Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I pay tribute to the victims of child sexual exploitation who, for too long, have been treated as miscreants themselves, including by police and social workers, thus repeating their victimisation. Their bravery in continuing their fight over many years of not being listened to is quite extraordinary.

My first question is about them. What support and recompense will the Government provide for these victims? While it is good that the Government have accepted all the IICSA recommendations, the Statement says that the Government will lay out a timetable for taking forward these recommendations before Easter. A timetable is welcome, but does the Minister actually have any idea of timescales for the possible start and finish for the discussion, consultation and implementation of these recommendations? I ask this with experience of speaking on many of the other inquiries and recommendations, and know how easily things can get bogged down in paperwork, to put it politely.

The Home Secretary said that there will be

“new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions”.

However, I cannot get the answer to my question of why the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which incorporates an enormous amount of legislation to support victims, has not yet been commenced, other than for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The HMICFRS inspection on police and law enforcement bodies’ response to group-based child sexual exploitation in England and Wales, published in December 2023, made nine recommendations. Can the Minister say how many have now been fully implemented by government? It is not clear whether the previous Government had accepted them in full, let alone implemented them. I realise that three have not quite reached the deadline by which that should have been done—only one of those goes beyond March this year—but that leaves six where the deadline has now passed. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I would be grateful if he could write to me.

It is encouraging that the Government want to do a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation, but can he say what “rapid” means, not least as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has other roles to fulfil? Will her taking up this role slow down the other important work that she is doing?

It is also encouraging that the Government will start collecting better data and evidence. One of the problems here is that a lot of the evidence has never been collected. Can the Minister say whether they will review the various local inquiries—Oldham, Rotherham, Telford and other towns? I have raised this with him before, and I got a positive response, but it would be useful if the Government could lay out all the various inquiries that have happened so that it is possible for their information to be included; otherwise, we may miss some important things.

It is good news that Tom Crowther KC has been appointed to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries. The Statement mentions the drawing up of a duty of candour. We on these Benches have stood alongside Labour when it has raised this is the past. Can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea about when this might be published? There is clearly an urgent need for it.

I end by expressing my disappointment at the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He talked about the national emergency, but his Government did not accept all the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, it is not clear whether they have implemented the recommendations from HMI, and, more importantly, his Government did nothing to start to implement those that his party now says should have been implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for both Front-Bench contributions. I say at the outset that I am disappointed by the tone of the first few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He seems to imply that this problem occurs only in authorities that have Labour control. If he thinks that is the case, he is sadly misguided. When he reads back what he has said today, I think the tone of his contribution is one that he will think about, reflect upon and regret.

I am trying to look at a programme of activity to ensure that we stop the vile crime of child abuse, that we respond to the reports that have been published already, and that we put a detailed programme in place to affect change. I am disappointed by the way that the noble Lord has approached this. If he wants to politicise things, let us politicise the Alexis Jay report, rightly commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was in the House of Commons. It took seven years to achieve its objectives and produce recommendations, which were given to the previous Government in May 2023. By 4 July 2024, not one single action in the recommendations had been started, never mind completed. So if the noble Lord wants to politicise this matter, I will certainly politicise it, but I appeal to all Members of this House to focus on the real issue: child abuse and prevention of that child abuse.

That is why I will focus on the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can tell her that there will be a clear timetable. There will be a clear programme of activity. We have said that, unlike the previous Government, we will respond to all 20 IICSA recommendations by Easter of this year. We have already put in place three recommendations announced recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Those three steps include: mandatory reporting, which we debated in depth on Friday; making grooming an aggravated factor, which I know the noble Baroness will welcome; and introducing police performance frameworks, which again I know the noble Baroness will welcome.

The noble Baroness asked about the Victims and Prisoners Act. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the Justice Minister, and we are working on that; we will bring forward proposals to implement that in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about deadlines, the Casey report and our response. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been commissioned to do a short report for three months to take us up to April. She does not commence the longer-term work on other departments’ activities until April this year. The three-month audit is about looking at the issues, which are important in all local authorities, of the ethnicity of people who are committing child abuse, what preparation is available and what support is on hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about all inquiries. She knows that I have given a commitment before that we need to look at the lessons from all inquiries, but I say to all Members of this House that we have laid out a clear timetable for implementing the IICSA recommendations; we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to improve the understanding of the scale and nature; we have extended the remit of the IICSA report to look at other areas now; we have given support to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at further action that could be taken on historic child sex abuse reviews; we have put finance in of £5 million, not just with Tom Crowther but with others, to look at local inquiries; we have put an undercover online help and support line in place; we have included the three mandatory duties; and we will be taking measures on the Online Safety Act, which will come into effect next year, to make sure that we tackle child sexual abuse, which very often is now on the dark web and online.

I offer the noble Lord the hand of friendship and ask him not to politicise this in the way that he has and to look at the positives that have been done.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Have a statutory inquiry.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

A statutory inquiry, for which the noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position, would mean a further five or six years before recommendations took place. Clear action was set down by Alexis Jay in the IICSA inquiry.

Believe it or not, we have been working on this from last July to January this year. We have announced measures now because parties have commented, often based on false information, about what has not been happening. Things have been happening. Those who have served or worked in government know that Governments do not just announce things at one day’s notice. A lot of work has been put into this between July and January to achieve those objectives—and in fact we have put an awful lot more work into this than the previous Government did over the 19 months when those recommendations were there.

So my hand of friendship goes to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He should work with the Government, with Members of the Liberal Democrats, with this House and with the House of Commons to do something now, in the next few months, to help to reduce the dreadful activities of child abuse online, in person and elsewhere. If we do that, we can make a real difference in the near future rather than waiting for some mythical inquiry and trying to pin the fact that we cannot do that on the Government because of political shenanigans. We are not doing that because we want urgent action on this issue. I commend my right honourable friend’s Statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness has committed a large part of her professional life to tackling this issue, and I take very much to heart her support for the Government’s stance on a statutory national inquiry. We are not doing that for the reasons I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Davies: in essence, we would waste time looking at a problem in respect of which we already have 20 recommendations from IICSA, and other recommendations from earlier reports, which is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has accepted all the Home Office recommendations for implementation now. The remaining recommendations for other parts of government will be brought forward prior to Easter. We have given a clear timetable. I will be held to account by this House, as will my right honourable friend by the House of Commons. We are here to deliver on the recommendations. I say to the House again that the recommendations were delivered in May 2023. On 4 July, when this Government came into office, not one single inch had been moved towards those recommendations. That is this Government’s focus. By all means let us have a political debate about it, but I am more interested in taking action which will help prevent there being future victims.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the focus on the victims, which is critical; sometimes we forget about the victims when we debate points of process. At the end of the Statement, the noble Lord’s right honourable friend referred to undercover online networks and the need to engage on that, because we know that what happens online, unfortunately, quickly moves into reality. Reducing the number of online pathways that accelerate harm should be a priority as well. There are plenty of priorities, I accept that, but surely this has to be one. Will the Minister commit to working with experts in this field—including the former head of CEOP, Jim Gamble, who he will be familiar with and who did some excellent work with the former Government—to really take on this issue? It concerns me that it becomes a reality when it starts online.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, knows that I have great respect for Jim Gamble and his work. She will also know that addressing the movement to online presence, the dark web, fake images, AI, and the future development of child abuse in that sphere is extremely important for the Government. That is why two things are happening as a result of my right honourable friend’s Statement. The first is action on the Online Safety Act to try to look at how we tighten up laws on the use of child images and child abuse images online. Secondly, we are recruiting a large number of additional online undercover police officers. I do not need to talk to the House in great detail about that, but the purpose of those officers is to capture people who are committing criminal activity online and bring them to justice in order to stop them exploiting young people and children, and to stop young people and children being exploited through providing images that those people will seek to use. They are both extremely important areas that the Government are focused on.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I had the duty to give evidence to IICSA in my time as a Minister, and then served on the Select Committee that looked at statutory inquiries. We came up with a recommendation that was in line with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about enacting recommendations. We heard evidence, though, that, in addition to its recommendations, a really important part of IICSA was the Truth Project. Of some 7,000 victims who took part, about 6,000 were within that project, which was nowhere near being a core participant. Can the Minister outline how reviews of local inquiries will not lose sight of the fact that victims really valued that process, which was very cathartic and not part of the judicial process of the inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for those comments. I think she will know that the Government want to put victims at the heart of the response to the recommendations. We debated mandatory reporting on Friday in this House, and it was clear that victims carry the pain of their victimhood through into adult life and beyond. It scars individuals. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned the many victims who do not reach adulthood because they self-harm and commit suicide. We need to address how we involve the experience of victims to ensure we do not create future victims. I see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in her place. The inquiry she established had a number of recommendations on how we can help support victims, and we will look at those between now and Easter. It takes time, but we will look at how we can respond to those recommendations in the best way, so as not to lose the knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, process is clearly very important in relation to statutory inquiries and to giving the recommendations some kind of parliamentary scrutiny and holding them to account. On Friday, the Minister identified that the Home Office was responsible for “four” of the 20 recommendations. Which member of the Cabinet will be responsible for leading on this inquiry and its recommendations? Will the Minister take it from me that there would be a lot of delight—widely across the House, I suspect—if he were to take responsibility among Ministers in this House for leading on reporting back progress on this inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister takes a keen interest in the progress of these reports, and he will monitor and hold to account Ministers in government on that delivery. But the very fact that I am standing here today, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was standing in the House of Commons, shows that we are responding on behalf of the Government to the IICSA response. That is where the lead and responsibility lie: with the Home Office. But we do not have the direct implementation of a number of recommendations, which require the engagement of the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and other departments. We have set out the timetable to meet those 17 other recommendations; we have accepted the four, and we are already implementing some. Very shortly, other legislation will be published by the Home Office that will give effect to the recommendations we have accepted. It is our job to see that through and to do so, I hope—putting out the hand of friendship—with the support of the Opposition Front Bench.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking this robust approach in order to make a real difference and change for our children’s lives—the victims will carry that pain through childhood and beyond. The introduction of any duty to report child sexual abuse and exploitation must be accompanied by funding for services and training to support practitioners working with children across the country. Essential services like the NSPCC Childline and the Shore service play a vital role in supporting children who have suffered child sexual abuse and exploitation. How will the Government ensure that these services will be able to continue their valuable work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for mandatory reporting. She participated in the debate on Friday and will know that I said from this Dispatch Box that this is an urgent issue for this Government. We will bring forward proposals on mandatory reporting in very short order. She raises the issue of funding. Any implementation of any recommendations requires a consistent government approach and a review of how we are funding those approaches to those issues. I cannot give her a detailed answer now, but, as part of the review on what we do with the 17 other recommendations, we will put meat on those bones so that she and others in this House can see what resources the Government are putting into this area.

The noble Baroness raises the issue of the very important support of the voluntary agencies. It is important that, politically—I mean that in a non-party-political way—we give support to Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations, which are doing great work in both highlighting this terrible abuse and very much supporting development work on the ground. This is helping the Government’s case to reduce the amount of child abuse as a whole. So I cannot give that answer now, but I will return to this in due course.

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to victims and survivors in this regard, recognising that the failure to respond perpetuates and prolongs their suffering, and recognising—as noble Lords will all know—that the Church of England is facing significant challenges in putting its own house in order in that regard. I want to ask, therefore, a wider question on faith communities, all of which provide places of gathering and moral and social influence, and all of which strive to make those places as safe as possible. What conversations are continuing with leaders of faith communities to support them in that vital work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the right reverend Prelate’s contribution. I think I can say to him that the Church has had difficulties, which he has acknowledged, and those difficulties might well have been resolved had some of the measures in the IICSA report been in place at the time. For example, had mandatory reporting been in place seven or eight years ago, it is very possible that some of the concerns that have arisen in the last few weeks and months in relation to the reporting of sex abuse in the Church might have been resolved.

I reach out to the right reverend Prelate, as I reach out to teachers, social workers and others who have a place of responsibility for the safeguarding of children, to say that the measures in the IICSA report, following the helpful inquiry led by Alexis Jay, are in areas where I hope we can work in co-operation with any authority, be it the Church, teachers or others, to see whether they impact upon the areas where the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues have had concerns.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has the whole House with him when he agrees that we must do very much better in preventing the sexual abuse of children. That is the challenge. We actually know how to do it and we could do it very much better. Much on my mind is the list of local authorities, published yesterday and again today, that are on the verge of bankruptcy. That means that services are being withdrawn at the very time when we want services to be outward-looking and more engaged, especially in preventing children being abused in this way.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has experience far beyond any that I could bring to this House, so I am grateful for his contribution today. He raises an extremely important point. We have established a fund—it is of only £5 million, but it is available to all local authorities to draw on to establish the work that needs to be done. That was in the initial announcement from my right honourable friend in the House of Commons last week and will be kept under review for the future. We have given the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a remit to look at the existing areas of concern within local authorities. No doubt she will come back with an audit and further recommendations for the Government to consider.

