Temporary Skilled Worker Visas: Creative Occupations

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change their policy on temporary skilled worker visas for creative occupations.

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

The United Kingdom has one of the most generous visa offers in Europe for workers in the creative industries. A large number of people, including nationals of EU member states, do not require visas if coming for less than six months. The Government have identified separately the creative industries as one of their eight key growth-driving sectors and have set out a new industrial strategy, including £380 million in targeted funding.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am particularly concerned about the world of dance. Despite the fact that dancers and choreographers spend years training, their qualifications are assessed as being below degree level, and consequently they are eligible for sponsorship to work in the UK via the skilled workers visa route only if they remain on the temporary shortage list. If they do not remain, can the Government confirm that they will secure some sort of exemption or special arrangement for them, as already exists for sportspeople, otherwise there will be a huge negative impact on our world-renowned dance sector and the dance companies that all recruit from a global talent pool?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Musicians, entertainers, artists and technical staff from non-visa national countries can perform in the UK for up to six months, as she knows. They require only an ETA, which costs just £20 and lasts two years. If she will let me, I will look at the specific issue of dancers and correspond with her. The Government’s general approach is to ensure that we have as much access as we can because we want to support the creative industries at home and we want to support those in the creative industries being able to travel abroad. I will look at the specific points that she has mentioned.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall ask about another class of skilled and creative workers in need of temporary visas—namely, sheep-shearers during the sheep-shearing season. They are fundamental to animal welfare. There is a serious issue about the grant of visas. I do not imagine that the Minister knows the answer immediately. Will he be good enough to write to me and copy his response to the chairman of the NFU?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Funnily enough, as the noble Viscount will know, sheep-shearers were not on my briefing for the creative industries. I am sure it is extremely creative and extremely high skilled, but it was not specifically part of my research in answering the Question. The key point is that the Government are trying to ensure that, where possible, we encourage locally grown talent to fill all skilled worker positions. I will look at the specific issue that he has mentioned, and I will ensure that any future creative industries Question includes sheep-shearers as part of my paragraphs.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, when a skilled worker applies for a job in the UK, he pays thousands of pounds to the Home Office in fees, and then he pays thousands of pounds in surcharge every year to the National Health Service. He pays his taxes, national insurance and council tax, and in return he gets nothing—none of the benefits and no recourse to public funds. Yet right-wing parties such as Reform and others are saying that these workers are a financial burden on our country. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with that statement?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not agree that all individuals who come to this country are financial burdens. People historically have made long-term contributions, paid taxes and filled vacancies. However, the Government have to have a managed border system and ensure that, where we can, we upskill United Kingdom citizens to compete and fill vacancies. That is the objective that the Government have in the White Paper, and it is one that I know my noble friend will support.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend, when the Minister writes to her regarding the position of dancers, will he take on board that, had the existing rules applied, Acosta would never have been able to come from Cuba to fulfil the wonderful work that he has been doing since?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government’s objective in all this is to ensure that we support the creative industries, that people with skills who wish to come to the UK to participate in the creative industries or to tour as part of the creative industries can do so, and that UK citizens can travel elsewhere in the world as frictionlessly as they possibly can in order to meet their creative talents and employment. That is the objective. I will certainly reflect on all the points that have been made today relating to specific issues that have been raised.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, do the Government accept that, across a wide range of skills, the country is simply unable at the moment to attract many of the most talented people that it needs in order to secure growth, and that part of the problem is the administrative burden, which has just been alluded to, of making those applications? Will they undertake a review of the administration of the scheme in order to try to obtain those skilled workers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I refer the noble Lord to the immigration White Paper that the Government produced last year, which will see itself translated into potential legislative proposals during the course of the forthcoming year that will be subject to scrutiny in both Houses. The purpose of the immigration White Paper was to say that there are certain skills that we need and that, if we can, those skills should be met from the UK’s workforce, and, if not, we will upskill. If there are other skills, then certainly there have to be some strictures around how we attract those skills to the UK. The Government’s central mission is one of encouraging growth. That is what we are trying to do within the remit of managing our borders in a secure and safe way.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we all recognise the contribution that creative artists make when visiting our country, but we have to restrict the criteria for skilled worker visas to ensure that the system works as intended, so I welcome the Government’s action here. Given that, can the Minister confirm that the Government will hold the line on this issue, not reverse the changes that they have made, and follow through on their other immigration reforms, particularly their policy on indefinite leave to remain?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know—again, for the House’s reference—that we had the immigration White Paper, we have set a direction of travel and we have announced in the King’s Speech an immigration Bill that will be coming forth shortly. I suspect it will arrive first in the House of Commons. The Government have a duty on behalf of the UK population to secure our borders and make sure that our immigration system is fair. That is what we are trying to do with the proposals that he is aware of.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that my wife was a board member of the English National Ballet for many years. I want to follow up on the original Question. It is the case, as the Home Office would know if it bothered to consult the ballet companies, that its rules do not allow visas to be granted to brilliant young dancers from all over the world. There is a particular case of people who have been recruited from the Brazilian favelas as brilliant dancers who are excluded from Britain because of a negative Home Office policy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing that to my attention in the Chamber today. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, I will look at the question of dancers specifically. There is a threshold, and I am not clear where the dancing community falls in relation to it, but I will check that and copy any letter that I write to the noble Baroness to my noble friend.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, in supporting the case for visas for those in the creative industries, I draw my noble friend’s attention to another area that I have already discussed with him: the fishing industry. That industry depends on migrant workers who come for a short period of time, but, under the current regulations, that is no longer happening. My noble friend the Minister’s colleagues in Defra are talking to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the UK about possible solutions. I urge him to have discussions with ministerial colleagues in Defra with a view to finding solutions that allow growth in the fishing economy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend and I have had a significant correspondence on this issue over the past 12 months. I recognise that there are concerns about a labour shortage for certain skills in Northern Ireland. The argument that the Government have continually made is that we need to look at how we can encourage home-grown skills, but I will certainly reflect on what she said today, discuss it with my colleagues in Defra and, if there are any updates, I will contact the noble Baroness accordingly.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, on a similar point to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I am a trustee of the National Opera Studio, which trains brilliant young opera singers and is sponsored by the country’s leading opera companies. There are problems in the operation of the global talent visa for a small number of singers who come from other countries. I know that there is a call for evidence on this. Would the Government please look at this matter? We are talking about a small number of people and about protecting the position of the UK as internationally significant in opera.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look at the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. I come back to the key point: the Government have recognised that the creative industries are not just fluffy but are an economic driver for the UK, in television, film, art, opera and dance. That is why the Government have committed £380 million towards a plan to help the creative industries to secure growth. I will look at the specific points that the noble Lord has mentioned. Again, some of these points are important but not necessarily at the front of the discussions that I have had. I will look at those points, but the House needs to be assured that this Government are committed to growth and to the creative industries and see them as an engine of employment and wealth.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, in the face of an unimaginable tragedy, the Nowak family has shown a level of moral leadership that puts many in the political sphere to shame. While others have rushed to use the death of their 18 year-old son to stoke the fires of a culture war, the family’s plea has been for one thing: justice without division. Henry was a young man with a life of promise ahead of him. We owe it to his memory to honour his family’s request for unity, rather than allowing his death to be weaponised by those seeking to tear our social fabric apart.

