Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsThursday 27th November 2025
(1 day, 18 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 111(Corrected)-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (26 Nov 2025)
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Before my noble friend rises to reply, I want to emphasise, as someone who has practised at the Bar over many decades, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, the importance of our recognising in the course of these discussions that, while we are dealing here with a spate of offences clearly committed by gangs of Pakistani men, this is not confined to Pakistani men. The Epstein case has told us quite clearly that upper-class white men with power can abuse and groom and commit these crimes. I have seen it since my early years at the Bar. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, sitting there, and we acted in cases involving East End gangs who passed around girls who were part and parcel of that world. Nowadays, in the drugs world, pass-around girls, who are often underage, are part and parcel of that world. So we must not become fixated on the idea that this happens only in certain communities. I just want that to be emphasised.
The Minister of State, Home Office ( Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in what I think everybody in the Committee will accept is a very wide set of amendments, covering a large number of issues. I shall try my best to summarise and respond on behalf of the Government as a whole.
I start by saying that the horror of the events that have led to the discussions that we have had today need to be recognised, and I need to say from the Government Front Bench that we wish to ensure that we prevent those events happening in future. I just remind the Committee that the Government have been in office for 17 months so far, and the Bill before the Committee today includes a wide range of measures that have arisen out of reports published before the Government came to office, including the IICSA report under Alexis Jay, and are starting to look at some of the issues that have come out of the inquiries and discussions that we have had on issues, including the audit from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on group-based child sexual abuse.
I also place on record, and remind the Committee, that the Government accept all the recommendations that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has made, and are seeking to put those recommendations into practice. I accept today that there are a number of amendments down and discussion points pressing the Government on a range of issues, but I hope that we all have the same objective in mind, which is to prevent further similar horrors.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Why, then, was it legitimate to pass the War Crimes Act, bringing to justice someone who committed crimes, not even in this country, 50 years ago?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has made his case. I have put my view. If he wishes to examine it further, we can do so in due course. I understand that he wants to bring people to justice. So do I, but the approach we want to take is different from his, and we will have to accept that.
Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would give effect to recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that the law should be changed so that adults penetrating a child aged under 16 are charged with rape. As I have said, the Government have accepted this recommendation and have committed to changing the law. I reassure noble Lords that we are working fast to consider how that law change should be made. We are discussing this. I met the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as part of that work and I will update Parliament soon about our proposed approach but, at the moment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that we are committed to that legislation and will table it as soon as time allows.
Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would mean that someone suspected of or charged with a sexual offence against a child that involved penetration would be described as having committed rape, whether the penetration was penile or non-penile, and regardless of what the offence is actually called in legislation. It would also mean that a wide range of other non-penetrative offending behaviour would be referred to simply as sexual assault. I do not think that that meets the intention of the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as it would not substantially change criminal law. Additionally, the difference in how offences are labelled in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and mandating how enforcement agencies then refer to those offences could lead to operational confusion, which I hope the noble Lord would seek to avoid.
Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which I have already mentioned, would create a new offence of rape which would apply when an adult penetrates with their penis the vagina, anus or mouth of a child aged 13 to 15. The offence would not require proof of an absence of consent or reasonable belief. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who spoke to it on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that the Government are committed to making this change in law. We have accepted the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and we strongly agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, we are also aware of the need to ensure a robust framework of sexual offences, which must work effectively across all types of child sexual abuse. This will be a significant change to the framework and, as such, if the noble Lord will allow me, we need to discuss it with the police and prosecutors to make sure that they have the tools needed to bring abusers to justice. When we have done that and taken those considerations into account, we will change the law, and we will update Parliament when we do that. I hope he can accept that intention.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her Amendments 288A and 288B. These overlap with the provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 5, which provide for a duty to report, which we will come on to later; she noted and accepted that. We believe, after extensive consultation with the relevant sectors, that the model in that chapter is the appropriate one to adopt. Again, we can debate that later, and I am sure we will, but that is the Government’s view at the moment.
Amendment 288B seeks to create a criminal offence specifically in respect of concealment by public officials. I am mindful that the type of offence proposed by this amendment may overlap with existing statutory provision, including obstruction of justice offences. Later, we will come on to consider the offence of preventing or deterring a reporter from carrying out their duty in Clause 79, and it will be part of the appropriate way forward at that stage.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, also tabled Amendments 288C and 288D, which are about the collection of the ethnicity and nationality data of child sexual abuse offenders and victims. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said. The recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is to work alongside the police to establish improvements which are required to assist the collection and publication of this data. We have accepted that recommendation. This includes reviewing and improving the existing data that the police collect, as well as considering future legislative measures if required. The objective the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has set is one that we have accepted. We are working through that at the moment and, although it may not be satisfactory today, it is an objective to which she and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can hold us to account.
This is an important debate. I think we are at one on these things, but it is the Government’s firm view that most of the amendments are not the way forward or need further refinement along the lines that I have already outlined to the Committee. As I have said, the Government are committed to changing the law in relation to rape. We will take away amendments and consider this further for Report.
Given these caveats, let us go back to where we started on this wide-ranging group, which is whether we should have a statutory timescale for the inquiry. Going back to the lead amendment in this group, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, will withdraw her amendment because we are trying to do this as speedily as possible. The converse impact of her amendment may well be to create a further delay to a process that the Government are determined to get down as quickly as possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, to land the inquiry and get further recommendations to tighten up areas in which we need to reduce—and, we hope, stop—the number of further victims of these awful crimes.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing my amendment and the others in such detail, and my noble friends Baroness Cash and Lord Blencathra for adding their support.
Even though the Minister has not accepted my amendment and stated that the others do not fit with the Government’s plans, I welcome the agreement across the Committee that we all support the principle of the work that is happening. However, I make no apologies for standing up and saying that the system is still not adequate in many ways. I am sure that the Minister can recognise some of this. I remember sitting in the Home Office in 2021-22, when I was a Minister there, and asking for the data about ethnicity and whether there was any connection. I was told, “No, Minister, there is none”. We all know now that that was not the case. I wish to God we had known that then so we could have done more for the victims. Collectively, we have all let them down; this is not a party-political issue, but one in which we should feel ashamed about what has happened to those vulnerable girls in our country.
I accept the Minister’s point about the timeline and the passage of the Bill, and that, were he to accept my amendment, it would potentially be delayed further than any of us would wish. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities
Lord Hanson of Flint
“ScheduleCCE prevention orders: ScotlandPower to make CCE prevention order
1 (1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland, in accordance with paragraph 3, makes an application to a sheriff for a CCE prevention order in respect of a person,(b) the Sheriff Appeal Court or the High Court allows a person’s appeal against a conviction for any offence,(c) a person is acquitted of any offence by or before a court by reason of the special defence set out in section 51A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,(d) a court finds under section 53F of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that a person is unfit for trial and has done the act charged against them in respect of any offence, or(e) a court deals with a person convicted of an offence for that offence.(2) The court may make an order under paragraph 2 (a “CCE prevention order”) in respect of the person (“the adult”) if they are aged 18 or over and the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) are met.(3) The first condition is that—(a) in any case, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the adult has engaged in child criminal exploitation or in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation, or (b) in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1), the offence in question is an offence under section 40.(4) The second condition is that the court considers that there is a risk that the adult will engage in child criminal exploitation.(5) The third condition is that the court considers that it is necessary to make the order to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) In sub-paragraph (3)—(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to engaging in anything includes engaging in it before (as well as after) the time when this paragraph comes into force;(b) paragraph (b) applies in relation to findings made in respect of conduct occurring before (as well as after) that time.(7) In this paragraph—(a) a reference to an adult “engaging in child criminal exploitation” is to the adult—(i) doing anything that constitutes an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland), or(ii) doing anything in England and Wales or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland) if done in Scotland;(b) a reference to an adult “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” is to the adult doing anything, in any part of the United Kingdom, that is associated with the doing of anything within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).CCE prevention orders
2 (1) A CCE prevention order is an order which—(a) prohibits the adult from doing anything described in the order;(b) requires that adult to do anything described in the order.The order may in particular require the adult to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing the adult from engaging, or reducing the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(3) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the adult;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the adult normally works or attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or interdict to which the adult is subject.(4) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(5) A CCE prevention order must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, which must be at least two years, or(b) state that it has effect until further order.(6) Where, in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e)—(a) the adult has been remanded in custody by an order of a court, or(b) a custodial sentence has been imposed on the adult or the adult is serving or otherwise subject to a such a sentence, a CCE prevention order may provide that it does not take effect until the adult is released from custody.(7) A CCE prevention order may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CCE prevention order in respect of a person who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Applications for CCE prevention orders
3 (1) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may make an application for a CCE prevention order.(2) An application under this paragraph must be made to the sheriff in whose sheriffdom—(a) the adult lives, or(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland believes that adult is in or is intending to come to.Interim CCE prevention orders
4 (1) This paragraph applies where the sheriff adjourns the hearing of an application for a CCE prevention order made under paragraph 3.(2) The sheriff may, if they consider it necessary to do so, make a CCE prevention order lasting for a fixed period or until the determination of the application (an “interim CCE prevention order”).Paragraph 2(5) does not apply in relation to an interim CCE prevention order.(3) The only requirement that may be imposed by an interim CCE prevention order on the adult is a requirement to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(4) Subject to that, the sheriff has the same powers in relation to an interim CCE prevention order as in relation to an order made at a final hearing.(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) prevents the variation of the duration of an interim CCE prevention order, or the discharge of such an order, under paragraph 7.CCE prevention orders in criminal proceedings: procedural powers
5 (1) This paragraph applies in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The court may make a CCE prevention order—(a) at its own instance, or(b) on the motion of the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (or any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a CCE prevention order, the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the adult.(4) It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings giving rise to the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(5) The court may adjourn any proceedings relating to the making of a CCE prevention order.(6) If the adult does not appear for any adjourned proceedings, the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the adult’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(7) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(b) only if satisfied that the adult has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings. (8) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(c) only if satisfied that the adult—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the adult does not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(9) Nothing in this paragraph limits any other powers of the court.Notification requirements
6 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires the adult to comply with this paragraph.(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a CCE prevention order requiring the adult to comply with this paragraph is first served, the adult must notify to the police—(a) the adult's name and, where the adult uses one or more other names, each of those names, and(b) the adult's home address.(3) If, while the adult is required to comply with this paragraph, the adult—(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order, or(b) changes home address,the adult must notify, to the police, the new name or the new home address.(4) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the adult uses the name or changes home address.(5) A notification under this paragraph must be made—(a) by attending at a police station for the time being specified in the document published under sub-paragraph (6) and giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station, or(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.(6) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must publish, in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit, a document containing the name and address of each police station at which a person may give a notification under this paragraph.(7) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must keep under review a document published under this paragraph and may, from time to time, publish a revised version of the document in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit.(8) A notification under this paragraph must be acknowledged in writing.(9) In this paragraph “home address” means—(a) the address of the adult’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or(b) where the adult has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the adult can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the adult may select.(10) In determining the period of three days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the adult is—(a) lawfully detained or otherwise lawfully deprived of their liberty, in the United Kingdom, or(b) outside the United Kingdom.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application
7 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to the appropriate sheriff for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1(1)(a).(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.(3) On the application, the appropriate sheriff may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the appropriate sheriff considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement;(b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The appropriate sheriff may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if they consider that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The appropriate sheriff may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “the appropriate sheriff” means—(a) the sheriff who made the order,(b) a sheriff in the sheriffdom of that sheriff, or(c) a sheriff in the sheriffdom—(i) in which the adult is resident at the time of the application,(ii) in which the chief constable believes that adult to be, or(iii) to which the chief constable believes that adult intends to come.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings
8 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to a relevant court for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (and any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) On the application, the court may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the court considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement; (b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The court may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “relevant court” means—(a) where the High Court made the order, that court;(b) where the sheriff made the order, the sheriff.Appeals
9 (1) The adult or the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may appeal to the relevant court against a decision made—(a) on an application under paragraph 3 (applications for CCE prevention orders);(b) under paragraph 4 (interim CCE prevention orders);(c) on an application under paragraph 7 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application);(d) on an application under paragraph 8 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings).(2) In this paragraph“relevant court” means—(a) in the case of a decision of a sheriff court, the Sheriff Appeal Court;(b) in the case of a decision of the High Court, the High Court.(3) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) the relevant court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and(b) such incidental and consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(4) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1, the order is taken to be a sentence for the purposes of any appeal.(5) Where a CCE prevention order is made on appeal, for the purposes of this Schedule (other than this paragraph) the order is to be treated as made by the court from which the appeal was made.Offence of breaching CCE prevention order
10 (1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) commits an offence.(2) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order;(b) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 1 of Part 4 (CCE prevention orders on application or acquittal etc. in England and Wales);(c) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 2A of Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (CCE prevention orders on conviction in England and Wales); (d) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) (CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland).(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (2) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(5) In proceedings for an offence under this paragraph, a copy of the original order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.(6) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland which appears to the Scottish Ministers to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.Offences relating to notifications
11 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires a person to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) The person commits an offence if—(a) without reasonable excuse, they fail to comply with that paragraph, or(b) in purported compliance with that paragraph, they notify to the police any information which they know to be false.(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) A person commits an offence under sub-paragraph (2)(a) on the day on which they first fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with paragraph 6.(5) The person continues to commit the offence throughout any period during which the failure continues.(6) But the person may not be prosecuted more than once in respect of the same failure.(7) Paragraph 10(5) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.Interpretation
12 In this Schedule—“adult” has the meaning given by paragraph 1;“CCE prevention order”, except in paragraph 10(2)(b) to (d), means an order under paragraph 2 (and accordingly includes an interim order made by virtue of paragraph 4);“engaging in child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly);“High Court” means the High Court of Justiciary.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Scotland.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not think I have ever given an indication the noble Lord could not speak, but there was a 13-minute contribution on a 10-minute latitude.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson; I was not referring to him. It was the Government Whip who was getting very agitated about my comments. I could have spoken for a lot longer if I had degrouped my amendments, but I am not going to do that.
Quite simply, Clause 56 lists all the crimes in Part 1 of Schedule 6 that are relevant to convicting someone of controlling another person’s home for criminal purposes. Schedule 6 is about two pages of big issues—very large crimes—which are completely inappropriate for a summary trial. This is about hijacking someone else’s home, where the homeowner is kept prisoner. That is such big stuff that it should not be triable by summary but only in a Crown Court.
I beg to move—after one minute and 21 seconds.
Lord Hanson of Flint
(a) section 40 (child criminal exploitation);(b) section 59 (causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of causing internal concealment of an item for a criminal purpose, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in England and Wales for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(4A) The circumstances in which A exercises control over B’s dwelling include circumstances where—(a) A arranges for another person (C) to exercise control over B’s dwelling (including by exercising control over any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)), and(b) C does exercise that control.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that control over another’s dwelling may be via another person, for the purposes of the offence in clause 56.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(c) CCE prevention orders under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives a power to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the new CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to further amendments later. I just want to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his kind words before he goes. My reputation is ruined, but there we go. I thank him anyway.
The government amendments in this group and the clauses to which they relate are vital in safeguarding the public from some of the gravest harms emerging from the digital age. All the amendments in this group of government amendments, starting with Amendments 295A and 295B, pertain to the introduction of a defence for authorised persons to test and investigate technologies for child sexual abuse material, extreme pornography and non-consensual intimate imagery capabilities. These are abhorrent crimes and we must ensure that our laws keep pace with them.
Noble Lords will know that the rapid advancement and prevalence of AI technologies without adequate guardrails has increased the volume of AI-generated abuse imagery circulating online. These harms fall disproportionately on women and children. We must get ahead of these risks. At present, AI developers and public safety organisations seeking to test for these risks face significant legal jeopardy from testing. These legal blocks mean that testers could be liable to prosecution if they create illegal images during testing. We want to support government and public safety organisations in their commitment to research internet safety. If we are serious about AI safety, it is essential that we support continuous and rigorous testing so that testers can be confident that models are safe to use and support our ambition to drive down CSAM online.
This defence could give a technology company the ability to understand the capabilities of its models, identify weaknesses and design out harmful outputs. Amendment 295A introduces a power by regulations to create new testing defences. The Secretary of State will authorise persons to carry out technology testing subject to rigorous conditions. I confirm that any regulations that are brought forward will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and testing will be subject to rigorous oversight and strict mandatory operational safeguards. The regulation-making power will also extend to making provision for the enforcement of any breaches of conditions and may include creating criminal offences.
Amendment 295B lists the offences to which this defence applies. The Secretary of State will have the power to amend this list of offences as the law evolves. This will ensure that the defence remains fit for purpose. I hope the Committee welcomes that the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice want this defence to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The offences listed may be amended, as appropriate, for England and Wales as well as for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making any regulations that would affect the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 63 criminalises artificial intelligence image generators, which are used by offenders to create child sexual abuse imagery. Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal. However, these fine-tuned models that facilitate the creation of child sexual abuse material currently are not. Therefore, the Government are making it illegal to possess, make, adapt, supply or offer to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
Government Amendments 267 and 268 ensure that we take a unified approach across the United Kingdom. This is why we are creating equivalent offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 64 amends Section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to criminalise the possession of advice or guidance on using artificial intelligence to create child abuse imagery. Sadly, there are so-called paedophile manuals that contain guidance for offenders on how to abuse children sexually and how to create indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs—which are illegal under the existing offence in the Serious Crime Act 2015. However, this offence does not include guidance for offenders about how to use AI to create illegal images of children and is applicable only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 269 extends the offence, as amended by Clause 64, to Scotland, ensuring that these vile manuals can be tackled across the whole of the United Kingdom. The other amendments in this group are consequential on the main amendments that I have described.
Together, these government amendments will enhance the protection of women and children, prevent criminal use of AI technologies and improve long-term safety by design and the resilience of future AI development. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, if I could intervene for a moment, the Bill is going at a fine pace through the House, but I am a little concerned about Amendment 263. The problems of modern slavery that I have raised in the House are very severe.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I know. I am just asking for some assistance with this—does the proposed new clause in Amendment 263 still stand?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Committee has considered that amendment. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me on any details, I will certainly write back to him, but, in the interests of progress, it would be better if that was dealt with outside the Chamber, given that we have debated those matters already.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, the government amendments set out the devolution arrangements to ensure that criminals cannot exploit differences between the four nations, and we are very happy to support them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is an important issue that I know there is cross-party support for, and I am largely supportive of the intentions behind the amendments in this group.
The first of the Minister’s amendments acts largely to tidy up the drafting of the Bill and ensure its thoroughness. I agree with this. Expanding the scope for technology testing regarding child sexual abuse materials is welcome.
Similarly, extending provisions to ensure that they are the same in all parts of the union is a minor but important amendment. Consistency across our internal borders is the best way to ensure that children are protected equally everywhere. It should help with cross-border co-ordination between authorities, and I therefore welcome it.
I see the logic behind government Amendments 295A and 295B. It is the right approach that, if the Government want to crack down on technology, they should first do so at the source. That means discovering which technologies are being used to create unlawful content, which requires people to test them. This would also, I hope, have the additional effect of not blanket banning content for people without nuance, instead targeting the specific pieces of software responsible. So long as the individuals able to use this as a defence remain strictly authorised by the Secretary of State, I appreciate the amendment’s aim.
This should go hand in hand with an initiative similar to the one suggested by my noble friend Lord Nash. If the Government can identify the technology used, they should attempt to shut it down. Unfortunately, this is often outside the Government’s jurisdiction and therefore some form of software to prevent the distribution of child sexual abuse material might be the next best approach. I hope that the Minister can confirm that they are perhaps looking at this.
As I said, this is a non-partisan issue. We all want to reduce child sexual abuse, online or offline, and these amendments should work to help the Bill achieve the former. I hope that the Minister can, in due course—perhaps at a later stage—fully outline how this new technology will be implemented and applied consistently, and will consider my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I broadly support the approach.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on what he said and give him a fuller briefing on the detail of how we are approaching the AI issue. Obviously, we will come on to further amendments in the next group, which I will respond to once they have been moved.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this extremely important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Nash for their continued efforts on the protection of children online.
This group should unite the whole Committee. We can be in no doubt about the need to safeguard children in an environment where technology is evolving at unprecedented speed and where the risk of harm, including the creation and dissemination of child sexual abuse material, is escalating. It is a sad truth that, historically, Governments have been unable to keep pace with evolving technology. As a consequence, this can mean legislation coming far too late.
Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of online services, including generative AI systems, to conduct risk assessments on the potential use of their platforms to create child sexual abuse images. The Committee has heard compelling arguments about the need for meaningful responsibilities to be placed on platforms and developers, particularly where systems are capable of misuse at scale. We recognise the seriousness of the challenge that she has outlined, and I very much look forward to what the Government have to say in response.
On my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, we are particularly sympathetic to the concerns that underpin his proposal. His amendment would mandate the installation of tamper-proof software on relevant devices to prevent the creation, viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material. My noble friend has made a powerful case that prevention at source must form part of the comprehensive strategy to protect children. While there are practical questions that will require careful examination, his amendment adds real value to the discussion. I am grateful for his determined focus on this issue, and I hope the Government also take this amendment very seriously.
Similarly, Amendments 479 and 480, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, speak to the responsibilities of AI search tools and AI chatbots. The risk of such technologies being co-opted for abusive purposes is not theoretical; these threats are emerging rapidly and require a response proportionate to the harm.
From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives across this group of amendments and look forward to the Government’s detailed response and continuing cross-party work to ensure the strongest protections for children in an online world. As has been said several times throughout Committee, protecting children must remain our highest priority. I hope the Government take these amendments very seriously.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the way she introduced this group of amendments and for her tireless work to protect children online. I say on behalf of all noble Lords that the support she has received today across the Committee shows that her work is vital, especially in the face of emerging technologies, such as generative AI, which present opportunities but, sadly, also have a darker side with new risks for criminal misuse.
She has received the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Cotes, Lady Boycott, Lady Bertin and Lady Doocey, my noble friends Lady Berger, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Hacking, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Hampton and Lord Davies of Gower, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others to whom I will refer later. That is quite an array of colleagues in this House. It is my job to respond to this on behalf of the Government, and I will try to be as helpful as I can to the noble Baroness.
The Government share her desire to protect the public, especially children, online, and are committed to protecting all users from illegal online content. We will continue to act to keep citizens safe. Amendment 266 seeks to create a new duty on online service providers—including those already regulated under the Online Safety Act—to assess and report to Ofcom or the National Crime Agency on the risk that their services could be used to create or facilitate the generation of AI child sexual abuse material. The amendment would also require online service providers to implement measures to mitigate and manage the risks identified.
I say to the noble Baroness that UK law is already clear: creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated by AI, is already illegal, regardless of whether they depict a real child or not. Child sexual abuse material offences are priority offences under the Online Safety Act. The Act requires in-scope services to take proactive steps to prevent such material from appearing on their services and to remove it swiftly if it does.
