Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Proscription

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cryer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards drafting a bill creating the legal framework for the proscription of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

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

The National Security (State Threats) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 9 June. This legislation will create a new power for the Secretary of State to designate bodies engaged in foreign power threat activity equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Designation will disrupt and deter the hostile activities of these bodies and those working with them, through new criminal offences.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government are bringing forward legislation, but it is not before time. We have seen IRGC proxies and operatives attacking British Jews and Jewish institutions. We have just seen two such proxies prosecuted and convicted for an almost fatal attack on an Iranian journalist. Is it not time to get this welcome new legislation through every stage of its parliamentary procedures sharpish, and then ban this bunch of homicidal maniacs?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that in the King’s gracious Speech we said we wanted to get this matter on the statute book as quickly as possible. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and this noble House with regard to that, but we want to get this done so that the power is there for the Secretary of State to make judgments on any state threat that we face and to take action which, if agreed by both Houses, will potentially result in sentences of 14 years’ imprisonment for anybody convicted.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly welcome the legislation that is proposed, plus the Minister’s own personal commitment to this, because the use of these proxies, behind which countries such as Iran are obviously hiding, is doing untold harm. It is not just the IRGC but the Iranian-linked Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, which claims credit and responsibility for some of the recent antisemitic attacks. Will it also be included in the legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The legislation gives the Secretary of State a power, and then how the Secretary of State uses that power will be for the Secretary of State to consider on the basis of the threats that are presented. The Government condemn antisemitism and are very much aware of the Iranian state threat. In fact, we have already sanctioned some 550 individuals from Iran and organisations, including the IRGC in its entirety. We take the threats from Iran extremely seriously, and we will continue to monitor that. But I hope that this power will be given speedy passage; then we can assess how best to use it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches support this legislation and, when it comes to us in the next few weeks, we will ensure that there is a very constructive process. The IRGC and similar groups operate under proxies, as we have heard, but there is also enormous state capture of commercial organisations both within their countries and in the wider areas—especially in the Gulf. Can the Minister assure us that under the powers this legislation will allow, any organisation with a commercial link through complex legal, financial and trade routes that ends up in any part of the United Kingdom economy will be captured? Can he assure us that we will not only proscribe this organisation but starve it of funds if they are from the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the legislation and for its fast track. We are getting ahead of ourselves. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to end up with a legislation product that may or may not be amended. I hope that it will be passed speedily. I assure the noble Lord that the Government take this matter seriously and will make all the assessments that he has mentioned in relation to any power that the Government are given by the legislation that is passed. If this legislation can be fast-tracked, we will be able to make any assessments that we wish to make as soon as practicable after it is passed. As I say, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, now that the Government have published the National Security (State Threats) Bill, I can confirm to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill can progress swiftly. I do have a few concerns, however, with the drafting of the Bill. One is that, unlike the Terrorism Act 2000, the Bill does not criminalise membership of a designated group. Can the Minister explain why?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have had a detailed letter from the noble Lord raising a number of points that I will respond to. I am hoping to see him before the Bill comes to this House, for a private discussion on some of those matters. We have acted upon recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, whom we asked to review this legislation. The Bill before Parliament is what he has assessed is a workable piece of legislation.

On including issues such as a membership offence, Jonathan Hall has judged that that is not workable because of international law considerations. We will have to debate that detail, but I hope that ultimately we can settle on a Bill that gives the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—the power to act against any state threat in a way that we are not able to do now. The House has pressed me about this on many occasions. We have not been able to do it because of the failings in the legislation to date. To deal with those challenges, this Bill will make that difference. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the role that the Minister has played in ensuring that this legislation is brought forward. I remind him of the debate that we had in in your Lordships’ House on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, Transnational Repression in the UK. We took evidence from Iranians who had been left bleeding on the street after being attacked by members of the IRGC, and BBC Persian journalists who were targeted in the way that the noble lord, Lord Cryer, described.

