venues to open for longer. We are looking at how best to streamline that process for such extensions and will continue to do so.

I understand that any relaxation of licensing law naturally results in concerns about potential crime and disorder, but I can provide your Lordships with considerable reassurance on this point. We have consulted the National Police Chiefs’ Council about the effects that the temporary off-sales permission has had. The view of the police is that the temporary off-sales permission has not caused any clearly identifiable increase in crime and disorder.

On concerns raised about premises whose irresponsible approach to off-sales leads to anti-social behaviour, I refer the Committee to Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which provides councils and policing with powers to issue a closure notice if there are reasonable grounds that

“use of a particular premises has resulted, or … is likely … to result, in nuisance to members of the public, or that there has been, or … is likely soon to be, disorder near those premises associated with the use of the premises, and that the notice is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring”.

I hope that answers the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about crime and the powers that are already available to have an effect on the grant of these types of licence.

Concerns were also voiced about the off-sales permission leading to excessive noise late at night. The temporary off-sales permission is limited to the hours of on-sales permitted by the licence, with the cut-off at 11 pm. That applies to all premises that receive the permission. Furthermore, should issues of noise and nuisance arise from off-sales of alcohol, environmental health officials can seek an expedited off-sales review. Within 48 hours of an application for such a review being made, the licensing authority must consider whether interim steps are necessary to prevent further problems. Those interim steps may modify the licence conditions, suspend the off-sales permission or exclude the off-sales permission altogether. A review hearing within 28 days has the same option. So there are plenty of safeguards that are sufficient to ensure that problems of noise and nuisance are quickly tackled.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me about broader work to tackle alcohol-related harms. Preventing alcohol-related harms requires a sustained commitment from across government, but also from local authorities, the police, health partners—to which I have already referred—and, of course, businesses. There really is no easy answer to tackling alcohol-related harms. Every part of the system, from early intervention to brief advice, treatment and access to criminal justice powers, has to work together. We have an ambitious programme of work in train across departments to tackle these harms and I am sure that we will respond to them in due course.

My noble friend Lord Bourne raised some very good points in his question about the lessons learned more broadly from Covid. I am not in a position to guarantee him the debate that he seeks, although I think it is a very good idea, but I point to the way things are changing at pace. I happened to read an interesting article in the Times this morning, which talked about working from home and how, apparently, a majority are now working back in their offices— I believe that that was from Hays, the employment agency. That should be good news for the sort of hospitality services that we are talking about, but I accept and respect the point he made about the fact that society changed in many ways that we ought to spend more time considering, particularly regarding the overall volunteering principle and the civic responsibilities that so many people embraced. Those were good points and we should return to them.

I have spoken enough and answered as many questions as I can. I cannot make any commitment on the agent of change principle, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about, but it is a broad-ranging consultation and work is being done across government on it. I have no doubt at all that it will be considered.

As I said, the hospitality industry is at the heart of many of our communities. It is vital to our economy, as evidenced by the numbers I read, provides employment and boosts tourism. We have to do all we can to ensure it recovers from the effects of the pandemic. The modest extension will allow businesses to continue to benefit from these measures while steps are taken to put in place a long-term solution. I hope that will meet the needs of all interested parties. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2023.

Relevant document: 52nd Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 7 September 2023, relates to Prevent. Prevent is one of the pillars of Contest, the United Kingdom’s counterterrorism strategy. The aim of Prevent is to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It also extends to supporting the rehabilitation and disengagement of those already involved in terrorism. These aims could scarcely be more important.

Put simply, Prevent is an early intervention programme to keep all of us safe. To do so effectively, it requires front-line sectors across society, including education, healthcare, local authorities, criminal justice agencies and the police, to support this mission. This is why we have the Prevent duty, set out in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. It sits alongside long-established duties on professionals to protect people from a range of other harms, such as involvement in gangs or physical and sexual exploitation. The Prevent duty helps to ensure that people who are susceptible to radicalisation are offered timely interventions before it becomes too late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute once again to the work of the police, security and intelligence services. It is difficult but it saves lives and, as I know the Minister will agree, it helps to keep us safe. Extremism is a stain on our society. It feeds on fear, which seeks to drive us apart, and is perpetuated in the name of one extreme ideology or another. All of us on this Committee and beyond are opposed to that.

We have seen a terrorist attack on Fishmongers’ Hall, close to London Bridge, the awful attack at a concert in Manchester and the brutal murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, among other shocking events, such as the bomb attack at the Dover Border Force centre. Was it not a bad mistake for the Shawcross review not to include that last incident as one of the examples of attacks listed in that report, given that it was not Islamist? It could have been included, because it took place months before the publication of the original review. The Minister will know that one of the criticisms of the review and worries about it is its supposed bias.

Ongoing threats are thwarted and ongoing action is taken by the police and security services. Can the Minister outline their view of these guidelines, as well as those of others who have to implement them, such as local authorities or education providers—schools and so on?

Prevent is extremely important, as is its purpose of early intervention to prevent radicalisation, extremism and, ultimately, terror. We, like others, support its actions in that regard. However, the strategy is seen by some as contentious and many feel that it is one-sided. How are the Government going to restore confidence and trust across the community in their work on Prevent and the broader counterterrorism strategy?

For example, we have seen the criticisms from the former head of counterterrorism police, Neil Basu, as well as others such as Amnesty International, of the Shawcross review. Is public confidence not increasingly important, given the current awful international situation in the Middle East and the domestic challenges it gives rise to in the UK? Have the Government reflected on these current events? Given the horror we all feel at what we have seen, is the guidance as up to date as it needs to be to reflect the current situation? Might further amendments be required in due course? Is anything planned?

As the Minister pointed out in his helpful introductory remarks, the independent review of Prevent contained 34 recommendations. Last month the Secretary of State announced that the Government had completed 10 of these, and we learned from the Minister today that 29 of them will be completed within a year. Have I understood that correctly? Does that mean the calendar year, or the end of 2024? It would be helpful to have clarification on that. That leaves five that are not going to be ready by the end of the year. Can the Minister tell us which five they are and why they will not be done over the same timeframe as the others?

One in five people arrested for terrorist offences in 2022 was aged under 18—a fourfold increase in just three years. How will the guidance contribute to combating this rapid growth in child terrorist suspects? Beyond the guidance, what else are the Government doing? Will they join us in committing to placing mental health practitioners in schools to help combat vulnerabilities that can make young people more susceptible to extremist narratives? What assessment have the Government made of Jonathan Hall’s recommendation on legislation regarding young terror suspects? How is the Home Office working with other departments to combat, for example, the terrorist threat posed by artificial intelligence, which is new but an increasing threat to us all, as we know?

Four of the nine declared terrorist attacks in the UK since 2018 were perpetrated by serving or newly released prisoners, but the review found that

“there have been delays to staff beginning Prevent training and to extremist prisoners beginning rehabilitative programmes. These delays are attributed to staffing and resourcing issues”.