As she will know, the Government have gone even further to tackle these appalling crimes through the measures in the Bill. I very much welcome her support for Clause 63. We are introducing a world-leading offence criminalising the possession, adaptation and supply of, or offer to supply, an AI model that has been fine-tuned by offenders to create child sexual abuse material. As I mentioned earlier, we are also extending the existing paedophile manual offence to cover advice on how to abuse AI to create child sexual abuse material.
We have also introduced measures that reflect the critical role that AI developers play in ensuring their systems are not misused. To support the crucial work of the Government’s AI Security Institute, we have just debated and agreed a series of amendments in the previous group to provide authorised bodies with the powers to legally test commercial AI models for extreme pornography and other child sexual abuse material. That is essential to allow experts to safely test measures, and I am pleased that we received the Committee’s support earlier.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
If it is beyond the remit of the National Crime Agency and Ofcom to do anything about this, perhaps the Minister will tell us who is going to take responsibility and actually enforce what the noble Baroness is trying to persuade the Government to do in the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All chatbots are regulated under the Online Safety Act. If there is harmful or illegal content or advice in relation to children, it is up to Ofcom to take action on those matters. Many of these issues are for DSIT Ministers and Ofcom. I am a Home Office Minister. The noble Baroness has requested a meeting and I will put that to my DSIT ministerial colleagues. I hope they will be able to meet her to reflect upon these issues. Although I am answering for the Bill today, some of these issues are DSIT matters, and it is important that she has an opportunity to raise them with DSIT.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I was stimulated to rise by something that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. She was speaking to the reply that had been given by the Minister, and it made me think that what has to be looked at here is the law and its inadequacies in dealing with those who are not human—that is the nature of a robot. The law is constructed around the mental element of mens rea to convict people of a crime. Surely it should be possible for us, in the limited area of dealing with robots, to be able to say that that mental element need not be present in dealing with this kind of offending and that one should be able to construct something that leads back to those who are creatively responsible for bringing them into being.
It reminds me of the argument that is made in the United States about not bothering to restrict guns because it is not guns that kill people but the people using the guns who are responsible. In fact, those who manufacture them might be looked at for the responsibility that they bear for some of this. We should be looking much more creatively at the law. There should be an opportunity for lawyers to look at whether, in this instance with this development—which is so out of the ordinary experience of humankind—we should think about legally changing the rule on mens rea when it comes to robots.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are a number of issues before the Committee today and the Government will reflect on all the points that have been mentioned. However, the view at the moment is that these amendments would risk creating significant legal uncertainty by duplicating and potentially undermining aspects of the Online Safety Act.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that all chatbots are captured by the Online Safety Act; that is very good news indeed. Can he reassure us that Ofcom will confirm that in writing to the House? I appreciate that he is a Home Office Minister, but he speaks on behalf of all of government. I think it is fair, given the nature of the Bill, that he seeks an answer from Ofcom in this matter.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My assessment is that the vast majority of chatbots are captured—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Many AI chatbots that enable users to share content with each other or search live websites for information are within the scope of the Online Safety Act’s duties. Providers of those services—
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I want to repeat what I said in my speech. There are some chatbots, such as Replika, that do not have user-to-user functionality. They are created for just one user, and that user cannot pass it on to any other users. There is concern that the law does not cover that and that Ofcom does not regulate it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If I may, I will take away those comments. I am responsible for many things in this House, including the Bill, but some of those areas fall within other ministerial departments. I am listening to what noble Lords and noble Baronesses are saying today.
Currently, through Online Safety Act duties, providers of those services are required to undertake appropriate risk assessments and, under the Act’s illegal content duties, platforms must implement robust and timely measures to prevent illegal content appearing on their services. All in-scope providers are expected to have effective systems and processes in place to ensure that the risks of their platform being used for the types of offending mentioned today are appropriately reduced.
Ofcom currently has a role that is focused on civil enforcement of duties on providers to assess and mitigate the risks posed by illegal content. Where Ofcom may bring prosecutions in some circumstances, it will do so only in relation to regulatory matters where civil enforcement is insufficient. The proposed approach is not in line with the enforcement regime under the Act at the moment, which is the responsibility of Ofcom and DSIT.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My noble friend is making really important comments in this regard, but on the specific issue of Ofcom, perhaps fuelling much of the concern across the Committee are the comments we have heard from Ofcom. I refer to a briefing from the Molly Rose Foundation, which I am sure other noble Lords have received, which says that uncertainty has been “actively fuelled” by the regulator Ofcom, which has told the Molly Rose Foundation that it intends to maintain “tactical ambiguity” about how the Act applies. That is the very issue that unites us in our concern.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that and for her contribution to the debate and the experiences she has brought. The monitoring and evaluation of the online safety regime is a responsibility of DSIT and Ofcom, and they have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate core outcomes. This monitoring and evaluation is currently tracking the effect of the online safety regime and feeding into a post-implementation review of the 2023 Act. Where there is evidence of a need to go further to keep children safe online, including from AI-enabled harms, the Government will not hesitate to act.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will allow DSIT and Ofcom to look at those matters, I will make sure that DSIT Ministers are apprised of the discussion that we have had today. It is in this Bill, which is a Home Office Bill, but it is important that DSIT Ministers reflect on what has been said. I will ensure that we try to arrange that meeting for the noble Baroness in due course.
I want also to talk about Amendments 271A and 497ZA from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which propose that smartphone and tablet manufacturers, importers and distributors are required to ensure that any device they have is preinstalled with technology that prevents the recording and viewing of child sexual abuse material or similar material accordingly. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s very valid intention concerning child safety and protection, and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. To that end, there is a shared agreement with the Government on the need to strengthen our already world-leading online safety regime wherever necessary.
I put to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on his comments in support, that if nudity detection technology could be effectively deployed at scale, there could be a significant limiting impact on the production and sharing of child sexual abuse material. I accept that, but we must get this right. Application of detection technology that detects and blocks all nudity, adult and child, but which is primarily targeted at children, would be an effective intervention. I and colleagues across government want to gather evidence about the application of such technology and its effectiveness and impact. However, our assessment is that further work is needed to understand the accuracy of such tools and how they may be implemented.
We must also consider the risks that could arise from accepting this amendment, including legitimate questions about user privacy and data security. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Nash, we will continue to assess the effect of detection tools on the performance of mobile device so that we can see how easy it is to circumvent them, how effective they are and a range of other matters accordingly. The Government’s focus is on protective measures within the Online Safety Act, but we are actively considering the potential benefits of the technology that the noble Lord has mentioned and others like it in parallel. There will be further future government interventions but they must be proportionate and driven by evidence. At the moment, we do not have sufficient evidence to ensure that we could accept the amendment from the noble Lord, but the direction of travel is one that we would support.
Lord Nash (Con)
Will the Minister meet me and representatives from software companies to explain why they say this technology works?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very happy to arrange a meeting with an appropriate Minister. I would be very happy to sit in on it. Other Ministers may wish to take the lead on this, because there are technology issues as well. I have Home Office responsibilities across the board, but I have never refused a meeting with a Member of this House in my 16 months here and I am not going to start now, so the answer to that question is yes. The basic presumption at the moment is that we are not convinced that the technology is yet at the stage that the noble Lord believes it to be, but that is a matter for future operation. I again give him the assurance that, in the event that the technology proves to be successful, the Government will wish to examine it in some detail.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will revisit these matters but, for the moment, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his amendment and his fierce following of this issue, and for bringing it to our attention. I recognise that this is a Home Office Bill and that some of these things cross to DSIT, but we are also witnessing crime. The Home Office must understand that not everything can be pushed to DSIT.
Your Lordships have just met the tech Lords. These are incredibly informed people from all over the Chamber who share a view that we want a technological world that puts kids front and centre. We are united in that and, as the Minister has suggested, we will be back.
I have three very quick points. First, legal challenges, operational difficulties and the capacity of the NCA and Ofcom were the exact same reasons why Clause 63 was not in the Online Safety Bill or the Data (Use and Access) Bill. It is unacceptable for officials to always answer with those general things. Many noble Lords said, “It’s so difficult”, and, “This is new”, with the Online Safety Bill. It is not new: we raised these issues before. If we had acted three or four years ago, we would not be in this situation. I urge this Government to get on the front foot, because we know what is coming.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland(1) In the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)), after Article 42 insert—“Creation of CSA material
42A Child sexual abuse image-generators(1) It is an offence for a person to make, adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image-generator.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing a CSA image-generator to prove that the person—(a) was sent the CSA image-generator without any request having been made for it (by or on behalf of the person), and(b) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing, supplying or offering to supply a CSA image-generator to prove that the person did not know, and did not have cause to suspect, that the thing possessed, supplied or offered to be supplied was a CSA image-generator.(4) For further defences, see Article 42B.(5) A person who commits an offence under this Article is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) In this Article—(a) “CSA image-generator” means anything (including any program and any information in electronic form) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) “CSA image” means—(i) an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, within the meaning of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17));(ii) a prohibited image of a child, within the meaning of section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, that is not an excluded image within the meaning of section 63 of that Act;(c) a reference to making a CSA image-generator includes adapting anything that is not a CSA image-generator in such a way that it becomes a CSA image-generator. 42B Article 42A: supplementary(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 42A—(a) to prove that the person made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,(b) to prove that the person was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”) and made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body, or(c) to prove that the person—(i) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(ii) made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions.(2) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(3) The references in paragraph (2) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(4) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within paragraph (5), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(5) The matters within this paragraph are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(6) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if— (a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(7) Article 76(1) applies in relation to an act which, if done in Northern Ireland, would constitute an offence under Article 42A as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.(8) Article 42A(6) applies for the purposes of this Article.(9) In this Article—(a) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994;(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications;(c) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023;(d) “internet service provider” means a provider of—(i) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(ii) a service that provides access to the internet;(e) “user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.42C Liability for an offence under Article 42A committed by a body(1) This Article applies where an offence under Article 42A is committed by a body.(2) If the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of—(a) a relevant person in relation to the body, or(b) a person purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant person in relation to the body,the person (as well as the body) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) In this Article—“body” means a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association other than a partnership;“relevant person” , in relation to a body, means—(a) in the case of a body corporate other than one whose affairs are managed by its members, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body;(b) in the case of a limited liability partnership or other body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, a member who exercises functions of management with respect to it;(c) in the case of a limited partnership, a general partner (within the meaning given by section 3 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907);(d) in the case of any other partnership, a partner;(e) in the case of an unincorporated association other than a partnership, a person who exercises functions of management with respect to it.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 92O insert— “92OA An offence under Article 42A of that Order (child sexual abuse image-generators) if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made by clause 63 for England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland(1) In Part 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 after section 41 insert—“41A Possession of advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images(1) It is an offence to be in possession of any item that contains advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images.(2) “Abusing children sexually or creating CSA images” means doing anything that constitutes—(a) an offence under section 52 or 52D of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;(b) an offence under section 1, 2 or 7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1995 against a person under the age of 18;(c) an offence under section 10 of that Act;(d) an offence under section 1, or any of sections 9 to 12, of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;(e) an offence under Part 1 or section 46 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 against a person under the age of 18;(f) an offence under Part 4 or section 42 of that Act;(g) an offence under section 1 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 against a person under the age of 18 that is committed with a view to exploitation that consists of or includes behaviour within section 3(3), (4) or (5) of that Act (prostitution and sexual exploitation), or doing anything outside Scotland that would constitute such an offence if done in Scotland.(3) It is a defence for a person (D) charged with an offence under this section—(a) to prove that D had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the item;(b) to prove that—(i) D had not read, viewed or (as appropriate) listened to the item, and(ii) D did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that it contained advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images; or(c) to prove that—(i) the item was sent to D without any request made by D or on D’s behalf, and(ii) D did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both.(5) In this section “item” includes anything in which information of any description is recorded.41B Section 41A: supplementary provision(1) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or (c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) In this section—(a) “service provider” means a person providing an information society service;(b) “information society service” means a service normally provided—(i) for remuneration,(ii) at a distance,(iii) by electronic means, and(iv) at the individual request of a user of the services;(c) “user” , in relation to a service provider, means a user of a service provided by the service provider.(7) In subsection (6)(b)—(a) “at a distance” means that the service is provided without the parties being simultaneously present;(b) “by electronic means” means that the service is—(i) sent initially and received at its destination by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and(ii) entirely transmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means;(c) “at the individual request of a user of the services” means that the service is provided through the transmission of data on individual request.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 59ZJ insert—“59ZJA An offence under section 41A of that Act (possession of paedophile manual) if the offender—(a) was 18 or over, and(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales and Northern Ireland by section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, as amended by clause 64.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as was clear from our debate, this is a very important group of amendments, which seek to clarify and improve a necessary measure in the Bill. When we discussed the fourth group today, we heard about the horrific crimes committed against some children in this country: the industrial-scale abuse of young, white, working-class girls over the past four decades, as well as abuse of other groups. This happened —and is still happening—because the people who commit these crimes are among the most depraved in our society. However, it has also happened because people familiar with the abuse, or even those who had mere suspicions, turned a blind eye or simply did not look at what was in front of them.
The victims were failed by everyone, from the police to the authorities, their teachers and community leaders. Too often, they were treated with a blind negligence that bordered on positively enabling the crimes that were occurring. We have heard many powerful speeches today; I cannot list them all, but I remind the Minister of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.
I think we all now agree that safeguarding needs to be supported by sanctions. How else can we put a stop to bureaucratic failure to report? The difficult and important question is around striking the balance when doing that, to make certain that it is effective but that it does not have unintended, unhappy consequences. It is important also to make non-reporting a criminal offence, but, again, exactly how that is phrased will need considerable care. Many ideas have been canvassed today, and it would be dangerous for me to try to draft on the hoof at the Dispatch Box.
There was force in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as to why there should be an exception for what is learned in confession, and that was also important. I am not urging that there should be an exception, but it should be looked at. We have had arguments on both sides. What is the evidence? What are likely to be the benefits of opening that up? Personally, I think it should be opened up, but it should be looked at with care.
We heard earlier today from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, all about the grooming gangs, so I will not go back to that, but they are an incredibly striking example of why we need a duty to report suspected child sex offences in general and why it is important that the clause is properly drafted.
One important oversight, which was spotted by noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns the reference to Wales. As has been established, it is necessary to correct an oversight in the drafting. As things stand, local authorities and police forces in Wales will have to be informed of crimes, but only if they are considered crimes in England. That must be redrafted, and I hope the Minister will agree to that come Report stage.
Amendment 283A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash—which was not moved, but it is sensible to make the point—would implement another recommendation of the Casey review, adding child criminal exploitation to the crimes for which there is a duty to report. It is important to look at all these points when drafting the obligations.
We on this side are largely supportive of the principles behind the several amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Leaving out subsections (5) and (6) raises an interesting point. It is obviously better to be safe than sorry. We will have to look very carefully at what removing those subsections would actually do.
We on this side worry about removing defences in cases where an individual genuinely fears for the safety of the victim or believes that someone else has definitely submitted a report. That must be looked at, too. Perhaps the Minister can guide us on how to ensure that genuine defences with merit will remain available without providing a route to or excuse for shirking responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, raised an interesting point about the bureaucratic burden on faith schools. Government obviously must look at that. It should not be a let-out; equally, we on this side would not support any extra unnecessary burden being imposed. However, it must be done properly.
My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 286A raises important considerations. It is worth noting that he is supported by Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations with great specialist expertise and knowledge—and not just anecdotal knowledge; they really know what is going on. He is looking to prevent the intentional concealment of child sex offences. That must be the absolute minimum. My noble friend Lord Bethell was supportive of that amendment, and he was right to caution us about going too far, so that it has the unintended consequence of not achieving what we all want to achieve. His words of caution should be heeded.
As to Amendment 274 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, we are rather hesitant in our support. Ensuring that a report goes straight to the local authority, which then has a duty to inform the police, might risk slowing down a response that is often needed quickly. Indeed, it might never reach the police. If a child is in imminent danger of being abused, it is not the local authority which should know first; it must be the police, who have to respond. There should be a simultaneous notification, because it can be, in effect, simultaneous.
With this amendment, it seems that someone who reported child abuse to the police would be criminalised for not going to the local authority. That cannot be right. Leaving it to the discretion of the individual which authority to report to, while requiring that there be a duty to do so, seems to us to be the right thing. People will know generally where to go but they must go to one or the other, and not automatically to the local authority first.
I think I have addressed the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Walmsley. These are all interesting points. The Government and those behind the Minister must look at this very carefully. It is really important to get the drafting right.
Amendments 283 and 286A seek to create and expand the specific crime of preventing or concealing reports of abuse. These are largely in line with the amendments addressed in the group in which we debated grooming gangs, so we support the intentions behind them.
As I have said, this is a group of amendments that have been tabled with the best of intentions. The issue in question should be entirely non-partisan; it is simply a question of how best to manage it and get it right, making certain that children and young people in this country are not allowed to suffer in the way in which they have for the last 30 years. I hope that the Minister will take away the points which are being made and, not least, add Wales to the list of jurisdictions. That is all I need to say at this stage tonight.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to colleagues who have spoken this evening. This has been a valuable debate on Chapter 2, Part 5. As noble Lords will know, introducing a statutory duty delivers the intention of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I am confident that the measures we have brought forward strike the balance that we need.
A number of amendments have been tabled, and I am sorry that Amendment 271F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, was not moved. However, it is important to put on record that the reason the duty relates to the Welsh Government is that they have declined to legislate for a mandatory reporting duty in their own response to the independent inquiry. Therefore, we are respecting the devolution settlement by not including that legislation in the Bill. It is a devolved matter which requires the consent of the Senedd.
There are a number of other amendments which I will try to speak to. We know that child sexual abuse continues to go unreported. The reasons for this are complex, including fear, stigma and lack of awareness. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester covered some of those points in relation to the performance of the Church of England.
The unique nature of child sexual abuse as a type of harm requires the introduction of this new duty. I want to be clear that the introduction of the new duty establishes a floor, not a ceiling, and does not change or interfere with in any way the existing expectations set by government that all children at risk of harm should be referred to the appropriate authority for guidance and advice.
I want to first touch on Amendments 274 and 276, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which seek to require that reports under the duty are made to local authorities only, removing, with minor exceptions, the option to notify the police. Allowing reports to be made to either the local authority or the police, as recommended by the independent inquiry, ensures that reporters can act swiftly, so I cannot accept that amendment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and others, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought to introduce a criminal offence for those who conceal or fail to report abuse. The Government do not consider this type of sanction, which risks creating fear and apprehension among those with reporting responsibilities, to be proportionate or effectively targeted. That is why we are empowering reporters by focusing the criminal sanctions in this Bill on anyone who seeks to interfere with them carrying out their duty, rather than on the reporters themselves. This issue has been carefully considered by a number of agencies and has the support of, among others, the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, Barnardo’s, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Children’s Commissioner, so I cannot support the amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—via the noble Lord, Lord Meston—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen seek to extend the duty to a number of additional contexts. The purpose of the duty is to report and place a clear requirement on those most likely to encounter information relating to sexual abuse. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the right reverend Prelate that this does include members of the clergy. Proposals to extend the ambit of a reporting duty to those who do not personally come into contact with children would introduce another layer of procedural complexity.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsThursday 27th November 2025
(1 day, 18 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 111(Corrected)-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (26 Nov 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for introducing this large group of amendments. As noble Lords will appreciate, many of the amendments before us today concern matters of clarification or technical improvement to ensure consistency across the Bill and the amendments tabled so far.
We on these Benches are broadly supportive of these changes, particularly when they strengthen child safeguarding protections and improve clarity, which we hope will eventually result in more seamless practical implementation. In this regard, we welcome amendments extending the scope of child criminal exploitation prevention orders to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those clarifying procedural matters, such as the form of notification requirements when oral notification may not be practicable. These are sensible adjustments that contribute to ensuring that the Bill operates coherently across the four nations and in real-world enforcement scenarios.
I briefly draw attention to Amendment 235ZA in my name, which would remove Clause 43(3)(a). That subsection currently requires that, when a court makes a criminal exploitation prevention order, the terms of the order must avoid
“conflict with any religious beliefs of the defendant”.
Although religious beliefs are, of course, an important individual right, the purpose of these orders is to protect children from very serious criminal harm. It is, therefore, my view that safeguarding and public protection must take precedence over all other concerns and that no such exemption should hinder appropriate and proportionate restrictions when a court considers them necessary. I hope the Government consider the matter carefully and take the recommendation on board.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing forward Amendment 235A, which would give the courts an explicit ability to impose a prevention order to protect a child from being threatened, intimidated or coerced into criminal exploitation. The intention behind the amendment—to intervene earlier and more effectively to safeguard children at risk—is one that I hope all sides of the Committee can support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification of how the Bill will ensure that those protections are fully delivered. These are complex issues, but our shared objective is simple: to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and that those who exploit them face firm consequences. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the points that have been raised here today.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, if the Committee will allow me, I will begin by detailing the government amendments in this group. We know that criminal gangs conducting activity such as county lines drug dealing do not stop at internal UK borders, and children are criminally exploited across the UK. To go to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, this is why—at the request of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice—we are making provision in the Bill for child criminal exploitation prevention orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is at their request, and I hope that also answers the point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Since the Bill covers England and Wales, this means that the offence of child criminal exploitation will now apply UK-wide. These amendments have been tabled because, since the Bill was published, we have had those discussions and this is a way of making sure that we have a UK-wide approach.
These orders will give the police and courts across the whole of the United Kingdom powers to prevent child criminal exploitation happening in the first place, or happening again, by putting prohibitions and requirements on an adult who poses a risk of criminally exploiting a child. As I have mentioned, these provisions have been drafted in collaboration with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments and consequential amendments are therefore required for England and Wales to ensure that the orders function smoothly across the United Kingdom.
Finally, we have tabled some other amendments to put beyond doubt that assessment of whether an individual has engaged in child criminal exploitation, or associated conduct, in an application for, or imposition of, a child criminal exploitation prevention order is to be determined by the court on the basis of the civil standard of proof; that is, the balance of probabilities. This is appropriate given that there are civil rather than criminal proceedings in this case. The application of the civil standard of proof is well precedented in many similar preventive orders across the statute book and is important to ensure that an order can intervene earlier in the course of a child’s exploitation so that it can be prevented. I hope that I have wide support across the Committee for those measures—I think I do.
Amendment 232B is in the name of my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown. I welcome her moving her first amendment in such a positive way. She has secured the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which is a fairly impressive bunch on a first amendment, so I say well done to her on that. Her amendment seeks to create a further definition of child criminal exploitation.
I say to my noble friend—and I think that this was anticipated by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—that “child criminal exploitation” is already defined in Clause 40 by the description of conduct amounting to an offence. It is where an adult
“engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of … causing the child to”
engage in criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised a number of issues for which I am not accountable, but which my noble friend may wish to respond to. That is the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 40. Clause 40 captures activity online, through the use of technology and whether or not it is seemingly consensual. This definition also operates for the purposes of the child criminal exploitation prevention orders.
