Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these instruments—the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026—were laid before the House on 5 March 2026. They relate to the Government’s stance that asylum support should be provided in a manner which is fair and only where it is genuinely justified.
These instruments are a key element of our sweeping reforms to create a fairer, more accountable system, one that protects support for those who genuinely need it while encouraging compliance and deterring misuse. Noble Lords might be interested in the fact that, as of December, there were 107,003 individuals in receipt of asylum support, with 30,657 in around 200 asylum hotels. In the financial year 2024-25, a total of £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the United Kingdom.
The Government inherited that situation and have to try to look at how we can reduce overall asylum costs. The Government have already reduced overall asylum support costs by 15% over that period, and we must continue to look at how we can make further reductions in the cost to the taxpayer.
One of the instruments before the House today removes the duty to provide asylum support, reverting to the discretionary power set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This reinforces our ability to make case-by-case decisions and gives the Government greater flexibility in how we assess and distribute asylum support. It also allows us to take firmer action against those who do not comply with the rules.
For example, removing Regulation 5 allows us to withhold support from individuals who have permission to work and therefore should be supporting themselves. This includes those who entered the UK on work or student visas after explicitly confirming, as part of their visa application, that they had sufficient funds to meet their living costs for the duration of their stay. It is not acceptable for individuals to make such declarations in order to secure entry and then subsequently claim asylum and move on to taxpayer-funded support.
The same principle applies to those granted permission to work where their asylum claim has been pending for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Where a person has the legal ability to earn and maintain themselves, it is only right that they do so. Reinstating this discretionary power also enables us to deny support to those who have intentionally made themselves destitute in an attempt to access the system. This is essential to protecting the integrity of our approach and ensuring that support is reserved for those who genuinely need it.
The other instrument we are debating today focuses on illegal working and makes doing so an explicit reason to discontinue an individual’s asylum support. Previously, where an individual was suspected of working illegally, this had to be investigated as fraud or concealment of funds to establish that they were no longer destitute. By setting out clearly in legislation that illegal working is itself a breach of asylum support conditions, we create a direct and transparent mechanism to discontinue support, without the need for protracted fraud investigations.
Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK, yet some choose to work illegally while also claiming asylum support and accommodation. I suggest to noble Lords that that is not right. This undercuts legitimate businesses and takes genuine work opportunities away from other citizens. It is unlawful to undertake work without the requisite authorisation, and this measure ensures that there is now a clear and proportionate consequence for those who choose to disregard that requirement.
Through the statutory instrument before the House, illegal working will be an explicit ground on which Section 4 support may be withdrawn from failed asylum seekers, therefore aligning with the changes made to Section 98 and Section 95 support that were laid on the same date as these instruments and came into force on 27 March. This ensures that public resources are directed only to those who abide by the rules and who genuinely cannot support themselves, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the system as a whole.
Taken together, these measures will deliver a coherent system in which support aligns with responsibility. I emphasise to the House that this shift is about fairness and responsibility. Rights must come with responsibilities, and the British taxpayer cannot be expected to fund support for individuals who deliberately disregard the rules of the asylum system and the laws of the United Kingdom.
Crucially, none of these changes alters the legal safeguards that remain firmly in place. Our human rights and equality obligations will continue to provide strong protections, ensuring that we operate within a framework that upholds fundamental rights. Our intention is to provide greater flexibility over who we provide support to, ensuring that support is targeted, proportionate and sustainable. The revocation of Regulation 5 is an enabler for the development of a new framework that provides us with the ability to make changes in relation to those who have the ability to support themselves or who fail to comply with the conditions set by the Home Office or who break UK law.
This is the first step in building a modern and controlled asylum support system, which protects the vulnerable, encourages compliance and ensures public confidence. By tightening eligibility, we strengthen public confidence in the system and, I contend to the House, ensure that support is focused on those who play by the rules. I commend both orders to the House.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I see some of the same noble Lords in their places for this debate that were here for the debate last Tuesday. I trust that the Minister is feeling much better.
As with last week, these SIs on asylum support leave much unclear and have been tabled before the accompanying impact assessments or the framework the Minister just referred to, which would help the House understand the implications. I cannot approach a debate about destitution in the asylum system as an entirely abstract topic. I cannot not see the faces of the asylum seekers and refugees I had the privilege of working with at the Jesuit Refugee Service over a nine-year period. They were men and women from many different countries who, for one reason or another, found themselves destitute along their asylum journey.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is in a very perceptive mood today. Yes, indeed, in a rare turn of events, I find myself in agreement with most of what the Minister said in this debate, and I join him in supporting these two statutory instruments.
The first instrument, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, amends the 2005 regulations of the same name. It makes a very simple but vital amendment to the 2005 regulations. The change that the Government are making, as the Minister outlined, is to permit the Secretary of State to create a new condition that failed asylum seekers can be subjected to. Under the 2005 regulations, a number of conditions can be placed on a failed asylum seeker who receives asylum support. Although illegal working is a criminal offence, it does not currently constitute a breach of their conditions. This, of course, is plainly wrong, and I am glad that the Government are making this change.
The second statutory instrument relates to the support provided to asylum seekers. At present, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 require the Home Secretary to provide support to an asylum seeker where the Home Secretary believes that the asylum seeker in question meets the conditions in Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The 2005 regulations therefore go further than the original wording in the 1999 Act. Section 95 states only that the Secretary of State may provide such support, and these regulations remove that legal duty on the Home Secretary. This is something that I entirely support.
The problem here is that, although Section 95 of the 1999 Act states that support may be provided if an asylum seeker is destitute, we know that this is not the reality. There are some who may be tempted to take the language in the Act at face value and criticise the Government’s plan for taking away support from those who cannot support themselves. This would be a wholly incorrect misinterpretation; in reality, the Government have a duty to provide support for virtually every single asylum seeker, regardless of whether they can support themselves. There is also a tranche of people who deliberately make themselves destitute so as to game the system and receive the generous, taxpayer-funded support.
It is also important to note that this is a Brexit benefit. The regulations that introduced the mandatory duty were passed in 2005 to implement EU law. The Government’s asylum White Paper acknowledges this. Can I say how welcome it is to see the Government making full use of the advantages of Brexit, even while they are trying to undermine it in some other areas? I have one observation, however: this change would make sense if the Government were adopting the Conservatives’ plans to deport all illegal migrants within a week, regardless of whether they have claimed asylum. If they were implementing that policy then those asylum seekers would not require any support from the Home Office, as they would have been detained and then deported. Unless the Minister has suddenly had a change of heart, which I doubt, there are some questions that need answering. If the Government are not going to start deporting all these illegal migrants but will be withdrawing support from them, what do they believe will happen? I would welcome some greater clarity on this from the Minister.
It would also not be right if I gave the impression that I am praising the Government for somehow solving the illegal migration crisis. The Government still refuse to establish a third-country removal centre to act as a deterrent; they still refuse to ban illegal migrants from claiming asylum; and they still refuse to take action to end the scam illegal industry around the asylum system. Where the Government have taken action, we will commend them. As such, I welcome these two statutory instruments, but the Government really still have a long way to go to truly get to grips with this problem. They need to introduce a strong deterrent and to dramatically ramp up deportations. It is my firm opinion that until that happens and until we leave the ECHR, the boats will not stop and this crisis will not end.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who I remind the House had stewardship of this challenge and problem with his Government—including the noble Lord, Lord Murray, whose support I welcome —until 5 July 2024. Since that date, we have tried to make some progress on the 400-plus hotels that were operational at the cost of billions of pounds; with a backlog of asylum claims; with, in my view—I know this is debateable and is not the noble Lord’s view—very little action on the question of small boat crossings; and with obvious abuses on overstaying visas and asylum claims.
Since July 2024, we have tried to put in place a number of steps to speed up claims for asylum, to support people who have a right to be here and remove those who do not, to reduce the level of hotel use, which we have now done, from 400 down to around 200, and to try to end some of the abuses that we believe exist. It is an ongoing challenge and an ongoing process, but we are trying to do that in a context of published documents, published papers, an approach of fairness and meeting our international obligations.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for addressing those issues. Is the intention eventually to put the 42 days into a statutory instrument? As I understand it, that is the case with the current 28 days. So if this is the new normal, it would make sense. Perhaps he will write to me if he does not want to answer that now.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The intention is to have a 42-day period. We are publishing the evaluation very shortly. If my noble friend will allow me, I would rather reflect on this with my colleague, Minister Norris, who deals directly with these matters, on the mechanism to achieve that—but I will certainly write to her on that point when I have consulted with my honourable friend.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, it is important to put on record that the Government reduced the number of migrants in asylum hotels by 19% in the year ending December 2025. Overall, asylum support costs fell by 15% in the year ending March 2025. The rules that we put in place today are designed to help us reduce those costs further by making sweeping reforms to the immigration and asylum system while meeting our international obligations. This sits alongside existing work which has seen illegal immigration and illegal working enforcement activity, going back to the point from my noble friend Lord Mann, reach in 2025 the highest level in British history. Those are important issues.
Under these proposals, we will tackle illegal working but we will not support those who have permission but choose not to, nor those who enter the country on a work or student visa with permission to work before claiming asylum, nor those who have been granted permission to work whose claims have been outstanding for more than 12 months, through no fault of their own. We will not support those who are non-compliant. This includes anyone who has not complied with the conditions we impose. That is fair to the British taxpayer. The revocation of the duty will not result in immediate changes, as I have said, to those who will receive asylum support. It is the start of the process, and development of this framework is ongoing. In collaboration with other government departments, I will bring regular updates to the House on behalf of my noble friend on what the changes are.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised allowing asylum seekers to work. That would undermine the principle of the work visa, whereby people come to the country to work. She shakes her head; this is an honest disagreement. It would undermine those points. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked about our assessment of neighbouring countries’ asylum policy issues. I do not have the information to hand, so, if I may, I will look at that and write to him to cover any points when I have reflected on what he said and read Hansard tomorrow. With that, I beg to move.
Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this instrument I will speak also to the Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026, both of which were laid before the House on 26 February. For ease of discussion, if the House will allow me, I will refer to the first of these two instruments as the regulations and the second as the order.
These instruments are somewhat technical in nature, but they have a bigger picture behind them. Both are intended to tackle the terrible harms caused by illegal drugs. Drug misuse has a profound impact on crime, health and productivity. Nearly half of acquisitive crime and over 50% of homicides are linked to drugs. In 2024, drug misuse deaths in England reached almost 3,500—the highest on record. Drug misuse costs the economy some £20 billion per year. The Government are committed to protecting our communities by reducing drug-related harms.
Drug precursor chemicals—DPCs—are used to make illicit drugs, but some have legitimate industrial uses. Controlling them is a vital way of tackling drug harms. It is important also as a vital string to our bow economically. It is always better to address a problem closer to source, and so it is better to tackle drug supply before a drug has even been made. There are two ways in which we control DPCs. The first is to place controls on their legitimate use, to minimise the chance that substances which were intended for bona fide industrial purposes could be diverted to producing illicit drugs. The regulations we are debating today address this. The second way is to criminalise the deliberate illicit use of DPCs for the purposes of making drugs. The order we are debating today addresses that.
To take the regulations first, currently companies must, in most cases, apply for licences and other authorisations to use DPCs. They must also, in most cases, properly document and label DPC consignments, and they must always tell the National Crime Agency whenever they have reason to believe a DPC may be diverted for illicit use. Those requirements were an EU responsibility before Brexit. Since then, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, whereas in Great Britain a similar system applies as assimilated law. These regulations correct some deficiencies in that assimilated law.
First, Ministers currently do not have an effective power to control new DPCs in Great Britain. The list of chemicals subject to control in Great Britain, as it was, has been effectively frozen in time since January 2021. Since then, the EU has controlled 10 new DPCs and 14 related substances. Those controls have therefore applied in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain, on the other side of the Irish Sea.
The substances are used to produce MDMA, more commonly known as ecstasy, with fentanyl, whose deeply harmful nature is sadly all too familiar and which is particularly in use in America. Substances such as that known as crystal meth and amphetamines are also used. All of those, except amphetamine, are class A drugs, and for good reason. Fentanyl can, among other things, cause people to stop breathing. Ecstasy can lead to serious consequences, particularly for those with heart conditions, blood pressure problems, epilepsy or asthma. It was mentioned 78 times on certificates for death registered in England and Wales in 2024. Methamphetamine, quite apart from its severe health consequences, is linked to violent crime. The regulations will add those 10 DPCs and related substances to the control regime in Great Britain and will allow Ministers to control others in the future.