Given the seriousness with which we should regard four out of nine of the declared terrorist offences having been committed by serving or recently released prisoners, what action has the Secretary of State taken since the independent review to address this and combat radicalisation in prisons?

The Minister will probably agree that Prevent is obviously just one part of a wider counterterrorism and counterextremism strategy. It is just one pillar, as the Minister mentioned, of the Contest strategy. None the less, the review and the Government’s response focus at points on targeting those most likely to commit terrorist acts, but also on wider non-violent extremism. Given that there is some confusion about the central objectives of Prevent, as outlined in this guidance, that could also lead to confusion among those implementing the guidance on what the true focus needs to be. Does the guidance make this clearer than the independent review and the government response earlier in the year—is the focus on individuals who may commit terrorist acts, or on combating wider non-violent extremism? Can the Government clarify where their emphasis and the balance lies? The counterextremism strategy as a whole has not been updated since 2015. Will the Government now confirm that this will take place? What else are the Government going to do to look beyond Prevent to combat extremism?

In February of this year, the Government stated that the ministerial Prevent oversight board would be “refreshed”, having not met since 2018. Has this refresh happened and has the board now met, or are we still waiting for it to meet?

The building of consensus is crucial, particularly around a voluntary engagement programme. The scourge of extremism, as we have seen, whether it be anti-Semitism, Islamism, or the extreme right—whatever it is—is one we all wish to see tackled. There are still very real questions to be asked and challenges for any Government to meet. But the defeat of terrorism and extremism, in whatever form they take, and doing all we can to prevent individuals and communities becoming involved in terrorism or suffering from the threat of terrorism or extremism, is in all our interests and something we all want our Government to succeed in—whichever Government we have.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his contribution. He has asked a number of questions and I will do my best to answer to them all.

Before I do that, I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in applauding the work of the security services and the various agencies that keep us all safe, and thank them for it. I include in that the officials in the Home Office, who are often rather overlooked when we are handing out praise to our security services, but who do a considerable amount of work and of thinking about how best to apply these rules in an operational situation. I re-assert that the core objective here is to strengthen the Prevent system, which is a vital component of the counterterrorism apparatus, and in giving my answers I will endeavour to explain why.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about public confidence and trust in the system and raised the issue of the Dover attack. Of course, the Independent Review of Prevent was led by Sir William Shawcross. He was an independent reviewer, so he decided on the content of the report. I am unable to comment on why he made that decision or what prompted it.

It is perhaps worth digressing and looking at the state of play regarding the extreme right-wing threat we face, because that does feed into this subject. We have accepted the Independent Review of Prevent’s recommendation to ensure that a consistent and proportionate threshold is in place across all the Prevent workstreams. Prevent is now guided by the principles of the new security threat check, which is recommended in the IRP. This series of principles informs our strategic approach, which asks us to consider whether actions are proportionate against the UK’s current terrorism and extremism threat picture. That means that the Home Office approaches and products clearly show how they are relevant to meeting Prevent’s objectives and responding to the threat of terrorism.

We are also rolling out updated training so that practitioners can better understand the threat and in particular the ideological causes of terrorism. The Home Office has undertaken research on Prevent referrals to better under understand them and to improve how they are recorded. Better understanding of the threat, strengthened training and improved processes ensure that we tackle disparities.

However, the primary domestic terrorist threat comes from Islamist terrorism, which accounts for approximately 67% of attacks since 2018, about three-quarters of the MI5 case load and 64% of those in custody for terrorism-related offences. The remainder of the UK domestic terrorist threat is driven almost exclusively by extreme right-wing terrorism, which amounts to approximately 22% of attacks since 2018, about one-quarter of the MI5 case load and 28% of those in custody for terrorism-connected offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt; I meant to include something else in my remarks. What the Minister is saying is very helpful. Can he comment—as far as he is able to—on the Home Secretary’s meeting with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police regarding how existing laws may be used with respect to what we have seen on our streets?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will get to that, if the noble Lord will bear with me.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course; my apologies.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As on previous occasions, there are likely to be Prevent referrals related directly to this conflict and from across the ideological spectrum. In direct answer to the noble Lord’s question about whether the Government are thinking about this, guidance has been issued on the appropriate thresholds. We have written to partners to ensure that they are aware of the escalating risks and that there is appropriate management of their Channel intervention programme case loads. Community tensions and the appropriate responses will be nuanced in each area. Prevent is continuing to work closely and intensively with local authorities and other partners, including DfE, DLUHC and CTP, to spot local risks and bolster community resilience, including encouraging interfaith dialogue.

On the Home Secretary’s meeting with Sir Mark, I was not there so I cannot give any personal reflections on what was discussed. Of course, I have seen what was in the papers with regard to Sir Mark’s cause. We are working with the police to ensure that hate crime and the glorification of terror are met with the full force of the law. Hamas is a proscribed organisation responsible for the biggest massacre of the Jewish people in one day since the Holocaust—we should not forget that. Support for it is a criminal act which carries up to 14 years in prison. The DfE’s counterextremism team is actively gathering from media sources and contributions from the CST information on claims of student group support for Hamas, and we are collaborating with the Office for Students to ensure the exchange of information regarding compliance-related issues, particularly those related to Prevent duties, and to address concerns about preventing unlawful speech on campus. It would be unwise of me to speculate on Sir Mark’s specific comments, but a raft of laws is already available to the police.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the number of recommendations in the Shawcross report. We have completed 15 of the 34 recommendations and 83 of the 120 tasks, but, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the independent review. We expect to have implemented at least 29 of the 34 within a year of publication—February next year—and the rest shortly thereafter. I am afraid that I do not know which five we will have to wait for.

The Prevent duty guidance supports several of the recommendations we have implemented, and we have introduced the new security threat check to ensure that decision-making is always informed by a proper consideration of the current threat picture. Updated training has been provided for public sector staff subject to the Prevent duty, and a further update on the implementation of the independent review of Prevent will be delivered one year after publication, in February 2024, when the majority of the recommendations will already have been implemented.

The noble Lord raised the subject of young people and what we are doing for them. One in 15 cases involves people under the age of 18, so protecting children from the risk of radicalisation sits alongside wider safeguarding duties, including tackling harms such as drugs, gangs and sexual exploitation. Prevent seeks to intervene early to support children and young people before they go too far down a road towards violence and criminality. It is not about punishment, making people suspects or placing them under surveillance, and it is not designed to impede a person’s prospects; it is designed to improve them. In line with previous statistics, we continue to see an upward trend in young people being referred to Prevent, demonstrating how vital the education sector is as part of the wider safeguarding duties to prevent young people being radicalised. The Government provide a range of support, including guidance, online training and a public-facing website to support schools in their responsibilities under the Prevent duty.

As the threat of radicalisation evolves, we have updated our training for front-line professionals to help equip them with the skills and knowledge to spot the signs of radicalisation and make a referral where appropriate. Prevent is implemented in a proportionate manner that considers the level of risk, and the Government take the threat from all forms of terrorism seriously. All referrals are assessed very carefully by experts to ensure that there is a radicalisation risk before they receive support through the Channel process, meaning that Channel provides support only to those who genuinely need it. Friends and family are often the first people to notice the changes in someone close to them that may be a sign of radicalisation, so more information is available on the police’s ACT Early website and the Educate Against Hate website. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s questions.