I recognise that the noble Lord has concerns about long-term funding for key services that are about interventions. I can say to him only that we are going to keep all that under review. I know I will have his support, and that of others with great experience, in implementing the IICSA recommendations and when we bring back proposals on the other recommendations, in what might be only 10 weeks’ time.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, although I am speaking in a personal capacity today. About a week ago, when the Minister and I engaged on a similar but different Statement, I asked him two questions and he said he would need to go away and think about them. One was about data. I do not know whether he has seen the reports, based on freedom of information requests, about backsliding. I very much welcome the emphasis on ethnicity data collection and demographics, as the Statement says. Has he seen the statistics? I will give him only three examples. In Hampshire, in the past five years, 58% of offenders sentenced for all sexual offences involving children were recorded as having an unknown ethnicity. In West Mercia, it was 55%, and in Leicestershire, it was 52%. If the police are already not recording identity for fear of being accused of either racism or Islamophobia, what are the Government going to do, before we get the full gamut of actions under the Jay report, to ensure that the current requirements are met?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness had a conversation with me, both in this Chamber and outside. She will know that there are occasions when Ministers can absorb views but cannot necessarily give definitive answers, because policy is developed outside of just the discussions in this House and in government as a whole. I hope she will welcome that one of the policy initiatives in the second Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was the collection of data—the very point she raised with me before we made that announcement. I could not give her assurances then because we had not made the announcement; now we have. That data will be collected by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. If it shows matters that need to be addressed, they will be addressed, to try to reduce this curse.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the culture of denial and cover-up that has led to this scandal has over recent years often happened by attacking people’s tone. Can the Minister comment on the row in Wales, where, last week, the Presiding Officer of the Senedd denied that Wales had a grooming gangs problem and accused Darren Millar, who raised it, of being overly graphic and using the wrong tone when describing one girl’s ordeal, leading to that victim saying that she feels her experience was downplayed? Surely tone is not the problem at all—though the Minister started off by saying that it was. Can the Minister explain how five local inquiries can deal with ongoing problems in at least 50 towns in the UK and why witnesses cannot be compelled to attend? It feels inadequate, and that is what many victims are saying.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am responsible for many things in this department but I am not responsible for the comments of the Senedd Presiding Officer or any spat that they may have had with the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales in the Senedd. That is a matter for them. I can say that tone is important. I have tried to have an inclusive tone in this House in response to the recommendations. I put down my disappointment at the initial comments and tone of the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition, which, in my view, tried to politicise what should be a contribution from all parties and none in this House to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report.

The noble Baroness mentioned the five authorities we have looked at. Those are the five where there have been reports to date. We are doing what I have been asked to do by Members of this House, which is to see whether all recommendations have been implemented to date. I have been asked by Members to look at ethnicity and other issues around who is undertaking this, which is why we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a Member of this House, to do a very quick deep-dive audit of what is happening. We are trying to address that. On top of that, we are still trying to get to the key point: what do we do about the 17 recommendations that the previous Government did nothing about? That is what I am trying to focus on today. I will take any contribution from any part of this House to set a tone to deliver on those recommendations.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, to what extent are these failings the result of victims of child exploitation and abuse not being believed? With the case of Jimmy Savile, for example, we saw that victims were not believed by the police. There is a lot of emphasis on the ethnicity of the perpetrators, but would the Minister agree that there is not enough emphasis on the police not believing victims because of their background, age and lack of education?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That very point, which was well made, is why, on Friday, the Government accepted the principle of mandatory reporting and will bring forward legislation shortly. Mandatory reporting means that, if a member of the Church, a teacher, a social worker, or somebody in a position of authority has a report made to them by anybody, be it a perpetrator or a child, about a suspicion of child sexual abuse, that has to be referred to the appropriate authority. Therefore, the police will have a greater impetus to investigate such reports than perhaps some forces or officers have undertaken in the past. It is not now just about the belief of a child; it is about the belief of a report being made by an individual in a position of authority to say that this needs to be investigated. That does not imply guilt or innocence, but it does imply clarity of investigation.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. We have had a number of Questions on it, but it is worthy of a debate in this short time we have. I will try to answer the points that noble Lords mentioned in their contributions.

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who asked whether we have a plan to look at blue Monday five years hence. I hope it will help him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, if I mention some points very briefly, which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord, at least in part.

First, we have to speed up asylum claims, because they are taking too long to be determined. As my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, we have a proud record of accepting asylum claims, but we have to adjudicate them. The longer we take to adjudicate them, the longer people need to be in hotels and dispersed accommodation. So the first task the Government have to undertake is to ensure that we complete and assess asylum claims as quickly as possible. To do that, we have put in an extra 1,000 staff, deployed from different parts of the department, in part from the savings from the Rwanda scheme which was scrapped.

Secondly, we need to speedily remove those who do not have a claim for asylum. Since 4 July, the Government have taken 16,000-plus people who have failed the asylum system from hotels and returned them to a place of safety—a country that they have been deemed able to return to.

Thirdly, and this is the nub of the discussions we have had so far, we need to look at how we close hotels, because they are a costly way of operating asylum accommodation. We have already closed the “Bibby Stockholm” and scrapped the use of Scampton in Lincolnshire, and we have plans to reduce the number of hotels over the course of this Parliament. It will take time, but by March this year we will have nine fewer hotels than we inherited in July last year. The noble Lord will expect me to say this, but I find it strange that under his jurisdiction and his Government, the number of hotels went from zero in 2015 to a peak of 400 in 2023 and is now just settling at the 260-270 mark. There is a record that we have to pick up on and work with, which I am trying to do in a constructive and positive way.

To answer some of the points mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Green, we have put in place the new Border Security Command—which will require legal back-up in a Bill later this year—with Martin Hewitt as its head. That is designed to try to take some of the pressure not off asylum accommodation, which is legitimate, but the illegal entry to the UK by criminal gangs organising for people to make dangerous crossings to potentially seek asylum, who in some cases have no basis for asylum but still come across in illegal gangs. The Border Security Command will be part of the plan to try to overturn that.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about what we are doing with our international partners, and we have some international policy objectives. We do not have a phobia about talking to Germans, Italians or the French. We have a Calais Group in place to look at the issues there. Our Border Force control is looking at what is happening in Germany, working with Germany upstream to reduce the pressures there and to ensure that people claim asylum legitimately in their first port of call, rather than coming to the United Kingdom.

We have scrapped the Rwanda scheme, which was a disincentive and a waste of money. We have put that money into the areas I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, such as speeding up asylum claims, finding places to reduce the use of hotels and commissioning good, dispersed accommodation. I take the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, that we want to get people through the system as quickly as possible, so they are determined to be legitimately here and able to work, or not legitimately here, and a way is found to deport them. That process needs to have integrity and speed.

There are issues arising from and discussions about the levels of migration, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Green. The Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which is a Liberal Democrat-inspired Bill, not a Government Bill, has legitimate objectives at its core, which I accept and understand. A big migration White Paper is due shortly; it will look at the very pressures that have been talked about in this House by my noble friend Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, and at how we deal with integration and the potential shortfall in skills. It will consider how we deal with asylum issues generally, all the questions that are dealt with in the family reunion Bill, and how we create a wider 5-year plan—going back to the noble Lord, Lord Patten—to ensure that we can deal with those issues over that period. Those are all key issues.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and others who have mentioned it, I say that the hotel costs which are the focus of this debate are simply eyewatering and not a good use of taxpayers’ money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, they are not even a good way of ensuring the safety and security of the people in those hotels, particularly women fleeing persecution. The costs were £8 million per day under the previous Government. They have dropped to £6 million per day following the work we have done to reduce them. It will take time but, I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, it is part of the plan to get that figure right down and, over a period, end the use of hotels, but we have to deal with the demand issues first. These include legitimate asylum claims, which my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned; we should be place of sanctuary, somewhere that accepts people who are fleeing persecution, and do so in a proper and effective way without hotels.

We have to be cognisant of the fact that we still have to deal with the continued demand, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We need to focus on reducing the pressure on the system from those who are seeking to come here illegally.

We have increased dispersed accommodation by 8% in the past few months of this Government’s tenure—the first time that we have been in office to do so. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had already been spent on large sites at Scampton and Bexhill, and the “Bibby Stockholm”, by the previous Government, and we have tried to row back on that. We have reviewed asylum spend, and it is important that we look at the bigger picture. In 2023-24, when the noble Lord’s party was in office, the Home Office spent £4.7 billion on asylum support, the vast majority on hotels. We are continuing to explore how we can save taxpayers’ money, and we are on track to save £4 billion over the next two years. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that it is part of the plan to reduce the amount of money spent on asylum accommodation by speeding up the claims, scrapping accommodation such as the “Bibby Stockholm” and ensuring that the Rwanda policy is changed, so that we can use that resource to clear the backlog of asylum decisions.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for securing this debate. This Government inherited an asylum system under exceptional strain. When we came into office, there were tens of thousands of cases at a complete standstill, and a growing a backlog. In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, asylum seekers were therefore living in limbo, accommodated in hotels which not only cost exorbitant sums but are profoundly detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield highlighted that there is real pressure on hotels from collections of individuals, which has led to forces that are not conducive to integration, security and acceptance. The focus has been on hotels rather than on dispersed accommodation, where people go about their daily lives in a dispersed way.

For all those reasons, the Government are actively working towards a more sustainable and cost-effective solution to accommodate asylum seekers away from hotels. I have to be honest with the House: it will take time. It is a challenge, and it cannot be done straightaway, but the Government’s objective is very clear. In the manifesto, we said that we would end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation and, at a date to be determined, that we will do. I will be accountable to this House, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be to the House of Commons, in ensuring that we do that in future. The resource that is being eaten up by asylum hotels is the very same that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, can be used elsewhere for more positive activity. I will look at the detail of what she mentioned and drop her a note.

I will check on my noble friend Lady Lister’s lost letter. I thought I had sent it, but maybe it got lost in the system over Christmas and the new year. We will find out where it has gone, and if it does not have a stamp on it yet, it will have one shortly. She may even find that I use the new method of email, as a matter of some speed, to get the correspondence to her in short order. I will look at that as a matter of urgency and get back to her.

I hope that today’s debate has been useful. There are challenges. On all sides of the House, we accept that we have the challenges of wider migration, hotel accommodation and its cost, making a plan and illegal migration into this country. In the short time that I have had, I hope I have set out the Government’s prospectus. With that, I hope that the House can hold me to account in due course on the delivery of that proposal.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the Minister sits down—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have sat down. The time has gone, I think.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

There is some time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have time. As I have known the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for such a long time and worked with him in such a constructive way, and even though the clock is flashing, I will take his intervention.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the Minister sits down—again—could he respond to my point about the 1951 refugee convention. He talked about demand. This is part of the legal framework and our international obligations, which I think need revision, with our partners across the rest of the world who were party to it in the first place. If he cannot give me a response now, he can write to me—or email me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will uphold our international obligations. We have an international obligation, under international law, to accept and assess refugees. That does not decry the fact that we have to look at, with our European and United Nations partners and others, how we reduce the pressures that lead to refugee status in the first place. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Lord said and look at Hansard in due course, but this Government will keep to their international obligations.

I am grateful for the debate and do not wish to test the patience of the House. Having had my 12 minutes, I commend the debate and hope that I have been able, at least in part, to answer some of the important questions raised.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Clause 1 put forward by my noble friends on this side of the House.

First, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth that seeks to replace “must” with “may” in Clause 1. This amendment is a vital adjustment to ensure that we uphold the principles of good governance, maintain flexibility in policy-making and safeguard our national interests. First and foremost, this amendment reflects the importance of retaining the Government’s discretion in managing immigration policy. Whichever Government are in power, immigration is an ongoing and rapidly changing issue to which the Secretary of State at the time must respond with pace. The word “must” imposes a rigid timeline and an obligation on the Secretary of State to act within six months, regardless of the evolving circumstances. Replacing it with “may” will preserve the Government’s ability to assess, prioritise and implement policies based on the prevailing domestic and international context. This flexibility is especially important in a world that is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable.

Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the six-month timeline for laying changes to the Immigration Rules with a more appropriate one-month period. This amendment is about ensuring that Parliament retains proper oversight of a Bill about which we have serious concerns. Reducing the timeline to one month ensures that any changes to the Immigration Rules under the Bill are brought back to Parliament swiftly for scrutiny. It would prevent the Government from allowing extended periods of uncertainty to shield decisions that could fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. The amendment highlights a critical point that, while we respect the intention behind the Bill, we oppose it because it fails to address the complexities of immigration policy.

Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the 21-day implementation period with a more measured three-month period. This amendment reflects our belief that significant changes to our Immigration Rules, such as those concerning refugee family reunion, must not be rushed through without proper consideration of their implications for the UK’s immigration system, resources and public confidence. The original provision for 21 days is, frankly, far too short a period for such substantial changes to be introduced and implemented. We believe that it risks creating undue pressure on our immigration authorities and undermining the orderly processes that we have worked hard to maintain. Extending this period to three months would therefore provide the necessary time for proper evaluation, preparation and control. Family reunions must be managed in a way that ensures that we are not inadvertently incentivising illegal migration or creating vulnerabilities in our immigration system.

Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to amend Clause 1 by extending the period for implementing changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion from 21 days to one year. This amendment is both prudent and necessary, as it would ensure that any changes were introduced with the care, preparation and thoroughness that they deserve. The practical implications of significant policy changes must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the very outcomes that we seek to achieve. This amendment would provide the Government with the time required to conduct a comprehensive and detailed review of the potential impacts of these changes, including their effects on public services, local communities and the integration of refugees. A rushed implementation within just 21 days would fail to account for the complex and interconnected challenges of housing, healthcare, education and social cohesion that arise from any significant adjustment to our Immigration Rules.

Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, seeks to introduce critical safeguards ensuring that any changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion are made responsibly with due consideration for their impact on local communities, public services and our broader immigration system. This amendment strikes to the heart of the practical realities of governing. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that our policies are sustainable and do not place undue strain on local communities or public services. By requiring the Secretary of State to assess the projected impact on local support services, housing and integration arrangements, the amendment would introduce a much-needed layer of accountability, which acknowledges that housing, schools, healthcare and community resources are not infinite and that we must carefully manage the arrival of new residents to ensure that they are properly supported. Overburdening the systems not only will undermine the successful integration of refugees but could erode public confidence in our immigration policies.

Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to introduce a new level of transparency and accountability to the Bill by requiring detailed information on costs, capacity and prioritisation in housing before implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. This amendment is both practical and prudent, ensuring that any changes introduced under the Bill are grounded in a full understanding of their financial and social implications. It reflects core Conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, public accountability and fairness, ensuring that we balance our humanitarian commitments with the needs of our communities and the sustainability of our public services.

Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to reduce the age threshold from 25 to 21 concerning the eligibility of siblings for family reunion. This amendment is a vital correction to a clause that, as currently drafted, risks broadening the scope of family reunion far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. By lowering the age threshold, we can better align this provision with the principles of fairness, practicality and public confidence in our immigration system. The age of 25 is unnecessarily high and creates significant challenges for the effective management of family reunion cases. An individual in their mid-20s is, by any reasonable standard, an adult capable of independence. Extending family reunion rights to siblings up to the age of 25 dilutes the focus of the Bill.

The proposed age of 21 strikes a more appropriate balance. It avoids creating a system that is overly broad and difficult to administer. This amendment would ensure that family reunion remains a process based on need, not convenience. Moreover, the broader implications of maintaining the 25 year-old threshold must not be ignored. Such an expansive definition risks placing additional strain on already overstretched resources, including housing, social services and immigration officials. It could undermine the public’s trust in our ability to manage migration in a controlled and responsible manner—a trust that is critical to maintaining support for genuine humanitarian efforts. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and to reject a Bill that, in its current form, risks eroding the principles on which our immigration system is built.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require a medical health assessment for each applicant under Clause 1 before their application for family reunion status is approved. This amendment is a practical and necessary addition to the Bill. It would ensure that the process for granting family reunion status is not only compassionate but thorough, responsible and mindful of the broader implications for public health and welfare. First and foremost, the amendment would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system. By implementing a medical health assessment, we would establish a robust framework that considers the physical and physiological fitness of applicants while addressing potential public health concerns. This is particularly important to ensure that we meet our obligations to applicants and the communities that welcome them. The amendment also aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability. It would ensure that decisions regarding family reunion are made with full knowledge of any health factors that may affect an individual’s ability to integrate and thrive in the United Kingdom. It would prevent rushed or uninformed approvals that could create challenges down the line for both applicants and public services.

I commend my noble friend for proposing this amendment, which demonstrates a commitment to compassion balanced with prudence. I urge the Committee to support this sensible and measured addition to the Bill to ensure that our family reunion policies remain fair, humane and effective.

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

Well, we have had some fun with the Bill and the amendments. I start by reiterating what I said on 18 October when I responded to the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of the Government. For ease, I refer noble Lords to cols. 371-74. It is worth taking that as a starting point because the amendments and their impact on the Bill are relevant. I said very clearly at that stage:

“I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 371.]


That is the principle of the Bill. At the same time, I said:

“Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 373.]


On 18 October, I found myself supporting the Bill and the principle of it in part, but not its extensions without further consideration. I now find myself addressing amendments which are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—let us be generous—somewhat contradictory in parts. There is no coherence from the Conservative Back Benches or Front Bench in relation to all those points, and different places and policy principles are put onboard.

I find myself looking at all the amendments and thinking that these are not designed to help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are probably not designed to help the Government come to sensible suggestions on these points, and they are certainly not designed to help those who might face persecution or refugee status and need those supports. Can I support the amendments? No, I cannot. Can I support the noble Baroness’s Bill in its current form? No, I cannot. I find myself in the very strange position of being the Government of the day and coming to a sensible position, perhaps; Members will judge that in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give way in a moment. Let us see whether the noble Baroness wishes to accept any of their amendments.

I think the Government are in broadly the right place. We understand the pressures. We have a good set of rules in place. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, before he intervenes, that we are committed to publishing a migration White Paper very shortly that will look at a range of other issues debated in this House and in the House of Commons that government policy considers. The impact of asylum and refugee status, although not migration, is still an important issue because additional individuals coming in on family reunion is a form of migration. All these matters have to be considered. As I said at Second Reading and say again now, these are matters the Government need to reflect upon in slower time. But I will certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to say.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am worried about his reputation as a bruiser from the other place because he sounds dangerously consensual and collaborative this afternoon, which is always worrying coming from him. The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes and has not alighted on the challenge thrown down by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth concerning the overall generic numbers—the universal numbers—that are likely to come as a result of the Bill as unamended. Surely that is something the Government will take an interest in, if he makes a judgment on, for instance, the provision of public services in future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way.

Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading.

The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters.

I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Schwab and Westheimer Trust, which supports young asylum seekers in education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his compliments about persistence. The compliments should be directed at previous Home Office Ministers, who waived the Bill’s predecessors through to the Commons in a very similar form and did not seek to obstruct them. I applaud the Minister’s elegant negotiation of a tightrope. As he says, there can be further opportunities for discussion, and of course sending the Bill to the Commons gives those opportunities.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I certainly had not intended a discourtesy. There was not a vacuum as regards the numbers; it was my inability immediately to find the briefing we received from the Red Cross, Safe Passage and the Refugee Council, which was sent to those who had their names down to speak at Second Reading. Had I realised that he wanted to pursue that point, I would of course have handed on my copy of the briefing. That briefing included a number of other issues.

I will make a few general points that are relevant to all the amendments in this group. The Bill is to put into statutory form provisions for family reunion that are currently in the rules, because statute is more stable than rules. We are adding siblings, for reasons that we will come to, and provide for children to sponsor family members, including parents, whom they cannot currently sponsor. The cost of supporting unaccompanied children is obviously high. My view is that reuniting families would lead to savings: parents would support their children.

We want to see more safe and legal routes. Currently, those routes are quite limited. The provisions we are proposing would create a safe and legal route, subject to a visa. Applications for visas are much easier to control, oversee and assess than people arriving on our shores in an irregular fashion. Of course, children—particularly those who are alone—are in a particular position. That is why we have had a lot of support from outside the House, with many mentions of the best interests of the child. Vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation has already been mentioned.

The incompatibility of some of the amendments with many of the current rules has been mentioned. The current position is that the Secretary of State can extend or restrict eligibility through changes to the rules, so the factual position remains the same. Amendment 19 is slightly tighter than the current position, in that it suggests criteria.

I will have to keep my remarks shorter than I would like, and I hope noble Lords will understand the slightly telegraphic nature of some of what I have to say. First, making the Bill not permissive denies the whole Bill. I thought the “may” and “must” point was linked with the proviso in Amendment 5, which I had assumed was the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, shows concern for services integration, which was not much of a focus for the previous Government. It is hugely important, and I encourage him to keep on urging both investment and support for the organisations involved, and to pursue the recommendations of the Woolf commission. But the conditions he sets out do not apply to grants of family reunion now.

We on these Benches are no great fans of the IMA; I hope that we will see the current Government get rid of it. The previous Government of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, consulted on a cap under the IMA, but did not include family reunion in the proposals for that cap. They listed routes to be subject to the cap and referred to other safe and legal routes.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, child sexual abuse is a despicable crime. This Government are committed to taking action to keep children safe online, in our communities and around the world. In line with our commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, this Government will also work to improve the response to, and outcomes of, child sexual abuse for women, children and girls.

In that spirit I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward the Bill. Through her, I also thank a range of voluntary organisations including Mandate Now and Barnardo’s, which were mentioned, for their support for the Bill and the proposals brought forward today.

Timing is all. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will know that I can give notice that the Government are reflecting very seriously on these matters. I stress again that this Government are firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse, whether it happens online or in the community. That is why we want to take swift action on delivering against the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, about which I will talk in a moment.

I want to start with the really important points mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Some 3.1 million adults have been subjected to child sexual abuse, according to the figures she brought forward today. The consequences of that were ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in relation to the impact on people not just at the time but throughout their lives.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned resistance to reporting, which is extremely important as well. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, showed how in sport, in the health service and in healthcare, child abuse is prevalent and needs to be tackled. This mandating of reporting will have a great impact on our ability to reduce that.

My noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned that he has done a good trawl of what has happened since 4 July last year. I hope to reassure him by saying that not all that happens in government is public at any particular point in time. A great deal of work had been done by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and by the Minister, Jess Phillips, up to the time when external forces—as I shall call them—put out comments around this issue over the Christmas and new year period. My noble friend will note that yesterday, through my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Government set out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final IICSA report. We will report to both Houses of Parliament before Easter, including on the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her contribution.

Four of the recommendations in the IICSA report were specifically for my department, the Home Office. Yesterday, again, we gave a commitment that we have been working on these issues—having been a Minister, my noble friend Lord Rooker knows what these things are like—not just in the past 10 days but for many months. We have accepted the four recommendations specifically for the Home Office, which include mandatory reporting—the subject of today’s Bill—and disclosure and barring. Work is under way to deliver those commitments in a legislative form, which will come before the House shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned gangs. I want to respond to him on that issue. In the Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—I suspect it might be repeated in this House shortly, if the Opposition so wish—there were clear commitments to take forward work on gangs and grooming, including funding and inquiries. It also included the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, taking forward further examination of data issues, which have been mentioned in today’s debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—I pay tribute to the work that she has done—shared with me an amendment that she brought forward some 10 years ago. It shows great foresight, as I would expect from someone born in the same part of Liverpool as I was. She brought forward a checklist. Again, we will bring forward our proposals in due course; she can then check her list against the proposals from the Government. The international work informed the work of IICSA, which she mentioned. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the intention of this legislation, and his points are worthy of consideration in relation to this Bill.

I fully appreciate the work that has gone into the Bill. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on her tireless efforts in bringing this duty forward, which I fully appreciate. As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to delivering the inquiry’s recommendations on mandatory reporting. I hope we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and that we must apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up this type of abuse.

I pay tribute to the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, both previously and today, in raising the importance of public awareness of individuals’ ability to bring forward recommendations and undertake mandatory reporting provisions. The Minister for Safeguarding, my friend Jess Phillips, is committed to working closely with survivor and expert groups on bringing forward legislation, and will continue to do so. I hope we can draw on the noble and learned Baroness’s expertise in that final commitment. I give her the commitment that I have just given to my noble friend Lord Rooker. She asked, “When?”, and I say to her, “Very soon. Watch out in the next few weeks. When it comes, recognise that the work has been ongoing and was happening prior to any contributions from individuals who talk about this, with not much knowledge, from places outside the United Kingdom”.

The 20 recommendations made by the inquiry’s final report were referenced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton, Lady Nicholson and Lady Berridge. They will be taken forward and reported to both Houses by Easter this year.

My noble friend Lady Blower made some extremely important points about training, support and back-up for the people who will deal with this issue. This requires some long-term work. I know that Members of this House are impatient and want things to happen but I also know that they want things to be done correctly, with this Government addressing these issues in a way that makes intervention effective. So I say to my noble friend—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who mentioned funding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who discussed how we can enact these things—that there will be an impact assessment with the legislation that we bring forward. Therefore, there will be a delivery mechanism and delivery plan behind the legislation that we bring forward.

In developing their recommendation on mandatory reporting, the Government will consider very strongly all the issues that have been brought forward in this House today. The 20 recommendations are complex and require long-term work but, again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that there will be a clear timetable for progress against the inquiry’s recommendations by Easter. I hope that is helpful.

I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that we are happy and content to work with the Church in looking at its experiences, about which she spoke openly and honestly today. We want in particular to look at how mandatory reporting can be undertaken in the context of the Church, where, as with Members of Parliament and others, confidences are often expressed and comments made. It is not just in teaching and other capacities that this is undertaken: the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned family and parental support, which is an interesting area in terms of how we look at these issues in a realistic way.

I want to touch on the issue of false allegations, which has been a seam through these discussions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley, Lady Berridge and Lady Featherstone, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, all mentioned false allegations. Although they are thankfully rare, the experience of our former colleague Lord Brittan and others have shown that they have a devastating effect on the accused individual, as well as harming how we approach genuine victims and survivors. I will be very clear with the House today: when the Government bring forward a duty of mandatory reporting, sharing information with the appropriate agencies will be part of it. However, it will be for the agencies to determine guilt or innocence accordingly, and it will be for the agencies to take forward appropriate action to support and safeguard the child involved.

The contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has made today is timely, important and on the button in relation to the absolute requirement of Parliament to help safeguard children in the future. As she knows, her Bill will progress and potentially go into Committee at some point in the future. It will have its discussions in this House and potentially progress to the House of Commons at some point. However, I give her this clear assurance, and I hope she accepts it as such: this Government will introduce measures that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, and others can test. They will be introduced in legislation shortly, and we hope will be put on the statute book, and they will meet the obligations of the IICSA recommendations in their potential impact and the desire of this House to ensure that we safeguard and protect children.

Those measures will be introduced soon. Whatever happens to the Private Member’s Bill, I hope that the House, whatever its views and considerations on the clauses brought forward in the Government’s wider legislation, gives the government Bill a fair wind to ensure that we protect children. The one clear message from the House today has been that we want action to ensure that mandatory reporting takes place. I give your Lordships the assurance from the Dispatch Box that action will happen.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in moving asylum seekers from accommodation in hotels.

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

The Government are committed to reducing hotel use through reform of the asylum system, including streamlining asylum processing and establishing the Border Security Command to tackle people-smuggling gangs at source. In the year ending September 2024, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, down 36% from September 2023.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that reply. Labour’s manifesto said that it would

“end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds”.

That must be right, as hotels are an expensive and inappropriate solution, but it will be a challenge for the Government as, since July, there are 5,000 more asylum seekers in hotels than there were and all the 35,000 the Minister has just mentioned are likely to get leave to remain. Responsibility currently rests with the Home Office, but do we not need a much more joined-up approach with local government if we are to reduce dependency on hotels, not least because a hotel costs £145 a day per person, whereas so-called dispersed accommodation costs less than 1/10th of that, at £14 a day? Should we not transfer responsibility for asylum seekers in hotels from the Home Office to local authorities, together with the funds, saving public money and enabling those in the hotels to be more integrated with local services when they leave them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is a fair gentleman and I understand the challenge we face with hotel accommodation. He will know that, although hotel numbers are stable now, the Government have a manifesto commitment and in March we will close a further nine hotels. He raises local authorities. Around 252 local authorities had dispersed accommodation in January 2024 and 176 did in April 2022. We have increased the number of local authorities that have it. He is right that we need to discuss and consult with them, but ultimately the integrity of the asylum system depends on the Home Office having oversight of it. We want to progress the matters he has raised in a sensible and efficient way, but we have to retain responsibility.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Young, raises a good point. He talks about the challenge. Will the Minister remind us who gave the present Government that challenge? Who created it for us? Did the noble Lord and many of his colleagues make these positive and helpful suggestions over the last 14 years?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend gives me the opportunity to say that in 2015 no hotels were housing asylum seekers. That figure rose to 400 at its peak just over a year ago. It has now dropped considerably. For the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, the failure to control borders and sea crossings led to these daily costs to the taxpayer and legitimate asylum seekers using that asylum accommodation. That is a failure of political management and we are determined to address it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may well recall the response he gave me when we discussed the proposal for allowing asylum seekers to work, thereby not only reducing the need for accommodation but dramatically reducing the budget. He said that it was a policy idea. Given that, what consideration have the Government and his department given to reducing the demand for accommodation through allowing people to work? If they have not already done so, when will they?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I recall answering that it was a policy submission that we would reflect on. The important point for the Government is to do three things: first, speed up agreement on asylum claims to ensure that people with genuine asylum claims have a right to live here, and, presumably, will subsequently wish to work here; secondly, put in place Border Force control to stop illegal migration and gangmasters subverting the asylum system; and, thirdly, ensure that we reduce the asylum accommodation that we have, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young—cost and efficiency—and look at dispersed accommodation in the meantime. I will keep the policy suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord German, on the table as part of the contributions to discussions on how we achieve those three objectives.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that a few months ago University College London and ECPAT issued a report on the position of asylum-seeking children in these hotels. They found that dozens of children had been kidnapped by criminal gangs from hotels run by the Home Office; 440 children had gone missing, 144 had not been found and 118 were still unaccounted for. Is the noble Lord engaging with ECPAT and University College London about their report and can he update us on the figures—and, if not, can he write to us? Is he aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is engaging with the Home Office on this issue? I know him well enough to know that he will take a personal interest, but I hope he will commit today to doing so.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will update the noble Lord in due course. As a rough estimate from memory, around 90 children are still unaccounted for. The importance of safeguarding in asylum accommodation is critical. It is ultimately the responsibility of the local authority where those children are placed. However, I take on board his suggestions and concerns; I will look into them and write to him. It is key to ensure that the safeguarding of unaccompanied children and accompanied children who are at risk is paramount.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, whether it is a local authority or the Home Office, there is the difficulty for families who are moved around too much that the children lose their education and friends. It is very dislocating and destabilising. Can we have some continuity and awareness of that difficulty?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is vital, as my noble friend says, that we ensure continuity. The key point is that we get people out of asylum hotels and into dispersed accommodation as quickly as possible and, ultimately, speed up the asylum system so that people have a decision on whether they can stay or have to leave. If they can stay, that stability is there and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned, they can contribute to work and potentially help fill some of the labour shortages this country faces.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in the 2024 Labour Party manifesto there was an announcement that new measures to clear the asylum backlog would be taken, through caseworkers, returns and the enforcement unit. It also pledged to hire 1,000 new staff for this unit. What progress has been made on this and how many staff have been hired?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the House that there were no hotels in 2015 and 400 when the noble Lord was in office. We are recruiting those 1,000 staff and have improved the return rate, the assessment rate and the efficiency rate. Although I do not have the numbers in this brief, I have them in another brief; I will send them to him and put them in the Library, and he will see improvements over when he had tenure over this job.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, what would be the downside of allowing asylum seekers to work? Why is this idea just still sitting on the table rather than being urgently agreed?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful and I realise that this is a live discussion point. The downside of asylum seekers working is that sometimes asylum claims are not upheld or found to be fraudulent and sometimes people have to be returned. Sometimes, therefore, asylum seekers could be put in positions whereby they are undertaking work they have no legal right to do. I understand that is a difficult issue, but the Government are committed to trying to resolve it by processing asylum claims as speedily as possible so that people can be legitimised or, in the case of non-legitimisation, returned to a place of safety elsewhere.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the Government are trying to get all parties to collaborate on social care, when the policies emerge, and given the difficulties we have across the board with immigration and the suggestions that we need some new policy approaches, should we not attempt to bring all the parties together to try to get some movement and commonality to deal with the whole range of topics that face us, which none of us have been successful in addressing properly so far?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have an immigration White Paper due to be published shortly and I hope that all parties and Members can contribute to the discussion around that.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, is it not correct that the people of this country are concerned ultimately with having people removed who are shown to be illegally here? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when I was the Minister and the Conservative Party was in Government, we concentrated considerable resources on doing just that. I think the people of this country were very happy with that approach.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the current Government have removed in excess of 16,000 people who have no right to live in this country since we came to office in July last year, and we will continue to do that, but the key to removing people is the speed of assessment, which, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, requires individuals employed to assess, test and determine. That is what this Government are focusing on: removals, speeding up assessment, and in the meantime, to go back to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Young, trying to find a way to save the taxpayer money on the costs associated with that temporary period when no determination has been made.

Immigration: Human Rights

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to give greater priority to those with well-founded human rights claims in the immigration system.

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

Any foreign national in the United Kingdom can make an asylum or human rights claim should they be unable to return to their country of origin. The UK has a proud history of protecting vulnerable people. All claims are decided on individual merits. Protection status is granted to those in need.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that clear Answer. Does he further agree with me that rather than demonising refugees while simultaneously increasing economic migration, including to very low-skilled employment, as the last Government did, His Majesty’s Government should prioritise those in genuine need of humanitarian protection or family reunification, including via safe legal routes to the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. She will know that we are proposing an immigration White Paper shortly, which will look at some of the issues she has mentioned. She will also know that the Government are extremely keen to ensure that we crack down on illegal migration and on those individuals who are brought to this country to undercut the working conditions, pay and other benefits of individuals who are here with asylum and refugee status, and who are approved and working, and also the population of the United Kingdom as a whole. She makes a very important point.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in hearing claims, one of the biggest problems in the past has been the number of claims that go to appeal, therefore making the system much lengthier than it needs to be. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, when an asylum case is heard, they get it right the first time rather than having to go further on in an appeal? I draw attention to my interests; I am supported by the RAMP project.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. It is not the Government’s intention to drag out the appeals procedure, or indeed the claims procedure. We have been trying since July to speed up the consideration of asylum claims. We have put additional staff in to do that. We want to get the decisions right first time, obviously, and that is an important part of the Government’s proposals to reduce both the asylum backlog and the dependency on hotels, which reached record levels under the previous Government.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in developing the helpful answer he just gave, can the Minister tell us what is the backlog of the outstanding number of cases? How long does it take to clear them on average? Rather than expecting people to subsist on around £7 a day, should we not look again at the opportunity to work while those claims are being considered?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The total number of asylum claims waiting for an initial decision has fallen by 22%, from 125,173 at the end of September 2023 to 97,170 at the end of September last year. That figure of 97,170 cases, which relate to approximately 133,000 people waiting for an initial decision, is down 22% on the previous year but is 13% higher than in the previous quarter. We are trying to get the number down for the very reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German: that a large number of those cases will potentially go to appeal. That number includes individuals in hotels. The problem is that the previous Government put a moratorium on dealing with those issues. We are now trying to clear that backlog and give people a decision. Whether it is to stay or go, a decision is needed.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can the Minister reassure the House that any increased prioritisation of human rights claims will be accompanied by rigorous checks to ensure that individuals who pose a risk to national security are not admitted under such provisions? Furthermore, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that prioritising certain asylum claims does not place undue strain on local communities, public services or housing availability?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government want to secure a decision on asylum claims. In doing that, we also want to ensure that the security of the United Kingdom is paramount. Therefore, security checks will take place. It might be of interest to the noble Lord to know that 16,400 people have been removed from the United Kingdom since July of last year. That figure is up by 24% over the previous quarter, when he had stewardship of this office in his Government. We will ensure that, as he says, we look at the issues that successful asylum claimants and refugees experience in relation to work and employment. As my noble friend mentioned, it is important that, when those individuals are successful, they can get into work and contribute to some of the jobs required to be filled by people in this country today.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, there are likely to be more refugees because of climate change—people who are fleeing drought and floods. Do this Government see that, as a massive consumer still driving climate change, we have a duty to those refugees, as well as to refugees from war zones?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that climate change is a potential driver. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has mentioned this on a number of occasions as well, and we agree that those issues drive asylum and refugee claims. She might be interested to know that the highest numbers of people claiming asylum last year were from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. However, I accept her point; we need to address the wider climate change issue in relation to those who claim asylum or refugee status in this country

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been waiting 14 years to say to a Home Office Minister, “I like his answers”. The Minister mentioned a forthcoming White Paper on asylum and refugees. Can he use his influence to ensure that the rights of children who are asylum seekers to join their families here will be high up on the list?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am really pleased that the noble Lord likes the answers—we have been waiting 14 years to give them, and it is a great pleasure to be here. We are progressing on the matter of child migrants; there are specific issues that we will look at on that. The number of unaccompanied child migrants is currently approximately 4,000, which is still too high. We need to look at the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. I hope that I will be able to give him some satisfactory answers in the future.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, about eight years ago, we had a crisis in Syria. Some 3,000 unaccompanied children were refused admission into the UK, even though some of us had worked hard to try to get them homes. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any information whatever about what happened to those kids? We would all be happy to know that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for that question. He will know from previous discussions and debates on the issue of unaccompanied children that we have identified that around 90 children have gone missing. It is the priority of the Government to find out where they are. The prime responsibility for their safeguarding initially fell on Kent County Council. It is an important issue and one we need to address. As part of future considerations, we will continue to do that.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

When looking at refugees, could the Minister include victims of modern slavery with positive decisions and those who are victims of forced marriage? I declare an interest in the register.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely important point. Victims of modern slavery should be central to any policy determination. This Government will support the efforts of the previous Government and the previous Home Secretary—who is now a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead—who introduced what is now the Modern Slavery Act. We will ensure that those rights are upheld and that victims of modern slavery have that aspect of their lives taken into consideration when their asylum or refugee status is considered.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the increasing threats to journalists in different parts of the world, are the Government contemplating action to give effect to the recommendation of the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the UK was a founding member, that an emergency visa scheme should be introduced for journalists and other defenders of human rights at serious risk of harm?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, makes. As I said, the Government will prioritise and look at the most urgent cases first. If there are urgent reasons why a journalist’s case needs to be examined over and above anybody else’s, they will be considered. The issue of priority is there for the Government to consider.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the Statement. From these Benches I also thank the Government for the progress that is finally being made on the acceptance of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The victims—not just victims of criminal exploitation and grooming in gangs but all the victims covered in IICSA—were ignored at every level for far too many years, except by a small number of people, including women and including Jess Phillips, now a Minister, whose work has been absolutely outstanding in this area. Even so, it has taken us many years to get to this point where we can actually formally move forward. We can move forward, but many of the victims’ lives are still affected—not just then but now—and many are feeling victimised again because of the debate currently going on in the wider world.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked again for a new inquiry—I recognise that he and his colleagues are doing that. I sat in this Chamber on 24 October 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, was the Minister responding to the publication of the report. The words the Government said at that point led one to believe that things would move ahead with speed and that most, if not all, of the recommendations would be accepted and implemented at speed. That has not been the case. It may be only two years on, but it has been very slow. The only recommendation that I think has been implemented is on the toolkit, which is a helpful practical tool—but none the less it is not enough.

