Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsWednesday 25th February 2026
(1 day, 22 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 167-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Feb 2026)
Lord Hanson of Flint
(i) obtained from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in a physical form and a photograph of the buyer, or(ii) took such steps to verify the buyer’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a requirement to section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on a remote sale of a knife to be a physical version, and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name are substantially the same as those that I tabled in Committee. As the House may recall, I withdrew those amendments following concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but today I am reintroducing them for the House’s consideration. The amendments relate to the provisions in Clauses 31 to 35, which introduce stricter two-step age verification checks for the sale and delivery of knives and crossbows bought online.
For the House’s convenience I will recap: Clauses 31 and 32, on knives, and Clauses 33 and 34, on crossbows, will require at the point of sale, or point of sale or hire, for crossbows, specific checks to include photographic identity plus a current photograph; and, at the point of delivery, photographic identity checks; and they will create a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife or crossbow to someone other than the buyer—if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company—so that knives and crossbows cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours.
These amendments clarify that the passport or driving licence required as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, or for a remote sale or hire of a crossbow, must be a physical version. We are also again adding provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations, subject to—I hope this helps the House—the affirmative procedure, prescribing an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. These amendments are required to ensure that a digital ID can be used as evidence of identity wherever the physical ID is accepted.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised concerns that the use of digital ID would be mandatory. However, I assure him that this is not a blanket requirement mandating the use of digital ID to purchase knives or crossbows; it is simply making provision for alternative forms of ID, digital or otherwise, to be used. This is to ensure that the legislation keeps pace with future potential developments in digital ID. I know that the Benches opposite have concerns about the Government’s plans for digital ID, but we have been clear that under those plans it will not be mandatory to have a digital ID. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. These provisions are about giving people a choice in how they verify their identity. It will continue to be possible for the purchaser to present a physical passport or driving licence, where they have one, as an alternative to a specified digital ID.
Furthermore, with the permission and support of the authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, these amendments also extend these clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We are amending the legislation to ensure that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products and crossbows to residential premises. This is to account for situations where the delivery company engaged by the seller to deliver the bladed product sub-contracts the delivery to other companies. We believe that it is essential that all companies in the chain are responsible for ensuring that age and identity are verified before the package is handed over to the buyer; otherwise, regulations made under the Bill would be meaningless.
I hope that, having reflected on the debate in Committee, and given the changes and the clarification I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be content with these government amendments. There are other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will, if he so wishes, move Amendment 177. I will respond to the noble Lord once I have heard his speech. For the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who is nodding, which is good news. I thank him; it is much appreciated. There is nothing worse than writing a speech and being unable to deliver it.
I welcome the government amendments in this group, brought forward by the Minister, concerning the remote sale and delivery of knives and bladed articles. As I noted in Committee, we on these Benches fully support the intent behind the Government’s measures in this area. We must strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales. We welcome the robust two-step age-verification checks being implemented. It is entirely right that we ensure a consistent UK-wide approach by extending these provisions, including those relating to crossbows, to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is vital that the law across the home nations is exactly on the same footing, so that criminals cannot exploit cross-border differences to acquire lethal weapons.
I also welcome the amendments that clarify the rules around identity documents. The requirement for a physical identity document to be shown upon the delivery of a bladed product provides a necessary safeguard. Furthermore, we acknowledge the provisions allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe alternative age-verification steps such as digital ID.
As I made clear to the Minister previously, there is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrats’, so we remain highly supportive of the assurance that analogue physical forms of identity will continue to be accepted alongside any new digital alternatives. Embedded among these amendments, however, is our Amendment 177, referred to by the Minister, on the remote sale of knives. This amendment requires that regulations mandate the reporting of bulk knife sales to the police
“in real time, or as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
In Committee, the Minister stated that he was sympathetic to the overall aim of this amendment but argued that the current duty in Clause 36 was sufficient and that exact timeframes would be handled later in regulations, following consultation. Sympathy does not intervene in a crime. We have seen cases where young people effectively act as arms traders, buying huge numbers of illegal weapons online for community distribution. If the police are to effectively track and intercept these bulk purchases, they need that intelligence immediately, not days or weeks later when the weapons are already on the streets. Amendment 177 would ensure that operational effectiveness is guaranteed in the Bill, turning bureaucratic compliance into actionable, life-saving intelligence.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in Committee, I asked the Government to withdraw their amendments that permitted them to require by regulations the use of digital ID for age verification for the online sale of knives and crossbows. My concern was that permitting this would be the first legislative step towards mandating digital IDs. Since then, of course, the Government have conceded that digital IDs will not be made mandatory and, while I still harbour some reservations, I am now content for the amendments to be made to the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If I may, I will address the points from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and thank him for returning to the issue of fixed-penalty notices with his Amendment 177.
We are clear that, in order for the reports on bulk sales of knives or other bladed articles to be a useful tool for the police to prevent knife crime, they must be sent to the police in a timely manner. I say to the noble Lord that we are working with the police on the details of a reporting system, and I want to reassure him that the points he has raised both in Committee and in his amendment, and during the debate today, will be taken into account when drafting the regulations. I do not believe there is any difference of substance between us on that; it is just that we are of the view that the timeliness of reports is best left to regulations, rather than primary legislation. We will be bringing those regulations forward, and I hope he will be able to support, comment upon and discuss them at that time. I hope the noble Lord will be content not to move his amendment.
Before I finish on this it is worthwhile, both in the context of this debate and the previous group, to place on record that while overall knife crime was previously climbing, since the start of this Parliament knife homicides have fallen by 27% and knife-enabled offences have recorded an 8% decrease. The latest admissions data for NHS hospitals in England and Wales also shows a 10% fall in admissions for knife assaults. Now, I am not complacent and will not stop pressing on this, but those results demonstrate progress. Given the measures in this Bill, and the measures we may have on digital and non-digital ID two-step verification, I hope we will further reduce those figures in the coming months. In the meantime, having moved my Amendment 28, I will beg to move the other amendments and hope that the noble Lord will be content not to move his.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 31, page 36, line 23.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale or letting of knives etc: Scotland(1) Section 141C of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (remote sales and lettings of knives) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (5) substitute—“(5) Condition A is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) the accused either—(i) obtained from the recipient a copy of an identity document issued to the recipient in a physical form and a photograph of the recipient, or(ii) took such steps to verify the recipient’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the recipient was aged 18 or over.(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.”(3) In subsection (6)(b) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(4) In subsection (7) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(5) In subsection (9) omit “or a person acting on behalf of the recipient” in both places it occurs.(6) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5)(a)(ii) are subject to the affirmative procedure.(12) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5A)(d) are subject to the negative procedure.(13) For the meaning of “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure” see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10).”(7) In section 141A(4B) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sale of knives to persons under 18: Scotland) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation; (b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 31 (as amended by my amendments to that clause).
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) In section 38 (delivery of bladed products to residential premises)—(a) omit subsection (4);(b) in subsection (8)—(i) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both.”(1B) In section 39 (delivery of bladed products to persons under 18)—(a) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (c) to (e) substitute—“(c) before the sale, the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the contractor”) by which the contractor agreed—(i) to deliver bladed products for the seller, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed products for the seller,(d) the contractor was aware when they entered into the arrangement with the seller that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, bladed products, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf.”;(b) omit subsections (2) and (3);(c) for subsection (6) substitute—“(6) The contractor commits an offence if, when the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6A) A person acting on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed product pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf.(6C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed product by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, bladed products (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed products).”;(d) in subsection (7)—(i) for “subsection (6)” substitute “this section”;(ii) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(iii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other of my amendments to clause 32, extend the provision made by that clause to Scotland and Northern Ireland and make related drafting changes. It also ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products to residential premises.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) After section 1 insert—“1ZA Defence to offence under section 1: England and WalesExcept where section 1B applies, it is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 1 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.”.(2B) In section 1A (defences: Scotland)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) for “It” substitute “Except where section 1B applies, it”;(ii) after “charged” insert “in Scotland”;(b) in subsection (3) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971),(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation,(b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State, or”;(c) for the heading substitute “Defence to offence under section 1: Scotland”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendments to clauses 33 to 35, extend to Scotland the amendments made by those clauses to the Crossbows Act 1987, and make related changes.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) “Relevant national authority” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale and letting of crossbows: Northern Ireland(1) The Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) is amended as follows.(2) In Article 3 omit “, unless he believes him to be eighteen years of age or older and has reasonable ground for the belief”.(3) After Article 3 insert—“Defence to offence under Article 33A. Except where Article 3B applies, it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.Defence to offence under Article 3: remote sales etc(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) is charged with an offence under Article 3, and(b) A was not in the presence of the person (“B”) to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire at the time of the sale or letting on hire.(2) It is a defence for A to show that the following conditions are met.(3) Condition 1 is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) A either—(i) obtained from B a copy of an identity document issued to B in a physical form and a photograph of B, or(ii) took such steps to verify B’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that B was aged 18 or over.(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.(5) Condition 2 is that when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A, it was clearly marked to indicate— (a) that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow, and(b) that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of B.(6) Condition 3 is that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of B.(7) Condition 4 is that A did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.(8) Where the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A to a place from which it was to be collected by B, references in paragraphs (5) and (6) to its final delivery are to be read as its supply to B from that place.(9) In paragraph (7) “locker” means a lockable container to which the package is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 33 for England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is made for the purposes of my amendment at line 19.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, on this occasion, I hope I can be accused of listening and hearing in order to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. These amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence will, in cases involving children aged 13 or over, remove the requirement that a perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was an adult. In bringing forward these amendments, I am directly responding to concerns raised in debates in the House, having listened in particular to the cogent arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. Indeed, arguments were made in the House of Commons for the same.
We maintain that reasonable belief in age would not be a simple loophole for perpetrators and that it is a precedented and long-standing legal test. The CPS and courts are experienced in dealing with such an element. However, having reflected further, and acknowledging that there is a heightened risk of teenage Black males, who are overrepresented in the cohort of children vulnerable to child criminal exploitation, being wrongly perceived as older, we will not risk perpetrators being acquitted because of how society misperceives children as appearing older than they are in this context.
Adults who draw children into committing criminal activity should always be convicted of this offence, regardless of how old the perpetrator believed the children were. These amendments send a clear message that responsibility for involving children in crime, which is always bad and harmful, rests with the adult. I commend the amendments to the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I was just checking with another Member of your Lordships’ House before I started my winding-up speech. My apologies for not attracting his attention.
We welcome the Government’s decision to address child criminal exploitation. The range of measures in the Bill are certainly a start and address the growing concern about children being exploited into criminality. I particularly welcome the Minister’s letter, dated a couple of weeks ago—about 15 February—explaining that the amendments laid address a highly specific concern about the requirement for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was aged 18 or over, if the child was aged 13 or over. We thank him for that.
However, from these Benches we urge the Government to go further in the longer term in ensuring that all children are safeguarded from exploitation. This needs to be recognised as a form of exploitation. Along with a number of organisations, we think that this should be done through a statutory definition in Parliament, partly because that will guide the services but also because it would make it very clear where the boundaries are on CCE.
Hand in hand with this is the whole issue of cuckooing, which we will come to in the next group. That is equally important. It is one of the newer, more virulent ways of coercively controlling children. We welcome the amendment, wish it had gone further, and look forward to discussions in the longer term about how that can be remedied.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords and will try to respond briefly. I remind the House that we are responding to requests from noble Lords, and in addition from partners in children’s charities, law enforcement and Members of the House of Commons, to make a change to ensure that the child criminal exploitation offence works as intended to protect the children most at risk of being targeted.
As both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, have said, boys aged between 15 and 17 and, very often, Black and other minority children are commonly overrepresented in those figures. They are the same children at risk of being wrongly perceived as being older, and therefore not protected. We have tried to ensure that we place the responsibility for any criminal activity firmly where it belongs in this case, which is with the adult who is effectively trying to groom, encourage, lead—however we wish to describe it—the child under the age of 18. For the purposes of this legislation, a child is dealt with as being under the age of 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised again his concerns about voting at 16. That is an issue for debate, and it is a Labour manifesto commitment, but it is not an issue for debate today.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord says it is a comparison. I accept that, but for the purposes of this legislation, we are saying that individuals aged 15 to 17, particularly, are vulnerable. This goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Requiring the courts to consider what age the perpetrator reasonably believed the child to be by reference to their appearance or behaviour risks, in my view, reinforcing the injustices we have and risks somebody who has undertaken child criminal exploitation getting off because they believed that that person was older than they actually were.
That is a line we have drawn and an argument we have made, and it is in the legislation. I am not the Minister responsible for this, but I would still be happy to have a discussion with the noble Lord at some point about why votes at 16 is important. If he wants to do that, we will find an opportunity, I am sure, if it relates to a Home Office Bill at any time in the future.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) D engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child (C), and(b) D does so with the intention of—(i) causing C to commit an offence,(ii) causing C to do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part, or(iii) facilitating the causing of C, in future, to commit an offence or do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part.It is irrelevant whether or not D knows or suspects that C is a child.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement that the child is under 13 or the person does not reasonably believe them to be aged 18 or over, and spells out that the person’s state of mind in relation to whether the other person is a child is irrelevant.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“ScheduleSound moderators etc: exemptionsFirearms Act 1968
1 (1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) In section 7(1)—(a) the words from “a firearm” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) at the end insert—“(b) a relevant accessory.”(3) In section 8—(a) in subsection (1) for the words from “, have” to “ammunition” substitute—“(a) have in their possession, purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition, or(b) have a relevant accessory in their possession,”;(b) in subsection (1A)—(i) after “ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, insert “, or the possession of a relevant accessory,”;(ii) for “or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) after “of, or” insert “firearm or ammunition is”.(4) In section 9(1) for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 11—(a) in subsection (1) for “or ammunition”—(i) in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) in the second and third places it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (4)—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“and(c) a relevant accessory,”.(6) In section 11A at the end insert— “(7) Where a rifle is borrowed on any premises in reliance on subsection (1), the borrower may, without holding a certificate under this Act, borrow and have in their possession on those premises a relevant accessory for the period for which the rifle is borrowed.”(7) In section 12(1) after “firearm” insert “or relevant accessory”.(8) In section 13(1)—(a) in paragraph (a)—(i) for “or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for “or ammunition therefor” substitute “, or ammunition or a relevant accessory therefor,”;(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) for“or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for“or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) omit the “and” at the end;(c) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) having obtained a permit under paragraph (c), remove any relevant accessory from or to a ship, aircraft or aerodrome, to or from the place specified in the permit.”Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
2 (1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 15—(a) in subsection (1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (2) for“or ammunition”substitute“, ammunition or relevant accessories”.(3) In section 16A(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(4) In section 16B(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 17 after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) The holder of a visitor’s firearm permit may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in their possession a relevant accessory.””(6) In section 25(4) (interpretation), for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”.(7) In paragraph 1 of the Schedule, in sub-paragraphs (2)(a), (3) and (4) for“and ammunition”substitute“, ammunition and relevant accessories”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Schedule adds sound moderators and flash suppressors to exemptions from the requirement in the Firearms Act 1968 to hold a firearm or shot gun certificate.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsWednesday 25th February 2026
(1 day, 22 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 167-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Feb 2026)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that these Benches maintain our opposition to the Government’s respect orders. We have heard, in Committee and today, many concerns about the new regime. Our concerns are slightly different from some of those expressed by other noble Lords, in that we oppose them because we view them as simply unnecessary.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower asked the Minister what the true difference would be between respect orders and the current anti-social behaviour injunctions. The response confirmed that, in the Government’s view, the only difference is that breaching a respect order will be a criminal offence, whereas breaching an injunction is not a specified criminal offence. That may seem tougher on the surface, but, in reality, it will not make any difference. A person who breaches an ASB injunction can be prosecuted for contempt of court, as they have defied an order of the court; in addition, the power of arrest can be attached to the injunction under Section 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Where that is the case, a police officer may arrest a person without warrant for breaching the terms of their injunction under Section 9(1) of that Act. Furthermore, an arrest warrant may be made by the court if the person who applied for the injunction believes the person has breached that injunction.
For all those reasons, therefore, a number of avenues exist for enforcement of these injunctions. But, even if the Government believe that creating a specific criminal offence is necessary, why not simply amend the ASB injunction regime to create that offence? Why introduce an entirely new regime? Having said all that, we are where we are. In Committee, the Minister responded to my noble friend’s criticism by stating that it was a manifesto commitment. I do accept this, and that is why I suspect they will pass today unhindered.