Can the Minister ensure that the recommendations in that report are acted upon? Will he also look at what more can be done to hold to account those who have been executing Iranians in Iran at an unprecedented rate—some 2,159 in the last 12 months, 52% based on the death sentence issued by the revolutionary courts? Of course, in our minds is the young woman, Mahsa Amini, who was arrested and died in police custody because she offended the dress code.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support as well. I know he has a long-standing interest in this matter and has put pressure on the Government accordingly, which I welcome. We are trying to put in place a framework for legislation where we can act on any potential state threat. The type of incident that he has mentioned are ones that we will reflect upon. The Bill itself, unless amended by both Houses, means that there must be a UK connection of some sort for any designation to take place. Those are matters that we will discuss. I do not want us to get ahead of ourselves. I want this Bill to be an Act so that the Secretary of State can legally act to take action against any actor who is providing a state threat against this United Kingdom and its citizens.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He and I are the only two people here who are proscribed by the IRGC. I too put on record my thanks to the Minister. We have pushed hard and will continue to push hard. This needs to be done. As I said yesterday in this Chamber, it is not just the IRGC and its activities but what is going on in the charity world here. I hope that the legislation will be able to look at that too, because it is a serious matter. Money is being raised here in this country—British taxpayers’ money—which is going towards helping the IRGC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He will know that we have already introduced a comprehensive set of measures against Iran, including the sanctioning of the IRGC in its entirety and of 550 Iranian individuals and organisations. Those sanctions mean a whole range of things, such as travel bans. That is already in place.

Importantly, we have also put the whole of Iran under the foreign influence registration scheme. If an individual is working for the Iranian Government and being paid by them but has not declared it, they face potentially a five-year sentence if found and convicted. A range of measures are in place but, if passed by both Houses, this power will give the Secretary of State an additional power to take action against any state threat that the Secretary of State deems to be a threat to the United Kingdom. Let us get this Bill passed first. We will consider and assess all potential state threats, but I will not comment on the detail until I bring the measures forward.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the virtue of the Bill is the flexibility that it gives the Secretary of State, allowing him or her—depending who is there—to take action swiftly on the basis of security advice. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Cryer that it is now time. I hope that both Houses support the Minister, because he has been very active in this. I understand why it has taken so long. There is a balance of risk. Once you have proscribed an organisation, it is much more difficult to get information to counter that organisation. However, on any measure, the balance is now weighed heavily on one side for proscribing the organisations that have been mentioned and giving the Secretary of State the power to step in swiftly to act against anyone who is a threat to this nation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who has great experience in these matters. When this Government came to power in July 2024, we recognised—this is not a political point—that there were challenges in the legislation that needed to be addressed. We commissioned Jonathan Hall KC to do a thorough review of that legislation. He has reported back and we have accepted those recommendations.

This legislation, which I have been trailing to the House in discussions when pressed on this matter, has now been produced. It was introduced on 9 June. It will be considered in both Houses of Parliament. We hope that it will be done quickly. I cannot comment on how the legislation will be used, but the power is there for the Secretary of State to take considerations, if required, on any state threat. Once this power is passed, the United Kingdom will be a safer place, because we will be able to take stronger action against those who seek to do us evil.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s wider programme of reviewing retained EU law to ensure that the statute book operates clearly and effectively within the UK’s domestic framework following EU exit. They ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The instrument before us makes technical amendments to retained EU law relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. Its purpose is straightforward: to preserve the existing framework, maintain legal clarity and ensure that the law remains operable and enforceable in domestic law.

I want to be clear at the outset: these regulations do not weaken animal welfare protections, create new permissions for animal testing or reduce regulatory scrutiny. The UK’s strong protections remain in place. The UK continues to operate one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is important. Under that framework, animals may be used only where there is no viable alternative, the number of animals used must be kept to the minimum necessary and the most refined methods must be used to minimise harm. These requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, audit and enforcement by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

Alongside the Act, animal welfare standards are supported by the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence, and these regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework so that the same high standards continue to apply.

