Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

Since Royal Assent, the Government have undertaken a range of implementation activities, including communication and engagement, to prepare those in scope for the commencement of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025. Section 27 statutory guidance outlining how to comply with the Act was published on 15 April 2026, and the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority continue to work closely on the design and build of the regulator function.

[Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I very much welcome the progress that has been made on the protection of premises Act and the recently published guidance but, sadly, as we know all too well, the threat picture is changing all the time, especially around changing attack methodologies and the changing nature of attacks, their perpetrators and their motivations. Staying ahead of this is particularly difficult for those small and medium-sized businesses that are caught in the standard tier of the legislation, which will be completely reliant on the advice provided by the Government. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me how they will be supported to keep up with this change in reality and helped to stay prepared in a way that feels practical and, most importantly, proportionate for them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the threat picture is complex: it is changing and there are evolving and enduring threats appearing at all times. The Government will continue to look at how and where it can support those in scope, especially small and medium-sized enterprises in the standard tier. For example, we are looking at developing some tools and templates, where appropriate, and looking at what we can do to help support training needs. The guidance I mentioned, to which my noble friend referred, was published. It is designed to assist those who are responsible for premises. Obviously, we will continuously get feedback from organisations before implementation at a date to be determined in the future.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that this law is known as Martyn’s law—that is Martyn with a “y”—in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was one of the victims of the terrible Manchester Arena attack in 2017. When this legislation was enacted, the Government announced that it would take two years before its implementation in 2027. Does that remain the Government’s expectation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We were very clear when the legislation was passed that we needed to have a period of implementation for a number of reasons, not least so that small and medium-sized organisations and others could have the guidance. We are on track to deliver this within a timeframe around, we hope, that two-year period. The statutory guidance, which I published on 15 April, is the first step; that came after extensive consultation with businesses and the private sector. The next step is to ensure that organisations have the ability to examine that guidance and look at it. The final implementation date is still to be determined, but it will certainly not be before two years.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Government have widened “nationally significant” infrastructure projects to other organisations and companies. I understand that, now, the Wirral peak cluster, which includes CCS development, will also be included in that category. It is going to cause immense environmental damage. Will that pipeline and project be protected in that way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Martyn’s law provisions, which were passed by both Houses of Parliament, set two tiers of organisation. The first tier, with around 155,000 premises in scope, is called the “standard tier”. Larger organisations facing potential threats of terrorism—there are some 24,000 of them—must have in place additional plans to ensure that they are prepared for potential terrorist activity. The type of activity that we have included in the guidance is around how individuals prepare for potential attacks, how they exit attacks and what training they give their staff. Therefore, under the terms and conditions of the Act that we passed, which concerns public access, any organisation that fits into those 24,000 premises will have to comply with those regulations.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, for “enhanced tier” premises, the Act requires a senior individual to be responsible for compliance. Although they are not personally liable for wider organisational failures, they may face prosecution if an offence occurs due to their neglect. Can the Minister say what guidance will be given on what “neglect” means in this context, so that senior managers and leaders are not put off taking on these very important roles?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is revisiting areas that we discussed during the passage of the legislation, on which I gave, I hope, clear answers. The statutory guidance—which I do not have with me, but which is quite a significant document—was published to give guidance to those nominated individuals responsible for managing properties for which they have a responsibility. We have also taken on over 100 new operational posts in the Security Industry Authority to assist with that, and there will be further guidance on contact that can be had. We also have a digital system undertaking, which we are issuing the contract for now, to manage this in an effective way. So I hope that those who have concerns will be able to look at the guidance and meet the statutory responsibilities that both Houses of Parliament have passed.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, Direct Action is taking action in the City of London to vandalise buildings and intimidate staff. Have the Government any plans to address this problem, which is costing millions of pounds in the City of London?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Those who commit those types of offences do not fall within the remit of Martyn’s law, but they do fall within the remit of other criminal justice legislation. If individuals committing vandalism or intimidation on buildings or staff can be identified, they will face the potential, through the City of London Police, of being taken to court and put in front of a jury. If the jury decides that they are guilty, they will be sentenced and face a penalty for that. It is absolutely right that we condemn those actions. There are democratic ways that people can make protests without damaging buildings and intimidating people.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Further to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, in her Question, Schedule 1 to the Act specifies that halls and hire venues are included in the scope of the duties in the Act. The Home Office guidance published this month states that this includes village halls and community centres. The Minister will be aware from our debates during the legislative process that many village halls are run by volunteers on very tight budgets. Given that they will already be struggling with the Government’s record tax rises, how will the Government ensure that smaller venues such as these are supported, in compliance with the legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, we had full and good exchanges on this when the Bill came before this House and the House of Commons. I explained then, as I will explain now, that the impact assessment assesses that small organisations will face around a £330 charge over a 10-year period to meet the obligations of Martyn’s law and the protection of premises Act. I do not think that a £33 a year cost for potential training or advice is significant when potentially it will help save lives, which is the whole purpose of Martyn’s law.

We had that debate during the passage of the Bill. Both Houses of Parliament agreed it was reasonable. I suggest that the noble Lord accepts that reasonableness and helps us to ensure that the guidance is well understood and implemented across the board.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, judging by the definitions in the Act, the proposed new Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens will come under it. I am not expecting the Minister to give me a detailed reply, because I am sure this is confidential. However, does he have confidence that it can be protected from, for example, firebombing, in the light of the fragility of Victoria Tower, the proximity to the river, the openness of the remainder of the gardens and the buildings along Millbank?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Well, I have to say to the noble Baroness that I cannot give any assurances on potentially what will happen against any site. What I can say is that those who have a responsibility for the site under this Act have a duty to ensure that they take steps to prevent actions as far as possible. That involves training for potential members of staff and looking at the physical environment and at what steps can be taken to prevent those attacks. The Martyn’s law Bill was never about stopping attacks: it was about how we manage an event if an attack takes place. The Home Office and the security services would want to make sure that, if any such attacks were planned, we would know in advance and would stop the perpetrators that way. But Martyn’s law is about what we do in the event of an attack taking place in real time, at that moment.

Student Visas

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the adequacy of training and quality-assurance processes for student visa caseworkers, and (2) decision-making in the student visa route.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The UK Visas and Immigration service has a comprehensive training programme kept under regular review to support consistently high standards of decisions. This is supported by a quality assurance framework that draws on feedback from the study sector and incorporates evidence from the independent administrative review process, ensuring that lessons are learned and systematically embedded into operational practice.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. The universities agree that the changes to thresholds in the compliance assessment metrics should help to further reduce the scope for abuse and non-compliance, but I understand that some real problems have arisen. These relate to the red/amber/green methodology, the lack of real-time data sharing with UKVI, visa processing delays and the lack of clarity about the reasons for a sudden upsurge in visa refusals. Given the massive impact of decisions on international student recruitment on the finances of universities, will the Minister agree to meet me and Universities UK to try to help to resolve some of these concerns?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very happy to meet my noble friend and representatives from the university sector. It is extremely important that we make this work properly for both sectors as a whole, and I know that officials in the department are in constant touch with the sector to look at how we can improve performance. In 2025, 448,241 entry clearance applications were received and only 18,434 were refused, which is about 4%.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are about to introduce a new independent appeals body for asylum cases. Would it not be better to focus on raising the quality of initial decisions, improving efficiency in the current tribunal system and funding legal aid adequately?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, it is important that we get the first decision right, because it is important for the person who is applying and for the process and the cost, as she mentioned. Student visa decisions are made by trained caseworkers, who apply the Immigration Rules and are supported by clear guidance, quality assurance and oversight. Original performance decisions are kept under continual review. I hope that we can, over time, improve the decision-making process.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, 90% of Pakistanis who claim asylum enter the United Kingdom on a student, work or visit visa, as well as 87% of Bangladeshi nationals and 71% of Indian nationals. This is clearly a major abuse of the system. How will the Government get a grip on this problem and clamp down on the abuse of the visa system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, we have already put a brake on Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan for the very reason that there were high levels of asylum claims from them—470% of their 2021 levels. That is a temporary halt. We keep all options under review and it is important that the student route is not seen as a precursor to an asylum claim.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a real case where artificial intelligence would enormously improve the speed and quality of decision-making. When my noble friend the Minister meets the universities, will he point out to them, as the Home Office has had to do for many years—as well as to the Department for Education—that there is still considerable fraud in entry to colleges and universities being used as a basis for working in the regular or the black economy in the UK, irrespective of any claims for asylum? That is to the disadvantage of many existing workforces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend has been a constant advocate of tackling fraud in the system, and I pay tribute to his work on that. We keep this under review at all times. It is in nobody’s interest to have fraudulent applications or for individuals to use a different route and subsequently to apply on a fraudulent basis. That is why we have taken the steps we have with the asylum student brake on the four countries I mentioned and why we have a rigorous process for assessing claims.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that a further problem is that only one in six failed asylum seekers is then returned to their country of origin. What are the Government doing to address this serious problem?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that the Government are taking extremely serious action on the removal of people who do not have the right to be here. That involves several mechanisms. First, we have to speed up the results of asylum claims in the first place. Then, when individuals have failed, we need to ensure that there is an appeal process, if required, that is speedy and efficient. Then, if people’s claims have not been accepted, we need speedy removals. I do not have the figures to date in my head, but there has certainly been an improvement. If the noble Lord will allow, I will write to him with the figures on removals that we have made in the past two years.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the real problems in these areas is criminal gangs that operate by setting out false promises to very vulnerable people, especially in areas such as Bangladesh? Is there more we can do at the international level to tackle these criminal gangs through the use of intelligence and cross-border working?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that there is a criminal network involved in trying to secure entry to the United Kingdom through a range of illegal ways—small boats, the illegal use of asylum claims or illegal applications for student visas. We are cognisant of that and the Government are trying to ensure, through intelligence-led policing, the use of Border Force and work that we are undertaking, that we deter those gangs, hold them to justice and, where possible, take assets from them. There is a strong level of government activity in this area; we have debated it on a number of occasions and I will continue to make sure that we press against those areas of abuse.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, some time ago when I was Immigration Minister, we had problems, which I think exist today, in getting countries—many of which we have strong, close relationships with, both fiscal and otherwise—to take back people who had no reason to remain in this country because they had failed to meet the criteria for refugee status. Will the Minister update us on this? Is there nothing more that the Foreign Office and others can do to deal with this matter in relation to countries that appear reluctant to take back these people, for no good reason whatever, bearing in mind the relationships between them and us?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that the Government take a whole-government approach to this issue. I know that my colleagues in both the Foreign Office and the Home Office, and in some cases in the Ministry of Justice, are very focused on ensuring that we have a whole-government approach on the removal of individuals who have no right to be here. I will supply the noble Lord with figures on the removals, which have increased. It is important that we focus on continuing to remove people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is it really not possible for the Government to have a more targeted approach—similar to what my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested—by increasing the workforce to assist asylum applications? Rather than the blunderbuss of removing the right of nationals from certain countries to apply for visas, can the Government not home in on the individual abuse of the system? The blanket approach risks being unfair.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The brake on the four countries is a temporary brake while we assess the reasons for the rise in numbers that took place. The Government are trying to speed up the asylum processes along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. We have put additional staff in to approve the processing, because we want to get to a stage where individuals know quickly whether they have a genuine asylum claim, whether they have been accepted—and, if they have been rejected, that they have the right to appeal—and whether we have to remove them. That is self-evidently part of the Government’s approach to this issue.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, when the ISC did its study on China last year, we were very concerned to find a large number of Chinese students blocking or filling up courses on quantum, AI and the like. When we analysed further, we found that quite a large number of those students were members of the People’s Liberation Army. What has been done to put a check on this or to spot exactly what is happening?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have to make sure that individuals have a proper and right method of applying for student entry into the United Kingdom. That is why we have accepted over 448,000 people, but it also why we have rejected 18,000 applications to date. There is a very strict check on what the reasons are, how people are coming and whether they have a right to enter the United Kingdom. I do not want to comment on individual cases or countries, apart from the four we have put the brake on, but we keep this under review at all times. The 18,000 rejections are for reasons linked to the country they are from, the application or the motivation behind the application.

Antisemitic Attacks

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his views. As a member of the Jewish community, I am grateful for all the speeches of sympathy that have been and are being extended to the Jewish community. I am personally grateful that between the First and Second World Wars my late mother was able to move to Britain from Szreńsk in north central Poland. Sadly, her mother and other family members were never heard of again after 1945. Many came to this country to escape antisemitism and were welcomed and made able to make good lives for themselves and their children. This makes it even more horrifying that we have seen recently an upsurge in violence, hate speeches and demonstrations against the Jewish population.

Antisemitism is not new, as explained by the noble Lord, but it is now made more obvious by the attacks on Jewish sites in the UK and elsewhere. I could not previously have imagined a world where many British Jews are feeling very vulnerable and even doubting their long-term security in Britain. As has been mentioned, a pro-Iranian group, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin, has claimed responsibility, although I believe that other groups and individuals are involved.

