Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their comments.

I will start with the noble Lord, if I may. I hope he wants this inquiry to work—I know that he does. We want to look not at where we have come from over the last 15 or 16 months but at where we are going. What we have done in this case is establish a clear inquiry with a £65 million budget, a three-year definitive target date, and terms of reference that are published and in the Libraries of both Houses to achieve some outcome that ensures that we do not create further victims of child sexual abuse and that we tackle the underlying causes of how grooming gangs have been allowed to operate in this country—from whatever ethnicity, but, particularly, as is mentioned here, to examine particular ethnicities and whether that has been an aggravating factor in some of those instances. I hope he will give it a fair wind.

The noble Lord asked about the Labour Party membership of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and Zoë Billingham. The Home Secretary has accepted a recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to appoint the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, Zoë Billingham and Eleanor Kelly, former chief executive of Southwark Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, chose them because, as he knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, was Children’s Commissioner for six years. She has devoted her life to children’s rights, and she has worked with charities and with Prime Ministers of all political parties to deal with these issues over a long period. Zoë Billingham is a former inspector of constabulary and currently chair of a health foundation, and brings deep expertise. Eleanor Kelly was chief executive of a local authority and supported survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attack and victims of the Grenfell Tower fire. Their party membership was not a deciding factor in their appointment. Their experience, skills and contribution certainly were.

The noble Lord asked about the scope of the inquiry, and I think it is important that we say that the inquiry’s terms of reference are clear on a number of vital issues. It is focused on child sexual abuse committed by grooming gangs. It will consider explicitly the background of offenders, including their ethnicity and religion. It will look specifically at where authorities and others have failed to properly investigate what has happened, and it will do so without fear or favour. I hope that answers some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also covered.

The noble Lord asked about the Crime and Policing Bill and why this starts only from now in terms of what happened in the past. What happened in the past is subject to review and investigation. He will know that it is not appropriate for the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, or indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to look at things that happen today. It is for the police to bring to the CPS and to take any action against anything today. This is a historical examination, not a current investigation. That is for the police.

The noble Lord also asked about what we are doing now. He has spent many a pleasant hour with me on the Crime and Policing Bill, and he will know that this Government are putting in place a range of IICSA recommendations from Alexis Jay, which, if I was being politically motivated, I would say his Government did nothing about in the two and a half years when they had those recommendations lying on their desks. We have put those things into play. He knows that we will continue to look at grooming gang issues in that Bill to ensure that we put further preventive measures in place to tackle them.

The noble Lord asked whether the inquiry will look at specific areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has already said that she will begin to look at Oldham as a particular case because we indicated earlier that we would look at Oldham. We will look at others as and when, according to the issue. The terms of reference are subject to consultation, which goes to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned, until 31 March next year.

The noble Baroness asked about victims and survivors. We want victims and survivors to be involved and engaged and to feel part of this process. That is why one of the first things that has happened since her appointment is that the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, is meeting victims and survivors this week to test their concerns and issues and how we take this matter forward. As we do, she wants to test the terms of reference and terms of engagement by 31 March, and comments can be put in there. That is an important part of how we engage with victims.

We have engaged with victims, and one of the reasons we have had some difficulty getting a chair in place until now is that we have had to engage with victims to ensure that we have their view on the proposed chair. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, engaged with victims about the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and the panel members. The first thing that the chair and panel will do this week, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is to meet victims still further.

The noble Baroness made a number of other points around the state failing. She will know that we have put in place what is colloquially called the Hillsborough law, which is going through the Houses of Parliament at this moment. That is an important way to prevent systemic failures in future. She mentioned a number of other areas in relation to the recommendations that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, made. We have accepted a number of those recommendations. We have looked at the issue of the audit. She asked whether that audit can be brought forward and whether it needs legislation. We are currently looking at how we can examine that legislation and what format that will take, but I assure her that we are looking at rectifying that gap, by legislation if need be, at the earliest possible opportunity.

I welcome the noble Baroness’s support for the regulations on taxis and taxi licensing. My right honourable friend the Transport Secretary and in this House my noble friend Lord Hendy will be legislating shortly in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to close this dangerous loophole on the regulation of taxis, and we hope that will be taken forward shortly.

The noble Baroness will know that we have looked at child sexual abuse, children who have been raped by an adult and what we do with that. While the law has protected abusers from the consequence of their crimes, it has too often punished victims. In the Crime and Policing Bill we are looking to disregard offences related to prostitution, in particular, which we discussed earlier this week.

I say to the noble Baroness—and this goes to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said about what we are doing now—that a couple of months back we launched, through the National Crime Agency, Operation Beaconport, which is reviewing closed cases of child sexual abuse. It has already flagged 1,200 cases for potential reinvestigation, and 200 of those cases are high priority because they are rape. There are evil men out there who committed those crimes. They will not be sleeping comfortably in their beds now because they will know that the National Crime Agency is after them, will follow that evidence and will ensure that they are brought to justice. We will continually look at trying to take action against others who are before the courts in due course.

There have been failings—let us not get away from this—but I hope that this Government are grappling with those issues and coming to some conclusions. I hope that all Members of this House will look forward to participating successfully in this inquiry when the terms of reference are finally agreed following consultation. When we get reports and recommendations, going back to what the noble Baroness said earlier, I think it is fair to say that we have to judge those recommendations at the time. That will be three years hence, but that does not mean we are not doing things in between. If the noble Baroness looks at the history of where this Government have come from, it does not mean that we have not accepted recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. I hope that the House will welcome the Statement today and help make it a success for the future.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the core group in this will, of course, be the survivors. The inquiry will be there to ask what happened and what we can do to prevent it happening in future. Yet I read in the press today that the survivors group is to be wound down very shortly, this month or next month. What representation will survivors have as a group? That is my first question. Secondly, what funding will they have for independent legal support? I am not talking about advocacy because I do not think it is that sort of inquiry, but they will need to have the help of competent solicitors to organise themselves and to make submissions meaningfully and efficiently.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The survivors are not a coterminous, cohesive group. They have different experiences and different views on what is happening. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and now my noble friend Lady Longfield are trying at least to meet a panel of survivors to examine how best we can involve survivors and victims in the process of both the appointment of the chair, as has been done, and the terms of reference. Again, it is important that survivors continue to express their views. We have allocated around £3.6 million this week to support Operation Beaconport, and a portion of that resource is to assist survivors and help them to be able to work with the inquiry in a positive way. That is not a finite sum and it may be reviewed at a later date, but the initial £3.65 million that we have put in place is there both to try to help to support the prosecution of historical perpetrators and to assist victims in this process, which I know is extremely difficult for them. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do, as I am sure the noble Lord will accept and support, is to not retraumatise victims as far as possible by the actions of this inquiry.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, many of the victims at the centre of the inquiry were victims at least twice over: they were abused by the gangs but also by those who were supposed to be caring for them. The inquiry will be looking at systemic failures in the system and will go on for three years. Can the Minister assure us that those who were working in the so-called care system at the time, and were responsible for effectively abandoning these children, will not be allowed to work with children again? That includes the three years during which the inquiry winds on.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness invites me to come to conclusions about what the inquiry might say in any particular circumstance. Hopefully, I can reassure her by saying that the inquiry is already going to look at individual authorities urgently. If there are emerging issues, then I expect my noble friend Lady Longfield to report those to Ministers. They are beginning to look at the local authority of Oldham as a first priority, and there may be more that they look at individually. I suspect that if there are lessons to be learned during the course of the inquiry, such as those that the noble Baroness has mentioned, they will be drawn to the attention of Ministers, but we have set a remit and a scope for the inquiry and I think it fair that we let the chair and panel members, with the guidance of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, examine those issues. Self-evidently, though, if someone has not performed their duty and that has led to the exploitation and grooming of individuals and has failed in their professional duty, then they should be held to account for that. What I cannot say to the noble Baroness is who, what, where and when, because that is part of the purpose of the inquiry.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and I certainly welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lady Longfield as the chair of this very important inquiry; she has the requisite experience and skills. Like others, I regret that it took so long but I understand that it is a complex situation. I have one question: it is great that the inquiry has a defined timescale of three years, but I wonder if in that time there will be opportunities for my noble friend to update Parliament on the progress of the inquiry. Where there is no communication, there is a vacuum, and vacuums lead to suspicion, so the more open the inquiry can be, the better.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. There are two issues arising out of that. The first is that I personally, as Minister, will have a responsibility for holding to account the budget and timescale of the inquiry. In the past, some inquiries have said, “We’re going to do it in three years”, but then it has taken longer—maybe five years or six—and recommendations have not come out. My first job as the Minister is to ensure that we hold now to the three-year timetable and to the budget and that we liaise with the chair on those matters. What the chair says and does is for the chair to determine, in my view—for example, if the chair wishes, as I will do anyway, to meet regularly to review those other matters that I have just mentioned. If the chair wishes to draw attention to anything in particular then I am sure that will be done, but I do not want to restrict the chair or commit her to doing things that it is for the chair to determine. Self-evidently, however, if there are emerging issues that the chair wishes to report to Ministers then it will be for Ministers to report those to both Houses of Parliament in due course, for the reasons that my noble friend has mentioned.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for taking questions on the Statement today. I have looked at the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and welcome the provisions that deal with the out-of-area taxi provisions, as do many taxi operators themselves. However, those provisions seem to leave the question open as to how the perpetrators of these crimes were deemed to be fit and proper persons to operate private hire vehicles, allowing them to groom with such devastating consequences the victims of these grooming gangs. How is the Minister assured, under the provisions in the devolution and empowerment Bill, that this will not happen again in future?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The provisions in the English devolution Bill are Department for Transport provisions led by my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, based on recommendations that have been made to the Government by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. We believe—and, ultimately, this will be for my noble friend Lord Hendy to hold to account—that those changes in the regulations will ensure that there is greater control over the allocation and control of licences. Ultimately, it is for him to agree those recommendations, with the House’s support, and deliver on them. It has been identified as a gap, and we have tried to close it. Further lessons may come out of the inquiry led by my noble friend Lady Longfield with the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, supporting her, which may look at further issues to do with the points that the noble Baroness has mentioned, but I hope the Government’s swift action on taxi licensing is welcome.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, the last paragraph of the Statement says that

