Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations. The Government have published an Explanatory Memorandum alongside them, and I shall begin with some brief background as to how we have got to where we are.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, known as the IPA, provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement and other public authorities. I recall it well, having served on the Bill, in both draft and original form. It never fails to surprise to me that it is almost 10 years ago since the Act came into being. It helps to safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way in which the powers are authorised and overseen. The IPA is considered to be world-leading legislation that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial protections for privacy.

The IPA was intentionally drafted in a technologically neutral manner, to ensure that public authorities could continue to acquire operationally relevant data as technology evolved. While this approach has largely withstood the test of time, a combination of new communication technologies and the changing threat landscape continues to challenge the effective operation of the Act.

The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 was introduced by the previous Government and received Royal Assent in April last year. To ensure that the legislative regime remains fit for purpose, the 2024 Act made a series of targeted changes to the IPA to enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.

That gives rise to the purpose of these regulations. The regulations before us bring into force three new and five revised codes of practice, which provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising their functions under the IPA. As well as including minor updates and changes to ensure consistency, the codes of practice have been revised to reflect various changes made by the 2024 Act under the previous Government.

The new codes on bulk personal datasets with a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party bulk personal datasets relate to new regimes introduced by the 2024 Act. The new code on the notices regime consolidates guidance from various existing codes into one place. The regulations also contain several provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including defining “relevant change” for the purpose of the new notification notices. They also introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to membership of the technical advisory board.

The regulations and code of practice have been informed by a 12-week public consultation which closed in January 2025. The Government received responses from a range of stakeholders, including interest groups, public authorities, technology companies, trade associations and members of the public. We made several changes following that consultation, including stylistic changes, further clarity on processes and changes to the technology advisory board’s membership requirement. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation has been published and, should Members wish to see it, is available online or it will be at a future date.

To sum up, these regulations are a crucial step in implementing the 2024 Act. They will ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework continues to protect our national security and to prevent, investigate, disrupt and prosecute the most serious crimes. I commend the SI to the Committee.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough in his reply to give us some idea of the ongoing arrangements for the updating of this kind of material. He has shown that the constant need for this is because of the speedy change of the world outside. Who is responsible for it? How are they able to keep up to date and how regularly do we think we are likely to have statutory instruments updating the material that we have? We are dealing with an ever-changing scene which is changing ever more quickly. I would like to understand the government structure that enables us to make satisfactory changes rapidly enough to see that we are fully in control.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. These regulations implement key provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government. These regulations introduce three codes of practice and revise five existing ones.

The new codes provide a framework for two regimes introduced by the 2024 Act— the treatment of bulk personal datasets where there is a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the authorisation of access to third-party datasets. A third new code consolidates guidance on the notices regime, including the operation of notification notices and what constitutes a relevant change—a key test for when telecoms operators must inform the Secretary of State of technical updates.

The revised codes also enhance oversight and safeguards by clarifying the conditions for lawful access to data, strengthening protection for journalistic material and requiring notification of serious data breaches where it is in the public interest. These regulations also make important structural updates to the technical advisory board, expanding its membership and adjusting its quorum rules to ensure it can operate effectively when dealing with complex or concurrent reviews.

We welcome these provisions and, with that in mind, I raise several broader points. First, on legislative responsiveness, these regulations reflect the speed at which both threats and the technologies behind them are evolving. The 2024 Act rightly introduced flexible tools for handling internet connection records and bulk data. But agile legislation should not rely solely on periodic amendments. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to conduct regular reviews of the framework and whether a structured timetable has been established to ensure that the legislation continues to meet operational needs?

Secondly, on stakeholder engagement, the Government’s consultation included contributions from technology companies, civil liberties organisations and public bodies. Although this engagement is welcome, several respondents raised concerns, particularly regarding the practical implications of notification notices and the definition of “relevant change”. Given that, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to maintain an open and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders as these codes are implemented?

Finally, on oversight and accountability, the powers under discussion are significant. Their legitimacy depends on effective safeguards; this is especially true for third-party bulk datasets, where individuals may not reasonably expect their data to be protected. Can the Minister confirm that the revised codes provide the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with the necessary clarity and authority to ensure that these powers are exercised lawfully and proportionately?

The 2024 Act was designed to safeguard national security in a rapidly evolving digital world. However, the use of investigatory powers must always be lawful, properly overseen and proportionate in its impact. Although these reforms offer practical steps to modernise the existing framework, we must ensure that these powers are used responsibly, reviewed regularly and held accountable, balancing security with our democratic values.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for those two contributions. First, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned again how the Government will keep these matters under review. He will know that, basically, the 2016 Act was passed on the basis of cross-party support. The 2024 Act was a review of whether the 2016 Act needed to be amended further, while the regulations before the Grand Committee today are the outcome of some of the changes to that 2024 Act.

The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act made a series of targeted changes to ensure that the regime was fit for purpose but, self-evidently, the Home Office will keep under examination the new technology and the need to make any further amendments. I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance as to when and how that will be done, but he can rest assured that if amendments to the 2016 Act, which was amended in 2024, are required, they will be brought to the House as a matter of some urgency.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, also mentioned public consultation; I very much welcome his welcome for of these regulations today. The responses that the Government received included various suggestions for amendments to the draft codes of practice and the regulations. We have made changes as a result; these are quite wide but include changes to the Technology Advisory Panel’s membership requirement. I know that he mentioned telecommunication companies in particular. Again, we are satisfied that there was sufficient input from them during the passage of the 2024 Act and that the points they raised were taken into consideration when preparing the codes. Obviously, again, we need to examine the wide space between telecommunications companies’ powers and responsibilities, including their responsibility to protect the individual and the consumer. I think that we have got the balance right here.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about oversight. Strong safeguards are in place to ensure that investigatory powers are used in a necessary and proportionate way. There is independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the right of redress via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anybody who believes they have been the victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner independently oversees the use of investigatory powers and will ensure that they are used in accordance with the law and in the public interest. Several other powers—I hope this also reassures the noble Lord—are subject to the double lock, where warrants must be signed by the Secretary of State and an independent judicial commissioner. These powers are deployed only in connection with the most serious of crimes or national security.

Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025.

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

My Lords, forensic science is an integral part of delivery of the criminal justice system in the 21st century. I am a devoted fan of television programmes on real crime in the evenings, and I can honestly say that I have not yet seen one where DNA, drug analysis, mobile phones, photos, messages, health apps or emails have not brought the criminals to justice. Bringing people to justice is absolutely central to what we do. I put on record my thanks to the police and forensic scientists in this country for all they do in delivering these crucial services.

The Government’s mission is to halve violent crime, halve violence against women and girls, and increase confidence in the police and criminal justice system. We are also consulting on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services, including forensics, that local police forces can draw upon to raise standards and improve efficiency.

None of this can be done without access to high-quality and cost-effective forensic science. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 was a significant milestone for forensic science in England and Wales. It established the Forensic Science Regulator as a statutory officeholder, giving it power to take action when it has reason to believe that forensic science activities are being conducted in such a way as to create a substantial risk to the course of justice. More pertinent to this Committee’s work today, the Act requires the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice. This code will formally define which forensic science activities will be regulated and set out the standards that forensic practitioners must meet.

The very first version of that code came into force under the previous Government in October 2023 following parliamentary approval. It was the first such statutory code anywhere in the world. We recognised that, due to the novelty of those statutory requirements, the regulator would have to examine a second version of the code in due course.

We have undertaken a consultation on version 2 of the code, which was launched in early 2024. This resulted in 1,230 comments from 96 respondents from a range of organisations and sectors, including law enforcement, academia and commercial providers. Policing and wider law enforcement constituted 64 of the 96 respondents. The regulator also held extensive discussions with specialist groups from across the forensics community. The result is that version 2 of the code is laid before us today.

Most of the changes are minor or technical and clarify existing provisions. Some practical issues that arose only when the first version of the code was implemented have now been addressed and rectified. The most significant change in version 2 of the code relates to the regulation of incident scene examination. For some time, concerns had been raised with the regulator by policing concerning the effectiveness of the incident scene examination requirements set out in version 1 of the code. Version 2 streamlines that process and will now require a corporate approach by each police organisation, and eliminates the need for individual assessments across 149 different sites. The regulator believes that this will save significant police staffing hours and should therefore be welcomed.

The new requirements set out in version 2 of the code have widespread support among forensic practitioners, forensic leaders and chief police officers, and should lead to significant savings for the police. Overall, version 2 of the code has been designed to continue to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and to help guard against miscarriages of justice.

Finally, I put on record my thanks to Gary Pugh, the Forensic Science Regulator, who will be retiring towards the end of this year. During his term he has overseen the transition of the role to that of a statutory officeholder and produced the code of practice before us today. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is of note that the Minister, both opposition spokespeople and the chair are all Welsh, as we talk about forensic science. I wonder how often that happens.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, like the Minister, I too am a fan of forensic science. I well remember the introduction of DNA evidence during my police service in the mid-1980s, and of course some very challenging crimes have been solved by scientists using forensic science.

I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. This measure brings forward version 2 of the statutory code of practice, as required under the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. These provisions marked a significant step forward, placing the regulator on a statutory footing for the first time and mandating the creation and upkeep of a code to govern forensic science activities across England and Wales.

Version 1 of the code, which came into force in October 2023, was the first statutory code of its kind anywhere in the world. It represented an important milestone in improving the quality and consistency of forensic science. Version 2, which we are considering today, introduces a series of technical and procedural amendments aimed at improving clarity, efficiency and regulatory consistency. Many of these changes respond directly to issues raised during the early implementation of the original code, such as simplifying the accreditation process and refining standards around scene examination and other forensic practices.

We welcome the introduction of a transitional period, extending to October 2025, to support providers, particularly small businesses, in adjusting to the updated requirements. We note that changes were made following a broad consultation process, which received strong support from across the forensic science community. We support efforts to strengthen forensic standards, particularly where they serve to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system. None the less, we believe that it is right to raise several points for consideration.

First, on the question of regulatory burden, have the Government undertaken a full and transparent assessment of whether these revised provisions meaningfully reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, especially for smaller providers? Will a formal post-implementation review be carried out to ensure that the intended efficiencies are being realised without compromising quality?

Secondly, we would welcome clarity on how the regulator intends to remain responsive to future developments. Forensic science is a rapidly evolving field and it is essential that the regulatory framework remains adaptable. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a rolling review process for ensuring that the code is kept up to date in a timely manner, rather than relying solely on periodic revisions?

