Female Domestic Homicides: Black, Asian and Ethnic-minority Overrepresentation

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my interests in the register.

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

My Lords, domestic homicide is a horrific crime that disproportionately impacts women. The Home Office homicide index shows that 22% of the 249 female victims recorded between March 2020 and March 2022 were from minority-ethnic groups. These groups were overrepresented in domestic homicide data when compared to the 2021 census. Preventing domestic homicide is a key government priority, and we have set out commitments to reduce it in the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, the Home Office funded a project in 2020 based in the vulnerability, knowledge and practice programme which confirmed that there is an overrepresentation of minority-ethnic women in domestic homicides rates—the rates may be higher because the police do not always record ethnicity data accurately. What follow-up has there been on that project? Will the Minister agree to holding a public consultation or an inquiry to uncover fully the contributing factors to safeguard black, Asian and minority-ethnic women and girls? Will he meet me to discuss that?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am short on the detail of that specific programme, but in March 2022, we published the cross-government Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan, which invested more than £230 million in tackling this crime between 2022 and 2025. This includes more than £140 million for supporting victims and £81 million for tackling perpetrators. As regards the domestic homicide review, work is under way to review, improve and update the statutory guidance on that review. The consultation on that is about to open, so if any Peers are interested and would like to get involved, please let me know and I will be happy to supply the details.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, studies have shown that ethnic-minority survivors of domestic abuse are much less likely to have previously been known to the police than white victims, often because of a wish to protect their partner from police—rather than health interventions—because of institutional racism. What are the Government doing to ensure that all police are properly trained not to move to police intervention and to be able to signpost mental health support for all victims of domestic abuse?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a good question. We understand the importance of specialist services in providing the tailored support that victims and survivors of domestic abuse need. The Home Office is providing funding of more than £2 million to the London Community Foundation, Peterborough Women’s Aid, Diversity Matters North West and Sahara in Preston for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years through the VAWG support and specialist services fund. This forms part of a programme called By and For, which is the Government’s commitment to provide specialist services that are led, designed and delivered by and for users and communities they aim to serve.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that part of the issue for women from minority communities, particularly the south Asian community, is language, and that, before it gets to the stage that we hope it will not get to—homicide—those women should be able to report? Due to language barriers, they cannot. Will my noble friend look at ways of working with other departments to ensure that we can get English into communities? It may be through funding community groups, but the insistence should be that English is part of the programme. Secondly, will he look at how we do training within the Home Office—rolling it out to recognise the start of the need for intervention rather than waiting for it to become a big problem?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend raises some very good points. It links into part of the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which I did not answer: about the police response to tackling domestic abuse. We have provided funding to support the rollout of the Domestic Abuse Matters training to police forces which have yet to deliver it, or which do not have their own specific domestic abuse training, to improve and ensure consistency in the police response to domestic abuse. I would imagine—I will check—that that includes the language barriers that my noble friend identifies. That programme has been completed by 34 police forces to date. Considerable work is also going on in building up the evidence base and, indeed, starting a library, which will help police forces to investigate these crimes.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the opening words of the briefing from Home Office-funded project referred to by the noble Baroness say:

“The onus is too often placed on survivors from minoritised ethnic groups to navigate a system that has not been designed to take account of their needs, rather than addressing structural barriers that prevent their access to support”.


I suspect that not much has changed since that briefing was written and published in 2022. By the time a woman becomes a victim of domestic homicide, the truth is that she may have been repeatedly failed by the system. How is the Casey report into the Met Police feeding into the Government’s programme, and what targets do the Government have to reduce domestic abuse and violence against women and girls? Of course, the Labour Party does have a target for if and when we are in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already gone through a number of the programmes that have been put in place, many of which started only in 2022. I do not think it is fair to characterise the Government as not treating this as a priority. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we made it a strategic policing priority alongside terrorism and other priorities only last year. It is worth mentioning at this point someone I have referenced many times from the Dispatch Box. Maggie Blyth, who is the VAWG lead at the NPCC, has recently been appointed as the new deputy CEO at the College of Policing. I think that is a very positive step forward from an enforcement perspective. I would also like to commend Louisa Rolfe, who is the domestic abuse lead at the NPCC. We are doing a great deal. A consultation is under way on the domestic homicide statutory guidance; I suggest that the noble Baroness participates.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, after contacting the police to report domestic violence crimes, migrant women in the UK have often been reported to Immigration Enforcement. For this reason, those women often stay silent for longer. What are the Government doing to ensure that black, Asian and minority-ethnic women who are victims of domestic violence can report abuse without fear of detention or deportation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate will be aware that, if they do, they are not subject to immigration action—a subject that has been talked about a number of times from the Dispatch Box.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Minister will know that, in the Istanbul convention, which is the foundation of much of our statutory work in this area, Article 12.5 refers specifically to honour-based killings and violence. The Minister has indicated that a consultation is about to open in this area. Will the Article 12.5 requirement, which calls for the Government to have improved statutory definitions of honour-based violence, be part of that consultation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot answer the last part of the noble Baroness’s question, but I can say that last week we hosted at the Home Office GREVIO, the organisation looking at our compliance with Istanbul, and I think we had a very positive meeting. It was a privilege to be able to host them in the office and to go through much of the work that we have already done. I will try to come back in writing on the specific question that she asked.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the report by the Centre for Women’s Justice, which the Minister has probably seen, highlights a number of barriers faced by women, particularly from black and minority-ethnic communities, in reporting domestic violence and abuse. One of them—and there have been a number of high-profile cases of this—is that victims face criminalisation by counter-allegations. As they lack the ability to navigate the service and the relevant support, that often leads to devastating consequences. Another issue is a fear of losing their children when social services get involved. The Minister mentioned police training, but specialist services and access to them are also important. The report says that cuts to those services have cost lives. I ask the Minister to comment on those issues and how best women can be supported to make sure that we bring down the level of fatalities in this cohort of women.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases or indeed on the operational aspects of this. The criminal justice system will have to look at all those individual matters and judge them appropriately. What I can do is repeat what I have said about police training, which has now been rolled out to 34 forces. Obviously, there is more to do. The police force is being very well led in this area, as I have just highlighted. I will also say that the By and For programme to which I referred earlier supports services by and for those specifically affected. That makes perfect sense, and it should be as local as possible.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 13, The Schedule, Clauses 14 to 31, Title.

Motion agreed.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 15 January be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see Hizb ut-Tahrir proscribed.

It may be helpful if I start by setting out some background to the proscription power. Some 79 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. For an organisation to be proscribed, the Home Secretary must believe that it is concerned in terrorism, as set out in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider the proportionality of proscription and decide whether or not to exercise their discretion.

Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties, criminalising membership and invitations of support for the organisation. It also supports other disruptive activity, including immigration disruptions and terrorist financing offences. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and are therefore liable to be seized.

The Home Secretary is supported in his decision-making by advice from the cross-government Proscription Review Group. A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration, given its wide-ranging impact. It must be approved by both Houses.

Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000 contains the proscription offences, in Sections 11 to 13. An organisation is proscribed if it is listed in Schedule 2 to that Act or, in most cases, it operates under the same name as an organisation so listed. Article 2 of this order adds Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list in Schedule 2 as a new entry.

With this House’s consent, Hizb ut-Tahrir, including all regional branches, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, will be proscribed. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that Hizb ut-Tahrir is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. Noble Lords will understand, I am sure, that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. Nevertheless, I can provide Members with a summary of the group’s activities, which supports this decision.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which I will now refer to simply as HuT, is an international political organisation with a footprint in at least 32 countries, including the UK, US, Canada and Australia. Its long-term goal is to establish a caliphate ruled under Islamic law. HuT’s headquarters and central media office are in Beirut, Lebanon, and its ideology and strategy are co-ordinated centrally.

The British branch, which I will refer to as HTB, was established in the 1980s. While HTB is afforded autonomy to operate in its local environment, it is important to emphasise at this point that HuT should be considered as a coherent international movement, with HTB recognising the overall leadership of HuT on its website. This decision to proscribe therefore relates to HTB, and other regional branches, in forming part of a single, global entity, which is HuT.

There is current evidence that HuT is concerned in terrorism. HuT’s central media office and several of HuT’s Middle Eastern branches have celebrated and praised the barbaric 7 October terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas, which, as noble Lords will be aware, is a proscribed organisation. When the proscription of Hamas was extended to include both the military and political wings in 2021, the Government were clear that Hamas prepares, commits and participates in acts of terrorism.

Further recent activity includes an article attributed to HuT’s Egyptian branch, which referred to the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer as

“a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews”.

Elsewhere, HuT has frequently referred to Hamas as “the heroes of Palestine” in articles on its website. HTB also published an article on its website, which was subsequently removed, which described the 7 October attacks as a “long awaited victory” and referred to the fact that they

“ignited a wave of joy and elation amongst Muslims globally”.

It is the Government’s view that the content included in this article betrays the organisation’s true ideology and beliefs, aligned with the organisation’s global output.

HuT has regularly engaged in anti-Semitic and homophobic discourse. While HuT claims to be committed to non-violence, it rejects democracy and its aims bear similarities to those of terrorist groups, including Daesh, which of course is already proscribed.

The decision to proscribe is supported by our international partners. Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries around the world, including Germany for anti-constitutional reasons, with restrictions also placed on its activities in Austria, among others.

Proscription is a powerful tool. It will significantly thwart HuT’s operations in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation; invite or express support for a proscribed organisation; arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; or wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The penalties for conviction of proscription offences can be a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

The first duty of the Government is to keep the people of the United Kingdom safe. They rightly expect us to take every possible measure in service of that endeavour. Our message is clear: we will not tolerate the promotion or encouragement of terrorism, nor will we accept the promotion or glorification of Hamas’s abhorrent attack of 7 October. We will confront anti-Semitism wherever and however it rears its ugly head, taking every possible step to keep the Jewish community in the United Kingdom safe.

