Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

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

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

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

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

had he still been alive.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

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

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

Afghan Interpreters

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins]

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

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

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

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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


these are the key words—

“in exposed or meaningful roles”.

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

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“knows, or is reckless as to whether”

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Motion agreed.

Firearms Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Healthcare: Controlled Drugs

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, first, I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for securing this debate. If I may say, I hope that no noble Lords, including the noble Lord, ever have personal need on this particular subject. I note his points on the simplicity of making this statutory instrument and the delay in legislating, and I shall come back to that in a moment.

I want to start by stressing at the outset, as the noble Lord and others noted, that the Government recognise the importance of this issue and the value that independent prescribing by front-line health professionals, such as paramedics, brings to the National Health Service. Doctors and vets are generally able to prescribe medicines containing controlled drugs, with accompanying rights to administer and direct others to administer them. In addition, other healthcare professionals can undergo specialist training to prescribe, supply and administer controlled drugs. Paramedic independent prescribers are therefore distinct from other paramedics and will be able to prescribe medicines specified in the legislation.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for going into some detail in this regard, because it gives me an opportunity to expand the definition of “advanced paramedics”, and perhaps add some colour. The number is expected to increase in line with the recommendations of the new long-term workforce plan, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. This change in legislation supports that development. As has been noted, that will benefit both the patient and the wider healthcare systems.

All paramedics are required by law to register with the Health and Care Professions Council. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, according to its register, as of March, there are 1,708 paramedic independent prescribers and 219 therapeutic radiographer independent prescribers in the UK. Paramedic independent prescribers are utilised in a wide range of settings, which can include, but are not limited to, things like emergency departments—same-day emergency care, air ambulances, GP surgeries, out-of-hours services, walk-in centres, community palliative care teams, virtual wards and hospital-at-home services, hospices and so on, as well as on general and specialised wards.

Independent prescribing supports an expectation that patients should be cared for and treated by the most appropriate healthcare professional to meet their needs where it is safe and appropriate. The main purpose of paramedic independent prescribers is to allow those working at an advanced level of practice to be able to independently assess, diagnose and treat patients in a single episode of care, rather than refer them on to another healthcare professional. This is in line with the example that the noble Lord provides, in that, under this new legislation, a patient with an acute onset of pain could be prescribed oral morphine by a paramedic independent prescriber rather than being referred on to a GP or otherwise.

With all that in mind, the Government are wholly supportive of the proposals to enable prescribing of the five specified controlled drugs by paramedic independent prescribers, which is why we accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, or ACMD, last year. We intend to legislate to make this change alongside other changes relating to the use of controlled drugs in healthcare by podiatrists, therapeutic radiographer independent prescribers, and those acting under patient group directions. As the noble Lord points out, the changes can be achieved by a negative Statutory Instrument, and we intend to bring forward this legislation by the end of the year. I have become a master of obfuscation while doing this job, but there is no need in this case.

The prescribing and supply of medicines is a policy lead for Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care, as has been noted, and it is governed by medicines legislation. In the present case, the drugs involved are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which is the responsibility of the Home Office. The 1971 Act makes specified activities in respect of controlled drugs generally unlawful. But because many controlled drugs have legitimate uses in healthcare, the 1971 Act enables Ministers to provide exemptions that are set out in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

Under the 1971 Act, Ministers are required to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, an independent scientific advisory body, before making changes to drugs legislation. Therefore, there are two departments, the Home Office and the Department of Health, working together on issues connected to controlled drugs in healthcare, taking advice from the ACMD and through consultation. The ACMD provided advice to Ministers regarding the prescribing of controlled drugs by paramedics, as has been noted, in October 2019. The Home Office and the DHSC worked together to consider this advice. After the report was published, the Government were required to focus on addressing the threat of Covid-19, as I am sure noble Lords will understand. Alongside other pressures on healthcare, the topic of independent prescribing was not prioritised. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government responded, accepting the ACMD recommendations in September 2022.

I assure your Lordships that Home Office and DHSC officials are working on the necessary amendments to the legislation, and we intend to introduce them by the end of the year. Where I referred to parliamentary procedure in the letter mentioned by the noble Lord, I am afraid that that is just standard language; there is no particular attempt to confuse or, to use my earlier word, obfuscate. We are carefully working through the legal drafting to ensure that each of the professions will have clarity on their new rights and responsibilities so that they can confidently carry out their duties. These include such details as whether the professional can direct others to administer the specified controlled drugs; whether the professional can compound the drugs; and whether they are obliged to record information about their prescribing and, when required, furnish information about it.

