Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

I will listen with interest to the argy-bargy between the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the Minister as to where asylum seekers are going to be accommodated.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments today, and I thank all noble Lords for their comments.

Amendment 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Home Secretary to commission an independent management review of the efficiency of UK Visas and Immigration in processing visa applications, and of Immigration Enforcement’s work in removing from the UK those whose right to remain has expired.

I recognise that we should always be striving for maximum efficiency, and indeed effectiveness, in everything we do. In that regard, I agree with my noble friend Lord Kamall. But making decisions quickly and accurately is obviously in the best interests of the individual concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, and represents value for money for the taxpayer; and, where there is misuse of the UK’s generous immigration system, so is ensuring that that is dealt with effectively. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in thanking the commitment of countless staff across the immigration system who uphold fairness and professionalism while making complex decisions every day. As regards the backlog, I do not have the precise figures to hand, but I note that the Home Secretary was speaking this morning in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee and was quoting some of those statistics, if noble Lords would like to refer to that.

Paying external management consultants to look into the efficiency of these Home Office operations would be unnecessary and not, I suggest, a good use of public funds. Reports by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the National Audit Office and others continue to provide insights into how current operations can be improved, including by identifying and disseminating good practice. We also publish quarterly immigration statistics, including on asylum and returns, which help to shine a light on current performance and inform parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Home Office.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need a culture of continuous improvement to enhance the efficiency, accuracy and fairness of our decision-making processes in respect of visa applications and the efficiency and effectiveness of our enforcement immigration operations. I am not persuaded that legislating for an independent management review is the most efficient way to go about this, but I of course welcome the intent behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister mentioned the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration reports. The 2021 report indicated four key issues: a shortage of technical specialist staff; inadequate training for asylum interviews; low morale and high turnover of staff because of lack of career progression; and the removal of the 2019 standard service to decide 98% of straightforward cases within six months. Recommendations have been made; how many have been implemented?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not have answers to the noble Lord’s questions. I will have to come back to him on them, if he will permit me to do so.

Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and Amendment 149, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, bring us back to the question of the publication of the impact assessment for this Bill. I will take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that the equality impact assessment for the Bill was published on 10 May. Unfortunately, on the economic impact assessment, I can but reiterate what my noble friend Lord Murray has said on a number of occasions: namely, that it will be published in due course.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

On the subject of impact assessments, I am sure that my noble friend meant to ask where the child rights impact assessment is. It should have been available and shaped the decisions affecting children made during the Bill process, yet we still do not have a copy of it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I think that that question has been asked and answered by my noble friend; I cannot update the House on that at the moment.

As my noble friend set out on Monday, we will provide an update to the House before the first day of Report.

[Lord German (LD)]

In talking about this matter, could the Minister address the issue of why the Cabinet Office has issued guidance which the department has clearly ignored? Is there a need for the Cabinet Office to give guidance to Ministers on how they should produce legislation? If so, why have the Government not followed that advice?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the answer lies in the words the Home Secretary used this morning in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee. She said:

“We will be publishing it in due course”.


I am sorry to repeat those words again. She added:

“The issue is that there are many unknown factors … upon which the Bill’s success is contingent … For example, … the delivery of our Rwanda agreement. We are currently in litigation and those timelines are out of our control. We need to conclude our litigation relating to our Rwanda agreement. Once we have a clear view of the operability of Rwanda confirmed by the courts, then we will be able to take a very firm view about the economic impact of this Bill. … I would also say that to my mind it is pretty obvious what the economic impact … will be. We will stop spending £3 billion a year on … asylum cost”.


The Bill

“will lead to the cessation of 45,000 people in hotels and £6 million a day. To my mind, those are savings that we cannot ignore”.

I am afraid that I am unable to improve on that.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Minister has just asserted that he cannot improve on those words. I put on the record, on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition—other noble Lords can speak for themselves—that that is disgraceful.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am sorry to upset the noble Lord opposite, but that is the best I can do.

Amendment 138, again put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is similar to his earlier amendment on returns agreements. It anticipates the debate we will come to later today about action to tackle people smuggling. As I do not want to pre-empt my noble and learned friend’s response to later amendments, I will keep my remarks brief at this stage. Suffice it to say that I support the broad intent of this amendment—namely, the need to strengthen the cross-border law enforcement response to modern slavery and people trafficking—but you do not advance such co-operation by setting out in a public document the UK’s negotiating strategy to agree co-operation agreements with other countries.

Moreover, there are also existing established channels which the NCA and others use when working with their counterparts to tackle human trafficking. Where new bilaterals or multilaterals are needed, we will pursue these, but, as I have said, there are well-established mechanisms which already support cross-border co-operation in this area.

In answer to the noble Lord’s questions about specific figures, I am afraid that I do not have those to hand; I will make those available to him later.

Amendment 135, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, looks to the Government to publish an assessment of the likely impacts of the Bill on the use of contingency asylum accommodation and the costs associated with any necessary increase in the use of contingency asylum accommodation. The Home Office is committed to ending the expensive use of hotels for asylum seekers, costing nearly £7 million a day. We recognise the need to take urgent action and will look at all available options for looking at reducing the use of hotels, including alternative sites and vessels. Asylum seekers will be in basic, safe and secure accommodation appropriate for this purpose, while providing value for money for the taxpayer. We are working closely to listen to the local communities’ views and to reduce the impact of these sites, including through providing on-site security and financial support.

Amendment 139, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, effectively seeks to transfer responsibility for the UK asylum system—the national referral mechanism, which considers and provides safe and legal routes and other similar functions—to the FCDO. She acknowledged that this is a probing amendment and put her case. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, gave a rather better explanation than I will give, but I will attempt to explain the status quo. The Home Office is responsible for all aspects of control of the UK border. Managing and controlling legal and illegal migration into the UK, including processing asylum claims and the designation and operation of safe and legal routes, are part and parcel of this strategic function. Different parts of the system cannot, and should not, be considered and managed in isolation.

To take one example, as we have previously debated, our capacity to admit people to the UK through safe and legal routes is impacted by the level of illegal migration, so hiving off aspects of immigration policy and operations to a separate department is a recipe for confusion, disjointed policy-making and ineffective operations. The migration and borders system is highly complicated and this change would serve only to add unnecessary complexity. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the Home Office already works closely with other government departments, including the FCDO, on all cross-cutting matters to ensure that relative interests are considered accordingly during the development and implementation of immigration and asylum policy, and it will continue to do so.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister. He was quite right about this being a probing amendment to demonstrate the importance of the joined-upness of this being over here and that over there. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is doing his old department a great service in dodging that particular bullet. The Minister talked about respective competencies and so on, so the Foreign Office should keep doing foreign affairs, including negotiating treaties, for example. Why did the Home Secretary and the Home Department negotiate the Rwanda pact, as opposed to leaving treaty negotiation to the Foreign Office? That came into my mind because the Minister mentioned the Rwanda agreement in the context of the impact assessment. Just to help him, I suggest that the impact assessment should be provided on the basis that the Government believe they will succeed in the litigation, so the impact assessment could be produced without delay on the predication that the Government are confident that their litigation will succeed.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will certainly ensure that the noble Baroness’s points are noted in the department.

Finally, Amendment 139FD would place a duty on the Home Secretary to publish quarterly statistics on the Bill’s operation after it is enacted. Again, I have no issue with the basic premise underpinning the amendment. We already publish a raft of immigration statistics on a quarterly basis and I have no doubt that these regular publications will be augmented to report on what is happening under this Bill once it is commenced. We will consider carefully what data it is appropriate to record and publish as part of our implementation planning. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his Front-Bench colleagues in the other place will not be slow to press the Government for the kind of data referenced in the amendment.

I and my ministerial colleagues, in particularly my indefatigable noble friend Lord Murray, have heard loud and clear the calls from around the Committee that the economic impact assessment for the Bill should be available to your Lordships before the start of Report. My noble friend has committed to updating the House before the first day of Report and I have already read out the Home Secretary’s comments from this morning. However, having had this opportunity to debate the issue again, together with the other issues addressed in these amendments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, on the question of a secret plan or no plan, the announcement that came out the other day—it was almost not an announcement —that the provision about two classes of asylum seekers in last year’s Bill had been ditched suggests that there is no plan. On the question of external management consultants, I am not a particular fan of management cons; there has not been a success story so far, has there? My noble friend Lord Scriven’s reference to the ICIBI report was absolutely on point: reports from the ICIBI, the National Audit Office and so on do not seem to lead to any change, so one has to try something.

I am left with a very big query: why can the impact assessment not cover variables? It should address the “what ifs”. As I am reminded, it is required to provide options, and over the years I have seen so many impact assessments that do provide options: “if such and such, then so and so”. The Home Office is well on the way to out-Rumsfelding Rumsfeld. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 April be approved.

Relevant document: 38th Report 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, I thank all noble Lords for attending this debate. These regulations amend Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, which grant the police the power to place necessary conditions on public processions and assemblies to prevent specific harms from occurring. One of these harms is serious disruption to the life of the community. These regulations do not create new powers but define this harm.

Once in force, these regulations will ensure that public order legislation is clear, consistent and current. They will carry over a definition of “serious disruption” which has already been approved by Parliament and provide greater clarity on the circumstances in which the police can exercise their powers to manage public processions and assemblies. Most importantly, they have given the House of Commons the opportunity to consider these measures.