The second deficiency in the assimilated law is that there is currently no clear statutory mechanism to control the movement of DPCs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The regulations will now provide one. Such controls are a vital way to prevent the diversion of DPCs to illicit use and to discharge our responsibilities under international law. At the same time, we recognise the importance of enabling trade to flow as smoothly as possible within the UK, and we are therefore waiving the need to pay a fee.
Finally, while the requirements on companies across the UK to label and document transactions involving DPCs and to tell the National Crime Agency of their suspected diversion apply to one set of chemicals, the criminal offences for not doing so apply to a different, smaller set. It cannot be right that there are legal requirements on companies but no sanctions for ignoring them. The regulations will ensure that the offences apply to the same DPCs as do the positive requirements.
I turn to the order. This instrument will extend the list of DPCs that it is a crime to supply or make if the defendant knows or suspects that they will be used to make controlled drugs. The order adds to that list 12 DPCs and 16 related substances that the United Nations controlled between March 2014 and March 2024. These DPCs are also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine and methamphetamine. This should certainly have been done earlier—I cannot comment on why it was not, as this was under a Government not controlled by my party—but I know that my colleague the Minister for Policing and Crime has taken very seriously a number of criticisms made by noble Lords on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and acted accordingly.
Finally, in line with usual practice, I draw the attention of the House to the correction slip for the regulations. This corrected two minor typographical errors. One changes a reference from “the Great Britain” to “Great Britain”; the other replaces a reference to the third occasion when a phrase appears on the second occasion. I hope those minor amendments are accepted.
While I am on my feet on the matter of drugs, I take this opportunity to comment on a question I answered from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on 13 April about nitrous oxide. I stated that in the year September 2024 to September 2025 there were 242 convictions for the supply of nitrous oxide, with 234 sentences to date. In fact, it was October 2024 rather than September 2024 and the 242 convictions and 234 sentences were for possession or supply, mostly possession. It is important to place that small clarification on the record.
In summary, the Government are unwavering in their commitment to tackle illegal drugs, which cause misery and harm across society, and these two instruments will aid us in that critical effort. I beg to move.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the basic idea that the list of controlled drug precursor chemicals should be in sync across the UK and with international agreements that we have signed up to is a clear and reasonable one. More complicated is the process by which we have got here. It is also less straightforward whether the Home Office is applying the right lessons from the mistakes involved.
The controlled drugs SI would give the Government the power to align the lists of drug precursor chemicals between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in future. Given the problems of delay that have brought us here today, with it taking five years since the end of the implementation period for this SI to come forward, can the Minister set out whether the department has set any targets or guidelines for how quickly it will move in future to use such powers? The Home Office has said that work on this SI started in 2024 and that this is one of its “legislative priorities”, yet we have the SI in Parliament only in 2026. Even if we start the clock after the 2024 general election, that is still the best part of two years to serve up an SI that was already delayed and running late. Is the Minister happy with that sort of turnaround time, and is anything being done to speed up the secondary legislation process in the Home Office?
The criminal justice SI involves even longer delays and a failure to act for at least a decade to update domestic law in the light of international agreements, in an area—criminal justice—that has consistently been a priority of different Home Secretaries and Governments. It has been a decade full of tough rhetoric about crime and requests for new legislation from the Home Office, yet also one of failure to keep on top of what should be pretty basic administrative tasks: having a proper legislation log, handover notes and processes for staff, and keeping a list of drugs up to date. Yet we know that was not the case. The Minister and the Home Secretary can reasonably point out that they were not in post for most of that decade, and in correspondence with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee the relevant Minister has set out remedial steps, which is welcome.
What this leaves, though, are two concerns. First, there is the very basic nature of the mistakes: the absence of a proper legislation log and the absence of proper handover processes, particularly in a department where staff churn is a regular and even frequent occurrence. Over the years when these basic measures were missing, a variety of different staff would have churned through posts and in some way should have been aware of or responsible for such issues. That these problems persisted for so long suggests a systemic flaw in the management processes or quality in the department. Moreover, as the Home Office has, according to its correspondence with the SLSC, decided not to track down which staff were involved, it is quite possible that people who made mistakes did not know and still do not know, and need to learn from them. Those who have moved on to other roles may well be making the same mistakes elsewhere.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these two draft instruments, which together update the framework governing drug precursor chemicals. On these Benches, we support the objectives of these measures. Drug precursors play a critical role in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances, and it is right that the law keeps pace with international developments and the evolving methods of criminal networks. Strengthening controls and closing loopholes is therefore both necessary and welcome.
The draft statutory instruments will bring the UK into closer alignment with its obligations under the 1988 UN convention by updating the list of substances that it is a criminal offence to supply or manufacture where there is knowledge or suspicion of illicit use. They also seek to address deficiencies in the current regime by aligning the list of controlled substances with those subject to criminal sanctions.
While the substance of these changes is sensible and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has observed, not in itself controversial, the context in which they arise warrants some reflection. The committee has pointed to delays in updating domestic legislation to reflect changes to international obligations and to the time taken to resolve discrepancies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the end of the implementation period. There are also concerns about the clarity of the statutory basis for certain authorisations and fees. Although these issues are now being addressed, they underline the importance of ensuring that regulatory frameworks remain up to date, coherent and legally robust. The House is entitled to expect that such matters are identified and acted upon in a timely and consistent way.
In conclusion, we support these instruments and the improvements they make to the enforcement framework. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing these draft instruments to the House today, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments that have been made and I understand the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concerns. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that the Government came into office in July 2024 and, as soon as we identified the challenges posed in terms of orders not having been implemented previously, we took action to try to bring this back into some sort of order. There have been, self-evidently, challenges in relation to a number of issues. I cannot ultimately comment on what happened under previous Governments, but I can confirm that we took action on this issue as soon as it was identified.
I can also confirm to the noble Baroness that officials have reviewed electronic records to seek to understand why the Act was not updated earlier. Those records did not indicate the reason for these omissions. That is a fault that we are looking to review. It may be that, since the UN controlled no DPCs between 2000 and 2014, awareness of the need to update the Act when it started doing so was lost within the department. To help mitigate against that in future, we have now created a log of drugs legislation to ensure this does not happen again. Through the order we are debating today, we are trying to put those omissions right.
As the Minister for Policing and Crime set out in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 23 March, the Government understand the committee’s concerns about record-keeping, which has likely contributed to the delay in including the 12 DPCs and the 16 other elements in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. As a result, as I have said, drugs legislation logs have been created. The Government consider that the gap in knowledge is unlikely to have had wider implications across the Home Office, but I can assure noble Lords that the Minister for Policing and Crime has raised this issue with the Permanent Secretary. She has asked him to ascertain what Home Office legislation is dependent on or affected by international obligations and how we monitor those international obligations to ensure that any changes are reflected in UK law.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I know that charging and the authorisation of fees being paid was an important issue. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at the issue of plans for fees which were previously charged. I am happy to confirm today that we will be offering refunds to those who have been affected. The total sum is only around £3,000, but it is still an important issue. We will be looking at how we can manage that in due course and I will certainly be examining that with my colleagues in future.
We are where we are. The Government have tried to make some changes with both these instruments brought forward today to ensure that there is a United Kingdom approach and those regulations are now in order. I commend both to the House.
Motion agreed.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsThursday 16th April 2026
(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 186-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (15 Apr 2026)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu.
“(5) In section 73 (guidance), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued under this section may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 68 by authorised persons (within the meaning of that section).””
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Motion A, I will speak also to Motions B, F and P in this group.
Amendment 2 is intended to ensure that accredited or authorised persons or their employers may not profit financially from fixed penalty notices issued for breaches of community protection notices or public spaces protection orders. I have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on a number of occasions and I fully understand the concerns he has raised that fixed penalty notices could be issued disproportionately where there is a financial incentive to do so. However, I must stress that this amendment risks weakening crucial enforcement action taken to address those who breach community protection notices or public spaces protection orders, and such a bar would, in effect, put an end to all outsourcing and could significantly reduce enforcement capacity.
Therefore, I have tabled our Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu, which seek to ensure that statutory guidance is issued that addresses the need for proportionality in the issuing of fixed penalty notices. I have had an opportunity to discuss that with the noble Lord outside the Chamber, and I await his comments in due course. It would mean a statutory presumption in the Bill that the guidance addresses the use and proportionality of such fixed penalty notices.
I turn to Amendments 6, 10, 11 and 12, and the very important issue of fly-tipping; I know that noble Lords have been exercised about it. I emphasise that I understand and recognise the problem and believe that waste crime is an issue that confronts us. The Government are committed to taking firm action. We recently published our new waste crime action plan, which is the toughest-ever crackdown on illegal waste and targets the problem at its root. Lords Amendment 6 is unnecessary as, where sufficient evidence is available, local authorities already have the power to prosecute fly-tippers and, on conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that the landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If available evidence is not sufficient to secure a successful prosecution, it is unclear how addressing this issue through statutory guidance would help in recovering those clean-up costs.
Amendment 11 is also unnecessary as, under Section 34B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local councils have the power to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used or is about to be used to commit a fly-tipping offence. Where the police stop and search a vehicle under their PACE powers, on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is used for the committing of fly-tipping offences, they can also call on local authority officers who can then impound the vehicle under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as I have mentioned.
Amendment 12 would place a duty on waste authorities to clean up waste from fly-tipping, including on private land. I have had what I hope were constructive discussions with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, but, as I have said to him outside the Chamber, the amendment would place a substantial unfunded burden on local councils and represents a significant departure from current practice. As such, it would infringe also on Commons financial privilege. I trust that, on that basis, the noble Viscount will consider not pursuing the amendment further.
Having said all that, I say to the House that the waste crime action plan sets out a zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime. We will look at pursuing criminals responsible and accelerating the clean-up effort. We are committed to working with the insurance industry in particular to explore any barriers to an accessible insurance market that will allow farmers, businesses and landowners to be indemnified against illegal waste dumping on their land.
We are also taking further action. The Government agree with the need for tougher penalties for those convicted of fly-tipping. As drafted, Amendment 10 seeks to amend the wrong legislation. Driving licence endorsements are set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Our Amendment 10A in lieu enables the addition of penalty points to the driving licence of an offender following conviction for fly-tipping offences where that offender was driving a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of committing the offence. This may ultimately lead to disqualification from driving. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his earlier amendments on this. I hope that he will now look at the amendment that we have tabled and see that, by allowing a range of three to nine points to be added, Amendment 10A would go even further than the amendment that he tabled initially.
Regarding Lords Amendment 15, I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House about the four-year custodial term’s reflection of the elements of culpability in the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his initial amendment. We have reflected on it and tabled Amendment 15A in lieu, which, with cross-government support from my colleagues in the MoJ and the Home Office, raises the maximum term to seven years’ imprisonment from the current four-year custodial term. I hope that noble Lords will accept this as a sensible compromise. It is a movement by the Government which reflects the additional intent element of the new offence.
Finally, I turn to Lords Amendment 333, which would extend the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days and of closure orders from six months to 12 months. Clause 3 already extends the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to 72 hours. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not able to be in her place today and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, may be speaking to this set of amendments. I say to him, and to the noble Baroness through him, that I acknowledge the sentiment of the amendment. I agree that it is vital that we tackle money laundering, organised crime and other criminal activities. On Report I extended my view on how police should be doing that in the street, and indicated my support for very strong action on these issues.
However, it is important that, if we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we first should consult to avoid any unintended consequences. Stronger enforcement powers should be used only proportionately; therefore, the government amendment in lieu will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and make different provision for commercial and/or residential properties. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the consultation will focus not on whether to exercise the regulation power but on how to exercise it.
I realise that this grouping has covered ASB, fly-tipping, unlawful weapons and the closure of premises—it is quite a wide group. Those things have been grouped under the issue of anti-social behaviour, but I hope that noble Lords will see that the Government have moved where we can. There is significant movement with some of the amendments in lieu, and I commend them to the House and await contributions from noble Lords on these matters. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Motions C, D and E relate to the several amendments on fly-tipping the Conservatives tabled on Report. I thank the Government for their amendment on points on licences for fly-tipping offences. Although our previous arguments in support of this policy were opposed by the Government, I welcome their Amendments 10A and 10B, even if it has taken us some time to get to this point. I also thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for his Amendment 12. We on these Benches wholly agree with the principle that it should be the responsibility of and the burden on the offenders who fly-tip to clean up the waste they deposit.