I am very much aware that the use of animals in science attracts significant public interest and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision where animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. As noble Lords will know, in November 2025 we published the replacing animals in science strategy, backed by £75 million of investment, to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. The strategy includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, create a preclinical translational models hub and expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods.

At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system.

This is exactly what these regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when it is truly necessary. These regulations provide legal clarity following EU exit to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. I therefore commend this SI to the Committee.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall say a few brief words about this statutory instrument and commend my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has set out it and its purpose. My gaze wanders to our colleague from Hansard, because it has occurred to me that, since my reintroduction to the House a week ago today after a few days’ absence, my remarks might be considered a maiden speech, and I want to reassure the Committee that it is no such thing. I am just here to continue my work, much of which has involved actively promoting science at every opportunity, and to give voice to the many scientific organisations outside this House whose advice and assistance are so valuable and welcome.

I doubt that there is any member of the Committee here today who wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. But, for the time being, animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research and it helps to ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. As I understand it, for example, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only by research on animals, and who among us here today has not benefited at one time or another from an anaesthetic? The research that is done is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. It is also critical to responding to health emergencies, including any future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and indeed our very existence.

Scientific advances continue to be made by the life sciences community. Members may have heard the news a week ago from Cambridge that a research group there has developed a vaccine that might be applicable to a whole category of viruses, with the use, for the first time, of artificial intelligence. This could be a real breakthrough. Like all new technologies, it can be used for good and sometimes not. At the same time, we must recognise that alternatives to animal testing are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models, so we must continue to support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.

When this SI was laid, I contacted the Royal Society of Biology for its advice. I should declare an interest, because I worked for the Royal Society of Biology before I was elected to this House. The society confirms that, as my noble friend has set out, this statutory instrument is essentially a tidying-up of the existing standards. It represents a change that will help the sector to propose improvements in practice and for the regulator to accept them and help to embed them as expected standards across the research community. The SI is related to minor amendments to the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes, such as mandatory standards of care and housing, et cetera. These amendments themselves largely relate, as my noble friend has said, to removing references to the EU, which are no longer valid, as well as a few minor clarifications.

The amendments relate to the first two-thirds of the code of practice. The final third of the code of practice, which relates to non-mandatory guidance and leading practice, has been removed, as the Home Office will be revising this more heavily at a later date —my noble friend may be able to confirm this—and will take into account advice given by the Animals in Science Committee on strengthening leading practice. This part will now exist as a stand-alone resource. The real point that I want to make is that the benefit of this is that it can be updated more quickly than if it remains part of the mandatory code of practice and should help more effectively to embed emerging improvements and practices across the sector. On this basis, I hope that this statutory instrument will commend itself to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am pleased to say from the outset that these Benches are broadly supportive of what the Government are seeking to achieve, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed.

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s world-leading regulatory framework for the use of animals in science. It embodies the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement—the three Rs—and has for 40 years provided a rigorous harm/benefit frame- work that commands respect both domestically and internationally. These regulations do nothing to diminish that framework.

In essence, this instrument tidies the house. It restates, revokes and replaces assimilated law—the legacy EU provisions that were absorbed into our statute book following Brexit—and consolidates them properly and coherently into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Explanatory Memorandum is candid about this being a technical continuity measure. No new burdens are placed on licence holders, and no new regulatory requirements are introduced. I think that is the right approach, and I commend the Home Office for bringing it forward. I also note that Northern Ireland has been properly engaged: legislative consent was obtained and no objections were raised. That matters, given that the regulation of animals used in science is a devolved matter. I am glad that the Government have handled it appropriately.

However, there is one question that I must put to the Minister because it goes to the very foundation of the legal authority underpinning this instrument. The matter has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The regulations are made under Sections 12 and 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Explanatory Memorandum itself acknowledges, at paragraph 6.8, that any regulation made under those powers

“must be made by no later than 23 June 2026”.