The noble Lord also asked me about the fact that four out of nine incidents since 2018 have involved released prisoners. HMIC’s report recognises the significant steps taken by the sector to uplift our capabilities since the attacks of 2019-20. It shows that we have truly stepped up our counterterrorism efforts and that we are working more effectively than ever before to protect the public from terrorism, thanks to the joint work of prison, probation and police staff. The central intelligence hub co-ordinates quicker and better intelligence sharing, vastly improving our assessment of the threat from terrorists of all ideologies. Thanks to that, we can now share previously confidential and sensitive information with parole boards, so that they can make fully informed decisions about whether to release terrorist offenders from prison. On release, terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders are subject to robust risk management and stringent controls that severely limit their activity. Finally, we have also strengthened joint counterterrorism Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA—which assess, manage and mitigate the risk of offenders.

The noble Lord is right that Prevent is only one part of the broader counterterrorism strategy. The report set out a robust approach to tackling extremism and made a significant contribution to the Government’s thinking on counterextremism, including a manifesto commitment to protect practitioners who stand up to extremists. We have carefully considered the recommendations, as outlined in our letter to Dame Sara Khan, the previous commissioner for countering extremism, and they have made a significant contribution to the Government’s thinking on tackling extremism. We have clear laws, and the police have extensive powers to tackle hate crime and the support of terrorism. In addition, we have strengthened the Prevent duty guidance to tackle permissive spaces for radicalisation, which is with Parliament for approval. We have also strengthened our approach to identifying and disrupting high- harm groups that operate below legal thresholds that radicalise others. So, we have robust laws in place on terrorist organisations and we are doing more to tackle radicalisation.

On 18 July, the Home Secretary launched Contest 2023, which is a refresh of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy. Contest 2023 outlines how we are reflecting on and adapting to the findings and recommendations of inquests, inquiries and reviews into terrorist attacks and our counterterrorism approach, and will continue to do so. It also describes the transformational updates we will make to our CT efforts to ensure that we adapt to an ever-evolving landscape.

The noble Lord asked about the ministerial oversight board. We agreed with the IRP’s assertion that that there is a need for stronger oversight of Prevent, including greater co-ordination and communication between secondary oversight boards and committees, so we committed to reinvigorate the prime ministerial oversight board. The refreshed ministerial oversight board will be chaired by the Security Minister and will begin convening later this year. The board will be attended by Ministers from key cross-Whitehall departments and senior leads from operational partners. The purpose of the board is to provide scrutiny and oversight of all Prevent work, including implementation of the IRP’s recommendations. The board will convene for the first time later this year and be chaired by the Security Minister. It is meant to meet biannually but can be convened outside that rhythm if required.

I am getting towards the end, and I apologise for the length of my response. The noble Lord asked me what action is being taken to tackle those who use artificial intelligence. The Contest strategy, which was published this year, noted that new technologies present both threats and opportunities for counterterrorism efforts. The impact of generative AI on terrorists’ and extremists’ ability to radicalise others online is yet to be fully established. The Home Office is firmly committed to understanding this risk better and to ensuring that any policy development in this area is thoroughly informed by evidence. We obviously know that bad actors could exploit generative AI to radicalise susceptible individuals to carry out attacks, so the Home Office is continually monitoring these risks to ensure that our CT system is able to respond.

AI also brings huge opportunities to better enable our counterterrorism response to terrorism activity and online radicalisation, so we are taking steps to build our knowledge of risks and to consider appropriate mitigations. That will include bringing together partners from across industry, academia and civil society. The Government are hosting an AI summit next week. The rapidly evolving nature of AI means that broad consultation will continue to be essential so that it can be guaranteed to advance in a safe, responsible and fair way.

I think I have answered all noble Lords’ questions, and I hope I have been able to do so satisfactorily. As I have set out, the new guidance will enhance the Prevent system and bolster our ability to counter terrorism and keep the country safe. I commend the instrument to the committee.

Motion agreed.

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to establish an independent inquiry to review the seven allegations of child sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer in 2017.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

The Government have no plans to establish an independent inquiry to review the outstanding allegations against Sir Edward Heath. It remains for the local police and crime commissioner to consider whether an inquiry is necessary.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I first express sincere thanks for the support that I, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and cross-party allies received from all quarters and parts of this House during the long period before Mike Veale, former chief constable first of Wiltshire and then of Cleveland, was found guilty of gross misconduct and barred from policing for life. In view of that July judgment, is it not imperative to carry out an independent review of the seven allegations made against Sir Edward Heath long after his death, which Veale failed to clear up after a long investigation that one of his officers contemptibly publicised on television in front of Ted Heath’s house in Salisbury? Must there not be a strong suspicion that Veale left these allegations open, neither proved nor disproved, to save face after failing to find a single shred of evidence to support any of the accusations, despite getting his officers to rifle through all of Heath’s private papers, box after box, in the Bodleian Library during an operation that cost over £1 million, paid for by the Home Office?

Finally—I apologise for speaking at some length—do we not owe it to the memory of a dead statesman, the only First Minister of the Crown ever to be suspected of such serious crimes, to get at the truth of this grave matter and settle the doubts created by the disgraced Veale?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend: it is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of all the allegations made against Sir Edward. I obviously recognise the House’s desire to find a solution, but the investigation has already been subject to considerable external scrutiny and the Government do not see the grounds for government intervention. The fact that it involved a former Prime Minister does not of itself warrant government intervention. The Operation Conifer summary closure report emphasised that

“no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution”

had he still been alive.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, is not the news that the Northern Ireland Assembly is amending the law on anonymity in rape cases to be greatly welcomed? If the law in England had been similarly amended, it is highly unlikely that the injustices in the cases of Sir Edward Heath, Lord Leon Brittan, Sir Cliff Richard, Mr Harvey Proctor and Mr Paul Gambaccini, and in the Janner case, would ever have arisen. Is it not time to reopen the debate on pre-charge anonymity in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord is quite right that these new laws have come into force in Northern Ireland, but the authorised professional practice guidance on media relations, issued by the College of Policing, already makes clear that the police

“will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime, other than in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so”.

