Asylum Accommodation

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

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

The Government are confident that the level of due diligence carried out on sites has improved since 2024 and that value-for-money assessments now take place at the appropriate stage. I can assure the noble Lord that lessons have been learned from large site acquisitions that occurred under the previous Government and are now being implemented to inform our future accommodation procurement.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. A previous Permanent Secretary to the Home Office told a Select Committee of the House of Commons that there were a thousand lessons to be learned. I am not going to ask the Minister to outline the answers to all those thousand lessons, but can I specifically ask him about the practice of transporting people long distances to Croydon and other places, simply to have video conferencing interviews? It is an absolute waste of money; surely provision could be provided on-site.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the improvements that the Government intend to make is to ensure that interviews take place on-site. That is good for cost, for the people being interviewed and for the taxpayer as a whole.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Government are proposing to spend over £1 million refurbishing the Cameron barracks in Inverness to house asylum seekers. Will he promise that there will be a similar amount of money to refurbish other barracks that are currently occupied by our soldiers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness will know that the UK Government, with this Labour Party now as the prime mover, have invested a considerable amount of resource in improving accommodation for troops across the country, including the biggest-ever engagement in improving accommodation for service men and women in their communities. That is one thing we are trying to do. We are, at the moment, looking at Cameron barracks as one of the options. We are undertaking due diligence, and no final decisions have been taken. In the event of any decision being taken, we will make sure that the accommodation is up to a decent standard, which I think is only fair to those who are using it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, on the question of barracks, Crowborough barracks in East Sussex is routinely used for the Kent and Sussex Army Cadet Forces as well as the local school CCFs, but it seems that the Home Office will now be turfing them out and using the barracks for accommodation for asylum seekers. At the same time, the Government say they want to support young people. Do the Government really think that this is a good example of how to treat and invest in tomorrow’s UK citizens?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, we have announced that we wish to examine the opportunity for Crowborough barracks. We are under- taking due diligence at the moment. That involves discussions with a range of authorities, including the police, local authorities, the local health service and, indeed, the local Member of Parliament. No final decision has been taken as yet.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that servicemen’s accommodation is in the terrible state it is in because the last Government privatised it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering: this Labour Government have invested more money in servicepeople’s housing than any Government previously over the last few years. We have done that to upgrade housing that was left to go to wrack and ruin by the previous Government. I am proud of the fact that my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence have committed to that, have seen it through and are improving standards for service men and women across the country.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know my view that the best barracks for sailors are ships. I am sure he would agree that the way of getting around it from that side of life is that we should order as many ships as possible as quickly as possible. Does he agree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am afraid these are turning into defence questions, but I shall do my best. I simply say to my noble friend that the previous Government did invest in putting people on ships; it was called the “Bibby Stockholm”. As a result of the failures of the “Bibby Stockholm” to provide a decent standard of accommodation, one of the first actions that this Government took was to scrap it and to provide better-quality accommodation for people who were arriving in this country in large numbers, largely as a result of the failure of the last Government to achieve stopping the boats in the first place.

Sydney Terrorist Attack

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any implications of the terrorist attack in Sydney for the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, as the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have said, the Government are appalled by this act of terrorism on Bondi Beach targeting the Jewish community. It is particularly horrifying that it happened at a Hanukkah celebration. My thoughts are with the victims, their families and all those affected. There is no specific intelligence of a linked threat to the UK at this time, but we must remain vigilant and are working with the Community Security Trust and police forces to support Jewish communities, including Hanukkah events, here in the UK. The United Kingdom stands firmly with Australia and with the Jewish community of Sydney and those here in the UK, at this terrible time.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

First, my Lords, I want to praise the bravery of Mr Ahmed al-Ahmed in tackling one of the terrorists. He is clearly a better human being than I am, in that he took the rifle and then put it down, because I would have shot him.

I am afraid it appears that a small portion of our British people are under serious threat, and it is no good pretending otherwise. Will my noble friend confirm that there is positive recognition of that fact by the Government? What action can we take to make that proportion of our population safer?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend on the bravery of that individual. I watched on television yesterday the pictures of him tackling the armed gunman, and that is bravery for which he should be commended. I believe he was shot in the attempt, and I wish him well and a quick recovery.

The UK Government recognise that there are real threats to the Jewish community. That is why we have invested £28 million this year to protect Jewish places of worship, schools and community centres, and it is why we are passing measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to ensure that where there is harassment of any community—obviously, in this case, the Jewish community is at the forefront of our mind—the Metropolitan Police and other police forces can direct actions against those undertaking the harassment, in a strong and effective way. The action that took place in Sydney is simply unacceptable and our thoughts are with the Jewish community in Australia at this time, but we also need to be vigilant about the threat to the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, it is Hanukkah. What is Hanukkah? Hanukkah is when families get together, lighting the candles, celebrating the victory of light over darkness. We had another type of family, a father and son, barbarically shooting at will. This morning, I went to Western Marble Arch Synagogue and spoke to Rabbi Mendy Vogel. His first cousin was Rabbi Eli Schlanger, who was murdered. Sixteen precious souls were lost, including a Holocaust survivor and 10 year- old Matilda. May all their memories be for a blessing.