That deadline is now a matter of days away. Can the Minister confirm what will happen after 23 June, should further technical consolidation of assimilated law in this area be required, whether by way of correction, clarification or updating the powers in Sections 12 and 14, which will no longer be available? The only route would be primary legislation, which, as the memorandum itself observes, is a considerably more burdensome vehicle for what may in some cases be very minor adjustments. Will the Government set out how they intend to address that gap? Are there further instruments in this area still in preparation that need to be made before the deadline falls?

I am satisfied that this instrument is legally sound and practically sensible. We support it, but I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on the question of what comes next.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the detailed questions and contributions that have been made. I welcome back my noble friend Lord Stansgate following his short interregnum in parliamentary life. Having myself been subject, at one point, to a short interregnum—slightly longer than his—I know that it is certainly a gap that is felt personally, but I am pleased to see him back in his place today.

I welcome the support, in broad terms, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The central point, which I hope reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady McIntosh, is that these regulations do not weaken the safeguards for the use of animals in science. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the cornerstone of the UK system. These regulations make simple technical amendments for restating, revoking and replacing the retained EU provisions so that the legislation continues to operate effectively in domestic law.

I reassure noble Lords that the measures do not reduce welfare standards, create new permissions for animal use or remove existing safeguards, and animal use may still be authorised only where there is no viable alternative and following rigorous independent scrutiny. I say that at the beginning of my comments because it goes to the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Grender, about the future direction of travel. In the document produced in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in DSIT, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Defra, we set out, as a manifesto commitment, the direction of travel and a road map to reduce the use of animals in science and, ultimately, to set out further downstream how we can end it altogether, if possible, which is a very big challenge. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, there are still some areas where it makes a valuable contribution to medical research. We intend to attempt to meet the 35% reduction target mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. That is a joint effort between DSIT and Defra. We have put in £75 million, and the Home Office has oversight of that regulation.

A number of points were made around the Brexit reset Bill. I am afraid I cannot comment in detail on the content of that Bill. What we are trying to do is to give statutory footing to the existing procedures to date. I will look at the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made with regard to 23 June, but my understanding is that we have brought all the changes forward to ensure that this is now in UK domestic legislation without ties to the EU, and that this instrument covers all the necessary requirements. I will check that, because it is important that we do so, but that is my understanding of the situation to date.

In response to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned a number of points, Section 3 of the code will be republished and we will seek to update the section that he mentioned. I have commissioned the ASC to look into how we deliver leading best practice for animals in science. Again, that goes to the heart of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made from the Front Bench.

Regulatory oversight remains the responsibility of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, which operates under regulatory principles that include proportionality, transparency and accountability. Related to points made in the debate, if there are instances of non-compliance, the regulator retains a wide range of enforcement powers, from advice and licence variation through to suspension, revocation and, in the most serious cases, referral for prosecution. Nothing in the regulations changes that. Enforcement decisions are evidence-based and risk-informed. The aim of the instrument and the work that we are doing is to secure the best outcomes for animal welfare and ensure that the regulatory framework operates proportionately and effectively while driving continuous improvement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned Herbie’s law. I understand the interest and concern around developing a proposed framework for replacing animals in medical research by 2035. We tried not to set arbitrary deadlines in our document as they could prove undeliverable. Instead, we have set out a science-based approach that provides clear timelines for specific deliverable actions as evidence and capability are developed. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s new strategy sets out a long-term vision for a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated except in exceptional circumstances, and even those might be areas where we can push forward as medicine and science develop. However, it is not yet possible to replace all animal use, given the complexity of whole biological systems.

However, I assure her and those supporters of Herbie’s law that the Government are clear that progress must be led by science. Progress must be made, but in a way that does not lose the benefits that my noble friend mentioned. We are all living healthier lives today because of the outcomes of research and investment, however difficult and challenging this is at certain points in time.