It should influence this debate to list recent attacks. In March there were attacks in Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands and France. Then, nearer to home, there was the arson attack on Hatzola ambulances in my local Jewish community. On 15 April there was an arson attack at Finchley Reform Synagogue, again local to me. Also in April there was an arson attack in Park Royal, a drone attack on the Israeli embassy, an arson attack on a Jewish charity and an arson attack on Kenton shul—that is just in April. We must not forget the October 2025 attack on Heaton Park shul in Manchester, which killed two people. We must ask ourselves whether this can be tolerated.

We in the UK are grateful for all this country has done to enable the Jewish community to thrive here and are horrified by the increase in antisemitism and attacks on Jewish premises, synagogues and charities. The answer we hear seems to be an increase in security, as noted by the noble Lord about his trip to the restaurant, and the community is grateful for the efforts of the police and the CST, including extra funds for this purpose. However, no other community needs to have its kids’ schools, places of worship and community behind security-guarded walls—a world where our kids and teens are afraid to show their Jewish identity and are not safe to wear a Magen David or a yarmulke head covering, as has been stated.

I spoke to Rabbi Ben Kurzer, my local community rabbi, who said:

“Whilst the Jewish community is strong and resilient and continues to flourish, this situation is unacceptable for us as a nation. As with antisemitism throughout the ages, this is not a Jewish problem, it is a societal one. The hate that begins with the Jews will not end with the Jews. Jewish tradition teaches that Moses, in ancient Egypt, looked round and realised that there was no one to stand up against the aggressors and that was why he took the lead—to paraphrase our Sages, ‘In a place where there is no person stepping forward, try to be that person’’.


I say we need to go to the source of and incitement to this violence. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about what they intend to do about what some call hate marches—I think they are; some people do not—and demonstrations that fuel this antisemitism. I keep waiting for it, but when is that dreadful organisation, the IRGC, actually going to be banned as a terrorist organisation? It has been on the cards for such a long time.

Can the Minister say that the Government will seek to explain what Zionism means? It is a desire for a homeland for the Jews in Israel. Surely the rise in UK antisemitism makes the need for Zionism an absolute must for many in the community. The word “anti-Zionism” is being increasingly used as an acceptable excuse for antisemitic sentiments. There needs to be a line between objecting to events outside the UK and terrorising a section of the UK of which I am part. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their comments, and for their general support for the action the Government are taking.

I begin by condemning antisemitic actions by those who are undertaking them. There is no place for antisemitism in our society. There is no place for individuals not being able to enjoy and share and work with their religion and show that visibly. The Government will take action to ensure that we protect those rights for the Jewish community.

I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that while the Statement was arranged by the usual channels for today, I am happy to do it at any time; I could have done it last week. The Statement made clear that there were 26 arrests following the activities last week; there have been eight charges and one conviction to date. It is important that we, as both noble Lords have said, tackle not just the protective elements of this—I do not want to have a situation whereby individuals have to have that protective security around them in the long term—but those root causes as a whole. I say to both noble Lords that the £28.4 million given to the Community Security Trust is a useful resource to help protect society from antisemitism, and we have recently added £5 million to that.

To go to the heart of the points that have been made about tackling the long-term root causes, the social cohesion strategy called Protecting What Matters that the Government have recently announced has allocated £800 million, but it is also looking at a whole range of what I would call proactive measures that I think the noble Lord will welcome. These include preventing hate preachers entering the United Kingdom; expanding the global visa taskforce; publishing an annual state of extremism report; embedding the 2024 definition of extremism across government; and looking to work with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Dame Penny Mordaunt on the commission with the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the question of antisemitism as a whole.

We also have to—this goes to the long-term issues that the noble Lord mentioned—look at combating antisemitism across all elements of society, including reviewing the public order and hate legislation, which is being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and looking at universities, schools and colleges, where we have committed some £7 million of resource to help clamp down on antisemitic extremism. We also had the review of Prevent in 2023, which made a number of recommendations that we have brought into power.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that we have looked at the issue of hate marches. This very day we have completed the Crime and Policing Bill, which is now going for potential Royal Assent very shortly. In that there are definitive powers to redirect marches, to redirect persistently aggressive marches and to give police additional powers to do that. It is also important that we take on board a point that both noble Lords have mentioned: the question of how we deal with this in the longer term. It is important that the police have intelligence-led policing, looking at where there are organisations and groups that are causing potential antisemitism. We have the arrests that have been made to date. With regard to the organisations that have claimed responsibility for these attacks, I want to take that at face value for the moment. The police have a job to do. The police have a job to see whether those organisations are responsible, or whether they are proxies for potential state actors that are responsible. We will receive reports from the police. I hope that we can allow the police to do their job and to investigate and report back. If action is required, we will consider taking it in due course.

We have had significant discussion around Iran, and I know the sensitivities and concerns surrounding that. As I said, we have placed the entire Iranian Government on the foreign influence registration scheme, which means that individuals who undertake activity in the UK on behalf of the Iranian Government face a choice between registering that activity and having the threat of a criminal offence with a five-year prison sentence. We have introduced that in the last 12 months; we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We have put in place a robust package of measures to tackle threats from the Iranian regime. We have already sanctioned the IRGC financier Ali Ansari, freezing over £100 million of his UK property.

We now have powers to proscribe, as discussed earlier. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has recommended that we take further action against state actors, and state proscription, and has recommended legislation for that. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when visiting a synagogue last week, mentioned that we want to bring that forward as a matter of urgency as soon as practicable.

Noble Lords will know that the King’s Speech is not too far away. I cannot anticipate today what will be in it, but I hope that noble Lords can understand the direction of travel at the earliest opportunity to take that legislation forward.

This is an issue that the Government take seriously. People of the Jewish community have the right to live their lives free from intimidation, free from threat and free from attack. The job of the Government is to ensure that through protective security and legislation and, where possible, by tracking down perpetrators of action and those who seek to perpetrate action, and we will not rest until antisemitism is eradicated. It is a difficult, challenging task. We have a range of potential operators in the UK and beyond; there is hate legislation in place; there is a range of measures we are bringing forward in the Crime and Policing Bill and there are measures we will be considering at the earliest opportunity when legislation is brought forward. It is important that all of us in this Chamber unite in support for the Jewish community, in condemnation of these attacks and in ensuring that extremism has no place in our society in the 21st century.

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, the thrust of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was specifically with respect to what he described as “Islamist extremism”. However, I notice that the Minister made no reference to that expression, and I would be interested to know, as I am sure the House would, the Government’s view about Islamist extremism sitting at the root of this evil.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I condemn those people who have a perverted view of the faith of Islam and undertake this action against the Jewish community. I grew up in the 1970s, when the National Front and the British National Party, right-wing organisations, had a hatred of the Jewish community and undertook activities against it as well. It is important that we tackle antisemitism from whichever source it comes. There will be people today relishing antisemitism who are not from the Islamic community and are not extremists, while others will take that forward in a way that is unacceptable. Our job is to make sure that we tackle that extremism from wherever it comes, and that is why we will take action against right-wing extremism as well as Islamist extremists. People have a right to follow their religion and live their lives as they wish, free of intimidation, and it is the job of government to offer that protection.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the strong Statement and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wolfson. He made the important point that we must attack and tackle all forms of extremism. As someone who has served in government, in the Foreign Office and at the Home Office as the Minister for countering extremism, I know that there are people who hijack the faith of Islam that I—and millions, indeed billions, around the world—follow. The distinction between Islamists and Islam must be made very clearly. May I suggest dealing with the sources and looking at the philosophy that drives these extremists? The al-Banna philosophy and the Maududi philosophy embed these forms of extremist actions. While I welcome those who are involved and engaged in fighting this, we need a whole-country approach, a whole-faith approach and a whole-community approach to ensure that voices from the British Muslim community are included. In that way, we fight this at source. I am sure that the Government would find support by banning, first and foremost, preachers of hate who come to our shores and use our liberal laws to instil fear and carry out the attacks that we have seen on our streets, particularly against the Jewish community.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. The vast majority of people who follow the religion of Islam want to live in a cohesive, co-ordinated society where everybody accepts, understands and tolerates each individual’s religion. That social cohesion is vital and the strategy that the Government are bringing forward, backed by £800 million of taxpayers’ resource, specifically identifies the threat of Islamist extremism but tries to put it into a context of supporting the vast majority of people of the Muslim faith to ensure that they are part of a socially cohesive society.

We will look at the evidence of who has been committing these offences and/or who has been behind them. We have banned some hate preachers and are looking at how we can build a global alliance against them. We will take action when we know who ultimately has organised this once the police have carried out their investigations. That needs to be done more slowly.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, given that we are seeing what appears to be a co-ordinated effort to target Jewish sites, will my noble friend the Minister outline what the Government are doing to prevent further incidents, including disrupting the networks and methods being used to organise these distressing, frightening and dangerous attacks?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, whose point goes to the heart of intelligence-led policing. We need to look, through intelligence and the security services, who do a great job, at who is behind motivating these attacks, the actors who are undertaking them and whether they are being supported or directed by other state organisations, and we need to take action accordingly. The security services, the police and the Home Office are constantly on that ball, trying to ensure that we find out who are the perpetrators and stopping attacks as well as dealing with the consequences.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My noble friend Lord Palmer quoted his local rabbi as saying that this is unacceptable for us as a nation. That is what I would like to emphasise. The Minister has given us an account of a lot of the good work that the Government have done, but I cannot help thinking that we are not really getting down to the roots. Even the title of the Statement is “Antisemitic Attacks”, which is a bit precise. Antisemitism is a virus, as has been said, that ideally we want to cure, but first we have to look at all the root causes and the way in which it is changing and mutating. We need something bigger and bolder to get across to the nation what is happening to the Jewish community, such as the Prime Minister going on television, if that is not a daft idea. We need to sock it to our fellow Brits just what the Jewish community is experiencing at the moment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The title of the Statement is what it is because my honourable friend the Security Minister wanted to make a Statement to the House of Commons straight after the events just over a week ago. He went to the House of Commons last week and we are discussing that Statement today. He also visited the synagogues, as did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Friday last week.

It is absolutely vital that politicians of all parties stand with the Jewish community and look at the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned, which are the root causes. We have an antisemitism commissioner, my noble friend Lord Mann, reports coming through about what we need to do in the long term and the social cohesion strategy, which is funded by £800 million of taxpayers’ resource and is trying to bring together actions to make sure that we have the social cohesion that we want. We will also continue using intelligence-led policing to track down those who are undertaking this type of activity.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement by the late Sir Charles Farr and Sir John Jenkins in the last Muslim Brotherhood review undertaken by a UK Government, back in 2015, that the Muslim Brotherhood remains one of the largest drivers of antisemitism in this country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Self-evidently, at times, the Muslim Brotherhood undertakes activity that directs antisemitism. That is not acceptable. I was not a Minister when the report was received from Sir Charles Farr, whom I knew well when I was previously a Minister in the Home Office. We will look at that judgment and examine again what the noble Lord raised today.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister rightly said that it is vital for politicians of all parties to stand up against antisemitism. Does the Minister share my disgust at the comments of the leader of the Green Party, Mr Zack Polanski, who suggested that the problem was a “perception of unsafety” and antisemitism for the Jewish community? He suggested that antisemitism had been “weaponised” against Jeremy Corbyn as the former leader of the Labour Party. Does the Minister share my concern that the Green Party is now providing a home for antisemites?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Antisemitism is not a perception. People have died in Manchester as a result of antisemitism. It is not a perception; it is something that we have to tackle. The leader of the Green Party and the Greens can speak for themselves. I speak for the Labour Party, the Government and, I hope, the whole House when I say that antisemitism has no place in our society, we have to root it out and those who apologise for it are not fit to hold public office.

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of attending Kenton synagogue’s Friday night service last week. It happens to be my local synagogue, no more than two minutes from where I live. I heard huge concern among congregants not only about the recent attack at the synagogue but about their general feeling of insecurity as Jews, which is something that we urgently need to address. It is not acceptable that a community feels and is facing that fear.

The rabbi also spoke of the support and solidarity that they receive from the wider community. Can my noble friend the Minister give us more detail about how the Government, with other agencies, intend to promote positive interaction between communities as part of a long-term and sustainable future solution, so that the Jewish community is safe in this country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and I am also grateful for her work in supporting the Jewish community locally. It is vital that all of us in society, from whichever faith or none, support action against antisemitism and show solidarity with the Jewish community.