“the chair and panel of an inquiry … will shine a bright light on this dark moment in our history. They will do so alongside the victims of these awful crimes, who have waited too long to see justice done. This inquiry is theirs, not ours”,

so it belongs to them. I want to know whether there will be a counsel to the inquiry to advise them in matters that sometimes may need clarification. Will the survivors, whose inquiry it is—the same question was asked by the noble Lords from the Official Opposition—get counsel from the start so they can see what kind of legal advice they are going to get? These are traumatised people who have been violated, so from the start a policy needs to be made, in conversation with the chair, that they will have a counsel to help them. Without that being put in place, I am afraid that the three years are probably going to end up without getting the direction that is required.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for his comments. The £65 million that we have allocated to the budget for this inquiry includes a range of issues to do with the management of the inquiry. I would like to allow both my noble friend Lady Longfield and her two panel members, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to detail in due course how that expenditure is going to be allocated. We have allocated a budget of £65 million that we think is fair, and it is important that they have an opportunity to report back on how that budget is allocated. Again, for the record, the inquiry is going to look at historical and current failures in the performance on grooming gangs. That is what it is about. As ever, the point that I have mentioned about current potential criminal action is one for the police.

United States: Intelligence Sharing

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

There are long-standing intelligence and law enforcement frameworks between the UK and its Five Eyes partners: the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Those frameworks continue. It is the long-standing policy of successive Governments to not comment on the detail of intelligence matters, but for the benefit of the House, I can say that the Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State have both dismissed recent reports.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that response. There is one issue in particular which is of major concern to people: the American bombing campaign on small boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific. I am told that 76 people have died in these attacks on civilian ships. There have been 19 attacks, most of which people believe are criminal activities on the high seas. There are often quite a lot of UK personnel on American ships, and they could be implicated in criminal charges. Has my noble friend considered removing UK military personnel from these ships until things calm down?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With regard to the strikes that have recently taken place, the United Kingdom was not involved. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime with our partners in Latin America in accordance with legal obligations. I repeat that the UK was not involved.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, intelligence sharing is obviously essential to our national security, but if an ally leaks or withholds information or uses it for illegal actions, does that not require the UK to look more widely for autonomous intelligence gathering of our own, less dependence on others and more co-operation with other trusted partners?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that the UK independently gathers intelligence. The Five Eyes partners of the UK—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—are critical intelligence-gathering partners. The UK is better and more secure because of that arrangement.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the reassurance on the Five Eyes partnership, and I commend the Minister on his versatility and adaptability in taking on such a wide brief. We all know the feeling well. My specific question is about the meeting in Canada between the Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State. In light of the national security strategy that the United States issued only last week, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the relationship, particularly as we go forward, with more than 100 conflicts raging around the world?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord for my taking on a number of issues today. The US strategy, which I saw earlier this week, is a matter for the US Government, but, self-evidently, the United Kingdom wants to participate and support where there are common objectives. As the noble Lord will have seen, this week the Prime Minister met the German Chancellor, the Ukrainian President and others to look at the challenges we face in Europe. I believe very strongly that a strong European partnership, where we increase defence expenditure in Europe and, at the same time, work with our American partners on key issues, is the right way forward. It is for the Americans to determine their priorities. It is for us to determine ours.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister was on the Intelligence and Security Committee when it looked at detainee mistreatment and rendition in 2018. That report led to the Government of the day reviewing the consolidated guidance, which led to the Fulforth principles, which are very clear that we do not share intelligence if it leads to extrajudicial killing. Can he confirm that those principles are still active today and are understood not only by our security services but our allies? I assure the House, having been in Washington this week, that the intelligence sharing and co-operation are as strong as ever.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of my time on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I am grateful to him for his work chairing it now. He has articulated the principles of information sharing. He will understand that I cannot comment on the details of intelligence sharing, but the UK will commit to and retain its legal responsibilities in that field.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, when the Government took the political decision to ban some arms to Israel and to then recognise the Palestinian state in a series of anti-Israel measures, the Israeli Government said at that point that they might consider reducing or stopping intelligence sharing with the UK Government. Have the Government made an assessment of the likely damage that that would do to the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have common interests with the Israeli Government, and we should try to maintain that data-sharing arrangement. What they do and how they operate is a matter for them. It is important that we have as wide data sharing as possible and information sharing with important strategic partners. The Five Eyes partnership is the cornerstone of that, but self-evidently, where there are common interests, other parties would wish to share information on a basis. I would hope that the Government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state does not impact upon the ability to look at wider threats, should they exist.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarifications he has made during this Question. Can he confirm that the United Kingdom has sufficient assets in the Caribbean so as to continually fight against the scourge of the drug trade in that area?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Earl, and for once, this question does fall within my direct responsibilities. There are a number of areas where the UK Government, particularly with the overseas territories, are working in partnership, looking at how we can support the reduction of drugs, the reduction of gang activity and the prevention of illegal migration between overseas territories in the wider Caribbean area. We have a very strong partnership with the United States on dealing with those issues. Where there are particular stress points, we are, even now, looking at how we can support those overseas territories, particularly, which are under British responsibility as well, to ensure that we take that fight to the drugs barons on equal terms.

Social Media: Scam Adverts and Fraudulent Content

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role social media platforms play in enabling scam adverts and fraudulent content.

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

The Government take seriously the criminal abuse of online advertising to promote scams, distribute malware and launch phishing attacks. All social media platforms and advertisers must play a role in driving out fraudulent activity. Under the Online Safety Act, the largest social media and search services will be required to address fraudulent adverts on their platforms. More can be done, and further action will be set out in the Government’s forthcoming fraud strategy, for which I am responsible.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we face a wave of increasingly sophisticated AI-generated scams, yet, despite what the Minister has said, Ofcom’s updated road map has pushed the consultation on the codes of practice for fraudulent advertising into mid-2026, meaning that new online safety protections are unlikely to be fully in force until 2027. Given the rapid evolution of AI fraud, what steps are the Government—and indeed the Minister, as the designated Fraud Minister—taking to speed up the vital protections provided by the Act? Will the Government ensure that robust action against all scam advertising is included in the fraud strategy and will be quickly implemented?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I met with Ofcom recently. I know that the facts he has laid before the House are correct, but Ofcom wishes to proceed at pace to ensure that it can bring that regulation into power as soon as possible. Early in the new year, I will produce the revised fraud strategy. The previous Government had a three-year fraud strategy. We have updated that. It has taken about 15 months to work on it. The fraud strategy will look at a number of key threats, and the emergence and future threats of AI will be a key aspect of the government responses. I hope I can bring the fraud strategy before the House in relatively short order in the new year for consideration, discussion and implementation.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, it is becoming increasingly apparent that overseas, in different countries, there are huge numbers of almost industrial-scale scams going on. Will the new fraud strategy include a way of tackling some of the international problems that we have? Is my noble friend the Minister liaising with some of those countries where we know that this is a really prevalent activity?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that. The Government have already signed a United Nations resolution against fraud, and we are hosting a conference in Vienna in March next year to try to bring together international action on the very issues that my noble friend has mentioned. Independently, I went to Nigeria in April this year and signed an agreement with the Nigerian Government on fraud and scammers, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has done one with Vietnam recently, and we intend to expand that further to other key nations. It is vital that we have international co-operation to tackle areas where scammers are operating from, very often against the will of the host Government.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, fraud is not falling, despite all the efforts that have been put into it so far. The National Crime Agency estimates that 67% of fraud is cyber-enabled. It says:

“Social media platforms are a key facilitator of authorised push payments frauds”.