I am tired of listening to people saying, “We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the community”. That means nothing when there are dead Jews on the ground, whether in Manchester or Sydney. If noble Lords are not clear what “Globalise the intifada” means, it was on our TV screens yesterday. I ask the Minister to act. Such hate speech must be outlawed and the IRGC and the Muslim Brotherhood proscribed. If the Minister and other noble Lords wish to show solidarity, they can come outside to Parliament Square at 6.30 pm and join members of the Jewish community to light the Hanukkah candles.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord should know, and I think he does, that this Government condemn the attacks, condemn antisemitism and stand with the Jewish community. He asks what we are doing. We are putting in resources to support the Community Safety Trust and giving the police extra powers. We will not tolerate antisemitism and, as he knows, we will continue to keep under review organisations that pose a threat to the safety of members of the United Kingdom community, whether Jewish or anyone else. We will keep under review the proscriptions that he has mentioned; I cannot comment on that today, as he knows, but that does not take away from the fact that this Government stand with the Jewish community at this time and condemn those attacks. We will work with anyone to ensure that the scourge of antisemitism is ended.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I associate these Benches with the Minister’s words of condolence with regard to the victims--including, as we heard, a 10 year-old girl and a survivor of the Holocaust—innocent people targeted purely because they were Jewish. But we also saw an intervention by a bystander who just happened to be Muslim, which emphasises the evil intent of the perpetrators. I also commend the Community Security Trust for its proactive outreach yesterday to the Jewish community. The CST supported over 100 Hanukkah candle lightings across the UK with volunteers, but the Minister must know that many Jewish children and Jewish students are particularly worried at this time. Can he say more with regard to how the Government are both reassuring and giving practical security assistance, specifically for schools and university campuses, to that particularly vulnerable group who are very worried?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Prime Minister had already tasked Government Ministers to look at what else we can do, prior to yesterday’s events. The Prime Minister has also tasked the police forces, via the Home Secretary, to look at how we can step up security patrols to give reassurance in neighbourhoods where there are synagogues and events occurring. It is absolutely vital that people are free to enjoy and celebrate their religion, and to enjoy their family community events. I say that not just of the Jewish community, but of all religions and for those people who have none. We cannot accept a situation whereby people with warped views commit atrocious acts of violence against children, women and Holocaust survivors—people enjoying their day on a beach. We cannot accept that circumstance and this Government will work with anybody to ensure that we protect our communities from similar attacks.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, the Christian community has a special responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Jewish community, not only in Australia but in this country and around the world. In view of the fact that it was revealed that one of the people who committed this atrocity had already been examined by the Australian police as a potential terrorist, is there a case in this country for re-examining some people who have been examined in the past?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble and right reverend Lord will accept that I cannot comment on active live Australian investigations. It would be inappropriate for me to do so as a UK Government Minister, but in any UK context it would simply be the same. There has to be a due process to investigate what has happened and why, but, self-evidently, we need to ensure that our security services and police services in the United Kingdom, as well as the work we do in the Home Office and across government, can identify and monitor where there are potential threats, and take action to prevent those threats materialising into the type of action taken yesterday. That is an ongoing challenge but it is something that our security services do daily and will continue to do. I know that they have the support of both Houses of Parliament in that activity.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest because Rabbi Schlanger, who was murdered in this atrocity, was my relative too. Most Jewish festivals are commemorated privately at home or in synagogue, but Hanukkah is celebrated publicly. That is why my response to this atrocity is going to be to go to Parliament Square this evening to light a Hanukkah menorah, proudly and publicly. But so far as the Government’s response is concerned, while we are always grateful for support for the Community Security Trust, the debate about Jewish security needs to move away from being about higher walls around our synagogues and more guards outside our schools and on to the root causes of why we need such security. Will the Minister explain what the Government are actually doing in practical terms to counter the extremist ideologies which are driving this antisemitic violence, and to remove them and their proponents from our social media, out of our universities and off our streets?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I offer my condolences to the noble Lord for his loss. I cannot be with him this evening, because I will be in the Chamber dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill, but if I were not, I would certainly be standing in solidarity with him. The noble Lord asked what we are doing. I have given a range of things that the Government will do, and we are continually open to suggestions as to how we can tackle this scourge. We have already asked the noble Lord, Lord Mann, to review antisemitism in the National Health Service. We are also undertaking a review of antisemitism in universities, and we are demanding action from them to protect Jewish students.

We need to ensure that we encourage tolerance, understanding and knowledge of different religions, because there is a range of them in a multicultural society, and we need to have that tolerance. I reach out to the noble Lord to look on a cross-party basis at how we can ensure that the scourge of antisemitism and intolerance is tackled from very early on, so that we can ensure that people live their lives in an open, tolerant way, where their religion does not require armed guards at synagogues and schools. For the moment, I hope the noble Lord understands that we will support the Community Security Trust and police forces to deliver that safety, given that there are live threats, as evidenced by the recent Manchester attack.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that urgent steps should be taken to protect our national security and society by ensuring that those who disseminate antisemitic ideas—and, indeed, other vile racist ideas—can now expect to be prosecuted for doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord a definitive yes to that. There is clear legislation for police monitoring in relation to hatred and crimes of harassment that, while not leading to the type of activity that we saw yesterday—which is self-evidently a higher level of crime—should none the less be monitored and acted upon. There is no place in our society for racism; I hope that has the whole House’s support.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I was at a friend’s birthday party a few weeks ago. It was not at a school, synagogue or public place; it was a Jewish friend celebrating her birthday. She had organised security for the event, and I expressed surprise—naively. She said that this was normal for such a social gathering with a lot of the local Jewish community, which had come to celebrate her birthday.