We must and will use every available measure to safeguard our values and tackle terrorism in all its forms. I therefore urge the House to support this proscription, which is a proportionate and justified response to the promotion and encouragement of terrorism, and to calls for violence and disorder, as espoused by HuT. I beg to move.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Government for this. I am not sure that I am going to go down the route of, “What took us so long?” I recall Tony Blair talking about banning Hizb ut-Tahrir. I even recall our new noble friend the Foreign Secretary talking about it in 2010, before becoming Prime Minister, saying that it was something that would be done. Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that it has been done.

I guess I declare an interest: I am a Jew, and very proud of it. I know full well what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants to do to me, my family and my co-religionists. I am grateful to the Minister for this measure, so obviously I will support it.

However, the Minister will know that I do not miss an opportunity—and I will not miss this opportunity. While the Government are on a roll and have done the right thing, they know that I and others in this House believe that the IRGC should be going in exactly the same way. The IRGC are the masters of everything that we do not like, in the way that the Minister described at the beginning. While thanking him, I hope that he will not mind me asking for a little bit more. The IRGC needs to be proscribed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for opening the debate today clearly and concisely, and I agree with much of what the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Purvis, said.

Today’s proscription order is underpinned by the exceptional men and women who serve in our intelligence and security services, in government and in our police. They work tirelessly to keep our country safe. We are extremely fortunate to have them. Keeping our country safe is the first duty of government and a common cause that we share and all treat with the utmost seriousness. On that basis, it is vital, as the Minister knows, that the Government and His Majesty’s Opposition work in the national interest on these crucial issues.

As the Minister laid out, this order will amend Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to add Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list of proscribed organisations. Doing so will make it a criminal offence to belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir, to engage in activities such as attending meetings, to promote support for the group or to display its logo. After years of serious and increasing concern about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activity in the UK, His Majesty’s Opposition strongly support its proscription. It is a necessary step to effectively counter its hateful extremism and divisive rhetoric, which threatens the safety and security of our country. As the Minister outlined, proscription of this international terrorist organisation comes after other countries, including Germany, have already banned it.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been proscribed now because of its escalating activity in the aftermath of Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on Israel. Unlike the condemnation of these attacks by the vast majority of Muslims here in the UK, who are just as horrified as the rest of us, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain glorified as heroes the Hamas terrorists who revelled in acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians. Again, unlike the deep sorrow and outrage the British people shared with the Israeli people in the aftermath of 7 October, Hizb ut-Tahrir boasted of its euphoria on the news of this appalling and tragic loss of life.

There is no place on Britain’s streets for vile anti-Semitism. There is no place on Britain’s streets for those who incite violence and glorify terrorism. There is no place on Britain’s streets for Hizb ut-Tahrir. This terrorist group peddles hate, glorifies violence and is hostile not only to our values but to the common sense of humanity. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, mentioned, there is nothing new about its divisive and poisonous rhetoric, which has been widely recorded for over two decades in the UK, long before the horrific attacks of 7 October. Organisations such as the Community Security Trust, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Union of Jewish Students have long raised serious concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s anti-Semitism, alongside its misogynistic and homophobic hate speech, which provides a channel for extremism. We have already heard that that is why previous Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries and Security Ministers have considered proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, but its activities were not recognised as sufficient under the definition of terrorism in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 until now.

Given for how long these matters have been debated and considered, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer some questions when he responds. To start with, does he think that there are lessons to be learned regarding the length of time it has taken to proscribe this organisation? Does he believe that the current proscription process is robust enough to counter threats to our national security, and can he say when it became a proportionate response in this case as well as in others? Can he say whether other bodies, as we have heard, are under consideration for proscription, given the various global threats we face? Is the speed of decision-making up to the task? In particular, and he will know that we have asked for this, does he agree that a bespoke proscription mechanism for state-sponsored organisations is now required—something that, as I say, His Majesty’s Opposition, along with others, have called for?

Countering threats to our national security requires joined-up government working, but the counter-extremism strategy has not been updated since 2015, with important elements of policy around community cohesion now the responsibility of the Levelling-Up Secretary. Given the significance of these matters, can the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward a new definition of hateful extremism? Can he confirm whether his department will update the counter-extremism strategy, as my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary has called for?

To conclude, proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir is the right thing to do for our national security. For too long, the public have been exposed to its extremist ideology, its glorification of terrorist activity and its core aim of overthrowing our democratic system of government to replace it with an Islamist theocracy. If left alone, extremism can and will spread insidiously and spread deceit deep into our national conversation. No Government must ever relent in their determination to ensure that we are always one step ahead of those who seek to harm or to undermine our way of life. We must always be on the side of the public we seek to serve and protect. That is why we strongly support the Government’s actions in taking forward the proscription order before us.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I would very much like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, thanking our security services and our police forces, and those in government—many of whom are, as noble Lords will be aware, in the Home Office—who are very engaged in this subject, and who keep us safe.

I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that have been made. If I miss anything, I will, of course, commit to write—and just to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can say that a letter is on its way.

I shall briefly give the House some key facts, in terms of the number of organisations proscribed in this country. There are currently 79 proscribed terrorist organisations, in addition to the 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations that were proscribed before 2000, and 38 terrorist groups have been proscribed since 2010—a very depressing statistic indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noted. The most recent proscription order came into force in September 2022, when the Wagner group was proscribed. I think all the noble Lords here participated in that debate.

Of course, the Government will always consider the full range of powers available to tackle threats on our soil or against our people and interests. We will continue to make use of our counterterrorism powers, including the proscription tool, where appropriate, to tackle the modern threats we face. The work on that is ongoing. I acknowledge the bespoke proscription tool for state threats, as asked for by the noble Lord. Obviously, I cannot comment on that, but the National Security Act, which came into force last year, provides robust powers to deal with the complex state threats that the UK faces in a broader context. I am aware of his ongoing interest in this, and I am sure I will continue to engage in discussion with him about it.

The barriers for proscription, and the qualifications and tests, are robust. As I said in my opening remarks, they are governed by the Terrorism Act 2000, and it might be worth going through them for the record. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if he believes it is concerned in terrorism, and this means that the organisation

“commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism… If the statutory test is met, there are other factors which the Home Secretary must take into account when deciding whether or not to exercise the discretion”.

Those factors include

“the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities … the specific threat that it poses to the UK … the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas … the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and … the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism”.

The Home Secretary will exercise his power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes information taken from both open sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as advice that reflects consultation across government.

That brings me to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Polak, which is: why has it taken so long? I have explained how the Home Secretary must believe that an organisation is concerned in terrorism and, as the House has heard, since the 7 October attack HuT has promoted and encouraged terrorism, and celebrated and praised the 7 October terrorist attacks by Hamas, including in an article that referred to the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer, which I referred to in my opening remarks, as a simple example of what should be done to the Jews.

Elsewhere, HuT has frequently referred to Hamas as the heroes of Palestine, in articles on its website. As has been noted, it has a long history of praising and celebrating attacks against Israel and attacks against Jews more widely. This vile anti-Semitism cannot be decoupled from the statements recently attributed to HuT encouraging and promoting terrorism. But of course, the facts changed after 7 October. I think that explains the decision to act now. When the facts change, we change our minds.

On religious communities, obviously I agree with all noble Lords that the growth in anti-Semitism is extraordinarily concerning. A number of my friends are affected by it and have said that they are now afraid to walk the streets in certain circumstances.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

Exactly on that point, I pay tribute to the Government because for a number of years they have helped to fund the security of our schools and synagogues, and so on. Noble Lords might not realise that, to get into a synagogue to pray, one has to go through security—that is here in Britain, in 2024. After 7 October, the Government gave the Home Office another £3 million towards this. Just so that noble Lords understand, just days after 7 October my daughter called me and asked, “Dad, do you love your grandchildren?” I said to Natasha, “What’s this question?” She said, “Should we send them to school?” That is a Jewish, state-aided school in Finchley, north London. They were scared to send their kids to school here in Britain. That is just to get over to noble Lords that this is the problem, but I am grateful to the Government for their support.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his personal perspective, which—I think I can safely speak for the whole House—we obviously regret very considerably. That just amplifies the point I was making that some of my friends have expressed to me that they are also afraid, in certain circumstances, to walk the streets of the capital in particular, although I imagine that that applies across the entire nation. I personally think that is disgraceful.

However, I thank my noble friend for pointing out that the Government have made significant efforts to protect the Jewish community. The Jewish community protective security grant provides security measures, such as guarding, CCTV and alarm systems at Jewish schools, colleges, nurseries and some other Jewish community sites, as well as a number of synagogues. The JCPS grant is managed on behalf of the Home Office by the Community Security Trust. In response to the Israel-Hamas conflict and reports of increased incidence of anti-Semitism in the UK, the Prime Minister has announced an additional £3 million of funding for the Community Security Trust—which my noble friend referred to—that will provide additional security at Jewish schools, synagogues and other Jewish community sites. This brings total funding for CST through the Jewish community protective security grant to £18 million in 2023-24. The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement confirmed that protective security funding for the Jewish community will be maintained at £18 million in 2024-25. So I thank my noble friend for his thanks. Obviously, the Government are very alive to the fact that we need to do as much as we can.

On the question about the statistics on anti-Semitism, I will have to write on that—I am afraid I do not have them to hand.