I was disappointed to see the Government tabling Amendment D opposing the amendment that provides police the powers to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping offences. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out on Report that this is a business. That is why we need to disrupt the business model by confiscating the means to conduct this criminality. I simply cannot understand why the Government remain reluctant to take firm and decisive action on fly-tipping. They were reluctant to impose penalty points for the offence until they were defeated on Report. It is deeply disappointing that it is their intention to resist my amendment which would put into statute powers for the police to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping. If the Government oppose my Motion D1, I will test the opinion of the House.
On the issue of knife crime, Amendment 15 increased the maximum term of imprisonment for the new offence of possession of a bladed article with intent to use unlawful violence from four to 10 years. As I explained in Committee and on Report, the offence of simple possession of a bladed article under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 carries four years, so it did not make sense to create a new, more serious offence of possessing an article with the intent to do harm to another that carried the same maximum sentence. For both offences to carry the same maximum sentence would be entirely inconsistent with how the criminal law has always approached the issue of intent. That is why we sought, successfully, to amend the maximum term of imprisonment on Report. However, since then the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to harm another to seven years. I thank the Minister for recognising the arguments that the Conservatives made both in Committee and on Report.
I thank my noble friend Lady Buscombe for tabling her amendment regarding closure notices on Report. Recent investigations have exposed businesses that plague our high streets, selling counterfeit and illegal goods as well as unregulated products. In doing so, she has raised important issues which have clearly resonated with your Lordships. It is therefore welcome to see that, despite opposing my noble friend’s amendment on Report, the Government now recognise the importance of this issue, and their amendment in lieu would give the Secretary of State powers to change the maximum duration of closure orders, as well as the maximum period for which such an order may be extended. They also recognise that different provisions may be required for different circumstances, such as whether a building is commercial or residential, so I thank the Government for their Amendment 333A in lieu and I look forward to when the Secretary of State uses the powers conferred by this amendment to lay regulations on closure notices.
As previously stated, if the Government oppose my Motion D1 concerning seizure of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, I will test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in response to this group of amendments, both those in lieu from the Government and the amendments tabled by Members here today. I stress that the Government agree with the sentiments behind the amendments in this group. On Amendments 2D and 2E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I assure the noble Lord that while the amendments say that the statutory guidance “may” include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices, it is our firm intention to issue such guidance. Indeed, I will be happy to share a copy of the guidance in draft form with the noble Lord at an appropriate time when it is ready.
The issue of fly-tipping has permeated through the discussions we have had in the last half an hour or so and I understand the strength of feeling on all sides of your Lordships’ House. That is why we have tabled the amendments in lieu to introduce penalty points for fly-tippers and I emphasise again to noble Lords that, in relation to Amendments 6 to 11, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and courts can already impose cost orders on those convicted of fly-tipping. I should add, if I may, that Defra, with the support of the Home Office, is going to explore how the Environment Agency’s powers to address waste crime can be bolstered. We are going to consider how additional measures within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and other relevant legislation could achieve this. This work will ensure that the Environment Agency has much stronger powers and tools to bring criminals to justice, intervene earlier and disrupt criminal finances undermining the waste system.
Again, I am sympathetic to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I understand and welcome the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the Waste Crime Action Plan. We are looking at how we improve enforcement around fly-tipping. However, as I have mentioned and as I think the noble Viscount acknowledged, the amendment breached Commons financial privilege, and I thank him for accepting those arguments and not pursuing the amendments further.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for accepting Amendment 15A in lieu.
On Amendment 333, it is right that the Government fully consult on any changes to closure powers before making significant changes, and our amendment in lieu does that. Again, I thank the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their pressure in raising these issues, because it is important. I confirm what I have said to the noble Viscount already, which is that the issue is not how but when we strengthen those closure powers.
I hope I have been able to offer reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his. I suspect that I may not have done to the extent that they would wish, but I can only try. We have moved significantly on some of the areas in this group. I welcome the support for the changes that we have made, but I do hope that, in moving Motion A, noble Lords will listen to my wise counsel and not press their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, during the passage of this Bill, I have greatly admired the Minister’s geniality and stamina, but, sadly, this is not always matched by his delivery. I am afraid that the Government’s current approach really does not cut the mustard, and a number of mixed metaphors occur in the circumstances. The Minister said that they have a “firm intention”, but that is something of a pig in a poke and I will be asking the Government, as we proceed, to show rather more leg in this legislation, so with apologies for the metaphors, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 10A and 10B in lieu.
“An offence under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (unauthorised disposal of waste) committed by the driver of a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of the commission of the offence. | Discretionary | Obligatory | 3-9” |
Lord Hanson of Flint
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motions E and F. With the leave of the House, I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 15A in lieu.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 311, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 311A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion N, I will also speak to Motions S, T, U and X. Amendment 311, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks to introduce a proscription regime for extreme criminal protest groups. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the amendment with the noble Lord—before Report, during Report formally and informally since then. I understand the concerns that led to the adoption of Amendment 311. However, it remains the case that the Government cannot support this amendment.
The amendment aims to minimise the risk of Palestine Action-style sign holders being arrested to challenge a proscription decision. I want to inform the House of the views of Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who has noted that supporters will still seek arrest to challenge the regime and the same disproportionality arguments would arise because the new offences closely mirror—and in some respects, go beyond—those under terrorism legislation.
There is a broader risk, which again I have shared with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, privately, and which has been identified by the independent reviewer, that the proscription regime is undermined by the proposal and the threshold for proscription will naturally increase if there is an alternative designation available. The Government may be pressured not to proscribe terrorist organisations and instead pursue a less forceful and less effective measure.
The designation test set out in the amendment is unclear, particularly the concept of serious harm to the rights of others, which sadly, I fear, will create uncertainty for the police, for prosecutors and for the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, KC, as the House will know, is currently undertaking a review of public order and hate crime legislation. I fully expect him to report to the House and to Parliament as a whole in May. It would be appropriate to wait for the outcome of that review before committing to any further legislation. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, will not wish to pursue his amendment.
Turning to Motion S and Amendment 342, I agree with the sentiments in our earlier debates expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Multi-agency engagement is essential to the success of youth diversion orders in practice. However, I would argue to her—and she is at liberty to accept it or not—that this has already been reflected in current drafting of the legislation. There is a duty on the police under Clause 174 of the Bill to consult youth offending teams in England and Wales, or their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the respondent is under the age of 18.
I want to emphasise that youth offending teams are necessarily multi-agency in nature and include representation from probation, local council social services, health, education and others. This means that the police will already need to ensure there is a wide range of expertise considered at the start of any process.
The department is also currently drafting statutory guidance, which will support the police in applying for youth diversion orders and management of the orders when in place. This will include guidance for police on the consultation process, and consideration of alternative interventions before the police can even apply for an order. The guidance will be laid before Parliament in due course. I have explained to the noble Baroness that, unusually for statutory guidance, in this instance we have provided that the guidance is subject to scrutiny by both Houses through the negative resolution procedure. That is an abnormal procedure for the type of activity before the House today. Further, the legislation dictates that the police must consider the necessity and proportionality of the order and the measures within it on a case-by-case basis, and this would need to include consideration of alternative options.
However, given the concerns in Committee and on Report, the Commons has agreed Amendment 342A in lieu. This amendment will clarify that the statutory guidance may include guidance about matters to be taken into account by the police prior to making an application for a youth diversion order, including, crucially, consideration of alternative interventions and guidance on their duty to consult partners under Clause 174, including youth justice services. I know there has been a bit of debate on this outside the Chamber and in my discussions with the noble Baroness. To be clear, the guidance in this case will use “may”, but that reflects usual practice. I hope that the amendment in lieu offers sufficient assurance and that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, knows that the spirit of the original amendment has been met. It is our intention to address these matters in the guidance, and I hope that will assist her.
I turn to Motion T and Amendment 357 on the glorification of terrorism. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is available to examine this issue. I have had a great opportunity to discuss these matters with her in informal discussions outside the Chamber. I have previously set out that I fully recognise the harm that can be caused by the glorification of terrorism. The offence in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act was designed to prevent terrorist risk by criminalising statements that could lead to individuals being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism themselves. Such statements not only increase the risks to public safety but potentially legitimise terrorist actors if left unchecked.
However, as I set out at on Report and have discussed with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber, the offence of encouraging terrorism is already very wide, and I believe it strikes the right balance between freedom of speech and criminalising statements, which may even increase terrorist risk. Amendment 357 would remove an important safeguard requiring that the glorification be understood to mean that the conduct should be emulated in current circumstances. Put simply, that safeguard aims to prevent the inadvertent criminalisation of statements about historic acts of terrorism, where those statements do not carry the same risk of those acts being repeated nowadays. I pray in aid statements around such high-profile figures as the former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, who may well have had arguments around terrorism activities in the past.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has attempted to limit her changes to statements that concern acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. However, this does not fully mitigate the risk of overreach I have described, and it does not recognise the existence of a separate terrorist offence—the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation—which the amendment would arguably overlap with.
Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, so I am proposing to the House that the Government will ask the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to carry out a targeted review of the encouragement offence. As Members of your Lordships’ House will know, the independent reviewer’s role is to review the operation of terrorism legislation in practice, so this commission by the Government will be an opportunity for the reviewer to undertake a detailed review of the use of the encouragement offence in practice and to identify any issues that may warrant further consideration by the Government. As I explained to the noble Baroness in our private discussions, I will of course discuss the terms of reference for that review with the independent reviewer, and I understand that Jonathan Hall KC is ready to meet with the noble Baroness as part of the review, including a prior discussion on the terms of reference for any review. I hope that assists in what is a genuine attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify this issue, and I hope that I have at least attempted to meet that Motion half way.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for returning with her amendment. I understand the Government are offering to include alternative interventions in youth diversion order guidance, but I agree with the noble Baroness that these considerations should be consistently applied to ensure proportionality. We therefore support the original measure.
Motion U1, standing in my name, returns once again to the issue of proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. I am sure that the Minister will once again attempt to use the fact that the last Government did not proscribe the IRGC as a justification for this Government’s position, and I recognise that fact. But the international situation is radically different now from that when we left government. Before this war even started, it was clear that the Iranian regime was ramping up its aggressive activities. At home, it wilfully oversaw the murder of over 40,000 protestors. Overseas, it continued to extend its influence through its backing of terrorist cells. In the UK alone, in 2025, security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots.
This threat has only been exacerbated following the outbreak of war. Just last month, an Iranian man suspected of being a regime spy was arrested for attempting to break into a nuclear naval base in Scotland. We have seen the streets of our capital city filled with regime apologists on so-called Al-Quds day, leading to 12 arrests and countless lost police hours. Proscribing the IRGC would not only give the police more powers to counteract these actions but would send a signal that we do not bow to pressure from oppressive and authoritarian regimes.
I once again anticipate that the response from the Minister will be that this is constantly kept under review—but that is now not good enough. We know what this group is capable of, especially when it has the apparatus of an OPEC state behind it, and now with the current war, we must strengthen our resolve further. The Iranian regime is blocking the Strait of Hormuz, erratically attacking neighbours and, most importantly, influencing—if not sanctioning—potential attacks on British soil.
Quite independently of our national approach to the United States, this Iranian regime is one for which we should have no regard and no tolerance. The Government must now be pragmatic. Their policy must now reflect the international situation—they must undertake this review and proscribe the IRGC. If the Minister still does not agree with this conclusion, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the discussion we have had to date on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks—for those who heard them, at least—the Government cannot accept Amendment 311 as drafted. I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on these issues, but as I have set out to the House already, and as I set out to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in particular, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing proscription regime. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also recognised that, and I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this was the position. With the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, coming forward, it is right that this amendment not be accepted today. I particularly welcome the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, of that. That is not to undermine the arguments he has made, but we are where we are at the moment.
On Amendment 359, I stress that both this and previous Governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for proscription. As I mentioned in my opening remarks—for those who heard them—we have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, so we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have also put them in the foreign influence registration scheme.
If I may say so, I take objection to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our not proscribing the IRGC somehow supports the Iranian regime—it does not. I will not accept that we should give a running commentary on proscription. With due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, they have not had intelligence in front of them on these issues from the intelligence services. We are making judgments as a Government, and we are not going to give a running commentary on what and when we proscribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.
I remind the House—without commenting on the IRGC in particular—that any eventual proscription order on anybody is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. I am not in a position today to give a running commentary on the possible proscription of the IRGC, nor will I accept in principle the fact that both Opposition Front Benches think it right to do so. That may be their view, but the Government have to take a view on these matters in due course. It is not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. I say that to the House as a whole.