From these Benches I wonder whether, given the tone of the debate at the moment, it would be helpful for the Government to publish a list of all the inquiries that have happened, not just IICSA but also in relation to children being groomed in towns and cities around the country, as well as the inquiries that the inspectorate of policing has held—at least two—along with links to them so that we, the public, can check them, in addition to the recommendations and action plans. Some of those were published some years ago—Telford in particular—and it might be helpful if the Government could have a brief look at the reviews of those action plans, ask people involved in them to mark progress, and re-energise those issues that require more work. Are the Government planning such a move? It might be salutary, not just for the Government but for everyone.

During Questions earlier today I spoke about one of the issues I was utterly confused about: the IICSA recommendation on providing mandatory aggravating factor sentencing when a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or pushed into sexual activity by two or more people. That is exactly the territory of the gangs that we have been hearing about in the past few days. I am concerned that the written response from the previous Government was very clear that it absolutely did not need to happen—they absolutely refused to do it. Yet now they are saying that it must be done. In fact, Robert Jenrick MP has gone further and said there should be a mandatory life sentence, which is a bit of a jump from an aggravating factor in sentencing. I hope the Government move speedily ahead with the aggravating factor in sentencing, because that will send a very clear message about the unacceptability of this sort of crime by the communities. The focus that many of us have also had is not on the perpetrators but on the failure of the public services, which is why I am particularly keen to see whether there is any further information from the inspectorate of policing on the recommendations it has made to see whether they have been picked up in further inspections.

Many noble Lords will know that I have a particular interest, as does my noble friend Lady Walmsley, in mandatory reporting. Recommendation 13 in IICSA on mandatory reporting was not the standard mandatory reporting style that has been accepted by scores of countries, including some states in America, Canada and Australia, where it has worked extremely well.

The most important thing about this model of mandatory reporting that has been adopted abroad is that it entirely changes the culture in every organisation working with children to think safeguarding because it is safe to report it, and it is only ever used as a criminal response where there has been deliberate negligence by somebody not to report. Interestingly, it has also changed the methods of training on safeguarding for people who need it. I hope that the Government will consider the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which has its Second Reading a week on Friday, because it reflects the international model of mandatory reporting. I highly commend that to the Government.

In summary, I hope that the Government will be able to give us a timetable on which of the recommendations might take slightly longer to implement than others. The Minister may be able to give us an indication today. He made a reference in the Question earlier today about concerns expressed by another noble Lord on the lack of recompense. Can he outline the current thoughts on the timescale for that recompense to be available to victims?

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

I am grateful for the two contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I start by simply echoing what the noble Lord and, by implication, the noble Baroness, said: child sexual abuse and exploitation are the most vile and horrific crimes and include rape, violence, coercive control, intimidation, manipulation and deep, long-term harm. It is our duty in this House and Parliament as a whole, and as a Government, to make sure that we take steps to eradicate that abuse and ensure that those who commit it face the full force of the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked why the Government have not commissioned a national inquiry. I understand where he is coming from and the reasons why he is asking for that. I simply say that I hope he can recognise that, in one way, we have had a national inquiry already. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who, as Home Secretary, established in 2015 the inquiry that has produced recommendations under Alexis Jay, to whom I also pay tribute. It has set a framework for action in this Parliament and beyond to deal with this issue of child sexual abuse as a whole.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, commissioned the inquiry in 2015; it took seven years and an extraordinary amount of witness presentation and examination of issues, looking also at all the wider inquiries that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned. It produced a series of recommendations, which were delivered to the noble Lord’s Government in 2022. His Government responded to those in early 2023, and he will know that the general election took place in July 2024. When we entered office, progress and delivery on the recommendations were very scant. I say that not as a point of political argy-bargy but in recognition of the fact that we are now trying to lift those recommendations and put them into practice to meet the objectives set by the original commission by the noble Baroness, Lady May.

As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said earlier this week in the House of Commons, we will, as a starting point, undertake the first three major items. The first is a mandatory reporting mechanism, which means that any individual who has child abuse reported to them, either by a child or indeed a perpetrator, has a statutory duty to report that for investigation by the police and criminal justice agencies. That is an important first step to commit to. The second important step is on legislating to provide an aggravating factor in sentencing. That means that if a leader of a gang and an accomplice is doing this, they know that they will face not just a charge on the criminal offence that they have undertaken but an aggravated offence of the sexual grooming of a child. The third element that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary brought forward is the question of cracking down online, because child sexual abuse has evolved and will evolve, there is a large online presence and we need to look at the mechanisms for that, including artificial intelligence and grooming online. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that those three issues—mandating, aggravating factors and online abuse—are serious issues.

Again, we could have a national inquiry. It might well take four or five years and might well cover the same ground as the inquiry commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May. What we are interested in is action on the issues that are brought forward, and we will look at the remainder of the recommendations over time to see whether we can bring some energy and action to them, including many of the issues that have been mentioned. That includes the issue of compensation for victims, because victims deserve compensation, but, again, that is a complex, difficult issue to work through.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has helpfully supported the Government’s approach to date and raised a number of key issues which I hope I can address. First, I say to her that I really welcome her support for my colleague Jess Phillips, the Minister responsible for safeguarding of children. She has had a lifelong commitment to tackling child abuse and a lifelong commitment to supporting victims of domestic violence, and she now has the ability, as a Minister, to put some of those lifelong convictions into real government action. She is doing that, and therefore the criticisms that have come her way in the last few days are unfair. She has already been working with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the issues that we brought forward on Monday to ensure that we put in the public domain this Government’s commitment to tackling those issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very helpful suggestions about potentially collecting the elements of the reporting mechanisms and inquiries that have taken place. Telford has taken place; the Mayor of Manchester is undertaking inquiries; there are police inquiries; there is the inquiry I mentioned that has been commissioned. Hers is a helpful suggestion, and I will take it back and discuss it with my colleagues accordingly.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, a week on Friday, to which I will be responding. I will be meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Jess Phillips next week to discuss the contents of the Bill. I have to say that my initial assessment is that the Bill is similar to what the Government will bring forward and therefore it may well be better to ensure that we have a Government-tested Bill downstream, but the principle of the Bill is one that we accept, and it is an important issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned the issue of wider government action. One reason that we announced the three particular policy issues is because some of the other 16 or 17 policy issues require a wider government consideration and response, and it is important that we get that right over time. That is one of the reasons we will consider the recommendations in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about timetables. I would love to be able to give them to her, but it is important that we do this right and I do not want to hoist ourselves by our own petard by setting a timescale that does not meet the objective of doing this right and responding in the right way. We have a commitment to secure compensation, and we will commit to review all the recommendations over and above the ones we have made. Again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will report back to the House of Commons, and I will report back to this House, in due course on those matters.

I hope that those issues are ones on which we can have some co-operation and agreement. We have a disagreement on a national inquiry; that will pass this week. That political discussion and cloud will blow over. What will be left, however, are serious recommendations from a serious report that took seven years in the making and that demands responses with the consideration of time. That is the Government’s main focus: we will bring back proposals in legislation in this Session and will report back on other proposals in due course. I hope I will have the co-operation and support of both Front Bench spokespeople when those moments arrive.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the references he has made, on this occasion and on others, to the action that I took in relation to setting up the inquiry on child sexual abuse.

Child sexual exploitation takes place online and physically in the real world. Children are also groomed online, with a view to them then being abused physically —exploited, abused and raped. What representations are the Government making to the owners of social media platforms to encourage them—or request or require them—to take action to ensure that their platforms cannot be used for child sexual exploitation online, or for the grooming online of children, by either gangs or individuals, with a view to physical abuse and exploitation taking place?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for establishing the inquiry in the first place. She was right to do so, and in due course I want to do justice to the recommendations that have come out of that inquiry.

She raised an extremely important point about companies, because online grooming material, the deepfake stuff now coming out and a whole range other material are extremely worrying and perturbing. Social media companies must have responsibility for that as well as society. The Government will introduce a requirement for companies to report online child sexual exploitation and abuse identified on their services to the National Crime Agency. This requirement will be underpinned by regulations which will ensure that companies provide high-quality reports with the information that law enforcement needs both to identify offenders and to help support and safeguard victims. In-scope companies—and we will have to determine which those are—will have to demonstrate that they already report under existing mandatory or voluntary overseas reporting regimes, which will ensure that they are exempt from this recommendation and avoid duplication of companies’ efforts.

I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness completely that online companies have a real responsibility. They cannot just host material; they must have responsibility for some of that content. The steps that I have outlined, which are underpinned by the first three elements of the response to the report, are ones which the Government will take forward with some urgency.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I want to make it clear to the whole House that I am speaking in a personal capacity today.

I want to ask the Minister about the proposal in IICSA for a single core dataset, which the Government say in the Statement that they are planning to implement. Would this be an accessible dataset, open and transparent? Or would journalists, or others seeking information on that dataset, need to go through the inevitable delays that freedom of information requests and appeals entail? This is particularly important because, as he will know, the other recommendation of IICSA is that a national public awareness campaign be mounted. National public awareness will work only if we call out people, particularly those who are now, we are told, for the first time going to be described by ethnicity in that database.

As, I think, the only person in the House who grew up within those communities, having grown up in Pakistan, I want to refer to deportations to that country. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are planning to take to seek deportation of those who are convicted and who then seek to thwart that through renouncing their nationality—I refer particularly to Pakistan in this regard? Will he call in the Pakistani ambassador and open talks with the Pakistani Government to ensure that those who have dual nationality are not permitted to renounce it once they are under police investigation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those questions. There is a significant amount of detail in the points that she has raised, and I hope she will understand and bear with me when I say that the Government are working through the broad objectives that we have set. The first three objectives I have mentioned are on mandatory reporting, the grooming aggravated offence and online work. These are the three major priorities.

I note what the noble Baroness said about the database. If she will allow me, I want to reflect in detail on that point. It is an important way in which information is put into the public domain and I do not want to commit today to things that we find are impractical or counterproductive downstream. I will note that point and follow up on it.

The noble Baroness made a point about convicted individuals from a particular nation. From the Government’s point of view, people who commit child abuse—whatever their race, ethnicity, background, sexual orientation or other things—should be held to account by the forces of the law and prosecuted accordingly when evidence is brought forward. In the event that she mentioned, of someone who has been convicted who has a nationality which is not British and has served a sentence in a jail in this country, the Government always reserve the right to deport that individual back to their home country in due course. The noble Baroness raised dual nationality issues. If she will allow me, rather than commit today on the detail of that extremely technical and complicated issue, I will take it back and discuss it, but it is an important procedure going forward.

I say to the noble Baroness and to all in this House that I want to focus not just on the nationality of any particular or potential groomers or offenders but on people who undertake grooming and offending and to make sure that we tackle that across the board. Individuals of whatever nationality should be held to account for their criminal actions.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that I get very angry about this issue, and I hope the House will forgive me. I have worked for most of my life with this sort of activity. I started in Newcastle in 1970 in the then new children’s department as a family social worker. I have worked with victims of sexual abuse and of other forms of abuse in different ways, now through the voluntary sector. I really resent this issue now being used as a political football.

I am absolutely shocked at the Official Opposition and at people I have always regarded as good colleagues on the Front Bench opposite for the way they have been doing this. The reality is that all of us over the last 50 years have not done enough at each stage to make sure that we protect, particularly, young girls and women. The idea that the previous party that was in power for all that time is better than everybody else on it is shocking. We all have to accept that we have not done enough. In this House last year, I spoke about sexual exploitation at the Second Reading of a Bill and was seen as weird for doing it.

I really hope that the Government are going to take hold of action now. Those young women—I have been talking today to some of the organisations that are working with them—are still angry that not enough has been done to support them. We have to support them, and I hope the Government will do that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and for her persistent campaigning on this issue. It is important that we focus on the issue: how do we better protect children and survivors, how do we give them victim support and how do we prevent future criminal actions by individuals, whatever their race or ethnicity? We must also seek to prosecute individuals, whatever their race or ethnicity.

While I can make points about the review commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, the seven years afterwards, the response and what has happened since then, I want to try to look forward. That means taking forward the three recommendations that we have agreed to and looking at the work we have done since July on the child sexual exploitation police task force. That was established by the last Government. We have now put some energy into the acceleration of its activity and saw a 25% increase in arrests around child sexual exploitation between July and September of last year.

There is much to do. I appreciate that history is worth looking at, and there are lessons for us all—including me, as I was a Home Office Minister a long time ago, in 2009-10. My hope is that we can use this to find common ground to tackle the issue. In doing so, let us make sure that we protect children and bring perpetrators to justice.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, when I last tried to introduce a mandatory reporting duty for child abuse, in an amendment on Report to the Serious Crime Bill, on 28 October 2014—a long time ago—the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, responded by announcing the inquiry, which later became the IICSA inquiry established by the noble Baroness, Lady May, as well as a public consultation. However, he said:

“Research is inconclusive in determining whether mandatory reporting regimes help, hinder or … make no difference to child safeguarding outcomes”.—[Official Report, 28/10/14; col. 1083.]