I was very pleased to see the photo of our Prime Minister and his wife lighting the candles outside No. 10 last night; that was wonderful. However, it is not normal that a group of our society needs to have security, even at a party. My heart went out to all those people, including people in this House, who I was messaging yesterday saying, “Oh my God, I am so sorry; words fail me”. I thought that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, were absolutely on point. This is not normal. I know that my noble friend the Minister agrees, but can he say a little more about what His Majesty’s Government will do to provide education about the current, deeply ugly face of modern antisemitism in the country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful. It is important that we recognise that the Government have a responsibility in this area, but so do we all. We all have a responsibility to have no tolerance of antisemitism and racism. I will work with anybody, through the powers that we have in the Home Office, to look at how we can improve performance on those challenges. We need to ensure that, from school age through to universities and people in the workplace, intolerance is simply not accepted. I will do what I can to make sure that the Home Office responds to those challenges and looks again at what we need to do to help protect the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the APPG on Counter Extremism, and the fact that I was the UK’s first Minister for Countering Extremism. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we have repeatedly failed. I join others in sharing his loss, but that is not enough—specific action is required. Some suggestions have been given. I welcome the Minister’s call, and I am sure that there are many across the House who want to work with him on this objective. There are specific actions we can take. For example, let us join the Home Office and the Foreign Office together, ban extremist preachers at source, and not issue those visas. We cannot let this poisonous ideology destroy what we have built over centuries: not just a tolerant society, but a coherent society that is respectful of all faiths and none.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Lord will accept—given that his is the last question on this Private Notice Question—that this House will stand united against antisemitism and to support people from all faiths to celebrate and use their faiths in a positive, constructive way, both to support their own communities and to have a multicultural society where that respect goes across all our communities. As the noble Lord said, this is not about the Muslim faith; it is about a perverted view of the Muslim faith and people who are terrorists and murderers. We need to make sure that we stop the radicalisation at source and work across the community to build understanding and an open and tolerant society that respects everybody. I know that the whole House will join me in that wish.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, beginning with the amendments that regulate the name changes of sex offenders, I am glad that Members across your Lordships’ House agree on the necessity of regulations. Clause 87 is a sensible measure from the Government, and the amendments that build on its principle are similarly prudent. An individual who commits a crime as intrusive and offensive as a sexual offence demonstrates that they are a threat to public order and safety. After all, that is the reason why we have a sex offender register. Criminals who have proven that they pose a risk should be monitored by the authorities, and the authorities should have the necessary details to monitor and manage them.

Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would ensure that those who change their name by deed poll are legally required to alert the police of this change. The amendments in the name of the Minister extend the provision restricting the granting of driving licences in a new name to Northern Ireland. All these amendments seek to consolidate the existing legislation to ensure that there are no gaps there or in the Government’s new law, and we support the principle behind them.

The most consequential of the amendments in this group is that tabled by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. It would serve to bar those who commit sexual offences from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This is a very necessary measure. I am glad that the Government have not yet granted an exemption for sex-offending transgender criminals, which would allow them to attend a prison different from their biological sex. Hailing from north of the border—where, as others have commented, there have been several incidents of that happening—I believe that it is a very worrying scenario indeed.

The Government have still not implemented the Supreme Court’s judgment in the For Women Scotland case, neither in statute nor in guidance. There is still the chance that those who commit sexual offences can end up in the wrong prison through obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I am not remotely suggesting that the Government would wilfully do this, but I hope that, given their record on prisoner administration, the Minister can understand our concerns.

No safeguards currently exist outside of ministerial discretion. A way to guarantee that this does not happen would be to bar sex offenders from obtaining a certificate in the first place; it is a bare minimum. In sending such people to prison, we are admitting that they are not trustworthy among the public; why, then, should we risk the safety of prisoners of the opposite sex? For those reasons, I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister can too.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch. There are also a number of amendments in my name, which I will formally move and explain what they mean in a moment.

Clause 94, which we will come to in more detail later, provides for the police to restrict changes of name on registered sex offenders’ identity documents. Where the police consider it necessary to prevent sexual harm, they will be able to issue a notice to a registered sex offender, which may require them to apply for the police’s authorisation to change their name on specified documents. This will ensure that registered sex offenders who are deemed to be at risk of using a name change to commit sexual harm are unable to continue offending under a new name and pass under the radar of law enforcement. I am grateful for noble Lords’ broad support for the Government’s general direction of travel on these points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Does that mean that if somebody changes a name and does not inform the police, the new name can be put on the sex offenders register?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is my understanding of the position. I hope that helps the noble and learned Baroness. That is the principle behind what we are proposing here today. Again, I say to the whole Committee that this is, ultimately, management based on risk, not on gender.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

May I press the Minister on one specific point? I understand what he is saying about management of risk, but would it be possible for a convicted sex offender—a serious sex offender or rapist—to be prevented, on the basis of risk, from obtaining a gender recognition certificate, should they wish to do so? Would it be possible for that to be barred in a specific case, should that individual be assessed as posing a risk to public safety?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 ensures that convicted sex offenders are already subject to post-conviction controls. They are managed according to their risk, and the sex offenders register is about looking at the position with regard to the individual having the risk on the basis of their actions. It would not be possible to stop someone applying for a gender recognition certificate. Ultimately, they would be placed on the sex offenders register based on their risk, not on their gender. With that, I hope that the noble Lords will not press the amendments.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, may I also ask a question for clarification? It is not really about GRC but about the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made about name change. I know that the Minister covered that in his comments, but I am still left a little confused. Can a person who is a convicted sex offender and on the sex offenders register change their name by deed poll and have their new name omitted, therefore, from the sex offenders register? Surely, as soon as a sex offender changes their name, if they are changing their name from a male name to a female name, that needs to be updated on the sex offenders register.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My understanding of the position is that the individual is on the sex offenders register, regardless of the name that they are currently providing. The risk is around the individual. If a registered sex offender seeks to change their name, the provisions in the Bill will apply, as proposed in the Bill here today.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

On a final clarification—possibly the Minister will write to us, because there is some confusion—I have always said that it is about managing risk and that it has nothing to do with gender. When I have raised this issue in the past, my concern has been that once gender is added into the mix, risk somehow gets forgotten slightly.

First, the point of the sex offenders register is not just for the authorities to know that they are there but for all sorts of institutions to know. I have been told in the past that an enhanced privacy privilege is given to those who change gender. Is that not true? Therefore, even probing that means that we will leave it well alone.

Secondly, in relation to DBS checks and so on, a change of gender, a change of identity—forget the politics of it—can mean that nobody knows that you are the person on the sex offenders register. If the DBS check is in one name, there is no way of knowing that you are the same person who is the rapist. That was why I used the Clive Bundy-Claire Fox example—Clive Bundy, as Claire Fox, would not show up on DBS checks or be on the sex offenders register if they went to work with children. That cannot be right or what the Government intend.