My noble friend has made a very strong case, through personal experience as a constituency MP in east London for almost 20 years, on the impact of county lines gangs on young people. I fully accept, understand and appreciate where she is coming from on those issues. That is why the Government introduced Clause 40 in the first place. It is also why the Government are introducing a bespoke stand-alone offence of CCE, along with the CCE prevention orders, to signal unequivocally that using a child to commit crime is against the law and that those children are victims of a crime. I also agree that any apparent consent of the child to involvement is irrelevant to whether they have been criminally exploited, and that criminal exploitation can occur online and through the use of technology. I understand my noble friend’s amendment, but these points are captured by the definition of CCE in Clause 40, which does not include a child’s consent and captures adults’ conduct by means of any method or control.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Obviously, I correctly anticipated the response that was coming, but I would be grateful if my noble friend would deal with this point about “enabling”, which is a substantive point of difference in the two definitions. Enabling is easier to prove than causing. “Causing” is closer to a child being used, which is reflected in my noble friend Lady Brown’s definition, but I do not think that “enabling” is in the Clause 40 definition as it stands.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. If she will bear with me, I will come on to that point in a moment. I am doing this in a structured order to try to address the points that are before the Committee today.
I say to my noble friend Lady Brown that, within the Bill, we are also taking the power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend have looked at that, and I will return to it in a moment. The guidance will include a descriptive definition of CCE, setting out in lay person’s terms the conduct captured by the offence, and will provide practical guidance on how the CCE offence and orders should be applied.
An important point, to go particularly to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, is that in Clause 60—which we will come to in later considerations—the Secretary of State has power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers of police about the exercise of their functions in connection with the prevention, detection and investigation of CCE offences and CCE prevention orders. I hope that the Committee will recognise that, importantly, the relevant police officers will be under a legal duty to have due regard to that statutory guidance when exercising functions in relation to the CCE offences and the CCE prevention orders. On the question of the statutory guidance, which my noble friend and others have touched on, the guidance has not been issued yet because the relevant legislation has not yet received the consent of this House or indeed Royal Assent. On the applicability of both of those conditions, statutory guidance under Clause 60 will be issued, which will place a legal duty on police officers to adhere to it.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned a very important point. There is a clear difference in what my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown has put forward, supported by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I hope this helps: the forms of conduct that are likely to enable a child to commit criminality are expected in most cases to also meet the test of conduct by an adult intended to cause, or facilitate the causing of, a child to commit a future crime. The nature of the offence, which is broad and large, will ensure that it captures offenders who will use children for crime. I believe that that is the right format. Both my noble friends have said that “enable” is a critical word. I believe that a separate definition is unnecessary, as it would have no legal impact over and above what is already in the Bill. It could cause confusion among police and prosecutors about which definition they should be applying.
The statutory guidance, which I emphasise will gave a legal bass and will be issued under Clause 60, is the appropriate place to provide the extra detail to understand proposals that are covered by the amendment, but which are already in scope of the clear and simple legal terms of Clause 40. I know that that is the defence that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti expected me to use, but it is the defence: Clause 40 is what it is, and the guidance will also be statutory.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
While statutory guidance is welcome, this particular case has similarities to other areas of the criminal law where the motivations and behaviours are complex, such as stalking and various areas of domestic abuse. In every case where regulation has been put in such a way that it becomes statutory, unless that goes hand in hand with appropriate and quite intensive training, you can have as many regulations as you like, as legally watertight as you like, but if the officials who are charged with implementing it do not understand the complexity that they are dealing with and cannot define and understand exactly how to apply the regulations, you are going to have confusion. We have a lot of history of that not happening. Good intentions are one thing; what actually happens when you put it out there and expect that everybody will understand and comply with it is another, and that is a concern that a lot of us have.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a valid point. I have considered with officials how we ensure enforcement of the guidance. I simply put it to the noble Earl—and we can debate this outside the Bill—that the statutory guidance is issued to chief constables of police forces under Clause 60 and they have a legal duty to ensure that statutory guidance is implemented, and officers have a legal duty to support and interpret that at a local level when they are faced with incidents of child exploitation as defined by the Bill. That requires a whole shift of culture and of training—I understand that. I will take from this comment and from the Committee generally that my colleagues in the Home Office need to look not just at the guidance but at its implementation. Ultimately, it has a statutory footing, and that is the key point for the Committee.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
Will the Minister take on board the fact that countless inspections of police training, including by HMICFRS, have said that there has not been an independent assessment of police training since 2018, despite the fact that so many of the policing bodies themselves have asked for it? Taking the point, will he now say that there will be an independent assessment, so that police training can be much more appropriate and police will know exactly what they are supposed to be doing when we sit in this House and make legislation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will sound like I am repeating myself from Question Time, but, very shortly, we anticipate bringing forward a policing White Paper looking at a whole range of mechanisms to improve police performance. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will wait for further detail on the policing White Paper, which I have already said to the House will be published before Christmas, to allow for further discussion on a range of efficiency and improvement matters for policing. The point she makes is worthy of consideration, but I will park it until a later date in the parliamentary calendar.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his detailed response, but will he reflect on the potential distinction between “enabling” and “causing”? Will he go back to parliamentary counsel and be clear that enablers will always meet this threshold of causation? I am really concerned about that. I understand that my noble friend has rejected the idea of a separate free-standing definition and is worried about confusion between the offence definition and a general definition, but in blending the intentions of the Government and those of my noble friend Lady Brown, it would be helpful to know that that language of “causing”, without specific mention of enabling, is watertight.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for further pressing me on the issue. I have tried to explain to the Committee where the Government are on this. We always reflect on debates in Committee, because there are always opportunities for my noble friend and others to bring matters back on Report. I am giving the Committee today the Government’s view that the definition in Clause 40, plus the guidance issued under Clause 60, will be sufficient to cover the objective of ensuring that we have this offence on the statute book and monitored and enforced by authorities.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I have just remembered that we will have further discussions on police training in later groups in Committee today, but the White Paper will deal with a whole range of matters on improving police performance.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
If the Minister can bear one more intervention, would he be good enough to take back the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown? I cannot quite understand why that amendment is not listed nearer to Clause 40, because it would have been helpful to look at the two together, as has not been done to any great extent. I say politely to the Minister that I prefer the noble Baroness’s interpretation of exploitation.
The other point I want to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right—it is a point I have not made, but I am well aware of it—that at the age of 18, people who may have been victims become perpetrators. Some of them become perpetrators because they have no choice, but others—the young thugs she spoke about—are genuine perpetrators. Therefore, to specify the age of 18 in Clause 40 may be misleading.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the further pressure on this issue from the Cross Benches. My job is to set out to the Committee the Government’s view on these amendments, which I am trying to do. The measures in Clause 40 and the guidance in Clause 60 are sufficient to meet the objectives of my noble friend and, at the same time, to ensure—let us not forget this—that this offence goes on to the statute book for the first time. It will have a big impact on county line gangs and on defining further criminal child exploitation. I have put the Government’s view; we will obviously reflect on what my noble friend has said and I am happy to meet her, with other colleagues, outside the Committee to discuss that explanation further. I recognise the great motivation my noble friend had in bringing this to the Committee. I hope she will reflect on what I have said and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
I believe I get another chance to speak. I am grateful to all contributors to my amendment today. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I tried, but obviously not impactfully enough, to talk about the complexities involved and the differences between an abused child and a perpetrator, and how difficult it is for the criminal courts—and all of us—to understand the distinction.
I say gently to my noble friend the Minister that given that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—if I might pray her in aid—are all pressing on this issue, it would be a good idea for the Government to reflect properly on it.
I knew that the argument was going to be that my amendment is unnecessary. With 20 years’ experience in Parliament, I know that there have been many unnecessary clauses in Bills, and indeed that some Bills have become Acts that some people believe are unnecessary. I cheekily ask what harm it could do. It would be fabulous if my noble friend the Minister could humour us and bung it in. I genuinely believe that this is an important part of the protection of our children in the future. In hope, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities
Lord Hanson of Flint
(a) by attending at an appropriate police station and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my first amendment to clause 48, page 65, line 29.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment inserting a new subsection (1A) into clause 51, makes the offence in this clause cover breaches of CCE prevention orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 51.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“CCE prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland
Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland(1) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland. (2) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a new clause which introduces Schedules with provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for bringing forward this important amendment. It speaks to an issue that has been much discussed during the Bill’s passage: the urgent need to protect children who are coerced or manipulated into criminal activity by those who exploit them for profit and control.
Amendment 247 proposes a new clause to establish a criminal exploitation protection order. This would be aimed directly at safeguarding children who have already been subjected to criminal exploitation, preventing further harm. As the noble Baroness has eloquently explained, these children deserve support and a clear pathway out of exploitation. Undoubtedly, there is merit in exploring whether a new bespoke order focused on the safety and welfare of the exploited child could complement the existing prevention orders in the Bill which target the adult perpetrators. We recognise the intention behind ensuring that prohibitions and requirements are carefully balanced so as not to interfere unnecessarily with education, family life or existing legal orders. From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment.
We recognise that introducing new regimes raises practical considerations that must be considered. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to further discussion as the Bill progresses. Protecting children from exploitation must be central to this legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued leadership on this issue.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Armstrong for Amendment 247. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their support for the amendment, and for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I am sorry to have elevated the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—obviously, I was transfixed by the “Liverpool” part of his title. I appreciate his gentle chiding of me for that rookie error, which I still occasionally make after 15 months in this place. I apologise for that.
I hope I can reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling the criminal exploitation of children and to supporting children who are victims of criminal exploitation. There are a number of comprehensive provisions in the Bill. In early December, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is meeting the Policing Minister in the Home Office to discuss these issues. I am grateful for her expertise and for the discussions that my noble friend Lady Armstrong has had with Action for Children and colleagues outside of the House.
I fully understand and agree with the desire to safeguard children from the horrific consequences of criminal exploitation. That is why the Government are delivering on the manifesto commitment to bring forward this order, under the clauses that we have discussed, and go after the gangs that are luring young people into violence and crime. Additionally, as the Committee will know, through Clauses 42 to 55 and Schedule 5 to the Bill, the Government’s criminal exploitation prevention orders will place prohibitions and requirements on adults who pose a risk of exploiting children into criminality.
This brings me to the central point of the amendment before us. The Government have considered the position but feel that the most effective way to manage the behaviour of those who have criminally exploited children, or who are at risk of doing so, and to protect children from being criminally exploited are the measures in the Bill. We should be restricting the conduct of the adult perpetrator rather than of the child victim.
I simply say to my noble friend—this is an important point—that for legislation to be effective, there needs to be a consequence for non-compliance. If the measure that she has brought forward was put into legislation, we would be focusing on the child victim and their behaviour. In the event of non-compliance, unless there is a consequence to that—and I am not quite sure what that consequence would be—the proposal would have no legal effect. If a child breaches the prohibition or requirements in an order, the first response could be a further narrowing of the prohibitions or requirements, or varying them. Ultimately, a breach of the order would require a consequence, and I am not sure that we have considered that matter in full.
The Government believe that the measures we are introducing in the Bill will create greater awareness of child criminal exploitation and increase identification of victims, and will ensure that we assist victims in receiving appropriate support. When victims are identified, practitioners will be encouraged to recognise vulnerability, first and foremost, and, I hope, to clearly signal that the children who are used by adults to commit crime are victims of abuse.
I hear what noble Lords have said. Everybody who has spoken has broadly supported the direction of travel. We want to draw on that wealth of experience and insight, which is why my colleagues, the Policing Minister and the Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office, are hosting a round table with experts before Christmas to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and look at how we can better support children who are victims of crime and potentially perpetrators of crime.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
It seems fairly obvious to me that if the order were breached by the child, the child would end up in the family proceedings court preferably, rather than the family criminal court. That could be done by an order, and it might not do any harm for the child. There could be some innovative thinking in the Home Office as to other ways of dealing with this. The real point being made today, if I might remind Minister, is about helping the parents. At the moment, I do not see what else can help the parents. I would be very grateful to know what the Minister thinks about that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience, brings forward one potential output of a breach of an order, and I accept that that is a potential output. The point I am making to my noble friend is that we want to discuss what happens to the child and the range of consequences. That is why my honourable friend the Policing Minister and my honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Safeguarding Minister, are meeting agencies in this field to look at what is going to happen. That is planned for before Christmas. There is a separate meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Although the noble and learned Baroness has brought forward one consequence, I want to look at all the issues. I am not able to accept the amendment before us because that is one of the issues that is not resolved. Therefore, although I understand the desire behind this, I ask that my noble friend withdraws her amendment today and allows for reflection to occur.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister and look forward to the meeting. To pick up the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I wonder whether the Minister, in tackling this, recognises that many times, the so-called parents will be someone who has legal responsibility but who actually may not be helping the child. One of the issues with an order such as this would potentially be making sure that those who have legal responsibility for a child also have a duty to try to enforce the protection of that child. That may mean a change in their own behaviours. It is a complicated issue. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and to the Home Office for recognising that somehow, something has to be done. This might not be perfect, but we cannot leave a big gap there.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept and understand that young children will be impacted by the potential behaviour of the parent, or indeed the lack of behaviour by the parent. The suggestion of the order may be a contributing factor which might assist with that. I have tried to point out to the Committee that there are a number of issues. First, this would be an order against the child, which is a big issue. Secondly, there would have to be a consequence for a breach. Thirdly, the Government’s focus in the Bill is on action on adults. Those are three issues that I put on the table for the Committee and which lead me to ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
However, the engagement and discussions, both with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and with the coalition of groups that have a concern about this, will continue before Christmas. That will obviously give the mover of the amendment an opportunity to reflect upon it. But in the meantime, I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and to the previous one.
This is complex and we all want to have good outcomes. I appreciate that the Minister is saying that we need more discussion and to make sure that we address this issue in a way that safeguards children and young people but also deals with perpetrators and potential perpetrators and makes sure that the families of the children and young people are engaged in the way that we sort things out. The real problem is that it is much more than just Home Office business, which I appreciate. However, Members of this House have made great strides in at least beginning to identify the issues, reflecting our discussions and experiences from outside. That is important. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Government and the Minister in the next period of time so that we can come up with something that people will have confidence in. In that spirit, I therefore seek to withdraw the amendment.
Violence Against Women and Girls
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The work to halve violence against women and girls in a decade started the day the Government entered office, and I pay tribute to my colleague Jess Phillips for her work in this area. The Government have already announced a series of cross-government measures, including a £13.1 million investment in the creation of a national policing centre for violence against women and girls, and measures to tackle specific crime types, including honour-based abuse, spiking and stalking. Our cross-government strategy approach underpinning a new strategy will be published as soon as possible.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am so pleased that our Government have this policy. On the commitments in the manifesto, will he say what action is being taken to ensure that schools address misogyny so that boys and girls are being taught about healthy relationships and consent? What progress is being made on introducing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms so that victims can talk directly to a specialist, and on ensuring that there is a legal advocate in every police force area to advise victims from the moment of report to trial? What progress is being made on having specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force and on fast-tracking rape cases with specialist courts in every Crown Court in England and Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We have made progress on all three of those objectives. The Department for Education and my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern have published an updated curriculum this year, which includes teaching online safety and awareness of healthy relationships. We have already introduced domestic abuse specialists in the first five police forces under what we call Raneem’s law, and we will expand the rollout to more police forces very shortly, as soon as possible. We are also working with key stakeholders on the delivery of legal advocates, and we are hoping to make further announcements on that very shortly.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I welcome the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls, but we need to see concrete action to achieve that goal. Female genital mutilation causes immediate and long-term harm and is a crime that is underreported and underprosecuted. The Home Office concluded a feasibility study in 2024 on how to produce robust prevalence estimates for FGM. Back in March, the Minister said that the Government were considering the next step, so can I ask for an update on that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for both her commitment and her continued pressure on the Government on these issues. As she knows, in August this year the Home Office announced six new measures to tackle honour-based abuse. One of those measures is to conduct a pilot prevalence study to support the development of a national prevalence estimate for forced marriages and female genital mutilation, and that will build on the work of the feasibility study that concluded in 2024. Work is already under way now on that issue, and I hope to update the House in due course.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle and reduce domestic violence, but the number of victims has not come down over the years, sadly, and too many perpetrators—overwhelmingly men and particularly in some communities—do not appear to understand that these are criminal offences. Does the Minister accept that we need a widespread public awareness and information campaign to help inform victims and their families of their rights, the law and where they can get help, alongside embedding more education on healthy relationships in schools, and enforcement such as the stepping up of the use of domestic abuse orders?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. As I have mentioned in answer to earlier questions, the Department for Education has now issued curriculum reviews on the issue of health and education. Indeed, I understand that new guidance has been issued on this issue. She is right that we need to make sure that there is not just greater awareness but zero tolerance. The expected violence against women and girls strategy, which I am hoping will be published very shortly, will cover a range of issues that the noble Baroness has mentioned, and I look forward to that contributing to the Government’s measurable objective of reducing violence against women and girls significantly, as per the manifesto commitment.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, what measures are His Majesty’s Government taking to address online harassment and technology-facilitated abuse directed against women and girls?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is extremely important, and there is the potential for the Government to examine how that is undertaken. Harassment and misogyny, the issues that my noble friend has mentioned, are subject to tight regulation and tight legislation as a whole. We also need to work with the technology companies to ensure that, under the Online Safety Act, information put online that is offensive and which breaches the legislation is taken down speedily.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
I want to press my friend the Minister a little further on police training. I know that it is much better than it was, but it is still a postcode lottery and I do not think the police always understand the different kinds of abuse, particularly honour abuse. It is important that policemen on the beat are aware and know what to do if someone approaches them. That is quite often the first time that a victim has felt able or free to see someone, and it is important that the officers know immediately what to do and can take that person to a place of safety.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a valuable point. It is important that we have police officers who understand the impact of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, since, as she mentioned, often they are the first port of call. I hope that the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy—I say again to the House that we hope to publish it in very short order—will cover a range of issues about how we can raise awareness and have a full policing response, as well as further potential government responses.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the CPS has published its Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2025-2030, and indeed the previous Government published their violence against women and girls strategy in 2021, but I am unable to find the current Government’s strategy. Can the Minister help me with this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can. I think I have already said it to the House, but I will give the noble Lord the latest. On 17 November the Minister responsible for this in another place, Jess Phillips, said during Home Office Orals that the strategy would be coming out very soon but that we are already taking action. I give this assurance to the House: when I say very soon, I mean very soon. I hope noble Lords will recognise that when it does, very soonly, they will know that I said that the violence against women and girls strategy would come out “very soon”. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
One of the problems at the moment is online images of what it is to be a young man—distorted images that imply that to be a young man is to be misogynistic, carrying with them assumptions of implicit violence. What are the current Government doing online to counteract these false, distorted images of what it is to be a man?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I find it quite upsetting to see some of the images and messages that are put out from people who, in some cases, currently face criminal charges in other countries. It is important that, through the work that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is doing, we work with schools and communities to ensure that young men in particular respect everyone in society, and that they are not taken down some of the very false routes that currently appear on much of social media.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, what is the timescale for the independent commission on grooming gangs in terms of appointing a chair, publishing the terms of reference, and so on? Is there any urgency there? Secondly, as these rape gangs are arguably the most shameful examples of state indifference to, even collusion with, the sexual abuse of thousands and thousands of young white working-class girls, does the Minister understand that delays and excuses imply that the commitment regarding violence against women and girls can come over rather cynically—as just a slogan rather than action?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that it is not a slogan; it is a manifesto commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period as a matter of some urgency. She will know that we have been trying to recruit a chair for the national grooming inquiry over many weeks, and we are still trying to do that. The anticipation is that we will, I hope, achieve that as quickly as possible. We have enabled a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to assist us in that recruitment, and this very afternoon we will have debates in this House on the Crime and Policing Bill on those issues. It is the Government’s intention to establish the inquiry as soon as possible, and I will keep this House updated.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this feels like an appropriate moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale, who has worked so hard on this issue for so long, and to remember the friend of this whole House, the late, great Baroness Newlove. What are the Government doing to ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner is involved in the consultation and development of the strategy, and will the new commissioner be properly resourced to help to implement it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the recognition of my noble friend Lady Gale. I looked this up today, and she was asking me questions about this issue in this very week last year, so she is not one not to be persistent on the same issues. I also pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove for her work as Victims’ Commissioner. My noble friend will know that the Victims’ Commissioner had already been replaced from January next year. Self-evidently, we are hoping to produce the violence against women and girls strategy very shortly, but I will ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner both examines the potential future government strategy and is involved in its challenge and its delivery.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(3 days, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we recognise the issues facing communities and immigrants across the country, and we agree that faith must be restored to the immigration and asylum system, which requires changes to policy. We appreciate the commitment to maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for partners of British citizens and British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, honouring our unique responsibilities to them. However, we are concerned that this overhaul overlooks key failures of past Governments.
Prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration. It is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy.
Changes to settlement must be made giving due regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect this policy and rhetoric could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. However, and moreover, the NHS is heavily reliant on non-British national staff.
The policy statement sets out that debt would limit an individual’s eligibility for settlement. What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Does it include credit cards or a mortgage? When consideration is being given to preventing access to public funds for those with settlement? What is the position of the state pension, which an individual would have contributed to over the years that they have been in the UK? If you take your pension, does that mean that you would no longer be eligible for that final route?
The Statement explicitly targets the cohort of lower-qualified workers who entered via the health and care visa, proposing they should wait 15 years before earning settlement, extending the pathway beyond the new 10-year baseline. Would that lead to a situation where care workers would be incentivised to volunteer in their community rather than work extra hours as a care worker? This proposal unfairly targets low earners and our carers. Why are carers not to be considered public service workers? What are we saying about the value of care? Care is a fundamental need in our society, especially as we are an ageing population.
Further, these proposals raise serious questions about those who are most vulnerable. The Government have committed to keeping some immediate short-route pathways for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Will the Minister explicitly reassure the House and survivors that these changes will not have the adverse, and perhaps unintended, impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?
The care sector in the UK is facing chronic staffing shortages, putting immense pressure on families and the wider social care system. Given that the Home Secretary has proposed that public service workers could qualify after five years, what assessment has been made of the risk that some essential public service workers will leave the UK? That was shared by the nurses’ union. What credible plan are the Government making to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector, especially in the short timescale that is available to them?
The Ukrainian people continue to resist Russia’s war of aggression, and many families who have sought refuge in the UK face further uncertainty over their visa status, causing significant instability. Will the Home Office and the Minister consider establishing a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for Ukrainians who have integrated into life in the UK and wish to remain long-term?
How does this policy relate to the family unit? It would seem that we could have a situation where people within the same family unit are on different routes to settlement because of their individual salaries on the one hand and caring responsibilities on the other—for example, a husband on a three-year route and a wife on a 10-year route. How might this disproportionately impact women, who often work less as a result of childcare?