He also said that the duty to report might “divert” services from the task of safeguarding children. Is the current Minister convinced that the research is clear that a mandatory reporting duty will help the task of protecting children, rather than hinder it? The clarity of the evidence will be very important when we come to debate the Home Secretary’s proposals, which we want to make sure go through.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government believe that a mandatory reporting mechanism will help the system, which is why we will introduce it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I fully agree with the decision not to hold a full statutory inquiry. Does the Minister accept that we have already had sufficient relevant inquiries? Does he accept that they are very expensive, go on for a long time and very often stand in the way of appropriate action? What is actually now required is the urgent implementation of the existing recommendations, on which there is widespread agreement.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount must have read my notes, because I agree with him fully.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government are presenting this as an either/or issue? I do not get it. Yes, we should implement Professor Jay’s proposals—great action—but the reason why victims are demanding a specific inquiry looking at the Pakistani heritage grooming gangs is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are cognisant of the fact that there have been failures by individuals who should have had a responsibility for safeguarding children. We will look at that and put in place the lessons learned. But I do not think—speaking personally, as well as on behalf of the Government—that a four or five-year inquiry will add to the sum of knowledge that we have, for the very reasons that the noble Viscount outlined. What we need to do is to implement action to ensure that we prevent further child abuse. That is what this Government’s main focus will be.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I chaired the Catholic Council for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. My role there was to ensure that the Catholic Church co-operated fully with the inquiry. The CCIICSA still exists, because the recommendations have not been implemented. In that role, I sat through much of the inquiry, and I heard an enormous amount of evidence from victims. Many of those victims were visibly retraumatised by the very experience of giving evidence to IICSA; their pain was very often palpable. It also seemed to me, as I watched, that they were traumatised by listening to others who were giving their evidence as witnesses—but they had to be heard; there is no question about that. The Minister has said that there was a module in IICSA that effectively dealt with organised crime. The people who participated in those hearings, and all the other hearings of IICSA, do not need a further inquiry; they need action. We spent £186 million on IICSA, and it was money well spent. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to finding ways to implement the recommendations now to protect all our children for the future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for that support, and for her support for the Government not reinvigorating or starting again a national inquiry. She makes an extremely important point about victims. Victims are victims and, whatever has happened, they are being traumatised and have been traumatised, and will carry that with them for many years, if not for life. Therefore, the Government recognise that we need to support victims and survivors. We will look at the issue of compensation in slower time now, but we are doing that. We also recognise the significant impact that funding for support services can play in helping victims. The Home Office, my department, is continuing to provide funding to voluntary organisations for survivors of child sexual abuse. We will continue to work across government to ensure that we put a proper victims package in place to help support them.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I compliment the Minister, unusually, on his balanced approach, which is commendable. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong—again, I do not do so that often—that this should not be a political football. But it has to be said that the Prime Minister, yesterday or the day before, made it a political football by saying that anybody who criticised him was being right-wing. I do not know if the Minister has read the article in the Times today on an interview with Andrew Norfolk, who investigated this scandal and exposed it some dozen years ago. In it he defends the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, when he was DPP, and we should note that absolutely. The article also reports Andrew Norfolk as saying that,

“the national inquiry shied away from investigating the causation of grooming gangs, ‘probably for not dissimilar reasons why left-wing academics still attack me … It is very difficult to talk about this stuff without being accused of being Islamophobic’”.

He then adds that,

“everybody is still too scared”.

I do not think we should have a seven-year inquiry but the Government need to focus very much on the idea that the grooming gangs were not generally white English people, as everybody knows. The Government need to look at that closely.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has said what he said. I have heard it and do not agree with much of it. The Prime Minister has a strong record, as DPP and as a political leader, of tackling this issue, and a strong record of supporting my honourable friend Jess Phillips, who has a strong record of tackling this issue. Why this is being politicised is that some people are using it to attack the Government for a range of reasons. I want to focus on the issue at hand, and that is how we prevent child sexual abuse. The measures in the recommendations of the report to date will be looked at. We have already said what we are going to try to implement, and that is the important thing to focus on.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of the issues that arises in this long and sad saga is the difficulty of arriving at truth and the associated possibility of false accusation. Indeed, the IICSA inquiry was set up in the first place on, in one sense, a false premise—a whole load of utterly untrue accusations against prominent people. That was why it began. Operation Midland showed the accusations against Ted Heath, Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan to be absolutely untrue. There are many such occasions on which false accusations are made.

The reason this is relevant is that, first of all, it is a terrible thing to accuse people falsely, and, secondly, it can produce an extraordinary waste of time, effort and money, instead of finding out what really is true. In this respect, I very much endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about mandatory reporting. We need to work out what it would actually do and what effect it would have. It is proposed by Professor Jay in the IICSA recommendations, where she says that, on the disclosure of child abuse, reporting is mandatory. But what is the disclosure of child abuse? Is it simply somebody saying that somebody has behaved badly? Is it a direct accusation? Does it exonerate the person receiving that from investigating themselves and thinking hard about it? Do they exercise judgment? Are they just complying rather than exercising their conscience? These are serious questions that need to be asked about this subject.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am conscious of the time, but I will try to give the noble Lord a response to that. On mandatory reporting, we are focusing on two specific issues. First, if a person, whoever that person is—a teacher, social worker, police officer or whoever—has a disclosure from a victim to them, they have a mandatory duty to feed that in to the law enforcement agencies for investigation. That creates a dynamic, first and foremost, that if a child goes to an adult who is in a responsible position and says, “I have been abused”, the adult does not make the judgment of “Yes, you have” or “No, you haven’t”, the adult says, “I have to report that now to an appropriate authority”. Secondly, and this is a more difficult side of this case, if somebody who has committed abuse goes to their MP and says that—I had a case once where that happened to me as a Member of Parliament—or they go to a priest or another individual and confess to a crime, they also have the statutory duty to report the issue to the authority at hand.

I think that is an important issue. It is about disclosure, it is about action. I withdraw what I said about the priest: I may have overstepped the mark there, and I wish to keep the House embedded in truth and fact. The essential point is that if an individual—a child or an abuser—reports that, the person they report it to has the ability to disclose that information to the police, who will then investigate and action it accordingly. I think that will help a dynamic of reporting and surfacing of information. I note the noble Lord’s points on historical abuse. We have had much discussion in this House, and I am willing to have further discussion accordingly when it is raised.

Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: Recommendations

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I start by paying tribute to the 7,000-plus victims and survivors who shared their experiences and helped shape the work and focus of the inquiry. Since taking office in July, this Government have worked to deliver an ambitious programme of activity, responding to the inquiry and on child sexual abuse more broadly. As the Home Secretary announced to the House of Commons on Monday, this includes delivering a new mandatory reporting duty in the upcoming crime and policing Bill.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I hosted over 400 child abuse survivors in this building, and I spent 30 days representing many at the inquiry, IICSA. I share their impatience with how quickly the 20 recommendations are being implemented. On recommendations 9 and 10, on DBS checks, does the Minister agree with me that Parliament should take a lead and that every parliamentarian should be required to have a DBS check, in line with those recommendations? On recommendation 19, on having a single redress system, does he share my anguish and anger that my friend Terry Lodge, who was given a public apology seven years ago—he was imprisoned and enslaved as a 10 year-old and forced to spend his teenage years not at school but working in a foundry—has still received not a penny of compensation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation deserve access to appropriate support and routes to compensation. As he mentioned, the inquiry’s report gives indications of recommendations to that effect. The experience of his former constituent highlights the need for that to be a matter of urgency, and we are working at pace in government to ensure that we identify how best we can deliver against the inquiry’s recommendations.

My noble friend mentioned DBS checks, which are one of the recommendations that we are still working through and looking at. Some of those issues in relation to this House will be for the parliamentary authorities. More generally, the report was commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, as Home Secretary in 2015. It came through in October 2022 as a major report and it was responded to by the Government in May 2023, but no progress has taken place until July this year, and we are now starting to exercise some energy in response to those recommendations. We will bring forward recommendation responses in due course.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the law of the land should apply equally to everybody, irrespective of their background, colour or whatever else? Secondly, does he agree that it must be child-centred and that the welfare of each child is of paramount importance? That is the law of the land, and we need to make sure that it is implemented everywhere, for every child.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings tremendous experience to this area, and I share exactly his sentiment and intention. Child abuse is a vile crime. We have to take criminal action against individuals who commit it, but we also need to ensure that we support the victims of such crimes. The noble Lord makes an extremely important point that, whatever the gender, sex, colour or race of any perpetrator, they should be held to account by government and the criminal justice agencies, and pay penalties. Their victims should be supported by the forces encompassed by this House and the House of Commons.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking Professor Jay for her tireless work in leading the independent inquiry into these abhorrent crimes. Inquiries are extremely informative and benefit society as a whole. Taking this into account, can the Minister explain why his Government are refusing so vehemently an independent inquiry specifically on the topic of child sexual exploitation? Does he agree with me that victims are the most important group of people in any criminal investigation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly answer the noble Lord on those points. First and foremost, the report that was managed by Alexis Jay, and set up by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in 2015, has produced a large number of recommendations to government, which were published in 2022. The then Government, of which he was a supporter, responded to those recommendations in May 2023 and took no real action between May 2023 and when we took office in July at the general election.

We intend to take forward those recommendations, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on Monday three specific measures: first, a mandatory reporting recommendation, as in the report; secondly, a report to ensure that we have an aggravated offence for people involved in grooming; thirdly, that we will take action on child sexual abuse online. Those are three important issues. A further inquiry would not necessarily add anything to what Alexis Jay has done. There are independent local inquiries, which we have supported and allowed to continue, and that is fine. But what we are really interested in is putting in place the action on the recommendations made to date, which is what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said she would do and what the focus of this Government is going to be.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, one of the IICSA recommendations was on providing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing where a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or deceived into sexual activity—by two or more people. Does the Minister agree with the last Conservative Government’s response that this was unnecessary, or with the current Conservative spokespeople, who seem to have changed their minds?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. To be honest, what the previous Government and their current Front Bench say on those matters is for them. What this Government are about is implementing action. On the issue of an aggravated offence, on Monday this week, in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend said that there would be an aggravated offence for people who were involved in grooming, child sex and organising child sex gangs. That will be brought forward in the police and crime Bill later in this Session. It will do the job—and whatever the current Opposition do is a matter for them.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, recent events have rightly turned the spotlight on the Church of England’s record around safeguarding. Those of us on these Benches are highly committed to listening to survivors and bringing about the further institutional and cultural changes that need to be made, beyond the enormous progress that has been made over the past 10 years. What assurance can the Minister give that the police will act on information that they receive, which, it is alleged, was not the case in 2013, when the horrendous crimes of John Smyth were correctly reported to them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. Let me put it this way: one thing that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has committed to this week is to make sure that we have a mandatory reporting requirement for individuals who have child abuse reported to them, and indeed for perpetrators who report themselves to an authority. That will then have to be mandatorily reported to the police and to law enforcement authorities. Self-evidently, if there is a mandatory reporting of that incident, it will be a major failure of any police force not to investigate, and potentially take further action, reporting to the CPS, if they substantiate the allegations that have been reported mandatorily by an individual. The history of this is complex, but I hope that the recommendations made can be implemented. That is one of the early things that we want to do, which is why we are getting on with it, rather than having further inquiries that will delay matters to safeguard children.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, with IICSA, as with every other major public inquiry, there is no structure in place to monitor the formal response to recommendations. That is true for Grenfell, IICSA, infected blood—all of them. Would the Government consider maintaining a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by all public inquiries, together with the Government’s response, as recommended by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the Select Committee of which I was a member?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness; she makes a sound point. I will reflect on wider public inquiries, as it is a cross-government response, but I can say to her from the Dispatch Box that we have started to respond to the recommendations from IICSA on Monday and will continue to respond. That will be for public record, public examination and public accountability of Ministers on the issues that we agree to address.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very complicated situation. I understand the position of the previous Government—the current Opposition—but there is something that worries me, and it is a spectre that we need to understand and deal with. Can the Minister comment on what his view might be if the leader of the Reform party follows through on his commitment yesterday to raise private funds to hold a private public inquiry into this matter, which could be funded from overseas?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect, I appreciate the noble Lord’s question but the leader of Reform can do what he wishes. We are the Government, and we are trying to take sensible approaches and to get cross-party support for those sensible approaches. He is welcome to contribute to that. There is a real issue of safeguarding children, and those who seek to make political capital out of that are not, in my view, people who have a serious approach to life.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the first Home Office Bill to come before this Parliament under the current Government. I want to start with why we are here today. It has been more than seven years since an appalling act of terrorism was perpetrated as a music concert drew to a close in the Manchester Arena. Twenty-two people were killed and many more injured on that terrible night in May 2017. We think of them today and hold their loved ones in our thoughts and hearts, as we do with everyone who has been impacted by terrorism.

Noble Lords will be aware that this legislation has been a long time in preparation, including—and I acknowledge this—by the previous Conservative Government. It has been a long time coming but is now before us today. This Government wanted to move swiftly to introduce the Bill following the general election, to deliver on our manifesto commitment and the promise that the Prime Minister made to Figen Murray, who has campaigned tirelessly to introduce today’s proposed law. Figen’s son, Martyn Hett, was among those killed in the Manchester Arena attack. The fact that we are debating this Bill today is a direct result of her tenacity and persistence, and that of her colleagues in the campaign team. The commitment and courage that she has shown in campaigning for changes that will benefit others is, quite frankly, extraordinary. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to her for all that she has done and continues to do in the field of terrorist prevention. The Bill we are debating today is the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill but, in essence, for the reasons I have just mentioned and due to the campaigning spirit of Figen Murray, this Bill is now Martyn’s law.