I refer my noble friend again to the social cohesion strategy that we have put in place. It looks at funding £800 million-worth of activity. Importantly, it has highlighted 40 key neighbourhoods where we need to work on social cohesion much more effectively and it is putting in resources to do that. I know that my noble friend will want to monitor the performance of that strategy, but I think it is a very good start. We continue to look at the challenges and will continue to learn lessons from how social cohesion operates at local level to look at how we can extend that to help support other communities where that social cohesion may not be as strong.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his support of the Jewish community and his keen understanding of what the Jewish community in this country is going through at the moment. There is no possibility of underestimating the complexity of this problem; we are all struggling with it. I offer the Minister one small, practical suggestion. There are venues and institutions—some public and some private—that are refusing Jewish performers and exhibitions. Anything remotely connected to Jewishness is being refused entry or permission to appear at these institutions, some of which are publicly funded and some licensed by local authorities.

They hide behind the issue of security, which is a real concern. Nevertheless, we are very proud in this country that we have always said—and we have been sorely tested—that we do not succumb to terrorism. This is very much an issue of these little institutions around the country succumbing to terrorists’ views and hiding behind the security issue. That is not right. It is something that the Government could address. It is also prevalent in our educational institutions, with speakers being cancelled and so on. That would be a small, practical step, but a signal that the Government are able to take action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It would be difficult, under the Equality Act, for individuals to undertake the type of potential refusal that the noble Lord mentioned.

[Noble Lords]

They are.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hear from a sedentary position the comment, “They are”. I recognise that individuals are, but hope that one of the things we could do is encourage that action not occurring. It is important, as part of this solidarity, that we allow people from various faiths—the Jewish faith and others—to celebrate their activities, actions and performances as part of our multicultural, socially cohesive society. I stand with the noble Lord and will reflect with colleagues and Ministers on how we can give practical action to that objective.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I will pick up on the notion that Islamic extremism lies behind this. This means—I hope the Minister agrees—that the Charity Commission should be investigating charities that support extremism and funnel money towards it. But behind that Islamic extremism lies the religion: religious teaching has brought us to this point. Let us not forget that all the Jews in the Middle East were thrown out of countries such as Yemen and Syria before Israel was established. Just as many Jews were expelled from the Middle East as Arab Palestinians left Palestine, on religious grounds. Jews were always second-class citizens in those countries, because that is what the religion prescribes.

That means that the Government must not stop inspecting and registering religious schools. I believe that there has been a movement to exempt them, but that would be absolutely wrong. If there are schools where children spend the whole day studying religion, they must be inspected. We must make sure that children get secular education and that they are not taught to hate. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Penny Mordaunt pointed that out in their report on antisemitism, and they asked the Church of England to make sure that children were not taught hostility.

I also hope that the Minister will condemn the possible motion of the Green Party, which was not put in the end, that Zionism is racism and that Israel should not exist. To have in this country a party that takes that attitude, presumably to attract the worst in society, is simply unacceptable. I look to this Government to condemn it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s first point, the Charity Commission is looking at a number of charities to ensure that they meet charitable objectives and are not fostering unacceptable activity.

The noble Baroness also mentioned inspecting schools. I will take that point away because, although I have responsibility for some issues, I do not have direct responsibility for that. I will report it to my colleague, the Minister responsible in the Department for Education.

On the noble Baroness’s last point, I will allow the Green Party to speak for itself. The Labour Party fought a long battle to try to rid itself of some aspects of antisemitism within its membership, and it succeeded in doing that. Some of those people are now turning up in other political parties. This is not acceptable. It should not be there and I hope that those responsible for political discourse will make sure that they take action within their party, as we did within ours.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend the Minister said. The virulence and violence of these attacks on our Jewish citizens is completely unacceptable, and the Government need to use all their agencies and power to clamp down on them. Does he agree that what is particularly dangerous about this current wave of antisemitic attacks is that it is joined by Islamophobic attacks and attacks on our Black citizens as well? We have had over the centuries antisemitism, pogroms and the persecution of Jewish communities, including in this country—not just in the Middle East but in Europe, Russia and right across the world. In more recent decades, we have also had attacks on our Black citizens. More recently, we have had attacks on our Muslim citizens. What is particularly dangerous is these three forms of attacks on parts of our community all coming together, and the Government need to try to confront them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important to remember that. I may be a simple soul, but I want to have a society where people respect each other, are tolerant of each other’s lifestyles, share the same spaces, understand where people are coming from and their different religious perspectives, different colours and everything else, and live tolerant, productive lives in which we help to grow our economy, spend money from our resources and make sure that we have a cohesive, socially inclusive society. That is an objective.

The Government have a social cohesion plan, backed by £800 million, targeting 40 community areas. They want to do more to meet the very objectives that my noble friend mentioned. People from the Islamic faith should be able to celebrate their faith and to worship. People who are Black should be able to walk down the street free from attacks, as should members of our Jewish society. This Statement follows what happened in north London on a particular day last month, but the points made by my noble friend are valid for every section of society.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too am grateful for the funding provided by the Government. I declare my interest as a British Jew.

The Minister says there is no place in British life for antisemitism, but there clearly is. Jews are under attack. Antisemitism has been embedded in British discourse and in some areas of politics, emboldened by propaganda that has twisted perceptions. My family described exactly this happening in Germany in the 1930s as people vilified Jews who lived there, and had previously been their friends, on the basis of false perception. British students and young people now feel pressured to shun Jewish friends or colleagues. If they try to support Jews or do not denounce Israel, they are accused of supporting genocide or being baby killers. What violence or threats are British Jews guilty of? What unrest or anti-social behaviour have British Jews engaged in?

Will the Minister now recognise that the hate marches have led to such dangerous consequences? Will he ban them from now on? Will he also look into the reports of Jewish actors, singers or entertainers being banned from certain venues just because they are Jewish?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the first point that the noble Baroness mentioned, the question of hate marches, as I said in my earlier contribution, the Government have passed the Crime and Policing Bill, which is now heading for Royal Assent. It includes additional powers for the police to both ban and reroute marches. It is for the police to take those actions, not politicians. Where those actions lead to persistent hate marches, the police now have additional powers under what will be the Crime and Policing Act to take action on that.

As I said in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grade, I will look at the issue of banning people from activities because of their religion. As the time for this Statement has now finished, I leave the House by saying that the Government strongly condemn antisemitism and will take whatever action they can to root it out and to support the Jewish community. I hope that we can work towards a cohesive society where people’s religion, colour or background does not cause violence against them or intimidation directed towards their behaviour or the way in which they choose to live their life. Everybody is individual and should be allowed to live their life to their full potential.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2H to Commons Amendment 2F and its Amendment 2J to Commons Amendment 2G, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2K to Commons Amendment 2F and Amendment 2L to Commons Amendment 2G in lieu.

2K: At end insert—
“(d) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1)(a) and (b) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””

2L: At end insert—
“(c) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motion B. We have had just over 18 months in both Houses on this Bill. I very much hope that we are now debating the Crime and Policing Bill for the very last time. Your Lordships’ House has quite properly discharged its role as a revising Chamber on a number of occasions. We have now asked the Commons to consider and reconsider the two outstanding issues before us today not once, not twice but on three occasions. The Commons, as is its right, made its views perfectly clear on 14 April, 20 April and 22 April. On each occasion it has rejected the Lords amendments by majorities exceeding 100. I suggest, respectfully, to your Lordships’ House that the time has come to heed the clearly and repeatedly expressed views of the elected House.

I know the issue of fixed penalty notices has been one of importance, and I have listened very carefully to the well-made arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Indeed, we have acknowledged some of the concerns he has raised about the actions of some contractors. We have now enshrined in the Bill a requirement to issue statutory guidance about the use of fixed penalty notices to enforce public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. We are also committed, thanks again to pressure from the noble Lord and others, to issuing such guidance within six months of Royal Assent, and I have already said I will share the guidance with the noble Lord before it is issued.

I know the noble Lord is disappointed we have not gone further, but we have concerns that his amendments would, effectively, terminate the legitimate use of private contractors to enforce anti-social behaviour civil orders, to the detriment of the safety and security of local communities who want to see effective action to tackle anti-social behaviour. I also welcome the fact that, when the Bill was again debated in the Commons last Wednesday, Max Wilkinson, speaking for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, indicated that he would not press the issue further. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will do today, but I hope he would similarly now agree to be content and agree Motion A.

Turning to proscription of the IRGC, we have had several opportunities to discuss the stall on this matter, and there is little more to be said. I have been very clear that Amendment 439 is not one the Government can accept, but I have also been very clear that this Government have and will continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account by sanctioning Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Indeed, the Prime Minister reiterated last week that we are also committed to introduce legislation to provide for a proscription-like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by the state and state-linked bodies. Work on this legislation is well under way and, without pre-empting the King’s Speech, your Lordships can expect to see more soon.

The Commons has now endorsed the Government’s position in voting to reject the Lords amendment on three separate occasions over the past two weeks. There can be no doubt about where the elected House stands on this issue, and I respectfully submit that there is nothing to be gained from sending the amendment back to the Commons. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the whole House will agree to Motion B and, in doing so, I also hope that he will recognise that the Government have a strong view on the situation in Iran and the Iranian regime, which I have outlined. With those comments, I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to respond to the Government’s Motion A regarding the issuing of fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. I thank the Minister for all his efforts. Throughout this process, he has demonstrated good will but, without making any great classical allusions, this has felt very much like pushing a boulder uphill. At each stage of the Bill’s passage, we have had to push the Government incredibly hard to recognise the sheer scale of the problem regarding the cowboy enforcement economy that has been preying on the public. However, I am pleased to say that this persistence has finally paid off, and genuine progress has been made.

By accepting the Government’s latest amendment today, we are securing the necessary safeguards, through statutory guidance which must be delivered within six months of Royal Assent, to make sure that local authorities cannot incentivise private contractors to fine for the breach of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. For far too long, the system has allowed a revenue collection industry to masquerade as justice, with private companies retaining the vast majority of fine income and aggressively targeting people for anodyne actions. With this amendment now in place, our citizens will be much better protected against the cowboys who have sought to abuse these enforcement powers for their own financial gain.

While the journey to get here has required relentless pressure from these Benches and across the House—and I sincerely thank the Conservative Benches for their solid support throughout—the outcome is a significant victory for fairness and proportionality in our justice system, and I am content, therefore, to accept the Government’s latest amendment.

I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government will share the draft statutory guidance before it is issued. We know roughly what wording the Home Office has in mind—that of the Defra guidance on litter—but the consultation process on the new guidance will be important. I hope that the Minister can doubly assure us that the Home Office will consult not only with local government but with those who have been instrumental in raising this fining-for-profit issue during the passage of the Bill, such as myself and the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we return to this highly important matter once again. I know that the Government will not appreciate this, but it is our duty in this House to hold them to account for their promises.

When in opposition, the Labour Party committed to proscribing the IRGC; it has now voted against this six times. On Wednesday, the Minister for Policing and Crime, Sarah Jones, said that

“we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords’ amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/26; col. 398.]

I take particular exception to this. It is wrong and entirely incorrect to claim that this House is somehow acting inappropriately. There is nothing out of the ordinary for this House to insist on an issue as important as this. I remind the Minister how many rounds of ping-pong we had on the safety of Rwanda Bill: this House sent the Bill back to the Commons five times. That is not a criticism but a fact: it is this House’s right to do so. It is not acceptable to have Ministers in this Government seeking to delegitimise the important work of this House. I hope the Government will reflect on that.

There has been a consistent thread of criticism of this amendment from the Government, which I would like to address. Last week, the Minister said

“the Government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription”,—[Official Report, 22/4/26; col. 692.]

but this completely misunderstands the argument. I am not asking the Minister to give a “running commentary” on proscription nor am I asking the Government to air sensitive information in public. All I am asking is for the Government to get on with it and proscribe the IRGC. The Minister does not need to provide a running commentary; he just needs to agree the amendment.

I note that there has been some progress now. The Prime Minister said on Friday that the Government will move to proscribe the IRGC in the new Session, so it seems that he is now willing to give us a running commentary on organisations being considered for proscription. That is good news—providing he remains in post, of course.

I welcome that the Government have finally remembered the promises they made in opposition. It is testament to the determined campaigning on this matter from organisations around the country and opposition parties in this Parliament. However, why has it taken the Government so long? It is an incomprehensible position. They have had ample opportunity, during the passage of the Bill, simply to say what the Prime Minister said on Friday. This is disappointing. Regardless of that, the Government have said that they will now move to proscribe the IRGC, and all that remains is to press the Minister on timelines. This cannot wait for months and months; we are all united in our support for this.

I have sought assurance on when the Government will bring forward the legislation. Unfortunately, they have refused to tell us when. This is completely unacceptable at a time when we need strong and decisive leadership in the national interest. We have a Government and a Prime Minister who take months to make a decision and, once they have made that decision, then cannot commit to even a basic deadline. We have seen this time and time again with the Government: refusal to give Parliament even the most basic of assurances on when they will do things that they have promised to do. It is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and get on with the promises they made. It is with some trepidation that I accept what the Minister said, but he should be sure that we will hold the Government to account.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion or not.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will let the Minister know in a moment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is very gracious. I will keep an eye out for it.