In addition, technical amendments need to be made to ensure that the measures are effective: for example, to ensure that patients supplied with controlled drugs in accordance with a prescription from the professional are in lawful possession, and to ensure that interdependencies between the 2001 regulations and those for which the DHSC are responsible under medicines legislation are properly aligned.

In his speech, the noble Lord described these changes as simple. Although the amendments to be made may seem simple, the complexity of the 2001 regulations should not be underestimated. My officials tried to explain them to me the other day and they will cheerfully attest to the fact that I looked very confused for a very long time. Officials from the Home Office and the DHSC have worked alongside lawyers to draft these regulations over several months to ensure that they are accurate and aligned with medicines legislation. I hope it is clear that the Government understand the imperative of this work and are prioritising the legislation accordingly.

To answer a few specific questions, the noble Lord, Lord Hallam, asked whether the forthcoming ban on nitrous oxide will have any impact on healthcare. I can assure him that it will remain available in healthcare as a Schedule 5 drug, and that can also be achieved by a negative statutory instrument. I suspect that we may return to that next week.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked me about patient safety in prescribing. Prescribing policy is a matter for the DHSC, but I will make sure that he gets a detailed response on that subject. I can say that benzodiazepines—forgive my pronunciation—are controlled under drugs legislation, with three novel benzos being added in 2021. I hope that he does not intervene on me to ask for clarification because I am not sure that I will be in a position to provide much.

The noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked about the safety of prescribing. The ACMD advised that prescribers will have comprehensive training, and existing auditing and sanctions processes will manage inappropriate prescribing, should it occur.

In closing, I thank Members for all their contributions to today’s discussion, which has been both instructive and insightful. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for securing the debate. He is absolutely right to highlight this important topic. I also thank Mr Johnny Hood, senior advanced clinical practitioner, who wrote to both the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and me. I rudely did not reply to his letter, but I hope he is paying attention to this debate. I thank him for his letter, which I read and noted.

I have heard what has been said and I hope I have provided some clarity and reassurance around the current position. As I have set out, we fully recognise the significance of this issue and work is at an advanced stage to address it as soon as possible by the end of this year.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 September be approved.

Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, before getting into the detail of this order, I take this opportunity to apologise sincerely to the House that news of the Home Secretary’s decision, which we are here to debate, became public before the order was laid. I am grateful to House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see Wagner Group, a truly brutal organisation, proscribed.

Some 78 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Not only is proscription a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations, it sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorist activity globally. Wagner Group are terrorists. As such, the Home Secretary proposes amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding Wagner Group, also referred to as Wagner Network, to the list of proscribed organisations.

For an organisation to be proscribed, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is currently concerned in terrorism as set out in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. If this statutory test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider the proportionality of proscription and decide whether to exercise her discretion.

Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties. It criminalises being a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, and wearing articles of a proscribed organisation in a way that arouses suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter. Penalties are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Proscription 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.

This builds on sanctions already in place on Wagner Group. Terrorist financing incurs criminal, rather than civil, penalties, and allows the Government ultimately to forfeit terrorist property, rather than just freeze an individual’s assets. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making by 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.

A great deal of carnage can be laid at the feet of Wagner Group, a Russian private military company that emerged following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Putin’s first illegal invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014. It has acted as a proxy military force on behalf of the Russian state, operating in a range of theatres including Ukraine, Syria, the Central African Republic, Sudan, Libya, Mozambique and Mali. It has pursued Russia’s foreign policy objectives and the objectives of other Governments who have contracted Wagner’s services. In the hours following Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, Wagner was reportedly tasked with assassinating President Zelensky—a task in which it failed, thanks to the heroism and bravery displayed by Ukrainian security forces.

Wagner Group describes itself in heroic terms, even suggesting, abhorrently, that it is the saviour of Africa. That private military companies remain illegal under Russian law is something that has never particularly concerned Putin. Putin can distort the truth to suit himself all he likes, but the truth is that the Wagner Group are terrorists.

With this House’s consent, Wagner Group will be proscribed. Having carefully considered all the evidence, including advice from the cross-government proscription review group, the Home Secretary has decided that there is sufficient evidence that allows her to reasonably believe that Wagner Group is concerned in terrorism, and that proscription is proportionate. Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities supporting this decision. I warn the House that some of this detail is deeply unpleasant.