In May 2018, the college updated this guidance to make it clear that it applies where allegations are “made against deceased persons”.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us from all parts of this House believe it is vital that there is an independent review of the shockingly unresolved allegations against Sir Edward Heath? Is he further aware that one of the reasons for a review is that it is hard to feel complete confidence in the 2017 official review, including a senior investigating officer from Operation Hydrant, since Veale’s decisions were examined by police officers who perhaps lacked sufficient independence from him?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord that I am of course aware of this. There were three main forms of scrutiny during the investigation. There was an independent scrutiny panel to ensure proportionality; the role of the panel members was to check and test the decision-making and approach in the investigation. At the end of the investigation the panel issued a statement. The noble Lord referred to Operation Hydrant. In September 2016 and May 2017, there were two reviews which concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. Finally, there was a review in January 2017 by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, as it then was, of whether the resources assigned to the investigation by the Home Office were being deployed in accordance with value for money principles. The review concluded that they were.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated that there will not be an independent inquiry under this Government’s watch. Given that this is an issue which needs to bring closure to both the alleged victims and to the family of Sir Edward Heath, what does the Minister suggest should be the way forward as an alternative to allowing this damaging situation to drift on?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I said to other noble Lords, of course we all regret the fact that the damaging situation arose in the first place, I am sure. However, this is a matter for the local police and crime commissioner and, as recently as 2019, the then police and crime commissioner said that Operation Conifer was scrutinised by an independent review and found to have been “reasonable and proportionate”, and he remained satisfied then that this was still the case.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is hearing the voice of the House. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the Government to bring this matter to a clear closure. Now the police side has in some ways settled, here we have these foul-mouthed accusations from a totally unreliable source allowed to drift in the wind with no attempt to tidy up and bring closure to the whole situation. Is this not a stain on British justice? Is it not up to the Government now to take very firm action to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Lexden, and indeed many others, and bring this matter to honest clarity, instead of leaving it in the ill-mannered way in which at present the debate stands?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I have said repeatedly, I of course understand my noble friend’s concerns. But the fact is that the Government are of the opinion that the original investigation has been scrutinised to a very high degree and that no further government action is therefore necessary.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they do not propose to have an investigation into the allegations against the former Prime Minister. However, there is a wider question which remains, which is how the wider system allowed Mike Veale to continue within policing and the wider policing family, despite two separate sets of allegations against him. There are also questions about the accountability of our PCCs and how they dealt with that particular situation. Does the Minister think there is a case for looking at the way disciplinary actions are expedited and sometimes abused, to maintain the public’s faith in the police force and the PCCs?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I would say to the noble Lord that of course we have arrived at a situation where Mr Veale has been held to account, so the public should therefore have faith. It perhaps took too long, but he was appropriately investigated along the way. In November 2017, the PCC in Wiltshire referred two matters concerning Mr Veale to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The investigation related partly to an allegation that a mobile belonging to Wiltshire police was deliberately damaged. He was subject to a management action plan—that was felt to be appropriate after the investigation by the various authorities. So I think it is unfair to say that nothing happened to Mr Veale, but perhaps it did take too long to reach a conclusion. As noble Lords might appreciate, I would certainly agree with that.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend understand that many of us simply do not comprehend how a relatively senior police officer could have given credence to allegations that were such patent rubbish?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, with hindsight of course we can call them “patent rubbish” but, at the time, all these allegations had to be investigated; I do not think there is any doubt about that.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, while all friends and admirers of Sir Edward Heath must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and others for the way they have pursued this, is it not the case that with the jailing of the man who first made these allegations and the conviction of the former chief constable for gross misconduct we can take comfort in the fact that the allegations against Sir Edward have been effectively resolved and disposed of?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it would be unwise of me to get too much into the weeds of what the original investigation looked at and the various aspects of it, but I should stress that in the two weeks after Wiltshire police made a media appeal for anyone with information to come forward, 118 people contacted them. It is definitely more than just one man’s word.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 151A and do not insist on its Amendments 151B and 151C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 151D.

151D: Because it would be disproportionate to apply the new clause inserted by Lords Amendment 151 to bodies other than large organisations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motions B and B1.

It is a great pleasure to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House once more. I hope it is for the last time, as I know that Companies House and law enforcement agencies are keen to use the important changes made by it. Without it, we will not be able to fund the recruitment of hundreds of new staff at Companies House to deliver the transformation that we all agree is needed. We will not be able to tackle SLAPPs, fraudsters will continue to be able to take advantage of vulnerable victims via fake companies, and we will not be able to go after the assets of criminals as effectively as we might. I could go on.

The Government have listened carefully to noble Lords during the Bill’s passage and have already moved significantly. This is an extensive and comprehensive Bill, standing now at nearly 400 pages of drafting, and it is imperative that we see it become statute. Noble Lords will of course be aware that the end of the Session is fast approaching.

I start by discussing Motion A, which seeks to reinsert the SME exemption for the failure to prevent fraud offence. I am grateful that my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier has moved closer yet again to the Government’s position by exempting microentities and smaller organisations from the offence. However, I am afraid that the burdens that this would place on medium-sized enterprises are simply too great, and so the Government cannot and will not support any lowering of the SME threshold that we have introduced. The threshold proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier would cost medium-sized enterprises £300 million more in one-off costs and nearly £40 million more in annual recurring costs.

However, it is not just about these costs—although they fully justify the Government’s position in their own right. Undoubtedly, a chilling effect also occurs with the imposition of a criminal offence. I have spoken before about my experience of working in the City. I know from that experience that, when this type of new regulation shows up, a whole industry of lawyers, consultants and accountants cranks into action, telling businesses what they can and cannot do. All this distracts businesses from what they should be doing, which is creating jobs and growing their businesses, which benefits the whole economy. As Kit Malthouse, the Member for North West Hampshire, put it in the House of Commons, the SME threshold is

“a level at which companies can absorb the step up in responsibility, and without a disproportionate amount of cost”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/23; col. 947.]

I therefore urge noble Lords to support the government Motion to reinsert the SME threshold, to ensure that we take a proportionate approach and do not impose unnecessary measures that will curb our economic growth.

I now move on to discuss government Motion B, focusing on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on cost protection in civil recovery cases. The Government remain of the view that this type of amendment will be a significant departure from the loser pays principle, and therefore not something that should be rushed into without careful consideration. However, that is not to say that this type of amendment is necessarily a bad idea, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it to our attention. With that being said, it would not be responsible for us to rush into making such a significant change at the tail-end of a Bill without full consideration by the Government and commensurate scrutiny by Parliament. That is why we previously added a statutory commitment in the Bill to review the payment of costs in civil recovery cases in England and Wales by enforcement authorities, and to publish a report on the findings and to lay it before Parliament within 12 months. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is the responsible approach to take and therefore support government Motion B.

In conclusion, I encourage noble Lords to agree with the Government’s position in these two areas. It is vital that we achieve Royal Assent without delay so that we can proceed to implement the important reforms in this Bill as quickly as possible. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by echoing something that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said: overall, we all believe that this is a good Bill. It is a step forward, and we welcome the changes that the Government have made over a number of months to improve it, and that they have listened to the various points that have been made. It would be churlish not to say that to the Minister at the outset, but that does not alter the fact that the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seek to address two omissions where, even at this late stage, the Government could act to further improve the Bill. I say to both that should they choose to test the opinion of the House, we certainly will support them in the Lobbies to do that.