However, the details that have so far emerged of the police response at the scene raise deeply troubling questions. When we see footage of a dying teenager being handcuffed and told he is under arrest while his killer’s lies are taken at face value, we are seeing the consequences of a system that has lost its focus on the victim. This strikes at the very heart of public trust. We must ask how the basic instinct to preserve life was so catastrophically overridden by a false narrative provided at the scene.

However, we must also confront the “two-tier policing” narrative being peddled by opportunistic voices. This rhetoric is not just false; it is dangerous. It ignores the fact that the perpetrator’s actions were condemned by his own community and that the weapon used was not a protected religious item. Our response must be rooted in fact and liberal values, not in the reactionary populism that seeks to label entire communities for the crimes of one individual.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that this investigation must not only consider the actions of individual officers but examine whether there were systemic failures in training and guidance, particularly in the management of complex and fast-moving incidents? In much of Europe, initial police training lasts years, but in England and Wales the classroom-based foundation is typically 18 to 22 weeks. So I once again repeat our calls for an independent review of police training, which has not taken place since 2018.

Hampshire Police has referred itself to the IOPC. Will the Minister commit to updating the House promptly once that investigation concludes, and to ensuring that its findings are published in full?

Following the trial, there have been reports from Sikh organisations of a significant increase in anti-Sikh hate crime. What steps are the Government taking to support community cohesion and protect minority communities from being targeted in the aftermath of this case?

Can the Minister confirm that the weapon used in this case was not a ceremonial kirpan but a different, larger knife, and that the Government’s focus remains on tackling knife crime in all its forms rather than restricting lawful religious practice?

Finally, does the Minister agree that rebuilding public confidence depends on effective neighbourhood policing, with officers properly embedded in their communities and, crucially, backed by sustained investment, including in youth services, which have been decimated in recent years?

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

I begin by saying that this murder was appalling. The murder is the responsibility of Vickrum Digwa, who is now facing a life sentence with a minimum of 21 years in jail. It was all the more despicable because of the lies the perpetrator told about the dying boy, Henry. That was a life snuffed out and we should have consideration both for his life and for his family at this time.