Without these changes there is potential for confusion over what is the lawful extent of protest activity. The police and public will have to grapple with one threshold for criminal offences in the new Public Order Act and another for the use of discretionary police powers in the 1986 Act. With these changes, it will be easier for all to understand when disruption from a protest is no longer legitimate.

The provisions in these regulations are broadly similar to those brought to the Public Order Act 2023 as a government amendment during its passage through Parliament. The only difference is that these regulations do not allow the police to place blanket conditions on multiple protests. I will detail exactly what the regulations do shortly.

The government amendment was narrowly defeated by 14 votes in this House, and was not considered by the elected Chamber. This vote occurred before the vote for adopting the current definition of “serious disruption” in the 2023 Act, which was approved by both Chambers. As both Houses have agreed on a definition, we are sensibly extending it across the statute book and bringing further clarity to public order law. That is something which has been sought by senior police officers and by many in this Chamber today.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has said:

“The lack of clarity in the legislation and the increasing complexity of the case law”—


the increasing complexity that the case law is making between the right to protest and the rights of others to go about their daily lives free from serious disruption—

“is making this more difficult and more contested”.

The delegated power being used existed prior to the introduction of the Public Order Act 2023. The power was available for the Government to use during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023. These delegated powers were scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which recommended that a definition of “serious disruption to the life of the community” be included on the face of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, coupled with a power to amend the definition by affirmative procedure regulations. This recommendation was accepted and implemented in full.

It is entirely right that the Executive use powers conferred by both Houses of Parliament to allow the elected Chamber to consider the proposed change in law. The other place has now had the opportunity to consider these measures and has approved them following debate on the Floor of the House yesterday.

The Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is highly unusual, and seeks to strike down legislation passed by the elected House and undermine sensible changes which bring clarity and consistency to the law. During the passage of the Public Order Act, the Government listened and responded to the strength of feeling in Parliament on many issues. Changes were made on many of those issues, including serious disruption prevention orders, protections for journalists reporting on protests, and others.

The need for clear powers to improve the management of highly disruptive protests has been well rehearsed, but I will reiterate them quickly. The current Just Stop Oil slow-walk campaign has resulted in the use of over 13,770 police officer shifts, diverting police attention away from local communities. Financially, this has cost the taxpayer £4.5 million in just six weeks, and this is in addition to the £14.5 million it cost last year. These near-daily protests—as of yesterday, I think it was 156 separate protests in six weeks—have pushed the public to their limit. We have seen people taking matters into their own hands. Therefore, as a Government, we must do what we can to empower the police to respond swiftly and effectively.

Given the scale and impact of the disruption caused by slow walks and sit-ins on roads, it is in the public interest to clarify these police powers as a matter of urgency. The Government have always been clear that the delegated powers were needed to be able to respond quickly to evolving protest tactics. The intensive use of slow walks across London has proven that. Once in force, the regulations will provide the police with the legal clarity they need to protect the public from this tactic.

As I have already mentioned, these regulations do not grant new powers to the police, but clarify the extent of existing ones. Therefore, it was deemed disproportionate to carry out a full public consultation. Targeted engagement with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Metropolitan Police Service and other police forces was the appropriate approach. All have welcomed clarity in the law. The Metropolitan Police Service specifically welcomed clarity on how the police should consider serious disruption in relation to imposing conditions.

The regulations achieve this by making the following clarifications. First, these regulations will clarify that the police may consider the cumulative impact of concurrent and repeated protests in the same area when assessing whether “serious disruption to the life of the community” may occur. Although a single protest may not in itself cause serious disruption, it is undeniable that a community subjected to repeated or concurrent protests will suffer due to the compounding effect of multiple protests.

Secondly, they allow the police to consider the absolute disruption caused by a protest. That is to say, police should be able to consider the disruption a protest may cause, regardless of what disruption may be common in an area for other unrelated reasons. Without these regulations, “serious disruption to the life of the community” is often considered with reference to what is regarded as normal for a given area, rather than the nature of the disruption caused at that moment in time.

Thirdly, the regulations define the term “community” to mean,

“any group of persons … affected by the procession”,


or assembly, and not just those who live or work in the vicinity of that procession or assembly. This change clarifies that a broader definition of community is to be used when interpreting the meaning of “serious disruption to the life of the community”. This definition better reflects the modern way of life in major cities.

Finally, as I have previously mentioned, the instrument aligns the definition of “serious disruption” with that in the Public Order Act 2023, simplifying protest law. During the passage of the Public Order Act, the appropriate definition of “serious disruption” was debated at length. I would again like to thank all noble Lords for what was an exceptional debate with high-calibre contributions from all sides.

I remain of the view that the definition rooted in protest case law proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, strikes the right balance between legitimate and illegitimate protest. This definition has been scrutinised and approved by both Houses of Parliament. It should now be carried across to the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure consistency across the statute book.

As well as aligning public order legislation, the regulations also bring further clarity by building on the non-exhaustive list of examples of serious disruption to the life of the community to include

“the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of day-to-day activities”,

such as making a journey. This provides legal clarity that it is entirely appropriate for the police to place necessary conditions on protests that are obstructing the public from going about their daily business.

Finally, I remind the House that the Government are legally required to publish a report on the operation of amendments made to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The report must be published and laid before Parliament by 28 June 2024. I can confirm that this paper will also report on the operation of the changes made by this statutory instrument.

In summary, the regulations are necessary changes to the law to ensure that public order legislation is clear, consistent and current. They will improve the protection of the public—who this Government support —against the minority of protesters who repeatedly trample on their rights. Current and former police officers, as well as Peers and Members of the other place on both sides of the debate, have called for public order legislation to be both easy for officers to interpret and specific. This statutory instrument achieves these objectives. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the tragic events in Nottingham.

Like the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Lisvane, I will not say much about the substance of the SI. If the Home Office had realised that the Public Order Act 1986 needed to be amended before the Bill had left the other place, we would not be here now.

I want to talk about the constitutional issue, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, of a Government changing primary legislation by means of secondary legislation within months of this House having voted against that primary legislation. As we have heard, this is unprecedented, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it, a constitutional outrage.

On Monday, this House will have the Second Reading of the British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill. This primary legislation retrospectively changes primary legislation by means of a two-clause fast-tracked piece of primary legislation. Not only is this the proper way of amending primary legislation but it shows that it can be done quickly and easily. There is no need for the will of this House, expressed through a recent Division, to be overruled by means of secondary legislation when a single-clause fast-tracked Bill could have done the same job without creating an unconstitutional precedent.

Noble Lords opposite may say that it is no big deal, but the Prime Minister said that his Administration would have

“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”.

I will return to the issue of integrity in a moment, but failing to amend the 1986 Act in the other place clearly shows a lack of professionalism, and failing to correct the mistake by means of primary legislation shows a clear lack of accountability because, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, scrutiny of secondary legislation is cursory.

On integrity and the Boris Johnson resignation honours row, Michael Gove, a senior Government Minister, said yesterday on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme:

“The appropriate procedure was followed”.


He went on to describe it as

“a process we are all familiar with as part of the constitution … it is appropriate to look at all these processes. They all have their own coherence in accordance with past practice and due process … All Governments work according to precedent … those are protocols that govern this particular procedure, and I think Governments overall have been criticised sometimes for departing from due process. I think it was appropriate and right that the Prime Minister and the Government followed due process in this way … I know it’s old fashioned to want to use precedent and independent institutions to establish how all these sorts of things should be decided, but then precedent and independent institutions are, I think, the two of the constitutional bulwarks that are important”.

This House is an independent institution, and this SI breaks long-established precedent. In answer to a question about changing precedent in connection with resignation honours, Michael Gove said:

“The inference of the question is that we should alter precedent, and that we should in some way say to independent institutions that they should operate in a different way from which they have been constituted. I think what we have here are the existing constitutional machinery working as it was designed to do”.


So there we have it: a Conservative Government who believe that independent institutions should not operate differently from how they have been constituted, and that precedent should not be altered apart from when it suits them. That is the very definition of a lack of integrity.

This House voted against the provisions in this statutory instrument by a majority in a Division on primary legislation in February this year. There is no precedent to overturn a decision of this House on primary legislation by means of secondary legislation. I am reminded of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, addressing the amendment to deny the Illegal Migration Bill a Second Reading, which he considered unconstitutional. He said:

“I do not think that any Member of this House who respects its values and its role could possibly go through the Lobbies and vote for that amendment”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1801.]


I adapt his words and apply them to this situation: I do not think that any Member of this House who respects its values and its role could possibly go through the Lobbies and vote to allow this statutory instrument to pass.

Noble Lords on the Labour Benches will be complicit in undermining the status of this House if they do not vote for the fatal amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that the Official Opposition will respect convention and not vote for the fatal amendment. Why, when the Government have not respected convention? I say to the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Rooker: of course it is right that the other place should have the final say, but if we vote down this statutory instrument, the other place can introduce a one-clause Bill to achieve exactly what this statutory instrument is trying to achieve in a non-constitutional way.