I will not repeat the arguments. It was interesting; sometimes, when you are constrained by time, the argument distils down to its essence. I think that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Agnew, Lord Eatwell and Lord Wallace, really summed it up with respect to his amendment. As he said, the failure to prevent bribery offence applies to everyone; there is no opt-out or exemption. The Government do not think that that is too burdensome for anyone. As he also said, no company is too small to be exempted from the failure to prevent tax evasion offence. But on this particular emphasis, the failure to prevent fraud, the Government come forward and say: “We need to protect a certain number of businesses”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has moved amendment after amendment to try to come closer to the Government’s position. As the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Eatwell, have just said, if you took that to its extreme, you would impose no costs on business at all, and they used the seatbelt argument. So we are very happy to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, should he choose to test the opinion of the House.

I shall pick out one aspect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. It was a feature of all our debates and discussions that we wanted law enforcement to take tougher action against those who committed fraud. We believed that the state could and should take more action, that the amount of money lost with respect to fraud was enormous and that we need to do something about it. What I picked out from what the noble Lord said was about reducing the possibility of action not being taken by law enforcement agencies because they were frightened of the possibility of costs —not on the merits of the case that they might seek to pursue but simply because they were frightened that they may incur costs. As such, both amendments are simple but important ones that would do what this House, and I believe the public, expect Parliament to do, which is to give as much power as possible within the Bill to tackle the problem of fraud, which is what we all want.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, I am in danger of sounding like a cracked record on this subject, so I will keep my remarks brief. I reassure my noble and learned friend that I still find his joke funny and I am glad he keeps making it. I thank him for being incredibly gracious although we continue to disagree on these matters. I have to say I do not believe the Bill is a dog’s dinner or that these arguments are dog’s-dinnery. We are not in a sticky hole on this; it is a difference of opinion, and I will make a couple of the arguments that I have rehearsed before in support of that.

I shall deal with my noble and learned friend’s amendment by first reminding him and the House that this may be a relatively small number of companies but, as I have said many times before from this Dispatch Box, they account for 50% of economic output in this country. The heart of the argument comes down to why there is a threshold for this offence but not for the offences of failing to prevent bribery or the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. As I have reminded the House on numerous occasions, the Law Commission has identified the disparity here: it is easier to prosecute smaller organisations under the current law, which this failure to prevent offence will address. The new offence is less necessary for smaller firms, where it is easier to prosecute individuals and businesses for the substantive fraud offence. The Government therefore believe it would be disproportionate to impose the same burden on them. The fact is that this is not an exemption from the law; the law applies in a different way to these smaller companies, as we have tried to explain on a number of occasions. I think I will leave that there.

On Motion B1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I do not think that this represents a tender approach to fraudsters. As we have said and made the case on a number of occasions, fundamental changes are being proposed here, and the review that we have proposed seems like a fair way of assessing precisely the implications of making those changes.

I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for highlighting some of the complexities in this area in his particularly acute legal way, which I am not equipped to follow. However, I can perhaps answer the question about the difference in introducing the cost protection amendment for civil recovery compared with unexplained wealth orders. This issue has come up in previous debates as well. The fact is that the difference between the changes made to the unexplained wealth order regime by the first Economic Crime Act last year and what is proposed in this amendment is that unexplained wealth orders are an investigatory tool that do not directly result in the permanent deprivation of assets, whereas the civil recovery cases covered by the amendment could do so. There could therefore be a host of serious unintended consequences of such a change to the wider civil recovery regime, so the Government cannot support the amendment. A review is the appropriate way to look at this issue. As I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, that may well be a very good idea, but we would like to be convinced of that and to do the work before we actually accept it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for generously accepting that we have made significant improvements to the Bill through its passage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we have engaged extensively with all noble Lords in this House on the Bill. I thank him for his explanation of how he believes a revising Chamber should operate. The fact is that we are not sufficiently persuaded of the arguments against this, so there is a genuine difference of opinion. I do not think the noble Lord would mean to imply that this House should necessarily have a veto where there is such a difference of opinion. I think that is a fairly straightforward argument and a perfectly respectable one.

Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have worked hard to ensure the right balance between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. The Motions tabled by the Government today achieve that balanced and proportionate approach. I therefore urge all noble Lords to support them.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I will make one point in total agreement with my noble friend the Minister—we are not having a row, we are having an argument. He and I have a different view about the merits of our respective arguments. If the House listens to no other speeches, and if it wishes to forget mine, I urge noble Lords to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and my noble friend Lord Agnew said. From both sides of this House, they perfectly summed up the lacuna in the Government’s case.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Despite the fact that this is not an argument about party politics—it has nothing whatever to do with the Salisbury convention—I regret that I am insufficiently persuaded by my noble friend the Minister that he has quite got the point. I must therefore ask the House if it will join me in agreeing with my Motion by testing the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 161B in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 161C.

161A: Page 172, line 44, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Report on costs orders for proceedings for civil recovery
Report on costs orders for proceedings for civil recovery
(1) The Secretary of State must assess whether it would be appropriate to restrict the court’s power to order that the costs of proceedings under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are payable by an enforcement authority and, if so, how.
(2) In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the assessment by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) In this section “the court” means the High Court in England and Wales.”

Afghan Interpreters

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many former interpreters who worked with the armed forces in Afghanistan, and former British Council employees, are in Pakistan awaiting relocation to the United Kingdom under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy or other schemes; and how much longer they expect this process to take.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the ARAP scheme offers relocation to Afghans who worked with us in Afghanistan. The ACRS is designed to support those who have assisted with UK efforts in Afghanistan, including with the British Council, as well as vulnerable people. As of August 2023, we have relocated approximately 12,300 ARAP and 9,700 ACRS-eligible individuals. We will ensure that all eligible British Council contractors who remain in the region are brought to the UK, as the Minister for Immigration set out in the other place yesterday.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I am of course glad that more than 20,000 have been relocated already, but my Question was about the thousands more who are still waiting and trapped. Does it not add insult to injury that thousands of Afghans who worked with and for the UK, and who were encouraged by the UK to flee to Pakistan to expedite the visa process, should now themselves be experiencing at the hands of increasingly hostile Pakistani authorities the kind of daily fear, harassment and deprivation they thought they were leaving behind when they fled the Taliban? They were told they would have their visas in a few weeks, but some have been waiting for almost two years and now face the threat of repatriation to Afghanistan. Why is this visa process taking so long? Why have these people been so badly misled, and what are the Government doing to organise housing for them to come to if, as reported, this really is the main reason for delay?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