Social media platforms and telecoms are the main route by which fraud comes to this country from overseas scammers, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. At the moment, banks pick up the full cost of reimbursing fraud victims. Banks have a key role in preventing fraud but they are not the facilitators of it. Surely the time has come to make social media platforms and telecom companies pay their share of the losses that people suffer as a result of their facilitation of fraud.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right that the banks are effectively subsidising fraud results and are leading to the repayment of an amount of the fraud that is taking place. He is also right that a large portion of that fraud, which is around 44% of all crime, goes through telecommunication companies. We recently established a brand new fraud charter with telecom companies, which I believe will reduce fraud via telephone communication significantly over the next 12 months. In the fraud strategy we will discuss the potential for reducing fraud through telecommunications platforms and through platforms such as Meta/Facebook and others, which are a significant gateway to fraud. The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I will have to reflect on those matters as part of the forthcoming fraud strategy.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what work the Government are doing around protecting young people in particular? I have been contacted by a number of student-age young people who have found themselves, through social media, caught up in money laundering. They are sent a message asking to borrow their bank account and the money is exchanged equitably, as far as they are concerned, but it is then investigated by the bank and found out to be money laundering—an offence they can never remove from their history. Can the Government do a piece of work around protecting young people from money laundering?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The Government have accepted that there is a challenge in that area. There are resources going into educational opportunities, particularly targeted at university students, to help them avoid money laundering. Some months ago I visited a scheme—as it happens, in my home area of north Wales—where educational opportunities were being undertaken by regional organised crime agencies to meet students to explain how money laundering works and how they can become victims of money laundering without realising they are involved in it. There is a great educational opportunity and we are trying to work through that, but self-evidently I will continue to look at what more can be done.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the new fraud strategy leads to a genuine increase in fraud cases being properly investigated and taken to court? Will the Government make clear that success will be judged not by the volume of fraud cases reported but by the convictions secured, the investigations opened and the charges made?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. One of the things that we are trying to do—again, trailing the fraud strategy—is to ensure that we have better criminal justice outcomes for investigations. We are just starting—this will become clearer when the fraud strategy is produced—a better journey for victims of fraud in terms of reporting, keeping them informed and getting to criminal justice outcomes. There is a real wish by the National Crime Agency in particular and the Serious Fraud Office to look at how we can bring criminals to justice. A number of measures have already taken place where we have seized assets and brought people to court, and I want to see that continue. It is vital that we make the UK the hardest place possible for fraudsters to operate, which means not just protection and better investment in telecommunication platform issues but putting in an element of serious risk for those fraudsters to ensure that they end up behind bars or lose their assets.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the regulators often use long consultation periods to do nothing and that the general public want action, not consultation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we get these things right—I say that to my noble friend in the spirit of camaraderie—and sometimes there are issues that take a while to work through. If he is referring to the question of Ofcom and advertising that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised, there is a wish for Ofcom to get it right and to ensure that whatever it does is legally secure in getting it right. I want to give it breathing space to do that. The direction of travel is there to ensure that fraudulent adverts are taken down and not used as a gateway for the very issues that other noble Lords have mentioned today.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Research by the UK Safer Internet Centre has shown that just under half of eight to 17 year-olds have been scammed online, with 79% of that age group having come across online scams at least monthly. What action are the Government taking to reduce the impact of scamming on school-aged children, who appear to be particularly at risk?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are two areas that we want to look at. Number one is education. All of us are the first port of call to reduce scamming, which means that we all, including young people, need to watch out for the signs of scams and know what those protective measures are. That goes back to the noble Lord’s point earlier about money muling. We need to ensure that we raise awareness and put that into the curriculum via our school system. But it is not just us who have to have a role in stopping scams; ultimately, the state has a responsibility to track down the scammers, put protective measures in place and stop that happening. That goes back to us ensuring that the telecom companies and the platforms take down fraudulent activity ASAP so that young people in particular are not drawn into what would end up being a cost to them and damaging to their mental as well as financial health.

Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 4 December.

Motion agreed.

West Midlands Police: Maccabi Tel Aviv Match

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the evidence on which West Midlands Police took decisions relating to the Aston Villa versus Maccabi Tel Aviv match.

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

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have not finished yet, my Lords—we have a while to go.

The Home Office is committed to full transparency regarding the intelligence used by West Midlands Police for the Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv match. To ensure full independent scrutiny, the Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to inspect how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice to local safety advisory groups, with an initial report focusing on the Maccabi Tel Aviv v Aston Villa match.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I admire my noble friend’s stamina, particularly considering he has a Statement to follow.

He will know that the decision of the safety committee in relation to Maccabi fans coming to Birmingham was a mistake. However, it seems to have been based on very flawed evidence from the West Midlands Police force. In the first case, it relied on what the Dutch police had told it about their experience in Amsterdam with Maccabi fans, which the Dutch police themselves disowned; the information seemed to have been gathered through an unminuted Zoom call. Then a football match was cited which turned out never to have been played—there is some thought that it was generated by AI. Thirdly, at the Home Affairs Select Committee only a few days ago, the West Midlands Police said that the local Jewish community supported the ban. That was a mistake and the police have now had to apologise. I think we have reached the point where there is considerable doubt about the integrity of the leadership of the West Midlands Police force. I say to the Government that I understand the need for all these reports and due process, but action has to be taken.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Let me say two things. The police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands is accountable to the people of the West Midlands for whatever they say. The chief constable is accountable to the police and crime commissioner and it is for them—I say this genuinely—to determine locally whether they wish to take any further action in the light of the interesting points that my noble friend made.

What we have done, as the Home Office and Home Secretary, is to ask, on 27 November, for an urgent report on the intelligence received and the issues that my noble friend mentioned. We have asked for that to be done via His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary by 31 December, so that we can get to the bottom of what was said and what information led to it. It is better that I wait for the outcome of the report that we commissioned before I comment in detail on any of the potential allegations that have been made. The Home Affairs Select Committee is looking at this issue separately and will produce its own report in due course.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, we now know that the match decision was based on fake evidence, but it is not just a local matter. I have made a list of the number of times that this Prime Minister has said, “We will not tolerate antisemitism in our society and on our streets”. But he does and they do: more than any other Government I remember in recent years. It is time for the Government to indicate to the police that they should not prioritise the supposed interests of violent, unreasonable, anti-Israel politicians and mobs over the peaceful majority, whether around football or at protests.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me, in the nicest possible way, refute exactly what the noble Baroness said. This Prime Minister is committed to rooting out and tackling antisemitism and to making sure that we do not have racism in our society. He is doing so in a way that also allows for people who take a view on Israel and the performance of the Israeli state to protest peacefully. If the noble Baroness looks at the Crime and Policing Bill that we are taking through now, she will see that we are putting in a range of measures to stop protests that impact on any community in a particular way.

The noble Baroness also raised some wider issues, which I accept, which is why we have asked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to look at them, as well as the specific allegations to which my noble friend referred, and at whether we can improve the performance of safety group assessments in the areas that she mentioned.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, let me put it to the Minister straightforwardly: how is it remotely acceptable for police leaders in the West Midlands to fabricate a report, as the noble Lord said, with a made-up meeting and a made-up match? They have lied to a parliamentary Select Committee. They have basically yielded to the mob shamefully led by Ayoub Khan MP. If I may use footballing parlance, how can the Minister have any confidence in Chief Constable Guildford and Assistant Chief Constable O’Hara? As Nick Timothy said, they should be sacked today.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who knows that any suggestion that intelligence gathering or community engagement led by West Midlands Police was anything other than of the highest standard is a matter of great concern. But I hope he accepts that the Home Secretary has understood that concern and commissioned a report. It is fair and proper that we await the findings of that report before we take any further action. I refer back to my earlier answer: the chief constable is accountable to the police and crime commissioner, who is accountable to the people of the West Midlands. For the Home Office to take any action would be a significant step, certainly if it is before we have any further information from the report that we have commissioned.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have gone over this several times now and it all seems to come back to bad intelligence leading to bad policy decisions. The Minister said that we will be taking action; can he assure us that we will be informed of what is happening and when, so that we can make sure that this is not repeated? That is essential: can we have assurances that, in the future, we all know what is happening so that this never happens again?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I first congratulate the noble Lord on the announcement yesterday of his retention in the House through his new peerage. I think I have already said but will re-emphasise that the Home Office has commissioned two reports: a report into the intelligence surrounding the Maccabi-Aston Villa match and the failures that have eloquently been put to the House today; and a report, by 31 March, on the wider issues that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned. Again, I could comment, trail or examine but, as we have commissioned a report for 31 March, it is better that we await its conclusions, which will be shared with the House for comment, criticism or support.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, the Times reported that UEFA was present at the Birmingham safety advisory group meeting and that UEFA advised that the Villa-Maccabi game should go ahead. Is my noble friend the Minister able to confirm this? If not, can he urgently write and clarify UEFA’s position, whether it attended any part of the SAG meeting, either online or in person, and what advice UEFA offered about the viability of the game?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and hope I can help her by saying that my understanding of what has been said to date is that UEFA was not directly represented at the meeting, but was involved in wider discussions on the admission of fans. The Home Office was not party to those wider discussions, but I hope that the wider investigation, as I have already indicated to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will examine that. The Policing Minister herself said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee that we are exploring processes around the role of the safety advisory group when considering sensitive events of national significance. Whether external bodies comment on those matters will be part of that reflection.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to raise this issue, because I have become confused about the source and quality of the intelligence, and the decision-making process, particularly because the outcome was that Israelis were stopped from visiting the UK and attending a legal sporting event. This is a very serious issue, particularly at the moment. Of course, this is a two-part process: the police provided the intelligence and the sport safety committee did the banning. I am not sure who is looking into their decision-making and the juxtaposition between the two. Who called for what? I cannot remember the last time that any sport safety committee banned away supporters. Would the Minister let us know, at least in writing, when that happened and who is looking at the decision-making between the police and safety committee?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, this is for the West Midlands Police and the police and crime commissioner, but I understand that they are undertaking their own review into what happened and how that worked. We have commissioned a review through the inspectorate to look at issues around that particular incident, including the safety advisory group. We are also commissioning a report for 31 March on wider issues around the safety advisory group and how we can improve performance in the future. I heard what the noble Lord said but, if he will let me, I need to examine those details when the information is before the Home Office. If noble Lords wish to table Questions on the 31 December report post Christmas, they can. If they wish to table Questions on the 31 March report post then, they can. I will undoubtedly be making further comments on both reports to the House in due course.