It is important that we reflect on the issues that have been made. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday in her Statement to the House of Commons, there will be an IOPC investigation. I do not wish to prejudge that investigation. We have all seen the body-worn camera footage and we have all seen the concerns that that footage has raised, but it is important that the IOPC has an opportunity to reflect on that. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I say that we will update both Houses of Parliament when that report is produced, and I welcome her comments on that issue. It is also important that we recognise that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which is independent of the Government, and rightly so, has indicated that it will review the guidance that it issued in 2025 to ensure that there is no ambiguity in its wording and statements.

I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I ask him again to reflect on the fact that the guidance will be reviewed, and I will report back to the House in due course on that issue. On the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about training and the lessons learned from this incident, both the guidance and the IOPC report will help us reflect on what needs to be done to examine those issues in slower time, because it is important that we do that.

With regard to the arguments about scrapping the guidance, everyone should be equal under the law. That is a first principle of policing. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is reviewing the wording to ensure that there is no ambiguity. We also have the Police Race Action Plan, published under the previous Conservative Government, which includes the issues of equality and diversity, and an acknowledgment of the challenges with race. I cannot accept, I am afraid, the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that this House and the House of Commons scrap and throw away that legislation and guidance. We will review them, but it is important, for a whole range of reasons, that police understand the challenges of equality and diversity in policing, and the importance of policing for all the community.

I will also say, if I may, that I am concerned about the disorder that has arisen as a result and, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I hope that people who have a view on any issue do so in a peaceful way and make any protests in a peaceful way. Eleven police officers and a police dog were injured in yesterday’s events in Southampton. The police have already made some arrests and will potentially make further arrests, because it is not acceptable, either last night or at any other time, to express a view on a contentious, difficult and challenging issue in a way that increases violence, tensions and potential aggression in our communities.

I go back to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned. The individual who committed the murder—the perpetrator of the murder—was carrying a knife that was not in order with the religious exemptions that were in place. And even if religious exemptions were in place, the moment the knife is used for a murder, that is the crime for which the individual concerned has been put before the courts. He has been found guilty and others around him have also been found guilty for their actions in response to the initial lies that were told about the purpose of calling the police in the first place.

I think it is important that we also take on board the extremely brave statement from the family. It is one I am not sure I could make if one of my children was involved in a murder. The family said yesterday that they did not want Henry’s death

“used to create further division, hatred or tension”.

Those are wise words from people in the middle of grief, whose child has been murdered and who have just witnessed someone going to prison for life for that murder. It is a time when there is an important need for the community to come together, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said.

The family also quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer, who said something that echoes again the tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey:

“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder”.


We need to remember that today. I appeal to all Members of this House and all people outside who have concerns over this. Let the IOPC do its job. Let it report. Let the Police Chiefs’ Council review its guidance. Let the parents grieve and, if I may say so, let Henry Nowak rest in peace. Lessons will be learned from his murder, undoubtedly, but I say to the House as a whole that this is a time for calm heads and wise counsel, not for action on the streets.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now have up to 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, may I, on behalf of Britain’s peaceful, well-integrated Sikh community of half a million, express our deepest condolences to the family of the young murdered student? His murder is totally unforgivable. It was carried out by someone from the Sikh community who has an obsession with weapons. It has nothing to do with the kirpan that is legitimately worn by Sikhs. It was an offensive weapon with a blade of 23 inches. It was meant to harm and hurt, and we again express our deepest condolences.

The other point I would like to make, which I would like the Minister to consider, is on media reporting. On Monday morning, I heard the BBC television news at 7 am. It constantly referred to the offensive weapon and mentioned “kirpan”. It needs to be made absolutely clear that the kirpan is a symbolic, token weapon of about five or six inches, worn under the clothes and not for use in any way. It is simply a reminder of the duty of Sikhs to stand up against social or political injustice. I really would like the Minister to consider the reporting of this event, because that reporting is food and sustenance for the extremists in our society.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which was passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to kirpans, and long kirpans as well. This included extended defences so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons. But let me be clear to this House and to people outside: carrying a knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing; using it to perpetrate a murder is quite another. In saying that, the focus of our ire and concern should be on the perpetrator, who is now serving a long prison sentence. It is not a reflection on the Sikh community nor on the many people in that Sikh community who will, as the noble Lord has done, condemn this act. The noble Lord raised the role of the media. In terms of news media, there is what I would call old media and there is currently social media. In my view, both need to report all instances of violence in a constructive, truthful and factually based way—not one designed to inflame areas where, as was witnessed last night in Southampton, there are potential tensions generated as a result.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, the guidelines are being reviewed. May I suggest that part of the review should address the use of handcuffs? In this case, it is not at all clear to me that it was right, or indeed seemly or appropriate, to apply handcuffs to Mr Nowak.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Viscount, the area he is discussing strays into two issues which are really important. One is on the IOPC investigating what actually happened, both before the footage that we have seen on TV and during the incident of handcuffing and the original response. It is best that it reports on that and give some views on it. That will also stray into the issue of the guidance. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is responsible for that guidance, not Ministers. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is reviewing the approach to that guidance, and I am sure it will ensure that the type of issue the noble Viscount mentions are ones that are considered, both in terms of IOPC response and that of the police chiefs themselves.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, my thoughts and prayers are also with the family and friends of Henry Nowak in their grief and suffering. Like many others, I echo the courageous words of Henry’s father in his powerful call that his son’s death should not,