It would be wrong not to highlight also what is being done to protect Muslim communities, who obviously are also affected by events in the Middle East. We recognise that the developments there can impact British Muslim communities, and they lead to a rise in community tensions. The Government have made an additional £4.9 million available for protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools this year and the next. That brings total funding for UK Muslim communities to £29.4 million for both 2023-24 and 2024-25. We have also extended the deadline for the protective security for mosques scheme, and invite mosques and Muslim faith community centres to register for protective security measures by 18 February 2024. The protective security for mosques scheme provides physical security measures such as CCTV, intruder alarms and secure perimeter fencing to mosques and associated Muslim faith community centres. Guarding services for both mosques and Muslim faith schools will become available early this year.

My noble friend did not surprise me by asking about the IRGC. There is obviously significant parliamentary media and public interest in potentially proscribing the IRGC. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have discussed this subject on a number of occasions, with the House of Commons unanimously passing a Motion in January to urge the Government to proscribe. The department keeps the list of proscribed organisations under review and, as noble Lords will be aware, our policy is not to comment on the specifics of individual proscription cases. I am therefore unable to provide further details on this issue in particular. Ministers have previously confirmed to the House that the decision is under active consideration, but we will not provide a running commentary. However, I think I can refer to the most recent public position on this, which was a comment from the current Foreign Secretary on the proscription of the IRGC. In an interview with the Telegraph on 23 December, the current Foreign Secretary said:

“The move you’re talking about is not something that either the intelligence agencies or the police are calling for. So I think our stance is the right one”.


That is the latest information on that subject, but I am quite sure that we will return to it.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me what is happening with the counterextremism strategy. The Government, obviously, remain focused on disrupting the activities and influence of extremists, supporting those who stand up to extremism and stopping people being drawn into terrorism. We keep our response to extremism under constant review to ensure that it is best placed to tackle the evolving threat.

Building on the foundation set by the 2015 counterextremism strategy, we have scaled up our approach to disrupting groups who seek to radicalise others in order to focus on those who pose the biggest threat to our communities and our security. The Government’s focus is to use existing mechanisms to analyse, prevent and disrupt the spread of high-harm extremist ideologies that can lead to community division, and to radicalisation into terrorism, particularly those that radicalise others but deliberately operate below counterterrorism thresholds. Where there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate disruptive action will be considered.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about investigation and prosecution of offences. He will be aware that that is an operational matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. But His Majesty’s Government are working with operational partners to support their management of terrorism offences, particularly in the context of the ongoing crisis in Israel and Gaza, and we will continue to do that to realise the disruptive benefits of this proscription swiftly.

I do not have access at the moment to the Foreign Office guidance for Lebanon. I will find out what it is and come back to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

In conclusion, the security of our communities is the Government’s foremost priority. The effort to counter and contain terrorism is complex and relentless. When action is needed, we will not hesitate. This is why we have brought forward this order, which I commend to the House.

Motion agreed.

Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Orders laid before the House on 15 and 27 November 2023 be approved.

Relevant documents: 5th and 7th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 January.

Motions agreed.

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this debate. I recognise that this is an issue of long-standing interest for him and all other noble Lords who have contributed. I thank them particularly for their many personal experiences of Sir Edward Heath, the great statesman, especially those reminiscences from my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Birt. While I commend my noble friend Lord Lexden for his tenacity, I am afraid that my response will not differ greatly from that which I have given in the past. Nevertheless, I will again set out for the House the Government’s position.

The first point to make is that it is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of all the allegations made against Sir Edward. I appreciate the strength of feeling from Sir Edward’s friends and former colleagues that this traduces his memory, but I must, once again, make very clear the point that it does not. The Operation Conifer summary closure report emphasised that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward would have been interviewed under caution had he been alive.

I think we can all agree that it is deeply unfortunate for all concerned that these allegations did not come to light until after Sir Edward’s death. We can certainly agree that the manner in which the then chief constable of Wiltshire Police, Mike Veale, chose to publicise those allegations deserves the censure it has rightly received. Indeed, Mr Veale has admitted that his actions in that respect were inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, pointed out, and I agree, it was, in fact, a new low.

However, we must separate the understandable opprobrium for Mr Veale’s mistakes from a clear-sighted, objective and fair assessment of the investigation and its outcomes. Of course emotions run high in this case—indeed, it is laudable that noble Lords show their loyalty and long-term commitment to the cause of their friend and, as my noble friend Lord Cormack noted, a great statesman—but the Government cannot and should not be guided by emotion, nor by the status of individuals. It is certainly not a unique situation that a deceased individual has allegations made against them to which they are unable to respond, and there can be no justification for treating that individual differently because he or she was a former Prime Minister. There are important principles at stake. It is a fundamental tenet of our legal system that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until they are proven guilty. To maintain that Sir Edward’s reputation is besmirched by the fact that unproven allegations have been made about him is to undermine that precept.

Another critically important principle is at stake, however uncomfortable, and it certainly is in this instance: we must continue to uphold the right of the individual to challenge the holders of power in this country, be they institutions or those occupying high office. I can do no better than echo the words of the 2017 Guardian editorial referenced in the briefing note on Operation Conifer, which was published last Friday by the House’s Library. It said:

“Yet there is a good defence of the decision to investigate, and it must be heard. It rests on the Human Rights Act, which exists to protect individuals in their dealings with official power. The supreme court is due to rule whether the police are always obliged to investigate allegations of serious crime, after the appeal court upheld the argument that the greater the power of the agency of the state, the stronger the duty to investigate allegations made against it. So the police investigation into allegations against Edward Heath was not a futile attempt to bring a dead man to justice, but an important exercise in upholding the right of the citizen. This may be scant comfort to Heath’s friends. But it is an important principle”.


That was written in 2017, of course, but it remains pertinent. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that upholding the rights of the citizen is paramount. Indeed, even this week we have seen many instances of the consequences of the failure to do that.

Of course, it was subsequently proved that the allegations were those of a deranged fantasist, and he is rightfully serving a very long sentence for his crimes, but we also must acknowledge—and not one speaker has mentioned this—that significant political cover was afforded to that individual by some senior politicians, including Members of your Lordships’ House. That is also regrettable and deserves to be on the record.

We cannot lose sight of our duty to uphold the rights of the citizen, whatever our personal views about the merits of the citizen’s case. In line with that principle, I reiterate that the Government have given this matter careful consideration and concluded that there are still no grounds to justify a review or intervention by the Government. The Government do not have plans to commission a review of either the conduct of the investigation into allegations made against Sir Edward or the findings of that investigation.

I know this will disappoint noble Lords, but I must underline again that the investigation has already been subject to considerable external scrutiny by an independent scrutiny panel, two reviews by Operation Hydrant in September 2016 and May 2017, and a review in January 2017 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, as it was then. These reviews concluded that the investigation was legitimate and proportionate. Furthermore, questions about the national guidance that the force was following in conducting the investigation have already been picked up by the College of Policing.

I have explained in considerable detail at various other outings on this subject the scrutiny that the original investigation has been subjected to, so I will not repeat all that, but some noble Lords have proposed a more limited review of the allegations in respect of which Wiltshire Police has said that it would have interviewed Sir Edward had he been alive. Such a review, it is proposed, might consider whether any of those allegations would have justified a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute, but the ability of a review to do this would, of course, depend on the evidence itself. But it is not for the Government to commission reviews of evidence in respect of individuals. This would be a matter for the local force if it considered it to be appropriate.

I have to a large degree retraced—

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, may I just contest the point the Minister has just made? This is not a local issue; it is a national issue. That has been made perfectly clear by the points that have been made. While I am on my feet, I will just say that when I came to this debate, my view was—and it followed a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh—that there were pros and cons for an inquiry but that the case against one was that we were just reviving charges against Sir Edward Heath that nobody now believes and that that served no purpose. I want to say, having heard the debate tonight, that I have changed my mind.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I did not say that it was a local matter; I said that it was for the local force to decide whether they considered that to be appropriate. I think that is an important distinction. I accept that—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Will my noble friend, at the very least, do as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, requested and give the Home Secretary a copy of this debate, and underline how unanimous the general sentiment in this House was? Will he do one other thing? Will he ask the Home Secretary to receive a deputation of Members of your Lordships’ House who have taken part in this debate?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to my noble friend that I am coming to that in a second.

I have to a large degree retraced a lot of old ground, which is perhaps only to be expected when considering a question that we have already discussed many times. I am reconciled to the fact that this will obviously annoy and disappoint my noble friend Lord Lexden—

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

Given that the reputation of the former Prime Minister has been tarnished, and my noble friend the Minister has set out the reasons why there should be no further inquiry, does he regard it as satisfactory that that reputation remains tarnished?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will also come to that.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this debate, as I said earlier, and to other noble Lords for their contributions. As regards the question that was asked of me by my noble friend Lord Lexden, which has just been reiterated by my noble friend Lord Cormack and asked also by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Coaker, I absolutely will take this back to the current Home Secretary and make sure that he is aware of this debate and the strength of feeling, and indeed all the preceding debates we have had on this subject.

Of course, I am genuinely sorry to have to disappoint the House, but I hope that I have provided some clarity and reassurance around the current position. I stress that this is unlikely to alter without a material change to the situation, but I commit quite happily to take this back to the Home Secretary.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will my noble friend also say to the Home Secretary that we will go on demanding this inquiry until we get it and that it would be much easier to give way now?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to provide my noble friend with that reassurance.

As regards whether I regret that Sir Edward’s memory and legacy have been in some way tarnished, of course I do. I think it is incredibly regrettable, and it is incredibly regrettable that the deranged fantasist was encouraged in the way that he was. However, he is paying the price.