I hope I have answered all the points in front of the Committee today. Those that need further investigation I will respond to in due course. If there are no further comments, I commend this SI to the Committee.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

On that 23 June issue, once the Minister has ascertained what the situation is, could he write, letting me know?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly can but, again, my understanding is that the instrument before us today covers all necessary requirements. We have brought forward all the changes needed to ensure that UK domestic legislation is correct without ties to EU law and that the 23 June deadline is, effectively, met by these regulations. I will reflect on that. I cannot give details of the Brexit Bill. It has not been published yet so it is not appropriate to do so. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said and, if there is further information to add, I will write to him. If any noble Lord wishes to have that correspondence, can they please contact my office?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand the predicament that the Minister is in. Do we know when the Brexit reset Bill might be published?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As ever, we probably do know but are not able to tell. That is a convention of this House because it is important. We have not published the Bill. We have to publish the Bill and, at some point, we will. With that—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I hope that the Committee will indulge me if I ask a further question on this point. After 23 June, it will not be possible for the Home Office or whichever other department it is—this will arise again in the next debate—to bring forward measures using statutory instruments to adjust these regulations. It will have to be done by primary legislation, or a framework will have to be put in place by an Act of Parliament that allows those changes to be made by SI. The tenor of the Minister’s answers to the questions asked of him suggests that that framework will be put in place by the Brexit reset Bill. That has not been said before, as far as I am aware. Is it the Government’s position that the so-called powers gap will be addressed, as the Minister implies, by the Brexit reset Bill or by some other Act of Parliament, of which we have no knowledge yet?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee if I did not make myself clear. I thought that I had. I was asked a question about the Brexit reset Bill and whether any further information was required in that Bill to deal with this issue. I have said that I cannot comment on the Brexit reset Bill, but I also said, in response to the question about 23 June, that our assessment is that this SI puts us into the position that we are in, in relation to all the assimilation required.

As a third point, I also said that, as this has been raised today, I will test it again with officials outside the Committee to make sure that it is the case. It is my understanding. The Brexit reset Bill is a matter for future discussion with primary legislation on a number of issues related to the Brexit reset. This SI puts in place what we already have, with the same mechanisms that we already have, but, if there are issues around 23 June, I will examine them with officials and write to the noble Lord. With that, I commend the instrument to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Concealed Surveillance Equipment in Government Offices and Vehicles

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the reported discoveries of concealed surveillance equipment in Government offices and vehicles, what assessment they have made of the implications of this for (1) national security, and (2) public policy.

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

In line with the practice of successive Administrations, this Government do not comment on the detail of internal security matters, but I can confirm that an electronic device was found in a communal area of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government during a routine security check. The device was not in or near ministerial offices, and it is currently being investigated by the appropriate agencies. The Government have also looked into the Daily Mail report and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. This is based on inquiries made at the time, and more recently.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the latter point, the Government keep all matters, such as registration under the FIRS, under review at all times. Again, it is not appropriate to comment on any consideration of that at this time. I also say to the noble Lord that it is not appropriate for me to comment on what is a live investigation into the circumstances that I have already admitted have happened in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I strongly caution against any speculation at this time, because the Government will need to investigate that matter in due course.