Facial Recognition Technology: Safeguards

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the safeguards necessary for the use of facial recognition technology by the police.

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

The Government commenced a consultation on 4 December on the use of facial recognition technology. There is an established legal basis for the use of facial recognition technology by the police, but the Government intend to bring forward a new bespoke legal framework to provide clearer, more specific rules. Through the consultation, we want to hear views on when and how facial recognition should be used and what safeguards and oversight are needed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but does he now accept that the police’s facial recognition algorithm has been flawed? It has been racially biased and biased against women. Actually, it should be stopped until it can be improved.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government recognise that the algorithm needs to be examined, and that is why we have asked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to present an urgent report to the Government on the mechanisms of the algorithm. In the meantime, facial recognition technology is a useful tool. If missing people walk past a facial recognition van, they can be identified. If people are on a wanted list, they can be identified. If people appear on a Ring doorbell, they can be put against a facial recognition database to see whether they have committed an offence and be further questioned. There are good things about that, but the consultation is about how we can better regulate it. HMCIC will look at how we can deal with the issues with the algorithm over the next few months.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, notwithstanding their being of the party that introduced the ground-breaking and vital Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the previous Government allowed the mushrooming of police use of this technology with no express and specific statutory authorisation. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is unacceptable, for both democracy and the rule of law, to roll out this technology further, however useful it is, without an Act of Parliament?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend raised the issue, but I maintain that it is a valuable use of resources to help with crime prevention. We have organised a consultation, which opened on 4 December. My noble friend and anybody else can submit evidence or comments to that consultation over the next 10 weeks. When it is complete, the Government will assess the regulatory framework. We already intend to establish an oversight body to examine how that regulation will operate, which will require further work by the Government.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the Court of Appeal has decided that the use of facial recognition is lawful. Equally, and to reassure everybody, the Minister is probably right to have a consultation. Facial recognition is far better at spotting people than people are. Even though it can fail at times, it is far better than any individual. It has two uses, one live and one retrospective; this was a complaint about retrospective use. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has a point and of course it needs to be fair. It should not discriminate by race, but I was a little surprised to see some of the evidence that was offered, because we had been reassured that it is fair. It is wise to examine it, but I would do so from the point of view of making it work, because it is a really effective tool to stop crime that we should not throw away. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. When facial recognition technology is used retrospectively, it is not usually the sole piece of evidence brought either before the police for potential referral to the CPS or before the courts. It is one aspect of the evidence. It is important that we have the ability to use facial recognition but, quite rightly, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is looking at the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is also a consultation to which any Member can make any representation about the use or regulation of that technology. Ultimately, however, it is a crime fighting tool that can also—it is worth remembering—find missing people who happen to walk past a facial recognition camera and who may not know that they are considered missing. That is also an important tool.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response in which he said that legislation and regulation are important. It is overdue by eight years, to be precise, during which the Home Office, under various Governments, had the worrying view that existing legislation is up to the job. Why is the consultation so focused on police use of facial recognition, when it has also had rapid and uncontrolled growth in the private sector? Frankly, it is the Wild West on the high street, which can have life-changing consequences for some innocent shoppers. Will the Government undertake to look at the private sector as well?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness can make representations on those matters as part of the consultation. We are looking at the public sector because we are the Home Office and are responsible for policing. That is therefore the issue that we are examining. There need to be some safeguards, regulation, and an understanding of and groundwork for that. I can tell the noble Baroness that nobody who is innocent of an offence needs to worry about facial recognition technology—nobody. That is why we are looking at these issues. I will defend facial recognition technology at this Dispatch Box and elsewhere. The consultation is there to allow this House and others to make their views known on what is an effective tool in crime fighting. The noble Baroness is shaking her head, but I ask her: if somebody who is guilty of a crime and on a wanted list walks past a facial recognition camera, should they not be arrested?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, recognising what the Minister said about consultation, I ask him what the Government’s strategy is for a rollout of facial recognition in the UK. Do they have plans to roll out facial recognition to all forces across the country? If so, will they publish comprehensive guidance to ensure that that rollout is smooth and, as we have heard today, that all necessary safeguards are put in place?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have invested over £12 million in supporting the development of facial recognition technology and have supported local forces in doing that. Ultimately, this is a decision for local forces at the moment. We want to see the outcome of the consultation, but I think that that it is an important use of technology to help prevent crime, catch criminals and find missing people. It is also used by police officers on their body-worn cameras to identify individuals when they say they are somebody but, actually, it can be proved that they are not. It is important tool, but the key questions are how we safeguard it, how we put regulations around it and what body will examine those regulations. We are looking at those in the consultation and I will take any representations from the noble Lord as part of that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the importance of safeguards. He will have seen the report last week from Liberty and the Times, which found that, across 43 regional police forces, children as young as 12 have been caught by facial recognition. Will he confirm that he will talk directly to Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, who has expressed concern about this, and that the specific position of children, and their safeguarding and protections, will form an important part of the consultation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, my Lords.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, given that facial recognition is already in use, what reassurance can the Minister give to particular communities who feel they have been overpoliced with it? We have already heard that the algorithm is biased against women and people from ethnic minority communities. In addition, what can he do about protecting people’s data? When will these files be erased once someone has been proven innocent or not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The first point the noble Lord mentions is extremely important, and is why we have asked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to examine the very issues he has raised. It will report to us shortly, in line with the consultation, which is running in parallel.

On data retention, data is used against known databases. If an individual is missing but is wanted for a crime, that can show up on a database and the facial recognition can work on that. If an individual says they are Mr Jones of X but the police body-worn camera says they are not and are somebody else, that can be used against existing database material. If somebody commits a crime and is caught on a Ring doorbell or CCTV, the facial recognition technology can match the individual, who has potentially been arrested, with the original crime. It is not for general use against the public at large but for use against specific individuals who have specific reasons to fall within the database that is used by facial recognition.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister say whether this will extend to the use of drones, which are being used privately and publicly?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very interesting question. The Home Office is examining the use of drones and how they can be used in relation to a range of matters. If my noble friend will allow me, that matter is important in the context of the Question but is also potentially tangential to it. I will examine what he said and we will discuss it further.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain how the Government will assess and balance other liberties, such as privacy and the right to be anonymous? He rightly pointed out that this technology might be aimed at targeting the bad guys or missing people, but it requires mass surveillance. How does the Home Office seek to protect the innocent majority of people from undue state observation, surveillance and, actually, an attack on their rights?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, there is a consultation about the very issues the noble Baroness raises and oversight of the technology. Secondly, this is not about individuals who are not known to the police; it is about individuals who are on a watch-list who might be wanted, individuals who have already committed a crime who are trying to be matched with a facial recognition camera, or verification from a body-worn camera along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, mentioned. The noble Baroness should put her comments in the consultation and be reassured that this is about a select group of people before facial recognition technology.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

308: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Disregarding convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In the heading of Chapter 4, omit “for buggery etc.”(3) For the italic heading before section 92, substitute “Sexual activity between persons of the same sex”. (4) After section 94 insert—“Loitering or soliciting: under 18s
94A Automatic disregard of convictions or cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) A conviction or caution is a disregarded conviction or caution if—(a) it was for an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution), and(b) the offender was aged under 18 at the time of the offence.(2) Sections 95 to 98 explain the effect of a conviction or caution being a disregarded conviction or caution.”.(5) In section 95 (effect of disregard on police and other records)—(a) before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) Subsections (1) to (4) apply in respect of a conviction or caution disregarded under section 92.”;(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A relevant data controller must delete from relevant official records, as soon as reasonably practicable, any details of which they are aware of a conviction or caution disregarded under section 94A.”(6) In section 99 (appeal against refusal to disregard convictions or cautions)—(a) in the heading, at the end insert “for sexual activity between persons of the same sex”;(b) in paragraph (a), after “application” insert “made under section 92”.(7) In section 100 (advisers)—(a) in the heading, at the end insert “on applications under section 92”;(b) in subsection (1), after “case” insert “under section 92”.(8) In section 101 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “disregarded caution”, after “which” insert “is or”;(b) in the definition of “disregarded conviction”, after “which” insert “is or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a conviction or caution for loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, where the offender was under 18 at the time of the offence, to be disregarded.