I turn briefly to some of the other amendments in this group. I have a rather specific concern about the requirement in Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that a respect order may be applied for only if the local authority has agreed to do so at a meeting of the full council. Subsection (8A) in his amendment states:
“A relevant authority may not make an application for a respect order … unless the relevant local authority has complied with the requirements … in subsection (8B).
However, the definition of relevant authority in new Section B1 includes
“the chief officer of police for a police area … the chief constable of the British Transport Police”,
and a number of other authorities, such as Transport for London. What this means is that, should the police wish to apply for a respect order, they must first seek the approval of the local council. I do wonder whether this might create an overly burdensome and time-consuming requirement.
Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is, however, something I do have sympathy for. In 2024, a record 14.4 million parking fines were issued, representing a 13% increase from the previous year. There are widespread concerns about unclear parking signage, faulty machines and companies using quotas to increase the number of fines they collect. Parking firms and, indeed, councils using fines based on spurious violations simply to make money is surely not right. Where a person has violated the rules, of course the use of penalty charge notices is justified, but we should not allow them to unfairly issue fines to those who do not deserve it.
Finally, and having been somewhat critical of respect orders, I say to the Minister that I welcome his Amendment 4. As much as I may think that respect orders are unnecessary, if we are to have them, it is welcome that the Secretary of State will be required to consult on the guidance they issue.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
It is good to be back, is it not? It feels like we have been away for ages and now here we are again, back for another session of interesting amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, recognised, respect orders are a Labour manifesto commitment. They are made for securing action on anti-social behaviour in our town centres across this country. We secured a mandate to implement them. I welcome the amendments and we will discuss them, but this is a core element of Labour government policy.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Would the Minister accept that it is very difficult ever to think of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a court to impose a respect order, with all the implications that has for an individual, unless the court is satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has made his point. I am trying to give the defence from the Government’s perspective. That is our view. He has made a reasonable point, but that is our view and I hope he accepts our comments on those issues in good faith.
On Amendment 2, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, will understand when I say that I agree with the points that he made. Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is rather bureaucratic, in that the council must carry out a full public consultation prior to any application to the court for a respect order to be made.
I was leader of a council for some years. We had six or seven meetings per year. Does the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, really expect, in the event of this legislation becoming law, that the council would consider respect orders and agree them on a six or eight week basis, six times per year, before the police could go? I am with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this one. Some areas undertake this as a matter of course as part of local practice, but there is no requirement for a public consultation prior to a public spaces protection order being implemented. It is certainly my and the Government’s view that such requirements would add an inappropriate and disproportionate barrier to respect order applications and delay important relief for ASB victims. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will agree with His Majesty’s Opposition and me. He may not, but I put that point to him for his consideration.
Amendment 3, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would add a provision for a respondent to appeal the making or variation of a respect order. I hope I can assure noble Lords that there are express provisions in the Bill that provide for an application to be made to vary or discharge a respect order. The ordinary rules of appeal will apply to decisions to grant a respect order or a refusal to vary or discharge an order. To be absolutely clear on this issue, decisions to grant or vary respect orders, as well as decisions not to grant or vary one, will be appealable through the usual avenues under Civil Procedure Rules. I hope that assists.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for his Amendment 5. I know that he wished to speak to that in Committee. He seeks to add for-profit registered social housing providers to the list of relevant agencies that can apply for a respect order. I recognise the importance of relevant agencies having the tools to tackle anti-social behaviour, but we should exercise caution before extending these powers without more consideration. I say that in the spirit of friendship and co-operation with the noble Lord. The Home Secretary has a power to amend the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order. If it is considered appropriate to add a for-profit registered social housing provider to the list then we can do that via secondary legislation after the Bill has achieved Royal Assent, but I would like to give more consideration to this point. This is not a “no”; it could be added later with more consideration. I hope that will at least help him in the discussions that he has had today.
Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would require the Home Secretary, within six months of the Bill becoming law, to commission an independent review of the existing powers under the 2014 Act prior to introducing respect orders, housing injunctions or youth injunctions as a whole. Again, I go back to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. It is a manifesto commitment that we fought the election on to improve anti-social behaviour responses, and one such response that we specifically put in the manifesto at the general election was respect orders. So, the idea that we wish to—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I rise just to clarify and to help the Minister. I would not want in any way to stop the Government implementing their manifesto promises. The aim of the review was not to stop respect orders; it was to suggest that the anti-social behaviour on the statute book was reviewed before respect orders were brought in, because the Government cannot learn what has gone wrong with the previous anti-social behaviour orders if they never review them. The review aimed to help the Government make sure their manifesto promise on respect orders was effective rather than just a piece of paper.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always grateful for the noble Baroness’s help on these matters. It is as rare as hen’s teeth normally, but I am always grateful. I still say to her that the implementation of respect orders is crucial to ensuring that we tackle anti-social behaviour effectively. I put it to her gently, as I know she is keen on reducing bureaucracy and the cost of government et cetera, that this would be a very costly, unnecessary review of all ASB powers, when we already know that we agree with those powers, and it would cause unacceptable delays to the rollout of the orders promised in our manifesto.
We are already 19 months into our Labour Government term and people are impatient for change. One of the changes we want to make is in tackling anti-social behaviour. So, I say to the noble Baroness that the respect order, housing injunction and youth injunction are not novel; rather, they replace and improve upon an existing order, the civil injunction order, which has been in place since 2015. We are committed to ensuring that the powers to address anti-social behaviour remain effective, and we will routinely engage with practitioners across the board. Given those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on her amendment.
Amendment 7 seeks to provide that any accredited or authorised person working on behalf of a local authority may not profit financially from the issuing of fixed penalty notices for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection orders. I point out to those noble Lords who tabled the amendment that the Bill makes it clear that the fixed penalty notices that can already be issued for breaches of these orders are still in place, and that we have increased only the upper limit of the fine. It is expected that the figure issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case.
As of now, local agencies are expected to ensure that fixed penalty notices are issued only in circumstances where it is considered proper and appropriate. I recognise that there are some concerns. The noble Baroness referenced her home area of north Wales, where an excessive and unreasonable number of fixed penalty notices have been issued. I fully accept that point, but I put it to her again that contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement. Councils will not do it all themselves in-house; they do some of it contractually.
There is statutory guidance, which all relevant agencies have a legal duty to have regard to, which underscores the importance of applying the new fixed penalty notice limits in a proportionate and balanced way. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has cosigned this amendment, the importance of the proportionate use of the new thresholds, and that local authorities and agents acting on their behalf should not be issuing fixed penalty notices to generate profit. We will be consulting on the revised guidance, and I will undertake to share a copy of that guidance with the noble Lord and any other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, should she so wish, before any action is taken to implement any proposals passed by Parliament. That statutory guidance will be implemented, and I hope we can examine it in due course.
I turn now to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who was not able to speak to it today. Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on the operation of respect orders. Amendment 24 would require the publishing of quarterly data. I recognise that information held by central government on anti-social behaviour is, in some areas, limited. I want to see that improved, because that helps the Government understand the causes of anti-social behaviour.
Clause 7 provides for the provision of information about anti-social behaviour to the Secretary of State. Subsections (1) to (7) list the range of matters on which the Secretary of State may wish to collect information. The extent to which data will be reported and published will be confirmed after consultation with relevant agencies.
The Home Office publishes data on the use of stop and search powers, including the number of stop and searches conducted, arrests following a search, and demographic data. It includes information broken down by community safety partnerships as well as by police force areas.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Nobody doubts or questions that addressing anti-social behaviour is a manifesto commitment; that is taken as read. However, if it is a manifesto commitment, it must be put in words that clearly describe what the Government are trying to say. I find it quite baffling that in their first amendment, the Government prefer the words, “just and convenient”. What is convenient in there? Why are the Government dressing it up? I would have thought that the normal language of “necessary and proportionate” is much easier to understand. Why are the Government rejecting words that will help deal with anti-social behaviour, and instead fishing for other words that make no sense? Can the Minister try to make sense of it for me? I was given an explanation, but I was not persuaded, and I am sure I am not the only one. The words that we know in the Human Rights Act—necessary and proportionate —would ease the fear that the police will go on a spree and do a number of things because they judge it to be “just and convenient”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As ever, I am genuinely sorry that I have not been able to persuade the noble and right reverend Lord of the Government’s case. We have taken the view that “just and convenient” mirrors the civil injunction regime of the 2014 Act, passed by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government. They are not words from a Labour Minister but from an Act passed in 2014 that we are mirroring in the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce respect orders. I am sorry that I cannot convince the noble and right reverend Lord of that, and that I have not persuaded him accordingly. We may—although I do not know—very shortly have an opportunity to see whether anybody else is persuaded.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am afraid that I remain unpersuaded. The Minister keeps mentioning the manifesto commitment, but the manifesto makes no mention of the liability threshold for a respect order, so it is surely perfectly legitimate to question the basis on which the respect order the Government are introducing is based.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The basis on which the respect order is introduced, and the phraseology used, is the phraseology his and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Government put in place for previous orders. I am not changing the wording of anything that, presumably, at some point in 2014 he and other Liberal Democrat Peers walked through a Lobby to vote for.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has got me there. Let me rephrase my challenge. The noble Lord did not support it, but the coalition Government he supported passed the 2014 Act. I like to be accurate in my barbs at noble Lords, and I hope that accuracy persuades him that, even if he did not vote for it, some of his noble friends in the coalition Government of the time did—a coalition that our side of the House did not look too favourably upon. I accept his personal position, but if there is division of opinion in this House and we test it, I shall move Amendment 4. I hope that other noble Lords will not press their amendments, but if I have not convinced them, they will put them to the test in the House.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as a final throw, I wonder whether the Minister remembers how the Labour Benches voted in respect of those orders at the time.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It was 12 years ago. Although I was a Member of the House of Commons at the time, I would probably have done whatever my noble friend the then Chief Whip asked me to do.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I am very grateful for all the support that I got. I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, by the Minister’s response because, in my experience, the Minister is good at listening but not particularly good at hearing. I think we have done everything we can to put the case, both in Committee and tonight on Report, so I do not really see any point in examining the arguments any further. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply to revisions that the Secretary of State considers are not substantial.(2C) The requirement in subsection (2A) to consult before issuing guidance may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consultation requirement to section M1, inserted into the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his work on these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution to the debates on anti-social behaviour reviews, both today and in Committee. It is an important issue that touches on how our system responds to persistent harm affecting families and communities. We on these Benches are very sympathetic to these amendments.
In Committee, noble Lords rightly underlined that anti-social behaviour is rarely about a single, isolated incident, but often results in repeated conduct that causes cumulative distress and disruption. The ASB case review—previously known as the community trigger—plays a very important role as a safety net. It is designed to bring agencies together to ensure a joined-up response where local action alone has not resolved the problem. Its predominant purpose is to give victims an early opportunity to have their situation collectively reviewed when they have reported multiple qualifying incidents over time.
The amendments in this group seek to strengthen that mechanism by bringing into statute some elements that are currently left to local discretion. A statutory threshold for convening a case review—removing caveats that frustrate victims—would provide clarity and consistency across the country, ensuring that victims do not face a postcode lottery when accessing this right. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott echoed this point, noting that a statutory threshold would streamline the process and prevent agencies imposing additional barriers that can deter applications. That would depend, of course, on where exactly the threshold was set.
These amendments also include measures targeted at transparency. They would require authorities to publish the reasons why they determine that a threshold has not been met, and to publish data on independent chairing and on victim attendance. That increased transparency would build confidence in the process and assist in identifying patterns of variation between areas. However, as was raised in Committee, it is important to balance those laudable aims with the need to avoid imposing disproportionate bureaucracy on bodies that are, perhaps, already under pressure. The Government explained that updated statutory guidance has been published, as we have heard, to strengthen awareness of the case review mechanism and to help agencies guide victims through the process. We should therefore reflect on whether mandating every procedural step in statute will, in practice, make the process smoother or potentially risk diverting resources from handling the underlying behaviour. None the less, this group of amendments is rooted in a shared desire to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are heard, supported and treated fairly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his amendments, and for the opportunity to meet and discuss them in person. I am also acutely aware that he developed and examined the amendments with the late Baroness Newlove, to whom I again pay tribute, and with Claire Waxman, the current Victims’ Commissioner, and indeed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have had, I hope, a fruitful discussion, during which I have given the Government’s view both in Committee and in our head-to-head meetings.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 8 and 9 aim to limit the relevant bodies’ discretion to set criteria to underpin an application for a case review. Amendment 8 would also require the relevant bodies to provide more transparency as to their reasoning, but also to promote awareness of the case review and publish the provision in place for situations when the victim is dissatisfied about how the case has been handled. I am aware that the noble Lord knows this, but it is worth putting on record: an individual may currently apply for a case review after making three qualifying complaints. We updated the statutory guidance in September last year, and it already dictates that the relevant bodies involved in these reviews may, where appropriate, set different thresholds from those described, provided that they do not make it more difficult for the victim to make a successful application. The Government maintain that the ability to set different local thresholds is important to allow flexibility in handling each case, particularly where agencies may want to add caveats to make the threshold for a review lower in cases of high harm or those involving vulnerable adults.
It is also important that noble Lords examine the provision in Clause 6, which gives powers to police and crime commissioners to set up a route for victims to request a further review when they are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case review, including when the relevant bodies determine that the threshold was not met for the initial case review. That adds a further safeguard to the case review process to ensure better victim outcomes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for setting out the case for these amendments. I am also grateful for the comments made in support from the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Elliott, among others. I will refer to other colleagues in a moment.
I think that we can all agree that fly-tipping blights communities, adds to the burdens on local authorities and there is a need to take action on this. I welcome the fact that my colleague, Mary Creagh MP, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as referenced by a number of noble Lords, has this very day issued a press release urging councils to crush more fly-tipping vehicles. She also issued new guidance for local authorities to crackdown on waste crime and ensured that we have our first overview for councils, offering clear instructions on the identifying, seizing and disposing of vehicles and strengthening deterrents. She also gave guidance for maximising public awareness and ensuring that the Environment Agency has new technology and boosted funding to put more waste crime officers on the ground. By happy coincidence, that happened this very morning, ahead of our debate here today. The statutory guidance in Clause 9 will help in that regard.
I will now comment on the amendments before the House, starting with Amendment 13. I note the technical issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I would have referred to it had he not done so. I endorse that. I also note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the issue in Amendment 13.
I recognise the financial burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, currently, where there is sufficient evidence, as per the point made by the noble Earl, fly-tippers can be prosecuted. On conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is not available for a successful prosecution—this is, again, a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—there will not be sufficient evidence to force a fly-tipper to take responsibility for the clean-up either. If there is a prosecution, the clean-up can, in effect, be added to the sentence. It is therefore unclear how Amendment 13, by addressing this in statutory guidance, would help, when a criminal prosecution is already the best route for the desired outcome.
I note that Amendment 21, which was moved in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and had the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks in effect to place a duty on waste authorities to clear up waste left by fly-tippers. Again, I fully understand and share the sentiment behind the amendment. It is legitimate to ask why a farmer, landowner or occupier of any land should be liable for clean-up costs. As I have said to the House, where there is a conviction, the courts currently have the necessary powers to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, and the guidance today is clear evidence of the Government’s willingness—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Would the Minister be good enough to focus on this argument? If a burden were placed on the waste disposal authority, either by being liable to clear up the mess or by having to pay for it, it would be much less willing to close waste sites, and if waste sites are kept open then fly-tipping is likely to diminish.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount tempts me down the path of the direct responsibility of local councils, but that goes slightly wider than the amendments before us today. My point is that if there is already a conviction of someone for fly-tipping then the courts have the power to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities, as again by today’s guidance, to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, including those on private land.
We also want to make good the enforcement powers, as I described. Defra is talking to a number of groups, such as the National Farmers’ Union and the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, to promote and disseminate good practice. However, the problem I come to again is that, where there is no prosecution and conviction, the long-established position currently is that local authorities are responsible for cleaning up fly-tipping on public land, while the landowner is responsible where the offence is committed on private land. I accept that that is unfair, it is a challenge and it is a cost to local taxpayers and landowners alike, but it would be a fundamental shift of responsibility for cleaning up waste on private land to hard-pressed local authorities, from the position where the local individual landowner themselves currently provides that.