Noble Lords across this House will agree that the number one priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. Sadly, since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks, including the Manchester Arena attack I referred to. These incidents have shown that the public may be targeted at a wide range of events and public venues and spaces. The nature of the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already considered at some premises and events, the absence of legislation and requirements means there is no consistent approach, which then results in varied outcomes.

Engagement with business has highlighted that counterterrorism preparedness often falls behind areas where there are long-established legal requirements, such as health and safety. If that were not enough, the Manchester Arena Inquiry and the prevention of future deaths report from the London Bridge and Borough Market inquests called for clarity of responsibility for venue operators regarding protective security. That simply is what this Bill aims to do. It is designed to bolster the UK’s preparedness for and protection from terrorism. It will achieve this by requiring for the first time that those responsible for certain premises and events consider how they would respond in the event of a terrorist attack. Further, at larger premises and events, additional steps will need to be taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

To be in scope of the Bill as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected from time to time to be present at the particular premises at once. In addition, the premises must be used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill—for example, as a venue, restaurant or bar. For those premises that are in scope, a tiered approach has been established by the Government, with requirements varying accordingly.

We have tried generally to put premises where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected in an enhanced tier. Premises where between 200 and 799 individuals are reasonably expected to attend will fall into a standard tier. Events will be in scope only where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected to be present on site for the event at any point and where the other conditions in Clause 3 are met, including that there is an appropriate level of control of access to the event. These qualifying events will also be in the enhanced tier. In limited cases, the Bill ensures that some qualifying premises will be placed in the standard tier regardless of numbers, such as places of worship. This recognises that places of worship play a unique and important role in communities across the country and are often readily accessible and welcoming to all.

This means that there will be certain requirements for those premises. Those responsible for the qualifying premises and events will be required to notify the Security Industry Authority that they are responsible for qualifying premises or events, and to have in place appropriate public protection procedures to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals in the event of an act of terrorism at or near the premises or event. These two requirements apply to all in scope of the Bill but are the only obligations on those responsible for premises in the standard tier.

What does “public protection” mean? Public protection procedures are intended to be simple and low-cost. There is no requirement to put in place physical measures under this requirement, but there are four categories of procedure. First, evacuation—meaning the process of getting people safely out of the premises—needs to be identified. The second is a word I had not come across until recently: invacuation, which means the process of bringing people safely into safe parts within the premises if required. The third is lockdown, which is the process of securing premises to restrict or prevent entry by an attacker by, for example, locking doors or closing shutters. The last is communication, which relates to the process of alerting people on the premises to the incident and directing them away from danger.

In recognition of the potential greater impact of an attack, premises and events in the enhanced tier will be required to consider additional requirements. This includes the requirement to assess the public protection measures that are appropriate to reduce the risk of harm or vulnerability to a terrorist attack and, so far as is reasonably practical, to ensure that such measures are in place. These public protection measures are as follows: first, measures relating to the monitoring of premises and events and their immediate vicinity, which could include monitoring for warning signs and suspicious behaviour that might indicate a potential attack; secondly, measures relating to the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises at an event, such as search and screening processes; thirdly, measures relating to the physical safety and security of the premises or event, such as safety glass or hostile vehicle mitigation, where appropriate; and, fourthly, measures that relate to the security of information about the premises or event that may assist in the planning, preparation or execution of acts of terrorism.

In the enhanced tier, the organisations responsible will be required to provide the Security Industry Authority with a document setting out their public protection procedures and measures, and how these may be expected to reduce the vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism. Where the responsible person is a body and not an individual, it will be required to designate a senior individual to have responsibility within the body for ensuring compliance with the legislation’s requirements. However, I assure the House that this person will not be directly or personally liable for compliance. Part 2 amends the licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information in those premises plans.

None of this is practical unless we have compliance and enforcement on top. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is no use having these requirements if an effective enforcement regime is not in place to ensure compliance. The Government have determined that, given the Security Industry Authority’s years of experience of increasing security standards around public safety and its wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation that better protects the public, it is the most appropriate body to oversee enforcement. My department, the Home Office, will work closely with the SIA to develop its new regulatory function, building on existing expertise and knowledge in both the Home Office and the SIA. It will, I hope, bring in the right people, with the right expertise, to ensure an effective and proportionate regulatory approach.

The Government are clear that they will expect the SIA’s role to be supporting and advising businesses in the implementation of the legislation in the first instance, if approved by this Parliament. However, it is necessary for the SIA to have an appropriate toolkit of powers and sanctions to carry out inspections and enforce the new regime. This will include the power to issue penalties for serious or persistent non-compliance. To reflect the potential for more serious consequences at larger premises and events, we have included in the legislation weightier penalties for the enhanced tier. These sanctions will be primarily civil, with a small number of criminal offences to underpin the regime and deal with serious non-compliance. Looking at Clause 20, I assure noble Lords that the SIA will be required to consider a range of factors when determining the amount of penalty, including the ability of the premises or event to pay any penalty.

The Bill also requires the SIA to prepare operational guidance, which will set out how it will discharge its duties. Such guidance will be approved by Ministers at the Home Secretary level.

I reassure noble Lords that there will be a significant amount of time following Royal Assent, if this House approves the Bill, before these requirements will be commenced—at least 24 months. We are doing that so that those organisations can plan and understand, guidance can be delivered and there can be a transitional period to ensure that the objectives are achieved in a way that is helpful to all. That will ensure that those responsible for premises and events will be given time to understand and, where necessary, act upon the new requirements. The Government will also continue to work closely with businesses and organisations to help them to prepare for the new requirements.

As the Home Secretary said when this Bill was debated in the House of Commons, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, people deserve to be safe and feel safe. This Bill is designed to complement the tireless and excellent work that our security services, police and other partners already do to keep us safe. To that end, I echo the words of the Home Secretary in saying thank you to everybody across the national security sphere for all that they do. This Bill is about action when a terrorist event occurs, but I reassure the House that the Government’s focus will always be making sure that the public are protected and that we use the powers of government to secure the safety of the public from potential attack in the first place.

Noble Lords will no doubt be familiar with the Bill’s long history, which I have touched on, and the extensive engagement, scrutiny and debate that have gone into the proposals. The proposals I have outlined have included a draft version of the legislation, which underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons, under the previous Government. The Bill has been developed with the aid of two public consultations, conducted by the previous Government in 2021 and 2024. Under this Government, as under the last, we are trying to get the issue right for this House and for the public.

Throughout these processes, a number of concerns have been raised about the legislation’s potential impact, some of which may be reflected in this House today—but I hope that I have listened to, understood and acted on those concerns as reflected. This Government have substantially adjusted the Bill, with some changes from the last Government’s proposals, to strike the right balance in achieving public protection objectives but without placing undue burdens on business or other organisations. Crucially, this Government have raised the threshold for the Bill’s scope from 100 to 200 individuals attending an event. Furthermore, premises and events will meet that threshold, or the 800 threshold for the enhanced tier, only when it is reasonable to expect that at least as many people will be present there at the same time. This approach has been designed to ensure that they are not unfairly brought within the scope based on size alone.

We have also further clarified that the requirements are not one size fits all, which I hope helps the House. Rather, they are to be based on a more location-specific approach. That reflects the fact that the procedures and measures in place at particular premises and events might not be appropriate, reasonable or practical at another event.

Finally, on the reason why the practical standard now applies to public protection procedures required in both tiers, this is a concept which we expect the majority if not all of those in scope to be familiar with, as it is utilised in other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety. We are confident that, with those changes, the Bill strikes an appropriate balance.

That is the Bill before this House. I expect that there will be comment and discussion on this Second Reading, which I welcome. Before I finish, I pay tribute once more to Figen Murray and all those who have campaigned tirelessly for change. It falls to us with this legislation to carry the heavy burden that they have carried since 2017 and to get it on to the statue book as a matter of some urgency.

I thank those in the House of Commons for their scrutiny of the Bill to date and my honourable friend the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, for his leadership on that. Those in the other place worked constructively and collaboratively to ensure that the Bill is in the best shape possible. I am sure we will experience the same from noble Lords across this House, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who attended the briefing I held yesterday or other meetings organised to discuss the Bill in detail. There is a wealth of experience in this House, and I know that many Members will feel the contents of the Bill personally. I look forward to the scrutiny today and in the coming weeks by noble Lords from across the House. As I look at the list of speakers, I know that they will bring fruitful contributions and suggestions that we will consider, look at and reflect on in due course.

The Bill deserves urgent support to get it through this House. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. We think we have the right balance. We hope the Bill, as designed by the current Government, will be given a Second Reading and will complete its passage in this House, but we know there will be contributions and discussions today. I think it is important that locations take appropriate steps, as far as reasonably practicable, to protect staff and the public from the horrific events of terrorism.

It does not happen very often, but this Bill, if passed by this House, will save lives. It will aid people to save lives. It will be a testament to the people who have lost lives in the past and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions in the House today. There has been a great deal of expertise and reflection shown, and the serious issues that have been addressed demand a serious response from the Government.

I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Davies of Gower, for their broad support from the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her similar approach to cross-party agreement. There may be some areas that we need to look at and examine between us, but I am grateful, and the House and public need to know that there is a broad support for the Bill from the House.

I start with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, because she mentioned victims and they have to be at the heart of our consideration in the Bill. The reason for this Bill is to prevent more victims in the future, as she mentioned.

The noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, held very high office at the time of this atrocity, and I could tell from her contribution how that impacted her and she carried it upon her shoulders. She is one of the few people who has seen the vast vista of the impact of this on individuals, the community and the Government.

I was struck also by the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In reflecting on the impact on his city, he also reflected on something that came out of the contributions of all Members, which is the spirit of this nation and that city to ensure that we have integration and a positive approach to our society, and that we do not bow down to terrorists or their threats but do what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, and uphold the security of our people as the first tenet of good government.

Figen Murray has been mentioned and we have focused on her great efforts, but I think she would also recognise Brendan Cox and others who have supported her, and I want to refer to them from the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Fox, also mentioned Sir John Saunders, chair of the Manchester Arena inquiry. He deserves our credit and support for focusing the minds of the political class on the solutions to this problem. He said in his report:

“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”,


which was repeated by my noble friend Lady Goudie, and he is right: doing nothing is not an option.

Today, after seven years in gestation, two consultations, a Home Affairs Select Committee report and the power of Figen Murray and her campaign team, we have brought to this House and the House of Commons a Bill that will, I hope, address the issues raised by Members and deliver the prevention of victims that began with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.

Your Lordships made a number of points and I will try to cover them in broad terms. The points that I will try to address are cost, guidance and communication, enforcement and the SIA, the threshold issue, exclusions, the terror threat and a number of other individual issues that I will come to in due course.

First, I hope I can give confidence to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lady Ritchie that the devolved Administrations were involved in discussions on this at administrative and ministerial level, and will be during the passage of the Bill and in particular during its implementation in due course. But the issues that have been raised are important and I will try to address them in the time that I have.

The cost to business was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Davies of Gower—in his Front-Bench contribution—my noble friend Lady Ritchie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. The reason we decided to reduce the number of venues in scope was to ensure that costs are proportionate and do not fall on a range of bodies that it would have been disproportionate to hit.

The changes that we made to the Bill that was produced earlier have taken the number of properties or venues in scope from 278,900 to 154,600 in the standard tier and to 24,000 in the enhanced tier. Overall, the costs have therefore decreased from the estimated £2.17 billion over 10 years to £1.83 billion. For standard-duty premises, we estimate the cost to be around £330 per year, in time and money, and around £5,210—not £52,000, which I think one contributor mentioned—for enhanced-duty premises. Those are the costs, but our focus to prevent victims and to ensure that we put in place some preventive measures is relative. We have tried to assess costs and ensure that the Government take as light a touch as possible to achieve our objectives, while acknowledging that obviously there will be some costs.

We have to take these actions. I appreciate the potential difference of opinion between the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and me about some of the burdens—as they described them—but I regard this as an important issue of the security of people who use these venues. Therefore, that is a burden, like many other burdens in society, that we have to accept, adopt and adapt to. That is one of the reasons we have tried to make it as limited as possible.

The second issue that was raised was that of guidance. The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, all mentioned guidance. Guidance will be set down by the Government on the requirements of the Bill. We will publish it as soon as possible, but I do wish to get it right. I cannot give a timescale on the guidance at this point, because I want to make sure that the Government undertake engagement with key stakeholders across relevant sectors, in industry and in government, to support our understanding of the Bill and the ultimate Act and to address any questions posed.

Guidance was also linked to training. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, it was determined that we did not want to prescribe specific training obligations that applied to both tiers, and that that was not necessary or desirable, but it is entirely reasonable that practical procedures and measures are implemented. Therefore, we will be looking to issue guidance in due course to support identifying suitable training opportunities in an effective and cost-effective way for the individuals concerned. In fact, the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Harris of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned that.