The Home Secretary stated in the other place that fairness is central to these immigration changes. Is it fair to change the rules for an individual who has come to the UK on a legal route, with certain expectations, and move the goalposts midway through their route to settlement? While no one disputes that people coming to the UK should integrate, how will the Home Secretary and the Home Office ensure that the new mandatory measures, such as making sustained national insurance contributions above the personal allowance threshold and demonstrating English language proficiency to A-level standard or more, do not impose unworkable red tape on people who have come here legally?
Finally, how will these arrangements and changes be implemented? Will some of it be in primary legislation? Will some of it be in secondary legislation? Will some of it just be changes to the Immigration Rules? I understand that it is a tricky and detailed answer that I am expecting from the Minister, but if he cannot give me the exact details now about the legislative route for these proposals, perhaps he might like to write to me on these matters. I appreciate that I have asked a significant number of questions, but I hope that I can get answers to some of them.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to answer questions in this House on the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Let me start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Government are not feeling the pressure on this issue. The Government are responding, as any sensible Government would, to some of the challenges we have inherited after 14 years of his Government. There was a large build-up in a range of asylum issues, and they did not tackle the issue of earned settlement that we are looking at now. The last change on earned settlement was in 2006, and this is the most fundamental change in over 40 years. Settlement is a privilege, not a right. We are trying to have a discussion, so I would welcome formal consultation from both noble Lords on the points they have made. We are trying to solve some of the problems and challenges for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about issues to do with the different years of earned entitlement, up and down. We have made judgments on that, but it is open to consultation. He can make representations, if he thinks any of the decisions that we have come to in the initial document are wrong. We will look at his representations on those issues. We have settled on degree-level English as being an important benchmark. For the core narrative and the four main criteria, the English requirement is A-level standard, which is the B2 test of the common European framework. I think that is reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned illegal entry. We have set very high bars on the punitive elements of additional years before any consideration can be given. Again, that is open to consultation. There may be circumstances where somebody has arrived illegally who we wish to examine, and that is part of the reason for the discussion. All the areas the noble Lord has mentioned are subject to consultation, and I would certainly welcome his views.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that the anticipation is that most of this will be done via the Immigration Rules. The process, as set out in the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made on 20 November, is that a consultation will be open until 12 February 2026, and we would hope to try to make some changes with effect from the next financial year, in April. Again, that will be subject to consultation and parliamentary consideration.
The noble Lord mentioned what the debt would look like for individuals. The three types of debt that we are looking at in the consultation are any outstanding litigation debt, tax debt or National Health Service debt. It would not be debt on a personal basis; effectively, we will be examining state debts. Whether pensions would be included is for the consultation. We are looking at issues such as jobseeker’s allowance and child benefit, but it would be open to discussion. I would welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation with health and care visas. There is considerable growth in this area, arguably because people are living longer and require more care. In 2028, we anticipate an additional 210,000 care workers coming to the UK, with the potential for long-term settlement. We are trying to ensure that we raise the level of training and are looking into recruiting UK-based citizens into that work. There will always be a need to examine that route, which is why we will maintain it, but there is a much longer period for final settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned Ukraine. We would not have anticipated the Ukraine scheme four or five years ago, but it is in place because we responded to a humanitarian need in what I and the Ukrainian Government hope is a temporary circumstance. The Ukraine route has never been a route to permanent settlement. It has now been further extended for around 18 months. We will keep it under review. Self-evidently, Russia is still present in Ukraine and bloodshed is still going on. The Ukrainian Government have our support in dealing with that, which is why we have maintained and extended the scheme into the future. The Ukrainian Government do not wish this to be a permanent route, so it will be kept under review. It is a separate scheme for Ukrainian citizens who have come to the United Kingdom for the moment.
The noble Lord mentioned family routes and the potential for different family timescales. That area is potentially subject to consultation. We want to look at it so that we do not necessarily disadvantage families. I cannot read my writing, but I have written “transitional”. I will examine the noble Lord’s comments in Hansard and write to him shortly, because I have forgotten exactly why I have written it down.
We are taking this measure because there are currently 70 routes, 40 of them leading to settlement. Between 2026 and 2030, we estimate that between 1.3 million and 2.2 million citizens, under the current scheme, will be able to have a period of settlement. We need to take action. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 set out that we will increase the default qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years. We have put down some core criteria: the lack of a criminal record, the ability to speak English to A-level standard, three to five years of national insurance contributions and having no debt, as I defined to the noble Lord a moment ago. We wish to put those core issues as a base but, on top of that, we have put positives and negatives in terms of earned entitlement. We are doing that to ensure that citizenship is part of a commitment and is focused on no recourse to public funds, speaking English to degree level and other matters that I have outlined to the House.
I hope the House will not just look at the two Statements but participate in the consultation. At the end of that consultation in February, we will undoubtedly bring to both Houses a package that will be subject to parliamentary approval and that this House and the House of Commons can examine and question in detail.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
What worries me most about this is what it will do to our society. I do not like the concept of a much larger group of second-class people in our country with restrictions on what they can do, under a sort of surveillance state, for much longer periods of time. I suspect it will be divisive in our society. I particularly dislike the idea that it might be divisive in families. This White Paper says that
“a person admitted as the dependant of an economic migrant will not necessarily enjoy the same qualifying period for settlement as their partner. It may be shorter or longer, according to their particular circumstances”.
We are seriously envisaging telling couples that they must choose between living in the country that they chose to come to and hope to settle in for the rest of their lives and living with a person they have married and hope to stay with for the rest of their lives. That is a pretty cruel choice.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, having to deal with such nasty news. My question to him is about what he has just said about transitional arrangements. A particularly unpleasant aspect of all this is retrospection. I agree with what has been said about that. Somebody who has been here for four and a half years, who chose to come here on the understanding that after five years his permanent settlement as a citizen of this country would be adjudicated—perhaps he is married, has children and has thought about careers, schooling and all that on the basis of certainty five years ahead—now knows that he may have to wait another 15 years. What are the transitional arrangements that
“may be designed to ease the impact of policy change, especially for individuals or groups already afforded permissions by the previous system”?
I do not know what that means. The consultation that is starting will consider that:
“Without any transitional arrangements, the earned settlement policy will affect people already in the system, who are not already settled when relevant Immigration Rules come into force”.
Quite—but what is the idea inside the Home Office? Is it that there should be a limited degree of retrospection? Should those who have been here for four years be treated more generously than those who have just turned up?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for reminding me why I wrote down “transitional” in relation to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord German. I hope that, following my explanation, he can avoid another missive from me off the back of this.
I will start by saying something that I hope is positive. Nobody who has settled status now will have it unpicked by these arrangements. Some political parties have suggested that that might be the case. This Labour Government are not one of them. We have said that we will look at the pathway to settlement for those already on that pathway who have not yet been granted settled status. That means that in the consultation we will look at the transitional arrangements for those individuals. I hope that those who have views will put them to the Home Office, because we have to determine what we do for those who, as the noble Lord said, may be four and a half years down a settled status route when they expected five years and now the proposal, subject to consultation, is potentially the 10-year period in the immigration White Paper. That route is subject to discussion and consultation.
France and Italy both have a 10-year period. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we think what we have undertaken is the right thing to do. We are not out of step with some European partner countries on this, but I give him and the noble Lord, Lord German, the assurance that the points he has raised about transition will be examined as part of that consultation, and representations are welcome.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not disagreeing with the noble Lord at all; he is completely correct about France. I am just sad that one of the defining features of this country—something we used to be proud of—is slipping. I agree that the change does not take us out of line with a lot of our neighbours, but it is nevertheless undesirable for our society.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I believe in an open, integrated, multicultural society where people are respected and valued for the work they do. That is nothing against the many thousands of people who, for example, work in this building, in hospitals or in teaching and bring great skills to this country. However, the question for the Government is: how do we manage future migration issues and future earned entitlement to settlement? We are looking to put some core guidelines around that and some alternatives which improve the earned entitlement, or penalise it by giving a further, longer period. That is reasonable, but it is subject to consultation, and I welcome the noble Lord’s views outside the Chamber.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord German raised many of the puzzling issues in this consultation, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out the divisive and unsettling elements. With all the love I have of France, we have historically done better than France in building a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, as the Minister’s last remarks conveyed. I would not necessarily say that we should emulate everything Frane has done.
I have a particular question about the introduction to the document, which says that the consultation
“proposes that benefits should not be available to those who have settled status”.
I assume that does not cover those who have EU settled status, because that would be a breach of the withdrawal agreement. Even some with pre-settled status can access some benefits. I am sure the Minister will reassure me on this.
The document shows evidence of having been put together rather quickly. The Minister clarified that
“they must have no debt in this country”
means that they must have no debt to this country. There is infelicitous phrasing in the document—it does not stop someone from having a mortgage, student fees, or whatever.
On the theme of divisiveness, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, earlier settlement would be available to “high taxpayers” and people
“who have worked at a certain level of seniority in our public services”.
Good luck to them, but middle and lower earning workers are also very valuable. I do not really see why their worth to this country and their earning settlement should be measured in terms of what they pay HMRC. That is peculiar, to be honest.
I really do not understand the twists and turns in this. The Government have adopted the language of some opposition parties about illegal entrants. They say they accept the refugee convention, but they actually do not, because it is not illegal to enter this country in order to claim asylum. We have said this time and again, and the Labour Party said it in opposition in this House. If you accept that someone has a right to stay in this country, why then make hurdles about when they are allowed to settle, integrate and become a fully-fledged member of our society? I do not understand the discrepancy between those two things. I had better shut up because I can see that other noble Lords want to get in, but I have that specific question about EU settled status.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She knows that we have had a lot of discussion around EU settled status. I can confirm to her that the EU settlement scheme is out of scope, as is the Windrush scheme. For British overseas nationals—those from Hong Kong—their visas will receive a five-year reduction, effectively maintaining their five-year route to settlement. Those with settled status will be able to keep it without any change. These are reasonable responses to the many European Union citizens, those of the Windrush generation and those from Hong Kong who have come to this country to live, work and integrate. We are looking to put down some basic discussion points for consultation on how we manage settled status when we have potentially 1.3 million to 2.2 million people coming to settled status between 2026 and 2030, on current estimates. That figure will only grow unless we take the action we are trying to take today.
The noble Baroness mentioned a number of points; they are all up for consultation. The high salary issue means that an individual who is a higher taxpayer or employed in specific public roles would also result in a reduction in the additional time required. That is an important recognition of the contribution that people make to the United Kingdom. All of those points are up for discussion in the consultation. Given that the time is relatively limited, I want to make sure we can take other questions, so I will answer the right reverend Prelate’s next.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I will keep my question brief because I want to give time to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. One of the most encouraging developments in foreign policy in this country in recent years has been the growing recognition of the evil of the denial of freedom of religion or belief across the world, leading to widespread persecution of faith communities, Christians not least among them, as we have tragically seen in these last days in Nigeria. The UK has become a recognised global leader in advocacy for this oft-overlooked right.
Does the Minister accept that denial of freedom of religion or belief is a significant driver of migration? It is certainly so in the case of a significant number who arrive illegally, who, according to the Statement,
“could see settlement take up to 30 years”.
Does the Minister agree that we need consistency in the development of foreign and domestic policy, especially in this area but also in upstream causes and drivers of migration, to ensure that very vulnerable individuals are afforded the protection and assistance they so badly need?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to say to the House that there is a real difference between asylum, refugee status and immigration. This Statement concerns the transition of citizens who have come here through an immigration route to work to having earned settled status.
Last week, we discussed another Statement on asylum claims. Persecution for religious faith would be a ground to seek asylum. We have also had a policy statement on how individuals can claim asylum. Some people will come here illegally, which is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that that is not an automatic barrier. However, it is certainly a significant barrier and how that person has arrived can be examined. For those asylum claims, we will meet our obligations under the international refugee convention and our human rights obligations, and those claims will be based on an individual’s personal circumstances.
The key point of the Statement we made earlier in the week is that, instead of five years, it would now be a two and a half year period. If the circumstances of the individual are reassessed after two and a half years, the persecution in the native country may not be what it was two and a half years ago. It may be, in which case the asylum claim would still be processed.
The key to asylum claims is to process them quickly to determine whether an asylum claim is genuine. If so, we allow status. If that happens, they will fall under the routes of this particular Statement. If it is not a proper asylum claim, they will face removal from the country. That is a two-stage operation. This is not just around people who are coming on small boats; these are people who are coming on work visas who wish to have long-term settled status. Here, we are just putting some more guard-rails around that settled status so that we can ensure that individuals have contributed and, on the four key issues, are citizens that deserve the right and privilege of being British citizens as part of their consideration.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement says:
“Fairness is the most fundamental of British values”.
Is it fair that people who have uprooted their lives, moved their children here and made their lives here should suddenly find the rug pulled out from underneath their life plans? In responding to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the Minister said that there might be transitional arrangements and that they are consulting on all this. But that means that people who might have been here for four and a half years are facing massive levels of uncertainty about where their life is now. Is that fair?
I look at the overall fairness of the plans and think about a potential example of someone who is either already here now or comes in the future—a carer or maybe a nurse in a care home. The five years are kept for nurses working in public service, but what about those working in a privately owned facility? She might have to wait 15 years for indefinite leave to remain. What happens if, after 10 years’ service, she injures her back and needs a period of rehabilitation before she returns to work? What happens to her child, after 15 years, when they are unlikely still to be dependent? Perhaps they push to remain dependent to be able to stay in the country that is the only one they actually remember. Is all that fair?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me answer the first point. The announcements were made on 20 November. The consultation closes on 12 February, and the intention is to try to bring in proposals shortly after that. That is a three-month or four-month interregnum of uncertainty, which I accept is there. It is important that we make the policy statements that we have made and allow for consultation. The points that have been made across the House will undoubtedly be put in the consultation as a whole, and we will reflect on that in relation to any points made.
The noble Baroness asks, “Is it fair?”. It has to be fair if we want to ensure community cohesion and that people recognise that there is a society where people come but have an earned right, not an automatic citizenship privilege. I think that is fair for the British citizens who are here now. There are many political parties—I do not accuse the noble Lord of this—that would go much further, removing people from this country who have settled status and doing things like that. We have to address some real issues. It is never easy in government—it is difficult in government—but I am not going to go down the road of some political parties. We have to find a way to ensure that the fairness that is appropriate for the system is generated in the rules that we are consulting on now.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have a very simple and practical question for the Minister to end with. During his remarks about the Statement, he has said that gaining settled status would require a degree in English or an A-level in English. Can the Minister explain how that will be assessed? Will it be both written and spoken? Does he therefore expect the existing residents of the country to achieve the same levels?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The test is the B2 test, which is under the common European framework. We currently have a B1 test, which is slightly lower. The B2 test is a recognised under the common European framework, and that would be the test that is taking place.
Again, there are no residual changes being made to those with existing settled status and to those, such as myself, who were born in this country but whose English may sometimes not be up to the standard that some people would wish. It is important that that test is in place, and I hope the noble Baroness will support it in consultation.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsMonday 24th November 2025
(4 days, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (21 Nov 2025)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in dealing with this Motion we will also deal with Motion A1.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling Motion A1, that this House,
“do insist on its Amendment 37”.
The amendment that we made to the Bill on Report has a simple purpose. My noble friend simply wishes the Home Office to publish data on overseas students, and that is a wish that I share.
The reason given by the other place for disagreeing with our Amendment 37 is that they,
“do not consider it appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish the data listed in the Amendment, the release of which should be determined within the wider publication of official statistics on migration”.
I agree with the basic premise here that an amendment to primary legislation is not necessarily the best way in which to force the publication of statistics. Ideally, we would not have to go down the legislative avenue to get the Home Office to publish these statistics. However, when my noble friend has repeatedly asked the Government to do so and they still refuse, this is the only option that we are left with.
There is a very simple solution to all this—just publish the data. The Home Office must know how many visas it revokes and how many people it removes from the country. Surely, it knows how many of those revocations and removals are of foreign students. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend in trying to force the publication of this data and, should he decide to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling his amendment, but I hope that I can persuade the House that no Division is required. We will see. I hope to persuade the House of that in due course.
The Bill returns to this House having been considered in the other place on Wednesday 19 November, during which the government amendments to the Lords stages of the Bill were approved by the elected House of Commons. As the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Jackson, mentioned, migration policy is a fluid issue. There are always issues that we are bringing forward. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals that I spoke to in this House on Thursday 20 November, and there is a further Statement on legal migration issues tomorrow evening in this House, if Members wish to participate and hold the Government to account still further.
As noble Lords know, Amendment 37 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, was taken to the other place having been approved by this House. The other place rejected that amendment, which would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following revocation of their student visas and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.
I maintained at the time—and, dare I say it, without wishing to provoke the noble Lord to press this to a Vote, I maintain still—that there is no requirement in primary legislation and it would be unnecessary. It would undermine the mechanisms in place to ensure the appropriate publication of statistics in full so that the context of migration statistics already published is known. I note the view put forward by the Liberal Democrat Benches in the debate in the other place that the amendment would not help to tackle organised crime nor improve border security, nor would it strengthen the Bill. As I set out when debating the amendment in Committee and on Report, the Government see the value of transparency, hence the vast quantity of statistics that the Home Office already publishes on a regular basis, in line with the Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.
The Home Office regularly reviews the official statistics being published and takes into account a number of factors including user needs, the resources required to compile the statistics, and the quality and availability of such data. I again confirm for the House that having requirements in legislation is not needed or appropriate. While I recognise and value transparency, it is critical to ensure due process for the accuracy and quality of data, which can be achieved within existing mechanisms for official statistics to be released.
However—this is where I come to my “however”—I note the interest in this topic and am anxious to try to make some progress. I do not wish to have further ping-pong between both Houses, if at all possible. I can therefore make the commitment to the House tonight that, subject to the proposed new clause not being included in the Bill—in other words, the amendment to the Motion not being pressed this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—the Government will review and publish the data held on the number of students who have had their visas revoked due to criminality. These statistics will cover a defined period and will be broken down by nationality of the offender, as was stipulated in the noble Lord’s original amendment. I hope that this commitment will provide Members of the House with reassurance that the Government take seriously the importance of transparency in the immigration system through the publication of statistics.
The proposal I put to the House tonight provides what I would argue is an achievable, non-legislative solution to what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others have called for. This approach will embed publication of the requested data in the wider mechanisms for Home Office publication of statistics, ensuring that the outcome is of high quality and is appropriately produced along with other data. I urge Members of the House to support this approach by approving Motion A.
Lord Harper (Con)
I will be the bad cop here and then potentially my noble friend can be the good cop, if he wants to.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm that all the data mentioned in the amendment that my noble friend had on the Order Paper is going to be published? Secondly, given that this was debated in the House of Commons just three sitting days ago, why is it that the Minister in the House of Commons did not just make that commitment then? I have a problem if it is only with the threat of an amendment being passed that the Minister is prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to make the commitment; that makes me a little suspicious.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Oh, give over, please. The whole purpose of having this House and the other House discuss amendments and have ping-pong is to achieve a compromise between what this House wants to do and what the other House wants to do, and to try to find a solution. The noble Lord says that the Minister in the other place said X three days ago. Well, I am saying this today. If he does not want to accept it then we can have a discussion and he can press for a vote, and we can see how people this House vote and where we are.
Sometimes I despair. We are actually trying to move things on to meet the objectives of the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Harper, and he still does not want to accept the Christmas presents I am offering him. I am telling him today that we will, as I have said, provide information on student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported after the revocation of their student visas and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation. That is what the information is. Work will commence immediately, with a view to publication by the end of the financial year. Should this work identify that additional time is required, an update will be provided.
We are trying to meet the objectives of the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that the noble Lord will take this as a democratic parliamentary decision between the two Houses to achieve the aims of one small amendment at the end of a lot of consideration of the Bill to date.
Lord German (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that what he has said, and what I have heard from the Benches to my right, is that apart from the demise of the Minister, so that he could not carry out what he just described, there is no reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they should not accept the Motion before us? We should take on board what the Minister says—and if I were the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I would take it as a win. I think he ought to withdraw.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord German. I cannot guarantee that I will be here for ever—nor would I wish to be. I have done 13 years at various Dispatch Boxes over the last 27 years, and the 14 years I did not do were not my fault. I hope to continue.
I am giving a commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom Government which will hold for the term of this Parliament. I cannot commit future Governments to issues but, again, that is what parliamentary democracy is about—holding Government Ministers to account. Who knows who the next Government will be or what they will look like, but I am giving a commitment on behalf of the UK Government for those statistics over this period of time. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will accept it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. It is important that we understand the wider context of what we are doing here. We are seeking to improve the Bill. It is the role of this House to provide scrutiny and oversight and to improve legislation that may be defective or could be improved.
As I said in opening, this amendment would improve the Bill. We all know about judicial activism, the threat of judicial review and, not least, the opposition of the Minister’s Back-Benchers in the other place. The Home Secretary’s new proposals may very well fall foul of judicial review, so anything in primary legislation that protects the Government and enables them to carry out their stated policies is probably a good thing.
I am somewhat discombobulated by the transformation of the Minister from bruiser to pussycat today. He will concede that he has not always been like that. The context of this is that I asked six parliamentary Questions between March and June this year and got the same vacuous answers from the department—including that it will “always undertake a thorough, comprehensive review of statistics”. He will forgive me if I am slightly less willing to take this on board. I make the distinction between the Minister, who is a man of honour and integrity, and the department in which he is a Minister, which does not always put some issues at the top of its priorities. I will leave it at that.
To respond quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I reassure her that there was no inference that all foreign students are criminals and are therefore likely to be deported. That is why I specifically said on Report:
“I want to make it clear that the vast majority of those individuals come, study hard and contribute to our society and economy, but there is a minority who abuse that privilege—and it is a privilege. We have some of the world’s top universities in our country, and it is not an automatic right to be here”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1932.]
I stand by those words.
I am concerned about the lack of focus on this issue. I was confused by the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, to my noble friend Lord Harper. It did not seem to have a focus on risk assessment and was not clear about what data would be collected. The Government seem particularly ill prepared, as my noble friend alluded to, for the visa ban policy on Angola and other countries if they do not collect and publish basic data.