Maybe I have got it all wrong, but nobody from the Government has reassured me. By the way, my questions and amendments in the past were to the previous Government, so this is not having a go at this Government. This has been an unholy mess over two Governments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It may help the Committee if I say that both the original name and the new name would be recorded. For clarity, where a DBS check applicant has changed their names, they are required to state all names that they have been previously known by on the application form. In submitting that form, applicants sign a legal declaration declaring that they have not knowingly provided false information. Failure to disclose previous names and deliberately avoiding detection of previous convictions would lead to an individual being liable for prosecution. I hope that helps to clarify the position with regard to the amendments. I invite the noble Lords not to press them at this stage.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am on the “how to change your name” government website, which says that if you are a sex offender, violent offender or terrorist offender, you must go to your local prescribed police station where you are known within three days of changing your name. It is a criminal offence if you do not tell the police straightaway. There will be probation and other things going on in the background as well.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is worth clarifying that this group of people are not necessarily the kind of people I trust. This idea that a local sex offender—or terrorist, since we have been talking about Bondi Beach—thinks, “God, it would be against the law if I didn’t declare that I’ve changed my name”, and would be frightened by the possibility that they would be breaking the law, seems a tad naive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the Committee that the position of any of these individuals—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned in her initial contribution—will be subject to consistently heavy management. These are serious offenders. There is a Probation Service. There is a MAPPA process. There is the registration. I have given the assurance that both names will be included in that registration.

Every piece of legislation that any House of Commons and House of Lords passes is subject to people breaking it. That happens, but there will be significant consequences in the event of that occurring. I am simply saying to the noble Baroness who has proposed this amendment, and to the proposals in the Bill that are genuinely welcome across the Committee, that there is significant supervision of sex offenders, and the requirements are as I have outlined to the Committee already. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am glad he focused on risk mitigation, and I think we got there in the final few paragraphs of his response. We need to take very seriously what he said, and I hope that if anything he said needs qualification, he will write to us subsequently, because this is a really important area.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

318: Clause 89, page 104, line 17, after “46,” insert “46A,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

320: Clause 94, page 120, line 20, leave out “driving licence” and insert “licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 16, makes it possible for the regulations made by the Secretary of State to prevent a relevant offender getting a British driving licence in a new name as a replacement for a previous driving licence issued in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

326: Schedule 10, page 285, line 39, at end insert—
“15A In section 136 (Part 2: Northern Ireland), in subsection (11), after “sections” insert “86B, 87A, 93A, 93H,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the term “Secretary of State” is not read, in relation to Northern Ireland, as meaning the Department of Justice in provisions inserted into Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where there is different provision about Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems an awful long time since my cycling proficiency test. We can debate whether standards have slipped in the 50-plus years since I took my test, but I think it is a common experience of all noble Lords who have spoken that a small minority of cyclists’ reckless actions potentially put people at risk. As a temporary resident of London during the week, I regularly see cyclists on pavements and going through red lights. I can report that, on crossing a zebra crossing one evening, I myself was almost hit by a cyclist, who was then pulled over by a police car not 100 metres later, much to my satisfaction. So it is possible for enforcement to happen.

I want to start with enforcement, because it is a thread that has run through a number of noble Lords’ contributions. It is right that strict legislation is already in place for cyclists, and the police do have the power to prosecute if these laws are broken. Cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible way that is reflected in the highway code. The Road Traffic Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, imposes a fine of £2,500 for dangerous cycling and of £1,000 for careless cycling. The Road Traffic Act 1988 also makes it an offence to ride a bike if a person is unfit to do so due to drink or drugs. A considerable amount of activity is undertaken by the police to enforce these potential breaches of legislation. In fact, the Government themselves have pledged £2.7 million for each of the next three years to support police enforcement action on road traffic offences in the form of Operation Topaz, which is a strategic partnership between the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

I was pleased also to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the City of London Police, who I know have taken this matter extremely seriously. They have cycling police officers who can catch offenders who have gone off-road into areas where vehicles or police officers on foot could not catch them, so it is important we recognise that. We have had contributions today from the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Hogan-Howe, and Lord Blencathra, who introduced amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have also heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Pidgeon and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All have touched on the issues of enforcement and whether the legislation is significant enough.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to Clause 106, which is where these amendments are coming from. Clause 106 underlines the Government’s determination that cyclists who cause death or serious injury should face the full force of the law, as if that were done by a motor vehicle. The criminal justice system should not fail fully to hold to account the small minority of cyclists whose reckless actions lead to tragic consequences. A number of contributors to the debate have mentioned their personal experiences and have also witnessed incidents. There is a whole cohort of cyclists who obey the law and who perform well, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would anticipate me saying, there is a health benefit to cycling that should be recognised and encouraged. However, there is certainly a holding to account of death and serious injury, and that is where the Government are coming from as a starting point to the debate today.

A wide group of amendments has been put forward, and I will try to touch on each amendment in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I spoke to him before he went on his short, I hope, leave of absence from the House and discussed these amendments with him briefly. I wish him well for his speedy recovery and thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing the amendments on his behalf.

Amendments 330, 338, 339, 340 and 342 would allow persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Again, let us not forget that Clause 106 contains the penalty of significant jail time, and potentially a life sentence with significant jail time added to it. I agree that dangerous or careless cyclists are a serious risk to others, but disqualification would pose significant challenges. This may touch on other, later amendments, but self-evidently, cyclists are not currently required to have licences, and the only obvious way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system. However, such a system would be complicated, costly and, I would argue, potentially disproportionate, in that it would be created solely to enforce offences perpetrated by a small minority of people. Again, I do not think the noble Lord intended his amendment to serve as a barrier to cycling, but my concern is that it would risk implementation of this and would not really be workable.