If, as appears ever more likely with each passing day, there is a change of Government at the next general election, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches will have created a precedent that they are likely to regret for many years to come, when the incoming Government use this precedent to undermine the will of this House in future. We will vote for the fatal amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a fascinating and powerful debate. Before I start my response, I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his remarks about the situation in Nottingham. As he did, I thank the emergency services and express my sympathies to the victims and their families.

I am obviously going to refute the allegation that this is in some way unconstitutional, or indeed an outrage. I have already set out why the Government have brought forward the measures, and the fact that it is indeed proper. The sequencing of debates and votes during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023 meant that the House of Commons was unable to consider the measures. Now that the elected House has approved the measures, we must respect its will and do the same—a point that has been made powerfully by a number of noble Lords.

The delegated powers being used existed prior to the introduction of the Public Order Act 2023. The powers were available for the Government to use during the passage of the Act—these are comments I made in my opening speech. Those powers were scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which recommended that a definition of

“serious disruption to the life of the community”

be included in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, coupled with a power to amend the definition by affirmative procedure regulations. This recommendation was accepted and implemented in full.

It is entirely right that the Executive use powers conferred by both Houses of Parliament to allow the elected Chamber to consider the proposed change in law. The other place has now had that opportunity to consider these measures and has approved them, following debate on the Floor of the House. So this is not defying the will of Parliament, as some have suggested, or committing a constitutional outrage. As the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Rooker, pointed out, we are actually respecting it. This cannot be sent back, so to not do this now would be to enshrine a lack of clarity and consistency in protest law, as my noble friend Lady Stowell noted. That will affect the police, the public and of course protesters themselves. Any delay in this fast-moving situation risks, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, continuing to encourage the public to take matters into their own hands—a point that was very well articulated by my noble friend Lord Jackson.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who knows I respect her greatly, I say that this is enabling the police to do their job with more clarity—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made with considerable force.

My noble friend Lord Hunt asked some very sensible and searching questions about the Explanatory Memorandum, which I would like to address. To the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, I say that the Government published the Explanatory Memorandum and have updated it. The primary focus of an Explanatory Memorandum is to provide clarity on the content of a statutory instrument’s provisions. Additionally, the vote excluding the similar measure from the Public Order Act was only held earlier in the year. All the information on the vote is readily available in Hansard.

That said, we recognise the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s criticism and the importance of transparency in Explanatory Memoranda. So I can confirm, as has been noted, that the updated memorandum has been published. It was not published before the debate in the House of Commons, but the changes to the Explanatory Memorandum are relatively minor; they do not add new information. They reference the votes and clarify the extent of targeted engagement, and are in direct response to concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Home Secretary set this out clearly in yesterday’s debate in the other place.

On the consultation, another subject that has been raised, I again have to refer back to my opening remarks. This statutory instrument does not create new powers. The Government have always been clear that the delegated powers were needed to be able to quickly respond to evolving protest tactics. As they do not grant new powers to the police but clarify the extent of existing powers, it was deemed disproportionate to carry out a full public consultation. Targeted involvement with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Metropolitan Police Service and other police forces was the appropriate approach. All have welcomed clarity in the law, and the Metropolitan Police Service specifically welcomed clarity as to how the police should consider serious disruption in relation to imposing conditions.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, suggested that new powers were being created and referenced the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police. As I have mentioned, and I have to stress again, these measures do not create new powers but clarify existing ones. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, the force most affected by protest in England and Wales, has asked for further clarity in the law. I think it is very evident from the events we are seeing at the moment how significant and necessary that clarity is.

I do not think there is much point in me saying very much else in answer to the questions. I think I have addressed the majority of the issues that I did not address in my opening remarks. As I said earlier, I am grateful for the constructive and helpful questions. I will take some of these reflections back to the department and to my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is not here at the moment. These regulations are designed to ensure public order legislation is clear, consistent and current. They will also support the police in striking the correct balance between the rights of protesters and the public. I commend them to the House.

Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walney]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to proscribe the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

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

My Lords, the Government take the threat of the IRGC very seriously, and continue to condemn its actions. The Government will always consider the full range of powers available, including our robust counterterrorism powers, such as the proscription tool, where appropriate, to address the threat posed by Iran and the IRGC.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is now more than four months since the House of Commons passed a resolution universally in favour of the proscription of the IRGC. This is an organisation which is committed to armed resistance against Israel—exactly the same grounds on which the Government have proscribed Hezbollah. Our intelligence services are clear that it is committed to kidnappings and killings on UK soil. There must be an argument within government not to do this. Can the Minister enlighten the House on what that is? It seems very obvious to many Members across both Houses that it should be proscribed.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

It might help if I explain what has been done. Over 300 Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned for activities, such as human rights violations, including 70 since October of last year. Other activities include nuclear proliferation, support to Russia and various regional activities. As an entity, the IRGC was designated in its entirety under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. More than 30 new designations of IRGC-related organisations and officials have been made by the FCDO since October 2022. The Government keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, but I go back to my earlier answer: while considering the range of available powers, we will continue to make use of the robust counterterrorism powers, including the proscription tool, where appropriate.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, that answer is simply not good enough. We have had Ministers and Prime Ministers support the objective of banning this organisation, which as the noble Lord said is a threat not only to the citizens of Iran but to citizens in this country. We have had commitments. I want to ask the Minister a more explicit question: what discussions has his department had with the FCDO on this matter? What discussions have been had with our allies who have proscribed this organisation? It is about time we acted, rather than just talked.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Home Office has a long-standing policy of not commenting externally on proscription matters. As noble Lords will be aware, that position is informed by many considerations, including to avoid creating expectations that the Government will proscribe certain organisation, to reduce the risk that an organisation will take evasive action before a potential proscription order comes into force, to manage the risk that subsequent decisions are vulnerable to challenge on procedural grounds, and so on. As for conversations with international partners, of course we work with them. The UK’s approach to Iran is conducted in close co-ordination with key partners, including the EU and the US.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests, particularly those relating to friendship towards to Israel. Does my noble friend understand that there is a certain feeling of Groundhog Day about his answers? We seem to be going round the houses, time and again. As Members have suggested, this is an organisation that pays people who send missiles into residential areas in Israel and use children as human shields, and that pays for organisations that have murdered a British mother and her children. What more does the IRGC need to do for the Government to proscribe it? All the reasons read out by my noble friend are examples of why we should proscribe it. Why not get on and just do it?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I say, it remains under active consideration. I go back to what I said earlier: over 300 Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned for various activities, including those mentioned by my noble friend.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

The Minister has evaded the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pickles, and from my noble friend. There is clearly a huge row going on in Government— we all know that. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office seems somehow to be able to veto what the rest of government think is appropriate, which is to proscribe this organisation. Can the Minister confirm that? This shilly-shallying will produce the effect he described as being so dangerous—that of giving due warning to the organisation that proscription may be on the way.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe that it is shilly-shallying. As I said, it remains under active discussion among many departments in government.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I want to take the Minister’s view on what active consideration means. On 26 March, it was reported that Tom Tugendhat, the Minister, met campaigners for proscription and told them that there would be proscription—that the Government were going to proscribe—but that he could not give them a date upon which that proscription was going to take place. Has such a conversation taken place? Have the Government taken a decision but are not yet ready to tell us?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am familiar with the meeting referred to by the noble Lord. Mr Beheshti met the Security Minister on 29 March, following which Mr Beheshti uploaded a video recording of the meeting and stated, as the noble Lord has just outlined, that the Government are intending to do this. The formal read-out from the meeting confirmed that, unfortunately, Mr Beheshti had misinterpreted the content of the meeting.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, in a recently published joint annual report by Article 18 and other Christian organisations, the IRGC’s increasing involvement in the crackdown against peaceful Christian activities in Iran was highlighted for the second year in a row. Other religious minorities and peaceful protesters also report violent treatment during arrest and detention, as well as the interference of the IRGC’s intelligence branch in court proceedings to ensure harsher sentences against those who are accused. I absolutely agree with the noble Lords who are pressing for proscription, but given all of this, does the Minister agree that we can and should do more, beyond proscription of the IRGC? Will the Government consider offering a safe route scheme for those from Iran who have suffered persecution in the form of arrest and imprisonment on account of their faith?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question; she raised some interesting points. I remind noble Lords that the National Security Bill, currently progressing through your Lordships’ House, will provide another significant toolkit in the fight against individuals working for state entities like the IRGC in this country—the Bill will criminalise a wide range of hostile activities. I totally accept the right reverend Prelate’s points. I cannot comment on safe routes for Iranian individuals, but I will make sure that her views are taken back.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, nothing happens inside Iran without the active complicity and knowledge of the IRGC. Will the Minister take the opportunity to condemn the “horrific wave” of executions, as described by United Nations special rapporteurs on Friday, including those of Majid Kazemi, Saeed Yaghoubi and Saleh Mirhashemi that day, after they were reportedly subjected to torture in prison? Does not this bloodlust and the IRGC go hand in hand? As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, what more has to happen before there is proscription?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely join the UN rapporteur in condemning those executions.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Government are keeping this matter under active consideration because otherwise there would be a real risk of a delay in a decision.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The fact is that the Minister who answered the debate in the other place on 12 January this year was unable to identify a single reason why the IRGC should not be proscribed. My noble friend the Minister is also unable to find a reason, and that is because there is none. I respectfully urge my noble friend and the Government to take the only decision available to them, and to take it soon.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his analysis.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, what is the practical effect of proscription in the case of the guard corps?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That is a very good question. I am not entirely sure exactly what else it would do above and beyond what we have already done with the sanctions and so on.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, something very strange is going on in government. Most organisations have meetings to discuss problems, and then come to a conclusion and make a decision. It seems that the Government have those meetings and discussions but make no decision—why is that?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I do not accept that characterisation. As I said, the discussions of course continue, and as soon as there is something more to say I am sure that we will be back to say it.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The exchanges we have heard are predictable and understandable, but is it not important that, in all of these kinds of discussions, we recognise the wider context in which violence takes place in the Middle East, as it does relentlessly and remorselessly? The wider context is the complete absence of any significant development in the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Until such time as that is at least moving and there is some prospect of a two-state solution—whatever the rights and wrongs of it—this kind of violence will continue.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am sure that the noble Lord is right, and I am more than happy to condemn all violence in the Middle East, wherever it comes from.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of information from electronic devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 April be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 22 May.