“be used to create further division, hatred or tension”.

Sadly, there has been a lot of misinformation spread around this appalling crime. Some have not heeded the call from Henry’s father, which is incredibly disrespectful. I am sure that all noble Lords would call on people to respect his words and to work for peace in their local communities.

I am also deeply saddened that some have targeted Sikh communities as a result of this terrible crime. Along with my fellow Lords spiritual, I stand firmly with Sikh leaders who have made it very clear that, whatever the words used by the murderer, and whatever the words used by his lawyers, faith was not a factor in this crime. I refer noble Lords to the words of Professor Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, an expert in Sikh theology, who stated clearly that the knife used in this crime was categorically not a kirpan, as others have said. The perpetrator was carrying a much larger knife. My hope, therefore, is that we will focus on the societal problem of knife crime. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitments both to tackling knife crime and to tackling misinformation about faith communities?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right, and I welcome his support for the Sikh community and for the way in which he has expressed it. As I mentioned in my initial comments, I also very much respect the words of the Nowak family. Everyone should respect these words, and those who have called for action, or for rage, or for other measures as a result, should reflect carefully on what the family have said.

A murder by a knife is 100% a murder for the individual and for their family. The Government are continuing to look at what we can do to halve knife crime. We have put £66 million into the violence reduction unit and £26 million into knife crime concentrations fund. We are providing financial support to tackle county lines, and we are strengthening legislation on the possession of offensive weapons as a whole, as we have done through the Crime and Policing Act. To the right reverend Prelate and the House, I say that recorded knife crime in the past 18 months has fallen by 10%, hospital admissions for stabbings have fallen by 13%, knife-enabled assaults have decreased by 10% and knife homicides are down overall by 27%, their lowest figure in a decade. As I have said, however, knife homicides represent a 100% murder for the family of an individual. These reductions do not take away the pain of yesterday’s verdict, but they show that the Government are trying to address this issue and the trend, thankfully, is a downwards one.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I served the public for 35 years in the police. I have dealt with many chaotic situations involving violence and murder, but I confess that none has been as shocking as that of the murder of Henry Nowak, whose death at the hands of the police was captured on camera. The same words were said or whispered by George Floyd on his arrest by the police in Minneapolis: the words, of course, were “I can’t breathe”.

Policing is not an exact science, but we must heed the words of Henry’s father at the end of the trial. He did not want the death of his son to be continued further in the media. He referred to “division, hatred or tension”, and this plea was ignored by Tommy Robinson on Tuesday night in Southampton. The Prime Minister said that lessons should be learned. Does the Minister agree that the camera film—shown in the media throughout this period—should, with family consent, be on the curriculum of every recruit training course in the country, as an illustration of how such incidents should not be dealt with by the British police? In my opinion, justice should be applied equally in the UK to everybody, regardless of nationality, creed, colour or anything else.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend brings great experience from policing to this debate. I say to him that there will obviously be an IOPC investigation that will investigate not just the issues in the footage we have seen but the initial call, how the call was handled, what happened between the call and arrival at the scene, and what happened at the scene and afterwards. I can make comments on what that investigation might show, but it is important that the IOPC and I have the full facts before we make decisions. However, one thing is certain: lessons will be learned and adopted in the guidance that the National Police Chiefs’ Council will issue. Also, any report from that incident will provide some potential areas for future change in policy or operational issues.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, close to the end, the Minister said that this has nothing to do with racism, but it does, because the murderer played the race card and the police believed the murderer and his family about racism rather than the dying Henry, who, because of those accusations, died thinking that the state thought he was a racist bigot. Imagine that. It is so much of a tragedy, rage does not even do it.