It really is the main reason for the delay. We obviously sympathise with the situation many Afghans find themselves in, including those who are suffering due to their work standing up for human rights and the rule of law, and those facing wider persecution by the Taliban. As the Minister for Immigration said yesterday, we remain dedicated to honouring our commitments to those people. We continue to develop plans across government to support new arrivals into suitable accommodation in the UK. Finding suitable accommodation is the biggest problem we have, but work is being done at speed.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the decision taken by the Pakistani Government on refugees? My noble friend will be aware that between 3.5 million and 4 million refugees have been in Pakistan for more than two decades, but most of them are undocumented, and the Pakistani Government took the decision—rightly criticised by human rights organisations across the world—that undocumented refugees should return to Afghanistan. This is a dire situation. The deadline is 1 November. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to protect those who protected us?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very good question. We estimate that currently, there are around 3,000 ARAP and ACR-eligible individuals in Pakistan. I am of course aware of the actions of the Pakistan Government regarding undocumented illegal immigrants in their country, but the Government are accelerating the arrival of ARAP-eligible individuals currently in Pakistan and we are doing our very best to move them into suitable accommodation as fast as possible.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Afghan Special Police Commando Force 333 was created, trained, mentored and funded by His Majesty’s Government, initially in support of British counter-narcotics objectives, but later for counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist duties. It is now clear that several deserving members of the force and their families were wrongly refused under the ARAP process and, as a direct consequence, several have been murdered in Afghanistan. Can the Minister provide assurances that the new director of the defence Afghan relocations and resettlement team will be given full support, including from the Home Office, to ensure that all previous 333 refusals are reviewed?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have no knowledge of the circumstances the noble Lord describes, but I obviously very much regret them if they are as he says. It is worth pointing out that, as it says on the GOV.UK website,

“The Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) is for Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Government in Afghanistan”—


these are the key words—

“in exposed or meaningful roles”.

Given what the noble Lord has said, I will pass his concerns on to the Ministry of Defence and make sure it is aware of his desire for a review of these circumstances. In total, more than 24,600 people have been brought to safety. Work is continuing at pace, but I will make sure the MoD is aware of those special circumstances.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is welcome that the ACRS pathway 3 has been expanded to all those deemed at risk who applied with the original FCDO scheme last year. However, more than two years after Op Pitting, it feels like Afghanistan is a forgotten war and those who worked alongside the British military are forgotten victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about those in Pakistan. Do the Government have any understanding of how many people had visas to be in Pakistan, whose visas have now expired? I have the names of at least 63 linked with the British Council whose visas have expired; I can pass those to the Home Office, but there must be many more. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to deal with individuals whom we know we have documentation for? What are we doing about bringing them out of Pakistan and to the United Kingdom?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say first to the noble Baroness that this is not a forgotten war and these are not forgotten people. As I say, these are people to whom the Government will honour all their commitments, whenever and however they were made. I am not party to the precise details of individuals whose visas may have lapsed. She is welcome to send me those details and I will make sure they go to the appropriate places.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, it appears that prior to June of last year, most applications for resettlement from members of CF 333 were approved. Subsequently, most were rejected, and indeed some prior approvals were rescinded. In following up on the noble Lord’s question, could the Minister obtain for the House some information on the source of and rationale for this dramatic change of policy, which, as we have heard, has resulted in some deaths?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to provide the noble and gallant Lord with that information; I will do my very best to find it.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that much of the world is not as stable as we would like, and that we have a duty of care to locally employed staff in our embassies, particularly in countries which are in difficulty at this time and could be in a similar situation to Afghanistan? Have we learnt these lessons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Of course I accept that, and I absolutely take my noble friend’s point.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, let us remind ourselves once again, as other noble Lords have done, that this scheme is for those Afghans and their families who risked their lives working with and for the British military in exposed or meaningful roles, as the Minister outlined. Can the Minister therefore explain why, according to evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry yesterday, many occupations such as mechanics and others who helped our troops in Afghanistan are often not deemed eligible, despite their being threatened or indeed killed by the Taliban? As the policy stands, the consequence for many of those desperate people and their families will be being isolated, facing the terror of the Taliban on their own. Does the Minister not agree with me that those who stood with our troops deserve better than that?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that those who stood with our troops deserve the best we have to offer. I go back to the point I made earlier: the definition of people who are eligible for ARAP is those who served in exposed or meaningful roles. I cannot precisely define what those terms mean, but I think we can all imagine it. I will do more to find out whether mechanics and other job descriptions match these criteria, as I cannot answer that.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, surely the best we have to offer is a safe abode. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, indicated the absolute moral responsibility we have for these people, and my noble friend Lady Warsi said that we are talking about less than a fortnight for some of them. Can we not have an absolute, definitive statement that my noble friend will go back to the Home Office, talk to the Home Secretary and ensure that these people have the safety their service to this country demands?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend but as I pointed out earlier, the principal problem is the lack of availability of suitable accommodation, much of which is provided by the MoD. That is not to say that we are not honouring our commitments; we absolutely are, and we are accelerating the speed of arrivals into this country.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept that it will be cold comfort for these exposed people to be told, “Yes, we accept our responsibility, but we cannot deal with you until housing becomes available”, at a time when they may be sent back to Afghanistan to an uncertain fate? The whole point of housing is surely that there must be some definite time; otherwise, they will be told that they will have to wait indefinitely until housing appears.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No one is talking about making anybody wait indefinitely. We are accelerating our work in this area as fast as we can, in accordance with the various prevailing circumstances that have been described.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023.

Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 5 September. It proposes an amendment to paragraph 1(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to control nitrous oxide under class C of that Act.

After increasing reports of the harms associated with its misuse, the Government commissioned the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in September 2021 to undertake an updated harms assessment of nitrous oxide. The Government also asked the ACMD to recommend the appropriate legislative control of nitrous oxide.

I am grateful to the ACMD for its updated harms assessment, published in March 2023. While the ACMD did not recommend the control of nitrous oxide under the Misuse of Drugs Act in its assessment, it noted concerning health harms including nerve damage. Its assessment also highlighted anecdotal reports about the association of nitrous oxide with anti-social behaviour as well as the widespread use and availability of the drug, particularly among children and young people.

The Government carefully considered the ACMD’s thorough report and considered a range of factors before reaching a decision. Of particular concern is the popularity of nitrous oxide, given that it is the third most misused substance among 16 to 24 year-olds in England and Wales, with approximately 230,000 young people inhaling it in England and Wales in the year ending June 2022.

In addition to the high numbers of young people misusing nitrous oxide, the ACMD highlighted anecdotal reports of an increase in neurological harms. Noble Lords may have heard of a small number of tragic cases in which young people have been paralysed, or died, following nitrous oxide misuse. Neurology units around the country have reported frequent cases of nerve damage. While many cases of this damage can be treated and even reversed though treatment, sadly not all can. Contrary to the belief of some who might argue that this is a perfectly harmless drug that many people use without consequence, nitrous oxide is not safe to use without medical supervision. Beyond the harmful effects on users themselves, there have been several cases that serve as a testament to the devastating consequences of driving under the influence of nitrous oxide.

In considering our approach, we have also reflected on the reports from those working in front-line policing and night-time industries, and from parliamentarians, about the public effects of nitrous oxide misuse.

People have a right to expect public areas and their neighbourhoods to be safe and clean, even quiet, but in recent years the sight of discarded small silver nitrous oxide canisters, and even more recently the oversized canisters seen on our streets, have become more commonplace. To cite a recent example, an estimated 13 tonnes of discarded canisters were collected in the Notting Hill Carnival clean-up operation. It is entirely unreasonable to expect people to sidestep the paraphernalia and mess associated with nitrous oxide misuse. Neither should anyone have to feel threatened by anti-social behaviour associated with its misuse.