As I have set out, Operation Conifer has been subject to external scrutiny, whether your Lordships agree with that scrutiny or not, and it is the Government’s assessment that there are not currently any grounds for further intervention.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it is normal for a debate of this kind to have any final words from the person who introduced it, but I think there is perhaps an expectation that I should do so. It is important that the new Home Secretary studies this most carefully, reading the Hansard, and I hope that we will have a full and considered reply from him. This debate has not only touched on very difficult events and actions but has contained very considerable scrutiny and critique of the grounds on which the Government have previously rejected an inquiry. We need to bring this matter to a conclusion. We must have an inquiry.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2024.

Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 27 November last year, proposes amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to control 15 substances as class A drugs, four substances as class B drugs and one substance as a class C drug. To achieve this, it proposes amendments to Schedule 2 to that Act, which sets out what drugs are controlled and their classification.

Fifteen synthetic opioids, including 14 nitazenes, will be controlled as class A drugs under the 1971 Act. This follows recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its report of 18 July 2022 and addenda of 19 December 2022 and 6 October 2023. The Government commissioned the ACMD for its advice following international control of three of the synthetic opioids—at this point, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence because pronouncing some of these names is not easy; they are isotonitazene, metonitazene and brorphine—under Schedule 1 to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, to which the UK is a signatory.

In addition to reviewing these substances, the ACMD considered the harms of other similar synthetic opioids and concluded that they pose serious acute health risks, reinforced by reports of their involvement in a number of drug-related deaths and near-fatal overdoses. The ACMD determined that their potency and availability present a significant potential threat to public health and therefore recommended the highest level of control as class A drugs under the 1971 Act. This is for all 15 synthetic opioids, including the three controlled internationally.

Additionally, three stimulants—diphenidine, ephenidine and methoxyphenidine—will be controlled as class B drugs under the 1971 Act by this order. This follows international control of diphenidine under Schedule 2 to the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 in April 2021, after which the Government commissioned the ACMD to review its harms. In its report of 25 May 2023, the ACMD noted the involvement of these substances in a number of drug-related deaths worldwide and recommended that they be controlled as class B drugs under the 1971 Act. This is in line with similar dissociative class B drugs, such as ketamine.

Also to be controlled as a class B drug is Cumyl-PeGaClone, a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist—SCRA—which, similarly to diphenidine, was added to Schedule 2 to the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 in April 2021. Many SCRAs are currently controlled as class B drugs under a generic definition in the 1971 Act. However, owing to its structure, Cumyl-PeGaClone falls outside the generic definition. The ACMD report of 25 May 2023 recommended that the Government consult relevant stakeholders on modification to the definition, which the Government have agreed to do. In the meantime, to address the harm it poses and meet our international obligations more quickly, the Government have opted to control Cumyl-PeGaClone individually as a class B drug, in line with other SCRAs. We will consult on modifications to the generic definition in due course.

Finally, remimazolam, a benzodiazepine, will be controlled as a class C drug under the 1971 Act. Remimazolam is the active ingredient in a product given marketing authorisation, otherwise known as a medicines licence, by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2021. The ACMD recommended in December 2022 that it should be controlled as a class C drug as its potential harms are commensurate with other benzodiazepine drugs already controlled under class C.

I am grateful to the ACMD for the comprehensive reports it has produced. Those reports have been the foundation of this legislation. According to the ACMD’s advice, all the substances are psychoactive and therefore potentially subject to the offences under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The 2016 Act contains offences for the production, supply, possession with intent to supply, import or export of a psychoactive substance where a person knows, or is reckless as to whether, it will be consumed for its psychoactive effects. It does not, however, contain an offence for the simple possession of a psychoactive substance, other than in a custodial setting. Medicinal products are exempt from the provisions of the 2016 Act, and medicines based on remimazolam are therefore currently exempt.

The control of these substances under the 1971 Act would make it an offence to possess them and impose higher penalties and enforcement provisions for supply and production offences. Those found in unlawful possession of a class A drug could face up to seven years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Meanwhile, those who supply or produce a class A drug could face up to life imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

One of the substances, remimazolam, has a known medicinal value in the UK as it has been granted a marketing authorisation. To enable its use in healthcare, remimazolam will be placed in part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 by a statutory instrument made under the negative procedure. It is the Government’s intention that it will come into force on the same date as this affirmative order. The other 19 substances will be placed in Schedule 1 to the 2001 regulations by that same negative statutory instrument. This is because they have no known medical or therapeutic value in the UK and will mean that they can ordinarily be accessed only under a Home Office-controlled drug licence. Again, this follows ACMD advice. Cumyl-PeGaClone will also be placed in Schedule 1, in line with other SCRAs already controlled under the 1971 Act and 2001 regulations.

These substances, excluding remimazolam, will therefore be added to part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015. Controlled drugs are designated where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is in the public interest for production, supply and possession of that drug to be wholly unlawful or unlawful except for research or other special purposes, or for medicinal use of the drug to be unlawful except under licence.

Drug misuse ruins lives and adversely affects society as a whole. The Government have a responsibility to protect the public, their safety and their health, and that is why we are proposing this action. As I have set out, these substances cause or have the potential to cause significant harm to both the individual who uses them and the communities in which they live, and must be subject to stricter controls. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking for these Benches I would ordinarily speak from a health perspective. From our point of view, a lot of the drug abuse issues fall within that category. We are obviously dealing with a Home Office statutory instrument today, but I hope that the Minister will indulge me if I put some questions that come from that angle of considering the impact on individuals of the drugs we are due to control.

The first is around how we will monitor, in particular, the prevalence of the synthetic opioids that are to be classified by the instrument we are considering. I think we have all looked in horror at the situation in the United States, where the firewall that exists between heroin and other forms of drugs has broken down, in a sense, through the distribution of synthetic opioids to a much broader demographic who, it seems, feels more comfortable taking them than would feel comfortable taking heroin. But the medical harm is just as severe—in some cases, more severe—so I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to monitor the prevalence and usage, particularly across different demographics, of these synthetic opioids, as well as prohibiting them, which is right. It is correct that we are following the advice of the advisory council here, but also really important that we understand the way in which these synthetic opioids are being consumed within the community.

The second issue I want to raise follows on from that, which is to consider how treatment services will deal with people who present because they have an addiction to the drugs we are considering. The numbers are quite stark: in 2021-22, just over 289,000 people presented for treatment services. Nearly half of them presented for opiate addictions and over 70% had mental health problems. It is critical to understand, as we broaden the net on the drugs that we bring into scope, how we will be able to respond to the people who come to the attention of the authorities because they are using these opiates—and get them off those. Just as important as any attempt to ensure that they are prosecuted is to get them out of that drug dependency and back into a normal state. Again, I want to understand what consideration has been given to how treatment services will need to be adapted to cover this broader range of synthetic opiates that we are bringing into scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we too welcome the amendments in this instrument. I will start with two specific questions and then make some more general comments.

First, beyond adding the specific substances which the Minister referred to in his speech and in the document, what more are the Government doing to address the risks posed to our communities from drugs more generally? The second question is about a particular drug, xylazine, a non-opioid veterinary anaesthetic that is being used in combination with synthetic opioids to devastating effect. I understand that the Minister for Crime wrote to the ACMD in June to ask it to consider the harms of this drug and that he is still waiting for a response. How long should the Minister for Crime expect to wait before he gets either action or a response to his letter about this drug?

Those are my two particular questions. More generally, I want to use the same structure as the noble Lord, Lord Allan. The first question he asked was about monitoring the prevalence and usage of synthetic opioids. As I mentioned in other speeches, including in the King’s Speech debate, I travelled to North America in the summer and went to Portland, Oregon. I also went to Seattle in Washington state. I was shocked by the amount of drug use on the streets. I saw hundreds if not thousands of people sleeping rough on the streets of those two cities. I saw people shooting up in front of me in the middle of those cities—and I had young children with me. It was a truly shocking sight.

While I was there, I visited a court that dealt with drug issues. I also had breakfast with a district attorney who is an elected prosecutor. We spoke about the way their current drug policy is working. What was interesting and depressing to me was the uniform agreement across the political spectrum that it was a disaster, yet they did not agree on the solution to that disaster; there was an ongoing political debate on it. The district attorney also said to me—it is relevant to this debate—that there is a strong suspicion, or belief, that synthetic opioids are getting into prescribed drugs. He told me that he had gone on holiday to Mexico but had forgotten some of his normal prescription drugs, so he had to go and buy the drugs while in Mexico. He became aware that synthetic opioids are illegitimately getting into prescribed drugs. This is a very worrying development; it is all over the internet in that part of the world. It is something that we should be aware of as a possible problem over here as well. It really is a huge issue. I am sure that the Minister is aware of it, but it would be good to hear what is being done to monitor the scale of this problem, which is potentially coming our way.

The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, was about treatment services and more drugs being brought into scope. I am quite worried about the experiments being carried out in Glasgow. I suppose that would be a good question for the Minister to answer: what monitoring are the UK Government doing on the experiments being done around drug treatment centres in Glasgow? I will leave it there.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I take on board the personal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in the States; his observations are obviously extremely interesting. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that just under half of all drug poisoning deaths registered in this country in 2022 already involved an opiate of some sort. The noble Lord made some acute points; of course, the Government remain aware of the situation overseas and continue to monitor that as much as they monitor the situation here.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me a specific question about xylazine. The ACMD is independent, so I cannot comment on its timeframes, but we are hoping for its response on this particular drug in early 2024. Obviously, we will come back to this as and when we have its response.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked about monitoring and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, backed that up. As I said, UK agencies are highly alert to the threat from synthetic drugs, including synthetic opioids such as fentanyl as well as synthetic cannabinoids and benzo- diazepines, which have been linked to drug-related deaths in this country. Along with law enforcement partners, the UK Government stand ready to respond to the threat from synthetic drugs. They have established a cross-government task force to monitor that threat and to lead and co-ordinate the government response to the risk from these synthetic opioids in the UK. The aim of the task force is to consider evidence-based policy; programmatic and legislative decisions in response to the level of risk; and the nature of synthetic opioids. Members of the task force include the Home Office, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, the Ministry of Justice, the National Crime Agency, HM Prison and Probation Service, Border Force and the police.