Wagner Group commits and participates in terrorism; this is based on its use of serious violence against Ukrainian armed forces and civilians to advance Russia’s political cause. Wagner played a central role in combat operations against Ukrainian armed forces to seize the city of Popasna in May 2022 and during the assault of Bakhmut, largely occupied by Russian forces this year. This assault has resulted in the virtual destruction of a city once home to 70,000 people. Wagner barely showed any more concern for the lives of its own side. Defence Intelligence has assessed that up to 20,000 convicts, recruited directly from Russian prisons on the promise of a pardon and an early release, were killed within a few months of the attack on Bakhmut. Wagner’s relentless bombardment of Bakhmut was one of the bloodiest episodes in modern military history.

Noble Lords may also be aware of multiple reports alleging unbelievable brutality by Wagner commanders against their own troops who retreat, desert or otherwise refuse to carry out their leaders’ orders. The most notorious of these—the killing of a purported deserter, murdered by a sledgehammer blow to the head—has even been glorified by Wagner’s leaders and Russian ultra-nationalists. This macabre culture and brutality are indicative of the fact that Wagner Group is a terrorist organisation, not just a private military company.

The group carries out preparatory acts for terrorism, including undertaking activities intended to cause serious violence against people or serious damage to property, directly to advance a political cause and to intimidate opponents in Ukraine. Ukrainian prosecutors have accused Wagner Group fighters of war crimes near Kyiv, in which the tortured bodies of civilians were found with their hands tied behind their backs in the village of Motyzhyn.

Wagner Group has also been implicated in serious acts of violence and damage to property while working in several countries in Africa. A UN report published in May this year implicated Wagner Group in the massacre of at least 500 people in the Malian town of Moura in March 2022, including summary executions as well as rape and torture. In June 2021, a panel of experts convened by the UN Security Council detailed atrocities in the Central African Republic, including

“excessive use of force, indiscriminate killings, the occupation of schools and looting on a large scale, including of humanitarian organizations”.

Despite its mutiny in June this year, and the reported death of its leader Yevgeny Prigozhin last month, Wagner Group remains a violent and destructive organisation. Proscription sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackle terrorist activity and builds on our existing cross-government work to counter Wagner Group’s destabilising activities. Its leadership’s recent feud with senior Russian military figures is a predictable consequence of Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine, but it is fundamentally a distraction from the fact that Wagner Group continues to commit violent acts around the world.

While Putin’s regime wavers over what to do with the monster it has created, Wagner’s continuing destabilising activities only serve the Kremlin’s political goals. All this means that the case for action is now stronger than ever. Wagner is vulnerable. A leadership vacuum and questions about its future provide a unique opportunity to truly disrupt its operations and the threat it poses. That is why this House must proscribe Wagner now.

This decision comes after public calls from President Zelensky for international allies to take action and list Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation. In doing so, we stand alongside our allies in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and France, whose parliaments have called for Wagner Group to be labelled as a terrorist organisation on the EU’s list of terrorist groups. We continue to work in close co-ordination with the US, which designated Wagner Group under its transnational criminal organisations sanctions programme earlier this year. In formally proscribing, we will be leading the international effort by taking concrete legal action against Wagner Group. I urge our other allies to follow suit. This decision demonstrates that the UK will maintain its unwavering support for Ukraine, in co-ordination with our allies. It shows that we stand with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression.

Wherever Wagner Group operates, it has a catastrophic effect on communities, worsens existing conflicts and damages the reputations of countries that host it. Wagner may be at its most vulnerable, and Russia’s military leaders may be grappling to regain control of the organisation, but the brutal methods it has employed will undoubtedly remain a tool of the Russian state. Let there be no misunderstanding: whatever form Wagner takes, we and our allies will pursue, expose and disrupt it. Wagner Group is a terrorist organisation, and we must not be afraid of saying so. We will hold Russia to account for its use of these malign groups and the devastation they inflict around the world. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, while confronting terrorism with the relentless enthusiasm the public rightly expect. I commend this order to the House.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, since I and many other noble Lords in this House have long called for the Government to proscribe the Wagner Group, it is unsurprising that I give this legislation a warm welcome. The sad fact is that war, armed conflict, is a terrible thing. It results in death, maiming, destruction and wholesale suffering, but most of us understand that, regrettable as it may be, it cannot be eliminated from the world. We therefore have to do all we can to contain its devastating effects.

The global community in the 20th century put a great deal of effort into constructing laws of armed conflict that would do this, yet we see in Europe a conflict during which the most horrific war crimes have been, and are still being, committed. It is not just in Europe; we see it in many countries throughout Africa as well. In so many instances, the Wagner Group has been and is at the centre of them. The proscription of the group is therefore to be warmly welcomed. But it is not alone in committing these war crimes; only this morning I heard evidence of some of the things that have been going on in Ukraine, which frankly makes one’s blood run cold.