Finally, on stakeholder engagement, while it is encouraging that the initial consultation involved a wide range of voices, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to maintain ongoing dialogue with front-line practitioners as the code is implemented in practice?

In conclusion, this revised code of practice represents a constructive step forward in refining and strengthening the regulatory regime for forensic science. While we support the direction of travel, we will continue to monitor implementation closely and encourage the Government to remain responsive to ongoing feedback from across the sector.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their contributions. As a relative newcomer to the House, I had not realised that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had not chaired the Grand Committee before. I wish her well. I note also that all of us speaking in the Committee today have been Welsh by election—if not in my case by birth.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Just in case anybody misses me out, I am Welsh also, but I am not actually speaking in this debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My knowledge broadens daily. In all the years I have watched the noble Lord from a distance, I had never realised that—we learn something every day.

The points raised were valid points. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I do not have a figure for the number of SMEs but there has been wide consultation. This is not a new requirement: version 1 has been in place and version 2 is a slight update with some slight tweaks. I hope noble Lords are aware of that. To minimise the impact of the requirements, including on small and micro businesses employing up to 50 people, the regulator is allowing a transitional period from the date that the version 2 code of practice comes into force until October 2025, for all providers to become compliant with version 2 of the code. There is a learning space for small businesses.

Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I too take this opportunity to thank the security services and police for what they do. The weekend’s arrests are an important reminder of how hard they work behind the scenes to keep us all safe. The scale of the threat posed by the Iranian regime is great, and there is clear evidence of Tehran’s willingness to disregard the rule of law to silence critics and fuel extremism.

UK-based Iranians have been the main targets, with mounting proof of Iran seeking to control its citizens abroad through intimidation, harassment and violence. That culminated in last year’s stabbing of a journalist working for the TV station Iran International, attacked outside his London home; and Iranian journalists, including those working for the BBC Persian service, facing daily threats of violence. Meanwhile, Iranian intelligence continues to target Jewish and Israeli individuals abroad, spreading fear and disinformation. I too would like to know if the Minister can confirm that extra security measures are in place to provide vulnerable communities and individuals with protection and reassurance amid these direct and unacceptable attacks on both media and religious freedoms.

In opposition, the Government were clear that they supported the proscribing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. Canada took that step in June and the United States did so in 2019, but in Britain we have yet to make that call, preferring to keep communication channels open. Does the Minister agree that this weekend’s events indicate that the policy is not working, and that now is the time for the Government to act and to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation? Not only would that allow tighter control of the UK’s borders; it would enable the police proactively to charge those who materially or financially support the IRGC and enable assets linked to the organisation to be frozen.

The Liberal Democrats have previously welcomed sanctions against those with links to the Iranian regime, and we will support proposals to sanction the Iranian-backed Foxtrot criminal network when they come before the House next week. However, we hope the Government can go further to establish whether those with links to the Iranian regime have assets here in the UK. As such, we would like to see an audit carried out so we can find out where those assets are, including those put in the name of family members, so we can freeze them accordingly.

Thanks to the work of the police and security services, we appear to have been lucky this time, but we must now heed the warning and do more to ensure that the Iranian regime’s reach cannot continue to spread. Given the threat, does the Minister agree that now is not the time to cut the overseas budget, which had previously been used to support vital resilience programmes countering Iran’s malign influence?

It is already clear that the foundations of the previous world order are shifting fast, with America increasingly taking a step back, so can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are taking steps to fill the void by working with their international partners to combat Iran and address the wider situation in the Middle East?

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

I am grateful to both Front Benches for their questions, and I will try to answer them as best as I can.

To summarise for the House, colleagues will know that on Saturday 3 May counterterrorism police undertook a series of arrests relating to what I must make clear are two separate incidents and investigations, and a total of eight men were arrested by the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command under counter- terrorism and national security legislation. I can update the House to confirm that seven of those eight men currently remain in custody, and one is on bail with extremely serious and tight conditions. These are the first Iranian nationals arrested under the National Security Act. I join in the tribute that has been paid to the police and the security services, who have managed this event and brought the issues to conclusions on 3 May.

However, as colleagues have mentioned, this is an ongoing investigation so I am limited in what I can say and comment upon, but I want to say first and foremost that it is important that we hold Iran to account. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked what the Government can do to hold Iran to account. Noble Lords will recall that earlier this year, we announced in both Houses of Parliament the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. It comes into effect on 1 July and ensures that a number of individuals connected with Iran, one of the first countries designated under the scheme, have to register a number of matters under that scheme by 1 July.

As the noble Baroness has mentioned, we have sanctioned a number of criminal entities that Tehran uses to do its bidding, such as the Foxtrot network—related documents will come before both Houses—alongside more than 450 Iranian individuals and entities that have been sanctioned to date by the UK Government.

Both Front Benches have mentioned proscription. It is common knowledge that we keep that under constant review. We have asked Jonathan Hall KC to provide a view on the counterterror framework, which does not fit neatly with existing states to date, and the Home Secretary has asked him to lead a review. I can confirm to the House today that that review has been finalised. We will be publishing it and its response shortly for colleagues in both Houses to examine, and we will make further announcements in due course on those issues.

It has been asked what steps we have taken on international engagement, whether we have consulted our allies and whether the Foreign Office had summoned the Iranian ambassador. In the Statement, we have said that the investigation is still in its early stages and the police are following various lines of inquiry as to the possible motivation of those currently arrested and in custody, or on police bail. I assure the House that as the investigation progresses, I will both engage internationally as appropriate and report back to the House on the issues that have been raised.

We are stronger when we are united, and our allies were supportive of the action over the weekend when this news broke. I know that the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary have reached out to key international partners to discuss those events with them.

We have judged sanctions to be a vital tool in deterring and disrupting Iran’s malign activity. They demonstrate that, along with our international partners, the UK continues to condemn Iran’s threats to international security and its human rights violations. We will be exploring further sanctions against Iranian-linked criminals, and the National Crime Agency will particularly target those who assist the IRGC and others in laundering their money.

The noble Baroness mentioned the overseas aid budget. There are some difficult decisions that the Government are taking. We have not yet finalised it; I have been in discussions with Ministers in the Foreign Office about that as it impacts upon areas of Home Office responsibility, but those issues are not yet finalised. Again, unfortunately, I cannot give any further detail to the noble Baroness at this point.

Both Front-Benchers mentioned that it is important that we ensure that individuals who are under threat are protected. Members of the House will know that the Home Office has worked with other government departments, as well as with relevant government agencies, to protect those identified as being at risk. The police and security services, as well as tracking down potential plots and threats, are working tirelessly to take other steps to ensure the safety of those concerned. Noble Lords will know that the Government have a general scheme for places of worship, particularly in relation to members of the Jewish community and synagogues. We have significant resource invested in protecting diplomatic missions, places of worship and individuals’ right to practise their religion at their chosen place of worship.

I cannot give details, and I am grateful that colleagues have not asked for further information, on the possible target, because it is an ongoing operation. I hope I can reassure the House by saying that the police have confirmed that they are in contact with the site that was the potential target. They have offered support, they have provided further security and other relevant advice, and, at the appropriate time, when it is safe to do so, the police will, and I will, through this House, confirm the alleged target of this plot. The Home Secretary has given a commitment to update both Houses—herself and the Security Minister in the other place and via me in this House—when it is operationally possible to do so. We will review state threats and the proscription tool as a matter of some urgency, and I hope I will be reporting on what Jonathan Hall has said and recommended to the Government, and our response to that, very shortly.

This is an ongoing investigation. When further information comes to light, the Government will bring it to both Houses. I felt it was important, following the incidents and arrests on 3 May, to make an early Statement, however general that is, to update the House on an important disruptive element identified by the security services, who I reserve absolute praise for in their tracking and taking action to prevent this alleged incident. The House will, in due course, be further notified of the contents of that incident.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend’s efforts and words in coming here today to make this full Statement, but—I think he sensed there was a but coming—on a subject I have raised often, in both this place and the other place, as night follows day, the malign hand of the IRGC will be in the middle of this. This looks like a serious escalation in Iran’s terror threat towards the West, and particularly towards Britain. I am not asking him to comment on that; I am just giving him and the House the benefit of my views. Surely now we are in a position where we should move to full the full banning of the IRGC.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is no surprise that my noble friend raises the issue that he has. I know he has raised it in both this House and in the House of Commons when he was a Member of that establishment. As I have said, I cannot routinely comment on proscription decisions. The House will be aware of our grave concern, long before these operations, about the arrest of Iranian nationals and the activities of different arms of the Iranian state in the UK, putting people’s safety at risk on UK soil. We are continuously undertaking serious security assessments, which are being instigated and updated as a result of incidents. We will continue to resolve and examine action that can be taken and will keep the House updated as soon as possible.

I know this may not be helpful to my noble friend at this moment, but the review that Jonathan Hall KC is undertaking for the Government has been completed and will be published in relatively short order. There will be a response from the Government to that, which will cover some of the issues that my noble friend has mentioned to date. Counterterrorism proscribing is an important tool, and we are not going to shy away from it, but we are waiting for that review to give factual information for us to make decisions, which we will report to the House at the earliest opportunity.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the thanks to our police and security services, whom we rely on so much. The Minister does not have to comment, but it appears that the Israeli embassy was a target of the terror plot linked to Iran. The eight Iranian nationals from the Islamic Republic were clearly members, or at least supporters, of the Islamic Republican Guard Corps. Proscribing the IRGC is about not only sanctions but sending the message to this terrorist regime that it will not be allowed access to the UK under any circumstances. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will stop issuing visas to people coming in from Iran? When do the Government intend to proscribe the IRGC, which has been mentioned, as the terrorist group that it is, along with the USA and other European countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the questions from the noble Baroness. I again confirm to the House that it is not at the moment in the interests of the Government, the security services or the police to give further information about the target of this potential plot. I cannot comment on the issues that the noble Baroness has mentioned about that case, but, rest assured, and I give a commitment firmly to the House that, when I am able to do so, I will do so. At this stage, I am not able to.

I hope I have covered the point about proscription in answer to other colleagues. I say again, for the benefit of doubt, that it is something that we keep under review. If and when any proscriptions of any nation or organisation happen, they will happen immediately and will not be trailed in the House, for reasons that we wish to maintain.

The foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—that we brought in particularly relates to Iran and will operate from 1 July. On 4 March, we said that the whole of the Iranian state, including the intelligence services, the IRGC and other organisations, will be placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I hope that sent a clear signal that we are concerned, as I know the noble Baroness is, about the activities of the Iranian state.