Motion agreed.

Former Chief Constables: Gross Misconduct

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many former chief constables are awaiting police gross misconduct hearings.

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

My Lords, since 2020-21, the Home Office has substantially increased the data that it collects and publishes on police misconduct as part of the police misconduct in England and Wales statistical bulletin. It is working closely with the sector to improve the overall quality and consistency of the data that it collects. This does not include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings where those proceedings have not concluded.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, how can it possibly be right for former Chief Constable Mike Veale to have been able to dodge a gross misconduct inquiry in Cleveland for almost two years, while tarnished officers of lesser rank have been brought to account? May I remind the House that arrangements for the Veale hearing in Cleveland were the sole responsibility of a legally qualified chair, whose name is unknown, even though the law does not permit this individual to remain anonymous. What does that say about public accountability of the police in Cleveland? Finally, when I met my noble friend the Minister and Mr Chris Philp, the Policing Minister, recently—I thank them for that meeting—I made it clear that, unless the mysterious chair has now fixed a date for the start of the hearing, I would call on the Government today to use their reserve powers under Sections 79 and 91 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to end the impasse. Is it not time that this matter was finally resolved?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the law is not being flouted. Arrangements for the misconduct hearing of the former Cleveland chief constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland PCC and not the Government. Any questions regarding who has been appointed as the independent, legally qualified chair would need to be directed to the PCC accordingly. As noble Lords will expect me to say, I will not comment further on that particular case. However, in answer to the second part of my noble friend’s question, I can say that operational policing is, as he knows, not a Home Office matter—it is for chief constables—but he is correct that the Home Secretary has powers under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to ensure an efficient and effective policing system that protects public safety. That includes the power under Sections 40 and 40A of the Police Act 1996. However, these are for use only when either the police force or the local policing body itself is failing or will fail to discharge its functions in an effective manner. They are very much a last resort, and we do not believe that the current situation in Cleveland requires these powers to be used, as the PCC has appointed an LQC to the panel for Mr Veale’s misconduct hearing.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the meeting he arranged, but will he please guarantee that the Home Office will never again stand idly by in a situation where a police and crime commissioner, in this case Leicestershire’s, employs as it chief adviser, and then as its chief executive, a twice-disgraced ex-chief constable facing an allegation of gross misconduct—all with substantial public money? Do the Government understand how offensive this is, both to the police force in question and to the general public?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. As he knows, in the case he describes, the usual and correct procedure was not followed in that county. I am very pleased it has finally been followed, so I agree with him.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this House owes a debt of recognition to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his perseverance in this matter. Of course, there are obviously serious matters relating to the relationship between police officers and the law. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on the words of the chief constable of the BTP, the transport police, who says:

“If I was to commit a crime, get arrested and give my details, there is no obvious system check that would flag that I’m a police officer if I didn’t choose to tell them”.


Does the Minister think that is an issue? If it is a problem, what are the Government doing to solve it?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I join the noble Lord in praising my noble friend’s commendable tenacity on this subject. Regarding the circumstances the noble Lord describes, I was not aware of them. Of course, he will also be aware that we have launched a review, which concludes this month, into the whole misconduct and dismissals process. With a bit of luck, it will report back in the next month or two, according to the Policing Minister in the other place. It will include a number of these issues, and I hope that will be dealt with then.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if there were a gold medal for stonewalling, my noble friend would deserve to win it. The answers that he gives are obfuscatory and reveal nothing. Will he please consider again the questions asked by both my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Lord, Lord Bach? Will he also reflect on the point that came up during the debate we had in the Moses Room a week or two ago? I suggested to him, and he completely ignored the suggestion, that we should have a police ombudsman in this country: somebody who can exercise the sort of authority—dispassionate and impartial—exercised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his praise, which is very welcome. I remember that debate in Grand Committee and I am afraid I did not ignore his suggestion; I dismissed it. In fact, a number of bodies oversee policing, including the College of Policing, the IOPC, HMICFRS and a variety of other alphabet-soup organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, why can we not have anonymity in accusations of sexual offences, particularly rape? They are a special category of criminal offence where the reputations of the innocent can be destroyed, even by chief constables like Mike Veale. The law is unfair, and I have raised this issue repeatedly over the years. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on his unrelenting campaigning on this issue; the House is deeply indebted to him.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously that strays well outside the remit of this Question and the department, but I will make sure that the noble Lord’s reflections are taken back to the appropriate people.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will follow on from the good idea of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about having a police ombudsman. In their original Answer to this, the Government rather washed their hands of the whole issue of police and crime commissioners, which did not seem appropriate, as this Government set them up and put in the rules, parameters and laws—rather poorly, I think, but they did so. It is therefore wrong to throw away all feelings of guilt after things have gone wrong.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, we have conducted a two-part review of PCCs. The second part is due to be enacted soon.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, behind all this is the question of Operation Conifer, in which the reputation of a former Prime Minister and statesman was deeply and horribly smeared by the lies of a convicted paedophile, whose views were described by the police as “credible”. Given the obvious misdemeanours, mistakes and mishandling of the whole case, operations within the police seem to have been incredibly slow. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has asked endless questions over the years and this issue has never been brought to a head. Is it therefore not time for the Government, while not interfering with police operations in detail, to endorse and set up a completely independent inquiry to bring this appalling libelling and slandering of a now-deceased Prime Minister to an end? It is totally out of accord with the normal standards of justice and fairness in this country.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Many noble Lords have raised similar, very good points in recent debates. I shared this opinion with my noble friend Lord Lexden when we met last week. Having said that, there have been four inquiries into this case and all concluded that there was nothing more to do. However, I heard my noble friend Lord Howell’s concerns and will reflect them back to the department.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and my noble friend Lord Bach, who have been campaigning on these issues for a considerable period of time. The Minister’s answers are simply not satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has raised time and again the misconduct of Mike Veale, the former chief constable. The Minister simply comes back with a list of regulations, sends up smoke and does not answer the question. This is a really serious matter that deserves the highest priority from the Government, but we are not getting it. When will the Minister give us the answers that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is demanding?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I hope very soon. The noble Lord is also aware that there are a large number of things that I absolutely cannot say—a point I have reinforced from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. That will remain the case until this is concluded.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of information from electronic devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of information from electronic devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023.

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

My Lords, the extraction of information powers introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 have provided a statutory basis for police and other authorised persons to obtain information from electronic devices to support investigations.

These powers came into force last November, along with a code of practice that provides guidance to authorised persons to ensure that the powers are used appropriately and effectively. They can be exercised by the authorised persons named in Schedule 3 to the Act. This is divided into three parts, which set out the different purposes for which authorised persons may exercise the powers. It is crucial that authorised persons extract information only for the purposes set by the part of the schedule in which they are placed.

At present, the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police can extract information only for the purposes set out under Section 37 of the Act:

“preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime … helping to locate a missing person, or … protecting a child or an at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm”.

These regulations will amend Schedule 3 so that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police are moved from Part 2 to Part 1 of the schedule. This change will allow these police forces also to extract information from a deceased person’s electronic device, using the power in Section 41, for the purpose of an investigation or inquest into that person’s death.

Electronic devices such as mobile phones contain a wealth of personal information and can be helpful in an investigation when someone has died in unexplained circumstances. Although data protection regulations do not apply to deceased persons, we must still ensure that information extracted from an electronic device where the user of the device has died is handled appropriately and sensitively. Additionally, an electronic device such as a mobile phone or laptop is almost certain to contain information about living people, so the authorised person will still need to be satisfied that extracting such information is necessary and proportionate.

The powers under Section 41 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, much like the powers under Section 37 of the Act, can be exercised only where the authorised person reasonably believes that there is information on the device that is relevant to the purposes set out under this section—in this case for an investigation or inquest into a person’s death. It is vital that these intrusive powers are available only to the authorities that need them. When the Bill was passed, it was not yet agreed that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police had sufficient investigative requirement to use Section 41 powers or that their investigative needs could not be met with other existing powers.