Finally, we seem to have no idea of a timescale. We have constantly been promised that a protocol is in place for the collection and publication of data, but it is always mañana —it is always tomorrow.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Just so the noble Lord has absolutely no excuse not to support what I have said, a broad time period will be reported on, subject to the data being available. We will commence work immediately, with a view to publication by the end of the financial year, which is April. That is the timescale, if the noble Lord wishes to accept this. If he does not, he can have his Division if he wishes, but that is the offer I am making to him today.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take that offer in good faith, but it will be 14 months since I first asked a similar question about the figures. The Government have had endless opportunities—before they launched this new policy, and before the Prime Minister’s speech on immigration earlier in autumn—to bring forward their own amendment on this issue.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
So the noble Lord would rather have a Division than accept the publication of what he wants by April. I just want to be clear on what he is saying today. So that the House is clear on what he is saying, the noble Lord would rather try to win a vote in order to cause more difficulties and discussion, even though I am offering to give him by April next year the thing he is requesting.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take on board what the Minister is saying. However, I reiterate the point that it is intellectually incoherent to think it is good policy to say in Hansard and in letters to my noble friends that you have always believed something, but not to will the means by putting it in primary legislation. On that basis, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Non-Crime Hate Incidents
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(4 days, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision of police forces to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents, whether they plan to abolish them altogether.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the review’s final recommendations shortly and will decide future policy following consideration.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. He may not be aware that in 2023 I was charged with a non-crime hate incident. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who is in his place, and the Free Speech Union, we managed to fight it and get it dropped, but, by some estimates from Policy Exchange and others, some 60,000 hours of police time are used every year in investigating these, and innocent men and women are criminalised. My main concern is that, from Questions that I have tabled, neither the Home Office nor police forces can tell us whether any of this has led to any serious crimes being solved or prevented. Is it not time for the Minister to abolish these altogether?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have indicated to the noble Baroness, we are awaiting the report, and it is fair, if we have commissioned a report, that we wait to see its recommendations. However, an interim report in October of this year said that non-crime hate incidents were not fit for purpose. Her noble friend Lord Herbert, who is the chair of the College of Policing, has reported to this House on the recommendations to date, and we will have those shortly. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that non-crime hate incidents do not appear on basic or standard DBS checks, so she is not criminalised by her close proximity to a non-crime hate incident on her own accord.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, non-crime hate incidents, even if they are not investigated but recorded, are a good way of assessing the rising levels of hatred in society. For example, increasing levels of anti-social behaviour appear to be linked to hate crime. Can the Minister tell us whether mechanisms are in place to show what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to hate crime, and what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to anti-Muslim hate? I am happy to have that information in writing if he does not have it to hand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that one of the purposes of non-crime hate incident assessments is to assess whether there are potential problems or challenges in a particular area. Last year, for example, 44% of religious hate crime offences targeted Muslims, while 24% targeted Jewish people, and there were 82,490 race hate crime offences. That is useful information, but the questions are: what do we do about non-crime hate incidents generally? Should we record them? Do we follow them up? Do they lead to prosecution? Are they a good use of police time? However, the evidence gathered by some of that information is valuable, which is why the College of Policing and the police chiefs’ council are making a genuine assessment, having already said that the non-crime hate incident regime is not fit for purpose.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, it will be a sad day when police stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. In the last 10 years, I stood for Parliament twice, and I was the victim of such incidents both times. Non-crime hate is an early warning sign of what is happening in our society so that police and the politicians can keep an eye on it. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, there are robust mechanisms in place to deal with harassment, racial prejudice and other forms of harassing and abusive and threatening behaviour. The key element of a non-crime hate incident is that it does not reach a threshold of a crime incident but is, in essence, a method of collecting information. For example, in my noble friend’s case, if there were persistent and regular non-crime hate approaches that did not reach that threshold, it might well indicate to the police that there were other aspects of community cohesion behaviour they needed to investigate. The review will decide what happens in terms of police activity following up on a range of matters, and that is what we are awaiting shortly with some interest.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, inspections by HMIC have found that about one-quarter of non-crime hate incidents are recorded incorrectly, with many people wrongly included. Following several reviews and repeated government assurances, can the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will finally establish a clear and publicly accessible appeals mechanism for individuals who believe they have been wrongly recorded as being involved in such incidents?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that question from the noble Baroness. The issue is that non-crime hate incidents are not currently fit for purpose. That includes a range of mechanisms relating to how the police interpret that, what they do with the information and indeed whether any information is collected incorrectly. I would love to give an answer today, but it is important that we listen and work with the police on the review they have commissioned. That will be with me shortly and, when it is, we will be able to come to some definitive conclusions and put a regime in place that meets the noble Baroness’s objective of assessing anti-social behaviour and racial concerns, as my noble friend has mentioned, but does so in a way that does not lead to mistakes, does not lead to false use by the police and is not a waste of police time in collecting that information.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but, to pick up on the points made by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch, non-crime hate incidents are just one of the instruments used by the police to investigate online speech. Open-ended and subjective language in legislation such as the Public Order Act 1998 and the Communications Act 2003, and unclear guidance, are also used to chill free speech. Given the public’s view that crime is on the rise, do the Government not agree that legislative changes need to be made, and that guidance and leadership need to be crystal-clear that the police should stop policing online speech and start solving real-world crimes that have a genuine effect on people’s lives?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has a point. Guidance for these incidents was put in place by his Government in 2023, and it is that guidance that has proved ineffective and led to the review. We are looking at the framework for this. We have commissioned the College of Policing to look at it, as well as the police, who have to deal with this matter and who themselves have said that the regime is not fit for purpose. We hope then to be able to update the guidance, depending on what the police and the College of Policing come forward with.
I challenge the noble Lord’s contention that crime is rising. In many areas, crime is falling; murder rates in London are at their lowest levels for many months. Crime is falling generally, and the work that we are doing to put extra police on the ground will help improve community support and community action on crime. However, we will wait for the review and report back to the House in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and I, have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to try to remove non-crime hate incidents. I understand why the Minister has to give the reply that he gives—because a review is ongoing and the Government do not want to get trapped by it—but the danger is that we end up with an inconsistent approach, even if it is improved. At the moment, we have a situation where the Metropolitan Police is no longer investigating non-crime hate incidents, yet 42 forces are. Is there not a risk that following the review we will end up with more inconsistency, not less, when people are crying out for this to be resolved?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Metropolitan Police has said that it will still record information collected from non-crime hate incidents, which is in line with the code of practice introduced by the previous Government in 2023. Ministers decide on issues, but we have commissioned a review of the 2023 guidance which is being undertaken by former colleagues of the noble Lord at a senior level in the police: the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. It is important that we receive their review and then we can determine whether we agree with the recommendations. Ministers decide, but we have commissioned a review, and it is important that we allow it to report.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, over the past two years, we have seen levels of antisemitism reach new highs, and while some antisemitic hate speech reaches the criminal threshold, it can also be sub-criminal. Does the Minister agree with me and organisations such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust that documenting such incidents is central to building an intelligence picture of hate hotspots and that a simple renaming of these incidents to “intelligence reports” would help a great deal?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important use of non-crime hate incidents. As I said earlier, there have been 82,490 race hate crimes, 7,164 religious hate crimes and a range of other offences falling within that. One reason why it is helpful is that it guides where other government resources can go, such as the £70.9 million available to protect faith communities, including, regarding the issue that my noble friend mentioned, the £18 million to the Jewish community protective security grant. It has an important function, but we have to assess it in the light of the use of police time, which is what this review is about. However, my noble friend’s point was very well made, as was that of the noble Baroness, that it helps secure an intelligence picture.
Asylum Policy
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, and I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I am minded to think of the title of that great film, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”; I am afraid that these proposals have all three within them. I will go through some of those.
Starting with the positive, we support the Government’s intent to bring order in the asylum system, and we welcome the announcement of new, capped, safe and legal routes for refugees. These pathways, with security checks and controls, are the correct way to fulfil the UK’s responsibility to those in need. Confirmation that the Government will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights is welcome, as is the recognition that early legal advice should be a core part of the appeal system.
Moving on to the bad, or impractical, the argument that asylum seekers should contribute is undermined when they are denied the means to earn their way. Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. Why are the Government persisting in stopping asylum seekers from working when there is no evidence that this is a pull factor? We question the assumption of the UK as a magnet, given that we receive far fewer asylum seekers per capita than our European neighbours. Home Office analysis itself found that asylum seekers have little to no understanding of welfare policies before arrival. Shared language, diaspora communities and perhaps even colonial connections are the primary drivers for asylum seekers taking irregular routes to the UK. Can the UK Government provide evidence, rather than simple assertion, on this matter?
Revoking the duty to support risks creating more destitution and pushing more asylum seekers towards illegal working and exploitation. What assessment has been made of this risk? What action are the Government taking to avoid passing the financial strain onto already struggling local authorities? The use of immoderate language is also unhelpful and risks stoking division. Why do the Government feel the need to create a whole new asylum appeals structure? Why not simply expand the existing system?
The most severe criticisms target the core protection model and its administrative fallout. Core protection requires a status review every 30 months and delays permanent settlement for 20 years, which in our view is unnecessary and cruel. This prolonged state of instability will inhibit successful integration by making it difficult for refugees to secure tenancies, employment or higher education. The Home Office is currently struggling with a backlog, yet this policy would impose what has been called bureaucratic madness, requiring a huge increase in capacity to review the status of an estimated 1.45 million people by the end of 2035, potentially costing £872 million. Do the Government accept these figures or have they alternative ones to offer?
Scrapping the refugee family reunion route pushes children and spouses into the hands of smugglers, directly contradicting the goal of safe migration. Has this risk been assessed? How will the long-term separation from family impact refugees’ ability to contribute and reduce their reliance on state support? Will the Government be detaining and deporting children who were once accepted as refugees but will subsequently not be when their home country is deemed safe?
Given that Denmark’s temporary protection scheme clearly failed to result in returns for Syrians, how do the Government justify the massive cost and profound uncertainty imposed by the UK version? What is the timescale for these changes? When will they be implemented and what method will be used to implement them?
Finally, do the Government agree with the report in the i newspaper that deportations will be retrospective? It says:
“It means that, if a refugee has not already been granted indefinite right to remain before the Home Secretary’s new legislation comes into force, they will be deported if their home country is subsequently deemed safe by the Government”.
I look forward to the Government’s response to these questions.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I will try to answer his questions first of all. I am grateful for the welcome he gave to some of the Government’s proposals. I remind him that the reason we are undertaking these reforms is that we have inherited a very broken system: a system that has been in operation for 14 years, where the number of asylum claims has risen, where the backlog has grown and where the deportations have not existed where they are rightfully proposed to exist. We have a duty, on behalf of the British people, to take some difficult decisions to sort this out.
The noble Lord mentioned that the border security Bill, which has completed its passage bar one Commons amendment, has not been effective. Let me remind him that we have introduced a border security commander, who has negotiated deals with France, negotiated deals with Iraq, negotiated deals with the Germans and has been put on a legal footing by this Bill. We have put extra measures in place to support penalties for people smugglers, which will now, once Royal Assent is achieved, allow us to take some further deterrent actions against people smugglers to end that vile trade. We have put in place mechanisms to stop the manufacture and use of boats, to seize engines and to do other things which will take effect once Royal Assent is agreed. I do not, therefore, accept his contention first and foremost that the border security Bill, about which we have had many hours of discussion, is pointless.
I have to say to him, however, that the Government have to keep these issues under review because it is self-evidently a broken system, which is why we put in place additional people to speed up the backlog. The measures before the House today, outlined in the Statement, will be brought forward in legislation, subject to consultation. We will also look at a range of other measures we need to take to fix the system we have inherited from the noble Lord and his political party. He may not like that—I do not want to politicise that: I want his support for this—but we have had to take those steps because of where we are, and I think that is reasonable.
The support he has given for some of those steps is particularly good. He mentioned, for example, the tightened criteria. I think it is fair and proper that, if a country is deemed safe after two and a half years, the individual concerned is encouraged and supported to return to that country; or, as is in this proposal, they can apply for a different route through work or study to get permanent residence downstream. If the country is safe, however, it is perfectly reasonable to look at how we can remove that individual.
The proposals include tackling increased enforcement on illegal working. I think it is perfectly reasonable to put some pressure and heat into the system to tackle people who are being employed illegally, to look at increasing the right-to-work checks, to provide digital ID requirements—which I suspect he will oppose—to ensure there are mandatory right-to-work checks and collaboration to verify companies. I think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to look at return hubs: not Rwanda, not £700 million being wasted, not two people being removed voluntarily, but discussing proper return hubs for people who do not have safe countries but where their asylum claims have failed. It is perfectly reasonable to remove people whose asylum claims have failed because their asylum claims have failed. That is perfectly reasonable to do.
It is perfectly reasonable to do what we are doing in this proposal to speed up assessments and appeals. He asked about the First-tier Tribunal. We are going to put extra hours into the tribunal and we are going to ensure that we look at improving the legal system to get appeals dealt with and tribunals dealt with much more quickly. It is reasonable—and this is, again, where we will have a bit of blue and red water between us—to be committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, to be committed to legislation to uphold human rights, but actually to say that we want to look at how we can tweak that to make sure that it acts in the interest of our country, at the same time as being part of our international obligations, which is where we are. He wants to leave those conventions. I do not, and the Government do not, but we need to make sure we make them work in a better way to deal with this issue. I think it is reasonable for us to do all those things and I hope for and look forward to his support on them.
I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord German. It has been overlooked in this, but there are safe and legal routes that we want to develop, as we have done, for example, in our bespoke schemes for Ukraine and for Syria. There are bespoke routes that we can develop. There are safe and legal routes that we can look at. In this Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that we wish to look at doing that. We are committed to human rights, but we are committed to looking at these particular issues. We will encourage people to look at the work route, if necessary, for safe and legal routes, and we will ensure that a range of other issues are examined.
The noble Lord takes issue with the core protection measures that we have before us in this proposal. I think, again, that it is reasonable, given where we are, to look at how we can ensure that those people are assessed very quickly, within two and a half years, or 30 months. If the country is safe to return to, they can return. If not, let us get that asylum claim approved, or let us get that asylum claim rejected and the individual then returned. I think that is a reasonable proposal. It is reasonable that we look at family reunion, and the noble Lord asked about child deportations. I do not want to see child deportations, but what I want to see is, if people have failed their asylum claim or if they are a foreign national offender—of which we have many languishing in UK jails at the moment—we must find mechanisms to return those individuals fairly and properly to their communities if they are safe, or, if not, to look at the issue that we have talked about here of an alternative holding establishment. All of this will be consulted on.
The noble Lord asked about when and how this will be brought in. There will be legislation brought before both Houses of Parliament, at a point to be determined, and the consultation will take place. However, I ask all those noble Lords who may criticise the proposals: are they happy with the status quo? Do they think the status quo is a good place to be? I think nobody in this Chamber will say that the status quo is a good place to be. Therefore, my objective with the Home Secretary and the Home Office is to look at ways in which we can maintain our international obligations, welcome genuine refugees and asylum seekers, but also speed up a broken system to make sure it works effectively.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, who will decide whether a country is safe? The previous Government decided that Rwanda was safe, but the Supreme Court, following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, said that it was the body with the responsibility for deciding whether a country was safe. So my question to the Minister is: who, under the Government’s proposals, is to decide whether a country is safe—the Government or the Supreme Court?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. I take the view that the Government will determine ultimately which are safe countries. The Government will make that judgment. We are open to challenge and discussion, but the Government will have to make a determination on that. In doing so, we will look at a range of factors. What does the United Nations think? What do the other agencies think? In the end, however, the Government ultimately will have to determine. Again, let me just say that it may not even be a blanket “safe” for a particular country. It may be safe, for example, now, for individuals post an Assad regime to return to Syria, but it may equally not be safe for some individuals to do that. There is a case-by-case basis for the individual, but, ultimately, we have to make that call.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to human rights, and I know it is a sincere one, but the Statement itself appears to express some irritation with both Article 8, respect for private and family life, and even Article 3, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. In the light of our own justice and prison system being found in breach of Article 3 in the High Court just two days ago, can the Minister say a little more—give us a little more specificity—about the detail of the proposed renegotiation of Article 3 that the Statement refers to?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are seeking international reform of the application of Article 3. We will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. That means we have to discuss it with our partners and get joint agreement, but it is an objective to which the Government are committed. It is one that will be tested. It will be in our consultation in due course. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. That will be subject to scrutiny, but it will be within the spirit of maintaining our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights application. Those are fair and legitimate objectives, and I hope that my noble friend will support them in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the Home Secretary ended her Statement by saying that her reforms
“are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide”.
My greatest worry about them is that making refugee status only temporary, and subject to review every 30 months and deportation, will have the opposite effect. It will not bring unity, it will not encourage community or integration, and it is not very British. The Attlee Government did not try to deport the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in 1945. The attempt to send trucks round south London to generate a hostile environment and tell people to go home was called off very quickly because of the public revulsion. I remember being very warmed to see crowds in Glasgow blocking the streets to prevent the deportation of their neighbours.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, he did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about retrospection. Can he assure us that the change from five years to 10 years or 20 years will not be applied retrospectively to those people who are here, have been allowed to stay here and came when the rule was that they could obtain citizenship after five years? It will not apply to them, I trust.
Secondly, the Statement says that
“as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country”.
Does “as order and control are restored” imply a sequence: that we need first to see order and control restored, then we will open safe and legal routes? If it does, is that not wholly illogical? The best way of putting the traffickers out of business and ensuring that there are no deaths in the channel is to open safe and legal routes. Will the Minister also tell us how a system of capping safe and legal routes will work? How will the caps be set and how will they be made compatible with our obligations under the refugee convention?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will try to answer the three broad issues within that. The first is the reduction in time from five years to 30 months. It is not, “At the end of 30 months you are deported”; at the end of 30 months, an assessment will be made about whether the country the person has come from is safe, to go back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I hope that we will not have long backlogs on asylum claims in the first place. That is why other measures are being sped up. Part of the problem, and the reason why people are waiting for five years and beyond, is that asylum claims are not met. From our perspective, if an asylum claim can be met and sped up then a decision can be taken to grant asylum, in which case the individual has asylum—admittedly with a longer period for final settlement—or they are removed from the country under a deportation route. The purpose is to try to put some energy into the system to get that sped up very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about safe and legal routes, and the annual cap. The Home Secretary will examine and consult on this as part of the proposals, but it is perfectly reasonable to try to set an annual cap, in discussion with our refugee convention and other obligations, to see what the country can bear in terms of housing support and everything else so that annual cap is based on community capacity. We can then look at safe and legal routes that help support individuals to come here so they do not use the illegal routes that are universally condemned across the House. We will maintain the flexibility that we have for things such as the Ukraine scheme and the Gaza scheme. If I had been putting this before the House six years ago, we would not have been talking about a Ukraine scheme. Who knows what will happen next? We retain our international obligations to do that.
The noble Lord asked about retrospection. That will be part of the discussion and consultation. Legislation will be brought forward to address what will happen, and that will be subject to tests by both Houses of Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I declare an interest as a participant in the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Three and a half years on, we have a delightful Ukrainian family still living in our house. In the section of the report on safe and legal routes, the options in the policy document include a route to safety for students and skilled workers. Such schemes may be a useful adjunct to sufficient open safe and legal routes, but does the Minister share my concern that, in a world where safe and legal routes are limited, we may send a message that young, healthy, skilled people are more deserving of sanctuary than others?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No. We need to look at individuals’ asylum claims based on their merit. An individual who is not of working age or is not going to be involved in education or study can have an asylum claim. The key point in the safe and legal routes aspect is that we need to look at what that is and design a scheme. We will consult on that. The work and student visa route will be one that individuals can apply for during the course of their asylum claim. If their asylum claim is granted, that gives another route into longer-term settlement, which would be valuable if the individual wishes to do that. I retain an openness to examine individuals’ claims and positions on the basis of their individual status.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Home Secretary’s Statement and the acceptance that the current system is unsustainable. It is interesting that perhaps a year or two ago, people proposing some of these measures would have been accused of being racist, so I welcome the Statement. The Government will have to get support from other political parties to get these measures through. Does the Minister accept that he will have to work with Reform UK, whose leader, whatever noble Lords may think about him, was one of the first people to raise the issue of the difficulties and the possibilities of migrants coming in on small boats?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will welcome support for the Government’s proposals wherever they come from, but if the noble Baroness thinks that I have anything in common with the honourable Member for Clacton and his crew, she is sadly mistaken. I come from a position of trying to ensure that we build a coterminous, cohesive society that is open and tolerant but manages its borders effectively. I do not seek to cause division, which I think the honourable Member for Clacton seeks to do. He wants us not to solve this problem; he wants it to continue. He wants the small boat routes to continue so that he can spread division. That is not on this Government’s agenda. We are here to fix this problem, not to exploit it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to think again about the sequence of events regarding safe and legal routes. Many of us believe that introducing safe and legal routes would take away the business of the traffickers. Therefore, leaving it until the end of the line seems to allow the traffickers to go on doing their business. Could we speed that up, please? Secondly, on the 20-year period when people may or may not feel secure in this country—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has already referred to this—is the problem not that if people feel insecure in this country then local communities will feel less likely to support them, and integration will suffer? Is there something the Government can do to make people feel more secure, because 20 years is a long time when families are here and children have been born here? It is not a humane way to proceed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know my noble friend takes a great interest in this, and I am very happy to discuss safe and legal routes with him and my colleagues in the Home Office, because I know that he is committed to this issue and we must ensure that we explore it extremely safely. I want to see community cohesion, and longer-term integration is an issue the Government have set their stall on. That is subject to consultation. Again, I want to work with my noble friend to ensure that we deal with this in a proper and effective way. The door is open to him at any time.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Minister made it quite clear that the Government would not in any way amend the Human Rights Act 1998 and that they were very concerned about the independence of the judiciary. Yet the Statement refers to potentially changing the approach to Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requires the judiciary to take jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights into account; this has been followed and built upon by judges in this country. How will the Government alter the approach to Articles 3 and 8 without amending the Human Rights Act and without impeding the independence of the judiciary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the question of Article 8 claims, Article 8 is a qualified right, which means that interferences with it can be justified where it is proportionate to the public interest. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. On Article 3, we will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Both of those are potential tweaks, which will be subject to legislation and consultation, but which we believe can be done within our international obligations. We are not the Official Opposition who wish to withdraw from those international obligations; we wish to maintain them. But I think it is fair, open and proper that we can examine legislation to tweak them.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, there is not a word of the Prime Minister’s foreword to this Statement that was not true on the day that he became Prime Minister. It is welcome that the Government have got to where they have. The Minister referred to our record; my recollection is that, every time we proposed tough things, they were opposed by the party opposite. I do not remember us ever being challenged because we were not being tough enough.
My question is this: having read through the Statement and the policy document carefully, there are a number of measures that require changes to the Immigration Rules, which is obviously secondary legislation, but there are also a number, as has just been referred to, that require amendment to primary legislation. Certainly, my sense of the Home Secretary’s demeanour is that she feels that this is a very urgent matter to deal with. Has the legislation been drafted and is it ready? When is it going to be introduced? Will it be introduced in this Session to carry over or will it have to wait until the next Session of Parliament? If the latter, it does not strike me that the Government are treating it very urgently.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I remember serving as the noble Lord’s shadow about 10 or 11 years ago, when he was the Immigration Minister and we were both Members of Parliament. I supported a number of the measures that he brought forward then, which were very difficult. We, too, will take some very difficult decisions, and I hope to take Members of both the Government’s party and opposition parties with us.