I am pleased that we have made some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his pragmatic approach. I know that he would have liked the Government to go further on the issue of fixed penalty notices. I know he will be holding me to account on the question of statutory guidance and monitoring. But we have achieved some form of settlement and I am grateful to him for agreeing that today.

On the question of proscription, as I said, I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion, but I say to him that the elected House has made its views known by significant majorities on a number of occasions now. It has made its views known, supporting the argument that I have deployed in this House: that we do not give a running commentary on proscription. I point to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said: the Prime Minister said last week that the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly, and we will be looking to bring forward this legislation as soon as we can. By “this legislation” he does not mean a running commentary on proscription under the powers in the 2000 Act; he means legislation on the potential for a revised state threats proscription-like regime, as recommended by Jonathan Fisher KC—

[A noble Lord]

Jonathan Hall.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I got my Fishers and Halls mixed up. It was recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in his recent report to the Government.

We cannot anticipate what the King’s Speech will say, but I repeat to the noble Lord, for clarity, that the Prime Minister said the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly and we are looking to bring legislation forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, made a strong case for proscription. But I put to him that the Government have made their view clear. They will share information on state threats with the ISC in due course, but I will not comment on what the Government will do on proscription according to a random deadline set by a Motion in this House without the full facts being examined in a public way.

In the past, on organisations proposed for proscription, we have tabled Motions in both Houses of Parliament and argued why we wanted to table those Motions. We have done that without giving prior knowledge to the organisations we are seeking to proscribe. We have done that under the 2000 Act.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said what he said on the visit to the synagogue last week. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will give the Government the opportunity to fulfil that, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we will be held to account on an article of faith in relation to what the Prime Minister said. But I cannot today, in this House, give either an agreement to proscribe the IRGC within the timescale that the noble Lord has put in his Motion, nor can I pre-empt the King’s Speech later next month, because that is what the King’s Speech is for. So I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not press his Motion.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.

439G: Because the amendments are unnecessary as the Home Secretary already keeps under review whether new organisations should be added to the list of proscribed organisations, and the Government has already committed to take forward plans for a proscription-like power for state and state-linked bodies to tackle hostile state activity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Tabled by

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2D to Commons Amendment 2B and its Amendment 2E to Commons Amendment 2C, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2F to Commons Amendment 2B and Amendment 2G to Commons Amendment 2C in lieu.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak to Motions B, C and D.

Before I begin my main remarks, today marks Stephen Lawrence Day, 33 years to the day since the loss of Stephen. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon is in the Chamber today, and I pay tribute to her for her campaigning activity over those 33 years. I was pleased to join my noble friend earlier today for an event at the King’s Trust in Southwark to continue the campaigning work of the Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation. Today is a good opportunity for us to remember Stephen and to recommit to continue to make a stand against racism in all its forms. I wanted to place that on record on behalf of the whole House before we commenced the Crime and Policing Bill, which in itself deals with a number of issues that are important in combating racism and tackling knife crime.

As I said last week, I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on these matters. There are a number of amendments to deal with and I am pleased that they are all to be considered now in one group.

As I also said last week, I understand the concern, particularly in relation to Motion A, about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. However, I remain of the view that it is not appropriate to put in place a blanket ban on the issuing of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors. Introducing such a ban would be disproportionate and would significantly weaken enforcement capability. Contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement, and it is for the local authority to ensure that the use of powers remains just and proportionate. It is for this reason that the Government last week tabled Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu, which would rightly ensure that statutory guidance addresses the very points that noble Lords are concerned about.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has moved on this and tabled amendments in lieu to ensure that such guidance must, not may, address the need to ensure proportionality in the use of fixed penalty notices. I therefore hope that he is content with the further government amendments in lieu, Amendments 2F and 2G, which also seek to ensure that any guidance issued must address the issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons.

In addition, in discussions with the noble Lord I have mentioned the Defra statutory guidance on litter enforcement powers. That guidance includes various entries relating to the need to exercise enforcement powers proportionately. It also addresses the use of contractors. I can give an undertaking to the noble Lord that we will adopt similar language in the guidance to be issued in respect of anti-social behaviour enforcement powers under the Bill. We commit to include a passage in the guidance which says:

“Where external contractors are used, private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties”.


I will ensure that the statutory guidance reminds local authorities that contracted agencies are not expected to issue fines purely for profit, and, if they are found to do so, that local authorities may take appropriate remedial action, such as revocation, in line with the terms of their contract. I hope that provides the noble Lord with the reassurance he needs not to press Motion A1.

On Motion B, as I have said throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government fully agree with noble Lords on the need to do more to tackle fly-tipping. Our recently announced waste crime action plan, which I referred to in our last round of ping-pong and which was published over the Easter Recess, does just that.

On Amendment 11, I stress that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used, to commit a fly-tipping offence. This is in addition to the police’s general power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and its associated codes, to seize items as evidence if they believe they are being used in the commission of a criminal offence.

The Government want local authorities to use their powers fully to tackle fly-tipping. To that end, I have tabled Amendments 11C to 11F in lieu, which make it clear that the statutory guidance to be issued to waste authorities in England under Clause 9 must, not may, include advice to local authorities on exercising their powers, including the seizure of vehicles. I am grateful for the gentle discussion that we have had with the noble Lord on these matters and for the pressure that he has put. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on that matter.

On Motion C, we return to the issue of “must” versus “may”. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, reiterated her concerns that the police are required to consult with youth offending teams only when applying for a youth diversion order. As I mentioned last week, multi-agency engagement will be crucial to the success of these orders. I want to be clear to the House that youth offending teams are already multi-agency by statute, and include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as mandated by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Youth offending teams may also engage with child and adolescent mental health services, education inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations, and local early help services.

I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has raised concerns about the involvement of parents. I would like to reassure her that engagement with parents or carers is a routine and integral part of the work of youth offending teams, beginning at assessment stage and continuing through any intervention. This engagement is led by practitioners who are trained to work with families, understand family dynamics and assess what engagement is appropriate, safe and in the child’s best interests. The nature and extent of parental involvement is therefore nuanced and individualised. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that it would not be right to prescribe a one-size-fits-all process for what could and very often will be complex and varied cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Motions in his name, and I am pleased to see the government Amendments 11C to 11F to include guidance on evidence collection and the exercise of seizure powers in the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance. We are happy to accept these. But I add that it is over a year ago now that my honourable friend Matt Vickers brought these to the attention of the other place, and they were rejected at that point by the Government. It is regrettable that the Government were against our amendments here, and we have only just arrived at this point as a result of the persistence of this side of the House.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled his Motion. We support this and, if he decides to divide the House, we will be with him. I tabled Motion D1 to disagree with the Commons amendments and to offer my own amendment in lieu, which is only slightly altered from the previous version. The only change I have made is to narrow the language to mention groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, as opposed to focusing on groups linked to the Iranian Government as a whole.

It is peculiar how one’s opinion can change so greatly when one enters government. As was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Labour Party used to stand on this side of the House urging Conservative Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. In fact, on 7 March 2023, during the Report stage debate on the National Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, then the opposition Home Office shadow Minister, moved an amendment with the express purpose of requiring the Government to proscribe the IRGC. The noble Lord stood at this very Dispatch Box and said:

“It is in the national security interests of this country for the IRGC to be proscribed as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, 7/3/23; col. 753.]


That was the view of the Labour Party in 2023, but clearly it no longer believes that that is the case.

Instead, the Government have offered us a Statement within six months outlining the process of proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. When speaking to the Government’s amendment in the House of Commons, the Minister, Sarah Jones MP, said that this was to

“help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 104.]

We do not need to be patronised by this Government. We can all read the conditions in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act. We know what the process is. Our contention is that the Government are not willing to use that process effectively. We can see plainly and clearly that the IRGC meets that threshold. I say to the Minister: put yourselves in our shoes. If he were standing where I am today, would he accept a Statement on the process as sufficient to prevent him pressing this to a Division? I doubt he would.

We should be in no doubt that the IRGC poses a significant threat to our country. When we have seen in 2025 alone more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil, when we have seen numerous antisemitic attacks carried out in Britain, and when we have seen the IRGC ramping up its plots and attacks across the Middle East and beyond, then we know we have a problem. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. Just today, we have seen how it has fired at merchant vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. The United States has banned the IRGC, as have Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the European Union. If they can, why can we not? Surely it is time for the Government to listen to the British people, listen to Parliament and listen to themselves, and proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible.

Before I sit down, I align myself with the comments on the appalling events that led to the death of Stephen Lawrence, which I remember only too well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in this short debate, and I will respond to their comments. On fixed penalty notices, I had genuinely hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would have accepted that we have moved significantly towards his position. Everybody wants to see fixed penalty notices issued fairly and proportionately, and the Government’s amendments would have helped and will help to ensure that this is the case. But we also need to accept that there is a continuing role for external contractors in the enforcement of ASB orders, and I do not believe we should close the door to that, which is what in our assessment the noble Lord’s amendment would do.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not happy. However, before we move to a potential Division on this, I recommit to what I said in my opening remarks: we commit to a passage in the guidance, which I will produce on behalf of the Home Office, that will say:

“Where external contractors are used, private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties”.


I think that meets the noble Lord’s objective. If he remains unhappy, that is the way these things work, so we will have to examine that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I come at this from a somewhat naive point of view perhaps, but I cannot understand, having heard the Minister, why on earth the Government have not done it already.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, if I answered that question, I would stray into the very issues that I do not wish to talk about, because they are issues which we have to keep under consideration. I will say to the noble and learned Baroness what I said in my opening remarks: we have sanctioned Iranian officials. We have put visa sanctions on Iranian officials. We have Iran under FIRS for registration of foreign interests. We have taken action, as is self-evident, in relation to the current crisis. I will not comment on those matters, not because I do not want to but because whatever I say on them gives an indication of what the Government might wish to do at any particular time on any particular topic, and it is not right that we give a running commentary.

I say to those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I welcome their support for the government amendments in lieu. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments relating to fixed penalty notices—I suspect that I have not—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will not push Motion D1, for the arguments that I have put.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches for their consistent and solid support on the issue of fining for profit. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her consistent support throughout on the same issue. I add my thanks again to the Minister for his engagement: I do not think there has been a lack of engagement, but he is shuffling towards the finishing line; he could still do more, and more quickly, to address the concerns expressed in Motion A1. I urge him to take his department by the scruff of the neck and get this matter done with a bit more creative thinking—that is all it requires. For the reason I set out earlier, I wish to test the opinion at the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 11C to 11F in lieu.

11C: Page 17, line 28, leave out “may” and insert “must”

--- Later in debate ---

11F: Page 17, line 29, leave out “those” and insert “other functions”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 342 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 342C and 342D in lieu.

342C: Page 215, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to chief officers of police about—
(a) matters to be taken into account by chief officers of police before making an application for a youth diversion order, including alternatives to making an application,
(b) how chief officers of police are to comply with their duties to consult under section 174, and
(c) the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for chief officers of police to consult persons other than those mentioned in section 174 before making an application for a youth diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order.”

342D: Page 215, line 3, after “their” insert “other”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 359 and 439 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D in lieu.

439C: Page 223, line 6, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to make statement about proscription regime
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (power to amend list of proscribed organisations).
(2) The Secretary of State must comply with subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

439D: Page 232, line 1, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Duty to make statement about proscription regime);”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 February be approved.

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this instrument I will speak also to the Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026, both of which were laid before the House on 26 February. For ease of discussion, if the House will allow me, I will refer to the first of these two instruments as the regulations and the second as the order.

These instruments are somewhat technical in nature, but they have a bigger picture behind them. Both are intended to tackle the terrible harms caused by illegal drugs. Drug misuse has a profound impact on crime, health and productivity. Nearly half of acquisitive crime and over 50% of homicides are linked to drugs. In 2024, drug misuse deaths in England reached almost 3,500—the highest on record. Drug misuse costs the economy some £20 billion per year. The Government are committed to protecting our communities by reducing drug-related harms.

Drug precursor chemicals—DPCs—are used to make illicit drugs, but some have legitimate industrial uses. Controlling them is a vital way of tackling drug harms. It is important also as a vital string to our bow economically. It is always better to address a problem closer to source, and so it is better to tackle drug supply before a drug has even been made. There are two ways in which we control DPCs. The first is to place controls on their legitimate use, to minimise the chance that substances which were intended for bona fide industrial purposes could be diverted to producing illicit drugs. The regulations we are debating today address this. The second way is to criminalise the deliberate illicit use of DPCs for the purposes of making drugs. The order we are debating today addresses that.