Having taken time thoroughly to consider their case, we are now in agreement with these police forces that their investigative duties meet the requirements for use of the powers and that, without access to them, there may be a gap in their ability lawfully to extract information in these circumstances. For this reason, we are amending their position in Schedule 3 to ensure that they can investigate the death of a person as thoroughly as possible. This amendment will ensure that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police have the same powers to extract information from electronic devices as civilian forces. It will also provide them with the ability to carry out their investigations as thoroughly as possible by giving them the ability to extract information from a deceased person’s device for the purpose of an investigation or inquest into that person’s death.

I very much hope that noble Lords will support this amendment to Schedule 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this is a straightforward piece of secondary legislation, adding the Royal Military Police, the Royal Air Force Police and the Royal Navy Police to the list of people who can exercise extraction of information powers under Section 41 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

First, I declare what may be a tangential interest: I have a son-in-law who flies jets for the RAF. I would never have thought about it, but it is possible that his and my family would be affected if Section 41 powers were to be used in the event of his untimely death, if that were to happen.

I have two questions to ask the Minister. They relate to the guidance in the extraction of information code of practice, which was provided in relation to the Act and as a result of the words of the Information Commissioner, who believed that this was necessary. I am pleased that it is provided.

My first question relates to paragraph 69 of the guidance, which talks about the use of a mobile phone device “around the time of” the death of the person concerned. It uses the words “the user”. Earlier, in relation to Section 37 of the Act, the code of practice talks about where people are not necessarily the owner of the phone or mobile device. It distinguishes clearly people who own a phone from people who have a phone which is owned by somebody else—something we parliamentarians know because we have a parliamentarian phone that is not our property but is used for all sorts of communication, as well as for the business of Parliament. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer yet, but could there be some clarification of paragraph 69 that refers back to the earlier information given in the code of practice to say exactly what it means about a shared-user phone?

My second question is about paragraph 90 of the code and current practice among police forces to keep up to date with technology in order to separate personal information from necessary information related to the event being investigated—the death, criminal event or whatever. Does the Minister have any information about whether police forces of all sorts are using similar technology? The real problem, which is quite obvious, is that there is a variety of technological options available to police forces and they may all be using different ones. That means that they may not necessarily be able to do what is required in the code of practice and keep up to date with

“the technology options available in their organisations”.

There may be a question here—again, the Minister may not be able to answer it now—about whether the technology available to police forces is of sufficient robustness to allow them to be ahead of the game and whether there is one piece of software that is recommended for police forces to use.

With those two questions, I am perfectly satisfied that this is a sensible piece of legislation.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too am happy to say that this is a straightforward statutory instrument, and we are happy to support it from the Labour Party’s point of view. The SI adds members of the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police to those given the power to extract information from a device after a user of that device has died, as part of an investigation or inquest into the death, to investigate crime and to safeguard others.

I think it is fair to ask the Minister why these police forces were left out of the original Bill. Was there a particular reason, or was the consultation process not complete?

The Labour Party tabled a series of amendments to the PCSC Bill creating new checks on police powers to extract data from electronic devices. This was due to concerns about vulnerable people and the intrusive nature of these searches—in particular, for rape and sexual abuse victims, who can feel that requests for information, including digital information taken from their phone, can be overly invasive and collect highly personal information that is not relevant to the inquiry. It may make people more reluctant to come forward to the police if they know that they will get this interrogation of their phones.

I understand that this SI covers something different—cases in which the owner of the device has died—and we are happy to support this amendment. However, I would still like to ask the Minister what assurance he can give about how devices and information taken from them will be handled sensitively so as not to discourage potential victims and witnesses from coming forward.

There have also been serious concerns about digital resources and the use of digital information by the police, outlined in the report last year from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Can the Minister give any update on what action is being taken and whether any specific concerns have been raised about the use of digital items by the forces being given additional powers today? That is a more general question; the two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, are very pertinent, so I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on shared-user phones and what impact the measure would have on them, as well as on the interoperability of different technologies and different police forces, as I am sure that that will be a tripping block. I am sure that it is not the intention to create any problems but it is always difficult, in my experience, to get different sources of technology to work together in a seamless way. That seems to be a challenge facing businesses, police forces and everybody battling with new digital technologies. However, overall, we support this SI.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken in this very short debate. I shall address all the questions asked of me shortly. Before I do that, I make the general point that the introduction of extraction of information powers in the 2022 Act and its code of practice are just the start of changes being made to improve the experiences of victims involved in the criminal justice system. These specific powers were introduced to ensure that victims and witnesses who report crime can be confident that their personal information will be handled appropriately and that their privacy rights will be respected.

As has been discussed, the amendment relates to the extraction of information from electronic devices when the device user is deceased, so some of the issues debated during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill are not available there.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked why it was not introduced with regard to these police forces in the original iteration. As I said in my opening remarks, at the time it was not agreed that the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police had a sufficient investigative requirement to use Section 41 powers or that their investigative needs could not be met with other existing powers. We have now taken the time thoroughly to consider their case and are in agreement with those police forces that their investigative duties meet the requirements for the use of the powers. In short, it is about ensuring that giving those police forces those powers is indeed the proportionate and correct thing to do, which is why it has taken a little bit of time.

On some of the more technical questions asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord German, there is a broader debate here about whether extraction of information from a personal device is always necessary, given the risks to privacy. Of course, there is a balance to be struck, which must be achieved when undertaking any investigation. All reasonable lines of inquiry must be followed to guarantee a fair trial with the right to privacy. As I said in my opening remarks, it is vital that victims and witnesses feel confident to come forward, but it is equally important that police and other agencies have access to the evidence that they need—I accept that there is no disagreement about this—including mobile data, to fully investigate crime and guarantee a fair trial.

Where information is being extracted from a deceased person’s device, the authorised person must have reasonable belief that the information on that device is relevant to an investigation or inquest into that person’s death, and be satisfied that extracting the information is necessary and proportionate. In answer to the specific question about “the device”—whether it is the owner’s own or one that just happens to be in use—I think it is any device that happens to be in the deceased’s possession. If I am wrong on that, I will of course come back and clarify. By the way, I sincerely hope that it is never a personal matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

Just to interrupt the Minister for a second, I was asking whether a common set of software is used across police forces.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am coming to that. There is a digital evidence programme, because the Government are determined to address the challenges associated with selectively extracting, analysing and reporting digital evidence gathered in criminal investigations, as we have been discussing.

We are supporting the Police Digital Service with £1.36 million in 2023-24 to undertake work to better understand the challenges in this area and to work with the private sector to develop and test new technologies. The evidence programme has been set up with a wide range of deliverables, including landscape reviews of force capabilities and gaps; creation of a new RASSO tech partnership board, bringing actors across policing together with the private sector—please do not ask me what the acronym RASSO stands for; development and testing of a range of private sector tech products within police forces; and, through the ACE impact lab process, working with technology companies to develop innovative solutions to key RASSO problems. The work is focused on solving the problems that victims experience and the selective extraction, analysis and reporting of digital evidence. It is fairly safe to say that all the questions asked of me by the noble Lord will be covered under that piece of work.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but the acronym RASSO stands for rape and serious sexual offences.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord very much for that.

On the progress being made on recommendation 5 of the HMICFRS report, which relates to budgets and the funding of digital forensics, we have also set up a commissioning board, jointly led by policing and the Home Office, to enable joint decision-making around prioritisation and to increase the transparency of funding decisions, including those in digital forensics, in line with that recommendation. In addition, we are investing £11 million into providing forces with technology that will enhance their capability to carry out rape investigations quickly and to provide a better service to victims.

I thank noble Lords very much for their questions. I hope I have answered them; I think I have. In closing, I repeat my thanks for the time taken to discuss and consider these issues. I once again commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill to the House. I join him in paying tribute to Greg Smith MP in the other place for all his work on it. I also commend him on the eloquent and considered case he has made for the included measures and thank all those who contributed to this short debate and welcome their support.

I am delighted to be able to say that the Government support this Bill. As has been noted, it received cross-party support from the outset. My noble friend Lord Wasserman is quite right that the Government are determined to make our cities, towns, villages and rural areas safer. Our blueprint for cutting crime was set out in the Beating Crime Plan in July 2021, which outlined the concerted and wide-ranging actions we are taking to cut crime and make our society a safer place to live and work in.

To bear down on all forms of crime, this Government committed to recruiting an additional 20,000 officers across England and Wales by the end of March 2023. We have delivered on this manifesto commitment; 20,951 additional officers were recruited by the end of March 2023. A record number of officers are now in post, bringing the total number to nearly 150,000 across England and Wales, exceeding the previous peak in 2010 by 3,500. This means that there are now more police on the streets to tackle crime in all areas of England and Wales. That includes crime affecting rural communities, such as machinery theft, which this Bill is designed to prevent.

As all noble Lords have noted, the theft of agricultural machinery, in particular all-terrain vehicles, is of great concern. The Government recognise the significant impact of these thefts on both individuals and businesses and understand the distress and disruption caused when property is stolen. For example, the theft of an agricultural vehicle from a farmer can cause severe disruption to essential cultivation work, risk animal welfare and put livelihoods on the line. It is therefore essential to ensure that they are adequately protected. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Blencathra describe the widespread support for this Bill from interested parties, including the National Farmers’ Union and NFU Mutual. The principle of this Bill is very important: the Government expect manufacturers to play their part in protecting items from theft.