On the question of legislation, he will expect me to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: legislation will be introduced in due course. I cannot comment on legislation in the second Session yet, but legislation will be introduced in due course.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I declare an interest, having been engaged with these matters for rather more than 20 years as the co-founder of Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University. I have read the Government’s Statement with great care. It covers a huge amount of ground, as previous questions have indicated, but it is clearly a serious attempt to deal with a matter that is a real and growing public concern. Further measures will certainly be needed, but this is at least a useful start.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. A number of Members of the House have asked why the Government did not do this a few months ago and what the Government will do next. Life is not static. There are competing challenges at all times. We are trying to bring forward the immigration Bill and bring forward proposals here. My right honourable friend will soon be making a Statement on other aspects in the House of Commons, which I suspect I will have to repeat early next week, and there is an immigration White Paper proposal as well.
This is a journey to try to ensure that we bring order to a system that is currently failing while maintaining our international obligations, being fair to people who are escaping war, poverty and terror, and at the same time making sure that we support United Kingdom citizens in finding integration and welcome where that is required. That is an ongoing process, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s support for any measures that we bring forward.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the status quo might not be where we want, but where the Government are moving to causes me some deep concern, not least about integration and the dehumanisation of migrants and people seeking sanctuary. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some interesting polling by HOPE not hate, which reveals that most people are not anti-migrant; they are angry that they do not have access to public services, a GP, hospitals and housing for themselves and their children. They are worried about the future and they need good schools. Does he not realise that, until we deal with these issues, people will always look for somebody else to blame, particularly the stranger in our midst?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes a strong case for what I believe is the Labour Government’s intention, which is to rebuild public services and public trust in government. If he looks across the board at employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill, at housing measures in our housing proposals and at public transport measures with my noble friend here, he will see that we are trying to rebuild public services that have been hollowed out and to raise aspirations for an equal, prosperous society where everybody can contribute and reach their full potential. That is what the Government are trying to do. I take his point that people will always try to find scapegoats on issues where they feel uncomfortable that they are not having a fair crack of the whip. We need to encourage that integration and look at the social issues that my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I say to the Minister and the Home Secretary that this set of measures is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it does not quite go far enough. I have one specific question for the Minister on the Statement. The Home Secretary said this in the other place:
“We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of ‘degrading treatment’”,
in Article 3 of the ECHR,
“has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own”.
She is absolutely right to say that. She goes on to say that, in order to address this problem,
“we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 512.]
I am afraid the reality is that that sort of international method to seek amendment to the European convention will take years and years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an objective that we have set, one that we are trying to achieve and one that the activities of the last few weeks have shown the Home Secretary to be very focused on delivering. We want to make sure that we can effect those changes. There is an appetite in certain parts of Europe to begin that dialogue and process. Perhaps I should say in conclusion that it is only a shame that the noble Lord did not do any of these things when he had the chance.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the intention behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is absolutely right to refer to it as theft. It is theft, under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. He is right that there is no such offence as shoplifting.
We have all heard the same stories from businesses, large and small: prolific offenders walking out with hundreds of pounds of stock in broad daylight; staff frightened or, in many cases, not allowed to intervene; police too stretched to attend; and, time and again, the same individuals returning to commit offence after offence because they believe, with some justification, that nothing will happen to them.
My noble friend’s first amendment in this group deals with the ability to share clear evidence of theft with those who need to see it. At present, retailers might be reluctant or legally uncertain about whether they can circulate images of offenders, even to neighbouring stores, to their own head office or to crime reduction bodies. Yet, these are precisely the channels that allow patterns of offending to be identified and prolific offenders to be caught.
The amendments set out a lawful, proportionate system. Images can be shared where a theft has occurred, provided the originals are preserved, time-stamped, unedited and sent to the police. This ensures the integrity of evidence and prevents misuse. Importantly, it provides a remedy and compensation if a photograph of the wrong individual is mistakenly published. My only concern here is that being required to pay £300 per day in compensation might deter the shop owner from circulating the evidence.
I am particularly supportive of Amendment 216B. We know that a number of retailers have told their staff to not intervene when they see a person shoplifting. This has led to numerous instances of brazen theft, whereby people walk into a shop, grab armfuls of products and walk out in full sight of security guards and staff. Such scenes make a mockery of law and order. The amendment permits the lawful detention of suspected thieves by trained security staff. Shopkeepers should not have to look on helplessly while brazen thieves simply walk out of the store. What my noble friend proposes is eminently sensible: properly trained staff equipped with body-worn cameras, using only minimum force, operating under strict rules and with constant video recording. This is not a free-for-all; it is the opposite. It is a controlled, transparent, safeguarded process that both protects the rights of suspects and gives retailers the ability to intervene proportionately when theft is happening before their eyes.
The amendment also places obligations on the police when they are called. They must attend promptly, take custody of the suspect, secure the evidence and make decisions based on a full review, not a hurried assessment at the store door. This is entirely right. Retail staff are repeatedly told to detain no one because the police will not come. The amendment would send the opposite message. When retailers correctly do their part, the police must do theirs.
Finally, Amendment 216C addresses a growing and deeply troubling phenomenon, whereby organised gangs loot shops, raid entire streets or retail parks and steal thousands of pounds-worth of goods. These are not opportunists; they are organised criminals. Yet, the system too often charges them with individual, low-value thefts rather than with conspiracy or organised crime offences. The amendment establishes that, where there is reliable evidence of at least 10 thefts involving two or more individuals, a full investigation with conspiracy charges must be instigated where appropriate. The sentencing framework my noble friend proposes is proportionate and targeted: higher penalties for organised groups of five or more and the automatic confiscation of vehicles or property used in the crime. These are necessary deterrents: the current penalties are not.
Taken together, these amendments represent a robust but balanced response to an urgent and worsening problem. They support shopkeepers, empower security staff and assist the police with the collection of evidence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by, in part, sharing the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I agree with him. It is not shoplifting; it is shop theft. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on that same point. When I began my working career 45 years ago after university with the Co-op on a management training course, we called it “leakage”. I found that term offensive then, and I find it offensive now. It is shop theft. So I agree with him that there needs to be an effort made by the Government to tackle this issue.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the Home Office is working with police representatives through the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make it easier for retailers to report crime. The current Policing Minister and the previous Policing Minister are now both supporting a Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy launched by the chief constables and industry. We had a summer of action on shop theft, which involved visible policing on the streets and targeting hotspot areas.
This winter, the Home Secretary plans for police forces across England and Wales to partner with local businesses, local councils and police and crime commissioners to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season. There are plans to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground, from neighbourhood policing through to special constables and PCSOs. The measures in Clause 39, which we debated earlier, try to raise the level of importance of shop theft. As a Government, we recognise that we want to take action on that.
Where I disagree with the noble Lord is on some of these proposals. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who, again, has great experience of the retail world, I take the issue of shop theft extremely seriously. Probably like him, I am one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who have apprehended a shoplifter and reported them to the police, along with the manager of the shop, and I have been present at the shop theft interview as part of my duties. It was shop theft then and it is shop theft now, and it should not be tolerated, whatever the level of that shop theft.
On the measures the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, brings forward, such as Amendment 216A, which seeks to enable deterrent actions by shopkeepers through the use of video or photographic evidence, it is important that we have evidence such as that supplied by CCTV. Widespread introduction and publication, which is one of the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment, would meet the objectives of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. However, it would potentially impinge on the rights of individuals, who may or may not be guilty, and could well incite vigilante action and undermine the fundamental presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. I have no objection to CCTV, but the noble Lord needs to be careful with that, which is the reason why I cannot support the amendment.
Before I move on to the noble Lord’s other amendments, let me say that I appreciated his support for Operation Opal. Retailers are able to refer cases of organised retail crime to Operation Opal, and the national police acquisitive crime intelligence unit then investigates. It is unnecessary to specify that in the legislation because it is an operational issue, but again, it shows the importance we place on the issue of shop theft.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I did not think my amendment was creating considerable extra powers of arrest for the security guards, but it seems that the current power largely mirrors a lot of things that I put in this amendment. My question then is, why are so many shops scared to use it? I appreciate that the retail unit or outlet has to determine whether they let the security guards arrest people, but there is certainly a fear among many security guards in this respect, and many shops say, “We can’t let you arrest people”. We must, somehow or other empower, them to do so.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a genuine fear about what the response would be, and I understand that. The days when I—and potentially the noble Lord, Lord Randall—stopped a shop theft in a retail premises were a long time ago. The climate was different, and now there is the carrying of knives and the threat of violence. That might be a fear, and it is up to individual shops to determine their own policy. Clause 37, which deals with attacks on retail workers and will apply to a whole range of retail staff, adds an extra protection. It will be up to individual shops, but it is important that those two measures are seen as coterminous. Protection of retail staff in the event of shop theft and assault is a further measure to support action on shop theft. However, it is ultimately for individual stores to determine their policy.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of multiple thefts and planning for thefts. I find it objectionable to see criminal gangs organising mass hits on shops, but that is already a factor that aggravates the seriousness of the theft offence. If, therefore, there is evidence that multiple parties were involved in a theft, each of those parties could and should be charged with theft, as well as conspiracy to commit theft. The amendment would require the police to consider charging with conspiracy to commit theft if there is evidence that two more people are involved. I know that the noble Lord knows I am going to say this, but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on relevant charges, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. I do not want to put on statute what charges the police or CPS should bring, but again, the potential is there should they wish to do so.
I will touch briefly on the sentencing aspects of the amendment. At present the maximum penalty for theft is seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit theft or robbery has the same maximum penalty as the base offence. The effect of this amendment, therefore, would be to create a form of conspiracy to commit theft offence that would potentially have, if fewer than five people were acting together, a lower maximum penalty than theft or conspiracy to commit theft have now.
As we discussed previously, the amendment also introduces minimum sentences. I made it plain in our debates on Monday that minimum sentences are rare in law. Parliament has set them in statute only exceptionally. They are not appropriate in this instance. Sentencing guidelines for theft, which courts are required to follow unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so, already highlight when considering the culpability of an offender factors such as involvement of others through “coercion, intimidation or exploitation”. The issue of
“sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning”
is also relevant. The other aggravating factors that the court must consider include taking account of previous convictions.
Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, for my reasons and those that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned. However, I do not want him to leave the Committee tonight thinking that this Government are not committed to tackling shop theft. We are, through the measures that we have taken and are encouraging police to take, through the measures in this Bill to change the definition of shop theft in Clause 39 and in providing protection for retail workers in Clause 37.
Shop theft is shop theft. It costs all of us resource on our bills. It costs businesses resource. It is money which should be invested in the local economy rather than going into the pockets of people who opportunistically, individually, for whatever reason—from poverty to organised criminal gangs, from drug abuse to alcohol abuse—commit shop theft in many of our stores. I want to make sure that we do all we can to reduce it and to provide deterrents to it. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, including my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and, for his full support for my amendments, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that if someone is stealing from their shop, shopkeepers do not have time to go through the video cameras to get the evidence. If a shopkeeper has someone stealing from their shop and cannot be bothered to look at the TV cameras to see the evidence for it, he cannot complain about shop theft. If he has the evidence, for goodness’ sake, he should use it. I do not think that the noble Baroness read my amendments on all the protections that I have built in for those who do want to arrest criminals. The Minister set out in his excellent speech all the powers of citizen’s arrest that a security guard or a shopkeeper can have, but the noble Baroness said that no one should have the power to arrest except a policeman who is properly trained. That is rather bizarre, to use a word that was used earlier about my amendments.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “the relevant part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41 as the part of the United Kingdom in which the person aged 18 or over engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence in Clauses 40 and 41 are intended to provide legal certainty and further tighten the grip of the law against those who seek to draw children into criminality.
At the request of the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice, the child criminal exploitation offence was extended UK-wide in the other place. As the offence is committed where an adult intentionally takes action to cause a child to commit criminal conduct, it is now necessary to provide further clarification about where the child’s conduct must be criminal. This is owing to the fact that the criminal law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a child’s conduct that is criminal in one may not be criminalised in another.
Perpetrators who exploit children for criminal purposes do not care about the UK’s internal borders, so it is right that we ensure that this new offence prevents them from taking advantage of them. Government Amendments 217, 220, 221 and 223 to 230 ensure that it does not matter whether the intended conduct of the child is criminal in the part of the UK where the adult is acting to exploit them or the part of the UK where they intend the child to act. If it is criminal in either one, the perpetrator can be prosecuted. If it is not criminal in either one, the offence is not committed.
Amendment 231 puts beyond doubt that a perpetrator commits the child criminal exploitation offence where the child they have exploited is under the age of criminal responsibility. Even though a child under 10 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or under 12 in Scotland, cannot technically commit an offence or be prosecuted for it, they can still be exploited, and it is right that this offence says so clearly and explicitly on the face of the Bill.
Amendments 487, 493 and 510 make consequential amendments to the general provisions at the back of the Bill. Together, these amendments demonstrate the Government’s unwavering commitment to leave no space for perpetrators who target children for criminal purposes to expose loopholes or to escape to.
There are a series of other amendments in this group; the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have Amendments 218, 219, 222 and 222A. I want to listen to what noble Lords say and will respond to any comments on those amendments at the end of my comments. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The group largely seeks to clarify the Bill as it stands and that is important when we are addressing child exploitation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the amendments tabled in his name. I know we may not always see eye to eye at the Dispatch Box, but I can wholly support the principle behind his amendments in this group.
It may seem like semantics to clarify that offences may differ in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an important point. We must ensure that the legislation allows crimes to be prosecuted only where they are crimes. His Amendments 217 and 220, and the many consequential amendments, aim to ensure that this is the case. Similarly, his Amendments 487 and 493 extend the devolutionary power to make regulations for the area of child criminal exploitation. It is right that this is consistent. Those who create the laws should have the legislative right to make provisions within their remit.
We also broadly support the principles behind the other amendments in this group, which aim to give more protections to children. Amendments 218 and 219, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek further to define what constitutes child criminal exploitation and extend the provisions to actions that may support criminal activity while not being criminal themselves.
Amendments 222 and 222A aim to narrow the scope of reasonable excuses that offenders can give when claiming to believe that the child was over the age of 18. The sentiment behind these amendments is a noble one. Whether the adult believed they were a child is largely inconsequential to the exploited child. Therefore, if the adult is not to be prosecuted, the court must be absolutely certain that they did not believe the child was under 18. That being said, I am slightly wary of completely disapplying reasonable excuse as a defence. It would take away the opportunity of defence in the very rare cases where the adult had a genuine and proven reason to believe the child was an adult. As I say, this is very rare, and it is still criminal exploitation, but we must still account for it.
Overall, this group is sensible, procedural and necessary; I therefore offer my support to the Minister’s intentions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top for their amendments, and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for putting his name to them and for his supportive comments.
Before I lose the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about a national register, I will just say that the Police National Computer and the child criminal exploitation prevention orders can impose notification requirements on persons subject to orders requiring them to inform the local police of their name and address. I had that on my phone before I peered at my notes, and I did not want to lose that point.
I will start by welcoming Clause 40. It is a positive, forward-looking clause that will help support the reduction of child exploitation. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled, and I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the amendments I have tabled.
Amendment 218, tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would require that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to have been committed, the perpetrator had used
“threats, physical force, intimidation, persuasion or any other means”
against the child. In doing so, my noble friend seeks to illustrate the ways in which children can be criminally exploited. However, I put it to her that, in specifying the required means by which an adult gets a child to commit criminal conduct, the way in which the amendment is phased risks narrowing the application of the offence, because the prosecution would have to additionally prove those means of exploitation took place. Currently, the child criminal exploitation offence does not require proof that the child was subjected to threats, physical force, intimidation or any other harmful ways in which the child’s compliance was obtained by their exploiter. This is because, as a Government, we are very clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, so the offence could be committed regardless of whether and how the child was compelled to engage in the intended criminal activity.
Although my noble friend’s amendment includes the words “any other means”, which mitigates against any narrowing of the scope of the offence, I do not consider it necessary to include an illustrative, non-exhaustive list in this way. It would cause courts potentially to wonder about its purpose as a legal test and may have the unintended consequence of limiting the circumstances in which the child exploitation offence may be made out. I want my noble friend to think about that. I suggest to her that the prosecution wants to get the best case, and, by accepting her amendment, we might end up narrowing the potential success of legislating against this offence.
My noble friend also tabled Amendment 219, which would more specifically capture adults who intend to cause a child
“to engage in actions that support or facilitate”
crime. My noble friend indicated in her speech that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the offence of child exploitation also includes causing a child to commit an action which, while not itself illegal, can lead to future criminal behaviour. We have looked at this amendment in some detail, but I consider the objective is already met by subsection (1)(a)(iii) of the clause, which captures where the adult does something to the child now to facilitate or make it easier to cause the child to commit a criminal act in the future—the noble Baroness can find this on page 59 of the Bill as currently drafted. I hope she will look at that and reflect on it as part of these discussions, before any further discussion takes place on Report.
Furthermore, actions that support or facilitate crime may already amount to an offence, such as the offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Where an adult intentionally causes a child to commit an offence, the child criminal exploitation offence may be committed.
I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in support of his Amendment 222. This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, it must be proved that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim is aged 18 or over. My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned the issue of migrants—we are currently examining facial recognition issues in relation to migrants, and we had a discussion about that in the other Bill that I am taking through the House at this moment on immigration very recently. But she makes a very important point. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that all adults who target children to draw them into crime can be caught by this offence, but that is precisely why the reasonable belief test is important—to ensure that perpetrators who deliberately and intentionally target children to commit crime are correctly identified and prosecuted. If there was no requirement to prove a lack of reasonable belief that the alleged victim was a child, it would risk criminalising people as exploiters of children who genuinely did not intend or contemplate involving a minor in criminality.
We must remember that the child criminal exploitation offence requires no proof of harmful behaviours against the child, such as coercion, force or threats. This goes back to the first point that I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s first amendment. It is committed simply when an adult engages in any contact or conduct towards or in respect of a child intending to cause them to commit a crime. The exploitative nature of this offence is the imbalance of power, which is exercised by an adult in deliberately and purposely seeking to involve a child in crime. Where that is not a factor in a case, as demonstrated by what they believed about the child’s age, there are other more appropriate offences that might be charged. For example, where a person encourages or assists someone to commit an offence regardless of their age, there is already an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.
Again, I welcome the discussion that we have had this evening, I welcome the contribution of Action for Children, and I welcome the discussion that we have had from the Children’s Commissioner for England, who called for this amendment due to concerns that perpetrators will seek to take advantage of considerations around the reasonable belief of age to undermine the credibility of victims and potentially escape prosecution. I welcome those contributions to the debate. I want to give them, with my colleagues in the Home Office, serious consideration. However, I make the point to the noble Lord that at the moment we do not consider reasonable belief of age to be a loophole, as is suggested—and in support of that I make a number of points.
First, there is a test of reasonable belief that does not necessarily require that the defendants have specific knowledge about the victim’s age, which would be a higher burden. Secondly, a perpetrator’s claim as to their belief alone will not be enough to escape prosecution, as prosecutors can and, I hope, would establish either that they did not believe the victim was 18 or, even if they did, that that belief was not reasonable. Thirdly, it only applies to children aged 13 to 17, not the most vulnerable children aged under 13. Finally, it follows established precedent in other offences, where the core offending relates to an adult’s conduct towards a child—for example, to child sexual exploitation offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on Amendment 222A—she is not here today. It is commendable that someone has looked at other amendments and decided not to move their own; it is a very un-egotistical way of approaching this business.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, says “Cross-Bench”. I will take that as a bonus point for the Cross Benches. It is a noble approach to take towards the amendment. So I will not deliberate on those points as I would potentially have done, but I ask the noble Lord simply to pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness for her self-awareness on that issue, which is commendable.
I hope that, with those comments, my noble friend and other noble Lords will not press their amendments, will reflect on what I have said and, if need be, will consider this outside the Committee. I commend the amendments in my name to the Committee.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (ii) so that it covers the child doing anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) In subsection (1)(a) “offence” means an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in subsection (1)(a), references to an offence are to an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsWednesday 19th November 2025
(1 week, 2 days 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)-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (19 Nov 2025)
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement with the Scottish Government and relevant Northern Ireland departments since the Bill’s introduction, which is why we have tabled so many amendments today. That has happened since February.
In each case, we are bringing forward these amendments at the request of the devolved Governments. The amendments unavoidably cover a significant number of pages of the Marshalled List, but I assure noble Lords that, importantly, in general they do not import new policy into the Bill. The amendments all relate to the offensive weapons provisions in Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Bill. These will contribute to our safer streets mission to halve knife crime in a decade. I am pleased to report that, even now, in the latest crime survey, figures for the year to the end of June show a 5% reduction in knife-enabled offences. This is to be welcomed, but of course there is much more to do.
Clause 28 amends Sections 141 and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It increases the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons from six months to two years imprisonment. This includes the offence of manufacturing, selling, hiring, offering for hire, lending or possessing in private any prohibited offensive weapon as detailed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Also covered here is the offence of selling a knife or bladed article to anyone under the age of 18.
Amendments 57 to 70 to Clause 28 simply extend the increase of the maximum penalty for those offences to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Government. Existing legislation in England and Wales provides that anyone over 18 years of age found guilty of any of these offences will face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. We believe that the maximum penalty does not reflect the seriousness of these offences and should be increased in line with the current offence of unlawful marketing of knives, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. This will align the maximum penalties for the offences in relation to the sale of knives.
In Clauses 31 and 32 we are introducing a stricter two-step age-verification check for the sale and delivery of knives bought online. These provisions will require at the point of sale specific checks of a photographic identity document and a current photograph of the buyer, as well as photographic identity checks at the point of delivery, be it a residential address or a collection point. In addition, we are providing for a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife to someone other than the buyer if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company, so that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours. These are both welcome measures.
Amendments 71, 72 and 74 confirm that, under Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where a passport or driving licence is used as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, it is required to be a copy of a physical version. We are, however, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations—subject to affirmative procedure, so that this House and the Commons have the opportunity to debate them further—so that alternative means of age verification such as digital ID, including digital passports and digital driving licences, can be used. These amendments are required to ensure that the appropriate digital proofs can be used as evidence of identity in place of a physical document, and that the necessary safeguards can be attached to their use.
It is clear that many consumers already expect to be able to use digital forms of ID, rather than just the physical version, to prove to a seller they are aged 18 or over in order to purchase knives or crossbows. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 lays the foundation for trusted digital verification services that are already widely used across the economy. Digital versions of government-issued documents such as driving licences and veteran cards will become available soon. For both consumers who buy and businesses that sell knives or crossbows, it is also important to provide consistency with the existing position across different sectors where digital age verification is used or soon will be—for example, in the purchase of other age-restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco, or for gambling.
The other amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 extend the provisions made by these clauses for England and Wales to Scotland, and the additional clause makes provision for Northern Ireland. This is at the request of both devolved Governments.
I apologise for the length of the discussion on the amendments in this group. The amendments to Clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Crossbows Act 1987, which requires that crossbows, or parts of a crossbow, can only be sold or let on hire to someone aged 18 or over. Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the same stricter two-step age-verification checks for the sale and letting on hire of crossbows, or parts of crossbows bought or let on hire online, that have been introduced for the sale and delivery of knives bought online.