On the Chinese embassy decision, I say to the noble Lord that intelligence agencies were involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures were developed to manage any risks. The planning decision was taken independently by the MHCLG Secretary of State and his conclusion is the result of a process that began in 2018. If I may, I return to my initial comments: the Government cannot comment on the detail of internal security matters, but those are being investigated by the appropriate agencies. I think it is best that we leave it at that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, with apologies for jumping the gun in my enthusiasm, perhaps the Government could comment on this. It is bad enough, although perhaps all too predictable, that there is illicit surveillance by way of, for example, hidden cameras. But what about when public money is actively used to procure cameras that originate, for example, in the People’s Republic of China? I know that the previous Government banned the new installation of Hikvision cameras in sensitive government buildings. Have they all been dismantled? What about banning them from the public estate more generally?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is pressing me to comment on these matters. I cannot comment on security issues—nor would the House, I suspect, wish me to do so—except to say that the Government will ensure that all matters in government activity are secure. The Government take every step they possibly can to make sure that the types of incidents my noble friend refers to do not happen and are prevented.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that this is a highly disturbing and troubling discovery, which demonstrates the severity of the espionage threat that we face today. To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, given that the camera was found in the offices where Ministers approved the application for the new Chinese mega-embassy, it seems highly likely that China or a person linked to China is behind this. Surely this has to serve as a wake-up call for the Government, so how can they still go ahead with allowing China to build a massive spy hub in the middle of London after this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I would caution the noble Lord about jumping to conclusions as to who, what, where or when was behind the device that was found. I genuinely caution him on that but, with regard to the Chinese embassy, I can say that the planning decision was taken independently; the intelligence services have been involved throughout; there have been extensive negotiations; and the Chinese Government themselves have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one, which brings clear security advantages for the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has made interesting points and we will examine, and determine, the facts in due course.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister and the Government have emphasised, understandably, that the camera was not in a location used by Ministers. However, with due respect to Ministers, civil servants can be pretty important as well. Is the Minister able to give us any information about exactly where the camera was located and who uses that area? Can he reassure us that just because the camera was not in a place that Ministers use, that is no reason to downplay the importance of this issue or of an appropriate response by the Government in due course?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord will rest assured that the Government take this matter extremely seriously. They have and will investigate what has happened. I hope he can understand that I do not wish to comment on where and how the information came to light. But I have confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that the facts of the case as reported are correct. It would be best for us to investigate this through the appropriate agencies and, in due course, come to conclusions in government to understand what has happened and how.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister give some indication of when Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is likely to commence? I understand that the Government are keeping it under review. This is the section that requires English universities to include in their annual reports to the Office for Students the funding they receive from foreign states. This is so that the OfS can monitor whether those foreign states are trying to interfere in freedom of speech or academic freedom on those university campuses.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he will allow me, I will write to him on that point—for the simple reason that universities fall within a different department from the one that I have responsibility for. But I will examine that and report back to him as soon as possible.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear that my noble friend the Minister will probably repeat an answer that he has already given about five times; in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Precisely where within the department this camera was found makes a world of difference. The Minister used a very careful form of words: he talked about common areas, and an area that was not close to Ministers’ offices. By “common areas”, did he mean those in which the public or visitors were quite frequently present, or does “common areas” mean that it was concealed within a toilet area? If it was a toilet area, I suspect we would be having a very different conversation as that would imply that it may be an internal matter with an internal member of staff, rather than anything else. Without prejudicing any of the other things my noble friend has said, is he able to enlighten us?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In short, no. I am trying to be helpful, as is my nature, but there are certain things I cannot be helpful with. One of them is anything that may give further information about or prejudice investigations into the important matter of the location of any device found. As I have said to the House, it was not in or near a ministerial office, but we are investigating and there will be an examination of what happened. I would hesitate to speculate as to who, what, where, why or when until such time as the investigation has occurred.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is always helpful in the replies that he gives to the House, but I press him further on the second limb of the question I put to him about the discovery of cellular modules in a former Prime Minister’s car. This was not something just reported in a newspaper, as he said to the House. This was mentioned yesterday at the Business Select Committee in another place by Mr Charles Parton, who served as one of our senior diplomats and is one of this country’s leading experts on China—and also on cellular modules. At a meeting that I chaired last night in your Lordships’ House, Mr Charles Parton said it again. Will the Minister at least look at the record of the Select Committee, and undertake to have a conversation with Mr Parton?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will repeat my answer in the interests of clarity for the noble Lord. We have looked into the reports and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. That is based on inquiries made at the time and again more recently. I cannot be clearer than that. An investigation has taken place and no evidence has been provided. I saw the individual make these allegations on television last night, but I can only repeat my understanding of the security services’ follow-up of those investigations. What I have said to the House today is my current understanding of the position.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