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

My Lords, Amendments 308 and 309 are closely bound with Amendment 313 tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie. If the Committee will allow me, I will ask my noble friend Lady Ritchie to speak to her amendments and on behalf of our noble friend Lady Goudie, who is unable to be here tonight. That being the case, I will then respond to both the Opposition Front Bench and any comments made by my noble friends, given that the lead amendment is mine but is very much tied up with a range of amendments. In that case, I will sit down and allow the proceedings to continue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendments in my own name, Amendments 316A and 316B, relating to prostitution, and Amendments 310 to 313 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister.

Like my noble friend Lady Goudie, I wish to address the exploitation of women and girls. As she has outlined in the amendments, which have also been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, women and girls are trafficked, exploited and routinely abused in prostitution for the profit of others. I fully support all her amendments, which would finally bring laws in England and Wales into alignment with those in Northern Ireland following the work of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, when he was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie are clearly needed, as they shift the burden of criminality from vulnerable women on to the men who buy sex, the traffickers, the pimps and the platforms that facilitate and profit from prostitution. Quite simply, my noble friend Lady Goudie has my full support.

I move on to address Amendments 316A and 316B in my name. Commercial sexual exploitation is a continuum. Women move from one form of prostitution to another. For example, a women may be involved in pornography production but moves to selling sex in person or vice versa. Women often go from in-person stripping to online camming sites. I hasten to add that I do not have any particular knowledge of this issue, but I am aware of it. I thought I would add that piece of information. While the location or act may change, what rarely changes is the exploitation of the women involved.

I will focus on just one aspect of this: online sexual exploitation via camming sites. These are websites where someone is requested to perform sexual activities in front of a webcam for paying subscribers. These content creators, as they are known—although I am reluctant to use the phrase, as it diminishes the exploitation—are usually women, and the subscribers are usually men; in other words, women sell sex, and men buy it. These sites come with their own specific dangers and types of exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl for that question. I have made the position of the Front Bench clear and think it is now for the Minister to answer such a testing question.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick for commencing this discussion and debate. A number of views have been expressed in Committee today and some go wider than the amendments that are before us. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised a number of issues which go beyond what is before us. My noble friend Lady Ritchie also touched on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. It is clear that there are differing views in the Committee—from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on the Front Bench opposite—which tells me that this is a truly complex area where there are very different legislative options open and where the Government need to consider very carefully what needs to be done.

The Government are absolutely committed to tackling the harms associated with prostitution and sexual exploitation, including where it takes place online. This is an important part of our work on tackling violence against women and girls which, as colleagues in the Committee will know, is a top government priority, and about which we will be saying more shortly. But we need to look at the evidence. We have limited evidence as to what will most effectively reduce demand for prostitution and disrupt exploitation without—and this is the key point that came out of some of the contributions—unintentionally causing harm to victims and survivors and making life more difficult for those who choose that lifestyle. I say to my noble friend that the Government are not in a position to accept the amendments today, but I want to make it absolutely clear that we are in the business of taking steps to tackle sexual exploitation and to gather evidence to inform further interventions in the future.

Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie would make it an offence to assist, facilitate, or control the prostitution of another person, regardless of whether the individual secures any personal gain from this facilitation. The broad wording of this offence could—and again this echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said—have an adverse consequence for people who choose to be engaged in prostitution, for example, by criminalising professionals such as healthcare support workers, charities which provide sexually transmitted infections testing or those providing contraception or safety planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made a compelling case around some of the issues that the Government have reflected on in relation to that amendment. My noble friend Lady Goudie’s amendment would also make it a criminal offence to operate a website hosting adverts for prostitution, and I will come back to that again in a moment, if I may.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie, in Amendments 316A and 316B, would introduce new criminal offences to tackle the sale of personalised sexual content online, including audiovisual and visual content. Amendment 316A would make it an offence to own, manage or facilitate one of these online platforms, while Amendment 316B would create an offence of causing or inciting an individual to sell personalised sexual content on these platforms. It would also introduce a duty on the online platform to remove personalised sexual content within 24 hours if an individual is convicted of the offence and if an individual who is incited to sell the content has requested its removal.

The Government recognise very strongly that we need to take action to tackle these websites. The so-called pimping websites need to be addressed and tackled. However, I would argue that criminalising those websites may have safety implications for people who sell sex and may result in displacement to on-street prostitution, which is more dangerous for individuals. It may also disrupt policing operations. The police can scan adult service websites for signs of vulnerability and exploitation and to gain data to support criminal investigations.

I accept that members of the Committee might want government Ministers to say that, but Changing Lives, an organisation supporting people who have been sexually exploited, also advocates against criminalising adult service websites. Instead, it is calling for stronger regulation, more referral mechanisms and more funding to support people affected by exploitation.

Amendment 311 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie would make it an offence for an individual to pay for or attempt to pay for sex either for themselves or on behalf of others. The Government have looked in detail at this approach in other countries which have taken it and have seen indications that the law can be misused to harass and victimise people engaged in prostitution. Again, that is a matter for debate and discussion, but that is the view the Government currently take.

Amendment 312, in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie, would repeal the offence in Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 which criminalises a person aged 18 or over who persistently loiters or solicits

“in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution”.

Amendment 313 would disregard prior convictions and cautions. There may be some common ground here, because I absolutely recognise the concern that this offence may criminalise vulnerable individuals and restrict their opportunities for employment. However, I am also mindful that on-street prostitution can have an impact on local communities, and it is important that we consider their views.

My noble friend Lady Goudie, were she able to be here, would say that the criminal law rightly evolved in 2015 to make it clear that children cannot be prostitutes and that any child who is paid in exchange for sex is clearly a victim of child sexual exploitation. Therefore, I would argue that it is long overdue that individuals issued cautions or convictions for the offence in Section 1 of the Street Offences Act before 2015 have their criminal records expunged.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked for details. I simply repeat: children cannot be prostitutes. Children who are paid in exchange for sex are clearly victims of sexual exploitation. The records currently in place provide significant barriers to the employment and psychological rehabilitation of those who are now adults. It is important that we look at the long-term consequences of those incidences and help support them in rebuilding their lives. That is why we have tabled government Amendment 308, which will disregard convictions and cautions for Section 1 offences issued to under 18s. Amendment 309 will provide pardons for such convictions and cautions.

In each case, what we have tried to do—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will reflect on this—is to ensure that the disregard and pardon are automatic. We do not want to retraumatise victims and survivors of childhood abuse by requiring them to go through an application process. I asked today in our internal Home Office discussions how many individuals this could impact. We have looked at the figures for the last 30 years and assess that 350 to 352 individuals would fall under the auspices of that. Someone aged under 18 30 years ago is now approaching their 50s. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that for that person an offence committed as a child would still be on their record. Something they maybe did not have responsibility for at the time would therefore impact upon their employment and life chances. Therefore, I would welcome his support for that repeal.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I entirely support what the Minister is putting forward. Is it the intention of the Home Office to track down these 350 or so individuals and notify them of the consequences of this legislation when it is enacted?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will reflect on that, but, as I said, the disregard and pardon will be automatic, so it will happen if the Bill receives the support of both Houses and Royal Assent. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said, because there may be an opportunity to consider that. However, I do not want to commit to it today, because we do not necessarily know where someone who was that age in 1995 is now—the address, contact details and so on might all be different. The key point is that this is an automatic disregard for those individuals, so if publicity is given to this new clause and the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will potentially lift a burden for those who were under 18 at the time.

The Government cannot share in the support for repeal of the Section 1 offence for those over 18, and I can give reasons for that. We will consider in future, if the Section 1 offence is repealed in its entirety, whether the disregard and pardon should be extended to adults, because that is a separate issue. However, today I wanted to focus on those under 18.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

Will the Minister consider separating the disregard and the pardon?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am trying to think how that would impact upon the issue we are talking about today. In effect, the disregard and pardon will be automatic for people under the age of 18. I will look at what the noble Earl said and discuss it with Home Office colleagues in that context.

As I have rejected the amendments in the name of my noble friend, I reassure her that there is a range of ongoing work to tackle sexual exploitation, and our intention is to continue working with the police, charities and those affected to ensure that we take action. It is important that we draw attention—as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, did—to online platforms’ legal duties under the Online Safety Act 2023, which came into play on 17 March. That Act sets out priority offences that platforms must take additional steps to tackle. In addition, I hope it will help my noble friend Lady Ritchie to know that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to cause, incite or control prostitution for gain. Those offences, together with human trafficking offences, are priority offences under the 2023 Act.