Does the Minister acknowledge the number of former and present front-line police officers who are now reporting that the fear of career-ending accusations of racism is shaping operational decisions? Hampshire Police leadership said that anti-racism and being ethical and inclusive are its top priorities as a police force—over, by the way, keeping people safe or fighting crime. Surely this demands more than just tweaking the guidance or stating that “lessons must be learned”—a phrase I have heard in this House many a time, without lessons being learned.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Incidents happen, and Governments have to reflect upon what has happened as a result of those incidents. We await an IOPC investigation, and it would be wrong of me to comment on or colour that investigation prior to it happening. With the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we have already examined the current guidance it has published, and it is now looking at what guidance it needs. We will also be looking at other issues. For example, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will discuss the issue of the kirpan with the Sikh community and the police. We will consult on and discuss those issues in non-judgmental way. There are a range of issues, but those who have come to speedy judgment need to reflect upon the fact that Governments need to reflect, because Governments and the police provide policy for the long term, not for the moment.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

We will come to the Conservatives next. I encourage noble Lords on all sides of the House to keep their questions short so that the Minister has a chance to answer them fully.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that it is a time for calm heads, but it is also not a time for heads in the sand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has just outlined, this wicked crime and terrible tragedy has thrown up issues about the conduct of the police and their paranoia on the ground. There is now a substantial 20-year body of scientific research that has established that diversity, equity and inclusion training, and all the training being rolled out by the police, does not work and causes more harm and division. Will the Minister undertake to the House to conduct a proper review of police training and resolve this once and for all?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an important point, and I know that the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Government will reflect on the issues of training. However, the police still have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law, and that is the promise on which our justice system rests. The equality of the citizen is the foundation of our policing, and we will look at the lessons to be learned. That is not an empty phrase, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, believes it to be; it is a real commitment to examine with the police what has happened and ensure that, when we know the facts from the IOPC, we learn what needs to be remedied, if anything, as a result.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking here in a personal capacity. My condolences go out to Henry Nowak’s family, because what happened to him should never have happened, and the police should be at fault for what happened on that night. When my son was murdered, nobody stood up and asked for judgment to happen for him. On the mere fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place can use my son’s name in referring to Reform, it took 20 years and more for anybody to understand the murder of my son and to have anybody convicted. I am really pleased that the Nowak family managed to get those convictions for those who caused the murder of their son. Some in this House talk about race equality. They have no idea what race equality means; it is for those of us who have suffered from it over the years. From my perspective, families have suffered when their son has been murdered, and nobody gives two hoots about them. You can be here, standing in a position of power, and say that you want to change and go back to what it was before but, for me, what we have moved on to is a much better equality for all in this country.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend speaks with an authority that nobody else in this House can match, given her experience and her understanding of how the Nowak family feel today after the verdict yesterday. I hope she heard my comments, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies: that I believe we need to maintain and retain equality, diversity and an understanding of the impact of those challenges on the police. But that does not mean that we cannot learn lessons about what happened in this instance, which the IOPC will opine on, or that we cannot let the police examine the guidance they issued last year so that we ensure that—this is the key point—everybody in this society is dealt with equally under the law by the police, irrespective of their colour, irrespective of their race and irrespective of their religion. It does not mean that the people who commit the type of offence that has led to this discussion today cannot be held to account, as was the perpetrator in this case, with a life sentence with a 21-year minimum.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the point has been made a number of times that the knife was not a kirpan, but is it not entirely possible that police officers who do not necessarily have expert training in what exactly a kirpan looks like may have been less likely to challenge the killer, who was carrying an illegal offensive weapon? So, for clarity, is the Minister saying that this exemption is now being reviewed or not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an offence to have an article with a blade or point in a public place without good reason. One of the good reasons, under legislation passed, is “for religious purposes”. Curved swords over 50 centimetres and zombie-style knives and machetes are prohibited items. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that she will discuss with the Sikh community, the police and other stakeholders the circumstances, post the potential further information coming to light, and the exemptions to date. But the exemptions were given for good reasons, and they have had cross-party support. As I said to the noble Lord, it was not an individual who was a Sikh using a knife for religious purposes; it was a person who was a murderer who used a knife to murder an individual. We should keep that in mind when we reflect upon our discussions.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary said yesterday in her Statement in the Commons that she knows that it is

“difficult to wait any longer for answers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/26; col. 1015.]