The Government are taking decisive action to tackle anti-social behaviour through a comprehensive action plan, and noble Lords may recall that in March we announced our intention to ban nitrous oxide. As a result of the considerations I have outlined, the Government are taking action beyond that recommended by the ACMD and seeking to control nitrous oxide as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. We are doing this to introduce tougher consequences for the supply and misuse of nitrous oxide, and to deter people from harming not only themselves but others.

At present, nitrous oxide is subject to the provisions of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 as it is a psychoactive substance. The 2016 Act contains offences for the production, supply, possession with intent to supply, import or export of a psychoactive substance where a person

“knows, or is reckless as to whether”

it will be consumed “for its psychoactive effects”. It does not, however, contain an offence for the simple possession of a psychoactive substance, other than in a custodial setting.

The control of nitrous oxide as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act would also make it an offence to possess nitrous oxide, unless for a legitimate use. This would mean higher penalties and enforcement provisions. Those found in unlawful possession of the drug could face up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Meanwhile, those who supply or produce nitrous oxide could face up to 14 years’ imprisonment.

We are conscious that there is a wide range of legitimate uses of nitrous oxide. We are aware of its use in healthcare, including dentistry, industry and catering. To enable legitimate uses to continue, a further related statutory instrument will come into force simultaneously with this order. This would amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, scheduling nitrous oxide under those regulations to provide certain exemptions from the offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, including medical use, and to provide legitimate access to nitrous oxide for legitimate uses, including in industry and catering.

Drug misuse ruins lives and adversely affects society as a whole. The Government have a responsibility to protect the public—their safety and their health—and that is why we are proposing this action. As I have set out, nitrous oxide harms not only people but communities and must be subject to stricter controls. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I have a quick question about the overall legislation encompassed here. I am not unaware of the impact of people taking drugs, but at times it seems to me that the Home Office automatically wants to ban everything, with the net result that we drive more and more illegal activities into the hands of criminal gangs. Every time one does that, there is a risk that, rather than feeling better and achieving something, we just enlarge the black market of yet another section of society.

I have had the misfortune of having to nurse back, with friends, people who have become drug addicts. I was also offered nitrous oxide from a large container in the lift on the Elephant and Castle Tube line on 18 June. I have seen groups of people using it and proffering it to me. But while I accept the order as it stands, I wonder whether there should be a broader review of the Misuse of Drugs Act because of the implications of driving so much into the hands of criminal gangs and youngsters. We have debates about county lines and the like, which all seem to point in the same direction: we are quite happy to ban things, but there ought to be other solutions to this and other problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all three noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. A number of interesting points have been made. I will attempt to address them but, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the Labour Party for their support. Obviously, I regret the fact that the Liberal Democrats are unable to support this important public health and safety measure.

The Government disagreed with independent experts on this matter, as was noted by all the speakers in the debate. Turning to questions about that decision, we are of course grateful to the ACMD for its detailed report. ACMD advice is an essential part of our decision-making and we continue to have complete faith in its quality and rigour. However, the Government are entitled and expected to take a broader view, taking into account other relevant factors, which was necessary in this case. The ACMD referred to reports of increased neurological and social harms, such as drug driving and littering, associated with nitrous oxide misuse. This is alongside its widespread availability for illegitimate use and high usage, including among children and young people; I referred in my opening remarks to the large canisters that are now readily available.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, anti-social behaviour and visible drug use are issues of significant public concern, and we know that the harms of nitrous oxide misuse are being felt by communities. For that reason, the Government decided to go further than the ACMD’s advice to protect the public and seek to control nitrous oxide under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class C drug. This will provide law enforcement with more tools to take action against illegitimate supply and use. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, helpfully pointed out, this is not the first time that a Government have disagreed with the ACMD: in 2014, for example, khat was controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contrary to the ACMD’s recommendations. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the 2008 decision that reclassified cannabis as a class B drug against the advice of the ACMD; I applaud his decision then.

The Government consulted on this issue. We fulfilled our statutory consultation requirement to seek the views of the ACMD and considered its report carefully. However, as I just said, the Government are entirely permitted to take a broader view; the reasons for this are set out in our response to the ACMD, published on 27 March, which outlined the clear health and social harms associated with nitrous oxide use that led the Government to control the substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The Government also undertook a public consultation to ascertain the nature and scale of legitimate use of nitrous oxide before formulating this policy, the results of which were published on 5 September. Provisions to enable legitimate drug use will be set out in a following SI that will come into force at the same time as this order, which is the normal legislative process for controlling a substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. So, in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, there will be no gap.

On police support, we have heard from some in front-line policing who welcome these new powers. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is also supportive of this ban.

With regards to the treatment aspect, I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, more. It is never an either/or situation; it is a “both” situation. In relation to access to treatment, I refer Members to the Government’s drug strategy, From Harm to Hope, which was published in December 2021. It is clear about our ambition to achieve stigma-free treatment, providing the full positive effect of treatment services for those seeking help. Through this strategy, we are investing more than £2.8 billion over three years to support people through treatment and recovery; it includes support for those who have used a range of drugs, including nitrous oxide, and are suffering health harms. In the light of the reported rise in harms to individual users and society associated with heavy nitrous oxide use, we believe that it is necessary to take action also to restrict access to this harmful drug and reduce its misuse by, as I said, classifying it as a class C drug.

As regards legitimate use—obviously, those were legitimate questions from noble Lords—we are conscious of the need to ensure that our approach enables the continued use of nitrous oxide for legitimate and lawful purposes, of which there are many. The Government accepted the ACMD’s recommendation to consult on legitimate uses, as I said. We published our response on 5 September. That information is now being used to design the regime that will enable lawful use for legitimate purposes.

The exact proposals are still being drawn up and will be set out in a subsequent statutory instrument, as I said. However, it is worth repeating that the order we are debating today will come into effect at the same time as the accompanying amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, so there will be no gap between the control of nitrous oxide under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and provisions enabling its legitimate, lawful access.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the risk of criminalising young people. That is a perfectly valid concern: will it result in the overcriminalisation of young people in particular given that the drug is so prevalent among those aged 16 to 24? However, we can assure the Committee that the Government seek a proportionate approach, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. We entrust that task to law enforcement agencies, which have a range of powers at their disposal to enforce the law—including out-of-court disposals, which are non-criminal sanctions, where they judge those to be proportionate and effective.

It is also our intention that the ban should have a preventive effect so that, over time, it reduces the number of users, in particular children and young people. We will update education resources for schools, directly accessing the children who may be at risk of becoming users. Those resources will describe the harms of drug taking and will communicate the new law to children. I also talked to the director of communications at the Home Office this afternoon before coming here; he assures me that work on this is well under way and, indeed, innovative.