Government Amendments 124 to 189 extend the provisions in Clauses 33 to 35 to Scotland—again, at the request of the Scottish Government—and Amendments 190 to 192 insert new clauses that amend the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order to ensure that stricter age-verification checks for the sale, letting on hire and delivery of crossbows also apply to Northern Ireland. It is important that there is a cross-UK approach on these significant issues.
Finally, Clause 36 provides for the mandatory reporting of the bulk sale of knives. Clause 36 defines reportable sales as the purchase of six knives in a single transaction in England and Wales, or when made over two or more occasions in a 30-day period. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or up to two or more persons where these are to be delivered to the same residential address. As noble Lords probably know, there are exemptions for business sales and for sales of cutlery knives without a sharp point, safety razor blades, and pocketknives with a cutting edge that does not exceed 3 inches.
There will also be exemptions for qualifying sets of knives, such as kitchen knife blocks. These will be sets of at least three knives that are each of a different size or shape, no matter how many knives the set contains—we are all very familiar with that type of kitchen equipment. The purchase of multiple sets of knives, or the purchase of a single set alongside individual knives where these combinations lead to a total purchase of at least six knives, will also be reportable.
That is what is currently in the Bill. Amendments 193 to 209 extend these provisions to Scotland, and similar provisions are also being introduced for Northern Ireland, so, again, there is consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are various consequential and drafting amendments at the back of the Bill relating to the power to make consequential amendments. But, in essence, the policy positions in the Bill, through these Government amendments, are being replicated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It is a Home Office-approved document and is widely used. Maybe he said it and I missed it—we were going at quite a pace—but could he confirm that the physical proof of age card is still acceptable for these purposes?
We are expecting the mandatory conditions for digital proof of age to be published before Christmas, possibly. Is the noble Lord able to confirm that the Government are still on track to publish these changes so that sales of alcohol and other proof of age purposes can be done by a digital proof of age card as well as by a physical card?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think I can say yes to both those points. If I cannot, I shall revert to her shortly.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we support the intent behind this blizzard of government amendments. Of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and, in certain cases, Northern Ireland.
It would be extremely useful if the Minister could say whether the law in each of the home nations is the same. I assume that is the effect of all these different amendments—that the UK should be on exactly the same footing, however and wherever you commit that offence. Even though I understand that it was at the request, in the first instance, of the Scottish Government.
We very much support the way in which the amendments reflect the gravity of the kinds of violence that plague our communities from these offensive weapons and that the manufacture, supply and possession of these articles will be met with the full force of the law. We welcome not only the amendments but the original provisions of the Bill, but we need to think of not just penalties but prevention. I hope some of those provisions will make individuals accountable with the digital identity, which we also support.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like an answer to the question of whether the analogue identity provision will continue. Otherwise, that could lead to forms of digital exclusion, which I do not think that we or the Minister would welcome.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that digital passports or driving licences can be approved documents. There is a power by regulation to add other documents; at the moment, the PASS card is not added to that as a form of identification, but obviously it potentially can be in due course, if Governments decide to add that. That will again be subject to regulation. I apologise, but the noble Baroness asked me a question and I gave her the answer in good faith, but it is best that we clarify that point now.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties for the offence in Clause 28 in Scotland, and for extending the provision in Clauses 31, 32 and 35 to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I have no issue with the government amendments about the bulk sale of knives.
I do, however, take issue with government Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 110, 111, 129, 130, 141, 142, 170, 171, 185, 186, 187 and 188. These amend the Bill to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying further forms of identification that can be used for age-verification purposes relating to the online sale and the delivery of knives and crossbows. That might seem innocuous at first, but all it takes is to look at the explanatory statements to realise what these amendments are really about. The explanatory statement for Amendment 71 says that the amendment
“allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID)”.
That is the point.
What is happening here is that the Government are attempting perhaps to sneak in provisions permitting digital ID by the backdoor. I say that the Government are sneaking these in, because they have not only tabled amendments to change clauses already in the Bill but included the regulation-making power permitting digital ID in the drafting of the new clauses that extend provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland. On top of that, they have lumped these amendments together with all the others in this enormous group. I can only assume that the Government hoped that perhaps no one would notice their attempts to take the very first step towards legislating for mandatory digital ID. That is why we cannot support these amendments.
The Government will perhaps attempt to play this off as a small and practical change to allow Ministers to retain flexibility by allowing new age-verification processes, but that is a red herring. Digital ID is an affront to our rights, and the Government have repeatedly stated that it will not be mandatory, that it is no big deal and that it will simply make things easier. Yet here we are with the Government seeking to insert provisions for digital ID into the Crime and Policing Bill. They have not even enacted the policy, yet they are already trying to expand its purpose. Does this not tell us all we need to know? They say that it will not be mandatory, but how can we ever be sure of that?
We notified the Government of our opposition to these amendments in advance to let them know that we would not accept any amendments to this Bill, or for that matter any Bill, that enables digital ID. It is in that spirit that I tabled my Amendments 72A, 72B, 87A and 131A to remove provisions in the Bill that permit the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify other identity documents. My Amendments 75A, 75B, 75C, 76A, 76B, 76C, 190A, 190B, 191A and 191B amend the government amendments for that same purpose. If the Government accept these proposed changes to their amendments—that is, if they accept that there can be no power to specify digital ID for the purposes of these clauses—I have no further concerns with them. However, if they do not want to accept my changes to their amendments to remove the ability to specify digital ID for age-verification purposes here, then we will not be able to support them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has done it. We are in the 21st century; digital ID is becoming a commonplace issue. I understand that we are going to have steps to have age verification, such as acceptable digital ID, as the norm in future.
As I set out earlier, it is to allow different forms of digital ID to be used to verify purchasers’ identity information. When changes to the acceptable proofs of identity, digital or otherwise, are proposed, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would have been an opportunity for the noble Lord, and in both Houses, to oppose or question at that time, but I understand where he is coming from. I am of the view that as technology progresses, there will be different types of digital ID which might be acceptable. It is not an attempt by the Government to speed up or usurp the process; it is just future-proofing, because there may be digital ID on a range of issues.
As an example, I have a digital and a hard copy of my railcard. I show both at different times, depending on which one is easiest to get to. Digital ID is progressing, and it will continue to do so. There are potentially new digital documents, such as the recently announced digital ID card, coming downstream. As with any new legislation, that is still a matter for Parliament to consider, but if a Bill comes before the House—after the outcome of a consultation, it might be in the next few weeks—that is something we are trying to future-proof accordingly.
I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord is prepared to support all the amendments, but I guess that he will not—that is a reasonable position for him to take and one we must look at. To help him today, in a genuine spirit of trying to help, if the noble Lord remains unpersuaded, which I think he is—he confirms that he is—I will move only Amendments 57 to 70 and Amendments 193 to 209 to Clauses 28 and 29, respectively. I will not move Amendment 210A, which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland to that contained in Clause 36 and, in due course, the related consequential and drafting amendments to the Bill, so that we can look at these matters on Report and not have that debate and discussion today. At this stage, I will not move the amendments to Clauses 31 to 35 and the associated back-of-the-Bill consequential amendments. The Committee should rest assured that I will bring them back on Report, and if the noble Lord has his disagreements then, we will test the House. If the House votes one way, we accept it; if it votes the other way, we potentially test the House again. That is a matter for discussion and debate downstream.
There is nothing to fear from the proposals for someone having a digital ID and showing it when receiving a knife or weapon through the post. That is not something to be afraid of. We are in the 21st century—I am in the 21st century at least, let us put it that way. We will go from there.
I also assure the noble Lord that paper documents such as passports and driving licences will be acceptable as forms of ID, as well as potentially any digital versions of those in due course. I hope that satisfies his question.
I welcome, in a spirit of co-operation and consensus, the agreement from both Front Benches to the provisions for Northern Ireland and Scotland, so that in those areas there is a United Kingdom response from the three Administrations who deal with these matters in a devolved or non-devolved way. I commend the amendments I said I would move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance, whatever is prescribed by the Secretary of State, is an alternative form of identification—wholly convincing, but if we must come back on Report and debate this at length, so be it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a date at the moment, but I will reflect on that with colleagues and return to her, because there are a number of other departmental interests as well.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches believe that this group contains sensible and prudent amendments. They require us to review the effectiveness of the Government’s measures and to consider carefully the potential implications of the new regulations around the sale of knives. They also seek to ensure that we have the necessary evidence base to improve legislation where needed. These, in our view, are good principles.
Amendment 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, contains both those elements. The first part of the amendment seeks a review within two years of the effectiveness of the measures in preventing the online sale of knives to persons under the age of 18. This would plainly be sensible. There is little point in legislating to prevent something if we find out that in fact that prohibition is not taking effect. We all want to stop the sale of knives to children, but we should want to do so in the most effective and proportionate manner. By reviewing the impact of the Bill, the Government would be able to make the necessary adjustments in response to the evidence. Having said that, we should listen carefully to the observations of my noble friend Lord Hailsham in this respect.
Another aspect of the question of efficacy is our obligation to the law-abiding public. It is right that we should attempt to ban children from purchasing knives. We are all aware of the severity of the knife crime epidemic and that part of the problem is the easy access to knives. But we should not pretend that the entire problem stems from their online availability. Of course, it is a factor, but children and young persons intent on committing knife crime will have plenty of other opportunities, if they are determined enough, to buy knives and to acquire them from other sources. They could use an older friend’s or family member’s identification, or indeed, they could ask them simply to make the purchase. They could steal a knife—given the current rates of shoplifting, I suspect this already happens—or they might simply go no further than their kitchen drawer and take one of the many easily accessible knives there.
By adding restrictions to online sale, the Government are merely stemming one route of access, but doing so adds an extra burden to the great majority of law-abiding citizens and retailers. As I have said, we understand why action is necessary, but, if we are to make it mandatory, we should ensure that it is genuinely effective in practice. Here, we should listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We must know, therefore, that we are not adding regulation for its own sake and that we are simultaneously taking other meaningful measures to address the wider issue. The Government should continue to explore this further.
Proposed subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c) in Amendment 122 address another aspect of the knife problem. While the first part reviews the effect of the Bill on the sale of knives, these subsections turn to the design and legality of the knives themselves.
If the knives which we make harder to purchase are not the ones being used in knife crime, our efforts will be in vain. Collecting data both on knives sold and, separately, on knives used in crimes, as Amendment 194 argues for, could offer a remedy for this. It would provide the Government with the necessary data to identify which types of weapons in particular lie at the root of the problem and to take action accordingly. This principle also underlies Amendment 123—I had already noted the typo, if I can put it that way, and have marked the noble Lord’s homework accordingly. But, taking it seriously, consulting on what knives are used in offending and on the measures to be required to curb their circulation must be sensible and proportionate, and it should complement the Government’s proposals.
This is a moderate group of amendments on a subject that clearly needs further review and refinement. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the Government’s position. At the same time, I think we need to hear carefully and take heed of what noble Lords have said in their words of caution on this topic.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for these amendments, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing his front-line experience of the tragedy in the school in which he currently works. I am also grateful for the comments of other noble Lords and I will try to respond to those in due course. I note the broad support from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for the amendments before the Committee today.
I want to start with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I accept that there have been numerous attempts by numerous Governments to take numerous courses of action to reduce knife crime and that this is another one. But I just say to him that it is still worth trying, and it is still worth examining how we can best reduce the level of knife crime. The measures in the Bill before the Committee today are an honest attempt by the Government to put further obstacles in the way of individuals who might use those knives for nefarious purposes. I simply say it is worth trying, and we are seeking to do that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained, Amendment 122 would require the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of Clauses 31 and 32 in preventing sales to under-18s within two years of those clauses coming into force. I agree in principle that we should have to keep under review the impact of those measures, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned: to look at what works and what has not worked.
The Government are providing £1.75 million of funding for a new national police co-ordination unit to tackle the online sale of knives, and the police will be responsible for enforcing this legislation. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about enforcement but it is for the police to understand the legislation’s effectiveness and what more can be done to tackle knife crime. I will return to the other points that she mentioned in due course.
It is standard practice—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that all measures in the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. This scrutiny will consider the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill; self-evidently, that includes Clauses 31 and 32. The noble Lord is asking for a two-year review; it will be undertaken within three to five years. I hope that reassures him that the measures will be reviewed in a timely and appropriate way—and, again, to learn the lessons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned that we need to examine.
Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would require the Government to consult on regulating the sale of sharp-tipped knives and provide a report to Parliament. The design of knives is also addressed in Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: bladed articles with pointed ends have legitimate uses. They are often needed for a wide range of purposes: they are used as tools in work, and for farming, fishing and cooking. The Government are keen to try to strike the right balance between allowing access to knives for legitimate reasons, which the noble Viscount ably outlined, and the need to protect the public from dangerous weapons.
If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Government are actively exploring options for how we can strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, including consulting on a licensing scheme for all knife sellers in the future. I hope that the noble Lord can accept that as I progress the discussion today.
Amendment 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require regulations relating to the reporting of remote sales of knives to ensure that such reporting takes place as soon as possible following a bulk sale. I am sympathetic to the overall aim of the amendment. Clause 36 provides for a duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. It makes it mandatory for online sellers to report bulk sales. It defines those bulk sales as purchases of six or more knives, two or more qualifying sets of knives or one qualifying set or five knives, in a single transaction or made over two or more occasions within a 30-day period. That is set out in Clause 36. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person or two or more persons where they are believed to be delivered to the same residential address.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland(1) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 54A insert—“54B Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk(1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in an order made by the Department of Justice, report to the person specified in the order any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles.(2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in paragraph (4), sells—(a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles;(b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles;(c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set.(3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others.(4) The ways are—(a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in the United Kingdom, or(b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days—(i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in the United Kingdom, or(ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in the United Kingdom.(5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller is not in the presence of the person (“the buyer”) to whom the bladed articles are sold at the time of the sale.(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5) the seller is not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale if—(a) where the seller is an individual, the seller or a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time;(b) where the seller is not an individual, a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time.(7) A sale is not reportable if the buyer—(a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and(b) is—(i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or(ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006.(8) A person who fails to comply with paragraph (1) commits an offence.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this Article if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(11) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(12) In this section—(a) “bladed article” means an article to which Article 54 applies, other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food;(b) “residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes).(13) An order made by the Department of Justice under paragraph (1) may in particular include requirements about—(a) how reports are to be made,(b) when reports to be made, and(c) the information reports must include.(14) The Department of Justice may by order amend—(a) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(a);(b) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(b);(c) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(c);(d) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(c);(e) the period specified in paragraph (4)(b).”.(3) In Article 57 (rules and orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) in that paragraph for “or 54(3)(c)” substitute “, 54(3)(c) or 54B(1)”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“(2) An order may not be made under Article 54B(14) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”(4) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(3) (guidance by Department of Justice) after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) Article 54B of that Order (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 36.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of interesting amendments regarding knife crime. As we have already heard, my noble friend comes to this debate with the experience of some time in the Home Office—a real experience at the sharp end. Although the rates of knife crime have fallen a little over recent years, any victim of a crime, particularly one caused by knives, is a victim too many. Just recently, we heard of the terrible incident on fireworks night a year or so ago and the trial, which finished in the Old Bailey earlier this autumn; 16 year-olds were involved, and one of them died, and it all happened very quickly. So, knives are a real problem. The Government pledged in their manifesto to halve knife crime by 2030. If they wish to make good on that premise, it is imperative that they really do something to reduce it.
My noble friend’s amendments are a welcome practical measure in that direction but are subject to a number of reservations. I begin with schools. Amendment 214B introduces an important clarification to the law in respect of defences for carrying a knife in school premises. It makes plain that the only justification for someone having a knife at school can be in relation to educational services. It is also right that, in turn, this justification should apply only to teachers or those holding a position of authority. There is no plausible reason why a student should come on to the school premises carrying a knife. We welcome the amendment as an important step to ensure that both pupils and teachers are safe from knives at school, and we hope that the Government look at this and consider the amendment seriously.
We also thank my noble friend for his Amendments 214C to 214E. As we have heard, these seek to create a special category of particularly dangerous weapons: machetes, zombie knives, cleavers, swords and cutlasses. The merit is in identifying particular weapons by name. That will strike a chord with the public and with those who might otherwise carry them. They will know that, if they carry one of these weapons, just having it in their possession risks a very heavy prison sentence. Just having existing powers of sentencing does not, it seems, carry that resonance with those who most need to hear it, so we have got to do something.
Given the substantial increase in the use of machetes in recent years—we heard from my noble friend about the increase in their use in particular—something has to be done which identifies them, singles them out and curbs their circulation and use. In 2024, there were 18 machete homicides, an increase from 14 in 2023. Amendments 214D and 214E similarly ensure that manufacturing, selling, ownership and possession of these dangerous weapons will be regarded as a specific new offence.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham was right to point out that the drafting causes problems, and there are people, in the countryside in particular, who may have a legitimate use for machetes. But we are not in the jungle of Belize; we are in the United Kingdom. Sickles and scythes can be used, of course, but if there is going to be a use for something such as a machete, there should be specific clarity to make sure that we do not allow it to be put forward as a specious defence.
To call these amendments bizarre would, in my submission, go too far. If we take this matter seriously, as we all should, we will know full well that this really is an important mischief which has to be addressed, named and called out. My noble friend has raised an important issue, and the Government, if they are serious about cutting knife crime—and not just knife crime but the use of these appalling tools and weapons—must work to bridge the drafting gap so that the sorts of things which we have seen and heard about in the last few years are heavily reduced and people can walk and live in safety, particularly in our big cities.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I confess that despite preparing for the debate on these amendments, I did not expect to venture into Glasgow razor crime in the 1950s, the use of Waterloo swords or, indeed, the brambles of Lincolnshire, but this has been an enjoyable debate on a very serious subject and I welcome the contributions from across the Committee today.
Amendment 214B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asks whether existing defences to possession of a bladed article—that is, a knife—should be removed in educational establishments. I am of the view that the defences listed under Section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are appropriate and in line with similar defences that already exist for the offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place.
The defence for educational purposes, for example, which Amendment 214B seeks to remove, would cover instances where both the teacher and the student may need to use a knife in the classroom or for educational purposes on the premises, such as in craftmanship or cookery lessons, or others. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made common cause with the view that there is a need for certain uses of knives in schools under strictly controlled circumstances.
The issue of prevention, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, is important, and I endorse the idea that we need to look at how we prevent the use of knives. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that in Amendment 214B his withdrawal of those definitions would cause some difficulties in educational matters.
The religious reasons defence takes into account the need sometimes to carry a knife for religious reasons. The noble Lord and others have mentioned the position of individuals of the Sikh faith. The Government are not aware of any cases where this or any other existing defence has been abused in educational establishments by members of that faith.
Again, it is appropriate to put on record that educational establishments can introduce their own rules and regulations, and, of course, if someone brings a knife into an educational establishment or uses a knife already in the establishment to cause harm, even if they have a defence such as for work purposes, they will have a committed a serious criminal offence under existing legislation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Indeed. On reflection, I think I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that his dirk is a dagger and therefore does not fall within the remit of the legislation proposed—I think that information was considered by my noble friend Lord Katz but it was not able to be deployed at the time. However, we can return to that at some point.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord is relieved about that.
The serious point here is that getting the defences and exemptions under which weapons may be legal to own, import or sell under certain limited circumstances right also requires consultation—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, acknowledged that. In the absence of such consultation, I suggest that the Bill is not the right place to legislate on a specific category of knives and weapons, and we risk not taking account of some important matters if we have not consulted first.
In any event, it would be possible to give effect to these proposals for further restrictions through existing regulation-making powers provided for since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so, again, they would be subject to debate in and approval by both Houses of Parliament.
We have debated the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2 which introduce new measures to provide the police with the power to require social media marketplaces and search services to take down online illegal content. I understand the honest, genuine motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in tabling these amendments, but just a casual listen to the debate today shows that there are a number of issues that we need to consider, and I believe that the existing powers that we have, the actions that we have taken and the measures under the Bill will be sufficient. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, some mildly in support of my amendments and others liking the concept but pointing out the serious drafting flaws in them. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham; he is right that the drafting is flawed. Any future amendments I make would need to include “legitimate and lawful use”. He pointed out that he would need to go on to the high street or to another public place to use his machete. I would have to do the same myself, with a buddleia overgrowing the road. If I had a machete, I would have to go on to the pavement to use it. Instead, I have an electric trimmer, which my wife can use. There are legitimate flaws in my drafting.
I suspect that many of my noble friends from a hereditary background have houses stuffed full of dangerous, sharp weapons—from pikes to swords—as well as armour and all the other accoutrements acquired over centuries in this great and noble land of ours, where tremendous battles have been fought to secure our freedoms since 1066. Of course they are not for public display; I accept that this too is an error in my drafting. They are there because they are owned by the family, who should not be penalised for having them.
My concept is right. There is a problem here, and I hope that if we come back to some elements of this amendment on Report, my noble friend Lord Hailsham will help me in the drafting. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that a dirk is not included in my definition. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier hit the nail on the head: tough sentences are required, though that may not require some of the amendments that I have suggested. I am so grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for pointing out that with the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it was tough sentences that cracked down in Scotland. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he said that there was then full judicial discretion. We did not have the Sentencing Council, which to me ties the hands of our judges—judges who should have full discretion to sentence as they see fit.
In some of those cases in the last few months which I quoted, people got a minimum term of 24 years or 30 years for an appalling murder, but hundreds of others who attacked people who did not die received much lesser sentences. Machete attacks have now become endemic. It is the weapon of choice for bad guys, for youths who want to commit crimes or terrorise their opponents in other gangs. We need unique and specialised exemplary action.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not calling for children to be criminalised. I referred to three instances, and I was wrong in suggesting removing educational uses. But I can see no justification for maintaining a religious exception and a national dress exception allowing kids to bring such knives to school. The Government are wrong to stick to that.
Introducing this has been worth while. I do not mind that my noble friend Lord Hailsham called some of it “bizarre”. What is happening on the streets of London and elsewhere in England today is bizarre. If, 20 years ago, we had said that we would see these gangs fighting on the streets outside Starbucks with machetes, we would have said, “Don’t be fanciful; it’s barking mad; it’s never going to happen”. It is happening day in, day out on our streets. It is not only bizarre; it is obscene and dangerous. Therefore, we need to take special action, exemplary action, to deal with this problem. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 214B.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward Amendments 214F and 214G, which address a gap in the protections afforded to retail workers under Clause 37. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
The amendments seek to ensure that delivery drivers who are employed as part of the retail and distribution process are fully included in the scope of the proposed offences against retail workers, and that delivery vehicles themselves are recognised as an extension of the retail premises. We understand and support the underlying principle behind these proposals. Delivery drivers in many cases are the face and point of contact between businesses and consumers and they often work alone, sometimes at unsociable hours and in circumstances where they may be exposed to heightened vulnerability and increasing levels of aggression and abuse.