In his own right, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, introduced Amendments 337B and 337F. Again, these would introduce greater criminal penalties for cyclists riding heavier, faster e-bikes. I do understand that, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, it is e-bikes that have been illegally modified for greater speed that represent an inherently greater risk to other road users. There is no longer any weight limit, following enactment of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983, but they do specify that the electrically assisted speed for e-bikes is limited to 15.5 miles per hour. E-bikes that can achieve greater speeds would not be compliant with these regulations and therefore would be classed as motor vehicles. Because they are motor vehicles, a person using such could already be prosecuted under the existing offences in the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death or serious injury, which carry the same penalties as proposed in the new cycling offences: a life sentence with a 14-year potential sentence.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Just for clarification, the Minister said that they will be classed as motor vehicles. Does that mean they are still motor vehicles, even though they might not be registered or insured?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

They are classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of the legislation if they can travel above 15.5 miles per hour; but they are not, self-evidently, for the reasons I have already outlined, subject to the licensing arrangements that we have to date.

Mandatory uplifts based on specific vehicle type would be a novel but also an inconsistent approach to sentencing. Sentencing should always reflect the facts of the case and the level of culpability. Introducing rigid statutory additions could undermine the principle of proportionality, create inconsistency and risk setting an undesirable precedent. On the noble Lord’s amendments on changing the “careless and inconsiderate” cycling definition, I understand his desire to put beyond doubt that cycling on a pavement or in an area intended only for pedestrians should be considered as cycling without due care and attention. However, cycling on pavements is already an offence in its own right, as set out in Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, which is an awfully long time ago and has stood the test of time. It is also an offence under Section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Given that these offences are still in place, I would suggest that, along with those in the Bill for serious offences, that provides a sufficient deterrent.

Amendment 337F would insert the definition of a cycle. Again, I come back to Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which already defines cycles, and this definition includes compliant electrically assisted pedal cycles. As I said earlier, an e-bike that does not comply with the relevant legislation is a motor vehicle for the purposes of the legislation, not a cycle.

I turn to a series of amendments—341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which propose that a person could receive up to 12 points on their driving licence upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Reaching 12 points on their driving licence would, of course, disqualify them from driving a motor vehicle.

As I have mentioned already, cyclists do not require any form of licence to cycle, therefore the noble Lord proposes points on a driving licence as an alternative penalty. In the Sentencing Bill, which is currently before your Lordships’ House, there is already a new driving prohibition requirement that the court can impose when giving a community or suspended sentence order. This prohibition will allow a court to take a more flexible and tailored approach to punishment than a driving disqualification, and it will be available irrespective of the offence that has been committed. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that the provision in the Sentencing Bill goes some way towards meeting his objective.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 346A and 498A seek to create a registration scheme for the purposes of enforcing the new offences in Clause 106—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, on the point about the prohibition that might come from the Sentencing Bill, is the danger that unless the sentencing guidelines shift to reflect that new piece of legislation, you will end up with a very inconsistent approach in at least 43 police force areas as applied by the magistrates in those areas? If it is just a random event, they might lose their driving licence because of anti-social behaviour, some of which might be on a cycle. I understand the principal point that the Minister makes but I am not convinced that it will lead to a radical change in the way that cyclists are called to account through their driving licence.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is ultimately for the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the Sentencing Bill, to look at sentencing guideline issues later. I cannot give assurances on those points today. However, the Sentencing Bill is currently before this House and it is trying to look at those issues as a whole. When it is law, my noble friend Lady Levitt and others will look at guidelines and those potential enforcement issues as a matter of some urgency. The Sentencing Bill proposes, in some way, one of the issues that the noble Lord seeks to achieve.

Again, self-evidently, a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier. The absence of a registration scheme does not make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry that are open to them by examining other evidence before them at the time of any potential incident.

As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, the House must accept that the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists would mean, for example—this was mentioned in one of the contributions today—that all cycle owners, including children and those making new purchases, would have to submit their information to a central database. That central database would be required to keep the information and the ownership up to date, and some form of registration plate would need to be affixed to a cycle. To give the noble Lord one statistic, the Bicycle Association has estimated that nearly 1.5 million new cycles were sold in 2024. That is a big undertaking. I know that the noble Lord understands that, but the enforceability of the existing legislation is the key, and the work that we are doing, which I have opened my remarks with, would be key to that and would counterbalance the potential cost to the public purse of establishing the registration scheme.

Amendment 346B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks for e-bikes, which are currently faster and more powerful, to be treated as motorbikes or mopeds for policing purposes. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 mean that e-bikes which do not comply with existing regulations will be treated as motor vehicles for policing purposes. The Department for Transport, which has overall responsibility for these areas, has published fact sheets explaining that e-bikes which do not comply with regulations will be treated as motor vehicles.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled Amendments 341, 343 and 344, which seek to reduce the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from life imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment. We have taken the view—I am pleased with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this—that the offences in the Bill bring into line this behaviour so that it is subject to maximum penalties equivalent to those already in place for dangerous driving offences, which is life imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister referred in a debate last week to a Bill currently before the House with micromobility provisions. It would be interesting to know whether the consultation has already taken place before that aspect of the Bill. I am sure that it is in his notes, but I cannot for the life of me remember what Bill it was. Also, the amount of funding from the Home Office that the department has announced is an operational matter. It is very welcome, but how will he ensure that each individual force such as the Met will use that money and implement enforcement?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are operational issues. We put the money into Operation Topaz for all police forces to examine them, and ultimately it is for the forces to determine. The City of London Police has determined who is a problem in the City of London. There is a strong argument for parts of the country to face further enforcement measures because self-evidently there are problems. There will be public consultation before any new regulations come into force. It is a Department for Transport matter, so I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to reflect on that with regard to when the consultation is. I will get back to her as a matter of course.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 344 seeks to require reporting annually on cycling offences. We already publish annual statistics on those killed and seriously injured—in fact, a number of noble Lords and Ladies have quoted those in the debate today. Therefore, I suggest that this is already covered.

Amendment 346, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to make it an offence to tamper with an e-bike. I accept that some people may well tamper with or modify their e-bikes to increase their speed, but as I already mentioned, this is already an offence under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Should the police issue a fixed penalty notice, this would result in a £300 fine and six penalty points, and should the case go to court, it could result in an unlimited fine and driving disqualification.

