Abortion Clinics: Safe Access Zones

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government will issue non-statutory guidance to ensure that law enforcement agencies have a clear and consistent understanding around enforcement, and that abortion service providers and protesters are clear as to what is expected under the new law. The Government will launch a public consultation on the contents of the guidance at the earliest possible opportunity, and following consultation we anticipate commencing Section 9 in the spring of 2024.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, there is a great deal of foot-dragging in this. Both Houses supported the Public Order Act six months ago, which was to protect women accessing legal healthcare for their necessary rights. Yet in these months the most cruel demonstrations are going on outside clinics—for example, people wearing bodycams and holding out posters saying that babies are being murdered there. I do not see that a consultation is necessary; I urge the Minister not to delay the will of Parliament any longer but to get on with it and protect women from these very cruel demonstrations.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Baroness—it is totally unacceptable for anybody to be harassed or intimidated simply for exercising their legal right to abortion services. Personally, I find that very depressing to see. However, in terms of the public consultation, this is new legislation on an emotive topic, and there are strong views on all sides of the debate. Determining the appropriate balance will not always be straightforward. Therefore, to make sure that the legislation can be implemented effectively—that is the point—the Government have decided to launch a public consultation on the non-statutory guidance for safe access zones.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, we need to take account of the fact that the previous Home Secretary voted against safe access zones and has a history of opposing abortion rights. The noble Lord needs to give us an example of where—when the will of Parliament is so clear, as it is in this case—it has been necessary to have this kind of public consultation. We are very familiar with pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation in this House, but why are we seeing months-long delays? Can the noble Lord please give us a timeline?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to the noble Baroness that I already have: it will be commenced by the spring of 2024, and I am very happy to commit to making sure that that happens. The guidance is not straightforward because of the broad nature of the prohibited behaviours. For example, it is a criminal offence to intentionally or recklessly influence, which means that members of the public, the police and prosecutors will benefit from being aware of what could be criminalised within the zones. I totally take the noble Baroness’s point: I want to see this happen as soon as possible too.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that these women will be in a very fragile state of mind, and it is highly undesirable that they should be subjected to coercive behaviour by the opponents of abortion?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I completely agree.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

Can the Minister confirm whether the Home Office plans to be in touch with local councils, abortion care providers and the police in coming weeks to discuss how these zones are best implemented?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I say, there will be a public consultation, and I hope that all those whom the noble Baroness mentioned will engage with the consultation process.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Will the noble Lord guarantee that Section 9 will be in force and implemented before the next general election?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That would invite me to speculate as to when the next general election might be.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