My simple comment to the Government is: well done on this. I welcome it; it is a step in the right direction. But if we are to live in anything approaching a civilised world in the future, there is much more to be done in addressing the war crimes being committed today in Ukraine. I hope the Government will take the strongest action in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

I say once again that we fully support the proscription of Wagner. In doing so, we all demonstrate once again our commitment to protecting democratic values, human rights, freedom and democracy. Wagner is a state-sponsored terrorist group, and we are all united in standing up against it. This order represents one more important step in doing so here in the UK, across Europe and, indeed, across the globe.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have contributed to this debate. A lot of ground has been covered, and I am encouraged by the supportive atmosphere in which the discussion has taken place. Members of the Wagner Group are terrorists, plain and simple, and am I confident that the House recognises, as do the British people, that we have a moral responsibility to act. We must and will confront terrorism wherever and however it occurs, and that is why we are taking this action.

I turn to the specific points raised. I start by reassuring, I hope, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that, in addition to our continued training offer to the national police of Ukraine to support Ukraine’s collection of evidence of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, the Home Office is currently providing short-term funding to the war crimes documentation centre, run by a Ukrainian NGO in Warsaw. It ensures that first-hand testimony from Ukrainian refugees in Poland is recorded. The UK is also providing £2.5 million to the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group to support Ukraine’s domestic investigations and prosecution of international crimes. We are also working extremely closely with the ICC in support of its investigations. That is a very comprehensive package of support, and I hope it continues and is enhanced.

A number of noble Lords asked what would happen if the Wagner Group merges with the Russian MoD or Redut. HMG keep the list of proscribed organisations under very careful review. It is not government policy to comment on whether an organisation is under consideration for proscription or whether the Government will consider a specific organisation, but proscription sends a strong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. The turmoil currently facing the Wagner Group presents opportunities for impactful disruption of its activities, and I will come back to that later.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Polak asked why it has taken so long. The decision has not been taken in isolation. It builds on a strong response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the Wagner Group’s wider destabilising activities, including extensive sanctions. The Government sanctioned the Wagner Group in February 2022, imposing asset freezes on any funds identified as belonging to Wagner in the UK and travel bans on any of its members. The Foreign Secretary expanded these sanctions in July this year, with 30 new UK sanctions targeting a range of individuals and businesses linked to the actions of the Wagner Group in Africa. The House will be aware of the recent significant events surrounding the Wagner Group, so it was right for the Home Secretary to consider the impact of those key events when taking the proscription decision.

Now is the time to proscribe. The turmoil currently facing the Wagner Group, as I have just said, presents opportunities to disrupt its activities. Proscription sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. This proscription reiterates the UK’s unwavering support to Ukraine and condemns Russia’s aggression, Wagner’s role in the war in Ukraine and its wider activities, which have consistently been linked to human rights violations, as others have noted.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what the impact of proscription is. It sends a very clear message and will enable us to disrupt significantly. In addition to the proscription offences, proscription can support other disruptive activity, including the use of immigration powers, encouraging the removal of online material, EU asset freezes and so on. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and therefore liable to be seized.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked why Prigozhin was able to circumvent sanctions to sue a journalist in this country. I refer the House to the statement made on this matter by my noble friend Lady Penn on 30 March this year. Following a review of how these licences are granted, it is now the Government’s view that in most cases the use of funds frozen due to sanctions for the payment of legal professional fees for defamation cases is not an appropriate use of funds and, in many cases, will be against the public interest. OFSI will in future take a presumption that legal fees relating to defamation and similar cases will be rejected.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked for clarification of the application of proscription offences. The membership offence under Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000—TACT—has extraterritorial jurisdiction, applying to anyone, wherever they are in the world. The support offence applies to any UK citizen or resident. Terrorist financing offences could also apply outside the UK. Once Wagner is proscribed, we will expect social media companies to identify and remove content that promotes or supports the Wagner Group.

I anticipated the question by my noble friend Lord Polak on the IRGC and I understand it, because there is obviously significant parliamentary, media and public interest in a potential proscription decision. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have discussed IRGC proscription, with the House of Commons unanimously passing a Motion in January to urge the Government to proscribe. As Ministers have previously made clear to the House, the IRGC’s destabilising and hostile activity is unacceptable, and we will use all tools at our disposal to protect the UK and our interests at home and abroad. That includes considering proscription where appropriate.

The UK Government have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety. While the department keeps the list of proscribed organisations under review, as I have said, our policy is not to comment on the specifics of individual proscription cases, and I am unable to provide further details on this issue. Ministers have previously confirmed to the House that this decision was under active consideration, but they will not provide a running commentary. I say to my noble friend that there is one difference: the IRGC is an Iranian military body answerable to Iran’s Supreme Leader. The Home Secretary’s role, as discussed in relation to Wagner, is to consider all available evidence before arriving at a decision.