Through the UK’s drugs strategy, which was published in December 2021, we are implementing an end-to-end plan to disrupt the supply of all drugs at every stage of the supply chain from a source to the street. As part of that strategy, we have provided additional resources to the international networks of the NCA and the Home Office in key source and transit countries; this is for them to work with other Governments in identifying and disrupting cartels that seek to exploit the UK, as well as to seize drugs before and during their journey to the UK and the EU.

Also outlined in the strategy, we have increased the availability of naloxone, including naloxone nasal spray, to prevent drug-related deaths, and have committed to supporting local provision of a broader range of medicines, including newer medicines such as long-acting buprenorphine injection. We believe firmly in the importance of engaging with experts and delivery partners to respond swiftly to the evidence of emerging drug threats, including learning from international partners through international fora such as the US-led Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.

On the health situation that was brought up by both noble Lords, FRANK, the Government’s free drugs advice service, contains information on synthetic opioids, synthetic cannabinoids and benzodiazepines, which will be updated to reflect the changes when this legislation comes into force. The Department for Education has also worked with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities to make sure that good-quality teaching resources are available for teachers providing drug, alcohol and tobacco education, and lesson plans on drugs, alcohol and tobacco are available on the PSHE Association website.

We are of course concerned that banning these substances will discourage people from access to treatment services, but the Government’s drugs strategy, From Harm to Hope, published in December 2021, is clear about the Government’s ambition to achieve stigma-free treatment, providing the full, positive impact of treatment services for those seeking help. But, noting the potential harms associated with misuse of these substances, we believe it is necessary to take action to restrict access to these drugs and reduce their misuse. Through the drugs strategy, we are investing more than £2.8 billion over three years to support people through treatment and recovery, which includes support for those who have used a range of drugs and suffered various health harms.

Of course, key to all this is reducing the demand for drugs. We are committed to reversing the rising trend of drug use in society, to protect vulnerable people from harm and exploitation. It enables us to keep our communities safe and we must therefore reduce the demand for drugs, which fuel violence and exploitative criminal markets. Around 3 million people in England and Wales report using drugs each year, putting themselves at risk and driving a violent and exploitative supply chain, including through so-called recreational drug use. Through programmes announced as part of the drugs strategy, such as drug testing on arrest, and our plans to roll out pilots to change behaviour and attitudes towards drug use, we will provide the powers and access to appropriate interventions and support. We also know that we need to step up action in addressing the visible forms of drug use within our communities, so we will work with our enforcement partners to see what more we can do to tackle this, while ensuring that those who need treatment and support are diverted into the appropriate services.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked a very specific question about remimazolam. There are no known established legitimate uses for any of these substances except remimazolam. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that that in particular remains available for legitimate and lawful purposes, so in line with the recommendations from the ACMD, remimazolam will be placed in part 1 of Schedule 4 to the 2001 regulations, as I said in my opening remarks. That will enable lawful access in healthcare settings, subject to the requirements of the 2001 regulations. The remaining 19 substances will be placed in Schedule 1, as I mentioned, and access will therefore be permitted only under a Home Office-controlled drug licence. That will ensure that organisations can still lawfully undertake research with these substances, should they choose to do so.

On the specific question about paramedics, that is a Department for Health situation: it would have to request that paramedics be able to prescribe or use this drug in the appropriate way. I hope that answers the questions that I have been asked and, again, I thank both noble Lords for their participation in this debate. These are dangerous substances with the potential to cause significant harm, and they should therefore be subject to the strict controls under the 1971 Act. With that, I commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I specifically asked about the Glasgow drug consumption rooms and whether there is a UK oversight of the way they are operating, rather than just a Scottish Government oversight.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

With apologies, I forgot that question and, as it happens, I also do not know the answer—so I will have to find out and write to the noble Lord.

Motion agreed.

Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023 and the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, the first instrument for noble Lords to consider in this single debate is the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023.

The Home Office is the first line of enforcement against illegal migration and works across government to prevent individuals without lawful status in the UK accessing work, benefits and services. Illegal working often results in abusive and exploitative behaviour, the mistreatment of unlawful migrant workers and revenue evasion. It can undercut legitimate businesses and have an adverse impact on the employment opportunities of people who are lawfully in the UK.

Employers have a role to play in ensuring that all their employees have the right to work in the UK. Since 2008, this has been underpinned by the right-to-work civil penalty scheme, under which employers are required to carry out prescribed checks on individuals before employing them. This is to ensure that they are lawfully allowed to work in the UK. If an employer employs somebody who does not have the right to work in the UK, they may be liable for a civil penalty. Employers can avoid liability for a civil penalty if the correct right-to-work checks are carried out before the individual commences employment.

The level of civil penalty for non-compliance has remained the same since 2014, diluting its impact as a deterrent to those who facilitate illegal working, including instances of labour exploitation. Accordingly, the Government intend to increase the civil penalty for employers from £20,000 to £60,000, by virtue of the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023.

This will ensure that the scheme continues to act as a deterrent in respect of employers who employ illegal migrants and send a clear message that only individuals with a right to work in the UK can secure employment. In the case of a first breach, the starting point is £45,000. Employers who elect to pay the penalty via the fast payment option will benefit from a further 30% reduction in the overall amount, after reductions have been applied for any specified mitigating factors.

It remains a criminal offence for migrants to work illegally in the UK, or where the individual is in the UK unlawfully. The offence of working illegally carries a maximum penalty of 51 weeks’ imprisonment in England and Wales and six months’ imprisonment in Scotland and Northern Ireland, or a fine.

The second instrument for noble Lords to consider in this single debate is the Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023, which will be in force in England only.

Since 2014, anyone offering rental accommodation in the private rented sector should carry out checks on new adult occupiers before renting to them. This is to check that the individual has the right to rent, and is commonly known as the right-to-rent scheme. Allowing those without a lawful right to be in the UK to rent property enables them to establish a settled life in the UK. This creates costs to the public purse, including through the provision of local authority support, and reduces the amount of housing stock available to those who are lawfully residing in the UK. It often allows abusive and exploitative behaviour, with rogue landlords housing unlawful migrants in unsafe accommodation.

The maximum civil penalty for landlords, including letting agents, will be raised—by virtue of the Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023—from £3,000 to £20,000. In the case of a first breach, the starting point is £10,000. Landlords and letting agents who elect to pay the penalty via the fast payment option will benefit from a 30% reduction, from £10,000 to £7,000 or from £5,000 to £3,500 as applicable. As is the case now, the maximum penalty will be levied only on an employer, landlord or letting agent who has breached one of the schemes on more than one occasion in a three-year period, where the fast payment option was not utilised and where no specified mitigating factors apply.

Employers, landlords and letting agents can also appeal a civil penalty decision if, following an objection to the Home Office, that decision has been upheld. An appeal must be on the same grounds as the objection and an employer, landlord or letting agent must make the appeal within 28 days, registering it at a county court or sheriff’s court. This allows accidental non-compliant employers, landlords or letting agents safeguards against penalties.

In summary, these draft orders aim to change the behaviour of rogue employers, landlords and letting agents; to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance; to tackle the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance where appropriate; and to deter future non-compliance. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations are a regrettable consequence of our failure to prevent—it is extremely difficult to prevent—deter or remove illegal immigrants from this country. I hope that the Rwanda Bill, which we will consider shortly, will belatedly change that situation.

The reason why I have chosen to intervene briefly in this debate is to seek information. When I was the Secretary of State for DSS, I was told that it was impossible to work legally in this country without a national insurance number—a NINo. You cannot get a national insurance number unless you can demonstrate the legal right to work. It then emerged that there were far more national insurance numbers than people of working age in this country. Various explanations were put forward—they were numbers of people who had emigrated and the numbers were not rescinded, and so on.

First, I want to know whether that issue has been cleared up. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that it is necessary to have a national insurance number to be employed? The employer has to ask for it and obtain it; it will then go into the system and, if the number is invalid, it will be thrown out. Secondly, is it possible in any way to obtain a national insurance number if you do not have the legal right to work? Are those two aspects effective in preventing illegal immigrants obtaining legal employment or accessing benefits? I appreciate that they will not stop people employing people illegally and failing to report that to the authorities, the tax authorities and so on.

I appreciate that my noble friend may not have the answers to those questions here and now but it would be helpful if we could clear this up and put on the record the precise effectiveness of national insurance numbers in dealing with these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

I will comment briefly on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about whether people are checked for their legal right to work before they receive a national insurance number. I do not know what answer the Minister will give, but if he wants to give a more detailed written answer, I would be very interested to read it. In my experience in magistrates’ courts, there is often no relationship between people who have national insurance numbers and those who have no status to work here. In fact, I have been told—it may well be inaccurate—that they are separate systems, which is the reason the Government are bringing in the extra checks we are talking about in these two orders. Nevertheless, this is just tittle-tattle I have heard in magistrates’ courts, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. We can deliver a comprehensive response to tackle illegal migration only if we work with UK employers, landlords and letting agents to deny employment and housing to those without the right to work in this country. Illegal working and renting are the main incentives for illegal migration and often involve exploitation and unfair competition. The civil penalty scheme encourages employers, landlords and letting agents to comply with their obligations to check the right to work and rent of all employees and occupiers, without criminalising those who make a mistake.