Can my noble friend tell the House what advice will be given to police in the interim period to deal with those causing harassment and intimidation at the gates of abortion clinics?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that a number of powers already exist, particularly around public space protection orders, which have been issued in a number of cases. Some guidance is already being deployed to local authorities, which have the powers to impose those public space protection orders where harmful behaviours are having, or are likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. There is plenty that the police can do already, but, as I say, the commencement will be by spring 2024.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, when will the consultation period end?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that it has not started yet; it will start imminently—and I mean imminently. The draft is ready; it is just a question of bureaucratic dotting of “i”s and crossing of “t”s. As soon as that is done, I will come back to the House to update your Lordships on the precise timelines of the consultation.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am assured by the Minister’s own commitment to this legislation; he has made a clear statement. However, the concern that I have—having argued and voted for this legislation—is that the victims are still worried. They are already terrified sometimes when having this treatment and are further intimidated by some of the protests. Does the Minister agree that the consultation, important as it is, should not take so long? It is not very complex to implement; we have implemented greater criminal changes far more quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, I associate myself with the noble Lord’s remarks about the victims; I completely agree with everything that he said on that subject. I have tried to explain why the consultation will take the time that it will. I would like it to be concluded as speedily as possible, and I promise to come back to the House and update on that timeline.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, anti-abortion protesters and groups were spreading their misinformation and distressing images when I was at university, which is more years ago than I care to admit. Their horrific images stay with me to this day. They are still trying to intimidate women outside abortion clinics all these years later—so what is there to consult on? Does the Minister agree that the Government should stop the intimidation and the additional suffering that those women are going through once and for all?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree, but I also say that the protesters should stop their intimidation now and leave those women well alone, as the noble Baroness suggests. I have tried to explain the context of the consultation and the reasons for it. There is nothing more to say on that at the moment.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, although no one could defend intimidation or harassment, there are those who quietly pray. This came up when we debated the subject earlier in the year, and considerable concern was expressed in a number of quarters of the House. Can my noble friend assure me that the consultation that will follow will take account of those who merely stand quietly and pray silently?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend should probably consult some of the providers to find out the precise types of behaviour happening outside their clinics. Plenty of examples are available online. The most recent I saw was on 4 November from BPAS. However, training will have to reflect Article 9 of the ECHR; as the House knows, that is around the freedom of expression and manifestation of religion and belief. I also say that those rights are heavily qualified.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, having spent many an hour debating the clause, I think it requires careful consideration. I want to talk about context. First, people have been arrested for praying outside abortion clinics. However wacky we might consider it, that is a free-speech matter. Secondly, as the police do not seem to be able to know what intimidation is—whether outside a Labour MP’s office or on the streets in terms of anti-Semitism—I hope the consultation will be as helpful as possible so that they arrest the right people and do not end up policing easy targets instead.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness invites me to speculate on operational policing. As we discussed many times from this Dispatch Box recently, I cannot and will not do that. What I can say is that, in my understanding, some of the context around previous arrests is that they are more to do with breach of PSPOs than with the behaviour that she describes. In that case, I think it was repeated breach of a PSPO, so I am not sure that she is completely correct in her assertion, but I take her point.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke earlier about the need for the guidance to address an appropriate balance. He spoke a few moments ago about the relevance of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Was not the whole point of the parliamentary debates earlier this year to specify in legislation where the balance lay? Surely it is therefore time to get on with implementing it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I have tried to explain the context. I do not think those two things are entirely mutually exclusive. The fact is that some of the language in the law is relatively unusual. Therefore, the consultation is necessary to make sure that people are aware of what it is.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that people who wish to pray can do that at home or in church? They do not have to do it outside an abortion clinic. Does he further agree that plenty of people around the world have found solutions to this problem? Why do we not implement the same legislation that other countries have to protect these women?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

We have legislation which we are discussing now, and I am not going to go against the will of Parliament and suggest alternative forms of legislation. The noble Lord is quite right: people are perfectly at liberty to pray wherever they wish. Intimidating behaviour, however, crosses the line.

Policing of Marches and Demonstrations

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the policing of recent marches and demonstrations.

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

My Lords, the police are operationally independent: it is their decision how they choose to police a protest and they are accountable for that. The Metropolitan Police used a range of powers to minimise disruption and disorder. On Saturday police made 145 arrests, most of which were linked to the counterdemonstration; however, the police continue to investigate other offences. The police have the Government’s full backing to use all the powers at their disposal to ensure that the perpetrators face the full force of the law. As is right, the Government will continue to hold the police to account. I think it is also right to acknowledge that Remembrance Weekend events passed without disruption.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, freedom to speak and to march and police discretion are all pillars of our constitution, but I have never before in my lifetime seen mobs marching through the streets alongside some who call for violent jihad and the death of Jews and waving swastika signs. Once the Saturday march was under way, why were the police posing with a child dressed as a terrorist while protesters rampaged threateningly outside a synagogue? Many of us call on the police to apply the law to those who are guilty of offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act aggravated by religious and racial hatred, public nuisance and glorifying terrorism. It is a worldwide problem. Anti-Semitism is on parade. Jews cannot fix it on their own; we need people with us. Does the Minister agree that we need a cry of solidarity?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I was very emphatic on that point at the Dispatch Box last week. We saw vile examples of anti-Semitism by a minority at the pro-Palestine march. The fears that our Jewish community has experienced over the weekend and the days leading up to it are shocking and disgusting, as I said last week. There is no place for hate on Britain’s streets, and the police have confirmed that investigations are ongoing.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as someone who marched with hundreds of thousands of very peaceful protesters last Saturday, I witnessed not one single incitement to hatred of anyone. It was a march for peace until the EDL came on to the scene, and we all saw what happened. Will the Minister assure all those who marched for peace that they will not be chequered by the way they are being depicted as jihadis? The simple fact is that they were not.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, a quick surf of the internet this morning would suggest that the noble Baroness is wrong. I suggest that trying to conflate the activities of the violent thugs who tried to invade the Cenotaph and those of the marchers, some of whom were indeed peaceful, is also wrong. The fact is that 15 officers were injured at the Cenotaph, two of whom required hospital treatment, and my best wishes go to those officers. I think the police behaved entirely appropriately in dealing with the violence, and I seriously hope that they also deal with those marchers who were doing precisely the things that the noble Baroness has alleged they were not.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, in light of the unplanned departure of the previous Home Secretary and the extraordinary and deeply concerning violent events witnessed on the streets of London this weekend, can the Minister confirm whether the new Home Secretary will use more restrained language, to ease tensions on our streets, and refrain from interfering in the operational independence of the Metropolitan Police?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