As I said to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, we have judged that sanctions are a vital tool in deterring and disrupting threats. We have put in place sanctions, and the National Crime Agency will continue to look at pursuing sanctions and assets where criminal activity is taking place.

The noble Baroness mentioned immigration measures and visas. We are undertaking work to consider new ways of enforcing our robust Immigration Rules, with a focus on taking action against those who promote Iranian interference in the UK that targets and undermines the safety and interests of our country. The Home Office has already applied robustly the Immigration Rules to protect UK national security, and we will not hesitate to block and to stop completely applications from people whom we judge, through our security and intelligence agencies, to be a threat to our security. We have already, in a range of immigration cases, protected the country from state threats. We will not hesitate to do that further, and we keep that under review.

The noble Baroness often presses me to go further. I understand why. I can give her the answers that I have given her, and I will update her and the House on matters at an appropriate time.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, these arrests are of course only one aspect of the array of measures that the UK authorities need to take to protect British citizens from the malign impact of Iran. Does the Minister share my concern that the Charity Commission is being too slow in investigating the growing number of Iran-linked charities that have been brought to its attention? Can he work across government to do whatever it takes to support the commission, cajole it or, if necessary, threaten it with reform unless it moves faster against this real and credible threat?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and can reassure him that not just British citizens but any citizens in the UK who face threats from a regime such as Iran will have the protection of our security services. It is extremely important that we do that. The noble Lord has raised the issue of the Charity Commission before, and I share his concerns around Iranian-aligned centres in the UK and the malign influence that they have on our society and on individuals. The Charity Commission is undertaking inquiries into both the Islamic Centre of England and the Al-Tawheed Charitable Trust, and we in the Home Office are tracking closely the progress of those investigations. The Charity Commission has said that it takes this matter very seriously. I know that it is examining robustly evidence of wrongdoing and making referrals to other agencies where appropriate. Following the noble Lord’s intervention, I will again put down a marker with the Charity Commission and ask about further progress. But, essentially, I hope he accepts that the case is made, the commission is on the case, we share that concern and I hope we will get speedy resolutions.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo many of the calls that have been made to thank our police and security services for the hard work they have undertaken, and in particular the work they did over the weekend. As has been alluded to, last year the head of MI5 said that, since 2022, the UK had faced at least 20 plots backed by Iran, which represented potentially lethal threats to British citizens—UK residents as well as Iranians living here. The arrests over the weekend suggest that more plots can now be added to that score. I echo the calls from many noble Lords across the House, including my noble friend Lord Cryer, for proscription of the IRGC. Perhaps I might press the Minister once more on proscription. I listened very closely to what he said and we look forward to the report that has just been concluded by Jonathan Hall KC. When do the Government expect to respond to that review, and will my noble friend share with the House whether he expects that in the review there will be recommendations specifically on the proscription of the IRGC? If not, what process could lead from the review to the ultimate proscription of the IRGC?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, whom I welcome to the House: this is the first time I have had the opportunity to answer a question from her since she joined.

It is important that we keep these matters under review. As I said in response to earlier questions, we are doing that. As a result of the incidents on 3 May, the security services and the police are making further assessments, and we are updating as a result of those incidents to ensure that we can make an up-to-date assessment. We will update the House as soon as we can on the outcome of those assessments. As I have said already, this is an ongoing investigation and until the end of the investigation we cannot take specific action accordingly.

I do say, and have said, that the proscription status of any organisation is now being examined by Jonathan Hall KC. That examination is taking place because, in the past, many of the threats were from organised groups or individuals; they were not state-backed terrorist threats. Therefore, we specifically asked Jonathan Hall KC to advise the Government on how we approach proscription for organisations that might be linked directly to a state. That review is due shortly, we intend to publish it shortly and we intend to try, if possible, to publish the Government’s response at the same time. I hope that the noble Baroness will be as patient as she can be, because we will be taking action on resolving how we deal with state threats. Having commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, we want to have the results of his deliberations and to respond to them, because they will help advise the Government on the best course of action.

[Lord Ranger (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate our security forces and thank them for their superb job in stopping these terrorists in their tracks. We are a liberal democracy, we enjoy huge freedoms in this country and we also respect, accept and protect diversity. Unfortunately, there are certain regimes that are totally opposed to our way of thinking. They have no respect for diversity or for women, and we have to make it very clear that anyone who comes to disturb our way of life will not be tolerated and that there will be zero tolerance of any act of terrorism of any kind against any British citizen.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct. The first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, and citizens from other countries who are residing here, in legal and appropriate ways. That is a key element of the work that goes on, day in and day out, by the security services, led by Sir Ken McCallum, from police services across the country, from the counterterrorism unit and from our officials in the Home Office. That is why we wanted to reassure the House by making this Statement in the House of Commons and now in this House, to show that action was taken last week. Because there will be speculation about what has happened, and why, we wanted to indicate that we had taken determined action.

However, as it is an ongoing investigation, until it is resolved we cannot give full details of targets, incidents and those involved, and also when the Crown Prosecution Service will take action accordingly. Noble Lords can rest assured, however, that security is our first duty and that is why the steps we have taken on the Iranian regime in relation to foreign influence and sanctions are important. We will keep everything under review, as I said, and I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the actions of the Government to date.

Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 23 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.

Motion agreed.

Knife Crime

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle knife crime.

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

The Government are taking a number of steps to halve knife crime within a decade as part of the safer streets mission. We have created the Young Futures programme, the coalition to halve knife crime, the knife-enabled robbery task force, and we are bringing in new and stronger legislation to crack down on the sale of and access to dangerous knives.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

Much of the knife crime in my former constituency in east London was fuelled by county lines drug gangs. I worked with some amazing mums, who were desperately trying to rescue their children who were ensnared in the pernicious clutches of these gangs. Parents facing these circumstances need real support to help them navigate not only the violence and menace of the groomers but the criminal justice system, in which they can be both victim and perpetrator. Do the Government agree? If so, what action can we expect?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend for the work she did on this very issue as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. She has pressed very hard for an offence to try to break up criminal gangs luring young people into violence and crime. I am pleased to tell her that, as she will know, there is a new child criminal exploitation offence in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the House of Commons and will come to this place shortly, to ensure we can take action against exploiters and deter gangs, and have some prevention orders in place. I hope that she will also welcome the Young Futures prevention partnerships, which we have put in place to help guide families and young people through moving out of gangs and criminal behaviour. Additionally—and I know this will be of specific interest to her—the Metropolitan Police has been allocated £8.1 million via the hotspot action fund to include Metropolitan Police officers on the ground in neighbourhood police officer mode.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that there are reports of a dramatic increase in young people carrying knives on a regular basis. This generation of young people has had a really hard time. First, there has been a major increase in the break-up of parental relationships in their young years. Secondly, their schools were closed during the pandemic, and then they have had to cope with the effect of a lot of social media. Would the Minister agree that we really ought to think about returning to some of the preventive and support services that we lost some time in the last decade?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I mentioned the Young Futures programme to my noble friend. That is designed to ensure that we intervene early with children and young people who face poorer outcomes because of factors in their lives that have led them to carry knives. These could be gang related, the result of poor parenting or just from contact at school. It is very important that we get that support for them. It is also important that we tackle the sales of knives, the ability to buy a knife online and the criminality of carrying knives, which we have now done in the Crime and Policing Bill. Those measures will be before this House shortly, and I look forward to cross-House support to pass them.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, last month I had the great pleasure of meeting with Mark Prince, who started the Kiyan Prince Foundation after the murder of his 15 year-old son in 2006. Can the Minister say what money is available for these small, community organisations, which are doing this vital, pre-emptive work to keep children away from knife crime and gang crime?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The main focus of the Government’s new investment on preventing knife crime is the Young Futures hubs. We are starting to experiment with a couple of pilot schemes, which will draw in voluntary organisations and others around them to look at how we can best intervene on young people and their families accordingly. Those pilots will be undertaken very shortly, and I hope that we will roll out a number of Young Futures hubs nationwide once the pilots have been operational. Those hubs would then be the best opportunity for other organisations to work with them to secure resources and contribute to reducing knife crime.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, youth offending teams, which are funded through the Turnaround early intervention programme, do excellent work with children at risk of entering the youth justice system, including those vulnerable to knife crime. However, consistency is vital in youth work, where success relies entirely on building trust. The problem is that funding for these teams is guaranteed only until March 2026. Could the Minister say whether there are plans to introduce some long-term funding to ensure that these teams can continue to do the excellent work they are currently doing?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will draw the noble Baroness’s comments to the attention of the Minister for Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Youth offending teams are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. But, as I mentioned, the Home Office is trying to invest in the Young Futures programme. Those initial hubs will not replace other types of activity, such as youth offending teams; they are there to generate a collective response from organisations to look at what is needed most to reduce knife crime. So there is new funding going in from the Home Office, and I will raise her point with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, on her behalf.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, a few weeks ago, the Minister said he was looking at the possibility that the police might be equipped with handheld metal detectors as a way of stopping people in the street and seeing whether they had metal weapons on them. Has he made any progress in that direction?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, I have. We are working with industry partners to develop the very systems that my noble friend has raised previously and again today. The work is part of an innovation competition that was launched last year. Phase 1 is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems, so I hope my noble friend will recognise that there is action this day.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, given the importance of young men needing positive role models in their lives, and of these being people they actually know and can talk to consistently, have His Majesty’s Government considered—as part of their Young Futures programme—how the PSHE curriculum in schools can be tailored more to facilitating these opportunities, taking note particularly of the excellent work of charities such as Kick, which are providing more and more mentors to primary and secondary schools?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Education and contact in schools is probably one of the key issues that need to be challenged to give young people the skills and confidence to play a role with their friends in a way that is not in a gang—where they are not drawn into criminal activity and have the confidence to resist those temptations when they are put in front of them. The right reverend Prelate’s point is vital, and it lies with the Department for Education in England and with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is key to driving up individuals’ confidence to tackle knife crime at source.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Last year, there were around 50,500 recorded offences involving a sharp instrument. Knife crime, of course, terrifies communities and can have lethal consequences, and it is very worrying that the numbers are heading in the wrong direction. The Government reported in February that 17% of knife crime offences related to children, and over 99% of these were for possession alone. One of the great issues around this is the glorification of carrying knives among some young people, so what might the Minister have to say about tackling this glorification?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a valid point, and I look forward to him joining the Government in supporting the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House, that tackle the promotion of knife crime on social media, the sale of knives on social media, and his point about the glorification and promotion of knife culture. We are trying to undertake a range of measures, some of which go back to direct interventions—such as the Youth Futures programme—some of which go back to issues to do with better policing and neighbourhood policing, and some of which are around stop and search. But a big proportion is about the ban on zombie knives, the ban on sales of knives and the ban on social media promoting knife culture. Those things will come before this House very shortly, and I look forward to his support.