To take the regulations first, currently companies must, in most cases, apply for licences and other authorisations to use DPCs. They must also, in most cases, properly document and label DPC consignments, and they must always tell the National Crime Agency whenever they have reason to believe a DPC may be diverted for illicit use. Those requirements were an EU responsibility before Brexit. Since then, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, whereas in Great Britain a similar system applies as assimilated law. These regulations correct some deficiencies in that assimilated law.

First, Ministers currently do not have an effective power to control new DPCs in Great Britain. The list of chemicals subject to control in Great Britain, as it was, has been effectively frozen in time since January 2021. Since then, the EU has controlled 10 new DPCs and 14 related substances. Those controls have therefore applied in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain, on the other side of the Irish Sea.

The substances are used to produce MDMA, more commonly known as ecstasy, with fentanyl, whose deeply harmful nature is sadly all too familiar and which is particularly in use in America. Substances such as that known as crystal meth and amphetamines are also used. All of those, except amphetamine, are class A drugs, and for good reason. Fentanyl can, among other things, cause people to stop breathing. Ecstasy can lead to serious consequences, particularly for those with heart conditions, blood pressure problems, epilepsy or asthma. It was mentioned 78 times on certificates for death registered in England and Wales in 2024. Methamphetamine, quite apart from its severe health consequences, is linked to violent crime. The regulations will add those 10 DPCs and related substances to the control regime in Great Britain and will allow Ministers to control others in the future.

The second deficiency in the assimilated law is that there is currently no clear statutory mechanism to control the movement of DPCs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The regulations will now provide one. Such controls are a vital way to prevent the diversion of DPCs to illicit use and to discharge our responsibilities under international law. At the same time, we recognise the importance of enabling trade to flow as smoothly as possible within the UK, and we are therefore waiving the need to pay a fee.

Finally, while the requirements on companies across the UK to label and document transactions involving DPCs and to tell the National Crime Agency of their suspected diversion apply to one set of chemicals, the criminal offences for not doing so apply to a different, smaller set. It cannot be right that there are legal requirements on companies but no sanctions for ignoring them. The regulations will ensure that the offences apply to the same DPCs as do the positive requirements.

I turn to the order. This instrument will extend the list of DPCs that it is a crime to supply or make if the defendant knows or suspects that they will be used to make controlled drugs. The order adds to that list 12 DPCs and 16 related substances that the United Nations controlled between March 2014 and March 2024. These DPCs are also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine and methamphetamine. This should certainly have been done earlier—I cannot comment on why it was not, as this was under a Government not controlled by my party—but I know that my colleague the Minister for Policing and Crime has taken very seriously a number of criticisms made by noble Lords on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and acted accordingly.

Finally, in line with usual practice, I draw the attention of the House to the correction slip for the regulations. This corrected two minor typographical errors. One changes a reference from “the Great Britain” to “Great Britain”; the other replaces a reference to the third occasion when a phrase appears on the second occasion. I hope those minor amendments are accepted.

While I am on my feet on the matter of drugs, I take this opportunity to comment on a question I answered from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on 13 April about nitrous oxide. I stated that in the year September 2024 to September 2025 there were 242 convictions for the supply of nitrous oxide, with 234 sentences to date. In fact, it was October 2024 rather than September 2024 and the 242 convictions and 234 sentences were for possession or supply, mostly possession. It is important to place that small clarification on the record.

In summary, the Government are unwavering in their commitment to tackle illegal drugs, which cause misery and harm across society, and these two instruments will aid us in that critical effort. I beg to move.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, the basic idea that the list of controlled drug precursor chemicals should be in sync across the UK and with international agreements that we have signed up to is a clear and reasonable one. More complicated is the process by which we have got here. It is also less straightforward whether the Home Office is applying the right lessons from the mistakes involved.

The controlled drugs SI would give the Government the power to align the lists of drug precursor chemicals between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in future. Given the problems of delay that have brought us here today, with it taking five years since the end of the implementation period for this SI to come forward, can the Minister set out whether the department has set any targets or guidelines for how quickly it will move in future to use such powers? The Home Office has said that work on this SI started in 2024 and that this is one of its “legislative priorities”, yet we have the SI in Parliament only in 2026. Even if we start the clock after the 2024 general election, that is still the best part of two years to serve up an SI that was already delayed and running late. Is the Minister happy with that sort of turnaround time, and is anything being done to speed up the secondary legislation process in the Home Office?

The criminal justice SI involves even longer delays and a failure to act for at least a decade to update domestic law in the light of international agreements, in an area—criminal justice—that has consistently been a priority of different Home Secretaries and Governments. It has been a decade full of tough rhetoric about crime and requests for new legislation from the Home Office, yet also one of failure to keep on top of what should be pretty basic administrative tasks: having a proper legislation log, handover notes and processes for staff, and keeping a list of drugs up to date. Yet we know that was not the case. The Minister and the Home Secretary can reasonably point out that they were not in post for most of that decade, and in correspondence with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee the relevant Minister has set out remedial steps, which is welcome.

What this leaves, though, are two concerns. First, there is the very basic nature of the mistakes: the absence of a proper legislation log and the absence of proper handover processes, particularly in a department where staff churn is a regular and even frequent occurrence. Over the years when these basic measures were missing, a variety of different staff would have churned through posts and in some way should have been aware of or responsible for such issues. That these problems persisted for so long suggests a systemic flaw in the management processes or quality in the department. Moreover, as the Home Office has, according to its correspondence with the SLSC, decided not to track down which staff were involved, it is quite possible that people who made mistakes did not know and still do not know, and need to learn from them. Those who have moved on to other roles may well be making the same mistakes elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these two draft instruments, which together update the framework governing drug precursor chemicals. On these Benches, we support the objectives of these measures. Drug precursors play a critical role in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances, and it is right that the law keeps pace with international developments and the evolving methods of criminal networks. Strengthening controls and closing loopholes is therefore both necessary and welcome.

The draft statutory instruments will bring the UK into closer alignment with its obligations under the 1988 UN convention by updating the list of substances that it is a criminal offence to supply or manufacture where there is knowledge or suspicion of illicit use. They also seek to address deficiencies in the current regime by aligning the list of controlled substances with those subject to criminal sanctions.

While the substance of these changes is sensible and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has observed, not in itself controversial, the context in which they arise warrants some reflection. The committee has pointed to delays in updating domestic legislation to reflect changes to international obligations and to the time taken to resolve discrepancies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the end of the implementation period. There are also concerns about the clarity of the statutory basis for certain authorisations and fees. Although these issues are now being addressed, they underline the importance of ensuring that regulatory frameworks remain up to date, coherent and legally robust. The House is entitled to expect that such matters are identified and acted upon in a timely and consistent way.

In conclusion, we support these instruments and the improvements they make to the enforcement framework. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing these draft instruments to the House today, and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the comments that have been made and I understand the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concerns. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that the Government came into office in July 2024 and, as soon as we identified the challenges posed in terms of orders not having been implemented previously, we took action to try to bring this back into some sort of order. There have been, self-evidently, challenges in relation to a number of issues. I cannot ultimately comment on what happened under previous Governments, but I can confirm that we took action on this issue as soon as it was identified.

I can also confirm to the noble Baroness that officials have reviewed electronic records to seek to understand why the Act was not updated earlier. Those records did not indicate the reason for these omissions. That is a fault that we are looking to review. It may be that, since the UN controlled no DPCs between 2000 and 2014, awareness of the need to update the Act when it started doing so was lost within the department. To help mitigate against that in future, we have now created a log of drugs legislation to ensure this does not happen again. Through the order we are debating today, we are trying to put those omissions right.

As the Minister for Policing and Crime set out in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 23 March, the Government understand the committee’s concerns about record-keeping, which has likely contributed to the delay in including the 12 DPCs and the 16 other elements in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. As a result, as I have said, drugs legislation logs have been created. The Government consider that the gap in knowledge is unlikely to have had wider implications across the Home Office, but I can assure noble Lords that the Minister for Policing and Crime has raised this issue with the Permanent Secretary. She has asked him to ascertain what Home Office legislation is dependent on or affected by international obligations and how we monitor those international obligations to ensure that any changes are reflected in UK law.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I know that charging and the authorisation of fees being paid was an important issue. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at the issue of plans for fees which were previously charged. I am happy to confirm today that we will be offering refunds to those who have been affected. The total sum is only around £3,000, but it is still an important issue. We will be looking at how we can manage that in due course and I will certainly be examining that with my colleagues in future.

We are where we are. The Government have tried to make some changes with both these instruments brought forward today to ensure that there is a United Kingdom approach and those regulations are now in order. I commend both to the House.

Motion agreed.

Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, these instruments—the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026—were laid before the House on 5 March 2026. They relate to the Government’s stance that asylum support should be provided in a manner which is fair and only where it is genuinely justified.

These instruments are a key element of our sweeping reforms to create a fairer, more accountable system, one that protects support for those who genuinely need it while encouraging compliance and deterring misuse. Noble Lords might be interested in the fact that, as of December, there were 107,003 individuals in receipt of asylum support, with 30,657 in around 200 asylum hotels. In the financial year 2024-25, a total of £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the United Kingdom.

The Government inherited that situation and have to try to look at how we can reduce overall asylum costs. The Government have already reduced overall asylum support costs by 15% over that period, and we must continue to look at how we can make further reductions in the cost to the taxpayer.

One of the instruments before the House today removes the duty to provide asylum support, reverting to the discretionary power set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This reinforces our ability to make case-by-case decisions and gives the Government greater flexibility in how we assess and distribute asylum support. It also allows us to take firmer action against those who do not comply with the rules.

For example, removing Regulation 5 allows us to withhold support from individuals who have permission to work and therefore should be supporting themselves. This includes those who entered the UK on work or student visas after explicitly confirming, as part of their visa application, that they had sufficient funds to meet their living costs for the duration of their stay. It is not acceptable for individuals to make such declarations in order to secure entry and then subsequently claim asylum and move on to taxpayer-funded support.

The same principle applies to those granted permission to work where their asylum claim has been pending for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Where a person has the legal ability to earn and maintain themselves, it is only right that they do so. Reinstating this discretionary power also enables us to deny support to those who have intentionally made themselves destitute in an attempt to access the system. This is essential to protecting the integrity of our approach and ensuring that support is reserved for those who genuinely need it.

The other instrument we are debating today focuses on illegal working and makes doing so an explicit reason to discontinue an individual’s asylum support. Previously, where an individual was suspected of working illegally, this had to be investigated as fraud or concealment of funds to establish that they were no longer destitute. By setting out clearly in legislation that illegal working is itself a breach of asylum support conditions, we create a direct and transparent mechanism to discontinue support, without the need for protracted fraud investigations.

Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK, yet some choose to work illegally while also claiming asylum support and accommodation. I suggest to noble Lords that that is not right. This undercuts legitimate businesses and takes genuine work opportunities away from other citizens. It is unlawful to undertake work without the requisite authorisation, and this measure ensures that there is now a clear and proportionate consequence for those who choose to disregard that requirement.

Through the statutory instrument before the House, illegal working will be an explicit ground on which Section 4 support may be withdrawn from failed asylum seekers, therefore aligning with the changes made to Section 98 and Section 95 support that were laid on the same date as these instruments and came into force on 27 March. This ensures that public resources are directed only to those who abide by the rules and who genuinely cannot support themselves, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the system as a whole.

Taken together, these measures will deliver a coherent system in which support aligns with responsibility. I emphasise to the House that this shift is about fairness and responsibility. Rights must come with responsibilities, and the British taxpayer cannot be expected to fund support for individuals who deliberately disregard the rules of the asylum system and the laws of the United Kingdom.

Crucially, none of these changes alters the legal safeguards that remain firmly in place. Our human rights and equality obligations will continue to provide strong protections, ensuring that we operate within a framework that upholds fundamental rights. Our intention is to provide greater flexibility over who we provide support to, ensuring that support is targeted, proportionate and sustainable. The revocation of Regulation 5 is an enabler for the development of a new framework that provides us with the ability to make changes in relation to those who have the ability to support themselves or who fail to comply with the conditions set by the Home Office or who break UK law.

This is the first step in building a modern and controlled asylum support system, which protects the vulnerable, encourages compliance and ensures public confidence. By tightening eligibility, we strengthen public confidence in the system and, I contend to the House, ensure that support is focused on those who play by the rules. I commend both orders to the House.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I see some of the same noble Lords in their places for this debate that were here for the debate last Tuesday. I trust that the Minister is feeling much better.

As with last week, these SIs on asylum support leave much unclear and have been tabled before the accompanying impact assessments or the framework the Minister just referred to, which would help the House understand the implications. I cannot approach a debate about destitution in the asylum system as an entirely abstract topic. I cannot not see the faces of the asylum seekers and refugees I had the privilege of working with at the Jesuit Refugee Service over a nine-year period. They were men and women from many different countries who, for one reason or another, found themselves destitute along their asylum journey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is in a very perceptive mood today. Yes, indeed, in a rare turn of events, I find myself in agreement with most of what the Minister said in this debate, and I join him in supporting these two statutory instruments.