On the second part of the question, the previous Home Secretary did not interfere with the operational independence of the Metropolitan Police. On the first part, I have not yet spoken to the new Home Secretary, but I wish him very well in his new role.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My noble friend is right that there has been an explosion of anti-Semitism in the capital and across the UK since 7 October. These marches are at the very least a factor in aggravating that. If the police, in exercising their judgment, feel that there is not sufficient trigger at the moment to say that there is a threat of serious public disorder, which is the current bar, is there not a case for re-examining the bar for asking for these marches to be banned, so that the cumulative effect on many members of the Jewish community can properly be taken into account?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. The Home Secretary has reserve powers and some legislative tools that enable intervention and direction, but those powers may be used only in line with statutory tests and public law principles and in very exceptional circumstances. The Metropolitan Police has not asked for that sort of intervention. He is quite right that the Government have been in regular contact with the police over the use of their powers to manage protests. Where we identify gaps in the legislation, we will seek to address them. As was widely reported this morning, that is still under review.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, any violence and threat is to be deplored, wherever it comes from. I congratulate the police, who did a superb job in very difficult circumstances. Of course there will be groups of people pushing the boundaries and acting unacceptably. The danger of the media is that it gives the impression that the only game in town is the marches and demos, but many on these Benches and other Members of this House have been meeting leading Israelis and Palestinians in our local communities and finding that there are people desperately trying to reach out to others and thinking about how we can take this forward. What are His Majesty’s Government doing at the moment to mobilise some of our leading Israelis and Palestinians to try to enable talks about how we might find a more positive narrative as we go forward?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an extremely good point. I commend his activities and those of his colleagues and other faith leaders in trying to find civilised solutions to this problem. I am afraid I do not know what His Majesty’s Government are doing to try to encourage the sort of interactions he mentioned, but it deserves to be mentioned, on proportionality, that the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches have a responsibility. Peter Tatchell, whom many in the House will know, was blocked from marching with the pro-Palestinians for carrying a sign that said:

“End Israel’s occupation! End Hamas’s sexist, homophobic, anti-human rights dictatorship!”


That is pretty disgraceful. Everybody needs to exercise proportionality in this.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. Anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any setting, but does the Minister agree that arresting people in the middle of a mass protest can result in serious disorder and injury to police officers, as can the police attempting to prevent people who are determined to protest from doing so, as we saw with the right-wing demonstrators on Saturday?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, on this I am very happy to defer to the noble Lord’s extensive experience of policing protests of this type. It is self-evident that if you wade into a crowd, there is a chance that you will inflame tensions. The police are operationally independent and I will not judge what they did, but their approach makes some sense to me in that context.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate did, I thank the Metropolitan Police and all the officers who were on the streets of London ensuring that Armistice Day events were not disrupted, facing disgraceful far-right violence and assaults while working to pursue appalling, vile anti-Semitism—as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out to us—and other hate crimes. Does the Minister agree that it would have been helpful in the run-up to these events to have had a Home Secretary who calmed tensions rather than using language that inflamed some of the protests and policing that we saw? Above all, despite the Minister’s points to this House, will the new Home Secretary ensure that never again do we have a situation in which a Home Secretary of this country seems to question the operational independence of the police? Is it not one of the fundamental parts of our democracy that the police can police without fear or favour?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. It is, as he knows, governed by a pretty rigorous protocol. I went into the details of that protocol last week, and I can do it again if anybody wants to hear it—I suspect they do not.