Police: Stop and Search

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register.

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

Stop and search is a fundamental tool for tackling crime, including knife crime in particular, but it must be used fairly and effectively. The Government support the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Police Race Action Plan, which commits chief constables to identifying and addressing disparities in the use of stop and search.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, stop and search is a valuable tool in taking weapons off our streets, but Home Office figures show that 86% of police stop and search is on suspicion of possession-only drug offences, and you are four times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black than if you are white, even though Home Office research concludes:

“It is not clear from the evidence whether ethnicity is a predictor of violent offending”.


What can the Government do to get the police to carry out more stop and search on violent criminals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that it is for the police themselves to determine whether they undertake stop and search. That was a particular judgment for police officers rather than for Ministers. He will know, in the Metropolitan Police area in particular, 26% of all stop and searches were taken by the Metropolitan Police overall, resulting in over 21,999 arrests—from 16% of those stop and searches.

We have signed up and supported the Metropolitan Police and others included in the Police Race Action Plan, and the Metropolitan Police has signed up to that plan. It looks at how stop and search is being used by police on black and ethnic minority individuals, and at involving black and ethnic minority representatives in monitoring the use of stop and search. The noble Lord is right that stop and search should be used for serious crimes. That also requires strong training and support to police officers, to ensure their safety also.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, how wise is it to put off the introduction of biometric ID cards?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, I was in the Home Office when we had ID cards, which were abolished by the then Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. The noble Lord has made his point. I wish that they had not been abolished, but we are in a position now where, 15 years ago to the day, the party that he supports, with Liberal Democrat support, came to power and, as a result, abolished the ID cards that he now seeks to reintroduce.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, every 14 hours a child is strip-searched in England and Wales by the police. Black children are four times more likely than white children to be targeted and most of the searches—at least 50%—result in no further action. It is a legal requirement for an appropriate adult to be in hand and on side when the child is searched, but there is clear evidence of widespread non-compliance with this. Despite the fact that the previous Government did a consultation last June and that the current Home Secretary has said that tighter safeguards are an urgent priority, no action has been taken. Can the Minister tell us when the Government are going to resolve this appalling situation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Government hope to introduce new safeguards on her very point about the strip-searching of children via amendments to statutory codes of practice and will be bringing those forward in due course.

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

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister, and the Home Secretary in particular, on the pre-emptive action taken over the weekend to arrest a number of threatened terrorists, including seven Iranians who had, I understand, specific targets in mind. Is the Minister able to give the House any more information regarding this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Unfortunately not. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question. He may be aware that very shortly—which I do not wish to pre-empt—a Statement will be made in the House of Commons by the Security Minister, which I suspect I will be repeating in due course in this House. I hope that he will be patient for both the Statement and for any repeat requested by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, stop and search removed over 3,500 dangerous weapons from the streets of London and still retains a high level of support among Londoners. What assessment will the Government be making of the Metropolitan Police’s use of the new stop and search charter? Do the Government believe this will lead to better stop and search or will it reduce the number of weapons removed from the streets?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we note and support the Metropolitan Police signing up to the charter which monitors how stop and search is used and sets down some basic tenets that underpin the use of it with checks and balances and by monitoring disparity on the basis of race. But it is equally important that the Metropolitan Police has the power to undertake stop and search, because it has resulted in 21,999 arrests, 12,391 community resolutions, 4,150 penalty notices for disorder and 119 seizures of property in the Metropolitan Police area. The Metropolitan Police is obviously making an impact on elements of criminality, but a large proportion of people are still stopped where no action is taken and no offence has taken place. That is why the measures the Metropolitan Police has put in place are so important.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, there are two things that the Government might consider to help police improve the efficacy of stop and search. This relates also to the next Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, about the use of knives on our streets. First, it is no surprise or secret who carries weapons. The mothers of these kids know it, as do their brothers and the people that they go round with. But will they tell the police and will the police do something about it immediately? Could something such as Crimestoppers—which I tried to get going before I left, but could not—act as a good portal to make sure that the information is passed to the police about who is carrying knives and when and get the police out within minutes to go and find them on the Tube, in taxis or wherever they happen to be travelling? Secondly, there is the use of technology. At the moment, we are relying on officers’ intuition to decide where and who they search, when surely technology by now should be helping them in that vital task.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that intelligence-led policing is critical to making the best use of stop and search. That includes methods where individuals who have information can pass it in confidence to the police. The suggestions the noble Lord has made are important ones. It will also be helpful that we will have over this Parliament an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, with neighbourhood police officers allocated to each community area. It will build confidence and trust to report those matters.

The noble Lord mentioned technology. It is no secret that the Government have been looking at the question of facial recognition and other technologies along those lines, which can spot and analyse the use and carrying of knives. That is something we are working on, although I cannot give him definitive answers today.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as has been said many times, stop and search is a vital part of the police toolbox to tackle crime. The 2023 review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted several areas of concern in how these powers were used. In my years of policing, I always maintained that it is vital that all officers are properly trained in how to use these powers and that they know their limitations within the law. Could the Minister update the House on how the Government are working with the College of Policing to deliver the updated national policing curriculum to ensure that guidance for stop and search is properly understood and implemented on the ground?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right; it is important there is training in the use of stop and search by police officers and that it is updated. It is important that the outcomes of stop and searches are monitored for both the impacts, which the noble Lord mentioned earlier, and to see whether racial disparities are taking place. Those should be fed back to both the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. This is why the National Police Chiefs’ Council is issuing and regularly updating information on the race action plan, both monitoring it and examining its impact.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister was talking about increased numbers of police. Are the Government supportive of neighbourhood policing?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are so supportive of neighbourhood policing that we have put an extra £1 billion into that fund this year. We are employing around an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police this year and will employ 13,000 more over the course of this Parliament.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister gave us a series of statistics about the successes of stop and search in terms of items seized, charges made and so on. But, of course, the other element of stop and search is its deterrent effect. Could he tell us what work has been done to quantify whether stop and search has a deterrent effect and what its extent is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give my noble friend a qualitative answer to that at the moment. However, I will say that visible policing and the visible nature of being able to stop and search an individual who is suspected have resulted in a significant number of hauls of drugs, knives and other material. That should on its own have a deterrent effect. I cannot give my noble friend an analysis that we have measured, but I welcome his contribution and I will certainly look at that.

Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025.

Relevant document: Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 23 April.

As noble Lords know, this Thursday, 8 May, marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. It is a momentous day in our history as it marks the end of the conflict in Europe—but not, obviously, the end of the Second World War, since conflict continued in Japan through to August. It was an occasion of national pride, relief and jubilation as peace returned, as well as a poignant moment given the losses inflicted by years of war.

I hope noble Lords will bear with me for saying that I have a precious photograph of my mother, aged 12, holding her younger sister on VE Day on a terraced street in Liverpool. They both have fantastic smiles on their faces because the conflict in which my grandfather was killed, in the Liverpool Blitz, had ended. My mother’s uncle was also killed—at sea when he was serving in the Navy. VE Day is a day of momentous pride, even today, for many people who did not serve in the war but have—or had—relatives who lived through it and who saw its results.

The 80th anniversary would always have been significant but, because the VE Day 75th anniversary commemorations were restricted due to the Covid pandemic in 2020, there is an added emphasis this year. Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark this special anniversary and to raise a glass to the millions who fought and suffered in order to preserve the freedoms and way of life that we enjoy today. We owe them all an enormous debt. Time has passed—I was born 12 years after VE Day but it coloured my early life for the reasons I mentioned—but their service and sacrifice will never be forgotten.

This week will see a number of commemorative events being held, including but not limited to a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace, street parties across the country and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war in Europe. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May; indeed, the Parliament Choir will, I think, undertake a concert in this building tomorrow, on Wednesday evening. No doubt other events are planned; the order before the Committee today will allow people to celebrate for longer than they would normally be able to.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions when the then Home Secretary exercised this power include such events as: the King’s Coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s Diamond and Platinum Jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European Championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of this proposed extension.

There are a number of practical details. The order makes provisions to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and to allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday 8 May for a further two hours from 11 pm until 1 am the following morning.

The Government undertook a truncated consultation with key stakeholders, who were broadly supportive of the extension, and we take the view that this order will not bring about any significant crime or disorder due to the nature of the events. We recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, but we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact. Nobody objected to the order in the consultation, truncated though it was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. Like others, I rise with humility and respect as we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and, to come, victory over Japan. These are two defining moments in both our national story and the wider history of the free world. This anniversary offers a rare and precious opportunity, perhaps one of the last, for living veterans to share their memories first hand. It is a moment for us as a nation to come together across generations and communities to honour the service and sacrifice of all those who fought, served and contributed to the war effort.

In this, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for including my late father, who joined the Royal Air Force on 4 September 1939, his 19th birthday. He was very fortunate to survive: he served on 43 operations in Bomber Command over enemy territory, the last of them in November 1944. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was, he thought, a very lucky survivor. He told me that he could not believe he was still alive at the end of the war. He always marched proudly with his medals in thanksgiving parades, and he never forgot those with whom he served.

Whether in mourning, reflection or celebration, coming together is a time-honoured tradition in Britain. It has long helped us to connect with one another and with our shared history. I therefore welcome the Government’s recognition of the central role that public houses and hospitality venues play in marking national moments such as these. The extension of licensing hours is a small but real gesture that will allow communities across the country to gather, reflect and raise a glass in tribute. Indeed, many of these same establishments were open on the very day that peace was declared. The London Museum hosts a wonderful collection of photographs from the 1945 celebrations. I encourage all noble Lords to visit its dedicated website and take a moment to reflect on those scenes of spontaneous joy and national unity.

We are especially pleased to see the Government place strong emphasis on remembering the contributions of the Commonwealth. Millions from India, Africa, the Caribbean, Australasia, Canada and others further away stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain. They volunteered and they fought. Many made the ultimate sacrifice. Their bravery and commitment are and were integral to the victory we commemorate today and tomorrow, and they must always hold a central place in our national memory.