The Minister said that the camera was found in a routine inspection. Have the Government instigated more frequent inspections as a result of this discovery?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, with due respect to this Chamber, this Chamber is not the place for me to outline how often, when, where and how the Government undertake security checks on buildings or vehicles. I hope that the noble Lord, who I know takes an interest in these matters, will understand that it is the Government’s first priority to keep our workings internally secure, and it is important that we do that. I assure him that that is what the Government are doing.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

To return to an element of the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does the Minister agree with the director-general of MI5 that China is seeking to influence our political system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

China influences our political system in many ways, and the Government will not tolerate any foreign interference from any state actor targeting the UK. We have been consistent and unambiguous in our assessment that China presents a series of threats to the UK. We have to do business with China still and recognise China, and we have to work with China on a number of areas of common interest—but, self-evidently, there are a number of significant threats that China poses. We keep those under review and, in all our dealings with the nation of China, we bear those aspects of work in mind.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

Have parliamentary Members’ offices been checked for any of these devices, in the other place and in this place? I imagine that foreign powers could be quite interested in the conversations going on in the offices of certain Members of Parliament. Is there is a usual check of our offices?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an interesting and potentially helpful question. I do not have jurisdiction over this building, either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons—that is a matter for the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, and the chief officers of both Houses. I think that they will have heard that response, and it may be possible for me to facilitate a reply on that to the noble Lord via those officers, but it is not a matter for me.

Refugee Move-on Period Pilot Evaluation Report

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield.

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

My Lords, the Home Office commissioned an evaluation of the 56-day move-on period, which has now been completed, following the pilot concluded earlier this year. The final report, by happy coincidence, was published on 10 June and is available to read online.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the coincidental publication today of the evaluation. The conclusion of the report states that the

“extension of the move on period … to 56 days, improved refugee experience and operational planning”.

The first recommendation is to

“extend the move on period and consider an even longer move on period for single adults”.

Can the Minister say whether we can expect the Government to implement this recommendation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government began with a 28-day period when we inherited office in 2024. Following a pilot and an evaluation, we determined that the optimum period is 42 days. We have put in additional support, and we always keep these matters under review. The Government have given 14 extra days to the move-on period compared with the previous Government, and I think that should be welcomed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, as this is an immigration-related Question, I take the opportunity to say that I am sure the whole House agrees with me in wishing Mr Stephen Ogilvie, the person who suffered the knife attack in Belfast the other day, well in recovery, as he suffered very severe injuries. We also hope that demonstrations, if people wish to have them, are peaceful.

Can the Minister, who has laboured in the vineyard for the past two years on immigration issues, not accept that we have not, as a country, got control of immigration? Even with the reduction in net immigration in the year to March, we still have 16,000 people a week coming into this country. That is not satisfactory. Even if there are 56 days, 42 days or whatever is recommended in the report, which I obviously have not yet read, the numbers are just too much, and we cannot go on ignoring the realities. We see what is happening and the reaction on the ground.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, the incident in Belfast a couple of nights ago was truly horrific, and an individual has now been charged with offences. It is right that he go before the court and that I do not comment on those issues. It is also important, from the Home Office’s perspective, that we work closely with partners, including the police and local safeguarding bodies, to ensure that public protection remains strong. As the noble Lord will know, Northern Ireland has devolved policing; they will examine this issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is there today.