I stress again that I understand and accept the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, put before the House today. We will make it clear in statutory guidance that authorities must consider a range of options and interventions before deciding whether to apply for a youth diversion order. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, also stressed that it was important to do so. I stress to both noble Baronesses that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency youth offending teams, which comprise health, education, probation and police services. I am happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Baroness in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work on her amendment on glorifying terrorism, and for giving her own personal experiences. It is very difficult to do that, and I understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on glorification in general. On the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned today, individuals are under arrest and in custody for the alleged offence. We should obviously allow the police to do their job and determine whether charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. None the less, that type of incident—whether or not the individuals under arrest are responsible—is simply not acceptable. The Government and others should stand with the community as a whole.
I was pleased to hear and welcomed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I cannot accept the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I ask—in anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement—that they be content not to press their Motions. In the meantime, I beg to move my Motion N, and I hope the House will agree to it.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their insight on and support for the principle behind this matter, which is that urgent action is needed. In the light of what has been said, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my Motion. In doing so, I will leave the Minister with two thoughts.
First, this will not go away. I hope the Minister will take away the urgent need to deal with this matter and bring forward a solution—this debate has shown that that is possible—in order to address the concerns set out in this Chamber and outside it. Secondly, I hope he will agree to meet with me and others to look in the meantime at an array of protections for the affected businesses, in advance of any legislative change. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 333 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 333A in lieu.
“(5) After section 83 insert—
“83A Power of Secretary of State to change maximum duration of closure orders
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Chapter so as to alter—
(a) the maximum period that a closure order under section 80 may specify as the period for which access to the premises is prohibited;
(b) the maximum period for which a closure order may be extended under section 82;
(c) the maximum duration of a closure order extended under section 82.
(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
(6) In section 182(2) (orders and regulations), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) regulations under section 83A,”.”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendmentusb 334, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 334A.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for returning to the important issue of NCHIs. Our position as a party has not changed. With 60,000 annual police hours and a quarter of a million cases recorded, which is over 65 a day, this is the extent to which our police forces are having to go to record non-crimes.
The Government have stated that they are not accepting my noble friend’s amendment, as the College of Policing has now published its review into the instrument, complete with recommendations. I welcome this review and that the Government have accepted its conclusions, but it bears no requirements for action. Similarly, while the statutory code of practice addressing the recording of NCHIs has been revoked, there is little reassurance that this will be replaced by a more satisfactory system. This amendment seeks to commit the Government to necessary action now. This measure needs to be on the statute book. Should my noble friend wish to test the opinion of the House, we will wholly support him.
My Amendment 339B in lieu is a redrafted version of the amendment that I tabled on Report concerning the investigation of police officers for misconduct. I thank the IOPC for its engagement with me concerning this amendment. The version before your Lordships now is a more comprehensive drafting, but the underlying point remains the same. Where police officers are acquitted of criminal charges, all misconduct proceedings concerning that specific offence should be dropped.
I want to be clear about how this amendment would operate in practice. It would not mean that acquittal would shield an officer from any potential misconduct proceedings. For example, if the police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, he could still be liable for misconduct proceedings if due process was not followed on a related procedural matter such as filling in correct paperwork concerning the incident. However, the amendment would mean that the police officer, where he is acquitted of criminal charges concerning the use of force, could not then be subject to misconduct proceedings on that same question. As I said on Report, it is wrong that in the absence of my amendment, police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted only then to be reinvestigated. If it is the Minister’s intention to oppose this amendment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I moved Motion Q at the beginning of the debate but was, I confess, slow out of the blocks. I should have spoken to Motion Q before Motion Q1 was moved, but I was concentrating on the Marshalled List and missed my opportunity. But the principles are the same.
The Government cannot support Motion Q1 but will support Motion Q, because there has been careful consideration on the recording of non-crime hate incidents since Report. I have appreciated the opportunity to engage formally and informally with the noble Lord. However, he will know that since your Lordships’ House last considered this matter on 31 March, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published their joint review of non-crime hate incidents, a review that was commissioned by the UK Government as well. The review recommended ending the current system and replacing it with a new national standard for incident recording and assessment. Under that approach, non-crime hate incidents would no longer exist as a stand-alone category. Instead, hate-related behaviour short of the criminal threshold would be recorded only where there are clear policing purposes within the established anti-social behaviour framework. The threshold for recording would be higher, more tightly defined and supported by trained police assessment and triage practices.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very relaxed about that, because this side of the House—and I now see the support of Liberal Democrats—are happy to ensure that we have changed the regime, but we are also keeping information that will help safeguard and protect. If the noble Lord wishes to vote against that today and remove it, then it would be on his head if any consequences come from that.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving away. I think the argument he has just made was a bit of a non sequitur. The only thing asked for in this amendment is that any NCHIs that the police come across in the course of their work which would not meet the new higher recording threshold be deleted. If they would meet the new higher recording threshold—if there is a legitimate policing purpose for retaining that information—then that would not be stopped by this amendment. The College of Policing and the joint council have agreed that the old regime is not fit for purpose and the recording threshold was far too low—which is why, as my noble friend said, over 65 a day have been recorded on average over the last 10 years. Given that, why not allow for those NCHIs which do not meet the new higher recording threshold—not all NCHIs, just those—to be deleted?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am not willing to take that risk. It is a matter for noble Lords opposite. We are making a recommended change—we have accepted every recommendation from the College of Policing—but such an approach from the noble Lord risks removing information that may still be relevant. I am not willing to take that risk.
The noble Lord’s amendment also, if I may say so, overstates the impact of non-crime hate incidents on Disclosure and Barring Service checks. Such records do not appear on basic or standard DBS certificates. They can be disclosed only on an enhanced check, and only where a chief officer reasonably considers the information to be relevant, applying statutory Home Office guidance and strict tests of seriousness, relevance and proportionality. Enhanced checks are used solely for the most sensitive roles involving children or vulnerable adults, and there is no evidence of systemic or inappropriate use of non-crime hate incident information in that context.
I pray in aid that the House of Commons has disagreed with the noble Lord’s amendment for clear reasons. Its objectives are being met through the accepted review undertaken by police experts, and a blanket deletion requirement would be potentially harmful, removing information that—I say this again, and slowly—may be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities. Everybody in this House, every noble Lord who walks through a Lobby today to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is going to be potentially—I emphasise “potentially”—removing information that may still be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities.
I am not willing to do that. I urge noble Lords to recognise the Government’s approach, which has effected and is effecting real change. We have accepted the recommendations of the College of Policing, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is a member of the Conservative Party and a Peer with that knowledge.
Turning to Motion R and Amendment 339, the Government take police accountability very seriously. We believe it is right to strike a balance between allowing appropriate scrutiny of the police and ensuring that they can carry out their powers. I know that noble Lords opposite agree with that. We made a commitment in the police reform White Paper to commission an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. We will confirm who will lead this review and publish the terms of reference very shortly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that he will have input into that review.
We cannot support Amendment 339 as it stands because it would introduce a blanket presumption that any case involving a police officer that has resulted in an acquittal in the criminal court and subsequently been closed should not be reopened to go forward to misconduct proceedings. Such a blanket presumption would not be appropriate in all cases—for example, in allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers. Anybody in this House today who votes for Motion R1 and the noble Lord’s Amendment 399B will be leaving open the opportunity that allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers, will be potentially not able to be taken.
We will have honest disagreements in this House, but I say to noble Lords, particularly those opposite—and I am grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrats—that the changes we are making are important and effective. There is a risk in both amending Motions of potential safeguarding issues and compromise for the future, around not being able to look at cases of sexual abuse and others by the police. I am very happy to have a debate about that, but I suggest to my noble friends, and to anybody who wishes to join us, that we vote those Motions down and support Motion Q, in my name.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
On Motion R1, I agree with the Minister, not with my noble friend Lord Davies. It is important to remember—
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 339, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 339A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.
Motion R1 (as an amendment to Motion R)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 342 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 342A in lieu.
“(1A) The guidance may in particular include guidance about—
(a) matters to be taken into account by chief officers of police before making an application for a youth diversion order, including alternatives to making an application;
(b) how chief officers of police are to comply with their duties to consult under section 174.”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S, and I beg to move.
Motion S1 (as an amendment to Motion S)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 357, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 357A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T and I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 359A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion U—there is a pattern here—and I beg to move.
Motion U1 (as an amendment to Motion U)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 360, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 372A in lieu.
“Section (Power to amend Online Safety Act 2023: AI): duty to make progress report
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 December 2026, lay before Parliament a report about the progress that has been made towards making regulations under section 216A of the Online Safety Act 2023 (power to amend Act in relation to illegal AI-generated content).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under that section is laid before Parliament before 31 December 2026.”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, we return to the extremely important subject of the regulation of chatbots, and I am grateful to all those who have engaged constructively on this issue throughout the Bill’s passage. We all share a determination to keep people, especially children, safe in what is a fast-changing online world. Noble Lords from across the House, but most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to whom I pay tribute, have spoken powerfully about the risks arising from AI chatbot services, particularly for children, and about the pace at which these technologies are being deployed.
On many occasions, the noble Baroness has raised her concerns that there are gaps in the Online Safety Act regarding unregulated AI chatbots. The Government agree with this assessment, which is why we tabled on Report Amendment 367, to which the House has agreed, granting the Government the power to address that gap. The Online Safety Act provides a strong and workable foundation for tackling illegal content online; updating it to bring unregulated chatbots in scope is the most effective way of ensuring that these risks are addressed quickly and effectively. Building on the Act, rather than creating an overlapping and duplicative criminal regime, will be the most effective route to enforcing clear rules. Our power will ensure that all relevant services, including those operating from overseas, have to comply with illegal content duties, and will place them in scope of Ofcom’s considerable enforcement toolkit where they fail to act.
I also recognise the strength of feeling expressed in the House about the need for urgency and appropriate scrutiny. Our Amendment 372A now includes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, no later than 31 December 2026, a report on the progress made towards making regulations with this power. This report will set out what work the Government have undertaken to develop and deploy the regulations. That is a clear and concrete demonstration of the Government’s intention to close this gap—and we will act quickly to do that.
In recognition of the valuable scrutiny that Parliament would provide of these powers, I also confirm that the Government intend to share draft regulations with the relevant Select Committees in both Houses, opposition spokespeople and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in advance of them being laid, for any constructive—and, I hope, positive—comments. These powers will create a much clearer and more effective approach than the criminal offences proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Creating a new criminal regime would create new legal uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement, and, crucially, it would not apply overseas.
The Government’s concern is that the proposed criminal framework risks being disproportionate, legally uncertain and, in practice, less effective than a clear regulatory approach under the Online Safety Act. It would create uncertainty about what compliance looks like and risk capturing those acting in good faith, while failing to focus enforcement on the most culpable for high risk conduct. Most importantly, criminal offences of this kind would, in practice, be far less effective against overseas services, which is precisely where we see some of the greatest risks. One of the strengths of the Online Safety Act framework is its reach and the regulator’s ability to take action in ways that are designed to be effective across borders.
The Government are putting forward a coherent package to address these risks. We have a clear route to close regulatory gaps and to ensure that unregulated AI services can be brought within scope of the Online Safety Act. We have strong enforcement mechanisms through Ofcom. We have a commitment not only to action but to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny in the exercise of these powers. Strengthening our existing approach will be far preferable to the confusion and delay of creating a new parallel regime. I hope that noble Lords will support Amendment 372A. I beg to move Motion V.
Motion V1 (as an amendment to Motion V)
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Government are clearly very well meaning. They are very strong on discussion but weak on action. It is very sad that they should be so weak, and I strongly support the speeches that have been made so far.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First of all, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been an indefatigable campaigner on this issue. I share the objective of trying to ensure that we protect children from chatbots, and I want to be clear that the Government share the House’s objective as a whole. We are aligned on the need to address the harms that arise from AI-generated illegal content. This is a disagreement about the question of what is the most effective and enforceable way in practice. The amendment in lieu reflects the balance the Government wish to bring. Our regulatory approach maintains a coherent approach under the Online Safety Act and reinforces Parliament’s ability to scrutinise delivery. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment in lieu.
I know we are going to have a Division on this, but I hope that whatever the outcome of that Division, we can agree after it that this House is committed to ensuring that we protect children through regulation on chatbots. I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Motion V1, but if she does, I urge my noble friends to vote against it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, there will indeed be a Division. I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting that he will bring to the House, to the committees and to me personally his regulations. But those regulations do not extend to enforcement or to redress, and they do not give parents and children anywhere to go. I am absolutely willing to work with the Government, but I will give them one more opportunity to work with me on this, and the only way I have is to send these amendments the other place so that they can bring forward plans for real change. For that reason, I ask the House to agree with Motion V1.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 361A to 361E.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Levitt has already spoken to Motion W. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 439, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 439A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion X. I beg to move.
Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 505, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 505A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Y. I beg to move.
Southport Inquiry: Prevent Programme
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 report, published on 13 April, what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Prevent programme, in particular its ability to prevent similar attacks.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
This was a horrific attack and my thoughts remain with the families of victims. Since the attack in Southport, Ministers have taken steps to improve Prevent, including new guidance, training and assessment tools, a stronger approach to repeat referrals and new Channel interventions. We have also introduced the role of Prevent commissioner to provide independent oversight of Prevent’s effectiveness. We will respond in full to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
One lesson that we could take from the Southport tragedy is that the focus on terrorism and ideology by Prevent actually distracts the police, schools and social services from dealing with a group of young adults who have different needs. Does the Minister perhaps agree that it is time to stop arresting peaceful eco-protesters and start thinking more about the violent people who do not fit into the ideological category that Prevent deals with?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The second phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s investigation into the events at Southport includes examining the very issue the noble Baroness has mentioned: the wider, non-ideologically driven potential activity that leads to terrorist or violent behaviour. That second phase, and the terms of reference that we have given Sir Adrian, cover that point. In the Home Office we are also looking at those issues internally, through a separate working party that we have established to examine them. The noble Baroness will know my views on other forms of issues that she has raised; I will not repeat them now, for the sake of brevity.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, our thoughts are with the victims and their families, especially this week with the publication of the inquiry report, which will have brought back many sad memories. The inquiry report is very clear that, unlike with the safeguarding of children, there is a glaring hole in the joint sharing of information to ensure that all agencies are aware of the risks that a child poses to others in society. Yesterday my noble friend Lady Doocey pointed out that under the Crime and Policing Bill the police will need to consult only the youth offending team. Surely, as the report suggests, there must be one lead agency managing this information, but all the agencies involved—schools, social care, medical services—must have a duty to record and share information. Will the Government look at this as an absolute, urgent priority?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the Statement yesterday, I responded to the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to introduce amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill finishes its stages in Parliament this week or, potentially, next week or the week after. We have been very clear that we want to examine the recommendations in full, but we received these recommendations only at noon on Monday. I think it is fair that we give them consideration, but the noble Baroness’s point about data sharing and co-operation was a significant failure identified by Sir Adrian, and one we will respond to in full in the summer.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is no suggestion that people who are demonstrating should be arrested or harassed in any way, and that the only people who are being arrested or harassed are those acting illegally?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is a tangential point to the issue in relation to Southport, but I assure my noble friend that both Houses of Parliament have passed legislation—in this case, banning Palestine Action. That is subject to a current court case. We have taken that decision on solid advice from security services, and nobody is stopping anybody protesting about Palestine, Israel or any other issue. Under clear proscription orders from the powers that the Government have, any terrorist-related item is banned. We made a judgment on Palestine Action that it is terrorist-related action. It is subject to court procedures at the moment, but I hope we can resolve them very shortly.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, while the Government are considering the Fulford report and what they should be doing next, will they have something and somebody in place to take decisions if this happens before they have completed their inquiries?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I mentioned, we have established a separate working group of officials. They are looking not just at the recommendations for advice for Ministers but at the type of individual and at the incident that occurred. They will test with police forces and others why and how that incident in Southport occurred. That working group is looking not at the ideological issues but at individuals who are obsessed with violence, which was the potential motivating factor of the Southport attack. We are very cognisant that, pending the recommendations being examined and reported back on, any individual at any time can undertake serious violent action motivated by their love and desire to be involved in such action.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, early intervention on those individuals who may be defined or identified as extremists is vital. Previously, as the Minister will be aware, we have had a Minister for Countering Extremism and a strategy. What work is being done in that regard to ensure that early identifiers on individuals can be put in place? Is the Extremism Analysis Unit, which was previously established in the Home Office, still active? Many of those who are coming under the influence of extremism are influenced online.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord mentions an important point: we are very cognisant of online radicalisation, and the Home Office is looking at what steps we can take to improve the take-down of difficult sites and to look at tracing back those sites. We are continually monitoring the whole issue of counterextremism and how that works, both through my colleague Ministers and through the security services. We will continue to monitor our support and Prevent mechanisms. Prevent has helped around 6,000 people not to go into extremist activity in the last nine years. It is a good programme but, as I have mentioned, we have tweaked it based on the experiences of what happened in Southport in the very early days of this Government.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the points that noble Lords around the House have made—about multi-agency co-operation and single-agency lead, and indeed the last comments about the internet, and about violent and misogynistic material in particular—will my noble friend also consider issues around the challenges of parenting a very troubled and potentially violent child, and around support and accountability? Will that be on the Government’s agenda as well?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the recommendations from Sir Adrian was on assessing the parents of the individual who is, I remind the House, now serving 52 years as a minimum sentence in prison for the assault. The failure of the parents to understand, establish and report the behaviour of the individual was a critical factor, so Sir Adrian has made a number of recommendations in that area. We received the recommendations on Monday; it is important to give them due consideration. We will report back to the House by the summer, but those are key areas where we need to look at what interventions can be made where there are difficult young people involved in activity that can escalate to the incident that happened in Southport.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we touched on a number of issues yesterday during the Government’s Statement on the dreadful events at Southport, including the Mental Health Act. This was of course expressly designed for the purpose of limiting the extent to which autistic people can be detained and treated. Given that one of the contributing factors to both Rudakubana’s behaviour and the authorities’ failure to intervene was his autism diagnosis, will the new national autism strategy now look to change this approach? Can the Minister outline when we can expect to see that strategy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the recommendations said the issue of autism was a potential contributing factor but not the sole contributing factor. As I mentioned on the Statement last night, it is anticipated that a revised autism strategy being produced by other parts of government will be done in relatively short order. I cannot give the noble Lord a timescale from the Dispatch Box because it is not my direct departmental responsibility, but I will look into that and report back to him by letter.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, there can be no excuse for violence, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is an epidemic of loneliness in this country at the moment? Sometimes, individuals who spend a lot of time in their rooms alone are somehow encouraged to engage in violent acts. Does he further agree that perhaps it is time for the Government to renew their strategy on loneliness so that we can make a real inroad into this epidemic?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think my noble friend will recognise that there are key issues and impacts from individuals living solitary lives, getting information and their contact with the outside world via the internet and, very often, the dark web. One of the issues that Sir Adrian has raised with us is what we do about radicalisation and information provided by the internet. We will look at that. The wider loneliness strategy is an important factor that my noble friend has mentioned. It is key that we look at the type of information that goes through the net and the type of exposure that individuals have, and particularly that we improve our take-down and blocking of information that goes beyond the pale and damages our society as a whole.
Southport Inquiry
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I commend the Statement made in the other place. Our thoughts remain with the families of Elsie Dot, Bebe and Alice, and with those still living with the physical and psychological scars of Southport.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the first phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s inquiry. Its findings are indeed unsparing but, tragically, not unsurprising. How often have we stood here after inquests and inquiries, hearing once again of the same systemic failures, poor information sharing and missed opportunities?
The report describes the state’s failure as belonging to everyone and therefore to no one. In the five years before the attack, the perpetrator came into contact with almost every arm of the state: mental health services, children’s social care, three schools, Lancashire Police and the Prevent programme, three times. No comprehensive risk assessment was ever made and each agency assumed someone else would take the lead. This was a failure not only to join up the dots but to share life-saving information. As Sir Adrian warns, that culture must end—because until it does, tragedies like this will happen again.
The Government now say that they will legislate to strengthen accountability between agencies. This is welcome, but it is hard to understand why they are overlooking an opportunity already before them in the Crime and Policing Bill—a Bill which, ironically, could help deliver exactly what the inquiry calls for. The Bill proposes youth diversion orders to support young people who pose a risk of serious violence or radicalisation—precisely the cohort at the centre of this inquiry. Properly framed, these orders could address the very gap Sir Adrian identifies.
When the police apply for an order, the court should be able to see all the relevant information, from schools, social care, health services and the police, to build a complete picture of the child’s needs and risks. However, as drafted in the Bill, that will not happen. The police will consult only the youth offending team. There will be no legal duty to involve schools, health professionals or social services, and no guarantee that the court will ever hear from them. Judges will not see the full picture that could mean the difference between prevention and disaster. That is why I tabled an amendment to introduce a clear multi-agency consultation duty, which would build exactly the structured accountability that Sir Adrian said is essential.
Had such a duty existed before the Southport attack, the perpetrator’s autism might not have been repeatedly misunderstood as an explanation for his behaviour. The police might have known more about the support available, and agencies might have felt obliged to share vital information. I made these points on Report, but the Government resisted the amendment, preferring to rely on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all, but we risk once again seeing fine words followed by inaction.
It is not too late. The Bill will return to this House tomorrow. I urge Ministers to look again, in the light of the inquiry’s finding, and to act swiftly to ensure that the law reflects what Sir Adrian has so clearly set out: lives depend on joined up responsibility and real accountability.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons yesterday. My thoughts and, I know, those of the whole House will be with the families of the three girls who were killed and with the victims who are still suffering the trauma of those events. The events in Southport on 29 July 2024 were completely shocking, and I welcome Sir Adrian Fulford’s report on his findings. I thank him and his team, who I have met on a number of occasions during the first stage of the inquiry. I say to the House as a whole that the Government will consider the recommendations in full, and we will respond to phase 1 of the report by the summer. I thank Sir Adrian again for his work.
Sir Adrian’s inquiry identified five main areas of failings, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, highlighted. Those failings are clear and are very strong criticisms, which we need to examine and address in the response to those recommendations. Sir Adrian indicated that there was a failure of organisation and ownership of risk with the perpetrator themselves. There was poor information management and sharing, there were excuses for the behaviour of the perpetrator due to the diagnosed autism spectrum disorder and there was a failure to oversee and intervene in the perpetrator’s online behaviours. The role of the perpetrator’s parents, as the noble Lord identified, was a major failure. As I said, we will consider those recommendations and formally respond to the inquiry in the summer.
I note and appreciate the comments and the pressure put on me by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but it is important that we get this right and consider the recommendations in full. The Crime and Policing Bill is coming back tomorrow. It will potentially, subject to its passage in the Commons, complete its passage by the end of the Session. I do not want to use that week to rush to a decision, which is why we have said that we will respond to the inquiry by the summer.
As the House will know, we have also established phase 2 of the inquiry, which will begin immediately. We have issued terms of reference for phase 2, which will look at whether multi-agency systems are fit to assess and address the risk posed by young people who are fascinated by extreme violence. I expect to receive the recommendations from Sir Adrian in due course. It is certainly important to look not just at the case of the individual—who, I remind the House, faces a 52-year minimum term sentence in prison for his horrific crimes—but at whether there are other systemic issues that need to be examined. The inquiry has made 67 recommendations in full, and we will respond to those. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to rush those responses today.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, also mentioned Prevent. Since the attack, we have already made improvements to the Prevent programme. This was the most likely framework that could have addressed the risk that the perpetrator posed. To strengthen Prevent, we have launched a new Prevent risk assessment tool, changed the approach to repeat referrals, looked at new guidance to individuals working with people under the Prevent framework and expanded the range of interventions available. We have also introduced the role of the Independent Prevent Commissioner, which was initially held by a colleague—a noble Lord in this House—but has now been approved on a permanent basis, with Tim Jacques being appointed as the Prevent commissioner.
The Government will examine those issues in detail and continue to learn, and will look at the responses to the recommendations in due course. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who holds that role at the moment. I welcome his contribution to date in helping us to improve the Prevent response.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the question of autism. That was identified by Fulford’s initial recommendations. The perpetrator was autistic and clearly this increased the risk he posed to people in the community. However, autism itself did not necessarily cause the events that happened on 29 July 2024. Risk needs to be assessed on an individual basis. In the case of the Southport perpetrator, autism spectrum disorder clearly added to the risk he posed. The inquiry found that too many professionals were willing to excuse his behaviour because of this. We will make sure that practitioners, particularly those working in Prevent, understand that a referral should not be dismissed and that action should be taken. This behaviour should not have been excused because of autism. The inquiry highlights serious concerns.