This statutory instrument enables a broad, inclusive and ambitious programme of commemorative events, from military processions and national services to cultural initiatives, educational programmes and grass-roots street parties. This is a comprehensive and thoughtful approach. We welcome the Government’s vision: a commemoration that is both solemn and celebratory, which reflects our veterans while ensuring that their stories and values are passed on to a new generation.

We are particularly encouraged by the Government’s commitment to inclusivity, ensuring that these commemorations recognise not only the European and Middle Eastern theatre but the Far East and the global scale of that conflict. The previous Conservative Government’s allocation of £1 million to establish a memorial to the Muslim soldiers who died in both world wars is a testament to our ongoing commitment to recognising the diverse faiths and communities who served this nation in its hour of need.

The recognition of the so-called Forgotten Army in Burma and the efforts to honour the many backgrounds, beliefs and nationalities represented in our forces mark a vital and long overdue step toward a fuller and more accurate reflection of Britain’s wartime experience.

As we commemorate these historic anniversaries, let us do so with pride, gratitude and in unity, remembering not only the victory but the values and sacrifices that made it possible.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions of the three noble Lords who have spoken today. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Jones for reminding us both of the joy he would have had when his own father returned home from the war and the contribution this week of the Ukrainian forces, who are still fighting in Europe for the values that noble Lords have mentioned today.

As my noble friend Lord Jones knows, I am Lord Hanson of Flint and for many years he was the Member of Parliament for the constituency covering Flint; he mentioned the British Legion club, where we will, I am sure, see many beers sunk on Thursday as a result of this order. I am grateful for his very kind words about my service over 28 years in that town.

I am also very pleased to have the strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for the order. It is good to see this cross-party support for the recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, ably summed up the mood of this Committee: we have pride and gratitude for the service of people such as his father who served our country with bravery and humility. I am always aware of the fact that when my uncle was killed, he did not know that the war would one day be over and won; he did now know that there would be three more years of the conflict; he did not know that the people such as the fathers of my noble friend Lord Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would come back.

Only now can we reflect on that dark period and on the service of those on the home front, in the Navy, the Air Force and the Army and in the Commonwealth—a point from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I very strongly agree with—who all came together to defeat an evil. On 8 May 1945, that evil was defeated, and celebrations began. We can do no better on this 8 May than to allow this order to go through, allowing colleagues throughout the country to enjoy an extra couple of hours and have an extra couple of beers, glasses of wine or, dare I say, even soft drinks if they wish to do so. In doing so, we are giving the opportunity to toast the people who made this country what it is today by defeating fascism and all its evil in 1945.

I am sure that we will return to the end of the Second World War later this year. For the moment, however, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and ask that the order be approved.

Motion agreed.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls: Funding

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as the CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK.

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

The Home Office ran a competition for an £8.3 million fund for 2023-25 for “by and for” and specialist victims’ support services. No competition was run in 2025-26; the funding decisions for 2025-26 were on the basis of impact, quality of delivery, value for money and our policy objectives. We recognise the importance of opening up opportunities to access funding for organisations tackling violence against women and girls, and are currently deciding our approach and provision for 2026 onwards.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, minority ethnic women face higher rates of domestic homicide and suicide linked to abuse, yet successive Governments continue to laud how much they are funding to tackle FGM, honour-based abuse and forced marriage, even though the main killer of minority ethnic women is intimate partner abuse, which barely gets a mention. The white lens through which black and Asian women are viewed needs to change. Will the Minister consider this? Funding is inaccessible to small specialist providers, particularly faith-based ones. According to civil servants, direct funding from the Home Office for any type of new applicant will not be available for another two years. Will the Government review their current position and make funding available this year to tackle domestic abuse in faith communities?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I recognise the issues that the noble Baroness has raised. We have met outside the Chamber to discuss those issues and I am happy to reflect upon what she said as a whole. She will know that the Home Office has increased the funding on violence against women and girls by some 36% in this current year over what the previous Government were funding, to over £102 million. We will look at a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls in the summer as part of the Government’s plan for change to ensure that we halve domestic violence and violence against women and girls over the next 10 years. The target issues that she has mentioned are extremely important in that, and I hope that we can reflect on that and continue the dialogue that we have had.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have clearly set themselves a very taxing target to halve violence against women and girls. Value and cost effectiveness are hugely important. The current short inquiry, whose invitation to submit evidence has just closed, will need a radical new approach, and not all organisations will get funding support, even though they have in the past. How do the Government plan to manage quality applications for funding and any transition for unsuccessful applicants and, even more importantly, the support services that women are able to access even now?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I should not repeat myself, but the Government are currently developing a strategy on violence against women and girls. We are hoping to produce that during the summer at the very latest. We have increased the funding overall by some 36% to £102 million. We are looking at how that resource is allocated. No decisions were made this year because of the issues around the spending review to ensure that we can do exactly what the noble Baroness wants; that is, to ensure that organisations have stability, know what expenditures are coming downstream over a longer period, and are not left in the lurch in relation to a loss of services. We are in a period of flux, but the Government’s intention is extremely clear: to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period, and the funding has been put in to begin that process this year.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, one of the reasons that some groups still think that young girls should be subjected to female genital mutilation is because they believe they are religiously instructed so to do. In fact, there is no foundation at all for this in the Koran and, therefore, one of the most important ways of combating FGM is through education. It is not just education about the Koran, but about the fact that people take children abroad to be cut as well as doing it here. One way to combat this is through those groups that are working in the educational field, some of which tell me that they find it very hard to access funding. Will the Minister look closely at that, because they will be doing the Government’s job in a certain way in trying to fight FGM?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the question. FGM is a crime: it should be recognised as a crime and prosecuted as a crime. The Government have put in place additional support at borders to ensure that we monitor individuals who may be taken abroad for FGM—which, again, is a crime—and we are planning additional resources and measures on that. The noble Lord is absolutely right that education and wider knowledge of that crime are extremely important. As he said, there is no religious basis for it; it is a crime, it should be treated as such and this Government will do that.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the domestic violence strategy that the Minister mentioned will be very welcome, as it is much needed. But does he accept, as we all know—the figures are stark—that violence against women and girls is on the rise? It is an epidemic in this country, and the funding gap is still there even with the increase that he outlined. Many of the organisations to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, referred, rely on a range of funding from local authorities, charities and so on. A lot of these funding streams are being cut and drying up, particularly in local government. Is he satisfied that women, particularly those from minority backgrounds who need specialist support, as we have heard, will still be able to access the support—in many cases, life-saving support—that they need?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am never satisfied, because we have to ensure that we tackle these crimes head on. That is why development of the strategy on violence against women and girls, led by my honourable friend in the House of Commons, Jess Phillips, is extremely important. The Home Office resources I mentioned have gone up by 36% to over £100 million, but the Ministry of Justice is also providing significant amounts of resource for preventive activity on violence against women and girls, including by investing in action on perpetrators who have been sentenced and will come out at some point in the future. There is a local authority role as well. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that we have set an ambitious target; it is ambitious for the reason that this is a crime and it needs to be driven down. Therefore, with her help and that of others, when that strategy is published, we will achieve those objectives over that 10-year period.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, in its 2025 Annual Audit report, the charity Women’s Aid noted that just over half of all referrals into community-based domestic abuse support services were rejected. Some 23% of these rejections were because the service could not contact the client. This suggests that many victims of domestic abuse are not able to access the services that they need and are at risk of slipping through the cracks because of communications issues. I am sure the Minister will understand these concerns, so will he outline the steps that the Government are taking to assist support services to contact the women and girls who are referred to them, so that no one who needs help is missed?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is extremely important that those who need that help and support get it. It is one reason why we have continued the work of the previous Government in funding a national helpline on violence against women and girls, which includes help and support for victims of honour-based violence as well. There are always improvements that can be made and, as part of the development of the strategy, we will be looking at what is most effective over those 10 years to ensure that we help and support victims, that we reduce the number of perpetrators and that those who have been convicted of perpetrating these offences are supported by the Ministry of Justice to turn their lives around when they come out of prison. The noble Baroness makes some valid points, but I hope she will examine the strategy in detail when it is published.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Is the Home Office discussing with the Department for Education what sort of training is being given in schools, particularly to boys?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look at that for the noble and learned Baroness. Again, I am accountable for this area, but the direct responsibility is with my colleague Jess Phillips. I will raise that with her to see what discussions are going on, but the noble and learned Baroness can rest assured that the strategy we are bringing forward on violence against women and girls is a cross-government strategy, to which all departments are contributing. I will examine the specific responsibilities of the DfE and get back to the noble and learned Baroness.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the Government’s strategy is welcome, particularly in so far as it affects women in the country who have linguistic and cultural difficulties in trying to articulate what is happening to them and trying to seek help. Given that one-third of complaints about domestic violence are made by men and boys, and that number is increasing, what plans do the Government have to enhance provision for those men and young boys who are subject to domestic violence?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point. Domestic violence is seen through the window of being violence against women, but it is also male on male, female on male, and a range of other forms. I will take that away and respond to her in due course.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton should be speaking on this Statement on our behalf, but, unfortunately, she has been unwell and so cannot be with us.

From these Benches, I begin by paying tribute to the victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation—individuals who, for far too long, were not only ignored but actively failed by the very institutions meant to protect them. Many were treated as offenders rather than as victims and retraumatised by police, social services and others in power. Their courage in continuing to demand justice, even after being silenced for years, is nothing short of remarkable.

We welcome the Government’s Statement before Easter updating the House on their actions to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation. It is right that we now see momentum after years of delay. The grooming gangs task force is making arrests and a national audit by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is under way. These are important steps. But this update also highlights how much time has been lost. It has now been over two years since the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was published, drawing on over 2 million pages of evidence and testimonies of more than 7,000 victims. Yet the previous Government failed to implement a single recommendation. That was a catastrophic failure, for which survivors have paid the price.

We welcome the progress now being made on the independent inquiry’s key proposals, particularly the creation of a new child protection authority and the commitment to mandatory reporting. We also support the proposed criminal offence of obstructing someone from making a report, but how will that be implemented? Who will be held to account? Crucially, will this reporting duty extend to all relevant institutions —faith settings, private schools and voluntary groups—where abuse has so often been hidden?

On mandatory reporting, while the Government now promise legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill, questions remain. The duty must be clear, enforceable and properly resourced. Professionals and volunteers need legal protection when they report, and we must see firm consequences when people deliberately obstruct such reports.