I have tried to cover a number of points; I apologise for not referring individually to every point made by every noble Lord. The broad thrust is that there is a problem—we recognise that. There should be enforcement—we are trying to address that. There is a new measure in the Bill, Clause 106, to increase the level of penalty for causing death and serious injury by dangerous cycling. We recognise that and I welcome the support of the House. A range of discussion points and measures have been brought forward today around lifting, increasing or changing the penalties accordingly. We may well revisit those on Report, but the Government are right in recognising the problem, putting some money into enforcement and making dangerous cycling and causing death by cycling further offences with serious consequences.

I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw and not to press his amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am sorry that I could not be here at the beginning of this group. My noble friend has given a very encouraging response to the many amendments—

[Lord in waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has gone over time, but in any case the noble Lord needed to be here at the start of the group to be able to intervene during the debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful. This Minister would not have gone over time had he not given way, but he now has gone over time and so will sit down. I commend the course of action that I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his decency in replying as fully as he possibly could. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there are many more groups to go on cycling, and I think he will have a chance of input there.

The general thrust that the Minister detected is one thing, but, if I may say so, my forecast was right. I said at the beginning that the general thrust I would detect was that Peers from all sides would be highly critical that not enough is being done. Clause 106 is okay as far as it goes, but there is a much wider problem out there, as articulated by nine other Peers from all sides, in addition to me. My noble friends LadyMcIntosh of Pickering and Lady Stowell asked why this never-ending consultation is taking place. Someone said that, as this is a Home Office Bill, why does it not just get on with it? It may be a Home Office Bill, but it is the Department for Transport’s policy, and that is where the rot lies.

Those who criticised the last Government were absolutely right to do so. I condemn in no uncertain terms the Department for Transport under the leadership from 2019 to 2022 of Mr Grant Shapps, who was obsessed with getting more and more e-bikes and e-scooters on the road. The reason the consultations were extended was, in my view, and in what was tipped off to me, that he wanted to get so many more e-bikes out there that it would be impossible to pull back on them. It is like the police saying that everybody is shoplifting and so there is nothing they can do about it. Mr Shapps wanted to say, “Everyone has got e-bikes now, so we cannot put in a registration system and we cannot control them”.

If noble Lords want further evidence of the Department for Transport’s attitude, in February 2024 it went out to consultation again. The consultation was to double the size of the electric motor from 250 watts to 500 watts and to introduce an additional speeding system. There were 2,100 responses; the vast majority of professionals—police forces and others—totally condemned it, and the Department for Transport had to pull that back, and rightly so. But mark my words, it will try it on again and again.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very good point: why should cyclists have a right to a healthy life but not the pedestrians who are getting mowed down? He tabled some good amendments that would be excellent. He made the point that although everyone has called for more enforcement, you cannot have more enforcement if you do not know the bike and the identity of the person riding it.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that the amendments just do not go far enough. She used the term Wild West. I assume she was quoting the press release—I have it here—from the Mayor of London, Mr Sadiq Khan, who said that very thing last month: London is now a Wild West for e-bikes.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made an absolutely excellent speech, and I commend him for it. He is right to say that we have boosted cycling, which is a good thing, but have not boosted the safety protocols. He is right about cyclists jumping red lights. You do not have to go far to see that; go to our prison gates at the Peers’ entrance and stand there and look at the pedestrian crossing and the lights. Last week, when the lights changed to red for the cars, I was halfway across when a cyclist tried to come through. I stopped and said: “Get back! Get back!” He did actually stop and move back a bit. That happens all the time. They use the red lights as an excuse; when cars stop, the cyclists belt through.

My noble friend Lord Goschen made the point that there is no enforcement at all. He wondered why anyone would bother to buy a moped or a small motorbike, when you have to have an MOT and insurance and pass a test, when they can buy an e-bike which goes 70 miles an hour and does everything you want, and you do not have to do anything to register or insure it, and no one will stop you when you break the law.

My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made the comment, rightly so, that there is a threat to disabled people. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, welcomed my definition of cycles. It is possible that that was the only thing she agreed with me on, but I will take any little crumbs of comfort. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel supported most of my amendments, as I fully support his. I did ask for tougher penalties, but I am now content that the penalties are okay.

The Minister, in his speech, which was as courteous as usual, said that only a small minority break the law. He is right, I think, when that applies to the conventional cyclists and not e-bikes. In the past, it was my experience that it was a tiny minority of Lycra louts—the ones with their heads down between the handlebars and their backsides up in the air, belting through lights. I submit that I am certain that the majority of e-bike riders are breaking the law one way or another, either by excessive speed or by riding through lights or on the pavement. I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the food delivery drivers are breaking the law, but more of that in another group. I disagree with the Minister that we cannot have a simple presumption that if people are riding a bike on the pavement then it is automatically, per se, and without any other judgment needed, seen as driving without due care and attention.

I simply say this again. I always come in with slightly more trenchant views than many other colleagues in the House, but we have had support today from colleagues with much more moderate amendments than mine. I am fairly certain we will see that when we come to the other groups. The Minister has to go back to the Department for Transport and tell it to get off its high horse and on to its bike. We must have proper amendments to toughen up the law and deal with all the other abuses of e-bikes, particularly in London. In those circumstances, on the assumption that we will be doing more work on this, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 330.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, stalking is an offence which constitutes severe harassment and can instil grave fear into victims, as we have just heard. It is absolutely right that the law bears down on perpetrators of stalking. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 gave magistrates’ courts the power to impose stalking protection orders on application by the chief officer of police. Clause 97 extends this power so that a Crown Court can impose such an order where a person has been acquitted of any other offence.

The Government will no doubt argue that they are taking the necessary action to further prevent cases of stalking through this part of the Bill, but let us not forget another Bill they are currently taking through your Lordships’ House. The Sentencing Bill will suspend sentences for anyone charged with the offence of stalking. Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that a person found guilty of stalking is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to 51 weeks—less than the 12-month time limit for the presumption of a suspended sentence order.