As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, indicated, platforms should now already be completing risk assessments and implementing measures to mitigate against the risk of their services being used for illegal activity and having illegal content present. Ofcom is providing recommended measures for compliance through the illegal content codes, and platforms must be able to demonstrate the measures they have taken to comply with their duties. Very significant fines of 10% of global revenue are in place, or, in extreme cases, business disruption measures.

To show that we are not ignoring the issues my noble friend has raised, I also point out that we have introduced provisions in Schedule 13 that will enable law enforcement agencies to apply to the courts to temporarily suspend for up to 12 months IP and domain names used for serious crimes such as sexual exploitation. We are also working closely with the police and other law enforcement partners to ensure that the laws we already have are effectively enforced.

Through our law enforcement partners, we are running a pilot whereby adverts are referred to the Home Office- funded Tackling Organised Exploitation Programme to consider if offences have been committed on adult service websites. In addition, as my noble friend has mentioned, our law enforcement partners are working closely with Ofcom on the issue of adult service websites to ensure that the right measures are put in place to identify and remove illegal content and safeguard people from sexual exploitation.

It may help my noble friend to know that we are providing £450,000 to the National Police Chiefs’ Council this year to pilot a national law enforcement intelligence and investigation hub for sexual exploitation, collating information on victims and perpetrators. We are also providing £475,000 to Changing Lives to provide support to those affected by sexual exploitation.

I hope the Committee can reflect on this difficult and challenging topic. I commend Amendments 308 and 309 to the Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Picking up what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about licensing sex workers, I wonder whether the Minister knows what goes on in Holland, where each individual woman is licensed as an individual business. I walked through the red-light district of a small town and saw women in all the windows, and I was told by a local Dutch councillor that all of them had pimps. They were either on the phone to their pimp or the curtains were pulled. So I suggest that licensing does not stop pimping.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that. As I said, the Home Office has examined and looked at a range of alternative methods of regulation and legislation from other countries. The issue of licensing is outside these amendments and the legislative proposals in the Bill, so I do not wish to go down that route today. But obviously we look at all experiences. Our main objective is to ensure that we support, and protect the safety of, individuals who choose to involve themselves in this work, and at the same time to ensure that no harm comes to wider society as a result of those actions. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this today, but it is not an issue that I can explore at this moment, for the reasons I have outlined.

Amendment 308 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

309: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Pardons for convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.(2) After section 165 insert—“165A Pardons for convictions etc for loitering or soliciting when under 18: England and Wales(1) Subsection (2) applies in respect of a person (whether living or deceased) who—(a) was convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution), and(b) was aged under 18 at the time of the offence.(2) The person is pardoned for the offence.(3) Expressions used in this section or section 167(1) (so far as relating to this section) and in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have the same meaning in this section or (as the case may be) section 167(1) as in that Chapter (see section 101 of that Act).”.(3) In section 167 (sections 164 to 166: supplementary)—(a) in subsection (1) for “or 165” substitute “, 165 or 165A”;(b) in subsection (2) for “or 165” substitute “, 165 or 165A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for pardons for persons convicted of or cautioned for loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution when they were under 18.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for moving this amendment, which, as she says, seeks to accelerate the commencement of the 2023 Act. The intention behind the amendment is clear and wholly understandable: to ensure that victims of sex-based harassment benefit from protections that Parliament has already approved, and to do so without further delay.

Without doubt, there is a shared desire across this House to see individuals, particularly women and girls, better protected from harassment in public spaces, and while I entirely understand that commencement provisions often involve important practical and operational considerations, including the readiness of policing and guidance frameworks, and that there has to be an explanation of the implications of altering the timetable set out in the original Act, we on these Benches recognise the motivation behind the amendment and the concerns that it seeks to address.

If the Government do not agree with the amendment, we look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress there has been towards commencement and whether the approach proposed here would assist the effective implementation of the Act’s provisions.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising the important issue of public sexual harassment. As has been discussed, Amendment 315 seeks to automatically commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. I remind the Committee that this Government have been responsible for periods of activity since July 2024, not for two years. As members of the Committee will know, tackling public sexual harassment is an important part of the Government’s mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls in a decade.

As the Committee knows, and as I have said on numerous occasions, including today, the new violence against women and girls strategy is to be produced as soon as possible. It will include a range of actions to tackle sexual harassment. I reassure the noble Baroness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, that the measures we are developing within this to address sex-based harassment include options for commencement of the 2023 Act.

I echo fully the sentiments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and agree that timely implementation of legislation is an important principle to follow. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that, if we pass legislation, we must look to introduce it. The Government have heard what noble Lords have said: namely, that we need to set a timeline for the commencement of the 2023 Act. It is important to fully consider the issues of implementation of the new offence, including engagement with the police and operational partners. We want to ensure that, when the offence comes into force, it is used often and well.

I assure all noble Lords who have spoken today that the Government intend to commence this offence as soon as is reasonably practicable. By bringing the provisions of the 2023 Act into force through the usual commencement regulations, we can ensure that this can be timed so that the police and others are ready. Accordingly, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to be patient and wait for our violence against women and girls strategy, which will appear in short order. In the meantime, I hope she is content to withdraw the amendment.

I say that because we are looking at options to commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023. We believe that it will tackle this issue and ensure that women feel safer on our streets. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as with all primary legislation, we need a preparatory period, but my officials in the Home Office, along with my ministerial colleagues, are working through the next steps. We are taking the time to get this right. I assure noble Lords that we will provide an update in due course and that they will not have too long to wait.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am struggling to get what I have just heard right. Earlier this evening, we discussed a number of amendments in which we were not supported because we expect to see the strategy on violence against women and girls. This is completely different. There is legislation that is on the books but has not been commenced. Can the Minister explain why it cannot be commenced now? It is a completely different issue from what is going to be in the strategy, where there may be surprises. The Minister has told us that it will be commenced. What is the delay?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are looking with police and other partners at the stage at which we wish to commence the legislation. We have been in office since July last year; my honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Minister for Safeguarding, is undertaking a considerable amount of work to pull together the strategy, which we expect to be able to announce in very short order. As part of that strategy, we are looking at a range of measures, including harassment. I accept that that is on the statute book now, but it is important that we produce a package of measures that is whole and includes a range of things, which I am not at liberty to talk about today but are in genesis for the violence against women and girls strategy that we will publish shortly.

We are now in Committee. Report will happen at a later stage in this Session. I very much expect that by then we will have published our violence against women and girls strategy, and I hope that at that stage the noble Baroness will not need to look at pressing this amendment further. For the time being, I ask her to give us time to consult further, make sure we implement this correctly and allow the violence against women and girls strategy to be published. I would be grateful if she would not push her amendment at this stage but reflect on what I have said. If not, we will return to this in due course.

Angiolini Inquiry

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the three moving statements from the families of Sarah Everard, Zara Aleena and Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman must act as a reminder that too little has changed since their murders and, worse, since the inquiry was set up. These four women represent the safety of women in our country.

The Minister’s Statement is sparse; while it is good that the Statement says the Government will act, it is just not yet. I say gently to the opposition spokesperson that not much happened under the previous Government either. This is a difficult issue, and I realise that the detail needs to be sorted, but many of the recommendations in the part 2 report are very clear to most of us who are involved in home affairs issues because we debate them time and again in Questions, debates and legislation. For me, the key issue is that because the violence against women and girls document is not yet published, there appear to be zero commitments from government.

In 2021 the UN survey of over 1,000 women reported that 71% in the UK had experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space at some point in their lives. One of the key recommendations is number 20,

“Empowering and engaging citizens to take action”.

I will focus on this and some of the softer issues, because they may be harder for a Government to deliver. With great respect to both this Government and the previous Government, changing a culture is difficult and the Home Office cannot change culture on its own.

What ideas are there to create a strong campaign explaining that sexual harassment is not acceptable and should never be normalised, that women should not have to live their lives on high alert the whole time, and that they should not feel guilty because of how they look? These are all key points made in the inquiry report. Whatever this campaign is, it also needs to cover social media and the digital world, given all the work that is happening in your Lordships’ House to try to make sure that bad influences are moderated by sensible behaviour. It covers education, and it involves campaigns with young people and children, and their parents and families. Lady Elish rightly says that this is a society-wide problem; it is, and it is urgent.

Recommendation 22,

“Information and early intervention for men and boys to create a culture of positive masculinity”,

is also essential and equally urgent. In the Crime and Policing Bill, as well as many other pieces of legislation, we are trying to combat the appalling culture that is normalising the sexualisation of young girls and women, pushing boys and men to accept stereotypical roles as dominant partners in a relationship, and violence is often not far away. The Tate brothers have made a fortune by creating an obscene and abnormal online society on which young boys and men are fed without any counternarrative. What do the Government propose to do to begin to remedy this?