Support for survivors also remains a concern. We welcome the commitment to double funding for national support services in this financial year, but this must be part of a longer-term plan. Survivors live with this trauma for life, and they deserve continuity of care, access to therapeutic support and a clear, properly funded path to justice and recompense. Therefore, we on these Benches were disappointed by the delay in progressing the national redress scheme recommended by the independent inquiry. The scale of this proposal is indeed significant, but so too is the suffering it seeks to address. I ask the Minister, why must survivors wait yet again until the spending review later this year? Surely, they have waited long enough.

While we welcome steps to remove the limitation period for civil claims, we must be vigilant that the shift in burden of proof does not get lost in procedural detail. Victims must not have to endure fresh ordeals simply to secure the justice they were denied as children. So I ask the Minister, will all of the independent inquiry’s 20 recommendations be implemented in full? Will the newly proposed child protection authority serve not just as a symbolic body but as an authority empowered to enforce, investigate and hold failing institutions to account?

Survivors have done their part. They spoke their truth, often at great personal cost. Now it is time for us to show that we are finally listening, and that their suffering was not in vain. We must ensure that this renewed energy leads not only to new laws and frameworks but to a culture that puts children’s safety before institutional reputation.

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Statement. I begin by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, well; I look forward to seeing her back in her place shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is right: this is a very serious issue. There are some 500,000 victims of child sexual abuse each year, and that is an enormous number of victims who carry that with them for a considerable time. The duty of government is to ensure that we protect those victims, that we put in place preventive measures where possible, and that we hold to account people who have committed those crimes. I hope that the Government’s response to date has shown that this is the direction of travel we are trying to undertake.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that this is a positive series of actions after a period of delay, for which I do not hold the shadow Minister accountable but which I think needs to be reflected upon. We have tried to take strong action since 4 July last year. That has been indicated by the response to the IICSA recommendations, of which we have accepted the bulk. We have also put in place mandatory reporting measures and other measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned. We have put in place a response to the grooming gangs issue, which we were planning to do before Christmas but which was speeded on by events. I think it has been a positive response.

To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, one of the responses that we have put in place is the fund of £5 million for local authorities, wherever they may be, to bid against that. We have established a framework for those bids to ensure that authorities can undertake inquiries or provide support for victims in their local area. The noble Lord will know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated in January that Bradford would be a priority for that expenditure, but all local authorities will shortly be able to bid against that fund. That, I hope, will help to put in place some preventive measures in areas where local authorities feel that they have failed in their duty to date, or where they need further support or local inquiries accordingly.

We have put in place the mandatory reporting measures as well as the measures that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned, in relation to support for victims. For example, there is now therapeutic support for the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse, and we are committed to improving victim-centred therapeutic support as a whole. We have also undertaken particular support to ensure that the child sexual abuse review panel can now look at closed cases, even if they happened after 2013, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will welcome.

The report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which has been mentioned, was a three-month report which will be reporting shortly. I cannot give the noble Lord a date as yet, but I hope that he will understand that, when we said we wanted a short, sharp report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, we meant an early, quick review of existing evidence on grooming gangs. This point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, as well. That will be brought forward in due course, in very short order, and I look forward to debating and discussing the outcome of that. It will be difficult for all involved, but it will be an important contribution.

There is also the independent review of progress on the policing response to grooming gangs by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which touches on both Front Bench points. That is a very important issue. As I have mentioned, we have also put in place the victim-centred £5 million fund.

It is right and proper that we focus on some of the issues around grooming gangs and, as the noble Lord mentioned, the reasons why they happened. However, I do not wish to focus just on ethnicity; I wish to ensure that individuals who commit crimes are brought and held to account, whatever their ethnicity. I also say to the noble Lord, and I hope we share common ground on this, that we should not use the issue of political correctness to avoid attacking and challenging areas where there have been issues of concern raised about grooming gangs.

I would like to focus particularly on the fact that offenders must be pursued and tracked down whatever their race, gender, sexuality or religion, because offenders are offenders. The grooming gang issue has raised a number of other issues that need to be addressed, which is what we are trying to do with the measures we have brought forward. However, it is important that we do not just say that this happens in only one community, because it does not. Therefore, we need to hold all individuals to account for those issues.

I am trying to cover all the points that were mentioned. The criminal offences we have put in the police and crime Bill are important. We will discuss those in this House in June or July—certainly before the summer. That also gives power for the Home Office’s responsibilities on the IICSA report.

If noble Lords look at the nine months since 4 July —which is all that I can account for—they will see that we have implemented and put on the agenda legislation on IICSA responsibilities, established the fund, given powers to police to examine previously uncovered areas of abuse, given victims the right to challenge for the reopening of cases and put in place support for local authorities to undertake their own inquiries.

We could certainly have a national inquiry, as the noble Lord has mentioned, but this Government’s judgment is that we know what the problem is. We have had seven years of the IICSA report, leading to recommendations, and we have local challenges in certain areas that we need to examine. The way forward is to look at how to implement action on the recommendations, rather than to set up an inquiry that would last still longer and probably come to the same conclusions we can make now, having had the IICSA inquiry before.

That is the judgment of government. I sense that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, disagrees with that, but I hope that the answers I have given to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, are helpful. I will look in detail at Hansard to see whether I have missed any issues; if I have, I will respond in due course.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I had the duty to give evidence to IICSA while I was a Minister in the Department for Education, so I am grateful for the Government’s action on mandatory reporting. I am grateful to see in this Statement that the recommendation for a child protection authority is being taken forward and note that it will be sent out to consultation. I would be grateful to know from the Minister whether it is envisaged that that authority would deal with some of the gaps in DBS checks that still exist. For instance, as far as I understand it, if you are a private tutor not employed by a company, you cannot get a DBS check.

I would also be grateful to know whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked, there will be broad enough jurisdiction over charities and, in particular, faith institutions—which may be struggling with their safeguarding investigations—so that the authority would be authorised to intervene in those charities within the Church of England. There are many smaller charities with some kind of oversight function over faith institutions where there are vulnerabilities preventing them doing those investigations swiftly. Does the Minister envisage that the child protection authority would have that jurisdiction?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the work that the noble Baroness did on this issue while in government.

The new child protection authority will be established to prioritise vulnerable children by making the child protection system clearer and more unified and by ensuring that there are ongoing improvements. It will try to achieve the points that the noble Baroness mentioned. By the end of this year—which I know seems like a long time to noble Lords and Baronesses—we will consult on how we establish the child protection authority and what its functions and responsibilities will be in more detail.

We have responded to the IICSA recommendation to establish the authority, and therefore it will be done. However, it is important that we consult widely on what it is, what its powers are and what areas it covers, so I cannot pre-empt that in answering the points that the noble Baroness made today. There will in due course be opportunities for full consultation and, ultimately, for this House to determine, with the House of Commons, the format and responsibilities of that body.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, this problem has been going on for decades. I am really disappointed that my party did not do enough when we were in government, but those victims are not being well served. Having a national inquiry is absolutely a must. There are many areas that are still not being looked at with the sort of rigour that we should be looking at them with, and my noble friend Lady Berridge mentioned the example of charities.

At the end of it, there are big cultural issues in some communities that we need to address, but we also need to address why institutions were not coming forward to make sure that there was no favour against the victims. I think that victims will feel incredibly let down if we do not give them a rigorous inquiry. I do not have much faith in local inquiries; I come from a city where these issues have been going on for decades.

I hope that the Minister can take on board that some of us are really concerned about places that are not checked regularly, where this sort of behaviour is still going on, under the protection of saying, “Well, we did not quite get it because we did not understand the culture”—and that is regardless of the faith or ethnicity involved.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness will bear with me. I understand that there is a case to be made for a national inquiry, but the view that the Government have taken is that the IICSA recommendations, made over seven years—which were put to the previous Government and are now being implemented over the next 12 months by this Government —are the basis of what would come out of any national inquiry. There are issues to address, and we have tried to ensure that there is an independent review of the policing response in the areas that the noble Baroness has mentioned. If there are issues about the culture, or how those charges or investigations took place, they will be looked at.

There is the pot of money that we put aside for local authorities to determine a local response, if they wish, and they can apply for that. We are putting in place a framework that will made be public very shortly. We are trying to ensure that the victims, which the noble Baroness rightly put at the heart of her contribution to the House, are served well, which is why we want to ensure that we do not drag out, over a long period, things that we can do now.

The review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will report shortly with immediate responses about what happened in certain local authority areas; undoubtedly, it will be painful reading and will create further debate. There will be the police and inspectorate reports on the current positions that we have talked about to date. The legislation currently before the House of Commons, on the recommendations that will come forward shortly, will put in place, by the end of this year, a range of measures that will, I hope, prevent the creation of future victims.

I understand why both the noble Baroness and her Front Bench have called for a national inquiry, but I believe that the response needs to be made now. That is why we are trying to put some energy—through my ministerial colleagues in the House of Commons—into this area to deliver some urgent outcomes. We are always open to further lessons. This is not the end of a process; it is an ongoing process. The key thing should be to prevent future victims, to prevent systematic abuse and to hold those people who have abused to account.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister emphasised the importance of now, but I want to emphasise that these are not historic cases of grooming gang abuse. If you look, you will see that the rape and systematic sexual abuse of young women and girls is still happening. We sometimes talk about it as though it was in the past, but it is happening now. That is why some of us get frustrated at the rather slow response.

The Minister keeps saying—this was also said in the other place—that there is a £5 million fund that councils can apply for, as though it is something they would want to apply for. The frustration is that the councils do not want to apply for the money because they are the people who are being accused of covering up the abuse in the first place. So they are not exactly queuing up and saying, “Give me some money, so I can look into myself”. That is why so many of the victims, from Rochdale, Bradford, Huddersfield, Oxford and so on, feel so frustrated: they feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall.

Although I have reservations about mandatory reporting, in the instances of the grooming gangs, reports were made. People knew about it. The reports were made to people in social services, education and so on, but they were ignored. They were covered up and people looked the other way. When the Minister says that we have immediate solutions such as mandatory reporting or a £5 million fund, it just sounds like he is talking about a different issue.