Furthermore, the offence of breaking a stalking protection order is also likely to lead to a suspended sentence under the Sentencing Bill. Although a custodial sentence of up to five years can theoretically be imposed on conviction on indictment, the Sentencing Council’s guidelines state that in most cases of culpability and severity the starting point will be one year’s custody, and the ranges can go down to 12 weeks in custody and even a community order. This may very well be proportionate for low-level stalking offences, but the fact is that a person with a high degree of culpability and a medium to high level of harm will fall into the range that will mean their sentence is highly likely to be suspended.

If the Government are serious about bearing down on stalking, I suggest that letting anyone convicted of that offence walk free is not a good move for the safety of the victim. The Minister might try to rebut this argument by talking about the stalking protection orders, but I gently say to him that there is no good in letting a stalker roam the streets just because they have an order slapped on them. Given the falling police numbers, what is the likelihood of a person who violates their order actually being arrested? I also suggest that victims of stalking will not feel safer simply because their stalker has been given a court order.

What makes this even worse is that there is a very real possibility that a person who breaks the terms of their suspended sentence order will still not receive a custodial sentence. Although the automatic presumption will not apply in that case, the Government have opposed Conservative amendments to explicitly exempt people with a history of non-compliance from suspended sentences. They have also resisted our amendments to exempt repeat offenders from being handed suspended sentences.

Under this Government’s legislation, there is a very real possibility that a stalker could continually stalk their victim, break their stalking protection order and their suspended sentence order and never face jail time. That is not protecting victims. Against this backdrop, I suggest that it does not matter what we do in this place regarding stalking; we can table all the amendments we like to toughen up the protection orders, but they will not protect victims or prevent stalkers if the Government let than walk free. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, did not have much to say about what is in this Bill. He has opportunities to talk about another Bill; let him do that at another time. I am talking about this Bill. He never mentioned what was going on in this Bill, the measures within it or, indeed, the amendments before us in his opening contribution—not a single word. Maybe he should reflect on that, because he has not endeared himself to me in these discussions.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Do I ever?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks, “Do I ever?”—he does occasionally, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I was not really impressed that he did not say one single word about what is currently before the Committee. Let us have a discussion about the Sentencing Bill with my noble friends Lady Levitt and Lord Timpson another time. That is being completed. Anyway, let us leave that to one side.

I hope to be helpful in part to the noble Baronesses and others who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for bringing their experience, their views and their passion for this subject to this debate. A number of amendments are before the Committee. As I said, I hope to be helpful in part on some of them.

Amendments 330A, 330AZA, 330AA, 330AB, 330B and 330C all relate to stalking protection orders, which, as Members know, are civil orders introduced in 2020 to protect victims of stalking. Amendment 330A in the name of my noble friend Lady Royall seeks to reference explicitly the required civil burden of proof—that is, on the balance of probabilities—for determining whether the behaviour of a person to be made subject to a stalking protection order amounts to acts associated with stalking. Currently, statutory guidance for the police published by the Home Office references that it is likely the courts will apply the civil burden of proof when considering stalking protection orders, but I agree with my noble friend that there could be a case for making this clearer. I therefore undertake to consider her proposals in Amendment 330A ahead of the next stage on the Bill. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who also spoke on this matter and my noble friend.

I am grateful for Amendment 330AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am particularly grateful to her for drawing her personal experience to the attention of the Committee. I had not realised the traumas that she had had in the run up to the 2010 election, but I had a quick chance to google those matters while she was speaking. It looks like it was an appalling experience. I am grateful to her for bringing it to the attention of the Committee.

The noble Baroness’s proposal in Amendment 330AA would remove the requirement for the restrictions in SPOs to avoid, where possible, conflict with the defendant’s religious beliefs and interference with their attendance at work or at an educational establishment. On this occasion, I understand the noble Baroness’s view that this could be brought out in statutory guidance, but it is our view in the Home Office that it is important to retain this within primary legislation, particularly regarding an individual’s rights through the European Convention on Human Rights, especially Article 9 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, so I am afraid I cannot help her on that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will certainly discuss those suggestions and points with colleagues from the police. The current statutory guidance for police on SPOs includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions, many of which could align with Amendment 330AZA. For example, the guidance could include prohibitions on contacting the victim or referring to the victim on social media, either directly or indirectly. Similarly, the statutory guidance for the police on DAPOs also includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions. It may well be that the points the noble Lord has mentioned are covered in that, but I will happily reflect on what he said.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend is correct that it is, or should be, covered in guidance, but patently the judge looking at the case that I mentioned was not aware of this and said the fact that the victim had been contacted via LinkedIn was not something he could take a view on. He did not know that this was something he could take a view on. I am grateful to my noble friend for ensuring that the guidance is properly looked at.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again to my noble friend for referring to the LinkedIn experience. My assessment, having discussed this with officials and with my colleague Ministers, is that the statutory guidance for police includes prohibitions on contacting the victim by any means, including social media. If my noble friend will let me, I will reflect on what she has said today, and I will discuss again with officials whether the guidance in its current format is sufficient to cover that point. That is my understanding, and I think it is a reasonable understanding to put before the Committee today.

Amendment 330C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would replace the power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking with a duty to do so. This would align the provision on guidance with the Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, supported the general direction of travel that the noble Baroness brought forward in her amendment. I agree that it is important, where appropriate, to ensure that legislative provisions tackling violence against women and girls are consistent. Accordingly, this is an amendment that I am happy to take away for further consideration and to discuss with officials.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I think the key question is why it is acceptable that there are different rules for “may” and “must” between this and domestic abuse protection orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness will allow me, we have agreed that we will take Amendment 330C away and have a look at it. That is not a guarantee that we will do something with it, but it is an opportunity to reflect on it. She can examine what, if anything, the Government do, and she can determine whether to table it again on Report.