I finish by saying to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the damage to their life prospects—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt but the point that the Minister just made is really important; I know that other noble Lords are waiting for the next SI. If you are talking about young people and the director of communications at the Home Office is talking about innovative work, it is no good putting a press release out to the BBC. It must be on all the various platforms that young people look at. I am sure that the director of communications is on top of that but can the Minister ensure that this is on social media, whatever that means now, and is not just a press release to the BBC?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am very happy to reassure the noble Lord on that point because I asked him the same question. He said, “Yes, absolutely, of course it will be. There is no point in shoving something through their letterbox”. I agree with him; we need to find alternative letterboxes, I suppose.

As I was saying to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the damage to children’s life chances is certainly not as lasting as the neurological damage that they may suffer.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Hayward, I do not believe that the ban will provide criminal gangs with an opportunity to profiteer from supply; it will only shrink the space for them to do so. Nitrous oxide is already being supplied illegally for misuse by lone dealers and criminal gangs. These measures will give the police and enforcement agencies greater powers to stop illegal supply.

My noble friend also asked me about a possible review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. There are no plans to conduct a review of that that I am aware of. However, in July 2022, the Home Office launched a consultative White Paper—Swift, Certain, Tough: New Consequences for Drug Possession—which proposed new policies to reform the way the criminal justice system deals with adult drug possession offences, particularly tackling so-called recreational drug use. That consultation closed in October 2022. An analysis of the responses is under way.

The outcome of this analysis and the responses provided will obviously help to inform future policy direction in dealing with low-level position offences. A government response to the consultation will be published in due course. Of course, the Government keep drug legislation under review and will reconsider the status of particular substances where it is appropriate to do so, obviously while continuing to take into account advice from the ACMD.

All three noble Lords asked me about the expected costs of the policy, in particular its effect on prison places. As has been noted, the central estimate for custodial sentences is 200 per year. We are confident that there will be capacity for this potential increase given that prison occupation is already at 99% capacity. When we estimated the impact on prison places, we also looked at the average custodial sentence length and considered that alongside the volume of custodial sentences estimated per year. It results in an annualised estimate of 26 prison places across the UK. We are taking action to reduce the pressure felt on the prison estate, including expanding capacity by an additional 2,400 places beyond the 20,000-place build programme since September 2022, so we will always have the capacity to serve the needs of the courts.

Noble Lords asked about the increasing cost of the policy. I cannot really go into detail on that because there are so many variables in working out impact assessments of this type, as will be obvious. However, there are record numbers of police officers operating in this country now—more than there have ever been before—and I certainly believe that they have the capacity to deal with this.

In closing, I hope that I have answered all the relevant questions. I once again offer my thanks to all who participated. I am grateful for the insights and the challenge that has been brought to bear on this debate. This is an issue that must be confronted and dealt with before it gets worse. Public health and public safety are vital, as is the effort to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Before I commend this order to the Committee, I have just remembered that I have forgotten to say one thing, which is about an ongoing review. On 16 June, we committed to a post-implementation review of the control of nitrous oxide under the 1971 Act, as outlined in the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire’s response to recommendations 2 to 7 of the ACMD’s updated harms assessment. That was published on GOV.UK. I am quite sure that noble Lords will remind me if that is not forthcoming but, for now, I commend the order to the Committee.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

Will the Minister say a quick word about what else the Government are doing to regulate and stop the sale of these things, particularly to young people? He commented on the number of people who are using this drug. We are now criminalising them. What more are the Government doing to make sure that these things are not sold to children in the first place?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I think I have already answered that question with regard to criminal gangs. At the moment, of course, it is freely available through a number of perfectly legitimate channels. Obviously, guidance will be incredibly important. People who are selling it at the moment, particularly to children, need to understand their new responsibilities and the fact that they will be committing a criminal act. The fact is that the penalties for this are quite severe so I suggest that they would do well to pay attention to what they are doing and not fall foul of this law.

Motion agreed.

Firearms Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colgrain for taking his Private Member’s Bill through the House. I welcome the support the Bill has received in this House and the other place; it has received cross-party support from the outset and the Government have wholeheartedly supported it.

The Bill is about addressing two vulnerabilities identified in the existing firearms licensing controls, as my noble friend explained. We are committed to taking action on both issues, following a public consultation conducted on a number of firearms safety issues in late 2020 and early 2021. Both measures received support in that consultation. It was widely acknowledged—by those representing shooting interests, as well as by those who wish to see tightener firearms controls more generally—that these changes will help to strengthen our firearms controls. The Bill will make a valuable contribution to firearms legislation, while making sure that those who wish to continue to engage legitimately in firearms activities can continue to do so, whether that involves target shooting at clubs or activity centres, the legitimate home loading of ammunition or other lawful activities.

I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord Colgrain for bringing his Private Member’s Bill before the House. I join him in also thanking Shaun Bailey MP for initiating the Bill in the other place. I hope to see the Bill receive Royal Assent, as I believe that it will have a significant impact in strengthening our firearms controls still further. I of course commit to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that I will take his remarks back to the department and ensure that his views are kept under review. For now, the Government are in full support of the Bill and the important changes that it will bring.

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has summarised the Bill which he has piloted through this House and congratulate him on it. He was right to remind us that its genesis was with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her previous incarnation and in an earlier Bill. Nevertheless, there has been cross-party support for it, which I am happy to reiterate.

It is worth reminding ourselves that 71% of women of all ages in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment in public. That rises to 86% of all 18 to 24 year-old young women. I have one question which I hope the Minister can comment on when summing up the Government’s position. How will the impact of this Bill be monitored going forward? It is a very specific and quite controversial Bill, even though it has had cross-party support; the Government should see the monitoring of its impact as a proper part of its enactment, so that we can measure its benefit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill reminds us of the very real damage caused by public sexual harassment, a terrible crime that is far too widespread. The Bill’s cross-Chamber and cross-party support has been a real indication of our shared determination to make our streets safer for everyone.

I put on record my congratulations to all those involved in the passage of this Bill. First, it is fitting that we pay tribute to its sponsors: Greg Clark MP in the other place for bringing the Bill forward and so ably championing the experience of his constituents on the issue and my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar in this Chamber for picking up the baton to see it through to Royal Assent. I also recognise my ministerial colleagues—in particular my noble friend Lord Evans for his work in responding to the Bill on behalf of the Government—and the officials who supported them in doing so. My thanks also go to all other Members of both Houses who have provided careful scrutiny of the Bill and spoken so thoughtfully and respectfully on this sensitive topic. In doing so, they have not only worked together to make it stronger but played a key part in helping to raise awareness of public sexual harassment.

As with any new criminal justice legislation, an implementation period will be necessary to ensure that all processes, systems and guidance are updated. That includes drawing up the necessary statutory guidance. We therefore cannot give a timescale now for when we expect the offence to be implemented, but we will ensure that the legislation comes into force as quickly as reasonably possible. I think that goes some way to answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on how it will be monitored. The guidance needs to be carefully drawn up first, and then I am sure we will return to the subject.

I end on the most important thank you of them all: to those who relentlessly campaigned for this change. The Bill is a testament to the hard work and passion of the organisations and many individuals who bravely shared their experiences. I join my noble friend Lord Wolfson in saying to them that their efforts have made a real difference in the pursuit of making our streets safer for women and girls.