Again, I want to put on the record that the Environment Agency does not have a responsibility to clear illegal waste sites, but it does so where—to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said—there is a potential risk of fire, there is a risk of impact on the watercourse or there are other environmental factors. I come back to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said: prevention, better enforcement, and the provisions in this Bill and other actions the Government are taking forward, are the way forward on these issues.
Amendment 19 sought to ensure that penalty points would be added to the driving licence of an offender for fly-tipping. Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord by saying that the Government are currently considering the benefits of adding penalty points to driving licences for fly-tipping offences. I noted the questions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on that, but there is still potentially a benefit in this area. However, I cannot accept the amendment at the moment, not least because any amendment would have to be considered under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which deals with driving licence enforcements, as opposed to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the Government are looking carefully and quickly at the issue of penalty points and, although I cannot accept the amendment today, we will have to look at how we can put that principle into practice in due course.
Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord Davies, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would add the offence of fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but, as I have said, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles linked to waste crime under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and vehicles can be kept, sold or disposed of by local authorities.
I will refer to today’s press notice, which is available on GOV.UK. It says that the new guidance published today
“will provide the first comprehensive overview for councils, offering clear instructions on identifying, seizing, and disposing of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, as well as advice on taking cases to court and securing convictions against vehicle owners”.
I think that best practice is intended to provide, not replace, statutory documentation. It is therefore an important matter to my colleagues in Defra to ensure that we bring forward that statutory guidance on fly-tipping to examine the case for penalty points and how we deal with those matters in due course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first instance, the noble Lord commented on the proposals announced today. This Government are advising on a range of issues, through Defra today, about how we take action on fly-tipping. It is all very easy to be cynical about that and say that it will not work or stop the criminals. Any action that any legislation takes will not stop determined criminals, but it is important that the Government try to ensure that we deal with this effectively. Irrespective of the debate we are having, coincidentally, Defra has taken issue with that today and is trying to strengthen the response. I would rather welcome that than take shots at it. I say that in a friendly way to the noble Lord, but it is an important issue that we need to act on and the approach we are trying to take is important.
The noble Lord mentioned the waste management issues and difficulties in Kidlington. Again, I say to him that, in that instance, a criminal investigation ongoing and a total of four arrests have been made to date. As I said in response to the debate earlier, if those arrests end up with a criminal conviction against an individual proved in court, then that individual can have a cost element put against them to ensure that the costs of that clean-up are put to the individual or organisation concerned. That is an important mechanism which, again, the amendments are trying to examine, but that mechanism is there now.
Let us judge what happens in Kidlington and whether the investigation leads not just to further arrests but to convictions. That will be a matter for responsibilities which are not mine, but it is important to say that there is a mechanism to do that. Given the current debate around Kidlington, the figures we have produced today show that there were 1.26 million incidents of fly-tipping last year, which is quite simply unacceptable. Those figures and the Kidlington incident have focused the Government’s mind on this, and we are trying to respond responsibly. I hope noble Lords will accept the offer I have tried to give on penalty points, look at what I have said, and not press the amendment on the basis of the correspondence and the discussions we have had today.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3A) A draft of any guidance or revised guidance proposed to be issued under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires draft guidance to be laid before Parliament.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too have concerns about this amendment. Nobody could dispute that waste crime is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed. But as I understand it, the NCA’s strategic priorities at the moment—whether they are required by the Secretary of State or otherwise—focus on degrading the highest-harm organised crime groups, with a particular emphasis on tackling drugs, online fraud and organised immigration crime. There may be others. The NCA surely cannot treat all serious matters as a priority. The whole point of a priority is that it focuses on the most serious criminal offences that our society faces. I am not persuaded that identifying this very real problem as a strategic priority is going to assist.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment. As he explained, it would allow the Secretary of State to include serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority for the National Crime Agency. We have all agreed that waste crime blights local communities, that it damages the environment and that serious organised crime—which is on the rise—is a factor in that. The Environment Agency is now regularly alerted to new illegal waste sites.
As evidence for the noble Earl that the Government take this matter seriously, the Environment Agency’s additional waste crime enforcement budget for 2025-26 has been increased by more than 50% to £15.6 million, a £5.6 million increase on the previous year. That is because we recognise that there is a potential area of concern here. It has allowed the Environment Agency to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource by 43 full-time staff in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and area environmental crime teams, as well as bringing additional staff for enforcement duties under our major waste reforms.
The Environment Agency works closely, as the noble Earl mentioned, with the National Crime Agency and the Joint Unit on Waste Crime. There are multi-agency prevention and disruption tactics taking place, as well as investigatory activities to impact successfully on criminals. Between the organisations, they have developed enhanced intelligence-sharing and an enhanced approach to targeting organised criminal gangs. We are looking, with other law enforcement bodies, at recommending and introducing new technical capabilities to look at how we can, through an agreed strategy, target waste crime.
Therefore, there is a role for the National Crime Agency but, as the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Pannick, alluded to, the National Crime Agency is not the lead agency for tackling waste crime. That is the Environment Agency. Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency need to reflect changing threat levels in respect of different crime types. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, here, who would have been lead Minister on the 2013 Act that established the National Crime Agency. I served as a shadow Minister at the time, when dealing with that Bill. Section 3 of that Act is deliberately silent on types of organised crime because it does not want to fetter the National Crime Agency—the very point the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made in relation to the Home Secretary’s discretion to skew the National Crime Agency’s priorities. Therefore, to insert a crime type, however well-meaning or needed, would be to undermine the principles of Section 3 of the 2013 Act.
In short, the Government fully agree with the sentiment underpinning the amendment. We take waste crime extremely seriously; the increase in the budget is evidence of that, as is the co-operation between the NCA and the Environment Agency. I hope that with those comments, the noble Earl will agree that his approach of tying the National Crime Agency to specific targets would not be as helpful as he had hoped and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank everyone else who has spoken in this debate. This might be an unusual move but the truth is that waste crime is out of control. It is interlinked and intertwined with all these other serious forms of crime. Under the 2013 Act, it may be under the Home Secretary’s priority to deem waste crime as coming under the National Crime Agency. If the Minister had said to me that the Home Secretary will do that, I would absolutely have withdrawn the amendment. The truth is that that is not the case. The problem continues to grow and is out of control.
I very much welcome everything that is being done in this space. I recognise the work that the Environment Agency is doing. I am thankful to its staff who are working to clear up Kidlington and other sites. I also welcome the extra budget and new technology. I know the Government announced just last week that drones will be used, but frankly, they should have been used all along. If waste crime were dealt with as a serious organised crime issue, these matters would be intertwined and done already. I therefore have no choice but to test the opinion of the House on this matter because waste crime is a serious issue. It is not being addressed and is not part of the responsibility of the National Crime Agency.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3) A draft of any guidance proposed to be issued under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament. (4) The Secretary of State must not issue guidance under this section until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid before each House of Parliament, or if it was laid on different days, with the later day. (4A) If, within that period, either House of Parliament resolves that the guidance should not be issued, the Secretary of State must not issue it.(4B) In calculating any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(4C) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for guidance under clause 24 to be laid before Parliament before being issued and to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I rise to express the support of these Benches for Amendment 27, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent. We entirely support the creation of this new offence, which rightly bridges the gap between the simple possession of a knife in public and actually using it to threaten or harm someone. Creating a separate category for those who carry weapons with violent intent is the right approach, to target the most dangerous individuals in our society. However, as my noble friend Lady Doocey made clear in Committee, if we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon with violent intent as a distinctly more serious crime than simple possession, that distinction must logically be reflected in the punishment.
As the Bill is drafted, the new law carries the exact same maximum four-year sentence as the blanket offence of carrying a bladed article. This fails to give the courts the means to sufficiently differentiate between those who might pose a threat and those who actively intend to inflict damage or harm. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, stated, this is not merely a theoretical sentencing debate. We agree with the stark assessment made by Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, in his review following the horrific Southport attack. He made it clear that four years in prison is simply insufficient when there is clear evidence of an intention to cause mass fatalities. He recommended substantially tougher maximum penalties for possessing a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence, using the Southport attack as a case study. In his March 2025 independent review on the classification of extreme violence used in the Southport attack, Mr Hall argues that where someone arms themselves with a weapon intending serious violence, this is properly comparable to terrorism-style preparatory conduct, and that the maximum sentence should be very significantly higher than existing norms for simple possession offences.
In short, post Southport, Mr Hall has been arguing that possession with intent to use a weapon in serious violence should carry far higher maximum penalties than the traditional four-year ceiling, and that a new preparation for mass killing offence, up to life, is needed to close the pre-attack gap. By raising the maximum penalty to 14 years, this amendment would provide a ceiling, not a mandatory minimum—and we would, of course, expect the Sentencing Council to issue clear guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, to guard against general sentence inflation. Nevertheless, the court must have the full weight of the law behind it in those, hopefully rare, cases where a lengthy sentence is deemed absolutely necessary for public protection. We cannot treat violent premeditated intent as a mere secondary factor. The punishment must be reflective of the severity of the crime, so we welcome this amendment to give the judiciary the vital tool that they need.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for moving it. I do believe that sentences should be proportionate to the offence. That is why the maximum sentence for the new offence of possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence has been set at four years’ imprisonment. That, I have to say to the House, is in line with penalties for other weapons offences.
Such offences currently carry a maximum penalty of four years, including other more serious offences, such as threatening with an offensive weapon and repeat possession of offensive weapons. It is also worth noting that even though the maximum penalty is four years, the courts—judges in court after trial—are currently not giving sentences anywhere close to the upper range on the sentencing scale, which seems to indicate that judges view the maximum penalty of four years as adequate. A maximum penalty of 10 years for the possession with intent offence would therefore, in my view, be out of line with other possession offences and potentially disproportionate, given where we are.
This is not meant to be a tennis-ball political point, but I say to the noble Lord that the new offence was included in the previous Conservative Administration’s Criminal Justice Bill, and the then Policing Minister, who is now the shadow Home Secretary, spoke eloquently in Committee on that Bill in support of the four-year maximum penalty. So there has been a change; that might be legitimate and right, but the Member for Croydon South, Chris Philp, spoke in favour of the four-year penalty that the Government are seeking only a couple of years ago. That is an interesting fact, but not one that I am intending to use aggressively; I simply want to put it on the record.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has given a recommendation, which the Government have accepted, in his review into the Southport attacks: that the penalty for new possession offences at Clause 27 be kept at four years if the Government consider introducing a new offence of planning a mass-casualty attack. Let me reassure noble Lords that we are considering how best to close the gap identified. However, I do not believe that there is a case for increasing the maximum penalty for the offence in Clause 27 as proposed by the amendment.
I hope the noble Lord will agree with what the Conservative shadow Home Secretary said when he was the Policing Minister and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am especially grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his citation of Mr Hall on the tragic events in Southport.
I have no doubt that all noble Lords understand the seriousness of knife crime and weapon-related violence. As I have previously stated, we support this new offence. However, my amendment acknowledges that there is a meaningful moral and legal difference between someone who unlawfully carries a weapon and someone who carries it with the intent to cause harm. If the maximum sentence remains the same as that for simple possession, the differentiation risks being more symbolic than substantive. A person who arms himself with the purpose of inflicting violence presents a far greater and more immediate threat than someone who does not. Our sentencing framework should reflect that reality. It is a sincere shame that the Government will not accept this amendment. We stand by it, and for the reasons I have outlined I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Counter-Extremism Strategy
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords today. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who is persistent in raising this issue—rightly so, dare I say? He framed the debate, if I may say so, in terms of government action on examining non-violent extremism, but in the context of far-right, far-left and Islamist extremism. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who obviously has a great and deep interest in this, added the question of lone wolf independent radicalisation, which again is a common thread. I shall respond to the debate not only by addressing the points that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, raised, but also in relation to high-harm extremism, where we have a very high threshold and take action upon it.
I will start with the point the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, mentioned: the statutory definition of extremism. My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn also touched on this point. I confirm to the Committee that there are no plans to change the definition of extremism that was set out by the previous Government in March 2024. This existing definition is based on behaviours and does not look at specific ideologies, although the points that have been raised today are obviously important. The definition is a useful tool for government departments and others to look at when considering public engagement and when reaching out to stakeholders.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. He described it as a “statutory definition of extremism”. I am not encouraging him, but is there an intention to put it into statute?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It was a slip of the tongue if I used the word “statutory” in reference to the definition of extremism. If that was the case, I apologise to the Committee. In essence, the 2024 definition of extremism that the noble Earl mentioned is correct.
In the gentlest of ways, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who said that there is government inertia on this matter. There is no government inertia on this matter. We have to protect our citizens against high-harm extremism. We have to ensure that the extremism that fuels polarisation, erodes social cohesion and undermines trust between communities is challenged. Those individuals in our communities who raise antisemitism, Islamophobia and far-right or far-left terrorism and extremism have to be challenged.
The Government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. In doing so, we must have a balance between allowing freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities. There are fundamental values in our community, such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship and the freedom of democracy, which define us as a society and which the Government will continue to uphold and promote as values. Where they are challenged by individuals, groups or environments that foster or enable hatred, we will take action against them.
I say to noble Lords and Baronesses that there is a really serious issue here that the Government will try to deal with. We have a government response, which includes, for example, the Online Safety Act, which sets out that platforms, including those that are now likely to be accessed by children, must employ highly effective methods to protect children from content that is harmful or age inappropriate. We can now, through the Ofcom independent regulator, take enforcement action on those duties. Where extremists often deliberately operate below legal thresholds, we want to ensure, rightly, that they can be prosecuted and investigated and that we can take action.
Home Office efforts to counter extremism have certainly focused on high-harm threats. I understand that the noble Lord did not frame his argument around that, but we do have to focus on high-harm threats. We stop foreign individuals of extremist concern, including hate preachers and influencers, travelling to the UK through our visa watchlist programme. We advise and support public authorities and local partners to reduce permissive environments by disrupting extremist hate events, such as speaking tours featuring hate preachers. We have invested in capabilities to stop charities being exploited by extremists. We support communities targeted by extremists to ensure that there is protective security at places of worship—a point that my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn mentioned.
We have also put in place very strong mechanisms through the Prevent programme. At the very start of our term of office, we had the sprint to look at what we needed to do, and there are lessons to be learned from that. We commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to look at an independent review of Prevent. He brought forward 34 recommendations, which I note answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Lessons were learned from the Prevent programme—not just from the appalling cases of Southport and the murder of my former colleague Sir David Amess but also positive impacts—to ensure that we deal with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, mentioned on how we stop radicalisation in the first place.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned, I can say that the funding of Prevent is stable. We had £34.5 million of funding in 2023-24, and in the current financial year, the Government have committed £38.7 million to the programme. The noble Baroness asked what that does and what that achieves—I paraphrase, but that was broadly the tenor of her input. It is important, because we believe it makes a difference to people who are being radicalised by turning their lives around, pointing them in the right direction and stopping them from being influenced by far-left, far-right or, in particular, Islamist radicalisation. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, whom I thank for his work, brought forward recommendations, and we have implemented 33 of the 34 of them.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I hate to stand up again, but I want to put on the record that I made 10 recommendations. Sir William Shawcross had already made 34, and I felt that that was about as much as the system could stand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord’s recommendations and the independent review of Prevent have been accepted by the Government. We have implemented the vast majority of the recommendations, and we will continue to learn. If there are lessons from today’s debate, we will continue to look at them.
I listened to, understood and accepted the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington. She will understand that I cannot comment on individual organisations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood that she mentioned. We keep all organisations under review. That same principle applies to my noble friend Lord Cryer—I know he has heard this before—in relation to Iran’s revolutionary guards. We keep proscription under review because we do not announce what we will do ahead of doing it.