A number of noble Lords asked what efforts have been made to persuade international allies to take co-ordinated action against the Wagner Group. His Majesty’s Government continue to work with key international partners to ensure that the Wagner Group is held to account on the world stage and to promote global efforts to curtail Wagner’s destabilising activity. When it comes to proscription decisions, the Home Secretary will consider the position of key international partners and, where appropriate, departments will undertake proactive engagement to explore the benefits of concerted multilateral action to increase the effect of proscription. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence have been very supportive of international engagement over this particular decision. I would also like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that this is very comprehensive and there is no way for Wagner or its offshoots to hide.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about Contest. I refer to the Government’s recent refresh of the integrated review, which set out that the UK will use all tools at our disposal to protect the UK against the modern threats we face.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will be happy if the Minister wishes to write to me on this, but I raised a point regarding entities that have contracted the Wagner Group as private security. This can include joint ventures with commercial organisations and countries we have friendly diplomatic relations with, including in the Gulf. Can the Minister write to me about how we will apply the extraterritorial aspects of this with regard to that component? That is very important to ensure that there is no avoidance of the very valid reasons we are doing this.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. He reminds me that I should have commented on his comments about a very specific country, which of course I am not really able to do in detail. I am sure that diplomatic efforts and overtures are ongoing. I am certainly happy to write to the noble Lord in as much detail as I am able to.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I was concerned when I read the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report about the 81 individuals who had been identified as linked to Wagner and how only a quarter had been actively sanctioned by the Government. Can the Minister update us on what is happening with that? If not, perhaps he can write to me and put a copy in the Library.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will not expect me to comment on live or ongoing situations. I will find out what it is possible to say and certainly have a conversation with him or place a letter in the Library, depending on what I am able to say.

I offer thanks to all who have participated in this debate. Through this proscription, the UK will again demonstrate that we will not waver in our support for Ukraine and will hold Russia to account for its aggression. We condemn Wagner’s role in Russia’s war. Its wider activities have consistently been linked to human rights violations. Through this action, we are sending a message loud and clear that the United Kingdom will never stay silent in the face of injustice or stop fighting terrorism. Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about Wagner’s future, I sincerely hope that it does not have one. I commend this order to the House.

Motion agreed.

National Crime Agency: Fraud and Economic Crime

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the total number of National Crime Agency staff dedicated to the prevention or investigation of (1) fraud, and (2) economic crime.