The safety of delivery drivers should not depend on whether they are standing behind a shop counter or stepping out of a branded van. The rise of home delivery as a core component of modern retail means that this work is an integral part of the sector, and it is only right that the law reflects that reality. It is regrettable to read that certain major supermarkets have rolled out bodycams for their delivery drivers in an effort to protect them. I therefore hope the Government will consider carefully how these protections might sensibly be extended to those whose job it is to ensure that goods reach the customer.
Turning to Amendment 351 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I fully understand the principle and intent behind this amendment. It raises significant questions about whether the current scope of legal protection is sufficiently broad. The question of whether other public-facing workers, such as in transport, hospitality or civic buildings, face similar risks is one worth raising and discussing. Many of those workers play a crucial role in maintaining order, ensuring safety and supporting essential public functions in spaces accessible to the public.
I similarly thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 214FA. This would include premises used by the hospitality industry for the supply of food or drink as part of the definition of retail premises for the purposes of this offence. This is also an important question to pose to the Government, and I hope they consider it with care.
The issues raised by this group of amendments deserve serious consideration. They invite the Government to reflect on whether extra provisions are needed to protect certain public-facing roles and, if so, which roles specifically need to be highlighted. The question that needs to be answered in response to all the amendments in this group is why only retail workers should be afforded a special criminal offence. Does the A&E receptionist not face the threat of violence and intimidation too? What about the bar staff at a nightclub? A wide range of people are at higher risk of assault during the course of their work. If we are to create a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, it would make sense to expand this. I hope that the Government will give this careful thought and return the clarity in how they intend to address the concerns expressed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their amendments. I should note—if not declare an interest—that I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 46 years now. That is a long time. I think it is worth noting that I have an interest in this matter. Indeed, I spent many years trying to raise this very issue when a Member of Parliament and outside Parliament before coming to this House.
I should also say at the outset that I am meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to discuss this matter, and am very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as well. I had a request from my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton to meet him and the USDAW general secretary, Joanne Thomas. I am also happy to do that between now and Report; it may not be immediately.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I would be very happy to join a group meeting rather than the Minister having to have several meetings with each of us. If there were to be third parties involved in a meeting, such as USDAW, I wonder whether he would also consider including the Institute of Customer Service. It is in a unique position—and I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Customer Service—as it looks at this across the board, and the letter it organised included signatories from a range of different industries.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will reflect on that. It is a helpful suggestion, if colleagues are happy to have a joint meeting. I would also like to involve the Policing Minister, who has an interest in this matter as a whole.
I want to place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton. They have campaigned very strongly as representatives of the supermarkets, in this case Tesco, and the workforce. My noble friend has campaigned for many years on this issue. Freedom from Fear is a campaign that Paddy Lillis, the previous general secretary, Joanne Thomas, the current general secretary, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, the general secretary before Paddy Lillis, worked on for a long time. It has been brought to them by members of the union as an important issue. It is worth putting that on record, and we can examine how we organise the discussion and consultation in due course.
Assault on anyone, including delivery drivers and transport staff, is wholly unacceptable. Everyone should be protected from assault. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, common assault has a maximum sentence of six months in prison and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers serious violence, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm.
I come back to the reason why I have campaigned on this issue for many years. Retail workers have been at the forefront of upholding much of the legislation. They uphold legislation on solvent abuse sales, tobacco sales, knife sales, drink sales and a range of other issues. They are also very much the first port of call on shop theft and the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. USDAW figures show that 10% of staff have reported a physical attack on them in the last year alone; that seems to me to be a very strong reason why the Government have brought forward this amendment. There is a wealth of evidence to back the position that there is a significant problem specific to retail workers because of the nature of that work.
Clauses 37 and 38 provide for the bespoke offence of assaulting a retail worker. They also place a duty on the courts when sentencing an offender to make a criminal behaviour order; shop theft may often be linked to drug and alcohol abuse issues as a whole. Our definition of a retail worker is intentionally narrow, given the vital need to provide legal clarity and ensure there is no ambiguity for courts in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker when impacted by their job.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the hospitality sector. This sector is specifically excluded, but if he looks at the definition of retail premises in Clause 37(3), he can see that it would be open to a judge to determine what might be included. For example, cafes might have stalls inside the shop, so that could be potentially defined as a retail premise as well. There is no specific offence, and I would not wish to extend it to the hospitality sector, but a judge could potentially interpret some aspects of hospitality being within the retail sector under Clause 37(3).
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I think the Minister’s remarks make quite a telling case. In particular, I was struck by the point that retail workers, because of the things they sell—cigarettes and tobacco—are more on the front line than people serving chicken nuggets, or whatever. I accept that there is a very good point that the retail sector needs to be guarded specifically, possibly differently from the hospitality sector. I shall look carefully at what he said.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles and therefore including them could potentially cause an issue with definition and therefore with the courts using the legislation. Again, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have put that case. I am happy to meet them, and we can examine and discuss and hear what they have to say outside the Committee.
With regard to public-facing workers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, also mentioned, the previous Government—again to their credit—introduced a statutory aggravating factor for assault against any public-facing worker via Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I am advised that that would include, for example, train staff, and the aggravating factor would apply in assault cases when an offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty, or providing a service to the public. There may be areas of definition, but I hope that the issue that the noble Baroness has raised ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence and will send a clear message that violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker will not be tolerated.
Police Reform
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, police and crime commissioners were an innovative idea, but experience has shown they have not delivered as intended. Instead, they have proved to be a costly and flawed experiment, so we welcome their abolition. However, I hope the Minister will be able to provide the House with rather more clarity on what will replace them. We do not believe that transferring PCC powers to mayors is the answer, as this would concentrate even more power in single individuals, with too little scrutiny or accountability.
The proposal for a police and crime lead, described as
“akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime”,
risks being a rebadged PCC. Unless the legislation is crystal clear, this role could again become a focal point for political leverage over chief constables. It must be made abundantly clear that chief constables retain full operational independence, and that these new leads and boards will not have hire-and-fire powers. If not, we risk repeating the mistakes of the PCC model, drawing policing further into politics rather than strengthening impartial policing by consent.
The Government say that these boards will not be a return to the invisible committees of the past, but this assurance needs substance. How will they work, and how will their work be accessible and visible to the public? The former Metropolitan Police Authority may offer some useful lessons. Having served on that body for seven years, I can attest that no one could describe it as invisible. Its meetings were in public and widely reported, and its scrutiny of senior police officers was robust. Will the Home Office carefully consider what worked in that model before finalising these new arrangements?
I was particularly disappointed to learn from the Minister’s Statement in the House of Commons that the £100 million that could be saved in this Parliament through the abolition of PCC elections will go to the Treasury rather than to front-line policing. An over- stretched police service will find that a very difficult pill to swallow. The Home Office says that reforms to police governance will save at least £20 million a year —enough to fund 320 extra police constables. Can the Minister give a clear undertaking that this money will definitely be spent on recruiting those 320 extra police officers? Saying that something can happen is very different from saying that it will happen.
Finally, rebuilding public trust in police goes far beyond governance. True accountability demands transparency. Will the Government require police forces to publish data on officers under investigation for sexual or domestic abuse, and will they now act to bring police record-keeping in England and Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, ending the discretionary destruction of police records, as recommended by the Hillsborough Independent Panel?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for this opportunity to outline the Government’s plans for police and crime commissioners. In doing so, I hope I can answer the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord, Davies of Gower.
First, we anticipate doing this for efficiency reasons. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there is a potential £100 million saving. Some £87 million of that £100 million will be through the cancellation of elections. They are currently funded centrally, which is why that resource will go to the Treasury. This will save around £20.3 million over the course of the rest of this Parliament, which will be put into front-line policing and fund around 320 additional officers. They will be part of the 13,000 officers we intend to put on the ground over the course of this Parliament, either as specials, PCCs or warranted officers, of which 3,000 are already in place.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, there is currently a patchwork of responsibilities for policing. Five existing mayors—in London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and York and North Yorkshire—have policing powers. The existing mayors in Merseyside, Nottingham, Derby, the West Midlands and the West Country do not have policing powers. There are new mayors coming on stream in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Sussex, Cumbria, Hampshire, and potentially in Cheshire and Lancashire, who do not currently have policing powers. There are also other areas, such as Humberside and Lincolnshire, where the responsibilities of police and crime commissioners overlap with those of their directly elected mayors. That is a big patchwork. As far as possible, we are trying to get the mayoral model to have accountability for policing, as is the case for the five such mayors to date. Usually—but it is up to the mayor—a deputy mayor is appointed to be responsible, as the lead person, for those statements. I think that is helpful.
The noble Lord asked why we have brought this forward now. We thought it was useful to give as much notice as possible that the cancellation of the elections would happen in 2028. The noble Lord also asked about the police White Paper. I can assure him that it will be produced before Christmas of this year and will therefore be before both Houses of Parliament before this Christmas. It was important to give as much notice as possible once the decision had been taken, and we wanted to ensure that police and crime commissioners had an opportunity to reflect upon that.
The noble Lord asked how this helps with crime. It gives a focus, direction and greater efficiency but, equally, it is not to be seen in isolation. As he knows, almost every day of this week we will be dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill. We have 13,000 extra officers in place, additional initiatives on shop theft and a whole range of proposals to deal with anti-social behaviour and knife crime. He mentions London; it has had its lowest murder rate this year. It is still very high, with 93 people being killed—I am not denying that—but it is the lowest rate for many years. There is a push to try to reduce crime across the board, of which this will be part.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, operational independence is critical. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to move away from this model, because there is still a temptation for police and crime commissioners to want to be the chief constable as well as setting the budgets for police and crime. Operational independence from political interference is vital. The police and crime boards that we will establish in areas where there is not a mayor will potentially have the same role, with lots of senior councillors from an area being able to hold a chief constable to account and set a budget. The London model might be very appropriate for that, because there is an opportunity for the lead councillors in an area, usually the leaders of local councils, to hold a chief constable to account and set a budget, and to do so. I say again that, in local council areas, the budget settlement is a precept; the police precept is usually included in the rates bill, which is held to account usually by the leader or leaders of the council. So there is scope there as a whole.
I welcome the noble Baroness’s welcome for the abolition and hope she will work with us when we publish legislation, as we will have to do to implement this measure, at some point in the future. She will have the ability to test those issues at that time.
I say to all noble Lords that the first election had a turnout of 15%. The second election was slightly higher. The third was down from the second, at 24%. There is not necessarily an awareness. Anybody in Greater Manchester knows who Andy Burnham is; everyone who lives in my neck of the woods in Merseyside knows who, ah—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Knows who Steve Rotheram is. I am being distracted by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, who is anxious to bounce up. We have 20 minutes in this first part—he should know that by now. He is bouncing away and trying to get in. I will give him the opportunity, but I still have up to eight minutes before the 20 minutes for questions from the House. Everybody in the area knows who Steve Rotheram is. The noble Lord put me off at a crucial moment there, but I forgive him and will continue.
I say to the House generally that this is an efficiency measure that will focus policing and help support the Government’s crime and safer streets mission. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House and declare that, as a former director of Liberty, I was in unusual lockstep with chief constables in opposing what was to become the cross-party mistake of police and crime commissioners. Does my noble friend agree that the design fault that distinguishes the PCC model from others that have been discussed, including committees of councillors, mayors and so on, is in the word “temptation” in the Statement? An elected politician whose sole raison d’être is policing faces the almost inevitable temptation to dip their toes, particularly in media statements, into operational matters, and it is that design fault we need to avoid in future.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. Key to the potential new model is that the police mayoral model/policing board model will be accountable for setting the budget and for holding the chief constable, whoever he or she may be, to account for the delivery of a police and crime plan that the police and crime commissioner signs off.
The temptation is there now for a running commentary and wanting to be the front person on any incident in a community because, ultimately, that election depends solely on police and crime performance. It does not depend, as mayoral elections do, on a whole range of issues, many of which are not directly political but many of which are. So there is a shift there which I hope will be welcome. Again I say that, at some point, this House will have an opportunity to test our proposals, because legislation will be required to facilitate these changes.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister. We will shortly be debating the English devolution Bill, where it will be interesting to raise these matters again, because, of course, some local authorities are moving to unitary and others to mayors. This will all fit into that new template.
How can the Minister convince us that this will actually improve the quality of some of our senior police? We have some very good chief constables, not least the chief constable of Greater Manchester: we need others of that calibre. Equally, we have some situations, as in my own area of Devon, where we had at one point three chief constables: one suspended, the temporary one suspended as well, then an interim chief constable, all being paid for at the same time. That is bad policing and bad leadership. How is any of this going to increase the quality of those at the top of policing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: we must ensure we have extremely good support, via the police service, for improving the quality of senior officers. If he looks and the Crime and Policing Bill in detail, he will see that there are measures to improve training, support, promotion opportunities, quality, vetting and other mechanisms, in relation to improving the quality of police officers.
Again, it is important that the policing individual for the mayor’s office, or the police board, holds the chief constable to account. In the case that he mentions, it is arguable that that did not happen to the extent that it should have done. There is an important distinction between budget, holding to account and agreeing a plan versus day-to-day operational activity. Improving the quality of staff is absolutely important, and that is what our new proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill are designed to do.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the Government have done the right thing in removing PCCs. That said, some of them were very good and they sometimes made some good decisions. However, interestingly, as PCCs came along, we ended up with selections for chief constables with one applicant: the home candidate. Unsurprisingly, they ended up with people who agreed with them. So, I am afraid that some change was necessary, and that is a good idea.
I am less convinced by the Government’s solution in other respects. First, the move to mayors may be a good idea, but I worry about the rest. The Minister said that, at the moment, it is a patchwork. I am afraid that the alternative solution to a mayor looks like a hodge-podge. I include in that the City of London, which appears to be keeping its own committee, for reasons entirely beyond me. Why does the City of London, the smallest force in the country, need a committee that nobody else can manage?
Finally, I am not sure about these savings. I can almost guarantee that the council leaders who take on this responsibility will want their own people to support them, so will absorb that saving immediately. The Government may want to look at what arrangements will be in place and whether there will be any cap on the expenditure for the new governance, which frankly has gone through the roof. As the Minister has just explained, that saving will be gained by the new arrangements.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I first echo what the noble Lord has said. This is not in any way directed at the performance of individual police and crime commissioners. There are many good people who have given a lot of commitment and time and, in many cases, have made significant changes. However, at the end of the day, we are looking at the governance model. In my view, it needs to move towards the mayoral model. Where we can do that, we will.
The genuine problem is that not every area is seeking to have a mayor at the moment and not all police authorities are coterminous with mayoral authorities. Those are issues that we will have to look at downstream, but the general presumption is to build on the models we have now, in London, Greater Manchester and the Yorkshires, to ensure that we firm up that mayoral accountability.
The police White Paper—which, as I have just confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be published before Christmas—will look at issues such as efficiency, a range of matters to do with the improvement of training, going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and how we can improve performance outputs in policing. I will bring that back to the House before Christmas but, at the moment, I cannot stray too much into that area.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a superintendent some years ago, I spent some time at the FBI academy in Quantico, studying the criminal justice system in the USA. This is where the idea of police and crime commissioners emanated from. Judges and district attorneys, not to mention county sheriffs, are elected by political parties. This goes right up the ladder, and we see today the FBI director being sacked by President Trump because he did not carry out his wishes. Incidentally, he also appoints the members of the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice is directed to carry out the President’s wishes.
Does the Minister agree that the rule of law is a precious thing to have been born out of Magna Carta, which places legal limits on government power? It evolved the idea of fair trials, habeas corpus and universal legal rights, and political parties should not be involved in political governance, which is evidenced by the low turnout in police and crime commissioner elections. Chief officers should be independent of party politics. I opposed the PCCs as president of the Police Superintendents’ Association and still do. I whole- heartedly welcome these changes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can take my noble friend back to 2010-11, when the Labour Party, then in opposition, opposed police and crime commissioners in principle but fought the elections because when there is an elected position, you have to try to fight to fill it. We have looked at the issues of governance and at the issues that my noble friend mentioned. We think it is important that we have independence of policing, but we still believe that there has to be some oversight of that policing, of the budget and of the chief constable to make them accountable. That is why the directly elected mayor will have the responsibility, among many others, to appoint a deputy mayor, potentially, to run policing. In areas that do not have directly elected mayors, we will look to have an indirectly elected policing board comprising senior people from the council, but it is absolutely important that the integrity of that independence is maintained.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and agree with its direction of travel. Fellow bishops serving in more urban contexts where elected mayors now hold policing functions speak positively about the clarity and democratic accountability that the new approach has engendered. Other communities, such as my own, have had to work extremely hard to interest the electorate in voting for a police and crime commissioner. I think we have done slightly better than average in that regard, but even then the turnout is comparatively low. Will the new policing and crime boards lead to tensions in communities where so-called upper-tier leaders, who are often not used to working together, take very different perspectives on policing priorities? What might be done at this stage to lessen the potential of stalemate in such situations?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an important point, because in areas such as the right reverend Prelate’s there are always going to be tensions between rural councils and the urban council. There are going to be tensions in any authority between high crime levels and lower crime levels. Again, I hope that the policing board model—which I think will be the minority, because of the numbers of mayors that are either in place or coming on stream before the election in 2028—will be one of serious grown-ups having to set a rate for police funding, set a plan for police funding and then hold the chief constable to account for delivering it. Those are their three essential roles. With due respect to the police and crime commissioners, those three roles can be managed in addition to what council leaders are doing. It is no different from council leaders contributing to a wider district plan on environment, transport or housing issues, which happens in every other field of local government responsibility now.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a paid but fiercely independent adviser to the Metropolitan Police. The Statement says that the PCC model has drawn policing more into politics and
“had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables”.
Are these problems not the result of concentrating the power to hire and fire chief constables in the hands of one party-politically aligned individual? How does moving to elected mayors address this problem?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The power to appoint the chief constable will reside with the appointed person who has responsibility for policing. That could well be the mayor, the person appointed by the mayor as the deputy mayor, or the lead councillor in a policing and crime board. The dilemma that the noble Lord mentioned will still be there, but it is important, given their wider responsibilities, for the chief constable to be appointed by the person to whom they will ultimately be accountable. That is the same as for any chief executive. Political interference on the day-to-day business of the chief constable is an absolute red line that we want to strengthen.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the Statement to which my noble friend the Minister is responding. He was right to remind us of the history, which is that the Labour Party opposed the creation of these positions. We were 100% right in doing so, because they failed in their central objective to make policing more accountable. The abysmal turnout for the elections shows that that has not worked. Added to that is the recognition figure in the Statement, whereby only 16% of people can say who the police commissioner is in their area. I have only one rather nosy question to ask my noble friend. With his insight and information, and bearing in mind that this was a decision by the coalition Government, who do we primarily blame for this: the Tories or the Liberal Democrats?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As a believer in collective government responsibility, which I have to be at this stage, I say that there was joint and several responsibility for the policy. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady May, cannot be with us today; as Home Secretary at the time, she was the prime deliverer of the policy. I wrote to her to give her advance notice of the Statement. To answer my noble friend, it is a shared responsibility.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that those of us who live in Lincolnshire are not seeking the removal of Marc Jones, who is a rather good police commissioner? We are seeking a recognition of the difficult circumstances that face rural counties, such as Lincolnshire, which are sparsely populated and where policing costs are very great. Does he understand that we seek a further adjustment in the funding mechanism to recognise the sparsity factor? To be fair, I have been making this point since 1979, when I first became a Member of Parliament for a Lincolnshire seat.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Viscount cannot persuade Mrs Thatcher, I do not know who he can persuade. The issue with Lincolnshire is interesting, because Humberside Police includes parts of the mayoralty of Greater Lincolnshire, such as Grimsby and Scunthorpe, but the rest of Lincolnshire is separate. Some discussion must be had about what we settle on and how.
A police settlement will appear in draft form before Christmas, following which the noble Lord can again make representations around the police settlement for his county. We are trying to make sure that we deal with rural as well as urban policing. Tremendous effort has been put in place to look at rural crime, and some of the measures we have in the Crime and Policing Bill deal specifically with that. Issues on the Government’s agenda include livestock worrying, equipment theft, and small villages being subject to a great deal of shop theft and intimidation. However, we will have to look at the circumstances around Lincolnshire specifically, given the model that we are trying to drive forward: there is a mayor in Hull and a mayor in Lincolnshire, but the police forces currently overlap both. That subject is for another day.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, the Statement describes policing in Wales as “unique”. Perhaps that actually furthers and strengthens the case for the devolution of policing to Wales. I welcome the news that discussions are to take place with the Welsh Government on new arrangements to replace PCCs in Wales. We do not have mayors in Wales, so that is not an option. May I ask the Minister how much better off Wales would be if police funding was devolved and funded through Barnett?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The issue of devolution is not part of this Statement. We are looking at the governance of policing, not the devolution of policing. There are no mayors in Wales—that is a vital point to make. The Policing Minister and I have had discussions with Jane Hutt, the Minister in the Welsh Government responsible for this area. We want to look at how we can build a better model of policing boards in Wales. That is a matter for discussion, but there is general agreement that police and crime commissioners will not happen in Wales. There will continue to be different political views from different political parties on devolution, but it is not on the agenda in this Statement.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, bearing in mind the last question regarding Wales—my noble friend the Minister was a Welsh MP and Minister and is now a Welsh Peer—I assume that the police and crime commissioners in England will be abolished and that the Welsh commissioners will be abolished at exactly the same time. I do not know what that exact timescale will be, but of course there are elections next year to the Welsh Senedd. A new Government, of what political sort we do not yet know, will be formed.
Presumably, the negotiations that the Minister has been having with Jane Hutt are on what will replace the police commissioners in Wales, bearing in mind— as has been said—that we have no mayors and are very unlikely to have any mayors. Perhaps the Minister could give a little more detail on the negotiations.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Police and crime commissioners across England and Wales will be abolished at what would have been their next election. There will not be another election for police and crime commissioners, which means that they will serve out their term of office until early May 2028, when the election would have been held. In the meantime, we will be establishing further discussions. That abolition requires legislation in this House, which will be brought forward at a suitable time. In the meantime, we will discuss with this Administration in the Senedd and whoever forms the Administration after the election in May how we manage a policing board and local government involvement in the management of police forces in Wales.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the introduction of powers going to mayors where there are mayors. That remains the democratic accountability. Can I ask the Minister to think again about policing boards, though? That did not work in the past. It is very important that there is proper democratic accountability for priorities and budget setting. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government just want to get rid of a set of difficult elections ahead of the next general election.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I take issue with the noble Lord’s last point. This is a very difficult decision. Remember, we are abolishing 17 Labour police and crime commissioners who are doing a good job and would have been seeking re-election in that year, along with a number of other party-political and independent PCCs.
We are trying to support the mayoral model. As I mentioned earlier, there will be a list of new mayors in 2027. There are existing mayors in place who do not have police powers, and there are existing mayors in place who do have police powers. I intend to ensure that we minimise the number of boards by maximising, wherever possible, the mayoralties. That has to be done in conjunction with discussions over time. This House will have an opportunity to discuss this, because it has to be facilitated by legislation.