Why will it take three to four months for this inquiry to take place? These inquiries seem to go on for such a long time, and surely that is a ridiculous amount of time for an inquiry to detail what to look at with this particular incident, which we have seen so graphically and awfully illustrated.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes the point that we want answers about what happened at the incident in full, as soon as possible. Yesterday, I watched the very painful footage from the body-worn camera, it having been released by Hampshire Police last night. It is appalling and horrific and it is of great concern. However, I have not been party yet to what happened prior to that camera footage. I do not know what happened with the call centre or what advice was given during the travel. The IOPC needs to look into that matter and I expect it to produce a report as soon as possible, to give a definitive view of the performance of the police and any back-up to that police force in relation to what happened, as we have seen on camera. That may take time, but I want it to be done as quickly as possible for the family and for the wider community. It is important that we reflect on that in a measured way, as I have tried to say, to ensure that the issues that arise from the incident, and from the conviction of that murder and sentencing, are fully considered by both government and police, and indeed the wider community.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle inconsistent decision-making for victims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

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

My Lords, up to March 2026 more than £127 million has been paid out by the Government following claims. All claims are considered individually against the published rules. Caseworkers receive comprehensive training and decisions are subject to robust quality assurance. Anybody who is unhappy about the outcome of their claim can access a free review process, including review by an independent adjudicator, and we use feedback to continuously improve decision-making.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but Windrush victims have raised serious ongoing issues around inconsistent decision-making within the compensation scheme, even between siblings, including misinterpretation of evidence, inadequate support and lack of independence. The continued use of the term “immigrants” to describe those affected, rather than recognising them as British nationals, has wider implications for how cases are understood and handled, and undervalues the non-financial harms and loss of opportunities and security. The scheme is too complex for unrepresented applicants, who are undercompensated compared with claimants with lawyers, who receive much higher awards—£11,400 compared with £83,200 for the same claim. Could more funding be directed towards legal support, as with other state compensation schemes, to clear up this shocking injustice? Is the Windrush commissioner, who is supposed to be supporting Windrush victims, aware of these concerns?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. First, the Windrush commissioner is in regular engagement and discussion with Ministers around issues of concern, and since January 2026 we have made some significant changes to the scheme as a result of representations from the commissioner. The noble Baroness mentions legal representation. We have a dedicated helpline. We give claim form guidance. We have free practical support for claimants’ assistance. We have put £1.5 million into a free advocacy support system. We also have limited legal support of up to £1,500 to obtain probate to submit a claim as a representative of a Windrush claimant’s estate. They are British citizens and they deserve our support. We want to ensure that we have a fair and equitable system, and I will happily take representations from the noble Baroness on any issues if she feels there are concerns.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, commented that people who come with legal representation get higher and better awards. Does the Minister know why this is and, if he does not, can he look into why people with legal representation are getting much better awards? Surely the system should be defending those who are the most vulnerable and cannot get that representation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The two factors may not necessarily be similar. There may be individuals who engage legal support and end up getting the claim they would have had anyway, whether they had that support or not. The scheme was designed not to have necessarily a barrier of legal representation; that is why we have put in help and support for claimants, but legal representation is not required. We are looking at all times at how we can simplify the scheme, but I caution the noble Lord against presuming that legal representation in this case means a higher claim. It may be that the claim was justified in the first place, as we view all claims on an individual basis for each claimant.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