I will make one final point. These are gangs, not just arbitrary individuals. With child abuse in the Church, we did not shy away from recognising specific child abuse scandals, but it did not mean that I then thought that everybody in the Church of England or every Catholic was an abuser. We should not shy away from the particular ethnicity and religion of these gangs now, because it does not mean we are saying that all people of that religion or ethnicity are paedophiles or rapists—of course not. Do not let us be frightened to say the truth.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution, as ever. Since the election, a new child sexual abuse police performance framework has been developed. We have put in place legislation, which will be before this House shortly, on online offending, abuse and grooming enabled by artificial intelligence. We have put in place new performance powers for Border Force to detect digitally held child sex abuse material at the border. We are putting new restrictions on sex offenders changing their names. We are increasing investment in law enforcement capability through police undercover online networks and tackling organised exploitation programmes. Those measures are before the House now.

The Government have had to both develop that at policy level and put it into legislation and are now taking those matters through both Houses of Parliament. Slow though it might seem, in my experience of nearly 14 years as a Minister over two sets of Governments, it is actually quite a speedy process. By the end of this year, we should have legislation in place to deal with a whole range of issues that are currently being recommended to us and are important areas which will help prevent abuse and support victims.

The noble Baroness mentions mandatory reporting. Yes, it is there and, yes, it was ignored. The difference now is that, in the legislation before the House of Commons which will soon be before this House, there will be professional sanctions against those who fail to undertake mandatory reporting. That is not the case currently, and that is why we are strengthening the regime on mandatory reporting to try to ensure that we beef it up to hold people to account if they fail to report incidences of sexual abuse that come before them.

The noble Baroness is right that we should not ignore where abuses are undertaken by particular ethnic minorities, but the simple point that I would make is that we should tackle the sexual abuse of children wherever it comes from. If there are particular lessons to be learned from the grooming gangs issue, that is what the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will bring to us very shortly, that is what the police are looking at now through a historical reassessment of the cases and that is what we have asked HMIC to examine as well. I simply say to the noble Baroness that there are things that she thinks may not be happening, but I hope she can trust us that there are positive actions being taken by the Government on these issues and there will be further reports back and legislation in this House during the course of the next few months.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short session this evening. I also gave evidence at IICSA in person: I was an expert witness on Anglican religious communities, because that was one of the guises in which Bishop Peter Ball had justified his abuse.

I want to pick up on mandatory reporting, which has been referred to already. For some in the Church of England, and for many in the Roman Catholic Church and some other churches as well, the tradition of the seal of the confessional has been honoured for many centuries and established in canon law in this land. There is an arguable case that the seal allows somebody—and it is more likely to be a victim or witness who comes to the confessional—to make a kind of protected disclosure, which then often would lead to them being helped to make a more public disclosure and allow a perpetrator to be taken to justice. I hope there will be careful discussions with religious bodies as to exactly where the seal of the confessional will fit in with this; I know my Catholic colleagues will particularly be concerned around that. We want what will produce the best safeguarding, but it is not simply that mandatory reporting or getting rid of the seal of the confessional will get better reporting at the end of the day.

On redress, I am vice chair of the Church of England redress board. We are setting up our own scheme because we just could not be bothered to wait for the IICSA recommendation on redress to come into force. But we also think it is important that we are the ones who will be paying out the money where we did wrong to somebody—whether it was in the original abuse, in colluding with a cover-up or in failing to take a disclosure seriously. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on whether, if we do have a national redress scheme, there will be some effort to recoup the costs from the bodies that were responsible for the abuse, or covering up the abuse, in the first instance, rather than this simply being something that the taxpayer ends up picking up.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his approach to the issue. I hope I can reassure him that I have already had representations from churches, and I have received at the Home Office a delegation from a cross-religious group to discuss the very issue that he has mentioned about the relationship between the priest or vicar and the individual. I want to explore that and I have given a commitment to discuss that further with those from the churches who made contact with me, and we have had submissions on that. I cannot give him definitive, final positions today, but I hope that we can debate this during the course of the passage of the Bill in this House.

I recognise that the issue of a redress scheme is extremely important. I recognise that victims and survivors will probably be very disappointed that the Government are not yet able to commit to a redress scheme. For those who know the internal workings of government, there is a spending review in the current climate and we have to work through that spending review. I cannot give a commitment today on that issue, but I hope that the right reverend Prelate knows that it is certainly a recommendation to government, and we will examine and respond in due course.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I think that nothing short of an independent public inquiry should be required, but I would just like to touch on the role we play in the Department for Education, for example, because most of these victims were young children from the ages of 11 to even 13 or 14, and I think this is where schools come into play.

Unfortunately, I have recently been made aware that a council-funded sex education presentation shown in schools to young under-age children told them how to safely choke their girlfriends during sex, saying it must always be done with consent and suggesting that strangulation can be done safely, which of course it cannot. Official data shows an increase in reported cases for adults, which also link strangulation to cases of sexual assault, rape and even murder. Despite a new non-fatal strangulation offence being introduced in England and Wales in June 2022 by the previous Government, reflecting the dangers, this Act is clearly being ignored by those adults pushing this agenda who are literally breaking the law. Does the Minister and his colleague the Secretary of State for Education support these presentations being given in schools—which I hope they do not? Does he agree with me that those responsible, who knowingly have broken and are breaking the law, should be immediately removed from their posts and reported to the police?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that issue to my attention. I hope she will understand that I am a Home Office Minister and have not seen, nor have I been given sight of, the issues that she has mentioned, but I am very happy to draw her comments today to the attention both of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and of the Minister for Education in this House, so that they are aware of that. I am sure that they will follow up with the noble Baroness to elicit details privately, outside of the Chamber, of the concerns that she has raised so they can examine them in detail. That may not satisfy the noble Baroness today, but, not having seen the material—it sounds horrendous —I cannot comment in detail on it, but I will make sure that it is referred to those who can.

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself and these Benches with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, especially the last part. I will add to that small list of questions to the Minister with regard to China in a moment, but I also recognise the high level of consensus that there is; that the UK requires a FIRS; and that the legislation is sound. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will recall that this House was instrumental in bringing about the scheme that we now have, rather than what had been initially proposed and passed in the House of Commons. That demonstrates the value of all political parties working together for proper scrutiny.

The intention was to have a robust and deliverable scheme that would be targeted, proportionate and effective. I am therefore grateful that there is now a clear date of operation and that it will go live on 1 July. I commend all the work of the officials who are bringing this together. It will be a year since the general election and 18 months after the passage of the legislation, but the key thing is to have it operable, effective and able to be communicated. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more than was in the Statement about how the new scheme will be communicated. It is imperative that it registers those who we require it to register and does not include those who we do not require to be registered, which would clog up the much-valued time of officials. We welcome the regulations that the Government have indicated have been laid and we will carry out proper scrutiny of them.

I am grateful for the announcement about Russia. I will repeat something that I asked for when we considered the national security legislation. These Benches asked the previous Government to proactively update Parliament on a regular basis about not just the level of activities of those seeking to interfere inappropriately in our political and economic systems but the type of activities, which often change, with different methods and ways of seeking to interfere. I hope that the Government might consider this to be beneficial. It has been useful when we have had periodic updates from the head of MI5 about the level of potential interference, but that is after the event. Given that this interference is intended to be towards people such us in Parliament, then as much as we can be informed on a proactive basis, the better.

I repeat the request that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked the Leader of the House previously. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report is still redacted. Given that the Government have decided to put Russia in the enhanced tier, there is no justification for the unredacted report not to be released so that we can be fully aware. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, who had been a significant member of that committee and now chairs it, will have his own views on this. We need to be informed about what the current potential kinds of activities are with regard to Russia. The Leader replied to my noble friend that it was an interesting question to be considered. I hope that the Government have considered it and that the Minister will be able to give a considered answer. If he cannot today, I hope that he will be able to write to me.

Secondly, how will this scheme operate not only within Russian state entities but also their proxies? The legislation is worded in a fine way in order to capture those that will be acting on behalf of Russia, but I hope the Minister will be able to stress that we will be able to capture all those who are acting on behalf of Russia.

Moving on, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, did, to China, these Benches believe that it should be on the enhanced tier. We also believe that the China audit that the Government have carried out should be published in full, not just as a narrative summary. We believe that there should be a human rights and democracy report that is linked with national security legislation, especially as we know that the Chinese state has been acting in an extraterritorial repressive way with regard to residents in this country—especially those from Hong Kong. There are some extremely brave people from Hong Kong whose family members at home are under threat because of unacceptable activities that are carried out here in the UK. We of course know that the proposed embassy will have an enormous hub for intelligence gathering and I therefore hope that the Government will not make a decision on planning before they publish their full China audit and a human rights and democracy report.

As to why it is beneficial, I will again quote the work of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish—maybe he will agree with me on this point. The excellent ISC report on China from July 2023 still gives us very clear signals as to why we should have China recognised within our interference legislation. Paragraph K in the summary of conclusions states:

“In terms of interference, China oversteps the boundary and crosses the line from exerting influence—a legitimate course of action—into interference, in the pursuit of its interests and values at the expense of those of the UK”.


Furthermore, paragraph H states:

“To compound the problem, it is not just the Chinese Intelligence Services: the Chinese Communist Party co-opts every state institution, company and citizen. This ‘whole-of-state’ approach means China can aggressively target the UK, yet the scale of the activity makes it more difficult to detect”.


Both those recommendations are perfectly clear evidence of the justification for China to be put on the enhanced tier. If the Government make the decision not to do so, they have to very clearly state why the committee was wrong and that the levels of interference are not being carried out, because there is no evidence that that level of interference, which was found to be unacceptable, has changed—in fact, it has got worse.

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for their initial comments and contributions, and for the broad welcome that they have given to the Government’s decision to include Russia in FIRS and yesterday’s announcement by my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Barnsley North, Dan Jarvis. A number of points have been mentioned and I will try to raise them in my response.

It is important to say that those who have been put under the scheme—both Iran and Russia—should recognise that there is cross-party support in this House, and that national security and the Government’s response to those challenges have the support of the main political parties in this House. As the Security Minister set out yesterday, the FIRS announcement does three things. It helps with transparency, so it will give those two nations currently on the list transparency of foreign state influence in the United Kingdom. Secondly, it provides disruption by giving the police and MI5 a critical new disruptive tool. Thirdly, it gives deterrence for those two nations as a whole.

It is worth putting before the House why Russia has been added to the list. It is not only because of the Salisbury nerve agent attack, espionage, arson, cyberattacks, the spear-phishing of parliamentarians and attacks on emails; the illegal war in Ukraine means that Russia remains a serious state threat and we need to have the provisions of the Act, which had cross-party support, and FIRS put in place today.