The first instrument, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, amends the 2005 regulations of the same name. It makes a very simple but vital amendment to the 2005 regulations. The change that the Government are making, as the Minister outlined, is to permit the Secretary of State to create a new condition that failed asylum seekers can be subjected to. Under the 2005 regulations, a number of conditions can be placed on a failed asylum seeker who receives asylum support. Although illegal working is a criminal offence, it does not currently constitute a breach of their conditions. This, of course, is plainly wrong, and I am glad that the Government are making this change.

The second statutory instrument relates to the support provided to asylum seekers. At present, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 require the Home Secretary to provide support to an asylum seeker where the Home Secretary believes that the asylum seeker in question meets the conditions in Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The 2005 regulations therefore go further than the original wording in the 1999 Act. Section 95 states only that the Secretary of State may provide such support, and these regulations remove that legal duty on the Home Secretary. This is something that I entirely support.

The problem here is that, although Section 95 of the 1999 Act states that support may be provided if an asylum seeker is destitute, we know that this is not the reality. There are some who may be tempted to take the language in the Act at face value and criticise the Government’s plan for taking away support from those who cannot support themselves. This would be a wholly incorrect misinterpretation; in reality, the Government have a duty to provide support for virtually every single asylum seeker, regardless of whether they can support themselves. There is also a tranche of people who deliberately make themselves destitute so as to game the system and receive the generous, taxpayer-funded support.

It is also important to note that this is a Brexit benefit. The regulations that introduced the mandatory duty were passed in 2005 to implement EU law. The Government’s asylum White Paper acknowledges this. Can I say how welcome it is to see the Government making full use of the advantages of Brexit, even while they are trying to undermine it in some other areas? I have one observation, however: this change would make sense if the Government were adopting the Conservatives’ plans to deport all illegal migrants within a week, regardless of whether they have claimed asylum. If they were implementing that policy then those asylum seekers would not require any support from the Home Office, as they would have been detained and then deported. Unless the Minister has suddenly had a change of heart, which I doubt, there are some questions that need answering. If the Government are not going to start deporting all these illegal migrants but will be withdrawing support from them, what do they believe will happen? I would welcome some greater clarity on this from the Minister.

It would also not be right if I gave the impression that I am praising the Government for somehow solving the illegal migration crisis. The Government still refuse to establish a third-country removal centre to act as a deterrent; they still refuse to ban illegal migrants from claiming asylum; and they still refuse to take action to end the scam illegal industry around the asylum system. Where the Government have taken action, we will commend them. As such, I welcome these two statutory instruments, but the Government really still have a long way to go to truly get to grips with this problem. They need to introduce a strong deterrent and to dramatically ramp up deportations. It is my firm opinion that until that happens and until we leave the ECHR, the boats will not stop and this crisis will not end.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who I remind the House had stewardship of this challenge and problem with his Government—including the noble Lord, Lord Murray, whose support I welcome —until 5 July 2024. Since that date, we have tried to make some progress on the 400-plus hotels that were operational at the cost of billions of pounds; with a backlog of asylum claims; with, in my view—I know this is debateable and is not the noble Lord’s view—very little action on the question of small boat crossings; and with obvious abuses on overstaying visas and asylum claims.

Since July 2024, we have tried to put in place a number of steps to speed up claims for asylum, to support people who have a right to be here and remove those who do not, to reduce the level of hotel use, which we have now done, from 400 down to around 200, and to try to end some of the abuses that we believe exist. It is an ongoing challenge and an ongoing process, but we are trying to do that in a context of published documents, published papers, an approach of fairness and meeting our international obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for addressing those issues. Is the intention eventually to put the 42 days into a statutory instrument? As I understand it, that is the case with the current 28 days. So if this is the new normal, it would make sense. Perhaps he will write to me if he does not want to answer that now.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The intention is to have a 42-day period. We are publishing the evaluation very shortly. If my noble friend will allow me, I would rather reflect on this with my colleague, Minister Norris, who deals directly with these matters, on the mechanism to achieve that—but I will certainly write to her on that point when I have consulted with my honourable friend.

On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, it is important to put on record that the Government reduced the number of migrants in asylum hotels by 19% in the year ending December 2025. Overall, asylum support costs fell by 15% in the year ending March 2025. The rules that we put in place today are designed to help us reduce those costs further by making sweeping reforms to the immigration and asylum system while meeting our international obligations. This sits alongside existing work which has seen illegal immigration and illegal working enforcement activity, going back to the point from my noble friend Lord Mann, reach in 2025 the highest level in British history. Those are important issues.

Under these proposals, we will tackle illegal working but we will not support those who have permission but choose not to, nor those who enter the country on a work or student visa with permission to work before claiming asylum, nor those who have been granted permission to work whose claims have been outstanding for more than 12 months, through no fault of their own. We will not support those who are non-compliant. This includes anyone who has not complied with the conditions we impose. That is fair to the British taxpayer. The revocation of the duty will not result in immediate changes, as I have said, to those who will receive asylum support. It is the start of the process, and development of this framework is ongoing. In collaboration with other government departments, I will bring regular updates to the House on behalf of my noble friend on what the changes are.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised allowing asylum seekers to work. That would undermine the principle of the work visa, whereby people come to the country to work. She shakes her head; this is an honest disagreement. It would undermine those points. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked about our assessment of neighbouring countries’ asylum policy issues. I do not have the information to hand, so, if I may, I will look at that and write to him to cover any points when I have reflected on what he said and read Hansard tomorrow. With that, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

Motion agreed.

Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

Motion agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu.

2A: Page 12, line 7, leave out “and (4)” and insert “to (5)”

2C: Page 12, line 11, at end insert—
“(5) In section 73 (guidance), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued under this section may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 68 by authorised persons (within the meaning of that section).””

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to Motion A, I will speak also to Motions B, F and P in this group.

Amendment 2 is intended to ensure that accredited or authorised persons or their employers may not profit financially from fixed penalty notices issued for breaches of community protection notices or public spaces protection orders. I have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on a number of occasions and I fully understand the concerns he has raised that fixed penalty notices could be issued disproportionately where there is a financial incentive to do so. However, I must stress that this amendment risks weakening crucial enforcement action taken to address those who breach community protection notices or public spaces protection orders, and such a bar would, in effect, put an end to all outsourcing and could significantly reduce enforcement capacity.

Therefore, I have tabled our Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu, which seek to ensure that statutory guidance is issued that addresses the need for proportionality in the issuing of fixed penalty notices. I have had an opportunity to discuss that with the noble Lord outside the Chamber, and I await his comments in due course. It would mean a statutory presumption in the Bill that the guidance addresses the use and proportionality of such fixed penalty notices.

I turn to Amendments 6, 10, 11 and 12, and the very important issue of fly-tipping; I know that noble Lords have been exercised about it. I emphasise that I understand and recognise the problem and believe that waste crime is an issue that confronts us. The Government are committed to taking firm action. We recently published our new waste crime action plan, which is the toughest-ever crackdown on illegal waste and targets the problem at its root. Lords Amendment 6 is unnecessary as, where sufficient evidence is available, local authorities already have the power to prosecute fly-tippers and, on conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that the landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If available evidence is not sufficient to secure a successful prosecution, it is unclear how addressing this issue through statutory guidance would help in recovering those clean-up costs.

Amendment 11 is also unnecessary as, under Section 34B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local councils have the power to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used or is about to be used to commit a fly-tipping offence. Where the police stop and search a vehicle under their PACE powers, on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is used for the committing of fly-tipping offences, they can also call on local authority officers who can then impound the vehicle under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as I have mentioned.

Amendment 12 would place a duty on waste authorities to clean up waste from fly-tipping, including on private land. I have had what I hope were constructive discussions with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, but, as I have said to him outside the Chamber, the amendment would place a substantial unfunded burden on local councils and represents a significant departure from current practice. As such, it would infringe also on Commons financial privilege. I trust that, on that basis, the noble Viscount will consider not pursuing the amendment further.

Having said all that, I say to the House that the waste crime action plan sets out a zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime. We will look at pursuing criminals responsible and accelerating the clean-up effort. We are committed to working with the insurance industry in particular to explore any barriers to an accessible insurance market that will allow farmers, businesses and landowners to be indemnified against illegal waste dumping on their land.

We are also taking further action. The Government agree with the need for tougher penalties for those convicted of fly-tipping. As drafted, Amendment 10 seeks to amend the wrong legislation. Driving licence endorsements are set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Our Amendment 10A in lieu enables the addition of penalty points to the driving licence of an offender following conviction for fly-tipping offences where that offender was driving a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of committing the offence. This may ultimately lead to disqualification from driving. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his earlier amendments on this. I hope that he will now look at the amendment that we have tabled and see that, by allowing a range of three to nine points to be added, Amendment 10A would go even further than the amendment that he tabled initially.

Regarding Lords Amendment 15, I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House about the four-year custodial term’s reflection of the elements of culpability in the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his initial amendment. We have reflected on it and tabled Amendment 15A in lieu, which, with cross-government support from my colleagues in the MoJ and the Home Office, raises the maximum term to seven years’ imprisonment from the current four-year custodial term. I hope that noble Lords will accept this as a sensible compromise. It is a movement by the Government which reflects the additional intent element of the new offence.

Finally, I turn to Lords Amendment 333, which would extend the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days and of closure orders from six months to 12 months. Clause 3 already extends the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to 72 hours. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not able to be in her place today and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, may be speaking to this set of amendments. I say to him, and to the noble Baroness through him, that I acknowledge the sentiment of the amendment. I agree that it is vital that we tackle money laundering, organised crime and other criminal activities. On Report I extended my view on how police should be doing that in the street, and indicated my support for very strong action on these issues.

However, it is important that, if we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we first should consult to avoid any unintended consequences. Stronger enforcement powers should be used only proportionately; therefore, the government amendment in lieu will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and make different provision for commercial and/or residential properties. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the consultation will focus not on whether to exercise the regulation power but on how to exercise it.

I realise that this grouping has covered ASB, fly-tipping, unlawful weapons and the closure of premises—it is quite a wide group. Those things have been grouped under the issue of anti-social behaviour, but I hope that noble Lords will see that the Government have moved where we can. There is significant movement with some of the amendments in lieu, and I commend them to the House and await contributions from noble Lords on these matters. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Motions C, D and E relate to the several amendments on fly-tipping the Conservatives tabled on Report. I thank the Government for their amendment on points on licences for fly-tipping offences. Although our previous arguments in support of this policy were opposed by the Government, I welcome their Amendments 10A and 10B, even if it has taken us some time to get to this point. I also thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for his Amendment 12. We on these Benches wholly agree with the principle that it should be the responsibility of and the burden on the offenders who fly-tip to clean up the waste they deposit.

I was disappointed to see the Government tabling Amendment D opposing the amendment that provides police the powers to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping offences. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out on Report that this is a business. That is why we need to disrupt the business model by confiscating the means to conduct this criminality. I simply cannot understand why the Government remain reluctant to take firm and decisive action on fly-tipping. They were reluctant to impose penalty points for the offence until they were defeated on Report. It is deeply disappointing that it is their intention to resist my amendment which would put into statute powers for the police to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping. If the Government oppose my Motion D1, I will test the opinion of the House.

On the issue of knife crime, Amendment 15 increased the maximum term of imprisonment for the new offence of possession of a bladed article with intent to use unlawful violence from four to 10 years. As I explained in Committee and on Report, the offence of simple possession of a bladed article under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 carries four years, so it did not make sense to create a new, more serious offence of possessing an article with the intent to do harm to another that carried the same maximum sentence. For both offences to carry the same maximum sentence would be entirely inconsistent with how the criminal law has always approached the issue of intent. That is why we sought, successfully, to amend the maximum term of imprisonment on Report. However, since then the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to harm another to seven years. I thank the Minister for recognising the arguments that the Conservatives made both in Committee and on Report.

I thank my noble friend Lady Buscombe for tabling her amendment regarding closure notices on Report. Recent investigations have exposed businesses that plague our high streets, selling counterfeit and illegal goods as well as unregulated products. In doing so, she has raised important issues which have clearly resonated with your Lordships. It is therefore welcome to see that, despite opposing my noble friend’s amendment on Report, the Government now recognise the importance of this issue, and their amendment in lieu would give the Secretary of State powers to change the maximum duration of closure orders, as well as the maximum period for which such an order may be extended. They also recognise that different provisions may be required for different circumstances, such as whether a building is commercial or residential, so I thank the Government for their Amendment 333A in lieu and I look forward to when the Secretary of State uses the powers conferred by this amendment to lay regulations on closure notices.