The report also recommends designing out crime officers. I remember in the late 1990s, when I was bursar of a Cambridge college, that the Blair Government made clear recommendations to councils about designing out crime. If the Government are going to act on recommendation 18,

“Increased use of police Designing Out Crime Officers in the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces”,

will the Government ensure that local government planning committees must also consider this, and that there will be training for officers and planning committees as to why it is so important?

On data, it is appalling that, after murders and violence against women have received so much attention, data collection remains inconsistent and forces still use different systems. The report notes that the NHS has fared much better, but it has learned the hard way that common systems are critical if problems throughout the country are to be dealt with. Pilots are a typical way that Governments try out new ideas. The report notes institutionally poor sharing of good practice or funding rollout, so money for a pilot dies with the pilot and therefore nothing else will happen because when it is rolled out there is no money for it. I know from stalking and other VAWG issues that police, and other professionals and partners, are often left out of data collection. There is often groupthink over issues, and that needs to be addressed. Lady Elish rightly pointed out that:

“Prevention is the first Peelian principle”,


but it must not only remain within the police. What will the Government do to remedy this problem? Lady Angiolini also says that this must happen immediately. This is a tough ask, but an essential one. She sets out who needs to be involved in seeing the data, including His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. This is right and it is urgent. Will the Government act on the first part of this recommendation straight away, as she proposes?

Above all, I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies: when will the Government launch their own VAWG strategy? Will they, and the police, not start on any of the recommendations until after that launch or, worse, after the usual consultation? Will all the recommendations be fully and properly funded, because if not, as Lady Elish said so powerfully last week, women are still at risk this Christmas?

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

I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their comments on the report. I start where they started, with remembering Sarah Everard and her horrific murder, which instigated this inquiry. She and all the other women who have been murdered deserve an effective response from government because she is a daughter, a sister and a friend, and the family demand and want answers. We are in a position to be able to help prevent murders.

Colleagues in the House will know that this a second part of recommendations by Lady Elish, and I thank her and her team for the work they have done on this. Noble Lords will know that part 1 included 13 recommendations—three for government and 10 for police—directed at the Home Office to improve the response to non-contact sexual offences. To date, we are delivering against those 13 recommendations, including measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which noble Lords are aware of. A number of questions have been asked, but I emphasise again that it is simply not acceptable that women should live in fear of attack by random men in the streets of their own town, for domestic violence to continue and for the attack that led to the murder of Sarah Everard not to be resolved by government.

Colleagues—shadow Ministers and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—have asked similar questions and I will try respond to those issues. Let me be clear to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the violence against women and girls strategy is being finalised. We will publish it as soon as possible. Last week, for example, the Prime Minister and the Safeguarding Minister held an event with stakeholders, including victims and their families, to discuss the progress on the VAWG strategy. It will deliver a whole-system response. There is a need for us to consult with colleagues in the Department for Transport, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that our public spaces are safe for everyone. I assure both noble Lords that the strategy is to be published shortly; although I cannot give a date today, but it will be published in very short order.

That does not mean that we have to wait for the strategy to act—which goes to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, acknowledged, the Government have invested £13.1 million to launch the new National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection, to provide co-ordinated national leadership to improve the public response. Thanks to initiatives and the strong push of my honourable friend Jess Phillips, we have introduced domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, which we are rolling out at the moment. We are also rolling out domestic abuse protection orders and have put in place the strengthening of the management of registered sex offenders. We are also improving the response to stalking. There are measures on that in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before the House.

We intend to take forward reforms to the vetting and misconduct systems, so that those who commit crimes such as violence against women and girls have no place in policing. This is extremely important. As I know the noble Lord, Lord Davies, feels very strongly about, in the forthcoming White Paper, being published very shortly, we will set out a package of reforms to policing to ensure that policing can focus on the crimes that matter to the public and drive out waste and inefficiency. We will also look at how we can build on some of the big operations, such as Operation Soteria and Project Vigilant, which have been funded through the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and in which we have invested over £13.1 million.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, rightly pointed to how we can tackle what I will call “negative masculinity”, which is prevalent and very much encouraged by what I regard as some poisonous online activity. We must ensure we tackle that at root cause. That is why, in advance of the response to part 2 of the inquiry, the Department for Education in England has updated the statutory guidance on RSHE with a focus on helping pupils understand the markers of a healthy relationship and how to navigate online safety.

I am being pressed, rightly, on our response to the recommendations in part 2. I simply say to both noble Lords that we published part 1 of part 2 last week, and we intend to take our time to study the recommendations clearly to make sure we can respond to that, as part of the violence against women and girls strategy, which, as I have said, will come very soon. It is simply not acceptable that, as the inquiry found, one in 20 adults per year is recorded as a perpetrator of violence against women and girls. It is a clear sign that violence against women and girls is a national emergency, which is why this Government have committed to bringing forward the strategy very shortly, to ensure that we set out a road map to halve violence against women and girls over the next 10 years.

It is important that we have an effective strategy. The recommendations of the Angiolini report will be part of how we respond to that, and I very much hope we will be able to do that shortly in our violence against women and girls strategy. We are therefore working hand in hand with Lady Elish’s recommendations. We have responded to part 1 by accepting those 13 recommendations, and we continue to press the police to improve their performance in meeting those recommendations. I hope that very shortly we will be able to bring forward that violence against women and girls strategy and do justice to the memory of Sarah and others who have been murdered.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister reflect on Wayne Couzens’s application to become an authorised firearms officer? Those assessing and processing his application were not able to assess the information about the alleged 2015 indecent exposure allegation. If they had been able to do that, his application would obviously have been rejected. All in all, the assessment of the suitability of Wayne Couzens was a lot more lax than had he been a member of the public applying for either a shotgun licence or a firearms licence. Will the Minister reflect on this and see whether lessons can be learned from this part of what was a very long-running investigation and a saga that caused an enormous amount of stress and distress? The Minister was quite right to underline that. I compliment him on how he handled this matter and how his department expedited this inquiry. It is an object lesson to other departments, which have put in place non-statutory investigations and inquiries, that this was done thoroughly and at speed and that it commanded a great deal of public confidence.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on how the department handled this inquiry that was initially commissioned by the previous Government. As the sponsoring Minister in the Home Office for inquiries, I have been clear that we need to ensure that we have recommendations, that the inquiry is kept to a budget and that those recommendations come as speedily as possible, so that, as the noble Baroness indicated, they can be implemented as a matter of urgency once the Government have had a chance to assess them. I have met Lady Elish on a number of occasions to discuss the progress of the inquiry—to hear not what she is going to say but how the inquiry has reached its conclusions. I am pleased to say that it is proving an effective way of managing the inquiry.

In the case of Wayne Couzens, vetting clearly failed. It is clear that there are lessons to learn about how police officers are vetted. The Government have brought forward proposals already, and we will continue to work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to look at how we can improve vetting, to ensure that the police officers who serve the public have the confidence of the public. We can do that by ensuring that there is a proper vetting system to weed out individuals who have potentially committed offences—in the case of the police officer, Wayne Couzens, that self-evidently happened.

There are lessons to be learned, and we will look at them. We are already working on vetting. It is important that we put the strongest mechanism in place to maintain the integrity of the police force. Quite simply, what happened in the abhorrent case of the murder of Sarah Everard is unacceptable. I do not wish to have a situation whereby other police officers in the force, or joining the force, engage in that type of activity.

Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 15 October 2025.

The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address historic underinvestment in the training of domestic workers by UK employers and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative. The skills charge is currently paid by employers looking to sponsor skilled workers for visas lasting more than six months; it also applies if they wish to extend the employment for a further limited period. Senior and specialist workers also pay the charge unless they are an EU national coming to work in the UK for less than three years. The increase will not prevent service supply by intra-corporate transferees continuing as it does currently, in line with our international trade commitments.

The charge, which is paid up front by employers, has raised approximately £2.7 billion since it was introduced. That income is providing financial support to help maintain existing skills budgets across the whole of the United Kingdom, which is important for a range of reasons, including ensuring that immigration is not seen as the sole solution to deal with skills shortages. As education and skills are devolved, the income raised is helping to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations; it is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett formula.

These regulations give effect to a government commitment in the immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, to increase the immigration skills charge by 32%. That is in line with inflation and takes into account the period since the charge was introduced, when no increases have been effected. This will mean that, from 16 December 2025— a few days from now—medium and large employers will need to pay £1,320 per person whom they sponsor per year. There will continue to be a reduced rate for small and charitable organisations of £480 per person per year. As I mentioned, the money raised will continue to support skills programmes across the country.

Upskilling workers already here in the UK will also help us fill future jobs in our country. It will reduce the need for businesses and organisations to rely on recruiting international workers. The Government have been clear that the levels of net migration have been too high and must come down.