Legitimate employers, landlords or letting agents will not face higher costs through increased penalties. The scope of the penalty regime has not changed. Those who continue to act in a legitimate manner, by checking and recording the documents of their employees or tenants, will not be affected by the strengthened penalty regime. I was interested in the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on consultation. Given what I have just said, who would the noble Lord consult with—those who are legitimately employing and renting or those who are not? I would have thought that would make the consultation a little problematic to set up.

I will try to answer all of the various questions asked of me. On my noble friend Lord Lilley’s question, as I understand it, a national insurance number is not a prerequisite for the right to work. You can prove the right to work alongside another document, such as a birth certificate. This is a DWP matter, so I will commit to taking this to the DWP and ask that department to write on the specifics of his question.

All noble Lords have asked perfectly sensible questions about whether the schemes are discriminatory, because there are risks of that sort of thing. On 21 April 2020, the Court of Appeal found the right-to-rent scheme to be a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate objective of supporting a coherent immigration system in the public interest. As a result, the court considered the scheme to be justified and not in breach of the prohibition on discrimination in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights when read with Article 8, which is the right to respect for private and family life.

The scheme is capable of being operated proportionately by landlords and letting agents in all cases. The very purpose of the statutory code of practice on avoiding unlawful discrimination when conducting checks recognises and seeks to address the risk of discrimination. While there may be discrimination on the part of a minority of landlords and letting agencies, that is because they have chosen not to comply with the spirit of the scheme, whether for their own perceived administrative convenience or some other economic advantage.

We have made it easy to carry out checks digitally, with no requirement for landlords, letting agents or employers to understand the types of documents renters and employees have. In some cases, it is actually easier to bring a migrant into employment or a residential tenancy agreement than a British citizen. We continue to work closely with the rental sector through landlord representative groups and have recently contacted Citizens Advice for further engagement. A considerable amount of work and thought has gone into this and it is governed under the code of practice, which is on GOV.UK.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the economic impact on lawful migrants entering the country. Employers, landlords and letting agents may favour to employ and rent to British and Irish nationals, who they see as low risk as they do not have time-limited leave and do not require further checks. The lawful migrant may therefore choose not to enter the UK. But the Home Office has published the statutory code—it is on GOV.UK—on how to avoid unlawful discrimination when undertaking checks. The guidance clearly stipulates that employers, landlords and letting agents are advised to provide individuals with every opportunity to demonstrate their right to work or rent. They should not discriminate on the basis of nationality, or any of the other protected characteristics. It is clear that those who discriminate are breaking the law.

Employers, landlords and letting agencies are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the guidance and the statutory codes of practice. It is considered that any indirect discrimination in this limb is justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: operating and enforcing a fair immigration system, protecting taxpayer-funded services and protecting vulnerable migrants from exploitation by seeking compliance with regulation.

I have already dealt with the consultation. However, I should also say that the Home Office is not under a duty to consult but, since the proposals to increase the civil penalties were announced in August, it has undertaken proactive, wide-reaching communications with employers, landlords and letting agents. Home Office officials have supported over 30 forum events as of 12 January and reached over 11,000 stakeholders in the sectors. It is clearly wrong for stakeholders to say they have not had an opportunity to be made aware of the Government’s intentions.

We used an economic note instead of an impact assessment because the costs for non-compliant landlords, employers and letting agents were not taken into account, so the better regulation threshold was not met. Our published economic note shows that a total increase of around £16 million might be expected over five years after higher penalties come into force. This is the central scenario and measures receipt changes for the right-to-work and right-to-rent schemes combined. There is uncertainty on this figure for several reasons, including the number of civil penalties issued and the recovery rate to expect for civil penalties of higher values than seen historically.

On enforcement activity, between January 2023 and November 2023, more than 1,400 right-to-work civil penalties were issued; that is an increase of 40% on the same period in 2022. The value of the right-to-work civil penalties issued was more than £26 million, which is 45% more than in the same period in 2022. Between January 2023 and the end of September 2023, 10,509 enforcement visits took place, of which 4,721 were illegal working enforcement visits. In 2022, 6,865 enforcement visits took place, of which 2,808 were illegal working enforcement visits. Illegal working enforcement visits have increased by more than 40% in 2023 from the same period in 2022.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked where the funds go. They are collected from civil penalties and are required to be paid into the Consolidated Fund after deductions from processing costs.

I think I have dealt with all of the questions. I have committed to write to my noble friend Lord Lilley on the DWP-related matters. Addressing illegal working and renting not only protects the domestic labour and housing market but identifies unscrupulous employers, landlords and letting agents who exploit vulnerable migrants. Equally, it ensures that only those in the UK legally with permission to work and rent are able to do so. On that basis, I commend these orders to the Committee.

Motions agreed.

Immigration Detention: Brook House Inquiry

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my interests as laid out in the register.

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

My Lords, the Government are carefully considering the findings of the Brook House inquiry, set out in its detailed report, in relation to the management of the immigration detention estate and the welfare of detained individuals. There are no plans to introduce a time limit on immigration detention.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the inquiry exposed the dehumanising abuse of vulnerable people held in immigration detention. Unfortunately, the report’s author states that these issues remain in place today. We understand that a senior civil servant has been tasked to prepare the Government’s response, to be published “in due course”. I wonder whether “in due course” will have ended nine months from now. Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Secondly, the report’s recommendation on a time limit was meant to be alongside the Home Office guidance on imminent times of removal. Will the Home Office seriously consider that recommendation, putting it alongside the current guidance, so that people are not detained for periods for which they are not intended?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s view is that a time limit on immigration detention would significantly impair our ability to remove those who have breached our immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. It is likely to encourage and reward abuse, allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate the removal process until the time limit is reached. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made simply to push a person over the time limit, regardless of the circumstances of their case. That would undermine our ability to maintain effective immigration control and would potentially place the public at higher risk, in particular through the release of foreign national offenders into the community.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talks about abuse, but the abuse found in the Brook House inquiry report was by G4S staff, with terrible abuse perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable people. We believe in custody time limits in this society. Even suspected terrorists can be held for no more than 14 days. Why should these desperate people be held without limit of time?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the supplier has changed; as of 2020, Serco now looks after this particular situation. I would also say that the vast majority of people are in fact detained for less than 28 days: 65% are detained for 28 days or less and 23% are detained for seven days or less.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, Kate Eves’s report included a number of recommendations requiring immediate and urgent implementation, because they related to serious issues such as the use of force and use of segregation. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government have now done in response to those particular recommendations? If nothing has been done, can the Minister explain why not?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, a lot of the work had already been done, because there was a report commissioned in 2016 by Stephen Shaw, who was then the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. The Government acted in response to that report, before the documentary that prompted the Brook House report. The Home Office has implemented steps across the removal estate to enhance assurance and oversight of service provision. We have strengthened our capacity to provide assurance and oversight of service provision both at the Gatwick IRC and in the wider removal estate. That includes action to refresh and reinforce whistleblowing arrangements, improve information flows and analysis of complaints, address incidents and use of force and enhance supplier and Home Office engagement with detained individuals.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I have studied the first part of the report and looked at the rest of it, and one recurring theme in that report is the gross incompetence of G4S. A number of proposals have been put forward for improvement under the new manager, Serco. Can the Minister say something about those improvements that will be made and whether he has confidence in Serco? Another recurring theme in the report is the level of drug abuse, which really seems to be quite appalling in an organisation and institution such as this. Can the Minister also say something about what will be done to solve that particular problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the new contract with Serco to run the Gatwick IRC commenced in May 2020 and runs for an eight-year period. The contract provides increased staffing levels, improved use of modern technology and enhanced investment in resident activity and welfare services. We have strengthened our capacity to provide assurance and oversight of service provision at Gatwick and the rest of the removal estate, including action, as I have just said, to refresh and reinforce whistleblowing arrangements, improve information flows and analysis of complaints and address incidents and use of force. As regards the drugs point, the Government will be responding to the report in due course.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in his original Answer, the Minister said that the Government are carefully considering the Brook House inquiry report and will respond in due course. Why has the Minister therefore told us that they have already come to the conclusion that they will ignore what the Brook House inquiry said, namely that there should be a 28-day limit on immigration detention? As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti pointed out, that means that so-called immigration offenders are treated worse than terrorists.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That is not what I said; I said that the Government are considering the report. The cross-government working group, chaired by the director of detention services at the Home Office, is considering the report and all the recommendations, including those with wider applicability across the detention estate. As regards the 28 days, I go back to what I said earlier: in particular, we think that this would impair our ability to remove those who have breached immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. That would particularly place the community at risk, especially if foreign national offenders were released into the community. As I say, though, the vast majority are released within 28 days anyway.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, the inquiry found that the inappropriate use of restraint and force on detained persons suffering from mental illness was common at Brook House, with healthcare staff unaware of their responsibilities to monitor the welfare of detained persons during use of restraint. Regardless of this information, the Illegal Migration Act allows for the use of force against even children across the detention estate. What steps will be taken to ensure that the use of force is continually monitored and recorded for all detainees, but particularly vulnerable adults and children, to ensure that what occurred at Brook House is never allowed to happen again?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it should not be allowed to happen again. As I say, the Government are obviously considering all the recommendations, and that will clearly be part of the considerations. I am confident that there is no way that such a situation would be allowed to happen again.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, recommendation 19 of the Brook House report is on the attitude and behaviour of healthcare staff. The use of force on one person who had a serious heart condition lasted for about 18 minutes, was positively harmful and put him at further risk. The recommendation is for immediate guidance for healthcare staff and mandatory training. Can the Minister tell us if that has already been brought into practice?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that that was totally unacceptable, and the inquiry was obviously right to highlight it a something that needs urgent attention. As regards whether advice has been issued, I will have to come back to the noble Baroness, but I am pretty sure that those recommendations are being implemented.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, alluded to the fact that, in the case of those on bail, their detention is regulated by custody time limits. Will my noble friend the Minister agree that, in the case of immigration detention, it should always be regulated by the Hardial Singh principles, enunciated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and as reflected by the recent and now in force provisions of the Illegal Migration Act?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that; I agree with him. I would also point out that Stephen Shaw, as I mentioned earlier, wrote a report, which he updated in 2018, on welfare in immigration detention. He said the following:

“The current Government position is to oppose a time limit (whether of 28 days or any other period), but Parliament may at some point take a different view … at present, the case for a time limit has been articulated more as a slogan than as a fully developed policy proposal”.