There has been much commentary on the relatively high rejection rates for the Windrush compensation scheme. Subsequently, there have been calls for the Home Office to relax its criteria. It is of course imperative that the scheme is not open to exploitation and that compensation is paid only to those who are genuinely eligible. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the criteria the Home Office uses will remain robust and fair, and applied consistently and equitably to all applicants?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, I can, I hope, assure the noble Lord on that. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the Government made a number of changes in January 2026 to try to improve the scheme and make sure that people still have access to it in a simpler way. Those changes have also meant, as I said in earlier answers, that 94% of all claims have reached a final decision. We have speeded up the claims from taking four months in 2024 to less than six weeks now. On where there are appeals on those claims and reviews asked for, there have been, for example, 2,656 requests for review of tier 1 decisions, 504 of which resulted in a change of the claim. On tier 2 applications there have been 747 requests, of which 116 resulted in changes, so there is, I hope, a fair and equitable scheme. We want to see people applying for the scheme. We continue to receive around 140 claims a month and there is no end date to the scheme, so we want to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Have the Government actually conducted any research into whether unrepresented claimants receive lower awards than represented claimants, and if so why, to address the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot say to the noble Lord that we have undertaken that research, but I am happy to look at the point he mentions. The key point is that the scheme is designed to be simple. Support is available through a free helpline, and there is now a high level of speedy turnarounds and completed claims, at 94%. I will certainly look at whether there is a factual basis for it; I was simply making the point, to both noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baroness, that there may not be a correlation between legal representation and claim because all claims are judged on their individual circumstances.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about data collection, because so many people are passing away before their claims are even looked at. Does he have any data to show how many people have passed away before being able to have their claims addressed?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I probably have figures for my noble friend, and I will write to her with the specific figures. The key point is that we are now, as part of the prioritisation, looking at claimants aged over 75 and those with conditions that are critical or life shortening so we can ensure that those who are potentially in danger of passing before a claim is completed have that claim speedily processed.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, victims of state problems such as the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal have been given fully funded, independent legal support. What makes this so different that there is no equity for these people?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The scheme was designed to be speedily executed and to ensure that we give dedicated support. We have a dedicated helpline, claim form guidance, free advocacy support, a £1.5 million Windrush compensation advocacy support scheme and legal support for those submitting a claim, as my noble friend Lady Lawrence mentioned, for those who have sadly died. That is the way in which we are trying to do this. The fact that we have paid out £127 million to date shows the Government’s commitment to ensure that those who deserve payments get payments.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Can the Minister say something about the training that those who have to administer the scheme receive? Proper training would be one way of ensuring that equality of treatment is achieved across the board.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. Staff undertake a rigorous training programme that provides a holistic view of the scheme and includes a module on the history of the scandal. It includes clips of people from the Windrush generation, as well as case studies, to provide insights into the way in which individuals have been affected. It also focuses on important skills, such as telephony skills and communication. Staff regularly deal with vulnerable people and have the ability to pass on particular areas of concern to organisations such as the Samaritans if there is a requirement because of other potential issues. All staff undertake a mandatory “face behind the case” training course, and we are committed to learning the lessons from the scandal to ensure our caseworkers are both empathetic and fully trained.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to a worrying thing, if it is true. The Windrush generation are still being referred to as immigrants, not as British citizens. Can the Minister confirm whether that is happening? If it is, we all ought to be concerned.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Windrush generation are British citizens, and I confirm that that is the status they have.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, every week I pass by that wonderful statue of the Windrush generation at Waterloo station. It is an inspiration, showing people who were invited here to come and be part of our community, and they have served this community incredibly well. We have lived the Martin Luther King dream in this country of bringing people together better than any other country in the world, but that is all now under threat. Would it not be a very good sign of our intent to get this Windrush issue sorted as quickly and as fairly as possible to reclaim our status as one of the most tolerant and inclusive countries in the world?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree that the UK should be a tolerant and inclusive country. The Windrush generation came to the UK to fill labour shortages following the Second World War and to make a contribution to the country they regarded as their native country. They are British citizens. That is quite right and proper. There is an estimated cohort of 11,500 to 14,500 citizens who are part of that Windrush generation.

We have kept the scheme open; it has no closing date. We are currently getting 140 claims per week. We want to get as many people as possible to apply. As I mentioned, we have reduced the time from two months to around six weeks to get claims considered. Very few claims are outstanding. It is important that people claim; they have a right to that money. Mistakes were made in the past. The scheme has been established and £127 million has been paid to ensure that this state, the United Kingdom, recognises both the service and the injustice that occurred with the Windrush generation.

Unite the Kingdom March

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in response to incidents of hate speech and Islamophobia at the Unite the Kingdom march held in London on 16 May.

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

No one should ever be a victim of hatred or live in fear because of their religion, beliefs or the way in which they choose to live their lives. In preparation for the 16 May marches, the Metropolitan Police Service publicly outlined the robust approach it would take to criminality, including hate speech. The protesters do not speak for the vast majority of the British people.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the statement from the Minister, but I have to share with your Lordships’ House the profound anger and hurt that some of the speeches from the stage just outside here caused, not just in London but across the country. I will share my experiences from my own immediate family. One of my sons works for the railway industry, the other for the NHS, and they have said to me, “Dad, are people questioning our existence in this society, given your long service in public services?” One of the speakers at the march pointed at this building and said we need to remove Islam from this building. Does that mean people like me do not have a place in this society anymore?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