As is currently the case, there will continue to be exemptions from the charge, such as where an employer is seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations; where they are recruiting a person who is switching from the student route; or where the person is being recruited for less than six months. These regulations also make a minor update to the list of exempt occupations to reflect the latest occupational codes from the Office for National Statistics. Crucially, they do not add to or remove any occupations that are currently exempt, but, in some cases, they reflect where occupations have been separated from groups.

We have set out a comprehensive plan to restore order to our broken immigration system. We must ensure that the system strikes the right balance. The immigration skills charge is designed to ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in skills. These regulations support the Government’s ambition to reduce overall net migration and to aid our resident workforce in finding high-quality jobs through skills training. I commend them to the Grand Committee and beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest: I am supported by RAMP. Inflationary increases are recognised as an appropriate way to deal with charges of this sort. I will return to the amount and what has been happening since 2017 in a moment, but the core policy intent of the charge remains the same: to encourage employers to look at training resident workers rather than recruiting internationally.

The impact assessment accompanying the regulations suggests that the increase will have only a small disincentive effect, putting off “less than 1%” of sponsorships that would have occurred without the higher charge. The overall package of immigration measures, including the ISC increase, is estimated to reduce net immigration by between 1,000 and 2,000 people per year. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that this net effect is very small in relative terms as compared to the number of people in this country: it represents about 0.3% of long-term immigration figures.

Although the Government aim to reduce reliance on international recruitment, the job needs are exceeding training provision. In any case, there are the implications of the increasing need for jobs as we face the growing older demographic—a subject to which I will come in a moment. For employers, the ISC is simply a mandatory fee that must be factored into hiring budgets, and there is no direct benefit or service provided in exchange for the outlay; the fee cannot be passed on to the sponsored worker.

For us, a significant point of contention is the application of the increase to the health and social care sector. Increasing the charge for the health and social care sector is a mistake in our view, because this penalises hospitals and care homes attempting to hire desperately needed staff. The increase transfers money from the National Health Service to the Home Office, when GPs, hospitals and hospices desperately need funds. The Government are trying to ensure that the public sector, like the private sector, recruits from the British workforce, but transitioning takes time, and estimates of posts required are far outstripping the provision and recruitment to training opportunities in order to fill those posts.

The ISC rates have not changed since the charge was introduced in 2017. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that, when asked why the charge had not increased previously, the Home Office responded only that

“there have not been any substantive reviews of the ISC”

and, importantly,

“Ministers had not sought to make changes”.

I am not suggesting that it was the current Minister, but somebody somewhere was asleep on the job. Perhaps the Minister can inform us why that has not happened in the intervening years and why businesses will therefore now be subjected to a large increase because we did not continue with the proper process of increasing with inflation each year.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also considered the Home Office’s replies on plans for future timely reviews of the charge to be “unhelpfully vague”, so it remains for the Minister today, I am afraid, to be encouraged to ensure that the ISC will be kept under regular review to ensure that it retains its real-terms value and to avoid large step changes in the amounts payable in the future.

The SLSC says that the Home Office “did not respond” to it regarding consultation on these increased charges. The SLSC says that, if no consultation was undertaken, it regretted that and suggested that that would continue a trend of “inadequate consultation” on many immigration policies. Can the Minister correct the committee? Alternatively, will he take into account its criticism of what is happening inside the department? The Home Office deemed a formal public consultation unnecessary, arguing that it would be

“disproportionate given the nature of the changes”.

A 32% increase is not a disproportionate amount, so some form of public consultation should have been undertaken.

I have five questions. First, I want to concentrate on the impact upon the health and social care sector and the transfer of money from the NHS. I do not know whether the Government plan to undertake a study of what impact this has on the NHS and our care services, but if they wanted to find out how much cost falls upon the National Health Service, it would be difficult to track down. The Budget produced last week—these are documents from the Budget—says that, between now and March, £48 million will be raised from these charges. In the year from next April, it will be £180 million. Altogether, that is a substantial amount of money in the next 15 or 16 months. It is necessary to understand how much of that charge falls upon the National Health Service, because taking with one hand and giving with another is not a way of ensuring that we get appropriate transparency of public funding. The documents produced for the Budget say that the £180 million next year will be offset by increased DEL expenditure, but we have just heard from the Minister that the DEL expenditure is going on training.

My main question is: if they are putting this money towards training, to achieve the objective set out by the Minister at the outset, getting domestic employment rather than none, it is important to understand how much of that charge is being taken from the NHS budget. According to the statement just made by the Minister, it is certainly not transferred back into the National Health Service, as far as we can understand it. This is really a question about how we can measure that impact and whether, if there is a negative impact, the Government will try to reduce the rate for the National Health Service to the charitable small organisation rate, so that we can at least minimise the hit upon that service.

The impact assessment estimates that the increase in the immigration skills charge will deter less than 1% of sponsorships. Does the Minister believe that this modest impact is sufficient to address the stated objective that levels of net migration—I am talking here about illegal migration for work—have been too high and must continue to come down? That impact is quite small compared with what I suspect the need is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and setting out their purpose. These regulations increase the immigration skills charge, or ISC, for the first time since its introduction eight years ago in 2017, and they align it with inflation. This is a sensible measure, and we are pleased to support it.

As has been noted, the ISC raises revenue to support skills funding, and, in the words of the Migration Advisory Committee, it also encourages employers to invest in the development of domestic workers rather than relying on migrant labour. We welcome the Government’s recognition that the charge should reflect the rising cost of living and their continued focus on linking skills, migration and wider labour market policies. By increasing the charge by 32%, it is estimated that the ISC could raise an additional £180 million. This could contribute to funding skills development in priority sectors and, over the medium term, reduce reliance on migration.

We also observe that, while this measure is straightforward and proportionate, it is important to consider its impact on businesses. We recognise that the charge is lower for certain sponsors, such as charities and small businesses, which helps to mitigate any disproportionate effect. None the less, we encourage the Government to continue monitoring the balance between supporting skills investment and avoiding undue burdens on employers.

We also take the opportunity to underline that the original purpose of the ISC is to support skills development in the United Kingdom. While the income raised is not hypothecated, it does contribute to maintaining the Department for Education’s skills budgets, which, in turn, supports apprenticeships and workforce development. We hope that the Government will continue to ensure that this connection between the charge and skills investment remains robust and effective.

In conclusion, we welcome the increase in the immigration skills charge. We recognise its potential to help upskill the domestic workforce and encourage employers to invest in British talent, while also contributing to the broader objective of aligning skills and migration policy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his broad support for the measure before the Committee. I am also grateful for his questions, which I hope to answer in line with the questions from the noble Lord, Lord German.

As noble Lords will be aware, the immigration skills charge has not been increased since it was introduced in 2017. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked me why that was the case. Had I been the Minister then, it would have been increased on an annual basis, but that was not the case. Now that I am the Minister, it is being increased. I hope that that is helpful.

The charge has risen by 32% because that is the rise in the consumer prices index between 2017 and March 2025. That is a fair increase to make in these times, in order to achieve the Government’s objectives, which remain to invest in training and to ensure that we reduce net migration.

Both noble Lords asked whether this will be kept under regular review. The answer is yes. I am responsible overall for examining budget matters with the Home Secretary in the Home Office. I will make sure that, as part of our annual reviews, this charge is looked at—along with a range of other charges for a range of other services. It is important that we undertake that.

Noble Lords asked whether there was consultation on this matter. The skills package, which was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the measures on raising the charge price were trailed in the immigration White Paper, which was subject to widespread consultation; it has also had much debate and discussion in both Houses, as well as among the public at large. I accept that there has been no specific consultation on the immigration charge itself, but the trail was put in the immigration White Paper. As noble Lords know, the Explanatory Memorandum says that, when the immigration White Paper was published, the devolved Governments were invited to discuss and contribute to it. It is a tax, and therefore a full regulatory impact assessment is not required.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the National Health Service. First—this also goes to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—the Home Office is the point of collection for money, but that money is given to the Treasury, which disburses it elsewhere. As ever, the Treasury remains all-seeing and all-powerful in all matters; we are simply the conduit for such funds to be passed on in due course.

Following another question from by the noble Lord, Lord German, it is difficult to give a figure on the costs to the National Health Service because of a range of factors. They include: which organisations sponsor a worker; whether they are large or small organisations, in the health service context; whether the people being recruited are exempt, such as those with PhD roles and students; and how many people are ultimately recruited. Again, I have overview of this, so I will look at that and at the impact on the health service as a whole.

We keep all immigration routes under regular review, including charges. We also keep under review—in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—the impact on businesses.

As I hope both noble Lords have recognised, the broad purpose of this instrument is to encourage businesses, first and foremost, to look at training a UK-based workforce, recruiting a UK-based workforce, and recruiting workers from overseas only if they have a shortfall or feel that such workers bring specific skills. If they bring a set of specific skills or are on the exempt list, there will be no charge. If they are not on the exempt list and do not bring specific skills, there will be a cost to the employer, but, again, the employer must decide whether that is a cost worth bearing because they are recruiting individuals who help make them productive and efficient.

I hope that, with those remarks, I have answered both noble Lords’ concerns; I welcome their views. I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.