I am afraid that I agree with that.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Will the noble Lord tell the House how many asylum seekers are now held in detention, in limbo, with their cases unheard by us—or never to be heard by us? Is he at all ashamed that Médecins Sans Frontières is having to look after them?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will stick to the question at hand, and will happily provide some statistics on the number of people in immigration detention as of 30 September last year. That number was 1,841, including those detained solely under immigration powers in prisons. That was 11% lower than at the end of September 2022, when there were 2,077 people in detention. I think that those numbers are encouraging and heading in the right direction.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, another of the inquiry’s findings was that vulnerable people in detention are not being afforded the appropriate protections that the safeguards recommended by Stephen Shaw are designed to provide, because of their dysfunctional operation. The latest report of the independent monitoring boards and new clinical evidence from Medical Justice—a core participant in the inquiry—show that the safeguards are still failing, including not identifying people at risk of self-harm or suicide, with serious and sometimes tragic consequences for mental and physical health. What steps are the Government therefore taking, as a matter of urgency, to ensure a more consistent and robust application of the safeguards, as called for in the inquiry report?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I have said, the detailed recommendations remain under review, but a lot of these issues were dealt with in response to Stephen Shaw’s report of 2016, which was then updated in 2018.

Tackling Spiking

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for this Statement about understanding and tackling spiking, and indeed for the document which accompanies it. It is good that the Government are making a series of proposals. If I pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, finished, on the change of the law, that is a useful clarification because if the law—even though it is there—is not being used by the criminal justice system, it is failing. I hope we will all be able to get behind that amendment when it comes through in the Criminal Justice Bill.

When I read the report, my heart sank. There are some good points, and I will come on to those in a minute. However, there is very little emphasis on tackling the prevalence of behaviour by perpetrators. There is a mention at the very end of the recommendations in the document that prevalence will be part of trying to highlight spiking, including

“increased arrests, detections, and prevention activity taking place”.

However, that prevention activity is unlikely to change the mindset of a young man—it is usually a young man—going out with some drugs that he wishes to use to spike somebody’s drink or even to use a needle. It always worries me that victims are the ones who need to read up and learn about how they can best protect themselves, while nothing is done to attempt to change the culture of the behaviour of the perpetrator. It seems to me that that is a big issue. Can the Minister say what is planned on this? For example, are there advertising schemes? We must get the perpetrators to think that it is absolutely unacceptable even to think about it—but I am struggling to see that.

Having been a health spokesperson, I am interested in the research into the capability of existing test kits. I know that most of the current test kits involve using a urine sample, which is impractical at the time: you can find out only afterwards if you have one of those tests. If it is the equivalent of the lateral flow test that was developed during the Covid pandemic, it would be enormously useful—but 150,000 will not go very far. I note the wording in the document is very careful in talking about the plan “to begin research”, but we ought to put some urgency on this. If there are 5,000 cases a year that we are aware of, they are putting a considerable burden on not only the victims but the entire criminal justice system. It seems that this should be a bigger priority for prevention.

My final point is on the training programme. Noble Lords will know that I go on and on about training programmes in relation to victims and the criminal justice system. They are really helpful for upskilling staff in the night-time economy. I declare an interest that one of my children works in the night-time industry, as a security guard. I know that she would welcome some training to accompany the other training that she has on safeguarding and other matters; it would be extremely helpful. It would be useful for particular sectors that work very much with young people—universities and further education providers—as well as the night-time industry.

My real concern is that we need to get to the people who think that it is acceptable to perpetrate this crime. I do not see any of that in the Statement.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. They are right: everybody deserves to feel safe when they are out enjoying Britain’s thriving night scene, especially over the festive period, when everyone’s social calendar gets a little busier.

The statutory report on spiking has been laid in Parliament and published on GOV.UK. As has been noted, spiking is already illegal, but we have listened and will change the law to make sure that spiking, as it manifests itself in the modern world and in all its forms, is clearly and comprehensively reflected in legislation. We hope that this will encourage more victims to come forward and report this often-underreported crime, which will then send a clear message that spiking will not be tolerated and that offenders can expect to face justice.

We have announced a package of new measures to tackle spiking, which, as all noble Lords will be aware, is an abhorrent crime and undermines the public’s right to feel safe in their communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, noted, that particularly applies to women and girls. The measures range from equipping the police to intensify their proactive interventions to prevent offences, to empowering venue staff to respond, protect victims and collect vital evidence, as well as the rollout of a reporting and advice tool for spiking incidents, including anonymous reporting.

I will get to the specific questions asked of me soon, but it might be of interest to noble Lords to know that, between May 2022 and April 2023, the police received 6,732 reports of spiking, including 957 reports of needle spiking, as was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. On average, the police receive a total of 561 spiking reports a month, which includes through needles, drinks and other forms. The majority of those come from females who believe that their drinks have been spiked, although spiking can and does affect anybody.

The measures that we are taking, which are non-legislative, are as follows. We are providing funding for the research into the capability of existing spiking testing kits, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to, and the potential development of new kits for venues and the police to detect whether someone’s drink has been spiked in real time. That is not as straight- forward as it sounds. There are a lot of drugs that can be detected, many of which are perfectly legitimate—including quinine, which of course comes in tonic. That makes life a little complicated when we are looking at this space, but the work is being done and funded.

There will be funding to train night-time venue staff to promote better detection of possible spiking incidents, as well as training in supporting and collecting evidence. We are working with the Security Industry Authority on its commitment to introduce spiking training to its existing licence-linked qualifications, which all applicants for DS licences have to undergo. We are working with the police on the national rollout of the online reporting tool for spiking, which allows individuals to report incidents quickly, easily and, if they wish, anonymously. We are introducing the intensification weeks, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby; police forces will conduct additional work on spiking, similar to current initiatives for county lines drug trafficking and knife crime. We are supporting the higher education regulator, the Office for Students, in the delivery of any requirements for English higher education providers to prevent and address various offences, including spiking. The publication of new information and support pages will set out organisations’ roles and responsibilities in tackling spiking, as well as updating the statutory guidance that accompanies the Licensing Act 2003.

On specific questions, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked what measures are in place to deal with premises whose irresponsible management, for example, might make it easier for offences such as spiking to take place. If there are concerns about how a licensed venue is being run, the police have the power under Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to issue a closure notice if there are reasonable grounds. There is also an expedited review process that allows licensing authorities to alter the licensing conditions granted to premises.

Mandating to carry out searches of nightclubs and so on is not quick or simple, but will require considerable consultation and potentially primary legislation.

On whether a new spiking offence would make it easier to collect data, for example, which the noble Lord mentioned, we have worked closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which established Operation Leicester to co-ordinate the national policing response to the crime. This has included ensuring that there is co-ordination between all 43 forces in England and Wales to centrally track incidents of spiking to gain a better understanding of the scale of the problem. That has demonstrated that we do not need legislation to ensure the consistency of recording and gain data insights from crime recording. Using the established network of crime registrars to develop central procedures can help to improve data capture more quickly when compared with the lengthy process involved in introducing and training law enforcement on the new offence. That is important work, and it is ongoing.

On timelines, we are in the early stages of developing the package. It is important that we do not overpromise and then underdeliver, but we will ensure that Parliament is well apprised of progress against these measures. The updated guidance for Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 was published yesterday. The spiking information and support pages will be published this week, ahead of Christmas, and both are available on GOV.UK.

As of 14 December, the police’s spiking reporting and advice service has been rolled out to 20 police forces across England and Wales; it will be rolled out to the remaining 23 in due course. The vehicle for refreshing the legislation and the language around the legislation, as referred to in the Statement, is the Criminal Justice Bill, which is in Committee in the other place and will be with us at some point in the new year.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a very good point about Christmas—everybody deserves to feel safe when they are out and about at this time of year. We recognise that it will take some time for these legislative and non-legislative measures to take effect, but there are obviously steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of spiking. It is encouraging to hear from the noble Lord that the young people he has spoken to are all aware that this is a problem. Young people need to watch out for friends and make sure they look after each other; never leave their drinks unattended; be cautious if they are given or bought a drink and consider accepting a drink only from people they know and trust; be wary of people reaching over their drinks; and alert staff and police immediately if they see anyone acting suspiciously around their drink or someone else’s. If they or a friend feel unwell, they should seek help from staff or call an ambulance immediately. These things are necessary; we should not have to say them, but they bear repeating.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me what the Government plan to do to develop our understanding of the motivations of the perpetrators. A literature review has been carried out by a team from the National Crime Agency and the University of Birmingham, as part of the statutory report on spiking. It concluded that it is hard to determine the actual levels of spiking from the existing literature, so we are considering what more we can do to shed light on this as we move forward with the recent measures announced as part of the report’s publication. I hear what the noble Baroness says, and there is more to be said on that in due course.

I have already referred to the testing kits, to some extent. We are not committing to producing new spiking testing kits, but we are carrying out research into the capability of existing kits. First we have to identify whether they meet police requirements or whether something new is needed to help venues and police detect, in real time, whether a drink has been spiked. At this stage, it remains our position that the only reliable testing method that can detect the range of potential substances used in spiking and that can later be used in court is the rapid urine-testing capability established by the police. Obviously, that is not ideal and has to be done in a very short space of time. I go back to this point: we strongly encourage anyone who believes that they or someone around them has been spiked to contact the police as soon as possible, so that samples can be taken for testing.