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

My Lords, due to operational sensitivity and flexible deployment of resources in response to demand, it is not possible to provide a precise figure of staff allocated to a particular type of criminality. However, the NCA’s National Economic Crime Centre, the NECC, leads the response to economic crime, including fraud. As of 1 August 2023, the headcount for the NECC, which brings together law enforcement agencies, government departments, regulatory bodies and the private sector, was 123.5 full-time equivalent. Many other teams across the NCA also contribute to the investigation of economic crime, in addition to the NECC.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the only way to assess the adequacy or otherwise of resources devoted to battling fraud, which was assessed last year to cost this country £219 billion, and economic crime—I understand that the Government’s own assessment is that this costs the country between £300 billion and £350 billion—is to look at the results. Will the Minister tell the House how many investigations the NCA has conducted in each of, or even one of, the last three years? How many cases of fraudsters targeting the UK from abroad have resulted in any criminal justice outcome and how many in any form of disruptive action? If he cannot do that, can he tell us how many investigations the Government expect it to conduct this year?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Significant resources are being allocated to the NECC to improve its investigatory capabilities. It will end up with an additional 400 new officers dedicated to tackling fraud; some of those will go to the NCA, some to the City of London Police and some to regional and organised crime units. They will be recruited by March 2025. There are also 475 new highly trained financial crime investigators, partly funded by the economic crime levy, who will also be spread across intelligence, enforcement and asset recovery at key agencies. I will not speculate as to their likely success, but I certainly hope they have some.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, has the time not come to simplify the investigation of fraud? As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, suggested, the crimes are massive and the response is weak, even with the investment the Government are about to make. The problem with local forces investigating is that violence always trumps theft, so resources are devoted more to violence. At the moment, the complex nature of the crime—crypto, cross-jurisdictional, online—is complicated further by a 43-force response, regional units, NCA, SFO; I could go on. Surely the time has come to have one force dedicated to prevention, detection and the recovery of assets.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the City of London Police partially fulfils that function. It prioritised investigators to the City of London as part of its recent increase in the numbers of police. Angela McLaren, the commissioner there, has a strong background in economic crime and its investigation, and the City of London Police runs an economic crime academy. The noble Lord makes an interesting point about having just one agency, but that agency is the National Economic Crime Centre, which co-ordinates all the various activities across the various police forces, including regional organised crime units.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, given that the UK cyber industry plays a critical role in supporting law enforcement to tackle cyber-enabled fraud, when will the Government reform the Computer Misuse Act so that the cyber industry does not face legal jeopardy for protecting our citizens and businesses online? Is it not high time that the Home Office came to a conclusion on its review?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot speculate on that Act but the anti-fraud champion, Anthony Browne MP, has been having some close engagement with industry. An online sector charter—which I appreciate is not entirely the same thing but is certainly related—is due to be published in the autumn, so we should watch and wait for that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Hourglass, the charity particularly concerned with abuse of older people, has drawn attention to the problems of economic crime and financial abuse that affect many older people. Is this being taken forward by the agency as an area that it needs to give more attention to?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point that we should not forget the victims of economic crime. I want to make two points here. First, the fraud strategy looks at three aspects of this crime: pursuing the individuals doing it, empowering people to avoid it—which takes in the victims the noble Lord describes—and preventing the scams and whatnot taking place in the first instance. Secondly, as the noble Lord will be aware, Action Fraud is being redesigned, which will help. Already, anybody who reports to Action Fraud where vulnerabilities are detected will receive a bespoke counselling service after they have engaged with it.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister will know well that one of the themes that emerged during our debates on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill was the inequality of bargaining power that often existed between the agencies that have to pursue fraudsters and those fraudsters, who were often heavily lawyered-up to enable them to resist any applications. One of the initiatives brought forward by this Government under the Criminal Finances Act was unexplained wealth orders. Can the Minister explain why they have been used on so few occasions? Is it because of lack of resources? Is it because of the risk on costs? What other explanation is there for such a powerful potential weapon not being utilised?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware, from other conversations that we have been having around the various aspects of the Bill that will go through the House this afternoon, that the agencies tell us they are appropriately resourced. I cannot account for the small number of UWOs that have been issued, but I will continue to keep it under review and report to the noble Lord.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Browne made a really good point about the number of people investigating fraud, because people generally feel that fraud is given a very low priority. The Government themselves have said that in recruiting people there is a particular need to understand that the type of person with the sorts of skills that need to be recruited may be different from the normal crime-fighting model that we have. They have also said that they are taking steps to address that, particularly in respect of cybercrime. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to recruit people with the necessary skills in this area?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point, and I think he is aware of my opinions on this subject. Clearly, it is a difficult area for the entire economy—not just the agencies responsible for fighting crime but those who are involved in the online world where, of course, much of this crime takes place. I have referred to the large number of new officers being recruited; as far as I understand it, they are on track to be recruited according to the timescales that have been set out. I cannot really comment any more on the recruitment process itself, but I will certainly ask the question and come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, what steps will the Government take to introduce a safer ageing strategy for older people to protect them against economic crime and fraud?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I just referred to the fraud strategy that was published in May this year, a sizeable part of which is about empowering people to avoid being defrauded in the first place. I recommend that the noble Baroness refers back to that; of course, I would be happy to discuss it further in future debates.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, would the National Crime Agency not be in a stronger position today had it not appointed as its director-general of operations Mr Steve Rodhouse, who is currently suspended from his normal duties while he is investigated for gross misconduct as head of the infamous Operation Midland, through which our former colleagues Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan and others were hounded mercilessly over allegations made by a fantasist? Is it not shocking that, so far, of all those found culpable by Sir Richard Henriques after his independent inquiry seven years ago, Mr Rodhouse alone has been the subject of a disciplinary process?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asks a good question. It is one that I am unable to answer; I cannot speculate as to whether it would have had that much operational impact on the National Crime Agency. I go back to the point I made earlier: the NCA is well resourced and its budget has increased year on year since 2019. I do not believe that it should have had any impact, but my noble friend is entitled to his point of view.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister say something about why and how the Government protect those who engage in economic crime and fraud? Let me refer to an example. The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was closed in July 1991 after the biggest banking fraud of the 20th century. To this day, there has been no independent investigation. Through litigation against the Treasury, I obtained one document, codenamed the Sandstorm report, which shows that the Government are protecting al-Qaeda, arms and drug smugglers, murderers and others who committed fraud through that bank. I invite the Minister to place a copy of the Sandstorm report in the Library of the House and, if he will not, to explain what is so secret that it cannot be made public.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will not place a copy of that report in the Library. I am afraid that I am not qualified to speak on events from 32 years ago.

Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matter) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matter) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023.

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

My Lords, this order amends the Police Act 1997 to require all unspent convictions and cautions to be disclosed on standard or enhanced criminal record certificates issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service—DBS.

The DBS issues three types of criminal record certificate: a basic certificate, which is available for any role; and two higher levels—standard and enhanced—which are available for roles that require a high level of public trust and/or working closely with children or vulnerable adults. More criminal history information is disclosed on the standard and enhanced checks than on the basic, in proportion to the sensitivity of the roles to which they relate.

The legislation which governs disclosure on basic certificates is different from that which determines what is disclosed on standard and enhanced. Disclosure on a basic certificate is governed by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This sets out the periods of time after which convictions and cautions become spent. Once spent, they are not disclosed on a basic DBS certificate. Disclosure on a standard or enhanced certificate is governed by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and Section 113A of the Police Act 1997. Together, these allow an employer recruiting for more sensitive roles to see a person’s fuller criminal history.

The filtering rules that govern this disclosure on standard and enhanced certificates define particular criminal records as a relevant matter which must be disclosed. The definition of “relevant matter” includes the seriousness of the offence, whether there was a custodial sentence and the length of time since the date of conviction or caution. The intention is that the convictions covered by the definition of “relevant matter” should include the unspent convictions disclosed on a basic check, in addition to more serious spent convictions, which are relevant to more sensitive roles.

However, the filtering rules do not currently include explicit reference to whether a conviction or caution is spent. This has created an anomaly where, in certain limited circumstances, an unspent conviction that would be disclosed on a basic certificate would not be disclosed on a standard or enhanced certificate.

An example may assist, the most straightforward of which involves youth conditional cautions which remain unspent for three months or until the condition is met if earlier. So if somebody applies for a basic DBS check during that three-month window, the youth conditional caution will be disclosed. However, there is no provision for youth conditional cautions to be disclosed automatically on a standard or enhanced check, even during the three-month window in which they remain unspent.

This might play out as follows. Let us say that a 17 year-old receives a youth conditional caution for common assault. Two months later, they apply to volunteer in a nursery and are required to undertake an enhanced DBS check. There is no provision for their youth conditional caution to be automatically disclosed on the enhanced check so it comes back clean. However, to earn some money alongside their volunteering, the 17 year-old also applies for a job in a supermarket, for which they are asked for a basic DBS check. The basic check discloses the youth conditional caution because it is not yet spent. The supermarket therefore ends up with access to more information than the nursery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this appears to be a sensible SI. No concerns were raised by the SLSC, nor was the instrument reported by the JCSI. It will align the separate rules which determine what criminal record information is automatically disclosed on a basic DBS check, on the one hand, and what is disclosed on the higher-level standard and enhanced DBS checks, on the other, so that higher-level checks will never disclose less criminal information than is disclosed on a basic DBS check. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The Home Office is working with DBS to ensure that this change and the timing for this to come into effect, is widely understood by those it may affect”.


The example that the Minister gave of the 17 year-old working in a supermarket and then also applying to work with children was a very good one, and one which I have actually seen myself in youth courts. I had not realised that there was this anomaly, and I am glad that this SI is rectifying it.

This morning, I sent the Minister a particular conundrum I had, which is actually outside the strict remit of this statutory instrument. I will just run through that scenario, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer the question it raised with me. I was recently sitting as a magistrate to hear domestic violence protection order applications. Of course, these are civil orders. The applicant was a young mother, who was represented by a lawyer who happened also to be a part-time judge. The respondent, the former boyfriend, was unrepresented. The applicant’s lawyer suggested that the best way to deal with this matter was to not find any facts and just put an order in place for a relatively short time, and everyone could continue living their lives separately and the matter could be disposed of in that way quite quickly. I explained to the respondent that, if he were to breach that order, it would be a criminal offence and he needed to be aware of that. The respondent said to me that he was employed as a primary school teacher, and he was in a much more serious situation than seemed to be realised by the court. He would have to tell his headteacher if the DVPO had been put in place. So I put it off for a contested hearing and advised the young man to get a lawyer.

Subsequently, I talked about this case with a legal adviser, and she said that, as a solicitor, she would not have to disclose whether she had any equivalent civil order put in place. She would not have to tell the Solicitors Regulation Authority, so she doubted whether this primary school teacher would have to do so in his case. I did not know the answer to that question. I suspect there may well be more stringent regulations for teachers, particularly primary school teachers, and there is of course the wider question of all these—really quite a lot of—civil orders which magistrates now put in place, for the reasons we have often debated, and whether there are any guidelines for the various professional organisations about what the requirements for disclosure are and whether that is a ramification which may be taken into account within the whole DBS system.