The previous Home Secretary is no longer in post, so debating what she did or did not say seems moot. As regards the new Home Secretary, I have not spoken to him and I do not know what he is thinking.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is no surprise that we are seeing Nazi-level propaganda and incitement of terrorism on the streets of London when some of the organisations behind these marches have had connections with a Hamas leader who lives in the UK. What is being done to investigate the links between those organisations and proscribed terrorist groups?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot answer that question, but I certainly hope the police are investigating.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I revert to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. It would be a marvellous beginning for the new Home Secretary if he were to call in leaders of the Jewish community—who have the admiration and respect of us all—together with those responsible Palestinians who have a legitimate cause for concern at the destruction and deaths in Gaza. If he were to do that, using moderate language—which I am sure he would—it would help to ease tension and to bring together people who have a common cause.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to reflect my noble friend’s opinion to the new Home Secretary when I speak to him.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the examples she gave are completely unacceptable and should be met with a firm response. The degree of anti-Semitism in the country at the moment is deeply shocking, as is the degree of racism and Islamophobia. That is something we should commonly confront, but I urge the Government to be very careful about curbing protests and the right to march through London. In 1936, when anti-fascists confronted Mosley’s mob swaggering through Jewish communities, many of the actions of those anti-fascists could have been regarded as disorderly, but they stopped them and they stopped that wave of anti-Semitism. Similarly, many of the actions I helped organise through the Anti-Nazi League in the late 1970s saved local Jewish communities and black communities from assault. Be very careful about curbing the right to march peacefully.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we are told that two of those arrested in Paris for painting anti-Semitic slogans on French synagogues have said to the police that they were acting under orders from Russian sources. Are the Government looking to see whether there is any element of foreign interference in some of these protests? It is in the Russian interest to stir up disorder in this country, and this is a very easy way to do it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have absolutely no idea.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

One of the saddest pictures we saw over the weekend was of the two poppy sellers—an elderly couple in Victoria station—having to be gradually moved and shifted because of large numbers of loud and very angry protesters around them. What annoyed me, and I think vast numbers of members of the public, was that the police standing there did nothing to help those poppy sellers. They seemed to be more interested in supporting and helping the demonstrators. Did the Metropolitan Police Commissioner give an outright order to rank and file police that they had to go very easy with protesters but stamp down on anything else that seemed to be out of order?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know what direct orders the Metropolitan Police Commissioner gave. As I said earlier, the response to the Cenotaph, where violence was being deployed, was swift and appropriate—not that it is my call to judge the police’s actions; that is for the courts. I do not know whether he gave those sorts of orders. I was at Victoria station by chance on Saturday afternoon, and I have never felt more uncomfortable in this country because of the tension. It was palpable in the air. It was disgraceful.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have visited Jewish communities across the United Kingdom over the last few weeks. Everywhere the message is the same: Jewish people and Jewish families are scared. Does the Minister agree with me that the increased police presence we have seen in Jewish communities, be it in Leeds, Manchester, London or elsewhere, has been essential in ensuring that people have been kept safe? Can we be certain that this increased presence will continue for as long as it is needed?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I certainly hope so. Police forces up and down the country have stepped up their neighbourhood patrols to support local Jewish and Muslim communities, including visiting schools, synagogues and mosques. We have seen a rise in the anti-Semitism that the noble Lord describes; that is appalling. I certainly hope that the police’s response will stay in place for as long as it is needed.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my policing interests in the register. There were clearly images of people on those marches over the weekend doing appalling things. I hope the Metropolitan Police and other police forces are using those images to track down the individuals concerned and then to take action against them. No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm that this is the case. Can he also draw attention to the huge march against anti-Semitism that took place in Paris? Does he think it would be appropriate if something similar happened in this country?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The police have said that they are investigating those images so, yes, I think I can confirm to the noble Lord that this is happening. I would certainly like to see a march against anti-Semitism, and I would join it.