We consider whether there is sufficient evidence to proscribe an organisation, such as Palestine Action, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords in the debate. I cannot comment on the court case in which the sledgehammer was involved, because potential further action will be taken on that. People have been remanded in custody, but I cannot comment on that. However, I assure both the noble Baroness and my noble friend that, if proscription is required against any organisation at any time, we will make that proscription.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said that many of the people she speaks to feel unsafe, particularly women—I understand that. We now have a violence against women and girls strategy in place. Knife crime, which she discussed in particular, has fallen by 8% in the past 18 months. Knife homicides are down by 27% in the past 18 months. We have banned dangerous weapons, such as ninja swords and zombie-style knives, and have taken 60,000 knives off the street. I understand her concerns. We will look at organisations as and when, but, through neighbourhood policing and other things, we are trying—I hope—to make our communities much safer.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Massey of Hampstead, I do not want to see the normalisation of extremism; it should not be tolerated. We have a basic set of values in this society, and we need to uphold those societal values. There is freedom of speech, but we cannot normalise extremism as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Walney, made a number of key points. On the extremism definition that he mentioned—which I have spoken to—we keep all matters under review. On the counterterrorism review—which I know is of interest to him; he has done tremendous work in that field—we are looking at that as part of the arm’s-length body review. It does not take away from the principle that we want to ensure that we handle high levels of extremism and also deal with the issues that noble Lords have mentioned today.
I put on record—because this goes to the heart of the question of whether the Government are doing things in this area—that we are upholding the Public Order Act 1986, which imposes conditions on public processions. In the Crime and Policing Bill, currently going through the House, we have put forward a range of measures to ensure that persistent harassment on parades and demonstrations does not happen—that will be law very shortly. We put in place a range of measures through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which we still support; it allows civil injunctions to be put in place.
We have legislation, such as the Immigration Act, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Communications Act 2003 and the Education Act 2002, which was passed by Governments of both my political party and the Conservative Party to ensure that we put in place basic standards so that Governments can take action. We want to ensure that we look at all these matters.
On extremism, we have a number of other potential issues. We set out a clear response to terrorism in the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, Contest—an overarching strategy, of which Prevent is a key part, that directs our work in this area and provides a framework for us to operate in. As part of the Contest strategy, the Prevent programme has helped nearly 6,000 people at risk of being drawn into terrorism to turn their lives around. There are always lessons that we can learn, but it is important that we have that information before us today.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for bringing this important subject to the Grand Committee. I am grateful to him and to everybody who has spoken for their contributions; I hope I have referred to them all. Whatever form it takes and whatever form of bad ideology it espouses, extremism is a toxic force that has no place in our society. We have a high-level strategy to deal with high-harm extremism, but I will always look at, and work with colleagues to look at, what we do about the types of extremism that the noble Lord introduced in his opening contribution. That level of extremism remains unacceptable; the Government will not tolerate it. As I have set out, we are taking a range of actions to quell this threat and to prevent young and vulnerable minds being polluted. Counterterrorism remains a complex and multifaceted issue, but I assure noble Lords that we are unwavering in our commitment to tackle this crucial task.
My door will remain open, as will that of my honourable friend Minister Jarvis in the House of Commons. If noble Lords wish to raise issues, I am open to listening, debating and learning. The threat continues to change, as does the online approach, and so we as a society in this country need to make sure that we allow our fundamental values to remain operational, so that people do not feel harassment for their religion or beliefs or for things they cannot change. We support freedom of speech, but we also support the freedom to live life free from extremism.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clause 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 56, Schedule 5, Clause 57, Schedules 6 and 7, Clause 58, Schedule 8, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 9, Clauses 71 to 77, Schedule 10, Clauses 78 to 89, Schedule 11, Clauses 90 to 107, Schedule 12, Clauses 108 to 132, Schedule 13, Clauses 133 to 137, Schedule 14, Clauses 138 to 143, Schedule 15, Clauses 144 to 152, Schedule 16, Clauses 153 to 155, Schedule 17, Clauses 156 to 161, Schedules 18 to 20, Clauses 162 to 180, Schedule 21, Clauses 181 to 202, Schedule 22, Clause 203, Schedule 23, Clauses 204 to 220, Title.
Government Website: Registering a Death
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to update the Government website page on registering a death, specifically the requirement to do so within five days.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The five-day timeframe in England and Wales to register a death starts once the medical examiner has sent the medical certificate of cause of death to the registrar. While the guidance provided on GOV.UK is up to date, the General Register Office for England and Wales will continue to work with relevant departments to ensure that this information best supports the bereaved. Civil registration is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, recently, it took nine days to register my sister’s death, instead of the five stated on the website. The medical examiner’s office and the registrar both told me that, every day, bereaved families are confused and distressed, as they believe that they are breaking the law because they think it is death that triggers the five-day clock and not the medical examiner signing the papers off. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, told me that her medical examiner was taking up to a month to do this and that there were further delays in registering the death. Will the Government update the website, adding the certifying hospital doctor—the first step that the public encounter—ahead of the medical examiner’s role, to clarify the timeline? Will the Government review the five-day rule in the light of delays in some ME and registrar services?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I offer my condolences to the noble Baroness on her loss. She has a point. I have discussed this with officials and we are looking at how we can improve the website and make some changes to it. That will be done, and I will write to the noble Baroness within a month, when it has been completed.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the article in last week’s Times:
“Death certificates take twice as long after reforms choke system”,
with only one in six being delivered within a fortnight, adding to the costs for the funeral director and to the distress of relatives? What action are the Government taking to deal with that delay?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are two points here. The median figure that we have assessed for the issues that the noble Lord has raised is nine days. The published data does not break down the journey between the medical certificate of death and the registration of death. From the Home Office’s perspective, the registration process is more or less on target at the five-day period. Where there is a delay on occasions, it is between death occurring and the medical examiner’s certificate being issued. I will be drawing that issue to the attention of my noble friend Lady Merron, as it is a Department of Health matter. Again, the Government are committed to trying to resolve and improve performance on this.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, on 3 April last year, from the Dispatch Box in this Chamber, my noble friend Lady Merron said:
“We are taking steps to reduce the time to register a death”.—[Official Report, 3/4/25; col. 361.]
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what progress is being made?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said, nine days is the median. I confess to the House that death certificates are not my specialist subject, but I will do my best to investigate whether there are any delays and will write to my noble friend.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, sudden unexplained death in childhood is a tragedy that affects around 40 children per year in the UK, but there are cases where, in the event of a child’s death, parents are waiting more than a year to find out what happened. As if the pain of losing the child was not bad enough, they then have to wait more than a year to get closure. This is all due to a shortage of paediatric pathologists in the system. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to address this situation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Self-evidently that level of delay is not acceptable and should not exist. The Home Office’s responsibility in this area is for the period after the medical examiner has issued the certificate and the death certificate has been given to the registrar. That is the five-day period which we are broadly maintaining. The issues which the noble Lord has raised about paediatric support and assessments are for the Department of Health. I note what he has said and will investigate the issue and write to him. That is not an area that I am overly familiar with because it is not within my direct competence.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, certain minority faith groups, particularly the Jewish and Muslim communities, have to bury the deceased in their families as soon as possible. In Sheffield, we worked up a system where we have registrars on call to issue paperwork at weekends, but the bottleneck comes from waiting for the medical examiner to deal with it. Can the Minister speak to the group of people from Sheffield and elsewhere who are struggling with this issue and see how, across departments, we can look at opening up opportunities to bury the deceased quickly? The grave is ready and the council is ready to issue the burial certificate, but the medical examiner is causing the trouble for many families. This is not just a Sheffield issue; it is up and down the country.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord has said. My colleague and noble friend Lady Merron has said that the Department of Health, particularly in an English context, is working sympathetically with the communities that the noble Lord has mentioned. I will reflect on what he has said. It is a strange situation whereby the Home Office has responsibility for some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has raised—and I am seeking to address those and will change the system—but the issues that the noble Lord is raising are with a different department. However, my noble friend Lady Merron has heard these points and we will look at the question sympathetically.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, following exactly on from that question, is not the most sensible approach to look at those areas where coroners are operating efficiently and at speed, to learn from those best practices, and then to extend it to the rest of the country? It is a straightforward business proposition. Is that not that what the Government should be doing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The answer to that question is yes. The bit that the Home Office is responsible for has a five-day target, which is being met. There are challenges in the medical examination aspect for a range of reasons, which are not just administrative but related to how, when, where and in what circumstances people have died. There may be issues that we can look at. My noble friend makes some important points and after Question Time I will discuss with my noble friend Lady Merron how best we can address those.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is worth remembering that medical examiners were introduced following the Harold Shipman disaster and they are there to provide public safeguards. But there is evidence that medical examiners are being somewhat risk-averse and that deaths which have occurred quite naturally are being held up. Perhaps in his discussions with my noble friend, it is time for the Minister to take an initial look at what medical examiners are doing to see whether there can be some changes to speed up the death certification process.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The issue is under constant review. Work continues towards the introduction of electronic registration of deaths in England and Wales to minimise the burden on bereaved family members at a difficult time. As my noble friend has said, this system was introduced for perfectly legitimate reasons to improve safeguards. We need to make sure it works well. I have tried, in response to the Question by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make improvements in the areas I am directly responsible for, and I will reflect with my noble friend on other issues.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I could bring to the House my recent experience. My father passed away on 21 December, which is, dare I say, a challenging time of year, given that the nation stops work for about two weeks. I was not able to register the death until 8 January, but, considering the time of year, I have to say that the medical examiner’s office was working throughout the Christmas period and I was able to get an appointment in reasonable time. I ask the Minister to pass on my thanks for a system that worked for me at a difficult time of year. Everyone behaved well, professionally and sensitively, and I offer thanks for how it is working.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that, and I will certainly pass it on to the appropriate authorities. For information, my own mother died a long time ago, on Christmas Day, and we had a very difficult time dealing with that, given the holiday period. The service that was provided, in that case in the Liverpool region, was exemplary, and it is important that we recognise good service when it happens. We are trying to improve the situation, as I have said to the noble Baroness. I will reflect on the points that the noble Lord has made.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister reflect on the fact that there are serious delays not just in the registration of deaths but in the operation of coroner’s inquests? The outgoing chair of the Justice Committee at the time of the last election, Sir Bob Neill, said the committee had been told that the coroner service was “chronically under-resourced and underfunded” and that this was leading to totally unacceptable delays. Could the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, add this to the shopping list of matters they will look at?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I feel as if I am answering for three departments today: the Department of Health, the Home Office, and now the Ministry of Justice has been thrown in. I will reflect on and share with my noble friend Lord Timpson the points that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has made. I cannot answer him today but I will certainly make sure it is looked at.
Life Sciences: Beagles
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McCabe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of beagles currently used for testing in life sciences laboratories.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government collect data on procedures involving beagles rather than on individual animals. In 2024, beagles were used in 2,488 procedures, representing 0.2% of all experimental procedures, and a 30% decrease from 2023. The Government have a manifesto commitment to phase out animal use, and we published a strategy in November 2025 to meet our manifesto goals.
Lord McCabe (Lab)
My Lords, concern for the welfare of beagles prompted at least some of the opposition to the recent Public Order Act amendment proposals on life sciences establishments. I am not against all animal testing, but I support other methods, particularly in relation to medical research. A human-specific technologies Bill—sometimes dubbed Herbie’s law, after a rescued beagle—would go a long way to advancing the Government’s manifesto commitment on animal testing. Are there any plans for such legislation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know how strongly my noble friend feels on this issue. I cannot promise him a Bill on this matter, but I can promise him a replacement strategy, which includes specific targets for reducing the use of dogs and, particularly, reducing their use in cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030. The Government are also funding the national centre dealing with this issue to develop new, non-animal methods aimed at replacing dogs in regulatory testing. I hope that my noble friend will support the manifesto commitment to phase out use as soon as possible.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support a reduction in the use of dogs in medical research. However, we have to understand that sometimes dogs are used because they have the same diseases as humans have; for instance, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is caused by a gene mutation called dystrophin which occurs in both dogs and humans, and kills children and dogs. Through a study of two retrievers who had the genes but were not affected, we learned the technique of silencing the gene—to the benefit of dogs and humans. Similarly, in other areas of cancer immunology, doing experiments to learn about both dogs and humans has enhanced their immunity. Lastly, insulin was discovered doing research on dogs, because dogs also get diabetes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes the point, which the Government accept, that animal testing is currently required where alternative, non-animal methods do not exist. We are also working with regulators to see how advances in technology can and will reduce the use, and phase out in some areas. We have a long-term ambition to phase out the use; it is in the manifesto. We have produced the document, but we recognise that, at the moment, medicine occasionally requires that use.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, The Minister has described the aims of the Government, both in the manifesto and in the publication last November, but it would be really useful to know when tangible milestones will be published to demonstrate real progress that will include specific targets, timelines and investment commitments to accelerate the adoption of modern, ethical and scientifically advanced alternatives, especially given that we understand that more than 2.7 million procedures involving live animals were still carried out in 2022.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Baroness looks at the strategy, she will see that we have put £75 million of new money into that strategy to accelerate the phasing out of the use of animals. As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord McCabe, we have a target of a 30% reduction by the end of this Parliament in the areas that my noble friend has raised. We want to see alternative use as a matter of course, but it has to be done in a way that, as the noble Lord mentioned, protects medical science at the same time as reducing dramatically the use of animals.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report, concluded that the most humane way to protect the fox population was through regulated and legal hunting. The Government went on to ban hunting and are now poised to ban trail hunting. Have the Government made an estimate of what will happen to the foxhounds that are currently engaged in trail hunting, which goes to the heart of the countryside, bringing countryfolk together in the depths of winter? What is the future for these foxhounds if trail hunting is banned?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a long way from animal testing but I will give the noble Baroness a straight answer on it anyway. I personally voted to ban fox hunting on every occasion in the House of Commons when I was a Member of Parliament. I personally support the Government’s intention to stop trail hunting. Those are matters of management and political decision. That is what the Government will do, and I hope the noble Baroness will continue to raise those issues. We will look at the consequences, but ultimately it is the right thing to do.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, having recently debated the life sciences sector and being aware of how crucial it is, not only for our economy but for our national security, we know that much of the research conducted in Britain is increasingly at risk from espionage, cyber attack and theft, most notably from China. What steps, in addition to the legislation, have the Government taken to robustly disrupt such efforts by our adversaries and protect the British life sciences sector?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an important point. We have to ensure that the sector operates properly and effectively and is not damaged by foreign state actors or any other criminal elements. That is why we put in place the measures in relation to protests, which we debated in this House last week. The Government will continue to ensure that robust measures, about which it would not be appropriate to talk in this Chamber, are put in place to protect all sectors of our industrial society.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, while I agree with the Government’s strategy to phase this out, are any other countries doing something similar? Can lessons be learned from experiences in other countries?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is interesting. My noble friend should know that the UK has the highest standards possible in this area. One of the reasons that we do not wish immediately to close down some aspects of this work is because the businesses which produce that research—which the noble Lord mentioned earlier—would find themselves going abroad and operating under far poorer standards than those in the United Kingdom. We are a high-standard country because of the 1986 Act, and any dilution of that would result in more animals being harmed. Our strategy should be supported.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about foxhounds. Beagles are hounds and are often used in experiments, but foxhounds are not. If trail hunting is banned, what will happen to these foxhounds? They will not be able to be domesticated because they have lived in packs.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, the noble Lord goes a long way wide of the Question, but he is entitled to do so. When the Government make a decision on the issue of trail hunting—which they will—they will factor the consequences into their consideration and will work with colleagues to do so. That is what the Government did when they banned hunting at large in the early 2000s. Even though I had a fox hunt in my own constituency at the time, I supported that and found that the vast majority of people did too.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, do the Government recognise the great contribution that pigs make to research and development? Pigs’ valves have been so useful in many aspects of researching human disease, because pigs are very much akin to man—in more senses than one.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that astute observation. The principle behind the Government’s commitment in this area is straightforward: where animals have to be used, they will be used, but we seek to find alternatives. We are seeking to phase out the use of animals as a whole, and we continue to put not just money but a government strategy behind that. It is a manifesto commitment to phase out the use of animals at the earliest opportunity, and we are working towards that. I refer the noble Lord to the document we produced just prior to Christmas.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about animal welfare and how proud he is of having voted to ban fox hunting. Would he be equally proud to be able to say that, as a country, we had banned the way animals are slaughtered for halal meat and other religious reasons?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are going very wide of the Question today. Those are matters that the Government continue to keep under review. It is not within the Home Office’s gift to discuss the point the noble Baroness has brought forward. On the issue before the House in the original Question, we are going to phase it out, and we have an opportunity through our strategy to show the direction of travel.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsThursday 5th February 2026
(3 weeks 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 111(Corrected)-XV Fifteenth marshalled list for Committee - (3 Feb 2026)
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling this clause stand part notice. I would like to add my reservations about this clause.