It is also important that I take on board again what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said about the fact that this is coming in now. We came into government on 4 July last year. We wanted to give a three-month notice period for the implementation of a FIRS notice. We have worked with officials—to whom I pay tribute for their hard, consistent work to bring the scheme to fruition—and, from 1 July, both Iran and Russia will fall under the purview of the scheme. That is a good development, and it reflects the Government driving forward that point of view.

The three-month grace period is important. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, mentioned guidance and support. We will shortly publish guidance to explain clearly the requirements of each tier and how to comply with them. We will produce sector guidance for academia, media, business, defence and civil society sectors. The implementation programme is extremely important and is now, I believe, on track.

Two main issues have been raised in addition to that of support, and I will try to address both. First, I will deal with the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised about the Russia report and whether the ISC will publish an unredacted version. I find myself in the strange position of being a Minister talking about a report that I authored as a member of the ISC between 2016 and 2019. Although I have seen the unredacted version because I participated in its production, I have to say, as a Minister of the Crown who has looked at the unredacted version, that it provides highly classified material that would damage the operational capabilities of the intelligence agencies, if published, by revealing targets, methods, sources and operational capabilities. So the Government have no plans to produce an unredacted version. However, that does not take away from the fact that the broad themes of the Russia report, which were highlighted by the committee I sat on over five years ago, are the reasons why the Government took the actions on the FIRS set out yesterday in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister responsible. That may not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, but I hope that it clarifies where the Government stand today.

China was mentioned by both the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Purvis of Tweed; they raised legitimate questions about the Government’s view of the country. As I have set out in a previous response on China, and as my honourable friend said yesterday, we will always keep the FIRS under review. However, this Government have been clear that we are taking a long-term, consistent approach to managing UK relations with China. As has been said, we will co-operate when we can on issues of international co-operation and trade; we will compete when we need to on a whole range of issues; and we will challenge where we must, including on issues of national security. There have been times when, because of concerns, we have challenged on issues of national security. However, currently, the Government’s decision, although it is always kept under review, is that Iran and Russia are the two countries to fall under the initial FIRS, which will be operational from 1 July.

A range of issues about human rights and security are raised consistently in Parliamentary Questions and in comments and statements by Members of this House and the other place, including concerns about China. We will continue to keep that under review, but, as of today, Russia and Iran are the two nations that are under the FIRS—I hope that noble Lords can accept that explanation. We will continue to examine, at all times, any threats from any countries. I hope that the decision a few weeks ago to put Iran under the FIRS and the decision this week to put Russia under it are welcome, because those decisions will help protect our country from strategic threats from state actors.

Finally, I remind the House that depending on which tier individuals or nations have been put under, there is a minimum two-year prison sentence for non-registration and there is a maximum five-year prison sentence for those things. That is a severe sentence for individuals who do not comply with the legislation that had cross-party support to pass.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. As the Minister has already outlined, the FIRS was one of the key recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 report on Russia, which both he and I were involved in.

I concur with his statement on why the full, unredacted report cannot be published. I assure the House that this is a long process. We try to put as much as possible into the public domain, but there are certain elements in this work that would help our adversaries if it was produced in public.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is a keen reader of our reports, and I recommend the Iran report, which will be coming out in the next few weeks.

I ask my noble friend the Minister about Russia’s proxies and satellites—Belarus, Chechnya and others. Are the Government thinking of including them in the FIRS as well?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The FIRS we announced yesterday includes the leadership of Russia, political parties that support the leadership of Russia and a number of other state apparatuses, including the security services in Russia. We have and we will, in due course, present to this House and the House of Commons a statutory instrument that sets out in detail the applicability of the FIRS. I hope that my noble friend can wait for that to see the detail of the specific organisations and individuals named under it.

In informing him of that, I also pay tribute to him and his work with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is done behind the scenes and appears only when reports such as the Russia report are published. I know, from spending four and a half years on that committee, that there is a tremendous amount of work going on under the surface all the time to both challenge the security services, Government Ministers and agencies on their performance on security and to make the sorts of recommendations that appeared in the Russia report to date.

I am pleased that my noble friend supports the Government’s position not to seek the publication of the unredacted report. For the reasons he has mentioned, this is about national security, and it is also about themes: The themes of the Russia report were that the Russian state was seeking to undermine UK democracy and be a malevolent actor and, as we have seen in Salisbury and in Ukraine since the Russia report, it is not a player on the international stage that abides by the rules. In producing that report, we have to withhold some aspects. It is welcome that my noble friend supports the Government’s approach to that issue.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I broadly welcome it, and I think there is a broad, cross-party consensus on the national security requirements.

When I hear my noble friend talk about threats from Iran and Russia, as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy I can tell him that we looked in great detail at the nature of some of these threats—for example, in regard to ransomware—and produced a report on it.

The question I wanted to ask my noble friend relates to the political tier. I quote from the Statement:

“For the first time, Members of this House will now be able to check whether anyone who seeks to influence them is doing so at the direction of a foreign power”.


I wanted to raise the issue of all-party parliamentary groups, because one of the concerns that has been expressed over the years is that they could be a vehicle for unwanted influences—certainly financially—buying their way in and influencing the way all-party groups operate.

I am the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which is the Parliament’s oldest all-parliamentary party group. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that this scheme will enable it to be absolutely clear that no all-party parliamentary group that operates in this House—or in Parliament generally—is in any way open to the type of foreign influence that this Statement is designed to prevent and that as a result Parliament can have confidence that all-party parliamentary groups will be protected under this scheme to some extent by the work being undertaken, and that when FIRS goes live, we will have this confidence open to view.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his work in this field and for his question. Where the scheme will be of best benefit is that it will allow greater transparency around individuals who may be influenced, in this case by Russia or, as in the previous announcement, by Iran. That gives confidence to parliamentarians particularly. Any individual who is engaged with or supporting an all-party group, in whatever shape and form they do that, will have had to make a declaration about foreign influence before they participate in any activity as a whole. After 1 July, that will be a public matter of record. If they do not declare it and are subsequently found to have such influence, they will be subject to severe penalty, tested by the police, the CPS and the court, and ultimately subject to penalties of potential long terms of imprisonment of up to five years. I hope that will bring a transparency and confidence to all-party groups in the event of individuals believing that such groups are somehow influenced or fronted by organisations which are seeking to do malevolent damage to the UK. It gives transparency and flushes that out. If anybody tries to do that in a secretive way and is found to be doing so, they will face a severe penalty.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, exactly as the Statement says, it is our duty to defend the safety and interests of the UK. However, it also says that businesses will have to ensure they understand their obligations and that there must be strong compliance with the scheme. What consultations have taken place with businesses, both large and small to medium-sized, to ensure the process is entirely rigorous but, equally importantly, easy to undertake?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very important point. We do not want to damage business, trade or engagement with any nation currently under the FIR scheme or potentially under FIR schemes. Currently, there is a significant difficulty with trade with Russia, because of the issue with Ukraine, and rightly so. Ultimately, we have had widespread consultation on this matter. We want to make sure that we do not damage business, but it is important that national security is at the forefront of our thinking. The prime move today is to make sure that malevolent actors do not operate in a non-transparent way, and that if they do, and are found, they will face the full force of United Kingdom law under the cross-party Act that we supported collectively in both Houses.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, this Statement is about the foreign influence registration scheme, which, as the Minister said, is trying to ensure transparency and control of the lobbying influence of certain states in the UK. But this is part of a much larger issue.

The lobbying Act 2014, passed under the coalition Government, is now a decade old. By coincidence, I started today—some time ago—at a round table which was considering a forthcoming report from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, titled No Rules Britannia? The UK’s Lobbying Laws Exposed on the Global Stage. That report is still under embargo but I do not think institute will mind me sharing a phrase from the foreword, which says that

“the UK’s lobbying laws leave us languishing at the lower end of global governance rankings making it harder to promote our democratic values on the world stage”.

Is the Minister prepared to look at the report when it is released, if I share it with him and his team? He may want to respond later in writing, but are the Government prepared to look seriously at the lobbying Act of 10 years ago to see what needs to be done to bring us up to somewhere near global standards?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course I will look at any report that is produced and share it internally within government. We want to see transparency in lobbying. That is why we are taking measures to ensure that Members of both Houses are transparent in how they operate and about their outside earnings and their declarations. That is part of the Government’s role on transparency.

I will take away what the noble Baroness said about the specific Act and review and respond in due course. The issue that we are dealing with today shines a light on transparency regarding the influence of Russia and Iran, which have been notified under the current FIRS arrangement. That transparency will give confidence for parliamentarians in this House and in the House of Commons about the level of influence on us as Members from any outside body and who is behind any influence. That is a good thing when we are dealing with malevolent state actors, which both those nations are designated as. I hope that the noble Baroness will welcome that.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I know that it is not the done thing for the Front Bench to come back, but I want to come back on a question. The Minister is characteristically very good at answering questions from the Dispatch Box, so I do not mean this as a criticism. In July 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee found that China was not only seeking to influence but interfering in our internal affairs. Am I to take from the decision not to have China as part of the go-live scheme that the Government have determined that the committee was wrong and that China is not interfering in our political system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I apologise if I slightly overlooked part of the noble Lord’s question. The Government have not made a judgment on any ISC comment or recommendations. However, we are continually keeping under review every nation in relation to a potential FIRS. We have announced Iran. Yesterday, we announced Russia. All other potential designations are kept under constant review. On China, as I have said in the House before, we co-operate where we can, we challenge where we need to and we ensure that we maintain our national security interests. We will keep that under review, but I cannot give the noble Lord a running commentary on potential FIRS designations. They are not a matter for today, which is about Russia and recommitting to the FIRS declaration on Iran.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, if the House will forgive me for a quick follow-up question, the Minister referred to sector guidance. Will he issue sector guidance relating to Parliament itself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an interesting point. The sector guidance is to ensure that, as the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, mentioned, we give guidance to academia, business or other sectors. As I envisage guidance for Parliament, there is transparency in that, from 1 July, any individual who seeks to influence Parliament will have to declare any influence that they have from Iran or Russia. If they do not declare it and subsequently are found to have it, they will face the full force of the law and potentially a five-year jail term.

I think that the guidance to Parliament is simply that Parliament can have trust and confidence that all-party groups do not have influence from those nations, unless those individuals declare that influence. If they hide it and it then comes to light, they will be prosecuted. That gives Parliament the confidence that it needs. The sector guidance is meant to be for academia, students, business and other issues. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that this is the general intention of this legislation.

House adjourned at 10.19 pm.