The noble Lord raises a number of issues about immigration. Asylum claims in Northern Ireland are down 7% year on year. The Government have a very strong White Paper and a forthcoming Bill to look at the potential for managing immigration. We have reduced the number of hotels in use from over 400 in 2024 to around 160 now. We will continue to make sure that our borders are secure. It is best that I let the incident in Belfast be seen and determined in the courts, and in due course we will reflect with the Northern Ireland Executive on any lessons learned.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Minister will know that contractors acting for the Home Office—Clearsprings and Serco—are bidding for private rented accommodation as asylum seekers move out of hotels. Local authorities are also looking for private rented accommodation as they move families with children in temporary accommodation into the private rented sector. This is resulting in a local bidding war between two publicly funded authorities, driving up the price of private rented accommodation, which is already suffering from the consequences of the Renters’ Rights Act. Should there not be some memorandum of understanding or concordat to prevent what is happening on the ground in local authority areas?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very sound point. We are trying to consult with local authorities and work with them closely. We have put in place some 59 local authority support areas, where we have placed asylum move-on liaison officers to work with the local authorities to look at what the asylum move-on is and what the pressures are locally. That is an innovation, following on from the previous Government—the 59 officers were not there previously. The noble Lord makes a sensible point. We do not want a bidding war but ultimately, we have to provide accommodation, and in a positive and constructive way.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

I have seen the evaluation of the pilot that was published today. Has the Minister evaluated the impact of giving asylum seekers the right to work, which might make it more likely that they can resolve their own housing situations once they are granted refugee status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There has been lot of discussion around the right to work, and we have taken the view that it is not a route we want to go down at the moment. Ultimately, through the whole of this scheme, I want to speed up the asylum process and get people’s decisions made quickly, so that individuals can know whether or not they have a long-term future in the United Kingdom. The right to work should be at the end of that process, not during it. We need to complete the process as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I cautiously welcomed the increase to 42 days, though those on the ground warn that the 56-day period, which was piloted, is needed to ensure that refugees can move on from Home Office support successfully. If the 42-day period is to work, in order to avoid the confusion reported in the evaluation, it is essential that new refugees receive all the necessary documentation to access accommodation and so on before the clock starts ticking on the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister commit to making sure that it happens, please?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is the intention. Throughout this process, we are trying to ensure that asylum claims are dealt with speedily—as quickly as possible. The points my noble friend has mentioned are relevant, and this goes back to what I said to the noble Lord earlier. We have put asylum move-on liaison officers in place in 59 local authorities across the United Kingdom, and they are working alongside Migrant Help to support individuals who will be leaving asylum accommodation, and to ensure a successful transition. It is in the interests of all parties to ensure that people make the transition and move through the housing procedure as soon and as efficiently as possible.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government talk up, of course, the number of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers they have returned, but the Minister knows that the number of enforced returns—those people the Home Office forcibly deports—was only 9,700, a small number in the grand scheme and scale of the problem. Given the significant number of people who are living in Britain illegally, what actions are the Government taking this year to ramp up deportation of those who have no right to be here?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord and his Government had jurisdiction over these matters for 14 years. The number of asylum seekers rose; the processing fell; the number of hotels increased; the number of deportations fell; and the number of criminal justice activities increased. So I say to the noble Lord quite clearly: the position now is better than it was when he left office. There are more deportations than before; there are more hotel closures; there are fewer asylum applications, and they are being dealt with more speedily. I will defend that record in front of this House and in front of him on every day of the week.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Reverting to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, if the person granted asylum has only 42 days to navigate housing, employment and the markets, and to get himself a bank account and registered for universal credit, we need to help him by giving him all the documentation he will need from the start. Eighteen months ago, the Minister told us during a debate on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that digital status existed from the moment asylum was granted. Can it not be communicated at that moment—straight away, day zero —with all the other necessary documentation, including the national insurance number?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look into the points the noble Lord has mentioned. Most e-visas are accessible within minutes of a grant; in a small number of cases, they will take up to three days, as set out on GOV.UK. We hope to ensure that we speed things up, get the proper documentation and allow people that transitional period when the asylum position is determined. We also need to ensure that the 42 days, as has been said generally, provides for a smooth transition to whatever happens next to the individual.

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.

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