As previously stated, if the Government oppose my Motion D1 concerning seizure of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, I will test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in response to this group of amendments, both those in lieu from the Government and the amendments tabled by Members here today. I stress that the Government agree with the sentiments behind the amendments in this group. On Amendments 2D and 2E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I assure the noble Lord that while the amendments say that the statutory guidance “may” include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices, it is our firm intention to issue such guidance. Indeed, I will be happy to share a copy of the guidance in draft form with the noble Lord at an appropriate time when it is ready.

The issue of fly-tipping has permeated through the discussions we have had in the last half an hour or so and I understand the strength of feeling on all sides of your Lordships’ House. That is why we have tabled the amendments in lieu to introduce penalty points for fly-tippers and I emphasise again to noble Lords that, in relation to Amendments 6 to 11, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and courts can already impose cost orders on those convicted of fly-tipping. I should add, if I may, that Defra, with the support of the Home Office, is going to explore how the Environment Agency’s powers to address waste crime can be bolstered. We are going to consider how additional measures within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and other relevant legislation could achieve this. This work will ensure that the Environment Agency has much stronger powers and tools to bring criminals to justice, intervene earlier and disrupt criminal finances undermining the waste system.

Again, I am sympathetic to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I understand and welcome the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the Waste Crime Action Plan. We are looking at how we improve enforcement around fly-tipping. However, as I have mentioned and as I think the noble Viscount acknowledged, the amendment breached Commons financial privilege, and I thank him for accepting those arguments and not pursuing the amendments further.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for accepting Amendment 15A in lieu.

On Amendment 333, it is right that the Government fully consult on any changes to closure powers before making significant changes, and our amendment in lieu does that. Again, I thank the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their pressure in raising these issues, because it is important. I confirm what I have said to the noble Viscount already, which is that the issue is not how but when we strengthen those closure powers.

I hope I have been able to offer reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his. I suspect that I may not have done to the extent that they would wish, but I can only try. We have moved significantly on some of the areas in this group. I welcome the support for the changes that we have made, but I do hope that, in moving Motion A, noble Lords will listen to my wise counsel and not press their amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, during the passage of this Bill, I have greatly admired the Minister’s geniality and stamina, but, sadly, this is not always matched by his delivery. I am afraid that the Government’s current approach really does not cut the mustard, and a number of mixed metaphors occur in the circumstances. The Minister said that they have a “firm intention”, but that is something of a pig in a poke and I will be asking the Government, as we proceed, to show rather more leg in this legislation, so with apologies for the metaphors, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion B

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.

6A: Because the courts already have sufficient powers to impose a compensation order to meet clean-up costs on persons convicted of offences under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1991.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion C

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 10A and 10B in lieu.

10A: Page 18, line 14, at end insert the following new Clause— “Fly-tipping: penalty points on driving record (1) In Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (other offences for which penalty points are available), at the end insert—

“An offence under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (unauthorised disposal of waste) committed by the driver of a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of the commission of the offence.

Discretionary

Obligatory

3-9”

(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an offence committed before that subsection comes into force.”

--- Later in debate ---

Motion D

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.

11A: Because the police and local authorities already have sufficient powers to search and seize vehicles used in connection with the commission of offences under section 33 of the Environmental Protection

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.

12A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motions E and F. With the leave of the House, I beg to move.

Motion E agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 15A in lieu.

15A: Page 31, line 16, leave out “4” and insert “7”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 311, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 311A.

311A: Because it is premature to consider conferring powers on the Secretary of State to designate extreme criminal protests groups until the Secretary of State for the Home Department has received and considered the report by Lord Macdonald of River Glaven following his review of public order and hate crime legislation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion N, I will also speak to Motions S, T, U and X. Amendment 311, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks to introduce a proscription regime for extreme criminal protest groups. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the amendment with the noble Lord—before Report, during Report formally and informally since then. I understand the concerns that led to the adoption of Amendment 311. However, it remains the case that the Government cannot support this amendment.

The amendment aims to minimise the risk of Palestine Action-style sign holders being arrested to challenge a proscription decision. I want to inform the House of the views of Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who has noted that supporters will still seek arrest to challenge the regime and the same disproportionality arguments would arise because the new offences closely mirror—and in some respects, go beyond—those under terrorism legislation.

There is a broader risk, which again I have shared with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, privately, and which has been identified by the independent reviewer, that the proscription regime is undermined by the proposal and the threshold for proscription will naturally increase if there is an alternative designation available. The Government may be pressured not to proscribe terrorist organisations and instead pursue a less forceful and less effective measure.

The designation test set out in the amendment is unclear, particularly the concept of serious harm to the rights of others, which sadly, I fear, will create uncertainty for the police, for prosecutors and for the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, KC, as the House will know, is currently undertaking a review of public order and hate crime legislation. I fully expect him to report to the House and to Parliament as a whole in May. It would be appropriate to wait for the outcome of that review before committing to any further legislation. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, will not wish to pursue his amendment.

Turning to Motion S and Amendment 342, I agree with the sentiments in our earlier debates expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Multi-agency engagement is essential to the success of youth diversion orders in practice. However, I would argue to her—and she is at liberty to accept it or not—that this has already been reflected in current drafting of the legislation. There is a duty on the police under Clause 174 of the Bill to consult youth offending teams in England and Wales, or their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the respondent is under the age of 18.

I want to emphasise that youth offending teams are necessarily multi-agency in nature and include representation from probation, local council social services, health, education and others. This means that the police will already need to ensure there is a wide range of expertise considered at the start of any process.

The department is also currently drafting statutory guidance, which will support the police in applying for youth diversion orders and management of the orders when in place. This will include guidance for police on the consultation process, and consideration of alternative interventions before the police can even apply for an order. The guidance will be laid before Parliament in due course. I have explained to the noble Baroness that, unusually for statutory guidance, in this instance we have provided that the guidance is subject to scrutiny by both Houses through the negative resolution procedure. That is an abnormal procedure for the type of activity before the House today. Further, the legislation dictates that the police must consider the necessity and proportionality of the order and the measures within it on a case-by-case basis, and this would need to include consideration of alternative options.

However, given the concerns in Committee and on Report, the Commons has agreed Amendment 342A in lieu. This amendment will clarify that the statutory guidance may include guidance about matters to be taken into account by the police prior to making an application for a youth diversion order, including, crucially, consideration of alternative interventions and guidance on their duty to consult partners under Clause 174, including youth justice services. I know there has been a bit of debate on this outside the Chamber and in my discussions with the noble Baroness. To be clear, the guidance in this case will use “may”, but that reflects usual practice. I hope that the amendment in lieu offers sufficient assurance and that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, knows that the spirit of the original amendment has been met. It is our intention to address these matters in the guidance, and I hope that will assist her.

I turn to Motion T and Amendment 357 on the glorification of terrorism. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is available to examine this issue. I have had a great opportunity to discuss these matters with her in informal discussions outside the Chamber. I have previously set out that I fully recognise the harm that can be caused by the glorification of terrorism. The offence in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act was designed to prevent terrorist risk by criminalising statements that could lead to individuals being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism themselves. Such statements not only increase the risks to public safety but potentially legitimise terrorist actors if left unchecked.

However, as I set out at on Report and have discussed with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber, the offence of encouraging terrorism is already very wide, and I believe it strikes the right balance between freedom of speech and criminalising statements, which may even increase terrorist risk. Amendment 357 would remove an important safeguard requiring that the glorification be understood to mean that the conduct should be emulated in current circumstances. Put simply, that safeguard aims to prevent the inadvertent criminalisation of statements about historic acts of terrorism, where those statements do not carry the same risk of those acts being repeated nowadays. I pray in aid statements around such high-profile figures as the former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, who may well have had arguments around terrorism activities in the past.

I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has attempted to limit her changes to statements that concern acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. However, this does not fully mitigate the risk of overreach I have described, and it does not recognise the existence of a separate terrorist offence—the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation—which the amendment would arguably overlap with.

Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, so I am proposing to the House that the Government will ask the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to carry out a targeted review of the encouragement offence. As Members of your Lordships’ House will know, the independent reviewer’s role is to review the operation of terrorism legislation in practice, so this commission by the Government will be an opportunity for the reviewer to undertake a detailed review of the use of the encouragement offence in practice and to identify any issues that may warrant further consideration by the Government. As I explained to the noble Baroness in our private discussions, I will of course discuss the terms of reference for that review with the independent reviewer, and I understand that Jonathan Hall KC is ready to meet with the noble Baroness as part of the review, including a prior discussion on the terms of reference for any review. I hope that assists in what is a genuine attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify this issue, and I hope that I have at least attempted to meet that Motion half way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for returning with her amendment. I understand the Government are offering to include alternative interventions in youth diversion order guidance, but I agree with the noble Baroness that these considerations should be consistently applied to ensure proportionality. We therefore support the original measure.

Motion U1, standing in my name, returns once again to the issue of proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. I am sure that the Minister will once again attempt to use the fact that the last Government did not proscribe the IRGC as a justification for this Government’s position, and I recognise that fact. But the international situation is radically different now from that when we left government. Before this war even started, it was clear that the Iranian regime was ramping up its aggressive activities. At home, it wilfully oversaw the murder of over 40,000 protestors. Overseas, it continued to extend its influence through its backing of terrorist cells. In the UK alone, in 2025, security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots.

This threat has only been exacerbated following the outbreak of war. Just last month, an Iranian man suspected of being a regime spy was arrested for attempting to break into a nuclear naval base in Scotland. We have seen the streets of our capital city filled with regime apologists on so-called Al-Quds day, leading to 12 arrests and countless lost police hours. Proscribing the IRGC would not only give the police more powers to counteract these actions but would send a signal that we do not bow to pressure from oppressive and authoritarian regimes.

I once again anticipate that the response from the Minister will be that this is constantly kept under review—but that is now not good enough. We know what this group is capable of, especially when it has the apparatus of an OPEC state behind it, and now with the current war, we must strengthen our resolve further. The Iranian regime is blocking the Strait of Hormuz, erratically attacking neighbours and, most importantly, influencing—if not sanctioning—potential attacks on British soil.

Quite independently of our national approach to the United States, this Iranian regime is one for which we should have no regard and no tolerance. The Government must now be pragmatic. Their policy must now reflect the international situation—they must undertake this review and proscribe the IRGC. If the Minister still does not agree with this conclusion, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the discussion we have had to date on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks—for those who heard them, at least—the Government cannot accept Amendment 311 as drafted. I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on these issues, but as I have set out to the House already, and as I set out to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in particular, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing proscription regime. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also recognised that, and I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this was the position. With the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, coming forward, it is right that this amendment not be accepted today. I particularly welcome the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, of that. That is not to undermine the arguments he has made, but we are where we are at the moment.

On Amendment 359, I stress that both this and previous Governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for proscription. As I mentioned in my opening remarks—for those who heard them—we have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, so we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have also put them in the foreign influence registration scheme.

If I may say so, I take objection to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our not proscribing the IRGC somehow supports the Iranian regime—it does not. I will not accept that we should give a running commentary on proscription. With due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, they have not had intelligence in front of them on these issues from the intelligence services. We are making judgments as a Government, and we are not going to give a running commentary on what and when we proscribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.

I remind the House—without commenting on the IRGC in particular—that any eventual proscription order on anybody is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. I am not in a position today to give a running commentary on the possible proscription of the IRGC, nor will I accept in principle the fact that both Opposition Front Benches think it right to do so. That may be their view, but the Government have to take a view on these matters in due course. It is not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. I say that to the House as a whole.

I stress again that I understand and accept the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, put before the House today. We will make it clear in statutory guidance that authorities must consider a range of options and interventions before deciding whether to apply for a youth diversion order. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, also stressed that it was important to do so. I stress to both noble Baronesses that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency youth offending teams, which comprise health, education, probation and police services. I am happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Baroness in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work on her amendment on glorifying terrorism, and for giving her own personal experiences. It is very difficult to do that, and I understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on glorification in general. On the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned today, individuals are under arrest and in custody for the alleged offence. We should obviously allow the police to do their job and determine whether charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. None the less, that type of incident—whether or not the individuals under arrest are responsible—is simply not acceptable. The Government and others should stand with the community as a whole.

I was pleased to hear and welcomed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I cannot accept the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I ask—in anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement—that they be content not to press their Motions. In the meantime, I beg to move my Motion N, and I hope the House will agree to it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their insight on and support for the principle behind this matter, which is that urgent action is needed. In the light of what has been said, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my Motion. In doing so, I will leave the Minister with two thoughts.

First, this will not go away. I hope the Minister will take away the urgent need to deal with this matter and bring forward a solution—this debate has shown that that is possible—in order to address the concerns set out in this Chamber and outside it. Secondly, I hope he will agree to meet with me and others to look in the meantime at an array of protections for the affected businesses, in advance of any legislative change. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 333 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 333A in lieu.