For the noble Lord’s information, independently of this inquiry, the Government are committed to developing a new autism strategy following recent House of Lords reports on the Autism Act 2009. Work is under way to develop a cross-government national autism strategy. The inquiry’s findings will be carefully considered as part of this proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the parents. The inquiry examined the role of the perpetrator’s family and has been extremely critical of them. Sir Adrian makes clear findings on moral failings that should have been reported regarding the perpetrator’s behaviour, his collecting of weapons, and his approach to family life and the community around him. It is a matter ultimately for the police whether any criminal action is taken in relation to the parents. The parents are British citizens and have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, as does the perpetrator. There are certainly lessons to be learned from that and we will respond to the recommendations in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the question of race. In this case, that may be a factor, where people have not taken the action that they should have because of the individual’s race. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the action taken by the perpetrator, who is now serving 52 years in prison, could have been taken by anybody, regardless of race. I do not want to bring the issue of race into this, but I understand the point that the noble Lord has made—namely, that professionals need to ignore race when they look at the actions of an individual. That is the important point that has come out of this report.
Finally, the Government have already taken further action to ensure that we establish an internal working group to look at the recommendations that have been made. As I have said to the House, we will report back by the summer on those initial recommendations. Phase 2 has begun now and it has our full support. As the Minister sponsoring the inquiry, I will continue to meet Sir Adrian to ensure that he has the resource and support to achieve his final recommendations.
It is clear to the House that the individual concerned undertook appalling acts. Our thoughts remain with the families of the victims. It is our duty as the Government to look at where failures existed that contributed to this attack. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, but there are factors that contributed to the attack. With due respect to all Members of the House, we need to reflect on the recommendations. We will bring back government proposals in due course for phases 1 and 2.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an absolutely fair point. Again I put to the House that Sir Adrian’s recommendations are clear. There are five areas of failing. We are looking at those recommendations and will report on them in the summer. The second phase is looking at the wider picture. We will look at those recommendations in due course.
However, the Home Office is not complacent. We have established a violence fixation taskforce, which is looking at a range of issues in the Home Office: the recommendations, the Government’s response and the development of the very issue that the noble Lord mentions, which is identifying individuals at risk who are fascinated by violence, managing that risk and looking with other agencies at what we need to do, pending a formal response to the recommendations in due course.
It is very difficult sometimes if individuals appear from nowhere. We cannot necessarily legislate against that, but it is important that we review now what the priority approaches are to make sure that, if there are people in the system, we examine that very clearly and quickly. The Home Office taskforce is now being commissioned by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to establish some general examination of the very issues that the noble Lord mentions. I hope to report back to the House in due course.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and Southport. In the immediate days after this unspeakable tragedy, additional resources were put into Southport in terms of policing and counselling for young people in the local community and local schools. The support provided by the local community after this tragedy was immense: the local authority, schools and the voluntary sector. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister what his plans are to ensure that this support is continued to a community in Southport that is still in mourning and in shock?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes the valid point that the whole community in Southport and in Merseyside, and the religious community in the area, came together to give support to the families. This happened two weeks after the general election. The local MP, Patrick Hurley, had just been elected. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has helped support the local community in Southport. The churches, the imams and the local Jewish community have all come together to give that support. The Government recognised the needs of Southport by putting additional resources into the local council and the local community and will continue to monitor that.
This is a major, traumatic event for the families and for the community as a whole. It is important that we do what we can to maintain community cohesion and support the local community. The Government stand ready to continue to give help and support where required, during both the second stage of these recommendations and the whole process of Southport healing and remembering the victims of this despicable crime.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I cannot imagine what it is like for the parents of those three little girls and the other injured children to hear the key word that was used in relation to the inquiry: that these events were “preventable”. That is the most chilling idea: they could have been stopped. The butcher behind the slaughter was hiding in plain sight—a known risk since 13—but, somehow, state bodies did nothing, zilch. So how will those state agencies that failed here be held to account? Will people be sacked? Surely, there must be some consequences. It cannot just be a vague, “Lessons must be learned”.
The Minister said that we should not bring race in to this. I do not think anyone did, except the state agencies that said action should not be taken because of the race of the individual. I am referring as well to the ongoing Nottingham inquiry—I am sure the Minister is following it—where Calocane also murdered three innocent people. Nobody wants to talk about race but, as Emma, the mother of Barnaby, one of the murdered people, said, “I don’t want to talk about race”, but mental health treatment was not given to him because it might be seen as being because he was Black. A bastardised anti-racism has not helped us here and will not help us hold people to account, either. We must be honest and frank. We are not bringing race into this; the institutions and state bodies did.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I was clear and I thought I made it clear to the House when I talked about the issue of race and said that the characteristics that led to the individual perpetrating this awful attack were mental health issues, obsession and a range of other issues that were identified in the report. There was an element of people using the issue of race to not necessarily follow through on some of the points that they could have done, but the race of the perpetrator is an issue that we need to be very careful about examining per se. There are obviously issues within that.
When we look at Adrian Fulford’s recommendations in due course, there are obviously failures around the management of the individual. We will look at those recommendations. On the individuals who have been criticised, I am sure there will be discussion with local authorities and others about how they improve that performance. But I say to the noble Baroness that we had this report yesterday at noon. It is important that we look at and assess the recommendations. I have given a commitment that we will report back by the end of the summer, and that is one thing that we will do. So, if she will allow me, I will not comment on the issues she has raised pending the examination of the inquiry in detail.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, after what happened in Southport, is it fair to say that the parameters within which Prevent operates are too narrowly drawn? What I mean by that is that the perpetrator’s obsession with violence was drawn to the attention of Prevent three times, but Prevent’s response was, “Well, because he doesn’t fall within these narrow parameters, there is basically nothing we can do”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for making the very important point that there are issues that we need to examine in relation to obsession with serious violence that may be outside the Prevent programme but need to be examined as part of the characteristics of somebody referred to Prevent. Part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s inquiry has very clear terms of reference to look at the issues of how individuals are being radicalised and how they are becoming obsessed with violence. Sometimes that violence obsession is not linked not to an ideology but to the whole principle of, “I want to be involved in violence”. That is a new element that we need to examine, and part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s report is designed to look at that very issue.
We have already reviewed the Prevent agenda and widened its scope. The Independent Prevent Commissioner has already produced a report for us on those issues, and we are going to continue to look at how we improve Prevent. I say to my noble friend that Prevent has been a significant intervention in almost 6,000 cases to date and has turned many people’s lives around. It has had cross-government support and support from all parties, and I want to continue to use it. But there are certainly lessons to be learned, which is what we will do in relation to our examination of these issues.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister say what advice he has given or is planning to give to the Secretary of State for Education about managing the risk that, sadly, some young people present to their peers and to adults? I ask this because I read the Southport report and all the shocking findings it lays out immediately after reading a recently published Ofsted document on its areas of research interest, where there is an explicit statement that it is aligned with the Department for Education’s areas of interest. They are overwhelmingly about how to include more children who face additional barriers and need extra support and how to support them better. There is not a single question in the whole of it that acknowledges the risk that sometimes exists for other children when high-risk children are included, yet there are, to touch on points that others have made, a number of questions that express concern about stereotyping. It feels as though some departments are still going headlong down the route of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to as a sort of bastardised anti-racism and failing to be honest, open and transparent in the interests of all children—who can no longer include, sadly, the children who were murdered at Southport, but should include all their successors.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. Self-evidently, there are lessons to be learned by the health service, education and other agencies of government and at a regional level from the failures that occurred that Sir Adrian has identified. As part of our task force examining the recommendations, we will certainly be involving other government departments and discussing with them how we can help them to improve their performance. There may be lessons to be learned, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to education. I expect that when we respond to the recommendations, that will be a cross-government response. It will not just be a Home Office response. It will include the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Department of Health. I will, if she will let me, reflect on the points that she has made and feed them into my colleagues in education. We will continue to look at that as a cross-government approach to the recommendations that Sir Adrian has made.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, this has been one of the most horrendous cases that we have witnessed. I believe that the public have lost confidence in so many authorities which should be looking after our children, and all of us, frankly. I recall the Victoria Climbié case and the many children over the years who were murdered and tortured, and there were always lessons to be learned. This is not pointed at just one Government by the way; it is just a fact of life. Latterly, we had the Manchester Arena bomber and all those children who were murdered, and we have had rape gangs, a situation that has gone on for the past 20 or 30 years. Here we are now in Southport. My view is that the public have lost confidence because nobody is ever held to account. This is not about just pointing a finger and wanting to see somebody in authority end up in court, but the cover-ups that have gone on in some of these awful circumstances, with nobody brought to account or feeling the full force of the law, cannot continue. Until this is dealt with in a far more open manner and those who are accountable feel the full force of the law, I do not think we are going to get any further forward, and there will be no lessons learned because we will probably be having this sort of conversation in another year or two’s time. I know that the noble Lord is a good Minister and very thorough and that all of us in this House want to resolve these awful issues. He has our full support, but we need to regain the confidence of the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to give confidence to the public, and the purpose of the inquiry that the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper launched was to ensure that we drew out some lessons. There will always be, in the cycle of any Government at any time, things thrown up that show failures. This inquiry has found that no single agency, or multi-agency arrangement, took ownership of the risk; that is unacceptable. There was poor information recording management and sharing of agencies and professions; that is unacceptable. The behaviour of the individual was excused based on his autism; that should not have happened. There was a failure to understand and intervene in online behaviours, both at home and at school, and his parents in particular had major failings in excusing his behaviour.
Can we make changes on those things? The recommendations that Sir Adrian has made are guidance for us. In answer to the earlier question of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, we are going to reflect on those in due course. A range of issues might come out of that, including how we hold individuals to account. The key thing, having had those recommendations at 12 noon yesterday, is that the Government have time to consider them properly, and to bring back a plan for both Houses of Parliament. As soon as those recommendations were received by Government, we brought them to this House, and the House of Commons, to share them in an open and public way, so that colleagues will know that we share those concerns. We have, I hope, the full support of the House to address them, and will do our best to ensure systemic failures are addressed and, if need be, individuals are held to account.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not usually call for bans, but I would like to call for a ban on the phrase “lessons must be learned”. That is what makes the public feel cynical. I have been here for a few years, and “lessons must be learned” has been said so often to me, but none has ever been learned, as far as I can see. Can we just stop saying that phrase, because everyone just rolls their eyes? That was a joke.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Excuse me, but it is not time for a joke. Statements should be about questions to the Minister.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me give the noble Baroness an answer. If she thinks that we are not going to take this issue seriously, bring forward a plan, respond to the recommendations and, yes, learn some lessons, then she is dealing with the wrong Minister in the wrong place. My job is to make sure that we respond to this in an effective and constructive way. I am trying to reach out to the whole House to say that there is, I hope, a unified approach to these recommendations. I will report back and, if lessons have to be learned—I will use that phrase again—the whole purpose of the Government’s actions will be to prevent this happening in the future as far as possible. That is what this Government are trying to do.
Knife Crime
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s new strategy in broad terms. It is the right direction of travel. There is much in Protecting Lives, Building Hope to support the focus on prevention, early intervention and joined-up local action. These are principles that the Liberal Democrats have long championed, and it is good to see them reflected in national policy.
Knife crime continues to harm too many lives and too many communities. Many areas still feel the effects of reduced youth services and local support. Rebuilding these networks must be central, and I am encouraged that the strategy recognises that. The principle behind the plan is sound. If delivered well it can do lasting good, but success depends on sustained funding. Prevention cannot be turned on and off with budget cycles. Youth work and early intervention succeed only when they are steady and trusted.
Resources should be directed where fear and harm are greatest. Knife crime shapes how young people move about their area, how safe they feel and where they go. A data-driven approach is sensible, provided that it is used carefully and does not erode trust or concentrate suspicion unfairly. Real neighbourhood policing, visible, consistent and rooted in local knowledge, remains the best safeguard against that.
Technology and crime mapping can help, but that is not the whole answer. Ours is already one of the most surveilled countries in the world and London alone is the most heavily monitored city in Europe. Knife crime, however, is a human problem requiring human connection. Innovation should complement proper front-line presence and strong community partnerships but never replace them, and we must guard against technology that subtly changes the nature of society or erodes rights and freedoms.
The strategy rightly points to the role of social media in glamorising violence, spreading fear and helping criminal networks to recruit and communicate. But we have reached the stage where policing online platforms requires more than new laws and rhetoric; it demands sustained, visible enforcement. The Online Safety Act provides for serious criminal penalties. What the public want to know now is how often these powers are used.
One area which needs clarity is the future of serious violence reduction orders, which allow stop and search of known offenders without suspicion. The Liberal Democrats have long had concerns about their proportionality and impact on public confidence. Can the Minister confirm whether they will continue and when Parliament will see the pilot evaluation? If they are not to be extended, we should understand why, and if future use is being considered, the evidence should be published in full.