As well as the personal and practical consequences, there is a significant economic impact, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross. As we heard during this debate, more than 900 quad bikes and ATVs are stolen every year. NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2022 put the total cost of insurance claims due to the theft of agricultural vehicles at £9.1 million last year. This figure includes more than ATVs; we know that other high-value machinery such as tractors and GPS systems are also targeted by organised criminal gangs. Of that £9.1 million, the theft of quad bikes and ATVs alone costs the UK £2.2 million. This is an unacceptably high amount.

To go into a little more detail on other types of machinery theft, figures provided by the National Police Chiefs’ Council show that there has been a total of 626 thefts of large agricultural machinery so far in 2023. These figures include large or high-value machines such as tractors, excavators and diggers. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the most I can do to clarify “large” here is to say that it means “big”.

This is why the Government are taking action by supporting this Bill. Despite significant technological advancements made across the ATV market, the inclusion of basic security features on machines has been much slower. Fitting immobilisers and forensic markings as standard is inexpensive, and they are readily available. The Government do not wish unnecessarily to impose additional costs on individuals. The cost of fitting an immobiliser and forensically marking a machine is estimated to be under £200. This cost is far outweighed by the benefit of reducing disruption caused by theft.

The Government are focused on the prevention of crime. As we have heard during this debate, increased policing is not the only answer. Prevention is by far the most effective means of reducing these thefts and this Bill proposes simple action to achieve that. We need the most effective technology, such as immobilisers and forensic marking, to be rolled out and fitted as standard to drive down these preventable thefts.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked about databases. The Government have no intention of creating a single national database for the purpose of recording and retaining this information. The owner’s information will be registered on the database maintained by the company whose forensic marking product has been used. For example, many companies, such as CESAR—which has been mentioned and I will come back to—Datatag, Selectamark and SmartWater operate databases to record forensic marking and owners’ details.

In answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Bakewell, the Explanatory Notes refer to CESAR as an example of a forensic marking scheme. The legislation, to be clear, will not endorse any particular product, product line or service. A number of forensic marking schemes are already widely adopted by the agricultural sector and construction industry. The secondary legislation will specify the standards of forensic marking which may be used—in order to set a minimum standard, not to restrict the market or stifle innovation. I should also be clear that police officers are very aware of how to search for any stolen items using these databases. They are able to access these databases at any time in order to ascertain if they are dealing with things such as stolen ATVs.

The Government expect to see a real decrease in the theft of ATVs as a result of the measures in this Bill. The introduction of immobilisers and forensic marking as standard will help prevent them being stolen. Importantly, it will be harder for criminals to sell on stolen machinery, and that will have a deterrent effect. The Bill is a great example of government, law enforcement and industry working together to protect hard-working people from theft.

The Bill includes a power for the Secretary of State to extend its provisions via secondary legislation to other types of machinery, as has been noted. During the Commons stages, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire committed to consider extending the provisions to other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities, including tradespeople’s tools. Minister Philp recognised that the regulations would require careful consideration to ensure the technical detail is correct. The legislation must be practical and straightforward for manufacturers and dealers to implement, without causing a detrimental impact on businesses.

My noble friend asked about calls for evidence. I am very pleased, as has been noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the call for evidence was launched this week. It has been published on GOV.UK and will run for eight weeks. I am not sure why it is unfortunate that it was introduced only this week. Home Office officials will ensure that it is widely shared with those who may be affected by the legislation. That includes manufacturers, dealers, retailers, forensic marking companies, trade associations, tradespeople and law enforcement practitioners. I urge all interested parties to engage with this call for evidence and make their feelings and opinions known.

I have also been lobbied by the National Caravan Council, which should definitely engage with this, as should the Agricultural Engineers Association and others. The call for evidence includes questions about the feasibility of including handheld power tools and large agricultural equipment in the secondary legislation. We recognise that there is an overlap between equipment used in the agriculture, construction and land management industries, but we want to ensure that the legislation covers equipment that is vulnerable to theft and needs to be protected.

The Bill is broad in scope. It allows for these requirements to be extended to other equipment, as we have discussed, via secondary legislation. That is why this call for evidence is so important to engage with—to make sure, as I think has been noted, that we do not end up with unintended consequences.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked me about vehicle identification numbers. The fact is that criminals are very adept at changing a quad bike’s identity to legitimise it for resale. In most instances, the VIN is replaced by false or cloned details, which can be harder to detect.

Regarding the forensic marking of tradespeople’s tools, as has been noted, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, Chris Philp, committed to consulting on that. Again, the appropriate way of consulting is through the call for evidence. I actively encourage all relevant stakeholders and interested parties to participate in the call for evidence.

I finish by reiterating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for bringing this Private Member’s Bill to the House. I echo the thanks to the National Farmers’ Union and to the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for construction and agricultural machinery theft, Superintendent Andy Huddleston, for all his work in developing the measures in the Bill. I hope to see the Bill receive Royal Assent, as I believe it can have a significant impact on these thefts; the Government are in full support of it.

Vagrancy Act 1824

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to commence the relevant provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824.

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

My Lords, as we made clear at the time of the PCSC Act and as was recently set out in the Government’s Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, we will repeal the Vagrancy Act when suitable replacement legislation is brought forward. This will be done at the earliest parliamentary opportunity.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the delay in commencing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act has left this matter unresolved for more than a year. In that time, more than 1,000 vulnerable people have been arrested under its provisions. The plans the Minister refers to recriminalise homelessness through new anti-social behaviour legislation and are contrary to the principles established in the Government’s rough sleeping initiative. That is, in effect, the Vagrancy Act by the back door. When will the Government move past criminalisation as a response to homelessness and offer genuine, workable support measures? When will they finally repeal the Vagrancy Act?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, at the start of the year the Home Office was asked to take forward provisions to repeal and replace the Vagrancy Act, as the noble Baroness has referred to. That builds on the Lords amendment to the PCSC Act 2022 to repeal the Vagrancy Act once replacement offences have been considered. That amendment received support across parties in both the Lords and the Commons. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities remains the policy lead on homelessness and rough sleeping. We are working closely with that department to determine the replacement legislation. That legislation is not ready yet. An extensive action plan for anti-social behaviour has been published, which goes into significant mitigations for homelessness. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will do this.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, between 1964 and 1969 capital punishment was not used. It was allowed to fall into non-use. Could we do the same with the Vagrancy Act, which is one of the most heinous crimes because it turns homeless people into criminals?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do not collect figures on the police usage of the Vagrancy Act and as the police are operationally independent, we cannot comment on figures. The Ministry of Justice figures on prosecution show that it is a very small number of people. There were four prosecutions for sleeping out in 2021 and 459 prosecutions for begging in 2021.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important piece of legislation which the Government are seeking to provide. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Bill, or whatever the legislation is, will be delivered and completed by the next general election?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot give that assurance but, as I said, last year we consulted on options for replacement legislation, along with other stakeholder engagement, and we are considering those complex issues carefully. The Government will publish responses to the Vagrancy Act consultation in due course. As soon as parliamentary time allows, that legislation will appear in front of your Lordships.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s approach to commencement orders more generally? There was an engagement in your Lordships’ House last week about the non-commencement of journalists’ protection in the Public Order Act. Do the Minister and the Government understand that to delay commencement indefinitely, and thus to thwart the will of Parliament, is an unlawful abuse of power?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Of course, commencement is not really within the spirit of the Question, but I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. There was no suggestion that commencement would be delayed indefinitely under the circumstances to which she refers.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the various charities which campaigned for this change, led by Crisis, were deeply grateful for the amendment your Lordships passed which led to this legislative change. But a year on from the Government agreeing to legislate accordingly, we do not have that commencement. We do have the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, which seems to be mostly about a rather penal attitude towards people begging. It does contain some positive comments about new powers—I am not sure whether there will be new money too—to help people who are currently homeless and in need of extra support. Can we hear a little more about the positive aspects of what the Government are attempting to do? In the meantime, can we abolish this piece of legislation before its 200th anniversary?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to give a bit more detail on the positive aspects of this. So far, we have invested up to £500 million through our flagship rough sleeping initiative 2022-25 so that local authorities can provide tailored support to end rough sleeping. We have launched the £200 million single homelessness accommodation programme, which will deliver up to 2,400 homes for vulnerable people sleeping rough or at risk of rough sleeping. In addition to the 6,000 homes being delivered by rough sleeping accommodation programmes, we have committed £42 million of funding since 2018 towards the subregional Housing First pilots in various regions. We have also committed up to £186.5 million in funding for substance misuse treatment services.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those statistics and for his assurance of an eventual commitment to no one being criminalised simply for having nowhere to live. Is he aware of the Ministry of Justice data which shows that people released from prison to homelessness are over 50% more likely to offend within a year? What more is being done to ensure that prison leavers have a home on release?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot specifically answer as regards all prison leavers. I know that a lot of work is being done with the rehabilitation of drug addicts in an effort to prevent recidivism. I will come back to the right reverend Prelate with more detail, if I can find it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the 1824 Act makes reference to “idle and disorderly” persons, “rogues and vagabonds”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is not a reference to Conservative Peers. The 2019 manifesto committed the party opposite to ending rough sleeping by 2024, yet it continues to rise. It is up by 74% in the last 10 years and may be up by a quarter in the last year. What do the Government intend to do to reverse this trend?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord is a magistrate. I will not comment on his first point, other to say that I am sure most of my colleagues would prefer not to appear in front of him. The statistics he gives are not quite as bad as he made them sound. The numbers are much lower than when homelessness peaked in 2017. Although there was a slight spike last year, they are significantly below previous peak levels.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not a bit rough for the Government to massively increase the number of homeless people in this country and then do nothing to stop them being arrested?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I think I have already answered questions around this particular line of inquiry.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s replies to all the questions so far. I am still none the wiser as to why the Government are not delivering the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. It should have been repealed. I do not understand what is stopping the Government moving forward.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords know and as I have tried to explain, we are hard at work on coming up with a suitable replacement, which is not a like-for-like replacement of the Vagrancy Act in its current form. But it is right that the police, local authorities and so on have the tools that they need to respond effectively to begging and rough sleeping. That work is ongoing.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said two or three times that one of the factors is as soon as parliamentary time becomes available. We are already in an inordinately long Session, with no date yet announced for when it will end and when the King’s Speech will be. So is it not a pretty lame excuse to say that it is just a matter of finding parliamentary time? What we really need to see is the Government getting their act together.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I shall pass on the noble Lord’s comments.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend the Minister said that it is important to think about what could possibly replace the Vagrancy Act. Could he enlighten us about the thinking on why there needs to be a replacement, rather than purely repealing it?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