As I have said, the majority of samples—51%—contain a drug of no concern or no drug at all. A drug of no concern is one that does not have a rapid sedative effect or cause confusion to a victim. The most common are paracetamol and quinine, which illustrates the difficulty with this particular kit.

I think I have covered all the questions that were asked of me. I appreciate the House’s welcome for these measures, and we look forward to delivering on them in the new year.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the list of measures, on which we have now heard from the Minister, but point out that spiking affects people of all ages, and men as well as women. There was excellent coverage on “Channel 4 News” yesterday evening of a young man who was spiked anonymously and then contracted HIV. Of course, this happens not only in pubs, clubs and anonymously but in dating. In that respect, one must remember the murders by Stephen Port. I pay tribute to the sisters Donna and Jenny for getting justice for those who were subsequently murdered. What further measures can the Government take to address the institutional attitudes, often homophobia and biphobia, that prevent the proper investigation of spiking when it occurs not only in licensed premises but in prearranged dating?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important and welcome point. It is a fact that young men are less likely to record incidents of this sort of thing, for what reason I do not know, although I imagine that embarrassment and shame probably play a major part. Education has to be a factor in this, and we have to make it clear that, if you suspect that you have been a victim of spiking, it is necessary to get tested as soon as you can.

We are dealing with the culture behind some of these aspects in a much broader context. The Angiolini inquiry, which is looking into various incidents that have happened within the police over the last two years, will deliver its results soon. I hope that they go a considerable way to improving some of the cultural failings that have perhaps led to these things.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, given that the data collected by the NSPCC found that student was the highest-recorded occupation of those who had been spiked, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Government should work with universities and colleges to offer support for students and raise awareness about attending events in non-licensed private premises, such as student accommodation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. She is absolutely correct, of course. As I have already said, we all have a part to play in tackling spiking and it is vital that we do this collaboratively. The Government and law enforcement have engaged with the sector, both through the Department for Education’s spiking working group, which is chaired by Professor Lisa Roberts, the vice-chancellor of the University of Exeter, and as part of a range of freshers-related communications activity carried out this year and last. As part of its most recent phase, the Government’s behaviour-change campaign “Enough” has partnered with more than 30 universities in the UK and produced a range of bespoke online and offline communications assets, which look to speak directly to student and university scenarios. Spiking assets form part of this package of work.

I could go on, but I completely agree with my noble friend and there will be a lot more to say on this. A consultation is ongoing with the Office for Students, which is due to deliver its report at the beginning of next year. We will have more to say then.

Refugees: Notice Period for Home Office Accommodation

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to ensure that refugees are given 28 days’ notice before they are required to leave their Home Office accommodation, having received documentation after being granted asylum or being given leave to enter or remain.

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

My Lords, the current practice is that individuals remain on asylum support and in asylum accommodation for 28 days from the point of the biometric residence permit being issued. This means that individuals have longer than 28 days’ notice after receiving their grant of leave to make onward arrangements.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, last week during the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the case was well made that the 28-day period is inadequate and should be extended to 56 days to allow universal credit and housing benefit to come through. However, many of those who support refugees are receiving increasing numbers of concerns that refugees are being given as few as seven days’ notice before being evicted, causing widespread homelessness and greater concern. Last week, I, along with 45 faith and belief leaders, wrote to the Minister for Illegal Migration and the Faith Minister about this. What data is the Home Office collecting that demonstrates that the 28-day notice period is being properly implemented? What action will it take to review it, given reported failures to do so?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will go through the process: all individuals who receive a positive decision on their asylum claim can remain on support and in their accommodation for at least 28 days from when their decision is served. However, as I said in my earlier Answer, current practice is that individuals remain on that support and in accommodation for 28 days from the point of the biometric residence permit being issued. That can be five to seven days after the asylum decision. This means that individuals have longer than the 28 days’ notice after receiving their grant of leave to make onward arrangements. Confirmation of the exact date that an individual’s support and accommodation are due to end will be issued in a notice-to-quit or notice-to-vacate letter from the individual’s accommodation provider. This notice will be issued at least seven days before support and accommodation is due to end. There are at least three opportunities there where the asylum seeker, or the asylum claimant who has received a decision, will be notified. They have plenty of time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, last week the Minister said that 28 days was “more than enough” and “perfectly generous”. Has he read the research done over the years, which shows the hardship and heartache that that period causes to newly recognised refugees at the point where they should be delighted because they have got their status? If he has not read the research, please will he do so—and will he undertake to meet those organisations on the ground that know what it is like to have to try to find somewhere in 28 days?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I have tried to explain, it is more than 28 days. The underlying aspect of this is that we should be moving to 56 days; I am afraid that we simply do not agree. The asylum accommodation estate is under huge strain, as all noble Lords are aware. Increasing the move-on period would exacerbate those pressures. Therefore, there are no current plans to extend the prescribed period, which is long-standing in our legislation; but we engage with the Department for Work and Pensions and DLUHC on ensuring that individuals can move on as smoothly as possible. I have read some of the research—not all of it—and I will continue to do so.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to the modest proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Asylum seekers given the right to remain must be given a realistic timeframe to move out of temporary Home Office accommodation, bearing in mind the trauma that they have suffered and their lack of familiarity with their new surroundings. Sikh teachings on the need to help such people echo Christian sentiment, which pointedly reminds us that Jesus and his family were themselves refugees in Egypt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will go through a little bit of what local authorities receive from the department. We work closely with DLUHC and regularly engage with the local authorities to ensure that they are supported. We of course recognise that the number of individuals in the system and the clearance of the asylum backlog is adding pressure to local authorities and their housing allocation capacity because of individuals presenting as homeless. I would also say to the noble Lord that all of the people being cleared in relation to the backlog have been in this country for a long time already.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the problem that the Minister has just alluded to is that local authorities are under enormous pressure when people arrive on their doorstep with a short period of time in which to find themselves appropriate housing. Given that the number of people reporting after the decision-making is now larger than it was, what extra assistance are the Government giving to local authorities, and to the voluntary sector, which is doing so much to help where it can?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there are a number of things that we are doing. We have local authority liaison officers who provide a specific point of contact for local authorities, particularly for urgent discontinuation-related inquiries. There are significant improvements in train to ensure that local authorities receive early notification of those who are being granted and leaving Home Office accommodation and supporting those customers through the move-on process following a positive decision. Following notification of a service decision, accommodation providers will notify local authorities within two days. We also share relevant data in the form of heat maps and various other macro data, if you will, to ensure effective planning.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has just told us, the reality for many refugees with newly granted status is that they are required to leave their accommodation, often within seven days from being given a notice to quit. That means they are forced to go to their local authorities and many of them are homeless or on the streets. That is the reality, and it is the result of government policy. All the Minister tells us is that everything is fine, but it is not. It needs sorting out.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that they get seven days from the notice to quit, but they get 28 days from the issue of the biometric residence permit, so it is not quite right.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, a little while ago I was talking to an organisation that looks after people who become homeless. It quoted a recent example of a refugee who could not find any accommodation in the time that he had and eventually had to sleep for a week at Euston station—having gone through all the trauma of being a refugee and all that that entailed—before this charity picked him up. That is not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I certainly regret the individual circumstances described by the noble Lord and, obviously, we would prefer that not to be the case.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder if the Minister would actually answer the question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. She made the point that sources—I assume they are sources that she respects—inform her that people have seven days in which to find alternative accommodation. Will the Minister look into the examples that she has raised? Surely everything he says means that he at least thinks 28 days is necessary.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, I think 28 days is necessary, and of course I will look into those. As I say, everyone gets 28 days from the issue of the biometric residence permit.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have made a right mess of this. They inherited a system that worked and have broken it. Is it not wrong for refugees to find themselves out on the streets? Have they not suffered enough? Should the Government not be making sure that no refugee is homeless?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord in as much as no one should find themselves homeless. I also agree that the refugee system is obviously under enormous strain. I therefore look forward to the noble Lord’s enthusiastic support for the Rwanda Bill when it arrives.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister confident that these refugees are made aware that the 28 days is commencing when they get their biometric assessment, or do they not realise that until they get the seven-day notice?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness asks me a good question. I am going to look into that, because I do not know. I assume that they are made aware of it, of course, but I have not been present when one of these notices is issued. I will find out.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, the most eloquent contribution to this short debate has been the silence of the Members on the Conservative Benches. Is it not a fact that, as was alluded to in the right reverend Prelate’s question, getting into the system for benefits and the rest of it requires more than the length of time that we are talking about?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord that that is not the case. You can start to apply for things like universal credit before you receive the biometric residence permit. I appreciate that that is not perfect, but it is certainly enough time to get into the system.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem here is that asylum seekers are restricted in their ability to work until they receive their asylum status? Therefore, when they receive their asylum status, they have no resources that they can use in order to obtain accommodation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point, and I will take that back to the department.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Minister will take that point back, but it is entirely salient and, if I may say so, I am surprised that he does not have a slightly more substantive answer. Does he also agree that one of the difficulties that many of these people face is that English is not by any means their first language and sometimes they do not have reasonable fluency in it after several years in this country? Does he accept that these additional challenges make the timeframes extremely difficult for people to manage?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I acknowledge that nothing in this particular space is easy, but there are many organisations that provide support to individuals to arrange their onward support. That includes Migrant Help, accommodation providers, DWP and jobcentres. I made the point earlier that most of the people we are talking about have been in this country for a very long time, and one would hope that they at least had some English.