This strategy contains many of the right elements. The challenge now is delivery and ensuring that those commitments lead to genuine, lasting change on the ground. The Liberal Democrats will support that ambition and work constructively to make it happen.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the broad support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the Government’s approach. This was a manifesto commitment to ensure that we tackle knife crime and halve it in the period of the action plan that we have brought forward today.
I just want to say to the House as an opener that the success to date in the last two years has also seen a reduction in knife crime as a whole. In the year before the start of this Parliament—2023-24—knife crime rose by 4% and by 4% in the year before that. Since the start of this Parliament, overall knife crime is down 8% and knife-related homicides and hospital admissions for assault with a sharp object are at their lowest level in a decade, dropping 27% and 11% respectively. Knife-enabled assaults are down by 9%, knife-enabled robberies are down by 10%, and more than 63,000 knives have been taken out of circulation, including in ninja sword surrender schemes that that we introduced following the ban on ninja swords last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned London. Since this Government were elected, knife crime in London has fallen by 7%. There were 15,981 offences in the last year of his Government, compared with 14,860 offences in the first year of this Government. So there is success but there is still individual challenge and individual responsibility is still required.
The knife crime action plan is a very substantial document and I recommend that noble Lords look at it in detail. It reflects a number of the concerns mentioned by both Front Benches, including the fact that we need to look at prevention, targeted hotspot work and supporting young people, particularly to avoid them getting involved in gangs. That is not just an aspiration from this Government. We will launch 50 Young Futures hubs by the end of this Parliament; the initial eight opened last week. We are putting an extra £66 million into the serious violence reduction programme. We are rolling out 50 Young Futures panels. We have provided £1.2 million for safety through school partnerships in 250 schools in knife crime hotspots, and have put £26 million into the knife crime concentrations fund.
It might interest the House to know that 27 police force areas make up 90% of the total knife crime in this country. It makes sense, therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, to try to focus resources on those hotspot areas. In this plan, we have now put £34 million into funding the county lines programme. We have put money into the pupil premium to look at funding violence-reduction programmes in those hotspot areas. We have put £15 million through the Ministry of Justice into interventions for children who are approaching the cusp of the criminal justice system but who should be moved away from it; and we are putting money into safer research and safer streets as a whole. As can be seen, this involves the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office: this is a cross-government strategy to try to ensure that we reduce knife crime by half, as in the plan before us.
The question of stop and search is important, and we need to use it proportionately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. It may surprise the House, and I hope will not horrify it, to know that 15,955 knives were recovered last year alone through stop and search. Without stop and search, those 15,955 knives would have been in people’s pockets, potentially being used to additionally attack, in either a robbery or an assault, or being used for defensive purposes leading to injury or death as a result of knife crime. We certainly need to look at the challenges of stop and search to make sure that it is fairly approached and done in a proper, effective way. I cannot, however, get away from the fact that almost 16,000 knives were found on people through both random stop and search and through intelligence-led policing, where we know that individuals may be knife carriers. Finding some 15,955 knives in one year is a deterrent, but it is also an important issue.
The question of sentencing is also important. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. He knows that tomorrow we will deal with those amendments. The Government have reflected on the concerns that he put, legitimately, on behalf of HMG Opposition. Tomorrow, there will be amendments that will move some way towards increasing the level of sentence as a whole. He will also know that the Government have a range of issues to do with prohibiting the purchase of knives online, stricter laws on age verification, checks on sale and delivery—all of which are in the Crime and Policing Bill, which I hope will receive favourable consideration for Royal Assent shortly. By autumn of this year, we will begin to put into practice the measures that have been legislated for in both Houses to help increase the restriction on knives as a whole.
On 16 December last year, we also launched a public consultation on a licensing scheme for those who sell knives or bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers. That follows recommendations made in the end-to-end review on online knife sales to introduce a registration scheme to ensure that we have a minimum standard and that we can monitor those issues. We also have a range of measures going forward on the police numbers issue that the noble Lord mentioned. One of the purposes of the Government’s action was to focus again on neighbourhood policing, local police in local hotspots, and we have put 3,100 additional police officers and police community support officers into neighbourhood roles in less than a year. We have a plan to bring forward 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of this Parliament.
That is the most important thing. Neighbourhood police officers know their flock, know the businesses and know the individuals in their community. They can gather intelligence, provide support to individuals, look at where gangs are operating and help co-ordinate interventions, along with the funding that we are providing in this plan. We will have a debate about police numbers, but the importance of having police in a neighbourhood is critical, and that is what the Government are trying to do with this proposal, in parallel to the action plan as a whole.
The House will know that this is an extremely difficult task. I will look at the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned, reflect on those and, if need be, respond to her by letter. This is an extremely thorough plan. It has new resource going to it to help meet its objectives, it is cross-government, it is paralleled with legislation currently before this House, and we will continue to work to improve neighbourhood policing over the course of this Parliament. Can we stop all knife crime? No, we cannot. Can we have an objective of achieving a halving of knife crime? Yes, we can. I pay tribute not just to Home Office officials but the police, community groups, campaigners and victims of knife crime who have helped formulate this plan. I hope that the House will give it its full support.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given a really scary figure of 16,000 knives having been confiscated—I take it that is what happened—as a result of stop and search. My noble friend may not have it available, but is there information on the ages of those who have been stopped? Is it just young men or have older men also been stopped? Does my noble friend have any information—he may need to research it, and I do not expect him to give me an answer right now—on what happened to those 16,000 persons who were found to be carrying a knife? It must have been in some form of illegal circumstances. What follow-through has been achieved out of this really scary figure of nearly 16,000 knives being confiscated following stop and search?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I gave that figure to the House because it is accurate and it shows the value of stop and search as a policing exercise for prevention. I do not have to hand the figures on age distribution but I can probably find those for my noble friend. If I can, I will write to him accordingly and place a copy of that letter in the House Library. I also do not have at my fingertips the criminal justice outcome information regarding the 16,000 individuals who have been found in possession of a knife, but, if it has been collated, I am sure that I can find it and give it to my noble friend. These are figures for last year. We know the stop and search outcomes: there are severe penalties for knife possession without a legitimate purpose. I will certainly examine the points my noble friend has made and, if I can, respond to him by letter.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome this good and comprehensive plan. However, the important thing is that it is sustained and is not just a flash in the pan where, in a few years’ time, we start cutting away the funding and looking at other approaches. It has to be maintained. I turn to the point about youth work that the Minister made. Youth work must be an important part of the package. Young people need to be able to relate to people—I think the Minister used the expression “human contact”—wherever they gather, whether it is in the park, the street corner, et cetera. That is why detached youth work is so important. Will the detached youth workers be qualified, and how many detached youth workers are we talking about?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s broad support for the action plan. It is an ambitious target to halve knife crime within a decade, but it is one that we think is worth achieving. As I said in what I outlined to the House, there are measures about legislation, about policing and about stop and search, but there is also a great emphasis on prevention. The prevention estimates are predominantly dealt with by my colleagues in the Department for Education. We are trying to open the 50 young future hubs by the end of this Parliament. The initial eight opened last week; they have long-term funding and back-up for the course of this Parliament.
The noble Lord makes an interesting point on the question of detached youth work. I do not have statistics on that in front of me, and I would not wish to second-guess what they may be, but I shall examine that issue and talk to colleagues in the Department for Education, and if I have information that I can share with the noble Lord I shall do so in writing. The important point is that in this measure that we have here there are the youth future hubs, £66 million for the violence reduction units, and the 50 youth future panels. There is the money going into schools in the hotspot areas and the diversion of £26 million of resources to the 27 police forces in the areas where 90% of knife crime occurs. That is a way of trying to focus it down. It is very important that we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, which is to use intelligent information to determine where this is a problem and therefore look, with neighbourhood police, youth workers and youth hubs, at what interventions are required. That is not for me to second-guess, but it is the direction of travel, and I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. If I can give him the specific information, I shall do so.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I greatly admire the Minister and his approach to these subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised the issue of the 16,000 knives that had been taken. The dilemma that those responsible have to face is that, for some young people, they are set on a career of crime and they are dangerous people who need to be handled with the greatest severity. However, the House will also agree that many young people are terrified and, although they are by no means criminals, they carry a knife for protection. I would only say that trying to get that balance right is extraordinarily difficult, although we have all those preventive and youth support programmes. When my noble friend spoke at the beginning he talked of the importance of work and about keeping young people in school—anything to give young people gainful occupation and stop them slipping into the vicious cycle of knife crime. That is really important, but I for one do not think that every vulnerable young person who is picked up carrying a knife is necessarily a criminal.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness on that. As I said, as part of my general contribution, some of the work that the MoJ is doing and is for individuals who are on that cusp and who might well be getting involved in a gang and carrying a knife. There are resources in the knife crime action plan for the Ministry of Justice not to have a criminal justice outcome for those individuals but to try to find ways in which we can divert them and support them to choose a different lifestyle and break with that gang culture.
Interestingly, some 63,611 knives have been taken out of circulation since the general election through the surrender scheme; that includes weapons through the ninja sword surrender scheme, which had cross-party support, as well as the schemes for zombie knives and machetes, and knives seized by Border Force when they entered the country. We are trying to reduce the types of knife that can be carried or used for those offensive purposes. Every one of us will use a knife in our daily work or life; we have to look at what we do with the ninja knives that we have banned and with the import of the wrong type of knife and the measures that we have taken on registration. The noble Baroness makes a very important point that criminalising young people is not necessarily the best way in which to help them to have a lifetime free of criminal activity, which is key to the plan.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the strategy and specifically on the collaboration across government, which is fundamental to ensuring that this knife crime plan works, as I am sure it will. I draw attention to the big increase in school attendance that the DfE and Ministers there achieved in 2024-25. I know that they are building on that now—5 million extra days of school attendance in that single year, which must make a contribution. Can we encourage the DfE to focus specifically on the most persistent truants in the most dangerous hotspot areas? That would make a significant contribution to the strategy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The ambition of the Government through the Department for Education is to look at improving attendance at schools across the board. I have sat on a couple of Cabinet committees where that work has been shown to prove successful. That is a cross-government initiative to get children and young people into school. My noble friend makes a valuable point. I mentioned earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again, that the pupil premium funding led by the Department for Education is now available to fund particular challenges in state schools that have disadvantaged children and where school attendance is down and there are interventions to support pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs. The pupil premium grant is £3.2 billion this year, and there is significant evidence that, as my noble friend has mentioned, it is an effective way to reduce the risk of serious violence, including knife crime. That is a Department for Education-led approach but, as I have said, the knife crime plan is a prime ministerial objective. The Home Office is leading this, but all departments involved—the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care—are playing a role to meet some objectives to help that ambitious target of halving knife crime.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
Will the Minister comment on the fact that it seems that some of these youngsters are putting in orders with companies that are not asking enough questions of the people who are buying these weapons—they are likely to be e-commerce companies. Is anybody looking at the record of some of these companies and the fact that they do not ask sufficient questions about some of the people who are purchasing these dangerous weapons?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an extremely valuable point. In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is before the House now but requires Royal Assent, which I hope will be completed in the next couple of weeks, we are putting measures in place requiring online sellers of knives to include age verification controls, checks at sale and also checks at delivery. There are penalties in the Bill for organisations that fail to meet those objectives. The Bill recognises that there are legitimate uses for knives but, at the same time, age verification, checks at sale and delivery are key; they are not in place now but, subject to Royal Assent, will be in place by autumn 2026, when we hope to have rolled out any legislation that is finally passed by this House and the House of Commons before Prorogation.
Child Poverty and Homelessness: Asylum and Settlement Policies
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for their child poverty and homelessness strategies of their proposed changes in asylum and settlement policies.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government will ensure that the needs of vulnerable people, including families with children, are fully considered as part of our asylum and settlement reforms. We remain committed to assessing all proposals carefully to create a system which is both fair and sustainable. Ministers are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of these changes, especially in relation to child poverty and homelessness.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the child poverty and homelessness strategies have been widely welcomed, but there is growing concern that the asylum and settlement policies will, as a recent Home Affairs Committee report warned, lead to more child poverty, thereby undermining these strategies. The Home Affairs Committee is clear that
“The Government will need to understand and mitigate any increase in child poverty”.