Metropolitan Police: Operational Independence

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given in another place:

“Mr Speaker, since Hamas’s sickening terrorist attack in Israel, we have seen thousands of people demonstrating on our streets in the UK. Thanks to the tireless work of the police, the majority of those events have passed without incident. Sadly, however, we have seen examples of suspected criminality, including arrests for assaults on officers, racially aggravated public order offences and support for a terrorist organisation. As the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said, it would be disrespectful and demonstrably wrong for protests to take place on Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday.

It is right that the police are operationally independent of government. This is a fundamental principle of British policing. The Metropolitan Police asked protesters to postpone, but the request was refused. The Prime Minister has sought reassurances from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that remembrance events should be protected. It is for the Metropolitan Police Service to decide whether to apply to the Home Secretary to ban any march. An application has not been received. However, the Home Secretary will of course fully consider any application if one is made.

The police have comprehensive powers to deal with individuals who vandalise or damage our cultural monuments. It is a criminal offence for a person without lawful excuse intentionally or recklessly to destroy or damage any property belonging to another. The police have a duty to protect the public by detecting and preventing crime, including offences of this nature. The police also have powers to deal with activities that spread hate or deliberately raise tensions through harassment or abusive behaviour. This includes the power to impose conditions on protests where they reasonably believe the protest may result in serious disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of a community, or where the purpose of the protest is to intimidate others. The police can impose any condition they deem necessary to prevent these harms occurring, including setting the location, route and duration of the protest. The use of these powers is an operational matter for the Metropolitan Police Service. It has deployed significant resources to recent protests, and we have seen it take action to prevent vandalism as part of its response to protests in this area.

This weekend should be about remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our country. The Home Secretary, Policing Minister and I will always back the police to take action to prevent serious disruption and to take a zero-tolerance approach towards criminality.”

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary’s article in today’s Times newspaper brands the Metropolitan Police as biased over pro-Palestinian protests, and she reportedly refused to tone down her article at the request of the Prime Minister’s office. It is extremely unusual for the Prime Minister’s official spokesman to say that the article was not cleared by their office and air their dirty washing in public. Does the Minister believe that the Metropolitan Police is biased? Does he believe that the Home Secretary’s article breaks the policing protocol? Does it constitute improper political interference? Does the Minister agree with me that the police must be given proper support to facilitate remembrance events, to continue to provide protection and reassurance to communities facing the threats of hate and extremism, and to maintain order at peaceful protests? Stoking division and undermining the police will not achieve these ends.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised operational independence—in effect, therefore, the policing protocol—and I shall go into that in some detail. The police are operationally independent, but the concept of operational independence is not defined by statute. However, it remains a fundamental principle of British policing. The Policing Protocol Order 2023 sets out how the various actors in the system—the Home Secretary, PCCs, mayors with PCC functions and chief constables—should exercise their roles and responsibilities. It seeks to clarify the operational independence of chief constables, noting that operational decisions on the deployment of police officers are matters for chief constables. The order also makes it clear that:

“The Home Secretary is ultimately accountable to Parliament and charged with ensuring the maintenance of the King’s Peace within all force areas, safeguarding the public and protecting our national borders and security”.


There are no plans to change the policing protocol; that is incredibly clear. I of course agree with the noble Lord that protecting our communities and keeping them safe should be the primary responsibility of the police, and it is incumbent on all of us to give them the support they need. However, we must also acknowledge that operational independence does not provide a blanket exemption from criticism about broader policing issues.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the words of the Home Secretary have consequences for our policing and our police services and for the safety that people feel in our country. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Metropolitan Police has followed the law and the evidence and has made a judgment which sits, and rightly so, within the operational independence of the police services? Will the Home Secretary concentrate on running the Home Department rather than running her leadership campaign? If she cannot, she should be replaced.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken about the operational independence of the police, which I think we all regard as sacrosanct. The Answer that I repeated included the line:

“it would be disrespectful and demonstrably wrong for protests to take place on Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday”.