First, I am concerned that this clause has not received sufficient scrutiny and consideration by Parliament. It was added on Report in the other place on 17 June last year. The Minister moving the new clause dedicated only 255 words to explain its effect and it was not mentioned by a single other Member. It has not received adequate attention. For that reason, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has tabled this amendment to allow us to press the Government on the measures they are proposing.
The second point is the potential impact this clause could have on the right to a fair trial for British citizens. Under Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, where a person has been convicted in another country, the judge at the extradition hearing must first decide whether the person has been convicted in their absence and then decide whether the person deliberately absented themselves from the trial. If the judge is satisfied that the person was convicted in absentia and did not deliberately absent themselves from the trial, the judge must determine whether the person would be entitled to a retrial or to a review that amounts to a retrial in the territory to which the person would be extradited. If the judge does not believe that the person would be entitled to a retrial if extradited, the judge must discharge the prospect of extradition.
The Supreme Court in the recent cases of Bertino and Merticariu distinguished between the right to a retrial and the right to apply for a retrial. The court has held that a person’s entitlement to a retrial does not simply mean the person “might” be entitled to a retrial but that they “must” be entitled. This means that a conditional entitlement to a retrial that is dependent upon the finding of the court in the requesting country is insufficient for extradition to proceed. This places a decision on whether a fair trial can be had firmly in the hands of British judges. That is surely right. It is plainly preferable for the determination of the ability for a retrial to take place to be undertaken by a British judge, as opposed to merely relying on the decision of a foreign court.
However, in Clause 195, the Government are seeking to overturn this ruling, thereby removing a key safeguard against unfair extradition. If this clause is brought into force, the judge in Britain would have to order a person’s extradition on the simple assertion by the requesting country that the person could be permitted to stand trial in person, regardless of whether that is actually true or not.
Let us imagine a person who was tried in absentia and was not aware of their conviction in another country. If they were extradited and not permitted a retrial, they would not have been able to stand up in court and defend themselves against the charges they had been accused of. That is surely a recipe for serious injustice. In short, I am concerned that this clause will lead to more British citizens being extradited on the whim of a foreign judge and not afforded the right to a fair trial. For this reason, I very much support the proposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the clause should not stand part.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by saying how sorry I am that it is the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, moving her proposition and not Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who we will greatly miss. As we all know, he was a staunch advocate for the people of Orkney and Shetland. I served nine years with him in Parliament, as we crossed over during that time, and found him to be an exemplary public servant as Deputy First Minister for Scotland and as a Member of Parliament. I had less contact with him in your Lordships’ House and I am genuinely sorry that I cannot have contact with him today. I pass my condolences to his family. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Brinton for taking up the cudgels on this specialist subject and doing it in a way that is professional. I promise that I will try to answer the questions and follow up on the points she has raised.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of the constituency case of Paul Wright in Mold, which I dealt with in a former life as Paul Wright’s Member of Parliament, following the extradition case with Greece. I will have to google it to refresh all the details in my memory, but it was an important constituency case for me to take up as a Member of Parliament at that time. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, feels that this did not receive sufficient scrutiny, but I take his point, and I hope I can answer his points today.
Clause 195 standing part of the Bill means that, under the Extradition Act 2003, the UK may extradite individuals either to face trial or serve a sentence. Where a conviction occurred in absentia and the UK court finds the person did not deliberately absent themselves, the judge must determine whether they will be entitled to a retrial in the requesting state. This clause will amend Sections 20 and 85 of the 2003 Act to restore the original policy intention that the individual must have a right to apply for a retrial, not a guaranteed retrial, for extradition to proceed. The amendment is required, as the noble Baroness mentioned, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Merticariu v Romania, which interpreted the current drafting of the 2003 Act as requiring a guaranteed retrial—something some states cannot offer. Without this fix, certain legitimate extradition requests could be blocked, undermining justice for victims.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned this, but the amendment itself does not change any existing safeguards or processes governing extradition. The full suite of safeguards in the 2003 Act, including judicial oversight and human rights protections, remains unchanged. This includes the UK court’s powers to consider and determine whether someone deliberately absented themselves. I hope that gives her some reassurance.
The small government Amendment 537 makes minor drafting changes. It simply provides that Clause 195 will be commenced by regulations, as opposed to automatically coming into force on Royal Assent, as was originally planned.
I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said and I have heard the complex case that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether she could have a meeting with appropriate supporters to discuss this and I would be happy to do so. For the purposes of confirming that, I would be grateful if she could email me the details of who she wishes to attend that meeting. It is entirely up to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but I would be happy if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to attend—or I could offer him a separate meeting if he wants to have further discussions or representations. If that can be discussed outside Committee, I would be happy to do that.
In the meantime, I hope the reassurances I have given are sufficient for the moment. I would be happy if the noble Baroness would withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part, pending any discussion, which I will ensure takes place if possible—subject to our diaries—before Report, as appropriate. If not, we can still have the discussion, so that we can at least reflect on the points that have been made today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for speaking in support of the clause not standing part, particularly for speaking about the very short time that it had for debate in the Commons, which obviously did not have the chance to go through some of the detail that DELF has provided for us in this Committee.
I also thank the Minister. He is, as ever, courteous and thoughtful. I am not sure we have closed the gap between where I believe that there are problems and where he and his officials think that this is all resolved. Therefore, I am very grateful for the offer of a meeting. I would be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wanted to join us. I will indeed email him names, but in the meantime I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am not entirely sure that I know all the facts of that case, so I am probably not qualified to answer that question. I spent my job putting people behind bars, not defending them. I am not a lawyer; I would not like to take that any further, frankly.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her amendment. The discussion today has taken me back to my time in Northern Ireland, when I had to see the product of covert intelligence. As Counter-Terrorism Minister in 2009, I had to see the product of that intelligence, so I understand the value of that. I also understand that the amendment seeks to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by removing the legal protections for covert human intelligence sources who have been tasked by the police and a limited number of other public authority agencies, such as the intelligence services, with engaging in specific, tightly defined, pre-approved criminal conduct. Furthermore, the amendment seeks to remove protections for CHISs engaged in such authorised criminal conduct where it engages the offences of encouraging or assisting an offender under the Serious Crime Act, or seeks to discredit those who are subject to a particular investigation. I understand the motive behind what my noble friend has brought forward.
I begin by addressing the undercover police inquiry, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I took office in July 2024, and the undercover policing inquiry had operated for nine years at that stage. It is clear that the historical allegations under consideration by the inquiry are absolutely appalling. Such behaviour should rightly be condemned. The inquiry is ongoing, and we await the findings and any recommendations, but let me assure all those who have spoken that I am now responsible in the Home Office for managing inquiries, and I wish to see recommendations as soon as possible, for the very reasons noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned today.
The current landscape around undercover operatives is much changed, and since 2013 enhanced safeguards have been put in place, but the Government want to see the lessons of that inquiry and consider them as soon as possible.
Noble Lords may recall the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, which has been referred to today, and the revised CHIS code of practice of 2022, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which were subject to debate and approval both here and in the House of Commons. This scrutiny includes consideration of similar amendments proposed by my noble friend at the time.
I say to noble Lords generally, including my noble friend Lord Hacking, that CHIS play a crucial part in preventing, detecting and safeguarding the public from many serious crimes, including terrorism, drugs and firearms offences, and child sexual exploitation and abuse. Those who do it do so at such personal risk to themselves. I noted and welcome the support from the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson—I will take the support where I can get it. It needs to be properly authorised and specifically defined criminality by the state, and they do so knowing that they will not be penalised for carrying out that activity, particularly by those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity, who may otherwise pursue legal action against them.
It is important that we place on record that CHIS authorisations and criminal conduct authorisations under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be validly given only where the proposed conduct is necessary, proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act. Valid authorisations make activity carried out in relation to them “lawful for all purposes”, providing protection from criminal and civil liability. However—I know my noble friend knows this—should a court find that the authorisation does not satisfy these necessary requirements, or should the conduct go beyond what is permitted by the authorisation, it will not be rendered lawful.
Given the significance of these powers, it is important to note that there are independent and effective avenues of oversight and redress, and that these exist—I know that colleagues who have spoken know this, but it is worth putting on the record again—via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anyone who believes they have been subject to improper activity by a public authority using covert investigatory powers.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the recording of CCAs in a number of cases most recently, which appears to indicate a deterioration in that area.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always interested in what Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, says. From my perspective he provides robust oversight, which includes comments that he has made, and he and his inspectors pay particular attention to that criminal conduct authorisation. He produces annual reports—I know that they are time-lagged, for reasons that are self-evident with any annual report. In his annual report in 2024, he identified
“good levels of compliance for the authorisation and management”
of police undercover operatives and noted that the quality and content of police undercover operative criminal conduct authorisations was found to be of a “good standard”. I will always look and listen to what he says because we have a responsibility to ensure that these matters are dealt with for the product of that CHIS to help protect the public at large.
I assure my noble friend and in this context the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that the CHIS cannot be authorised to entrap people—which is one of the objectives of her amendment. Any such entrapment would be in conflict with Article 6 of the ECHR—as my noble friend knows, we are committed to maintaining our obligations under the ECHR—which protects the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, I point my noble friend to the publicly available Undercover Policing: Authorised Professional Practice, which states in clear terms that an undercover operative
“must not act as an agent provocateur”.
I hope that satisfies my noble friend on that point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will ask a similar question to the one I asked the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If these safeguards are so wonderful and if it is all in good order, why was this allowed to happen? The evidence of the spy cops from the early days of that inquiry was that the people overseeing the CHIS knew what was happening regarding their relationships with the women. They knew and they let it happen. That does not sound like good order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect, the noble Baroness is raising historical issues; there have been improvements in performance management and control over time. As I said, those historical issues are appalling but are currently under investigation within the remit of the John Mitting inquiry into undercover policing. I want to see the recommendations of that inquiry as soon as possible so that we can see where there are further issues. I see that the noble Baroness wants to jump in again, which is fine. Leaping up is part of the parliamentary tennis that we play, and it is important that she has the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It also keeps us fit. All through the inquiry, the police have blocked information from being given out. They have constantly tried to stop the truth becoming open. I can understand the Minister saying that he is waiting for the inquiry to report, but it could take another decade. In the meantime, we still have those concerns about the police. The women’s concerns were brushed away. There might have been various pathways for them to complain, but they were brushed away. Why does the Minister think it is any better today?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness tempts me to go into areas of the inquiry, which I will not do. The inquiry is looking at historical abuses, which we have recognised and which are appalling. In the meantime, there have been legislation and improvements by policing in the management of covert operations. I am giving the noble Baroness that assurance now that we believe there are improvements in that management but things that need to be looked at in relation to the previous operation.
The legislation that the noble Baroness is seeking to amend has also put in place a range of measures as a whole. I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that I have made clear that CHISs cannot be authorised to entrap. This amendment would impose broad and unintended constraints on intelligence gathering by CHISs where criminal conduct is a factor—for example, by preventing CHISs going along with offences that they do not instigate. I have seen the product of that type of activity by CHISs. It is extremely valuable for crime prevention and for bringing people who are committing criminal or terrorist acts to the courts.
My noble friend’s amendment would also rule out the possibility of discrediting the subject of an investigation—for example, a terrorist organisation—in cases where it is equally important to do so. My noble friend has fulfilled her duty. She is challenging the Government on these matters. Self-evidently, we are in a better place than we were many years ago. I await with interest the recommendations of the John Mitting inquiry on undercover policing and whether there are further issues for us to examine.
I want to touch on two other points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, sort of asked for a meeting. I am always open to meeting with Peers. In my tenure in this job, I have tried to meet with anybody who has asked. But in this case, given that there is an inquiry ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to meet with him to discuss those matters now.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I was talking not about the inquiry but about the level of supervision and what is happening in the reports under this Act. I entirely agree with the Minister that what happened in the inquiry has nothing to do with this regime. The inquiry is relevant only because it shows the horrendous consequences of not supervising the use of CHISs. All I was concerned to understand better was why there are problems with the reports being so slow and what problems are being encountered. You cannot put this into the public domain, but it would reassure, from the point of view of democratic accountability, if we saw what the problems were and whether there were other means—such as strengthening the code of conduct—to put it right. The peril here is the discrediting of the police five years down the line. That is what I am concerned to avoid.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. Those are operational matters for the police, in my view, but we can make some judgments on that. I will reflect on what he has said and what he has requested, but my initial gut reaction—and I would like to trust my gut, on several occasions—is that it would not be appropriate to do that. I will reflect on what he said. I am trying to complete my remarks, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to speak, and I will always give way to him.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for his generosity. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I found his remarks, like those of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others, very helpful. I think I understand that he specifically ruled out our considering inquiries, but the suggestion that I—as someone who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, described, was hostile and is now more agnostic—would make to the Minister is that if he could look at secondary legislation, such as regulations, in terms of the timeliness of reports for the commissioner to bring forward, that would strengthen the scrutiny and oversight of the process. I fully agree with the process, but what seems to have come out as a consensus in the debate today is that people think the scrutiny process is clunky and not timely, so everyone loses in terms of reputation. If the Minister can perhaps give an undertaking that he will at least look at the issue prior to Report, that would be helpful.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Given what has been said, I will reflect on the comments that have been made. It is important that Sir Brian Leveson has his independence and oversight. I shall look at my gut feelings on this, but I will consider it, take advice and see where we are outside the debate today. In relation to my noble friend’s amendment, I still hope that, given what has been said today—a valuable discussion has been had—she will withdraw it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I think was an important and thoughtful debate. There is quite a lot of common ground, actually. There is common ground that we must have covert human intelligence sources. They must play a role in investigating the most serious crimes, in particular. There is further common ground that part of keeping someone’s cover in, for example, a criminal gang or a terrorist cell, must inevitably sometimes include participating in criminal activity; otherwise, those around them will spot that they do not belong. Again, that is common ground. There is also common ground that it was right to put activities that were previously completely in the shadows on a statutory footing, as happened in 2021.
The difference between some Members of the Committee and others is about whether, when someone is authorised to commit criminal offences in such a role, that authorisation should bring advance total immunity for all purposes, civil and criminal, or whether instead the authorisation should equip them with a public interest defence. That is the difference between us. It is a question of principle but also of practice as to where the balance should be struck, and which system—the one currently on the statute book or something like the one I propose—would give a better balance of safeguards for the brave and genuine public servants who do this work without abusing the trust, but also for the rights of citizens to be protected from abuse. That is the difference between us. Which mechanism provides the most proportionate approach? I do not think there is a gulf, but this is something to keep under review and keep discussing.
As I said earlier, in the report from which the Minister read selectively, Sir Brian Leveson talks about reporting being good, but even he concedes, in the same report, a lack of “specificity” on occasion, only a “general descriptor”, a “number of errors” and so on. So there are some issues that warrant serious and ongoing scrutiny.
My noble friend the Minister may regret telling the Committee that he now has special responsibility for inquiries in the Home Office—his kindness may be a liability—but I suspect that we will want to keep pressing him, not least on the progress of the inquiry on the past but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, on the way the system is operating today. The report suggests that the system today is not operating in the way that we would ideally like. With that, for the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, my old home city, for the way in which he has approached these amendments. I thank him for the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which he chairs, and through him I pass on my thanks to my old colleague Sarah Champion, the MP for Rotherham, for the work she has done on this issue. As he knows, we had an opportunity to debate the committee’s report in Grand Committee. I was fortunate that my noble friend Lord Katz took the debate on that occasion and was able to set out the Government’s response, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will realise has not really changed in the intervening months since that debate. However, I am grateful to him, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for their supportive comments, and I will come on to comments from other noble Lords in due course. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is not in her place at the moment, and missed the start of the debate so was therefore not able to speak in this debate—although she tried—but if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she can make any points she was going to raise in a letter to me and we will consider those prior to Report, which I hope is a fair compromise.
Before I go on to the main bulk of the arguments, I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and his comments on the death of Mr Ryan Evans, of Wrexham, which is close to both him and me. It is obviously a deeply sad incident and his death in Ukraine in 2024 followed a Russian strike, as the noble Lord outlined. The UK Government continue to support efforts to ensure accountability for the crimes that are committed in Ukraine. This includes supporting the independent investigation of the International Criminal Court into the situation in Ukraine, as well as providing assistance to Ukrainian domestic investigations and prosecutions of international crimes. Although I cannot give him much succour today in relation to that particular issue, I hope he will pass on the Government’s condolences to Ryan’s parents. We are obviously happy to have further representations on that matter should he wish to make them in due course.