It is felt that certain other types of activity associated with vagrancy should be looked into, including things such as nuisance and organised begging.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Vagrancy Act 1824 was introduced because many soldiers who had fought in the Napoleonic Wars had no employment and resorted to begging? As far as I know, from our recent war in Iraq, no vagrants are now begging. Does the Minister not think that he ought to catch up with what has happened in the last 200 years?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for the history lesson.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government need to spend an inordinate amount of time looking at what to replace the Vagrancy Act with, having said that they will rescind it? Why will they not spend a similar amount of time on EU regulations?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That is well beyond the scope of this Question, but I am sure that everyone will have heard the noble Lord’s point.

National Crime Agency Investigation: Javad Marandi

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the National Crime Agency investigation into the Azerbaijan laundromat is extremely serious, with an alleged $2.9 billion in stolen money laundered through UK companies. An individual with alleged links to this is also being investigated—an individual who gave three-quarters of a million pounds to the Conservative Party and who got an OBE and access to government Ministers. Can the Minister confirm whether this is accurate? In the other place, the Minister said that the National Security Bill is to be considered again in the Lords on ping-pong, as we know, and we may see it return to us. In the light of this investigation, what amendments are the Government going to support in the Lords, or what amendments are they going to bring forward themselves, in order to deal with this and ensure that we all have confidence that there is no dirty money in our politics and that this issue will be addressed at last?

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

The noble Lord will be aware that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations; no Minister at the Dispatch Box would. With regard to Mr Marandi’s status in the United Kingdom, he is a citizen of this country, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, and his honours and so on are a matter of public record. As for political donations, UK electoral law already sets out a robust regime of donations and controls to ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations, and that political donations are transparent. It is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information, or knowingly facilitating the making of an impermissible donation. I think this structure is pretty robust already, and a large number of various Bills, strategies and so on have recently been published which contribute to this debate.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, all political parties have had problems with political donations. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats have put in place a stringent, robust system to protect our integrity. I think the Minister was referring to an Answer given by the Minister in the House of Commons, when he said that our

“electoral law sets out a stringent regime of donation controls”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/23; col. 701.]

Manifestly, it does not do that. It specifies who can give donations but not where that money might come from. So far from being stringent, there is now a danger that laundered money may have been introduced into our democratic processes. If the system is as stringent as the Government make out, how was it possible for the Conservative Party to accept donations from this individual while the laundromat investigation was ongoing?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am going to repeat what I have said: there is a long-standing principle, first introduced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998, that if you are eligible to vote for a party in an election, you are also eligible to donate to that party. That includes overseas electors, as noble Lords will be aware, with reference to the Elections Act. Coming back to that Act, I remind the House that the Government have already taken significant steps to strengthen the integrity of our elections and update our electoral law. This was done to ensure that our democracy remains secure, modern, transparent and fair. I could go on in considerable detail about the Elections Act, but it has been much debated in this House.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Is not the case referred to in this Question an illustration of the opacity, rather than transparency, of the financial system relating to political parties? Is it not very important that we should put all protections in place to ensure that political parties have a well-understood and common system of ensuring that donations, in particular those emanating from foreign powers, are dealt with in a proper way? In those circumstances, would the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the amendment in lieu—replacing Lords Amendment 22—which I tabled last Friday for the next stage of the National Security Bill?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I would be very happy indeed to meet the noble Lord to discuss his amendment. I remind noble Lords that, as I say, any suspected breaches of the law are a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police. It is not appropriate to comment on individual cases or ongoing investigations, but if a donation is from a permissible donor, it is for the recipient to decide whether or not they want to accept that donation.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of Operation Branchform, the Scottish police investigation into the finances of the Scottish National Party. What he will not be aware of is that earlier today, Alexander Burnett, the Conservative Whip in the Scottish Parliament, wrote to the Presiding Officer demanding a parliamentary inquiry into that while that investigation is going on. In a published statement, he said that such a new committee would

“give the public confidence that the whole truth around this increasingly murky affair involving Scotland’s ruling party will be laid bare once and for all”.

What advice would the Minister give his parliamentary colleague, who speaks for the party: that maybe he should have removed the plank from his own eye before suggesting that, or that this is a good idea, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I was not aware of the Scottish dimension to this subject, so I will refrain from further comment.

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and I am grateful to the Minister for his reference to the report made by my predecessors in 1998. I draw the Minister’s attention to a 2021 report, made by that same committee, which looked at electoral finance. The Minister may remember that the committee made a number of recommendations for reinforcing the provisions to ensure that improper funds were not coming into the electoral system, and it is a cause of great regret to myself and the committee that the Government decided not to take forward any of those recommendations. In the light of the most recent suggestions that there are problems, might the Government wish to revisit that decision and take into consideration more positively the recommendations of the independent and cross-party Committee on Standards in Public Life?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government responded to the report published by the noble Lord’s committee, Regulating Election Finance, in September 2021, and the Elections Act 2022, to which I have already referred, contains measures which closely link to recommendations made in the report; for example, the new requirement on political parties to declare their assets and liabilities over £500 on registration, and a restriction of third-party campaigning to UK-based or otherwise eligible campaigners. The Government have stated that the recommendations in the report deserve full consideration, electoral law is complex, and more work is required to consider the implications and practicalities.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Just to follow on from that question from the noble Lord, Lord Evans, does my noble friend accept that all organisations, however properly conducted, can find themselves in difficulty over the money laundering regulations—as, for example, happened with HSBC, of which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was a director?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes; I absolutely accept my noble friend’s point. Certainly, in relation to the question that has been asked, it is incumbent on all parties to be vigilant about all donations at all times.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister shares the general concern about maintaining public confidence in the integrity of our electoral process, including political finance. He must be aware that there have been persistent rumours, with a good deal of circumstantial evidence, that there have been flows of money indirectly from the Russian state into Conservative Party funds. So long as that suspicion is maintained and we do not have transparency about what really happened, there will be questions about the integrity of our political process. Should the Government not ensure that there is full transparency about these various reports and publish some of the redacted parts of the ISC’s Russia report?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we have gone back and forth on this issue on a number of occasions. The noble Lord refers to rumours, but he is prone to starting some. I remind the noble Lord that, as my right honourable friend the Policing Minister pointed out in the other place, an MP from the noble Lord’s party in the other place accepted sizeable donations from somebody who was later identified by MI5 as a foreign agent. Those in glass houses.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, it would be more effective if the political parties had to repay that money. That might be an incentive not to accept money that we think is dodgy.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe that was a question.

Licensing Act 2003 (Liaison Committee Report)

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on securing this important debate. I am very well aware of her long-standing interest in this topic. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated for their contributions. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in agreeing with my noble friend Lord Smith that the vast majority of people enjoy responsible drinking, and I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I often drink with great joy and will do very soon, I hope.

The Government recognise that the majority of people drink responsibly and enjoy alcohol as part of socialising, as has been noted, but we also recognise the significant contribution that the alcohol industry makes to the economy and the job market, as all noble Lords mentioned.

Despite some encouraging trends, we know that the harms associated with alcohol remain too high. Appropriate regulation is therefore essential. We believe that the Licensing Act sets out a clear and effective national framework for regulating licensable activities, while allowing considerable local autonomy. It strikes the right balance between providing safeguards to prevent nuisance, crime and disorder, while recognising the important contribution that licensed premises make to thriving night-time economies. Having said all that, we keep the Act under review to ensure that the regime remains fit for purpose and meets emerging challenges. We work closely with licensing practitioners and the alcohol industry to achieve this.

As your Lordships are aware, in 2017 a House of Lords Select Committee carried out post-legislative scrutiny of the Act. Last year the House of Lords Liaison Committee carried out further scrutiny, so I offer my thanks to everyone involved in that work. The Government have carefully considered the recommendations that the Liaison Committee made in its detailed and thoughtful report last year, and I will update your Lordships on work that the Government have been doing in connection with the reports.