Will my noble friend therefore please undertake, first, to publish now an assessment of the impact of their policies on child poverty and homelessness, and secondly, to review and ease the “no recourse to public funds” rules, actual and proposed, so as to meet the child poverty strategy’s commitment to ensuring that vulnerable migrant children receive the support that they require, regardless of immigration status?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that the aim of these measures is to reduce misuse of support, not to make people homeless or to increase child poverty, which it is a core mission of the Labour Government to eradicate. We will not deny support to those who genuinely need it and who have no way to support themselves. My noble friend will also know that we have consulted on these measures. We have had some 200,000 responses and we are currently assessing them. A full economic impact assessment and equality impact assessment of the regulations will be undertaken in due course, and we will look at the responses to the consultation to inform how we deal with these measures as we go forward.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, as a former director of the Jesuit Refugee Service, I am concerned that the changes to the duration of refugee protection may create a state of permanent vulnerability and instability for refugee households. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact of these changes on the mental health of refugees, and their implications for provision of services by the NHS and others?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness will know and will want to be assured that the whole purpose of these changes is to make both asylum and refugee status quicker in dealing with those outcomes. We have made some changes, and during the 30-month period of protection, if it is granted, refugees will continue to have the sanctuary their protection requires, and it will be renewed if they still require it. But the important thing is to assess claims quickly in order to make sure that we grant status quickly, so that people can earn a living and integrate into society.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, on the settlement policy, does my noble friend the Minister accept that extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years for care workers and other workers represents a breach of trust? They came here at our invitation and in good faith to care for our elderly and vulnerable people, and now they are being betrayed. Will the Government reconsider this policy and honour their original commitment?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, the earned settlement consultation ran for 12 weeks. It began on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026. We are now reviewing and analysing all the responses received. That analysis will help us inform the development of that earned settlement model. I value the contribution that many people who came to this country as care workers have made. We need a supply of care workers; we need people to do those jobs in our community, but I also encourage people in this country who are unemployed at the moment to take on that work. We are assessing the contributions; as I said, we have had more than 200,000 responses and it is fair that we assess them. I assure my noble friend that the Government will act in the interests of the care sector and of the people who are here in the long term, as part of our response.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, homelessness in London has increased by 63% over the last decade—a rise largely driven by an influx of illegal immigrants, who themselves have seen a fivefold rise in homelessness in just over four years. Does the Minister agree with His Majesty’s Opposition that the arrival of people with no means to support themselves will naturally lead to an increase in homelessness, and that the Government must go further than the past and current changes they are making to prevent all illegal channel crossings, which are contributing to this problem?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s contribution. I just say gently that, in the four years between 2021 and 2024, an additional 2.6 million people arrived and 101,000 claimed asylum. The scheme to assess that was very slow and almost non-existent towards the end. We have increased the speed of asylum claims to make sure that we remove people who do not have asylum claims and integrate those who do. We returned 58,539 people between 1 July 2024 and 31 January 2026, and we have halved the number of asylum hotels from the 400 under the noble Lord’s watch to the 200 that are operating today. We have saved considerable resource in doing so. This is a problem and a challenge, but I am not looking to implement the lessons of the previous Government in this Government.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, with huge respect to the Minister, how on earth is he going to analyse 200,000 responses? Surely that is analysis paralysis.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No, it is not. We have had a consultation and we have 200,000 responses. We can look at those: AI is much used in the Home Office now to analyse what is happening. The key point is that the Government are trying to take action: we are trying to reduce the asylum backlog, reduce hotel use, stop small boat crossings and take action on all these important issues. There are certainly some areas of assessment and, going back to my noble friend’s original Question, we need to look at the impacts on child poverty and on families. But we need to take action to ensure that we regulate asylum and refugee status while we meet our international obligations and ensure that we are a civilised society, as we are now and will be in the future.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, the latest British Red Cross health equity report found that 73% of refugees and asylum seekers experience multiple layers of disadvantage compared to 20% of people supported by health and care systems. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the proposed changes on the health and well-being of children in asylum-seeking families?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend points to an extremely important issue. We will undertake a full economic and equality impact assessment of the proposals. We are using the responses from the consultation—going back to the noble Lord’s point—to look at what issues have been raised. We want to ensure that children in particular remain and have that support. Deprivation is a constant factor for unaccompanied children in particular; it is, in many ways, why people have tried to come to the United Kingdom. But I know that my noble friend also recognises that we need a regulated, efficient system that deals with people quickly, sorts out asylum claims, reduces the backlog, closes the costly hotels, stops the boats crossing the channel and, in doing so, allows for free and fair routes to be applied for so that those who are successful can join the economic community in this United Kingdom and earn a living.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the fair pay agreement in the social care sector, because we know that one of the best routes out of poverty for children is making sure that their parents have decent, well-paid work. Does my noble friend accept that insecurity of settlement status makes workers less confident and less able to enforce the rights they will get?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. She has campaigned for many years with the Trades Union Congress for rights at work. I have campaigned for rights at work, a minimum wage and good conditions for people in the care sector, and our Employment Rights Bill in this House and the House of Commons is to make sure people have decent rights at work. Nothing the Labour Government are going to do will undermine those rights, but we do need to get a grip on asylum and refugee status to ensure that we speedily process individuals and determine who has a right to stay and to have refugee or asylum status and that those who do not are removed. That is part of the process of the Government, who are trying to restore order in the very chaotic system we have inherited.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Dubs for tabling their regret Motions. It is always a pleasure to discuss matters in the House, even at 10.32 pm. Important issues have been raised, and I will try to respond to them as best I can—even with my croaky voice, on which I hope the House will bear with me.
I will start by giving some context on why we are here. This Government were elected in July 2024, and they inherited a considerable series of challenges that they have been trying to address. After the election, there was a high backlog of asylum claims not being processed by the previous Government. There was a level of abuse that is higher than it is now. There was a high level of hotel use of some 400 hotels that were paid for by the Government of the day, costing the taxpayer a fortune. There was no real control over the level of migration and indeed those abuses. There was no safe and legal route defined to the extent that it is defined now. I start with that for the simple reason that that is the background on which the Government have tried to take some action. I welcome the support tonight from the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies, but that is the inheritance that we have had to try to deal with.
The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord German, says that the Government
“fails to provide a credible plan for bringing down the asylum backlog”.
Let me start with that. The Government have put in place around 1,000 extra staff—paid for by the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme—to improve the performance of the asylum system and the review of asylum backlogs.
There is a plan, because the Government have produced an immigration White Paper, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, indicated, was trailed by the Government. The Government have an immigration White Paper and have made statements on how we intend to deal with those issues. The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, talks about failing to bring down the asylum backlog. I will come to that in a moment. It refers to “closing asylum hotels”. I will come to that in a moment. Indeed, it refers to
“increasing the bureaucratic burden on the Home Office”.
Well, I will come to that in a moment.
My noble friend Lord Dubs’s Motion makes a valid point about the equality impact assessment, which I will come to in a moment.
The noble Lords who have spoken today—my noble friends Lady Royall, Lord Dubs, Lady Lister, Lady Andrews, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Davies of Brixton, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Ludford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have all challenged some of the points that are here today, and I will try and respond to those issues.
The Immigration Rules changes were laid on 5 March. They were trailed in the White Paper. Three statutory instruments were laid concurrently: the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations, the asylum regulations on failed asylum seekers and the Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations. Some of those were SIs, and the immigration changes set out in the new approach to refugee and humanitarian protection include a new core protection offer.
The position that we find ourselves in now is that there have been changes in some of the very areas that the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord German, is critical of. For example, there has been an asylum decision issue, where the number of people waiting for an asylum decision has fallen by 48% in the past year. That is positive, but it is not reflected in the Motion. We have returned 58,538 people in the past 12 months who had no right to remain, including foreign national offenders who should not have been here.
On the issue of asylum hotels, which he mentioned, there was a high of 400 asylum hotels in the summer of 2023. Today, there are fewer than 200 operating, and there will be announcements in the near future on how we can reduce that number still further. We have a commitment to close asylum hotels before the end of this Parliament. We also have, as laid out in the statements that have been made, plans to ensure that in that new reform we improve safe and legal routes, provide more structured and targeted support for refugees, speed up decisions through simpler appeals procedures and tackle exploitation through illegal working and visa abuse, which harm both vulnerable people and local communities. So, there is a plan.
I challenge the claim in the Motion of regret from the noble Lord, Lord German, that there is no plan. There is a plan to speed up asylum claims, provide targeted support and ensure that we meet our international obligations, ensure that we reduce hotel use and ensure that we do that in a fair and appropriate way.
The Home Secretary has set out—yes—the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in a generation. Yes, the Immigration Rules changes mark a major step towards a fundamental reset of the system. Yes, there is a new core protection offer for refugees. Yes, there are changes planned to ensure that new asylum claims made after 2 March will be for 30 months rather than for five years. It does not mean that those asylum claims are not going to be maintained if there is still a need for the asylum claim after 30 months, but it is important that we make those changes, because we have to improve the performance of the system. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we have to do that.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, the equality considerations are at the front and centre of our work. As required through the public sector equality duty, Home Office officials are currently considering wider equality impacts, and the impacts that asylum reforms will have on those with protected characteristics is no exception.
In our modern and complex world, we must recognise that changes are required; countries of origin can and do change, and refugee status should be reviewed accordingly to reflect that. I think that is fair.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the visa brake and Chevening. The Government have introduced a visa brake on student visa applications from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The reason they have done that is that those nationalities present some of the highest proportion of asylum claims to visas issued, and the number of claims is consistently high—again, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made. By introducing these temporary changes, the Government hope to reduce the strain on the asylum system and strengthen public confidence in the immigration system as a whole.
I must stress that these immigration changes are part of that wider programme of work. We are looking to work with local authorities for their support in delivering supported accommodation for asylum seekers. We are looking to maintain and develop further safe and legal routes, such as the Hong Kong British national route and the Homes for Ukraine route that are here today. On the suspension of family reunion, we are keeping that under review as a whole.
A lot of issues and concerns have been raised today by individual Members. I will go through Hansard tomorrow with a fine-toothed comb; we will pick out all the points that have been made by noble Lords; we will respond to those points, having consulted my colleague Ministers who have a direct responsibility for these areas in the Home Office; and I will make sure that those points are answered.
There will be opportunities to address other issues in legislation, undoubtedly post the potential King’s Speech —there will be other areas. However, the Government have to deal with the issue of getting asylum under control, meeting our international obligations, reducing hotel use, and trying to stop that pull factor which noble Lords have mentioned. This is a series of measures which the Home Secretary has brought forward and which I believe are an appropriate start on these issues.
I understand the concerns that have been raised; they were raised in the House of Commons also. The Government will continue to keep these matters under review, but I say to noble Lords today that the regret Motion does not address the issues that I believe the Government are trying to achieve. It does not give credit to the Government for the challenges they face and does not acknowledge the strong efforts that we are making to reduce some of the real challenges that are a cost in our system. We are trying to reduce asylum backlogs and reduce hotel use, and we are trying to look at where there is abuse, to make sure that we still meet our international obligations but at the same time ensure that we have a tighter system to restrict that abuse. I know there are concerns and sensitivities, and I will look at the points made in the debate today, but I ask the noble Lord not to press his regret Motion. I say to my noble friend Lord Dubs as well that the equality issues are central to what the Government are trying to examine in the processes that we are looking at. We will keep those equality issues under review, and I am open to challenge in this Chamber about how the system is developing in due course.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me because my throat and the winter pressures are catching up on me, but I will look at those points and respond accordingly. I thank the noble Lord for his contributions today.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for his remarks—not that I agree with them, as your Lordships would expect, but to persevere through a croaky voice is not easy at the best of times. All I can say to him is that the Chief Whip has arrived; I think he has something special in his cupboard which he can help the Minister out with at the end, and if he does not, I ask him to please let me know because we can make that very public.
Seriously, however, at this point in the evening, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate; everyone has spoken with passion and with conviction, and most people have also spoken with great concern. If this were to be a scoreboard for a football match or whatever, the score would be 13-3. I say to the Minister, “Be aware of who your friends are in this matter”, because it seems that the alliance between the Labour Government and the Conservative Party and what lies beyond them is somewhat frightening for those of us who believe in a more humane society.
One of the things that has come out of this debate, from all my colleagues and everyone else who has spoken, is that somewhere we have got the narrative wrong about what migration is about. Your Lordships must remember that the OECD says of the United Kingdom that properly managed migration is a benefit to our economy. If that is the case, we need to say something positive about the people who are with us and doing things with us. The concern that I generally pick up is that we are not respectful enough or giving enough sense of humanity about the society in which we want to live.