Actually, I do not think that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister used the word “demonstrably”, but what he did say was “disrespectful”. However, he went on to say:

“part of that freedom is the right to peacefully protest. And the test of that freedom is whether our commitment to it can survive the discomfort and frustration of those who seek to use it, even if we disagree with them. We will meet that test and remain true to our principles”.

I happen to think that is exactly right and describes the country I am proud to be a citizen of.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, Peel’s fifth principle requires the police to demonstrate complete independence of policy. Of that, it is equally plain that my noble friend the Minister is well aware. Will he therefore remind the Home Secretary of this principle, since her public criticisms of the Metropolitan Police make it impossible for the commissioner to retain his operational independence or at least the appearance of operational independence, which is vital to public confidence? The Home Secretary seems either to be ignorant or to be flouting it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already referred to the policing protocol, which governs all the actors’ principal responsibilities. We should focus on taking steps to reassure the various communities that are coming under pressure; —the police are definitely doing that. Police forces up and down the country have stepped up neighbourhood patrols to support local Jewish and Muslim communities, including visiting schools, synagogues and mosques. Sadly, we have seen a significant increase in hate crime reported since Hamas’s terrorist attack in Israel, and the Metropolitan Police has made a number of arrests to date linked with that. That shows that the Metropolitan Police is more than capable of exercising its responsibilities and is doing a good job.

Perhaps I may say from a personal point of view that the virulent anti-Semitism that we have seen makes me feel physically sick. My Jewish friends are afraid, and in this country that is disgusting.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my policing interests in the register. The tone of what the Home Secretary has said implies that she thinks that she should have received a request from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Does she therefore think, given that the threshold is set sensibly at a high level to protect freedom of protest, that the definition and the threshold should be changed, and if so, to what? What advice did she receive on the consequences of trying to prevent a march, in terms of policing resources, compared with a more targeted approach to deal with troublemakers in a march?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord invites me to speculate on what the Home Secretary thinks, which obviously I am not capable of doing. I refer him back to the comments that I have just repeated, made by the Prime Minister, and the fact that I have restated the policing protocol, which governs all these responsibilities very clearly.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, first, I apologise that I did not hear the Minister’s Statement—I was unaware that it had begun until I came into the Chamber.

To some extent, I will repeat what I said in last night’s speech. It is disappointing that all this debate is taking place in public. These are difficult decisions for politicians, as I have acknowledged in the past, and for police officers, to decide where they draw the line about either preventing protests or allowing a protest that might cause offence. It is not at all easy, particularly with such an emotional issue as the Cenotaph and Remembrance Day. There is an awful lot of passion involved on all sides.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the process is that the police should decide whether they can police this march and whether they can apply conditions which would make the march less of a problem. Only if that will not work could they then consider having a ban, providing that it meets the high threshold of serious violence. What concerns me is that the making of these fine distinctions and wise judgments is taking place in public. It seems that rocks have been hurled across the press, when I would hope that these conversations could be had privately, for better effect and for the reassurance of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I commend the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, for their comments last night in the humble Address debate, when they outlined the challenges of operational policing in these contexts. I agree that, in a perfect world, these conversations should be held in private. However, this is a very difficult international situation, and passions are running high.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my own policing interests. Would the Minister recapitulate his comments earlier that operational independence is not an absolute, either in legislation or in practice, and that the Home Secretary is quite entitled, under Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, to direct senior police officers in the public interest, and that that will always be subject to judicial oversight?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I would say to my noble friend that the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by Section 40 of the Police Act 1996 are quite specific and rarely used. The Home Secretary has statutory powers to give directions to local policing bodies, but they are limited to circumstances where she would consider that remediation is required because the force, or part of it, is failing to fulfil its functions effectively, and the police force and HMICFRS have been given the opportunity to make informed representations and proposals. As far as I am aware, that power has been used only on a couple of occasions, which were very specific. In 2012, the then Home Secretary required all forces to collaborate on the provision of air support and, in 2019, those powers were used to require Warwickshire and West Mercia police to take a little longer to unentangle themselves from their previous collaboration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”