Also this morning, I went on to the website of the charity Unlock, which deals with people who have left prison and who have had community sentences and that sort of thing. It has a number of worked examples about when things are declarable and when they are not, and at what stage of the job application process matters are declarable. It is an extremely complex picture. It is something which people often fall foul of, and the rules are not clear at all. Can the Minister say anything in a wider sense about how these checking procedures are being reviewed and simplified, from the point of view both of employers and of those people who do have criminal records, so that a system which is better understood can be operational, which would be to the benefit of both sides?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am glad that they both agree that this instrument is necessary to align the two sets of rules that determine disclosure of criminal records on basic certificates, on the one hand, and the standard and enhanced certificates on the other. This will ensure that on all occasions the levels of disclosure on criminal record certificates align with the levels of risk and vulnerability inherent in particular roles.

Perhaps if I go into a bit more detail, it will answer all or most of the noble Lord’s questions. I shall come back to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on his specific example towards the end. It is worth pointing out that the circumstances in which this might occur are very limited, which suggests that the practical impact is likely to be fairly low. The nature of the offences involved also reduces the impact of this anomaly. The DBS has had regular contact with employers regarding criminal record checks across a range of sectors, and we are not aware of any evidence that this lack of alignment between the two sets of rules has had any significant real-world impact. It is worth stating that. Although we believe this impact to be low in practice, it makes sense to rectify the situation.

To go into more of the sort of detail that the noble Lord, Lord German, asked for about the types of convictions or cautions that are currently not disclosed on standard and enhanced certificates, we believe that the practical impact of this lack of alignment is low. However, as mentioned earlier, with youth conditional cautions, which are only unspent and disclosed on a basic DBS check from three months of issue, it will apply only to those youth conditional cautions because they are immediately spent—so youth cautions will not be automatically disclosed. I hope that that answers that point.

Some of the other things that would be disclosed include earlier convictions in a string of repeat convictions. In that circumstance, there is likely to be a clear standard or enhanced DBS certificate. Then there are relevant orders, which include restraining orders and care orders—that sort of thing—if they relate to convictions that are old or less serious and if they have unlimited, indefinite or “until further order” end dates. As I said, we believe that the impact of this will be relatively low, but I hope that that gives an example of the sort of thing that we are dealing with here.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked what cautions are not disclosed on standard and enhanced certificates for the relevant matter, and asked whether this was not a safeguarding risk. We believe, as I have said a number of times, that the impact is likely to be low, given the limited circumstances in which it can occur, and the nature of the offences involved. I have gone through them to some extent: I have talked about the youth conditional cautions, the early convictions and relative orders, so I think that that generally answers the relevant question that the noble Lord asked me.

To go back to the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the case that came before him as a magistrate, this is not a complete answer—we will have to do some consultations with the Department for Education as well—so I hope that he will be content to leave that with me, and I shall return when I have concluded those discussions. From the perspective of the disclosure and barring regime, the domestic violence prevention order, if not handed down as part of a conviction, does not need to be disclosed by an individual to an employer, nor will it be automatically disclosed on any kind of DBS check. It is possible that a civil order such as this might be included as additional information on an enhanced check, but only if the police consider it to be relevant and proportionate to disclose. Teachers are subject to regular DBS enhanced checks, with children’s barred list checks. If there is a conviction, either due to a breach of the order or its attachment to a conviction, it would be disclosed on an enhanced DBS check. If asked by his employer, the teacher would be obliged to tell them of the conviction and the order.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that this is somewhat complicated—he makes a very good point about that. The Disclosure and Barring Service ensures that applicants and employers have guidance to explain the changes and the impact that they may have in any particular circumstances. It goes to both noble Lords’ questions as well as to the external bodies that have been consulted. We have certainly engaged with Unlock; whether it approves of this measure, I really could not say, but I would imagine so because it brings clarity to this situation. But we have certainly engaged with it and other interested stakeholders on a regular basis.

I should also say that existing guidance makes it clear that, where an employer is aware of a conviction, it should not be an automatic bar to employment. We urge employers to exercise a balanced judgment and take into account factors such as the person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago the offence took place, the nature of the offence and its relevance to the individual’s role. All of those deserve to be restated. I will take the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about simplifying the guidance, or the regime that delivers the guidance, and making it a little easier for people to understand.

With that, I think I have answered the questions. I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and once again commend this draft instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.