The points made by my noble friend Lord Katz in the previous debate—and those with which I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—relate to the fact that the UK applies its universal jurisdiction only to a very few specific international crimes. Our approach to universal jurisdiction is designed to ensure that those suspected of, or accused of, crimes are investigated, charged and tried fairly and impartially at every stage, with access to all available evidence. This is in accordance with local constitutional and legal frameworks. It remains the case—and I know this will disappoint those noble Lords who have spoken in support today—that we do not believe that it is necessary at this time to extend the scope of the UK’s policy on universal jurisdiction to include genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is the long-standing view of successive Governments in general that where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime—and this goes to the point the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, made—we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted where they are perpetrated. That also goes to some of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, because the advantages of securing evidence and the witnesses required for a fair investigation and a successful prosecution are part of a credible judicial process.
It should be noted that the UK already has jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity where they are alleged to have been committed by UK nationals or residents. In some cases where the UK does not have jurisdiction, such as in Ukraine—I have just mentioned the situation in relation to Mr Ryan Evans, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—we are trying to ensure that we build domestic capabilities, and we support the work of the Office of the Prosecutor General to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully investigated by independent, effective and robust legal mechanisms.
To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the most serious international crimes not covered by the UK’s universal jurisdiction policy are generally already subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which, again, I would argue today, is better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not being dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities. The UK is a strong supporter of the ICC and its mission to end impunity. I know that we will do what we can to ensure that the crimes that have been mentioned today are dealt with by that international court, but I have to say that the debate that we had in the Moses Room, led by my noble friend Lord Katz, and the response I have given to the amendments today are the Government’s position. I accept and respect the points that have been put to the Committee today, but given the considerations that I have mentioned, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to withdraw his amendment. In saying that, I suspect we will return to these matters on Report. The Government will always reflect on what has been said in Committee, but I hope in due course the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I apologise for interrupting, but I just wanted to make sure that I am not misunderstood. The ICC is there where it has jurisdiction, but the problem that we have is that, in some of these countries, there is no ICC jurisdiction yet. Syria is not a party to the ICC; Ukraine has become a party to the ICC but only as of 1 January 2025. Any offence in Ukraine predating that would be an issue in terms of ICC jurisdiction. That is where the gap in universal jurisdiction policy is quite relevant. I just wanted to clarify my position, which was not to say that we do not need it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that, and I thought I understood the noble Lord’s position clearly, but I am grateful for his clarification. It still adds to the general point that I have made today, and I go back to the original, overarching point that the UK applies universal jurisdiction to only a very few specific international crimes. Our approach—through long-standing support of successive Governments—is that, where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime, we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. That may not be a position that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, or his supporters today, but it is one which I hope I have clarified. I note also—which I did not mention earlier—the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. With that, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this important debate. I was particularly grateful, of course, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, with her immense experience and as a colleague on the Joint Committee on Human Rights—we are beginning to miss her already, only one week after she rotated off the committee. This was a unanimous recommendation, not just in one but in two reports. We took evidence. This was not just about our inability to intervene in faraway places. We took evidence about British nationals who had been in north-east Syria and in northern Iraq and who had committed what even the Foreign and Commonwealth office has now decided was a genocide—it is willing now to use that word, which is very unusual on the part of the FCDO.
So we have the evidence. We know that 400 of the British fighters who went there came back, and not a single one has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide. Too often, there has been rank impunity. We also know that they have connections with other people who are not British citizens and who regularly travel to the United Kingdom. What this limited amendment seeks to do is not bring all those people before the British courts; it is about taking people who come into the UK with those kinds of links and bringing them to justice if the Attorney-General believes that there is a case to answer.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for reinforcing the argument, and I thank my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Wigley, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu. I wish we could have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, but I suspect there will be an opportunity on Report, and I hope that omission will be put right. Nevertheless, I was grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said about being willing to hear what she has to say but on a one-to-one basis. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and of course the Minister himself.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for moving this amendment. Economic crime is one of the most pervasive threats to public trust and business confidence in the UK. In the year ending March 2024, fraud accounted for around a third of all crime recorded by police. Industry estimates suggest that economic crime costs the UK economy tens of billions of pounds per year, according to police statistics. These staggering statistics underscore the need for effective enforcement and resourcing.
In this context, the need to seek more sustainable and predictable resourcing for economic crime enforcement is understandable. The proposal to assess the viability of an economic crime fighting fund based on reinvesting a proportion of receipts from enforcement reflects a desire to tackle this persistent and widespread issue. I recognise that there may be merits to an approach that allows specialist technology and expertise to be built and retained over multiple years.
The amendment also calls for an examination of the impact of budget exchange rules on the functioning of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. There have been reports that recovered assets sometimes cannot easily be redeployed by front-line investigators and that incentives can be blunted by accounting constraints. If funds that are recovered through enforcement cannot, in practice, be retained or redeployed effectively by those doing the work, it is sensible to ask whether the current framework is optimally aligned with the policy objective of strengthening economic crime capability. However, I recognise that any move towards hypothecation of enforcement receipts raises potential governance issues, and there is also the question of how such a fund would sit alongside existing funding streams and the Government’s wider strategy in this area.
I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment. I would be grateful if he could outline what steps the Government are currently taking to fight economic crime and whether they believe that any further action is required.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not just for his amendment today but for his patience in sitting through the Committee debates prior to introducing his amendment this evening. I am also grateful for the meeting we had with him and Phil Brickell, MP for Bolton West, in October and the meeting we had on 18 November.
It is important that Amendment 482 is considered. It would require the Government to consult on the viability of a ring-fenced economic crime fighting fund, and the intention of the amendment is to examine whether such a fund could provide multi-year resourcing for tackling economic crime. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in support of the amendment. The amendment recognises the significant harm that economic crime causes—reflected in the contributions made—to individuals, businesses, the economy and wider society.
The Government remain committed to tackling economic crime. That is evidenced not just by words in this Chamber but by our continued investment through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme and the economic crime levy, which has allocated £125 million to tackling economic crime in recent months. These schemes are delivering state-of-the-art technology to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to stay ahead of criminals. It also includes an important factor, which is the recruitment of 475 new officers across the threat leadership, intelligence, investigative and prosecution capacity. We are putting people on the ground to deal with this issue as part of the, we hope, tangible benefits that we can get in the fight against economic crime. As a Government, we want to continue to work with our partners to ensure that we are most effectively investing the funding available.
I understand and accept—and did so in the face-to-face discussions we had with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the Member of Parliament Phil Brickell—that the call for sustaining funding is an important one that needs to be investigated. I want to confirm to the noble Lord what I hope is of help to him: the Government are committed to exploring the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement. This is witnessed by the statements we have made in the recently published economic anti-corruption strategy, which was published last December —particularly paragraph 42, on page 23, which I quote for the noble Lord:
“In the context of Spending Review 2025”,
we will
“explore the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement”
as a joint Treasury and Home Office priority commitment in that anti-corruption strategy.
This strategy is fixed and there was a timescale for it when published. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, will accept our intentions in identifying the issues that he has raised and not just doing what we have done to date, which is to ensure that we have put resources in already. I hope that that review commitment in the strategy from December is of help to the noble Lord regarding the objectives of his amendments here today.
With that commitment, I would be grateful if he would at least welcome it and hold us to account on it and, in doing so, withdraw his amendment today.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
First of all, I can certainly promise to hold the Minister accountable for it, so I hope that pleases him. I thank the speakers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies—who have kindly commented on this amendment. I thank the Minister in particular for engaging with me before and for his comments tonight. I am still not quite sure what I am looking at. I think he used the phrase “exploring the funding landscape” a couple of times. When does that exploration reach its destination and come up with a report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have the strategy, which was published in December. It is a fixed-term strategy, which includes the commitment to examine the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. My time is quite stretched at the moment but, if the noble Lord would find it helpful, I am very happy for him to meet officials dealing with that aspect particularly. We can potentially explore from there whether his input is helpful in stretching that strategy and making some positive outcomes from it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for that answer. I was described in a previous debate as a legislative terrier, so I can assure him that I would like very much to meet his officials and, if necessary, nip their heels, because I am after a date when we are going to find the result of this viability study. Let us leave it at that. I am very grateful for his positive response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling their amendment. As a rural-dweller myself, I agree and recognise many, if not all, of the offences that have been identified. Our rural communities are incredibly important. On this side of the Committee, the Opposition have made it an absolute priority to support them in this difficult time. That support extends past simply fiscal policy following recent tax policies to all issues that affect them, including crime. It is promising that, last year, rural crime fell by over 16%, but there is still work to be done. Those offences still cost rural communities over £44 million a year—a fact that underlined our pledge to set up local taskforces to tackle rural crime.
Our objectives are not different from those of the noble Baroness; we simply differ on delivery. A top-down, centralised approach is never normally the most effective way to tackle local disconnected issues, and rural crime is a prime example of this. It is far less the operation of the highly organised criminal gangs we see in our cities, and more often the actions of an isolated few who sense an opportunity to steal or exploit the countryside and act on it.
Localised problems require localised solutions. Police forces are budgeted based on local needs, and are therefore the most alert to the specific issues facing their communities. It should be them organising taskforces to tackle rural crime, as they have the knowledge and ability to act and adjust to the changing crime picture in their area. While we agree with the noble Baroness’s intentions and entirely support them, we would much rather see funding directed to local forces and delegate responsibility to them and their taskforces to tackle the rural crime that we all want to see curbed. I hope the Minister agrees.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising these issues, and to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of her. As someone who represented a rural constituency in the House of Commons for 28 years, I can say that things such as sheep worrying, isolation and local policing were meat-and-drink on a daily basis. In fact, the north Wales rural crime unit was the model for a lot of the work that has been done on rural crime at a national level. I therefore appreciate and understand the problems that are faced by rural communities. I say to the noble Baroness and others that the Government remain committed to tackling those crimes that particularly impact our rural communities.
Noble Lords have spoken today about some of the government measures being brought forward, but I want to address them as a whole. As part of our safer streets mission, we are introducing important measures to protect rural communities that look at clamping down on anti-social behaviour, strengthening neighbourhood policing and preventing the very farm theft that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, spoke of, as well as the issue of fly-tipping, which has been mentioned by noble Lords today. I would also add shop theft to that. That is an important issue because, particularly in rural areas where there is perhaps only one shop, an organised crime gang, or regular shop theft, can impact small independent businesses very strongly. We are trying to deal strongly with those issues. Rural communities across England and Wales are already better protected from the rising threat of organised gangs, and we have new strategies to tackle crimes plaguing countryside areas.
I was struck by my noble friend Lord Forbes of Newcastle, who focused not just on the rural crime issues that I know he is aware of but raised important issues around fraud and the isolation that fraud can bring. I advise him that, in a three-year fraud strategy that we intend to publish in relatively short order, the Government intend to look very strongly at those issues and at what we can do in that space.
Developing a robust response to a rural crime is extremely important. I know that noble Lords have mentioned it, but the objective of the amendment is, as the explanatory statement says,
“to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime”.
I say to the mover of the amendment that, in November 2025, the Home Office, Defra and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the Rural and Wildlife Crime Strategy, which, in essence, does what the amendment asks for, and which will bring together the points that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, asked for, with ministerial oversight. The strategy is a vital step in the mission to provide safer streets everywhere.
There is also a Defra-led rural task force that was set up last year—that sounds like a long way away, but it was just over a month ago—with the aim of gathering evidence through a series of meetings and workshops to look at the specific challenges faced in rural areas. The evidence gleaned from the workshops is being examined, and it will be used to outline the Government’s strategic ambition for rural communities.
Some of the points that noble Lords have mentioned today, such as tackling equipment theft, are a huge concern. I understand that. We intend to implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which will introduce forensic marking and registration on a database of all new terrain vehicles and quad bikes. I am also pleased to say that we recently announced removable GPS systems. Those are demands that I had just over a year ago when I went to the rural crime conference chaired by the police and crime commissioners for Norfolk and Cheshire. We have acted on that.
Clause 128, which has already been considered, contains a valuable tool for the police that will help them tackle stolen equipment. It will ensure that, where it has not been reasonably practical to obtain a warrant from the court, the police can enter and search premises that have been electronically tagged by GPS or other means and where items are present that are reasonably believed to have been stolen. That is a very strong signal for organised criminals that we are going to track and monitor them and have a non-warranted entrance to their property if they have stolen equipment—and we will hold them to account for it.
I was pleased to be able to announce last year at the police and crime commissioners’ conference a long-term commitment of £800,000 for the National Rural Crime Unit and the National Wildlife Crime Unit. We have committed to replicating this year’s funding next year, in 2026-27; in what are tight and difficult financial times, we have still managed to commit that funding to help to support the National Police Chiefs’ Council in achieving the aims of that strategy.
To go to some of the specific issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, such as hare coursing, the establishment of that unit and work that it has done, and through that unit Operation Galileo, has seen a 40% reduction in hare coursing—again, that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as a specific problem that has existed and causes great difficulties in rural areas.
We have also looked not just at the excellent work of the National Rural Crime Unit but, overall, at how we can tackle rural crime in an organised way. Again, I recognise that there are challenges. The Government separately, through the Statement that we made only a couple of days ago in this House, are looking at reorganising and shrinking the number of police forces, and we are going to have a commission to look at that, with a review, in the next few months to come to some conclusions. We are trying to centralise some national activity on serious organised crime, which is very much behind a lot of that rural crime. That landscape will need to be looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to what I said on Tuesday night. We are looking at how we review the funding formula—that is important. Again, I cannot give specific answers on that today, but I would say to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and noble Lords who have spoken to it, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that significant work is being done on this. We have a strategy and a task force; we have co-operation with Defra and specific measures being brought in that have been called for for a long time on equipment theft and wildlife crime, as well as on the funding of the unit. We have looked at a range of other measures that we will bring forward to tackle organised crimes in rural areas. With the neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are looking at every neighbourhood police force having named, contactable officers dealing with local issues. We are putting 13,000 of those neighbourhood police officers in place over the next three to four-year period, which will mean that we have 3,000 extra neighbourhood police officers by March this year and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. That is focusing people from the back room to local police forces.
Again, there is a big mix in this, and I know that noble Lords will appreciate that it is a significant challenge at the moment, but I hope that that work is helpful and that the direction of travel suggested by the amendments is one that noble Lords can understand we are trying to achieve. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. There was a theme running through the debate of the difficulty faced by those in rural areas of isolation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned that I was seeking a top-down solution—not at all; I think that I am probably in your Lordships’ House because of looking for localised solutions. But that does not replace having an overall government strategy.
I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that they are committed to the funding for that unit; that is very helpful. I asked specifically about heritage crime, besides wildlife crime, so, between now and Report, perhaps the Minister could help me and provide a little more on how the Home Office is co-ordinating with the DCMS. Might he be able to write to me on that and also answer my question as to why wildlife crime is not notifiable? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day 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 27 November 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 45th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I will come on to the SI in detail in a moment, but I begin by reminding the House of a Labour manifesto commitment that is central to this area of work.
The Labour Government have planned to champion robust and world-leading animal welfare standards. On Tuesday 11 November, the Government published our animals in science strategy, a joint effort led by my noble friend Lord Vallance and supported by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and me. The policy statement was to phase out animal use in science, as announced by a Written Ministerial Statement. This policy has been welcomed by animal welfare groups, industry and academia. We have been clear that this can be done only at a pace that scientific advances allow, and that in some areas it will be essential to continue the use of animals in science for specific purposes.
It is therefore critical—this is where I return to the SI—that, although the Government’s direction of travel is to find alternatives to animals in science and phase out their use, we ensure at the same time that we get growth potential from this business in the world at large. The protection of those critical resources, while we try to reduce and eliminate their use where possible, is therefore essential. The purpose of the SI is to better protect facilities that are indeed essential for developing treatments for human and animal diseases. That is why, although the government manifesto’s direction of travel is clear and will, I hope, be met, the life sciences industry remains integral to this country. It is central to health resilience, to pandemic preparedness and to capabilities in this area. In my view, recent experience underscores why we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.