Since the publication of the original report in 2017, the Government have worked to reinforce expectations that licensing and planning should work effectively together. The then Minister for Crime and Policing wrote to licensing authorities to reinforce this expectation. We held workshops and published a revision of the Section 182 guidance, making mention of the relationship between licensing and planning systems. I will come back to both of those things.

In response to the Select Committee’s original recommendation to extend all provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 to airside premises, the Government held a call for evidence, because we of course agree that disruptive incidents caused by excessive alcohol consumption at airports or on aeroplanes are unacceptable. However, as noted in the Government’s response to the call for evidence published in December 2021, the information and evidence submitted did not make a compelling case for extending the provisions. We therefore do not intend to revisit that decision. We were impressed with the information provided following the call for evidence on the voluntary measures already under way by airside premises and airport authorities.

The Liaison Committee expressed concern that removing the GOV.UK licence application system without a replacement system being in place would cause significant difficulties. The Government agree. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Cabinet Office has extended the provision of the licensing service for two years, until the end of March 2025. The Government Digital Service will continue to support the online licensing service during this period and is working closely with government departments with an interest in this service. It is exploring options for a long-term solution that meets the needs of licensing authorities and users. At the same time, it is exploring options for a register of licence holders.

I will get into some of the specific points that have been raised, with perhaps a little more detail on one or two of the things that I have already mentioned. With regard to co-ordination between licensing and planning, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will, as has been noted, modernise our planning system and put local people in charge of it, so that it delivers more of what communities want. The Government acknowledge that co-ordination between planning and licensing is important. Planning authorities are involved in licensing applications in their role as a responsible authority under the Licensing Act, but the systems are separate and have different objectives and approaches. The powers are there to enable planning and licensing to work together to support the needs and aspirations of local communities. We do not intend to introduce an additional mechanism.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh made very considered and useful points, particularly regarding agents of change, but these relate to planning rather than the Licensing Act, which is the regime under discussion today. Our response, to both the original report and the subsequent follow-up, has set out our commitment to working with partners to support efforts to improve how these systems work together on the ground. We continue to do that, building on our previous workshops and the clear expectations set out by previous Ministers in this regard. I will obviously share the detailed points my noble friend has made with the relevant department. As she will be aware, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, as I have said, will modernise our planning system and put local people in charge, so I will certainly take back the points that have been made on that.

I think the word “ambiguity” was used with regard to words such as “effective” and “unreasonable”. As signalled by the December 2022 consultation on reforms to national planning policy, the Government will undertake a full consultation on a revised National Planning Policy Framework and proposals for national development management policies once the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. The Government agree, as I have said, that co-ordination between the planning and licensing regimes is crucial to protect these businesses in practice. That is why, in December 2022, the Home Office published a revised version of the guidance under Section 182—which I have already referred to—of the Licensing Act 2003, cross-referencing the relevant section of the National Planning Policy Framework for the first time. Combined with our wider changes in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we will make sure that our policy results in better protections for affected businesses and delivers on the agent of change principle in practice.

As regards planning balance, we recognise that raising awareness of this principle, how it can be applied and how it should work in practice are vital in ensuring that the two systems work together at a local level. We will therefore continue to work together with key partners and experts in this area and will continue to hold detailed discussions with them in a workshop setting in June. These discussions will inform what more we can do to further strengthen the licensing guidance, as well as asking practitioners directly what they would find helpful from us.

To go back to the words “effective”, “suitable”, and “unreasonable” being potentially ambiguous, these terms appear frequently in legislation and accompanying guidance. Obviously, circumstances will be different in every case; no law could precisely prescribe what should or must happen in every case. It is for Parliament to legislate to set out the principles, which are applied very much on a case-by-case basis.

My noble friend Lord Smith and others referred to the late-night levy. I am very pleased to say that the Government have delivered their commitment to consult on the level of late-night levy to be applied to late-night refreshment premises. The majority of respondents to the consultation were in favour of local authorities having the option to offer a 30% reduction to late night refreshment providers that qualify for small business rate relief. This reduction is already available in relation to premises that supply alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Now that the consultation is complete, we plan to commence the wider changes made via the Policing and Crime Act 2017 intended to make the levy more flexible for local areas, fairer to business and more transparent. We will continue to collect data on the number of areas introducing a levy via the alcohol and late-night refreshment statistical bulletin.

The night-time economy is obviously incredibly important to the nation and to a number of businesses, but we also continue to take action to improve the safety of women at night, tackle drink-spiking in licensed premises and work with partners to reduce incidents of violence in the night-time economy. To support that work further, we are working with policing and licensing partners to reduce alcohol-related offending in the night-time economy, focusing on sharing good practice, exploring innovative approaches and maximising the use of existing licensing powers.

This leads neatly on to the subject of training, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Smith. Obviously, we recognise the importance of training for those involved in licensing work at every level. We continue to work closely with the Institute of Licensing and the Local Government Association to ensure that training resources are used widely and consistently, and to explore whether any additional signposting could be included in the Section 182 guidance. I am pleased to say that we will be holding a joint workshop on this issue in June, as I have already mentioned.

The police contribute to licensing decisions and can object to licence applications. In addition, the National Police Chiefs’ Council—the NPCC—remains committed to delivering a training package to all police licensing officers to improve standards and deliver a consistent approach. The NPCC lead for alcohol licensing and harm reduction, Deputy Chief Constable Scott Green of West Midlands Police, is overseeing this programme of work, working with Home Office officials, policing partners and representatives of the hospitality industry to ensure that the training meets the standards of all interested parties.

Noble Lords—among others, my noble friend Lord Holmes, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—have brought up the subject of access to licensed premises for disabled people. The Licensing Act regulates the sale of alcohol and should not be used to control other aspects of licensed premises as this is outside the scope of the licensing regime. The Equality Act 2010 already provides robust protections for disabled people who may encounter difficulties in accessing licensed premises.

Pubs, bars and restaurants are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled customers to use their premises and facilities. It is not, however, consistent with how the Equality Act is intended to work for it to set specific accessibility standards for particular industries, nor would such arrangements be workable for obvious reasons. However, we have committed to reviewing Part M of the Building Regulations. As part of our review, we have commissioned research to support it; we will publish this in due course.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I would hope that all premises would strive to be as inclusive as possible. I would certainly take that into account when making personal decisions on where to visit, as I am sure the vast majority of responsible drinkers would.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about the consultation period for licensing applications. This is being discussed as part of the levelling up Bill. There is obviously a balance to be struck between ensuring the appropriate time for consultation and helping the licensed sector. Of course, the licensed sector has suffered greatly during the pandemic, as has been noted. It is still in somewhat straitened circumstances.

Regarding minimum unit pricing, after the publication of the 2012 strategy, the then Government carried out a consultation on minimum unit pricing. The evidence was not conclusive. However, Members will be aware that MUP was the subject of a lengthy court case before subsequently being introduced in Scotland and, later, in Wales. The Government are keen to see the full findings from the formal evaluation by the Scottish Government, which we are expecting in June. We will consider those findings and report back in due course. I believe that that is the five year anniversary of the minimum unit pricing experiment in Scotland.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, we need to be very careful with things of this sort. It seems to me, from a common-sense point of view, that this sort of process could very easily end up being a tax on the poor, which I am sure we would all rather avoid.

On wider issues, the Government are working on tackling alcohol-related harms. Preventing these requires a sustained commitment from government, local authorities, the police, health partners and businesses. There is no easy answer to tackling alcohol-related harms: all parts of the system have to work together, including early identification and intervention, treatment access and criminal justice powers. We have an ambitious programme of work in train across departments to tackle these harms.

My noble friend Lord Holmes asked about digital ID. There are currently no plans to introduce digital age verification for alcohol sales, but we are exploring what is permissible within the Licensing Act and whether the legislation should be amended. We also plan to consult on this over the next few months.

Alcohol is a recognised driver of crime, as has been noted by all noble Lords, and can adversely impact individuals, communities and services. We have seen some encouraging trends over the last few years. For example, members of the public perceiving people being drunk or rowdy as a problem in their local area nearly halved between 2009-10 and 2019-20.

Despite a reduction in alcohol-related violence over the last decade, around four in 10 violent incidents are alcohol related. This is also the case in around a third of domestic violence incidents. When thinking about their latest incident of serious sexual assault experienced, 39% of victims believed the perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol. This increased to 49% when the incident occurred between strangers.

Work is of course under way across government to tackle alcohol-related crime. As I have said, we have focussed on equipping the police and local authorities with the right powers to take effective action. We continue to take action to improve the safety of women at night, tackle drink spiking in licensed premises and work with partners to reduce these incidents in the night-time economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the new group on alcohol-related crime and homicide, which brings together the police and other key players. It has been established and has already held its first meeting. Beyond that, I am afraid that I do not have very much information. As and when I find more, I will make sure to share it with him.

I think that I have answered all the questions. Again, I thank my noble friend for securing this debate and all noble Lords who have contributed. We all agree that there is more to do, but I hope that I have provided reassurance that progress is being made to address the recommendations in the report and that some of the work has already concluded. The Government recognise the importance of these issues. I look forward to continued engagement and discussion on them.