There has rightly been a debate about the SIA enforcing and having the ability to oversee this potential legislation. First and foremost, the SIA has a full regulatory approach to this matter. There is a two-year implementation period. That goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady May, all mentioned that aspect of the role. We have set out the powers of the SIA in the Bill. It will be given powers to gather information, to inspect premises for such events and to ensure that we assess compliance with powers of entry and interview, consistent with other regulatory regimes.

The SIA will be accountable to Home Office Ministers. This Government have four and a half years left of their term, and this legislation will be implemented after a two-year period as a potential minimum—it may be longer. We will implement the legislation only when the SIA is ready to adopt that role. Home Office Ministers such as myself and my honourable friend Dan Jarvis will be accountable for the performance of the SIA in the period up to it taking on that role, so that the Home Office can make sure that it does the job we want it to do. The SIA has already been engaged in this, it obviously knows the Bill and the direction of travel, and it is working with senior officials in my department to bring forward proposals. It is important that we give the SIA that power.

We can undoubtedly debate this issue further during the passage of the Bill, but we can already understand how the SIA deals with the security industry. Guidance, support, training, point of contact and the inspection regime are issues we will work through and no doubt discuss further in Committee and at Third Reading, but they are solvable and, with political ministerial control, will be about delivery. It is not about passing legislation but delivering an effective mechanism that has that balance between inspection, guidance and training. It is not about setting up an organisation that is not fit for doing that job; we want to make sure that this is a good job done. I hope that will reassure a number of noble Lords who have raised this issue.

The impact of the threshold has been a key issue. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with his experience, mentioned that, as did the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Frost. The Government have to take a decision on this. Some people have argued for 300 as a minimum threshold, and some for the original figure of 100. I have heard a number of other figures put into the domain at different times. We have had to settle on a figure, and that of 200 is in response to the consultations and the feedback we have had. We have therefore taken out a large number of properties that would have been in the scope. The threshold is something we just have to settle on. I am hopeful that, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, we do not focus so much on the threshold but on the Bill’s ability to encourage good practice as a whole. But we are where we are with the threshold, and colleagues will have to look at that.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned the 800 figure and the understandable issue that it is in use for maybe one day a year, and there are different thresholds on other days, for perhaps even a month. We have to have a settlement, and we are trying to make things simple. If we had a different regime for different days or months of the year for organisations that might have an 800-plus threshold on certain days of the year, that would overcomplicate the regime we are trying to introduce and create more implementation difficulties downstream. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I hope that he can also hear what I am trying to say about the simplicity of a regime as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred in private discussions, and today on the Floor of the House, to the powers of the Secretary of State—I wrote “SOS” in my notes, and it sometimes it feels like an “SOS” in this job. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Murray, also mentioned the power of the Secretary of State to make those changes. I have heard what individuals have said, but, again, we have had to make a judgment that, at some point, the Secretary of State might need to look at what has happened with the wider terrorist activity in the country and make a determination accordingly. We can revisit that, I am sure, in due course.

My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—there are too many Harrises—the noble Baronesses, Lady May, Lady Newlove and Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, all mentioned the wider terrorist threat. There is a growing threat, and New Orleans, Germany and the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attack have shown us that that terrorist threat moves. There is a public responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for all of us to be vigilant about how that threat evolves.

There is a need for us to look at long-term conflict resolution, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned. There is a need to look at all the terrorist strategy elements that we can, including facial recognition, AI, and stop and search, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Those are all part of the issues we need to look at in the wider terrorist prevention field, which are, in a sense, separate to the Bill but are still drivers for all the reasons why the Bill is necessary. I take that on board and we can have further discussions in due course.

A number of specific issues were mentioned, which I will try to cover in the short time I have left. The first is the issue mentioned, quite rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Udny-Lister, and others, about how we design and build terrorist activity out of buildings in new build—it is an extremely important point. The National Planning Policy Framework—the devolved Administrations have their own national policy frameworks—already includes security considerations, as appropriate for new builds, to ensure the health and safety of communities. But I will consider and take away those points as they are very important. They are not in the scope of the Bill but it is important that we talk to the appropriate Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and in the devolved Administrations, just to make sure that we are on the ball on those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the issuing of instructions and the overriding of the tenets of the Bill by the emergency services on the day. It is not the intention of the Bill to have the responsible person, in the event of a terrorist attack, not follow the instructions of the most senior person in the police, fire or other agency that arrives on their doorstep. I make it clear from this Dispatch Box that in that co-operation the lead person should be the responsible professional officer who deals with this on the day. I hope that reassures noble Lords who raised the issue.

We have had some correspondence and discussion around why places of worship are treated differently. We have taken a view—again, it is challengeable in this House but we have—that 200 or more individuals present should be a standard tier impact issue for places of worship, because they play a unique role in our community and across the country. Although they are not invulnerable to attack, I hope that we will continue to work with faith communities to look at how we can help support them in any vulnerability on terrorist issues. I know that is an important issue.

The noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, asked why schools are treated differently. There are existing safety and safeguarding policies and procedures in place, such as access control measures, lockdown, and evacuation procedures for schools, so we have not tried to impose further burdens because that is good practice that they are already following.

I will reflect on the question of exclusions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, including this building as a whole, if he will let me, and write to him in due course about those particular issues.

On the civil liability issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others, the Bill provides for new requirements on those responsible for qualifying premises, and the effect of Clause 31 is only to prevent these requirements giving rise to a distinct right of action in civil proceedings. I reassure the noble Lord that no provision in the Bill seeks to remove or limit current civil liability. The noble Lord is looking at me quizzically. The lack of time means that we do not have the opportunity to discuss that in detail now but there will be opportunities to discuss that in due course outside this Chamber.

On the issue about railways, raised by my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Faulkner, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Faulkner on 23 December, as he knows. I hope that has satisfied him but, if it does not, we can potentially look at it further. Heritage railways will be in the scope of the Bill—but the buildings, not the railways, if that helps.

The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Udny-Lister, mentioned licensing conflicts. The licensing regime is separate. There are different regimes; we do not believe the two regimes will conflict.

On the question raised by a number of noble Lords—they know who they are; I will not list them all—about local authorities, in line with established good practice on new burdens assessment, we will undertake an assessment on that, which is in progress and will be discussed and taken forward further.

Finally, I give thanks to those who have contributed and those outside this House who have put pressure on political leaders to make these changes. To extend a hand of friendship to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who said as his first words today that the first duty of Government is public safety—I agree. The first duty of this Bill is public safety. The first duty of this House is to help prevent further terrorist atrocities. We want to understand what has happened to date. We want to take action. The Bill will, I hope, ensure that with all the other measures the Government take, we are putting in place a further deterrent to terrorist offences and giving hope to people that we can honour the memory of those who died in Manchester in 2017, including Figen Murray’s son, Martyn Hett. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 5 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 38, Title.

Motion agreed.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 20 November (HL Deb col 207), what progress the Defending Democracy Taskforce has made with its review of security and counter-terrorism.

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

As a resident of Wales, I endorse the comments made about Baroness Randerson and her service to Wales and the Wales Office in particular.

The counter-extremism review concluded over the summer and Ministers are now considering the recommendations. The Defending Democracy Taskforce will drive a whole-of-government approach to a full range of threats to our democracy, which includes ensuring that elected representatives can carry out their roles safely. Since July, we have been learning the lessons of the general election also, with a particular view towards the upcoming local elections in May. The Government will update the House on that work in due course.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. What assessment has the task force made of whether any foreign state or states seek to promote the introduction in Britain of a blasphemy law, which would be—and I hope the Government will agree on this point—completely unacceptable?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government keep under review at all times the influence and threats from foreign powers. I will reflect on the particular point the noble Lord mentioned, but we are very clear that foreign influence on UK government policy, or the undermining of elections, is not acceptable.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Defending Democracy Taskforce has a relatively narrow focus on hostile states and covert action. What we have seen recently have been private actions, very often made openly, from within states we regarded as friendly, including misinformation, the weaponisation of social media and flows of funds, actual and promised, which are clearly foreign interference in British politics. Does that come within the Defending Democracy Taskforce remit, and, if not, which elements of our Government will respond to these threats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The task force is looking at a whole range of issues, not just foreign interference and interference in elections; it is also looking at intimidation and actions at general elections and other elections. The National Security Act 2023, which had cross-party support in this House, provides the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to deter and detect the type of influences the noble Lord mentioned. The task force will look at that and, as with the counterterrorism and security review, bring forward proposals in due course to this House and to the House of Commons.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

The task-force focus on candidate and election intimidation is welcome, and the Minister knows that I have made a number of recommendations in that regard. What thought have the Government given to how the task force will interact with the Speaker’s Conference—announced in the autumn and currently taking evidence—on that subject?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Speaker’s Conference is a matter for the parliamentary authorities, and we will feed into that as a Government. The Defending Democracy Taskforce is very clear that we need to look at what we need to do to protect the integrity of UK elections and to stop intimidation. Therefore, in that context, I hope the noble Lord will welcome the fact that, in February, we will be particularly looking at the issues of harassment and intimidation and making recommendations accordingly that I hope can help feed into the Speaker’s Conference in due course.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the day after the Prime Minister’s predecessor announced his intention to hold a general election—a decision that terminated the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry into defending democracy—my noble friend Lady Beckett, the chair of that committee, of which I was a member, wrote to the then Prime Minister and outlined the committee’s provisional findings, which emphasised the limits of our democratic resilience. That letter, which is still unanswered, contained the recommendation that the creation of political deepfakes should be made illegal. Will the task-force review take into account the work of the Joint Committee and, in particular, that recommendation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hope I can assure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of deepfakes, AI and misrepresentation extremely seriously. We will be looking at that as part of the task-force remit. There are also powers within the Online Safety Act, and we are certainly reflecting on the points mentioned by my noble friend because it is important that we have integrity in our elections. People need to understand what that integrity means. It does not mean deepfakes purporting to be somebody or something they are not.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, we are told that the Defending Democracy Taskforce will report in due course. Can the Minister guarantee to us that that report will be provided in good time for the May elections?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a continuing process and, as the noble Lord will know, the task force was established when his Government were in office and continues now. It is an ongoing process; we are looking at this and will produce lessons whenever they are forthcoming. In relation to the local elections in May, we have extended Operation Bridger, which gives support, if required, to Members of Parliament and Members of this House and key individuals who face elections in May. That operation, Operation Ford, is available to give support to individuals who face election at any time when parliamentary elections are not forthcoming.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the counterterrorism strategy. He will be aware that the Prevent strand of Contest has had very difficult and sometimes very poor press, perhaps as a result of misinterpretation of its objectives. Will the Minister tell us whether the intention is now to focus on safeguarding vulnerable individuals who are liable to be seduced by some of the materials that are available online and therefore prevent them being drawn into violent extremism of one sort or another? This should be a safeguarding approach rather than one that is seen as the pursuit of potential terrorists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that there is a dual approach to this. Safeguarding is obviously important. There are many young people who can be drawn into potential terrorist activity at a very early age, and it is important that we treat those people as young people but also recognise the influences given to them. The Government’s Prevent strategy is also about making sure that we identify where serious intervention is needed to prevent potential radicalisation. We keep all those options open. That is important because we do not want to create a cadre of future terrorists, be they from whatever wing of terrorism activity. I have seen and witnessed young people who have had extreme right-wing, Islamist and other forms of radicalisation against gay and homosexual individuals. None of that is acceptable, and we need to identify how we best intervene to prevent that activity occurring.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, with the development of AI and social media, is the Minister satisfied that the present defamation laws in this country are adequate to deal with those threats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I cannot confess at this Dispatch Box to be an expert on current defamation laws, but I understand, potentially, where he is coming from on this issue. Let me just say that everybody is entitled to freedom of speech and to their view, but when lies and mistruths are portrayed by individuals, it is right and proper that individuals respond in a robust and effective fashion. That is what this Government intend to do in relation to any lies portrayed against individuals or members of the United Kingdom as a whole.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, we expended a considerable amount of effort on reducing the caliphate and destroying Daesh or—as it prefers to be called—ISIL, but because of events in Syria we have to reassess where we stand. Have we done a reassessment of how we see ISIL? Do we think it will reform? What work is being done in that area?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s experience in this area when he held the post in the previous Government. We will keep under examination the impact of the changes in Syria. We are doing that as a whole in terms of geopolitical responses and also in terms of individuals who are leaving Syria or staying in Syria. We need to make an assessment of that. It is very early days. We will continue to monitor that, and I will take on board the points that my noble friend mentioned.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, in regard to countering radicalisation, what discussions are the Government having with United States authorities to learn any relevant lessons from the recent dreadful events in New Orleans?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say on behalf of the Government that we condemn the events in New Orleans and, indeed, the events that took place in Germany over the period. Those types of events can happen any time, any place, anywhere. That is why it is extremely important that we use the basis of the Five Eyes to support that intelligence-led operation and look at how we monitor and intervene in potential terrorist activity and track it. We also need to look at co-operation to identify the reasons why people are being radicalised. I say to the noble and gallant Lord that it is very difficult to identify individuals who are what we term “lone wolves”. There is an organised structure, which my noble friend Lord West mentioned, but there are also lone wolves who are radicalised. The Government are alive to both issues and will continue to be on top of them. We will put the security of this country and of our partners at the forefront of our operations.