This Government want the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs over 350,000 people and generates £150 billion-worth of turnover annually. The sector is essential to the development of new treatments and crucial to the safety testing of new medicines and vaccines. No one knows that better than my noble friend Lord Vallance, who dealt with such issues during the response to the Covid-19 outbreak; its contribution in that instance cannot be overstated.
When it comes to the SI, recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life science sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines, medicines and therapies, and has disrupted supply chains that are, in my view, indispensable to research and national health protection. As a result of that disruption, work that is of significant benefit to society is, I am afraid, placed at risk. It is therefore incumbent on the Government of the day to act without delay.
That brings me directly to the subject of our debate today. The legislation before the House will address the issue that I have outlined by amending Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 to add the life sciences sector to the list of key national infrastructure. This will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of this offence will, obviously, have been arrested by the police and potentially warned by them, and the CPS will have gone through those charges, but anyone who ultimately faces that conviction will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the police’s ability to, in my view, respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.
The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research, or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised legally by Parliament under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research and academic laboratories carry out research involving animals.
It is clear that when Parliament passed the Public Order Act 2023, it explicitly deemed it necessary to build in the ability for new elements to be added to Section 7. The original section covered vital infrastructure being targeted by overtly disruptive protest; the life science sector now faces precisely the same situation. Parliament deliberately framed the definitions in the Act widely and explicitly allowed Parliament to add to the list of key national infrastructure, should the need arise. Today, that need has arisen.
If I may, I will directly address the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. First, I disagree with the stance and content of the amendment, but I think I have a duty to explain why. Let us take the components in turn. The noble Baroness has argued that the regulations constitute “legislative overreach” and
“extend the definition of ‘critical national infrastructure’ beyond its appropriate meaning”.
I will listen to her comments, but it is important that we put this on the record now.
Disruption to the life science sector poses significant and imminent risk to this country’s ability to act in a medical crisis and, if not addressed, could seriously undermine the UK’s readiness for the next pandemic. This is entirely in keeping with the existing definition of key national infrastructure and, given the risk posed to the country, in my view it comfortably meets the Government’s high threshold for this protection. The key national infrastructure sections that we have already include road transport, rail infrastructure, air transport infrastructure, harbours, downstream oil infrastructure, gas infrastructure, onshore oil and gas, onshore electricity generation and newspaper printing infrastructure. I suggest that support for activity in a medical crisis meets that criterion.
Secondly, the noble Baroness argues in her amendment that the proposal from me and the Government today further restricts
“the democratic right to peaceful protest”.
Let me be clear to this House: the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democratic society. People should have the right to protest. If they wish to protest, they should have that right. I have undertaken protest myself. This measure is not to limit protests: it does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protests, but there is a balance to be struck, and the right to protest does not extend to causing serious disruption to or imperilling that key national infrastructure.
Finally, the noble Baroness’s amendment includes an assertion that
“sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken”.
I referred in my opening remarks—I put those at the top of my speech, because I am quite proud of this— to the fact that my noble friends Lord Vallance and Lady Hayman of Ullock have, with me, brought forward a manifesto commitment in the first year of this Labour Government to publish a strategy to replace animals in science. It sets out how we will create a revolutionary research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods, the key caveat being “wherever possible”. That technology, which my noble friend is very much on top of, will develop. We hope to replace animals in science as we can and to phase them out, in line with our manifesto commitment.
Through the Office for Life Sciences, my noble friend Lord Vallance has allocated £75 million in funding alongside publication of the strategy to help ensure that we can develop those alternatives, which will support laboratories in moving away from animal testing and adopting safe, proven alternatives. Nobody in this country of animal lovers wants to see suffering or their unnecessary use. The Government’s plan will support that work to end animal testing, wherever possible, and roll out alternatives as soon as it is effective and safe to do so. In doing so, that will contribute to the export potential and the growth agenda for this country, and the serious scientific research that this country can utilise to make a difference in the world at large.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a passionate debate, which we on these Benches welcome. Dealing with the statutory instrument before us gives us the opportunity to recognise the importance of our life sciences sector to public health, national resilience and the wider economy. It is therefore right that they should work and operate without sustained disruption, intimidation or obstruction.
The regulations, as outlined in the debate, extend the definition of “key national infrastructure” to include the life sciences sector. In doing so, they ensure that the police have access to a clear and consistent set of powers where protest activity moves beyond lawful expression and into serious interference with the use or operation of critical facilities.
It is important to be clear about what this instrument does and does not do. It does not prohibit peaceful protest, nor does it seek to suppress legitimate debate, including on matters that attract strong and sincerely held views. The right to protest remains a fundamental one. What these regulations address is conduct that is deliberately disruptive, sustained or targeted in a way that prevents lawful activity from taking place and places staff, researchers and patients at risk. Life sciences facilities have in the past been subject to precisely that kind of activity. Existing public order powers can be complex, reactive and fragmented. By bringing the life sciences sector within the framework established by the 2023 Act, the regulations provide greater legal clarity, earlier intervention where appropriate and a more proportionate and effective response to serious disruption.
We also note that the instrument is tightly focused. It does not create new categories of protest offence but applies an existing regime to a sector whose importance to the national interest is clear. The offences remain subject to established thresholds, safeguards and oversight, and their application must continue to respect the principles of necessity and proportionality.
For those reasons, we on these Benches are satisfied that the case for this instrument has been made. It strikes an appropriate balance between protecting critical national infrastructure and safeguarding the right to peaceful protest. We therefore support the regulations and believe that the House should approve them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, responds on her amendment, it is important that I respond on behalf of the Government to some of the points that have been raised. I do not intend to repeat the discussion points in my opening speech, but some of them may be referred to because they have generated debate. This debate has generated a lot of interesting and important points of principle, and I am grateful for the contributions. I shall respond to four broad points: the right to protest, the SI provision use, the use of animals in science and—the big question—why now? I will address those in turn.
The right to protest was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, speaking just now from the Front Bench. I want to be clear right now in front of this House: as I said in my opening statement, this is not about the rightful, peaceful protest which is a fundamental part of our democratic society. This measure does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protest. However, peaceful expression does not extend to causing serious disruption to the hard-working majority in the businesses in question.
Shamima Begum
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reconsider their decision not to allow Shamima Begum and other British-born mothers and children to return to the UK from camps in Northern Syria in the light of the increased fighting in the area.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Shamima Begum had her British citizenship removed, as upheld by the UK courts. It is inappropriate for me to comment further while there are further ongoing legal proceedings. We are working closely with partners to understand the current situation in the detention facilities and camps, and to mitigate any shared national security risks.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that the situation in northern Syria has become more dangerous recently, especially for those being held in detention camps? Notwithstanding the sub judice position referred to by my noble friend, would it not be right for Shamima Begum, a British-born person educated and brought up here and probably trafficked to Syria as a 15 year-old, to be allowed to return and face justice? Or do the Government seriously believe that she should stay in a prison camp indefinitely?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first part of my noble friend’s question, the Government are obviously deeply concerned about developments in north-east Syria. However, we welcome the agreement between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces to integrate military and civilian institutions, and we will continue to monitor what happens in northern Syria. Regarding Shamima Begum, my noble friend knows that I try to be helpful on these matters. However, I cannot be any more helpful than I was last time, which is to say that a process has been followed and there is further discussion in the European courts. I cannot anticipate or comment upon that matter until such time as those issues are resolved.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I declare an interest as a former legal counsel of Shamima Begum—there are many of us in that position. The Minister has repeatedly stated that the existence of legal proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights prevents him answering detailed questions. I am aware of no doctrine of the European court that imposes such a restriction. Why are the Government hiding behind the European court’s proceedings to avoid answering the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, I am not hiding behind that. We have taken a judgment that we are in discussion on that matter in the European court with legal teams. I am not able to give a running commentary on those matters in this House. The noble Lord may not like that, but that is the position I have to give the House today.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I re-emphasise that when Shamima Begum went to Syria, she was 15 years-old. She absconded from school. She was a child. What is the public interest in excluding her from the United Kingdom now? Are we just making political gestures? I of course acknowledge that the original decision was made by the previous Administration.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The original decision was made by the previous Administration, and it happens to be one that this Government upheld and support. I say again to the House that there are ongoing proceedings about her status, and the decisions were very clear. Under legislation which the previous Government took, we have examined this matter and are now in discussions in the European Court of Human Rights. I think it is best left to be determined in the way in which it will ultimately be determined.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I have said it before and I will say it again: we on these Benches are unequivocal in our view that Shamima Begum should never be allowed to return to Britain. However, the noble Lord is right to note the increase in fighting in northern Syria. One of the issues this raises is that British-born Islamic State fighters and sympathisers may be freed and then attempt to make the journey back to Britain, potentially by small boat crossings. In the interests of the security of the British people, what are the Government doing to ensure that no one who has fought for or assisted a terrorist group in that region is able to return to Britain?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very valid point, and it is one that I support. The Foreign Secretary has already spoken to the Syrian Foreign Minister about the situation of those who have been and are being detained. We want to ensure that we continue to monitor the security situation in northern Syria, but the noble Lord makes a very valid point that the Government will bear in mind.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice has recommended that the UK adopt a comprehensive repatriation policy for all British nationals detained in north-east Syria. None of the 50 to 60 British nationals—the majority of whom are children and their mothers—detained in the dangerous and deteriorating situation in north-east Syria have been charged with a crime, and they have been held there for roughly six years. If transferred to Iraq, which is now a real threat, they face an acute risk of torture, unfair trials and suffering for the children if they are separated from their mothers. Will the Government now fulfil their responsibility and do what the United States, France and Germany have already done: repatriate these British nationals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All requests for consular assistance and, indeed, repatriation will be taken into account by the Government. The British Government will particularly look at the issue of unaccompanied minors and orphans when brought to our attention, and we will facilitate their return, where feasible, on a case-by-case basis, subject to the national security issues and concerns that have been raised to date. I recognise that there are no consular assistance facilities in northern Syria, but there are ways in which that can be examined, and if cases are brought to the Government’s attention, we will look at them.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, the Government keep citing vague evidence that Shamima Begum is a threat to national security. When the Government are able to, will they put that evidence before an independent inquiry so that it can be scrutinised, and we can be assured that the rule of law is being followed properly and she is not being used as a political football?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that the individual is not being used as a political football. The previous Government took the decision under the British Nationality Act 1981 to deprive her of her citizenship status. It is not a step that is taken lightly; it is taken only after careful consideration of advice by lawyers and in conjunction with international law. We have examined the decision to date and upheld it. There is a court case, and the Government judge that we are not going to comment on that while it is going on, but the noble Baroness’s points have been heard in this House, and we will obviously examine them.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, regardless of the particular case and the ongoing proceedings my noble friend the Minister describes, what does he think of the broader policy conundrum that if developed democracies take citizenship away from subjects and citizens who are perceived to be dangerous, we render large numbers of people stateless and create a powder keg of resentment, fomenting all sorts of challenges that will make us less, not more safe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I come back to the point, which my noble friend will be aware of, that this is not a decision taken lightly or very often. The previous Government issued 10 citizenship deprivations in 2020, eight in 2021, three in 2022, two in 2023 and only one in 2024. When the decision is taken, it is on the basis of advice, and that no one is left stateless in doing so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, she was indeed 15 when she went out to Syria originally, but she is now 26 and able to show maturity, one would expect—but unfortunately, she has shown very little contrition or regret. While I am sympathetic to her, would it not be better if she actually condemned atrocities committed by ISIS, rather than saluting and applauding them, which she has done in recent interviews?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, with due respect to the noble Lord, I am not going to comment on individual cases, which the Government are currently actively considering, in terms of both the original decision and the court case to date. The noble Lord has said what he said and the House will have heard it; I cannot comment on it.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, the United States has begun the transfer of 7,000 Islamic State detainees from prisons in north-east Syria to Iraq. Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council said the other day that it would commence legal proceedings against transferred detainees of whatever nationality. Can the Minister tell the House whether any British detainees are among those 7,000, and what, if anything, can be done to guard against the risk that in Iraq, those detainees will suffer torture, unfair trials and the death penalty?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the issue he has raised is a US and Iraq-led operation. The UK is not involved in that operation. We expect all detainee transfers to meet international legal standards and will continue to monitor developments very closely. Again, I cannot comment on any individual cases in relation to the issue the noble Lord raises.
Police Reform White Paper
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, our system of policing is outdated—that is beyond doubt. The White Paper is right to promise radical reform, but, for victims and communities, the real tests are simple: will more crimes be prevented and will more offenders be brought to justice? Reform cannot be a top-down, money-saving exercise imposed from the centre; it must rebuild capacity, confidence and local trust. Get it wrong and communities will feel even more abandoned, widening the gap between police and public.
The plan for a new national police service and fewer, larger regional forces has merit, but real questions remain. Of course we need strong national capability for terrorism, serious organised crime, fraud and online harms that cross borders, but restructuring is a means, not an end. Experience in Scotland shows that mergers alone do not deliver better results. If design and implementation are mishandled, local connection suffers. The first priority must be to define clearly what we expect the police to do, recognising how their role has expanded, and then to provide realistic, long-term funding before redrawing force boundaries. Leadership and scrutiny, not structure, drive performance.
At present, the police are the agency of last resort for everything from children’s social care to adult mental health crises, as overstretched services retreat and leave the police to pick up the pieces. We welcome the commitment to ring-fenced neighbourhood policing, but we must ask whether the proposed model of mega-forces plus local policing areas will really empower local communities or simply add another layer of bureaucracy. Without proper funding and wider criminal justice reform, restructuring alone will not make our streets safer. Since we all agree that community policing is vital, can the Minister assure us that extra officers will be protected for visible neighbourhood work, backed by stable multi-year funding, not redeployed elsewhere when budgets tighten?
We support in principle a national licence to practice, tougher misconduct rules and stronger leadership after the shocking failures of recent years. We need officers and specialist staff with the right skills, character and integrity. Rising standards can rebuild trust but must not load more bureaucracy on to an already exhausted workforce.
The creating and purchasing of IT and data systems is sensible, but only if designed around operational needs and with sustainable funding. After all, procurement must be handled by qualified professionals so that we never again see the Home Office-driven debacle over the recent replacement emergency service radios, now running 12 years late and around £8 billion over budget.
We welcome the decision to abolish police and crime commissioners, but whatever replaces them must be representative, transparent and subject to robust scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary proposes new targets, intervention powers, turnabout teams and the authority to dismiss chief constables. Can the Minister say what safeguards will protect the operational independence of policing, particularly from short-term political pressure? No individual, whether a PCC, mayor, council leader or Home Secretary, should have unilateral power to dismiss a chief constable. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary will be bound by the same consultation rules that apply to PCCs now under Section 11A of the Police Regulations 2003?
Finally, on live facial recognition, rolling out such powerful technology before strong statutory safeguards are in place means relying on algorithms whose accuracy, bias and oversight remain, at best, disputed. If the Government move too fast and lose public trust, it may take many years to rebuild.
Liberal Democrats want a system of policing rooted in communities, fit for modern threats, accountable and trusted. We will work constructively on reforms that raise standards, but we will challenge fiercely any move towards centralisation without transparency or any attempt to treat restructuring as a substitute for leadership.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, to go to the heart of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, this is being done for a purpose. Crime is changing: fraud and online crime are widespread, and sexual abuse, terrorism and a range of national crimes impact policing and the communities the police serve. There is a strong need to reconnect local police with local crime, such as shop theft, and with neighbourhood policing issues, such as antisocial behaviour. To deal with that, we currently have a patchwork of 43 local forces, some led by a mayor and some by a police and crime commissioner. Some mayoral areas, such as Liverpool, do not have a police and crime commissioner; others, such as Manchester, have a police and crime commissioner. In West Yorkshire, there is a police and crime commissioner and a deputy mayor appointed to report to the mayor. In the West Midlands, the police and crime commissioner runs in parallel with the mayor. New mayoralties are coming on stream in the next couple of years, and that patchwork quilt will continue to develop.