No, of course it does not, and I will defend and support the right of people to enjoy and cherish their religion. That is what freedom of speech allows us to do. The noble Lord will also know that, on the day in question, there were 13 arrests for hate crime-related offences; 10 of those arrested were affiliated to Unite the Kingdom and they included arrests for offences motivated by race, religion, sexuality and disability. As I said at the outset, this is a fight for the soul of this country. It is not acceptable to have that type of hatred, and I will stand up with him to support the rights of people to enjoy their religion freely.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, Muslim women’s safety matters too. When will the Government announce funding for the safety and security of Muslim women? I know about the funding for mosque security and the helpline, so I am not asking about that. What about Muslim women? We feel invisible. By the way, I support Arsenal—yay!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The one thing that struck me about the demonstration on Saturday was the completely offensive demonstration involving three people wearing burkas and purporting to be Muslim women. I support the noble Baroness’s wish. I will look at what she has said. She knows—and I will not repeat it now—that there is significant resource going into protecting the Muslim community. We have also a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility which was put in place only in April this year. She has my support to ensure that she and other women like her who have the Muslim religion are allowed to lead their lives freely and openly.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, can I ask the Minister to confirm that the police will be very robust in tackling antisemitic remarks and actions at pro-Palestinian marches?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The law does not discriminate against individuals who are Jewish or Muslim. The law says that people who bring forward hate crime or encourage discrimination on the basis of a religion, or indeed a faith of any kind, face the full force of the law. The Metropolitan Police showed that on Saturday with the number of arrests it made, and will do so again, free of political interference, according to the law set down by both Houses of Parliament.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, women of all faiths find it difficult these days, particularly women of colour. You cannot say whether someone is Muslim or not because we do not wear a badge on our foreheads to say what we are or are not. We all get abuse. We need to change the tone and the narrative of how we are behaving, not only in Parliament but out there too. I think it is on all of us when we are debating this to make people believe that we are actually coming together to tackle this rather than trying to give it as antisemitic or anti-Muslim. Many of us who are not either are still suffering the same, but we do not have a voice anywhere in the debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to develop a strategy on anti-violence against women and girls and to halve violence against women and girls over 10 years. As part of that strategy, we are acutely aware that the type of violence against women and girls that is of a serious nature begins with disrespect and basic misogyny. Part of the challenge for this Government is to ensure that all women have the right to live their lives free of intimidation and abuse.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

Can I put it to my noble friend the Minister that, given the events being described that took place at the marches on Saturday and the cost to the police, let alone the diversion of police officers from the task they ought to be undertaking, which is cracking down on the tide of crime in this country, it would be better to limit the number of such marches and demonstrations?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will wish to know that, under existing legislation—and, indeed, under the Crime and Policing Act that was passed by this House with Royal Assent only on 29 April—the police already have powers to both ban marches and/or reroute marches away from areas of potential conflict and issue. That is a judgment for the police. It would be wrong for politicians to determine which marches take place and when, but it is right that the police look at public security and public order and make some determinations. They have done and will do so.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, there were two protests last weekend. One of those attracted widespread condemnation from the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and most in the Parliamentary Labour Party; the other attracted little or no condemnation. That other protest, staged by the far left, saw Nazi salutes, calls for Jews to be beheaded and the displaying of a sign calling Jewish people Nazis. One wonders why those very people who found it so easy to criticise one of those protests found it so difficult to criticise the other. Can the Minister perhaps give a guarantee that legitimate criticism of religion, which is a fundamental aspect of free speech, is always maintained?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right to criticise religion is perfectly acceptable and in order. But again, I put it to the noble Lord that those rights to criticise also come with responsibilities. There is a clear definition in law about what is regarded as abuse, what is discrimination and what is intimidation and harassment. In both cases, if such instances are determined by the police, then the police will take action and, as on Saturday, arrests will be made. Some arrests were made in relation to the noble Lord’s question and some were in relation to the initial demonstration raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, so the police act fairly and the legislation is set down. I want to see a fair and open society where people can enjoy their religion and criticise political activity and/or religion, as well as states, at will, but within a limit.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government treat all forms of hate crime equally seriously. There is no hierarchy of victims. The police and the CPS will make decisions based on the facts and legal threshold in each case. There are definitions of types of harassment, and definitions of types of assurance for both Jewish and Muslim communities, but the Government and the police will treat all hate crime extremely seriously.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, at the rally last Saturday led by the convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, some of the hate speech we heard was specifically about Muslims, such as “It’s time for Muslims to leave the country”. Sadly, they are completely focused on attacking the Muslim community. History teaches us where such language can lead. British Muslims helped to build this country and serve it by teaching in schools, while over 89,000 Muslim staff work in our NHS, so I say that this is our country. My question is: why is this disgraceful hate speech and Islamophobia tolerated when it comes to British Muslims, and even defended, when the equivalent aimed at any other group would rightly be met with condemnation, prosecution and political outrage?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that it is not tolerated. The Prime Minister said on Saturday that this is a

“fight for the soul of the country”

and condemned the speeches made at that demonstration. The police have taken action accordingly. Indeed, the Government banned certain individuals from entering the country because of concerns about further activity following those speeches. This is not being tolerated. Muslims have a right to live, contribute and participate in our society free of intimidation and free of harassment. The Government, along with the Jewish community, will make sure that those individuals enjoy their lives free of that intimidation.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Student Visas

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

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

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

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

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Antisemitic Attacks

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Godson (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Noble Lords]

They are.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will let the Minister know in a moment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

[A noble Lord]

Jonathan Hall.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Tabled by

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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


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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Motion B agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.