333A: Page 11, line 29, at end insert—
“(5) After section 83 insert—
“83A Power of Secretary of State to change maximum duration of closure orders
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Chapter so as to alter—
(a) the maximum period that a closure order under section 80 may specify as the period for which access to the premises is prohibited;
(b) the maximum period for which a closure order may be extended under section 82;
(c) the maximum duration of a closure order extended under section 82.
(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
(6) In section 182(2) (orders and regulations), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) regulations under section 83A,”.”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.

Motion P agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendmentusb 334, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 334A.

334A: Because the amendment is unnecessary given Lords Amendment 332 and the findings and recommendations in the final report on non-crime hate incidents published by the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council on 31 March 2026.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for returning to the important issue of NCHIs. Our position as a party has not changed. With 60,000 annual police hours and a quarter of a million cases recorded, which is over 65 a day, this is the extent to which our police forces are having to go to record non-crimes.

The Government have stated that they are not accepting my noble friend’s amendment, as the College of Policing has now published its review into the instrument, complete with recommendations. I welcome this review and that the Government have accepted its conclusions, but it bears no requirements for action. Similarly, while the statutory code of practice addressing the recording of NCHIs has been revoked, there is little reassurance that this will be replaced by a more satisfactory system. This amendment seeks to commit the Government to necessary action now. This measure needs to be on the statute book. Should my noble friend wish to test the opinion of the House, we will wholly support him.

My Amendment 339B in lieu is a redrafted version of the amendment that I tabled on Report concerning the investigation of police officers for misconduct. I thank the IOPC for its engagement with me concerning this amendment. The version before your Lordships now is a more comprehensive drafting, but the underlying point remains the same. Where police officers are acquitted of criminal charges, all misconduct proceedings concerning that specific offence should be dropped.

I want to be clear about how this amendment would operate in practice. It would not mean that acquittal would shield an officer from any potential misconduct proceedings. For example, if the police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, he could still be liable for misconduct proceedings if due process was not followed on a related procedural matter such as filling in correct paperwork concerning the incident. However, the amendment would mean that the police officer, where he is acquitted of criminal charges concerning the use of force, could not then be subject to misconduct proceedings on that same question. As I said on Report, it is wrong that in the absence of my amendment, police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted only then to be reinvestigated. If it is the Minister’s intention to oppose this amendment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I moved Motion Q at the beginning of the debate but was, I confess, slow out of the blocks. I should have spoken to Motion Q before Motion Q1 was moved, but I was concentrating on the Marshalled List and missed my opportunity. But the principles are the same.

The Government cannot support Motion Q1 but will support Motion Q, because there has been careful consideration on the recording of non-crime hate incidents since Report. I have appreciated the opportunity to engage formally and informally with the noble Lord. However, he will know that since your Lordships’ House last considered this matter on 31 March, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published their joint review of non-crime hate incidents, a review that was commissioned by the UK Government as well. The review recommended ending the current system and replacing it with a new national standard for incident recording and assessment. Under that approach, non-crime hate incidents would no longer exist as a stand-alone category. Instead, hate-related behaviour short of the criminal threshold would be recorded only where there are clear policing purposes within the established anti-social behaviour framework. The threshold for recording would be higher, more tightly defined and supported by trained police assessment and triage practices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very relaxed about that, because this side of the House—and I now see the support of Liberal Democrats—are happy to ensure that we have changed the regime, but we are also keeping information that will help safeguard and protect. If the noble Lord wishes to vote against that today and remove it, then it would be on his head if any consequences come from that.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving away. I think the argument he has just made was a bit of a non sequitur. The only thing asked for in this amendment is that any NCHIs that the police come across in the course of their work which would not meet the new higher recording threshold be deleted. If they would meet the new higher recording threshold—if there is a legitimate policing purpose for retaining that information—then that would not be stopped by this amendment. The College of Policing and the joint council have agreed that the old regime is not fit for purpose and the recording threshold was far too low—which is why, as my noble friend said, over 65 a day have been recorded on average over the last 10 years. Given that, why not allow for those NCHIs which do not meet the new higher recording threshold—not all NCHIs, just those—to be deleted?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am not willing to take that risk. It is a matter for noble Lords opposite. We are making a recommended change—we have accepted every recommendation from the College of Policing—but such an approach from the noble Lord risks removing information that may still be relevant. I am not willing to take that risk.

The noble Lord’s amendment also, if I may say so, overstates the impact of non-crime hate incidents on Disclosure and Barring Service checks. Such records do not appear on basic or standard DBS certificates. They can be disclosed only on an enhanced check, and only where a chief officer reasonably considers the information to be relevant, applying statutory Home Office guidance and strict tests of seriousness, relevance and proportionality. Enhanced checks are used solely for the most sensitive roles involving children or vulnerable adults, and there is no evidence of systemic or inappropriate use of non-crime hate incident information in that context.

I pray in aid that the House of Commons has disagreed with the noble Lord’s amendment for clear reasons. Its objectives are being met through the accepted review undertaken by police experts, and a blanket deletion requirement would be potentially harmful, removing information that—I say this again, and slowly—may be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities. Everybody in this House, every noble Lord who walks through a Lobby today to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is going to be potentially—I emphasise “potentially”—removing information that may still be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities.

I am not willing to do that. I urge noble Lords to recognise the Government’s approach, which has effected and is effecting real change. We have accepted the recommendations of the College of Policing, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is a member of the Conservative Party and a Peer with that knowledge.

Turning to Motion R and Amendment 339, the Government take police accountability very seriously. We believe it is right to strike a balance between allowing appropriate scrutiny of the police and ensuring that they can carry out their powers. I know that noble Lords opposite agree with that. We made a commitment in the police reform White Paper to commission an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. We will confirm who will lead this review and publish the terms of reference very shortly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that he will have input into that review.

We cannot support Amendment 339 as it stands because it would introduce a blanket presumption that any case involving a police officer that has resulted in an acquittal in the criminal court and subsequently been closed should not be reopened to go forward to misconduct proceedings. Such a blanket presumption would not be appropriate in all cases—for example, in allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers. Anybody in this House today who votes for Motion R1 and the noble Lord’s Amendment 399B will be leaving open the opportunity that allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers, will be potentially not able to be taken.

We will have honest disagreements in this House, but I say to noble Lords, particularly those opposite—and I am grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrats—that the changes we are making are important and effective. There is a risk in both amending Motions of potential safeguarding issues and compromise for the future, around not being able to look at cases of sexual abuse and others by the police. I am very happy to have a debate about that, but I suggest to my noble friends, and to anybody who wishes to join us, that we vote those Motions down and support Motion Q, in my name.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

On Motion R1, I agree with the Minister, not with my noble friend Lord Davies. It is important to remember—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 339, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 339A.

339A: Because it is premature to legislate for changes to the arrangements governing misconduct investigations in respect of police officers acquitted of a criminal offence arising from the same conduct until the end-to-end review of the police misconduct system, announced by the Home Secretary in the Police Reform White Paper on 26 January 2026, has concluded.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.

Motion R1 (as an amendment to Motion R)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 342 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 342A in lieu.

342A: Page 215, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) The guidance may in particular include guidance about—
(a) matters to be taken into account by chief officers of police before making an application for a youth diversion order, including alternatives to making an application;
(b) how chief officers of police are to comply with their duties to consult under section 174.”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S, and I beg to move.

Motion S1 (as an amendment to Motion S)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 357, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 357A.

357A: Because the encouragement offence is already sufficiently broad, and the amendment could mean that public discourse around historic acts of terrorism would be criminalised.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T and I beg to move.

Motion T1 (as an amendment to Motion T) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 359A.

359A: Because the amendment is unnecessary as the Home Secretary already keeps under review whether new organisations should be added to the list of proscribed organisations, and the Government has already committed to take forward plans for a proscription-like power for state and state-linked bodies to tackle hostile state activity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion U—there is a pattern here—and I beg to move.

Motion U1 (as an amendment to Motion U)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 360, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 372A in lieu.

372A: Page 226, line 21, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Section (Power to amend Online Safety Act 2023: AI): duty to make progress report
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 December 2026, lay before Parliament a report about the progress that has been made towards making regulations under section 216A of the Online Safety Act 2023 (power to amend Act in relation to illegal AI-generated content).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under that section is laid before Parliament before 31 December 2026.”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, we return to the extremely important subject of the regulation of chatbots, and I am grateful to all those who have engaged constructively on this issue throughout the Bill’s passage. We all share a determination to keep people, especially children, safe in what is a fast-changing online world. Noble Lords from across the House, but most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to whom I pay tribute, have spoken powerfully about the risks arising from AI chatbot services, particularly for children, and about the pace at which these technologies are being deployed.

On many occasions, the noble Baroness has raised her concerns that there are gaps in the Online Safety Act regarding unregulated AI chatbots. The Government agree with this assessment, which is why we tabled on Report Amendment 367, to which the House has agreed, granting the Government the power to address that gap. The Online Safety Act provides a strong and workable foundation for tackling illegal content online; updating it to bring unregulated chatbots in scope is the most effective way of ensuring that these risks are addressed quickly and effectively. Building on the Act, rather than creating an overlapping and duplicative criminal regime, will be the most effective route to enforcing clear rules. Our power will ensure that all relevant services, including those operating from overseas, have to comply with illegal content duties, and will place them in scope of Ofcom’s considerable enforcement toolkit where they fail to act.

I also recognise the strength of feeling expressed in the House about the need for urgency and appropriate scrutiny. Our Amendment 372A now includes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, no later than 31 December 2026, a report on the progress made towards making regulations with this power. This report will set out what work the Government have undertaken to develop and deploy the regulations. That is a clear and concrete demonstration of the Government’s intention to close this gap—and we will act quickly to do that.

In recognition of the valuable scrutiny that Parliament would provide of these powers, I also confirm that the Government intend to share draft regulations with the relevant Select Committees in both Houses, opposition spokespeople and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in advance of them being laid, for any constructive—and, I hope, positive—comments. These powers will create a much clearer and more effective approach than the criminal offences proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Creating a new criminal regime would create new legal uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement, and, crucially, it would not apply overseas.

The Government’s concern is that the proposed criminal framework risks being disproportionate, legally uncertain and, in practice, less effective than a clear regulatory approach under the Online Safety Act. It would create uncertainty about what compliance looks like and risk capturing those acting in good faith, while failing to focus enforcement on the most culpable for high risk conduct. Most importantly, criminal offences of this kind would, in practice, be far less effective against overseas services, which is precisely where we see some of the greatest risks. One of the strengths of the Online Safety Act framework is its reach and the regulator’s ability to take action in ways that are designed to be effective across borders.

The Government are putting forward a coherent package to address these risks. We have a clear route to close regulatory gaps and to ensure that unregulated AI services can be brought within scope of the Online Safety Act. We have strong enforcement mechanisms through Ofcom. We have a commitment not only to action but to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny in the exercise of these powers. Strengthening our existing approach will be far preferable to the confusion and delay of creating a new parallel regime. I hope that noble Lords will support Amendment 372A. I beg to move Motion V.

Motion V1 (as an amendment to Motion V)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, the Government are clearly very well meaning. They are very strong on discussion but weak on action. It is very sad that they should be so weak, and I strongly support the speeches that have been made so far.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First of all, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been an indefatigable campaigner on this issue. I share the objective of trying to ensure that we protect children from chatbots, and I want to be clear that the Government share the House’s objective as a whole. We are aligned on the need to address the harms that arise from AI-generated illegal content. This is a disagreement about the question of what is the most effective and enforceable way in practice. The amendment in lieu reflects the balance the Government wish to bring. Our regulatory approach maintains a coherent approach under the Online Safety Act and reinforces Parliament’s ability to scrutinise delivery. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment in lieu.

I know we are going to have a Division on this, but I hope that whatever the outcome of that Division, we can agree after it that this House is committed to ensuring that we protect children through regulation on chatbots. I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Motion V1, but if she does, I urge my noble friends to vote against it.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, there will indeed be a Division. I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting that he will bring to the House, to the committees and to me personally his regulations. But those regulations do not extend to enforcement or to redress, and they do not give parents and children anywhere to go. I am absolutely willing to work with the Government, but I will give them one more opportunity to work with me on this, and the only way I have is to send these amendments the other place so that they can bring forward plans for real change. For that reason, I ask the House to agree with Motion V1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 361A to 361E.

361A: Line 5, leave out “165 (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: England and Wales)” and insert “165A”

--- Later in debate ---

361E: Line 7, leave out “165A” and insert “165B”

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Levitt has already spoken to Motion W. I beg to move.

Motion W agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 439, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 439A.

439A: Because it relates to Lords Amendment 359 to which the Commons disagree.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion X. I beg to move.

Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 505, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 505A.

505A: Because the amendment is unnecessary as the combination of Lords amendment 255 and the illegal content duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 deliver an effective ban on nudification tools

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Y. I beg to move.

Motion Y agreed.