At a national level, we have no procurement organisation. We have police chief leads who deal with their local force but who are also leads for particular areas. We have a National Crime Agency, a national helicopter service and forensics. With this proposal we are trying to ensure that we give greater support to the neighbourhood policing model at a local level, and have a consistent model of leadership through the elected mayor or an elected board of councillors. That will be examined. In conjunction with the Senedd, we will look at the model for Wales. At the same time, we will look at force numbers. The proposals include a review in the next five or six months, with a chair to be appointed shortly. Its terms of reference will be to look at how we can slim down the number of forces to save money and give a regional structure.
In answer to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on accountability, there will be an official—a mayor or councillor—who is responsible for that. The Home Secretary will have the power to remove chief constables. There will be a review of the number of forces. I do not know yet what that review will show, but it will help save money and give some focus. We intend to start very shortly to establish the national service. This will initially look at IT, forensics, the helicopter contract and procurement. Is it right that 43 forces procure 43 sets of uniforms? Is it right that there are different phone systems at a local level? Those are things that we need to look at. Later, the National Crime Agency, counterterrorism and regional crime units will be brought into focus, looking at how we deal with national issues.
Are we doing that for a purpose? We are. What is the purpose? To focus on things that matter on the ground and that matter collectively, nationally, and to potentially make better efficiencies and savings in the organisation and spend for things such as procurement of vehicles and uniforms. It is important to do that, and that is the model we are looking at.
There are issues. The noble Lord asked about the British Transport Police. That is not in the model at the moment; that is a matter for the Department for Transport. Everything can be examined, but that is not on the table at the moment.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on facial recognition, she knows that we are currently consulting on the standards and governance for it. Going back to my time as Police Minister 16 years ago, we were looking at things such as automatic number plate recognition. That was being tested in the last part of the previous Labour Government and is now a natural and automatic part of crime fighting, where you can track number plates and see who is involved with them. Going back 25 years, CCTV was a worry, but it is now an essential part of evidence gathering and crime fighting. I therefore say to the noble Baroness that we need to regulate facial recognition, but it is one of the next steps for the future of how we identify missing people and missing suspects, and we will use it to help identify how we can further reduce crime.
All this is done for a purpose. We are trying to re-energise neighbourhood policing and remove the barriers that stop the police focusing on things that matter. We are also looking at how we can organise nationally in this rapidly changing world; build capability on AI, for example, and save police time and resource; and improve standards, which again goes to the noble Baroness’s point. We have the licence to operate in these proposals and, in the policing Bill, we have proposals to vet police officers and raise standards. They are all important. It is important that we look not at where we are now but, as part of this reorganisation, at where we are going for the future, and at how we can better use AI and modern capabilities and technology to help improve police performance on the ground.
I therefore say to the noble Lord and noble Baroness, who are both my colleagues, that they have a very positive role to play in helping to design this service. However, ultimately, we cannot stay where we are. Rightly or wrongly, we think that the police and crime model has not worked efficiently and that we have too big a patchwork; we need to review and make a difference to it. It has been acknowledged for a long time that we have too many police forces. I say to both contributors that the police welcome this, from the Chief Constables’ Council through to the inspectorate and police forces across the country. We have an opportunity to redefine policing for the next 25, 30 or 40 years. This is a real opportunity to get better value for money, better performance and better efficiency, and to ensure that we meet the challenges of future crime.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, the bedrock of British policing is the office of constable. That is an office under the Crown. The Government are now going to introduce the licence to practice, given by the Government. At the same time, it appears that the Government are going to reintroduce targets for policing. The experience under the Blair Government was that policing targets distorted police behaviour and meant that, all too often, local policing priorities were ignored. The Government are also going to introduce a huge national bureaucracy in the national police service, and we read of a “hands-on Home Office” and greater powers for the Home Secretary.
Given this combination, how will the Government ensure that we will not see national diktats completely overriding local policing requirements and, particularly, that we are not going to see the police subjected to undue influence from the Home Office and the Home Secretary? I remember November 2008, when the parliamentary office of the then Member of Parliament for Ashford was searched by the police without a warrant, reportedly because of influence from Government Ministers. How are the Government going to ensure, in this centralised police service and centralised model, that there is not going to be undue political influence that relates not to the policing interests of the citizens but to the political interests of the Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness has great experience in this area. We have discussed this for many years, in shadow and government form. The Government are cognisant of the fact that the police service must be independent of government, have its own responsibilities, and make its own decisions around issues of arrest, suggestions about charges by the CPS and how to manage resources at a local level. Those are absolutely central, but this does not take away from the importance of the Government establishing the real areas of concern.
We are now saying that we need to have neighbourhood policing. As part of the grant, there will be an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers on the ground to look at the issues we think are important, such as anti-social behaviour, shop theft and a range of issues around policing in town centres. This is important for public confidence. It does not mean that we are interfering in policing. It means we are setting a number of potential targets which we think are important national and strategic issues.
On the national picture, the Police Minister is not going to be telling the head of the new policing body, “These are things I want you to do”, or “I want you to go round to X office, invade them and interfere in them”, but it is right for us to look at the strategic targets on counterterrorism, on serious organised crime and cross-border crime, and on crime that is coming into this country from the European Community, where we need to participate and co-operate. These are really important issues. It is right that the Home Secretary and the Government set these targets and some direction of travel in conjunction with the police, but still with that clear barrier between operational responsibility and overall policy setting.
The noble Baroness spoke about a police officer being an officer of the Crown. Through the licence to operate, we are trying to set a number of standards against which we check the performance of police officers so that, through the Crime and Policing Bill, we improve vetting, standards and management, and have a quicker way to remove police officers who do not meet our performance targets. These things will be done in conjunction with the police.
As I said in my opening remarks, the police have welcomed this at every level—from the inspectorate, through to the Chief Constables’ Council, to individual chief constables. I accept that that may be different for police and crime commissioners, but there is a real level of support among the police for the modernisation of the force. I hope that the noble Baroness will continue to hold us to account and that we will have this discussion as we continue.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the much-anticipated White Paper on the future of policing across England and Wales. I particularly welcome the focus on neighbourhood policing to better address everyday crime. However, the White Paper has not addressed the unfairness of policing powers being withheld from Wales compared with the other devolved nations.
Three independent commissions—the Silk commission, the Thomas commission and the McAllister commission—have recommended the devolution of policing to Wales. It might be helpful for the House to be aware that, in First Minister’s Questions in the Senedd today, the First Minister stated:
“I want to make it clear that the Welsh Government has been clear that we want policing to be devolved to Wales”.
She went further to explain that the motivation behind this is to have
“better provision for the people in Wales”.
Will the Minister join the First Minister of Wales and Welsh Labour colleagues in the Senedd who are making the case here in Westminster for the devolution of policing to Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know where the noble Baroness is coming from. We have been very clear in the White Paper that the proposals for Wales are about organisation of the delivery and not about the devolution of policing. We have taken the view that policing is intricate within the whole legal system in Wales, which includes the court service, youth justice and a whole range of other matters. In the Labour manifesto, we said we would look at the devolution of youth justice. My colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are looking at this now, but we do not think that the devolution of policing is right for Wales at this time.
We will have to explain this judgment to all Members of the Senedd and I have to explain it to the noble Baroness in this House. We think that Wales is better served by a UK-based England and Wales service which looks at the main issues of national interest, such as counterterrorism, along with the other devolved Administrations. In the Welsh context, the discussions we will have with whoever forms the Government in the Senedd after the election will be about how we make a better structure in the period after the abolition of the police and crime commissioners.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I note that when the original Statement was made in the other place, it began and ended with a reference to Sir Robert Peel. In my capacity as the co-chair of the National Police Ethics Committee for England and Wales, I probably talk more about the Peelian principles than I ever thought I was going to do in earlier life. One of those essential principles is that policing is a civilian force: it is people, the citizenry, policing themselves.
I welcome much that is in this report. It represents a way forward and I am sure that my committee will go along with it. But there are two challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady May, has already referred to one, and she gave an example of it. I will give another brief one from when we were looking at Covid in a precursor to the present committee. During Covid, the Operation Talla policing ethics committee was largely set up under my chairmanship because police chief constables were under such pressure from Government Ministers, who were announcing things, often on social media at nine o’clock at night, saying “This is now the law” when it was not. The police wanted somebody independent who could support them in the face of that kind of ministerial overreach. So I worry, as the noble Baroness, Lady May, does, about the risks of ministerial overreach and the powers being given centrally.
On the other side, on neighbourhood policing, again we are hearing all the right reassurances here, but that is so essential. During Covid, the Metropolitan Police at one point had, I think, an absence rate of about 10 times that of Kent Police, the neighbouring force. Kent Police was policing its local communities while the Met was busing people in crew buses all the way over the capital, where they were all giving each other the disease. It was not neighbourhood policing in any way, shape or form. So how can we ensure with the new policing structures that it really will be people policing locally who are that local citizenry, not somebody drawn from three counties away across a much larger area? But with that said, I appreciate what we are doing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a lot in there. The main thing I can say to the right reverend Prelate is that the purpose of our policing is to have the police working with the community at a local level. That is why we have to focus on neighbourhood policing, why we have put in an additional 13,000 officers over this Parliament, and why we are on 2,500 to 3,000 currently in terms of increasing neighbourhood policing, taking people away from warranted officers doing back-room jobs into warranted officers doing front-line policing and community reassurance. That is why the basic issues, as I have said before, of shop theft, anti-social behaviour—things that happen in the high street or on the estate—should be the focus of the local police force.
How do we better deliver that? Do we look at that in a regional context? Whoever takes over this examination of regional force levels might look at a region and say, “We need to have this as a force size for this region because there’s a synergy between this city and that city and this regional area”, but underneath there is still that local neighbourhood police model. We are trying to ensure that we have local governance that is better than the patchwork we have and, at the same time, we will look at the national challenges and ensure that the Police Minister and/or the Home Secretary sets some realistic targets but does that in conjunction with the police. Ultimately, we get asked all the time in this House what we are doing about shop theft and anti-social behaviour. Some level of co-operation and ambition has to be set between the Home Office centrally and the local police forces, but they still have to operate independently and manage their resources in a way that gives them local community confidence.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister is leaving the British Transport Police alone. In my experience, it works very well and is led by an outstanding chief constable. I may have missed it, but I am not sure he said where royal protection is going to sit in this tier of policing. It is a significant cost, particularly for a county such as Gloucestershire, where we are blessed with a number of members of the Royal Family, including one of the homes that belongs to His Majesty the King. It is a significant cost to the force.
My real concern is that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, about accountability. We already have an issue with police being abstracted from rural areas to do public order policing in big urban centres. If we have larger police forces, I can see that getting worse. How are we going to make sure that rural communities get the level of policing that they deserve and, importantly, that they pay for through their council tax precept, without a democratically elected leader at a very local level?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Starting with the question of royal protection, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not comment on that, because we do not normally comment on those issues in a public way. At some point, we will obviously make some further statements on it, but I do not wish to open that discussion now. On his comments on rural funding, we are as part of this proposal looking at reviewing the formula that currently exists within police funding. The police settlement that we announced a couple of weeks ago put significant additional resources into policing, but we recognise the need to modernise the funding formula, so part of the review that we are undertaking now will be on how we do that very task.
At a local level, there will still be somebody accountable politically for policing, but what I am trying to do, and what we are trying to do in the Home Office, is address the fact that at the moment we have police and crime commissioners, which is a patchwork model because of the advent of mayors. We have another pile of mayors coming on stream very shortly. We have some areas where there will not be a mayor, but nor will there be a police and crime commissioner in future, so we are still going to review those organisational models. At the end of this process, there will still be somebody who is accountable for policing, but not in the directly elected way, solely on police and crime issues, as the police and crime commissioner currently is.
Earl Russell (LD)
Serious organised waste crime is a national disgrace that is costing the UK economy over £1 billion a year. The Environment Agency, as a regulatory body, appears to be ill-equipped and fundamentally unable to control it. These police reforms offer a co-ordinated approach to serious organised crime, yet I can find no mention at all of waste crime in the plans, so can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to give the new national police service responsibility for tackling organised waste crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Environment Agency currently has a role in managing waste crime, but I think it is important that we put some focus on the fact that it has become increasingly clear, and this is a relatively new phenomenon, that serious organised crime is behind many of the large illegal waste dumps around the country at the moment. Our effort to improve performance will involve regional and national police forces, regional organised crime units, serious crime, nationally, and the National Crime Agency, over time, to look at how better we can tackle serious organised crime on a UK-wide basis, with support from the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Serious organised crime now manifests itself in illegal waste tips and could manifest itself in drug importation, weapons importation or a range of other things. The key thing is that we have some national co-ordination of regional crime units and national units to look at serious organised crime.
Lord Walney (CB)
The reforms to public order policing in the White Paper are welcome, in particular the commitment to greater data sharing between forces to enable this. Can the Minister confirm that that will include a greater level of intelligence sharing, which was one of the gaps that I found in my review of this wider area that was presented in 2024?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. One of the things we are trying to do is to improve the IT systems and bring them under central control. That means improving data sharing and it also means using new technology, such as AI, to improve analysis of data and to give a central lead to performance measures, to get better outcomes for the community at large.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, the Government should be commended for coming forward with bold proposals. It is clear that the existing structures are rooted in a situation from way before we had the levels of mobility, technology and new crimes that are coming forward and taking up so much of the police’s time. Having 43 police forces, therefore, is no longer fit for purpose, so it is good that the Government are showing leadership and taking bold steps. I was very struck by the cautious notes that my noble friend Lady May came forward with and, indeed, some of the dangers that lie here.
There is a lot of emphasis in the White Paper on accountability and performance, and that really is where an awful lot of the opportunities lie here. We are at an inflection point. There is the opportunity for considerable dividends from this, but there are also significant potential risks. I just ask the Minister to give a little more detail to the House about the process of determining what the eventual patchwork will look like—the size of forces, the allocation of resources and so forth. Could he also tell us how the mergers and essential integrations will be carried out without, essentially, dropping the ball? There are significant risks here but, overall, I think the Government are heading in the right direction.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Viscount’s support on this matter. In response to his question about force sizes, we will be announcing a review very shortly, which we hope will be done by the summer. That will set the template for the Government to determine ultimately how many forces there will be and how we begin the process of changing that system accordingly. When parliamentary time allows—in that time-honoured phrase—we will bring forward measures to end the role of police and crime commissioners. This will be done by the time of the next election due for electing police and crime commissioners. In the initial phase we will also look at bringing together IT, forensics and procurement into a national service, but over time. Again, this will require parliamentary legislation to bring together the National Crime Agency and other bodies, including counterterrorism, into that body as a whole.
We also have a separate paper coming forward shortly that will look at fraud, which is currently the responsibility of the City of London Police as the lead force. We will be looking at how we can improve performance on that issue as well. These will not be quick fixes but if I look three to four years ahead, police and crime commissioners will have gone, the new structures will be in place for the new forces, and there will be accountability through the mayors or councils. We will be quite well down the road of the establishment of the wider national police service, bringing in training, national services and the roles of the National Crime Agency and counterterrorism police.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, Robert Peel talked about policing by consent, emphasising public approval, but his key recommendation was crime prevention, and a primary goal was dealing with disorder. He saw that merely punishing crime after the fact was a failure. All the statistics we get are for the number of arrests that have been made or the number of crimes prosecuted. We never get the number of crimes that have been prevented. In this new White Paper, which I welcome strongly, how are we going to get to the position that we have got to in health? A good health service actually prevents people becoming unhealthy. How are we going to get that balance?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s commitment to the proposals in the White Paper. If we look at government policy as a whole, in parallel to that a great deal of work is being done by my noble friend Lady Smith on education, on prevention and on strengthening citizenship in schools. There is a need, through the Ministry of Justice, to look at improving sentencing outcomes and better performance in prisons to stop people reoffending. Through the Sentencing Bill, we are looking at a wide range of community sentences that people could be put into rather than prison. That all has the objective of reducing crime and recidivism and preventing people getting involved in crime in the first place. In this White Paper, we are again trying to have that strong focus on what needs to be done about serious organised crime at the national level. At the same time, we need to focus on building community resilience, improving neighbourhood policing, and meeting the Peelian principles that the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned: the police are the public and the public are the police, and that happens at a local level as well.
On all those fronts, we are trying to prevent and reduce both crime and repeat crime, give the public confidence, improve standards in the police force and deal with significant, severe future challenges in organised crime and international issues such as internet and AI crime. I hope that reassures the noble and right reverend Lord. That is the Government’s plan, and we will no doubt be held to account on it by this House.