Amendment 330B, again tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall, would introduce a stalking protection notice that could be imposed by a police superintendent. I think my noble friend’s motivation is to ensure that swift action can be taken. However, on reflection we view that introducing such a notice would potentially put further complexity into the legislative framework without significantly improving protection for victims. We also need to consider the proportionality of a police-issued notice backed by a criminal offence of breach that denies the respondent the opportunity to argue their case before an independent judicial tribunal. Failure to comply with a police-issued domestic abuse protection notice is not a criminal offence for this reason.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, tabled Amendment 331, which would provide a statutory review of the effectiveness of two stalking offences, and Amendment 332, which seeks to provide a statutory review of stalking awareness guidance. I hope the noble Baroness can accept—this goes to points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend have also mentioned—that work is currently being undertaken on both these issues. In December 2024 we announced six new measures to tackle stalking, including a commitment to review the criminal law on stalking contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As a number of speakers have referenced, we have already appointed Richard Wright KC to lead the review. It is intended to be completed by the end of March 2026. We have given a timetable. I do not think it is right and proper that we change that timetable now, as a number of noble Lords suggested. The review will consider measures to achieve clarity in the legislation. On completion of the review, the Home Secretary will consider the findings and recommendations before determining next steps, potentially including further legislation. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

There are a number of government amendments to the provisions in Clause 99. We have done this with guidance from stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Government Amendments 330AZB to 330AZE and 330AE clarify the process for appealing the making of a stalking order. Our Amendments 330AC and 330AD provide for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order and avoid applications having to be heard by a higher court. Amendments 330BA, 330D, 522A and 547A extend the provisions in Clauses 97, 98 and 100 to Northern Ireland to allow the courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders. They have been introduced in conjunction with the Department of Justice and allow it to issue guidance to the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The changes have been brought forward in amendment form at the request of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland.

I hope I have been able to assist in part my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell—and Lady Doocey. I undertake to examine Amendments 330A and 330C further ahead of the next stage. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330AZB: Clause 97, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (1)(a) after “order” insert “by a magistrates’ court, a youth court or the Crown Court””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the cases in which an appeal against the making of a stalking protection order can be brought under section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330AC: Clause 98, page 127, line 20, leave out from “by” to “a” in line 23
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to inserted section 364D of the Sentencing Code, together with my amendment to clause 98, page 127, line 35, provides for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order made by any court other than a magistrates’ or youth court to be made to the Crown Court.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330BA: After Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
“Stalking protection orders: Northern Ireland(1) The Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) is amended as follows.(2) In section 6 (meaning of act associated with stalking and risk associated with stalking), in subsection (1) for “7” substitute “6A”.(3) After section 6 insert—“Meaning of “stalking protection order”(1) In this Act “stalking protection order” means an order under this Act which, for the purpose of preventing a person from carrying out acts associated with stalking—(a) prohibits the person from doing anything described in the order, or(b) requires the person to do anything described in the order.(2) This Act provides for the making of a stalking protection order—(a) on an application under section 7, or(b) where a person is acquitted of an offence, successfully appeals against a conviction for an offence, is dealt with in respect of certain findings or is convicted of an offence (see section 8(1)).”(4) In section 7 (applications for orders) omit subsection (1).(5) In section 8 (power to make orders)—(a) for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) This section applies in respect of a person (“D”) where—(a) the Chief Constable has applied under section 7 to a court of summary jurisdiction for a stalking protection order against D,(b) D is acquitted of an offence by or before a court,(c) a court allows D’s appeal against a conviction for an offence,(d) a court deals with D in respect of a finding that—(i) D is not guilty of an offence by reason of insanity, or(ii) D is under a disability and has done the act charged against D in respect of an offence, or(e) D has been convicted of an offence and a court deals with D for the offence.”;(b) in subsection (2), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the order” substitute “a stalking protection order”. (6) In section 10 (variations, renewals and discharges)—(a) in subsection (1), for “a court of summary jurisdiction” substitute “an appropriate court”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In subsection (1) “appropriate court” means—(a) where the stalking protection order was made by a court of summary jurisdiction other than a youth court, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(b) where the stalking protection order was made by a youth court—(i) if the defendant is under the age of 18 when the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a youth court;(ii) if the defendant is aged 18 or over at the time the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(c) where the stalking protection order was made by any other court, the Crown Court.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) a stalking protection order made by a court on an appeal is to be treated as made by the court whose decision was appealed against;(b) a stalking protection order that is confirmed, varied or renewed on an appeal remains an order of the court that first made it (or, if it was made on an appeal, the court that is treated as having made it under paragraph (a)).”(7) In section 11 (interim stalking protection orders), in subsection (2), after “application” in the first place it occurs insert “under section 7”.(8) In section 12 (procedure)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) An application to the Crown Court under section 10 is to be made in accordance with Crown Court rules.”;(b) in subsection (5) omit “10 or”.(9) After section 12 insert—“Appeals(1) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(b), (c) or (d), D may appeal against the making of the order as if—(a) D had been convicted of the offence and,(b) the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order,(if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(2) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(e), D may appeal against the making of the order as if the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order (if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(3) The following may appeal against a decision under section 10 made by the Crown Court—(a) the person against whom the stalking protection order in question was made;(b) the Chief Constable.(4) An appeal under subsection (3) is to be made to the Court of Appeal, and may be made only with the permission of that court.(5) On an appeal under this section, the court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and (b) such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(6) For appeals against decisions of a court of summary jurisdiction on an application under section 7, 10 or 11, see Article 143 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26) (appeal to county court against proceedings on complaint).”(10) In section 21 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “stalking protection order”, for “section 7(1)” substitute “section 6A(1)”;(b) at the end insert—““youth court” has the meaning given by section 12.”(11) In section 20(3) (report on the operation of Act)—(a) in paragraph (b) omit “and the number of orders made under section 8”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the number of stalking protection orders made under each paragraph of section 8(1);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision extending the power of courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders at the end of criminal proceedings, similar to the provision made for England and Wales by clauses 97 and 98.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330D: After Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance about disclosure of information by police: Northern IrelandIn the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)), in section 17—(a) in subsection (2) for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The Department must issue guidance to the Chief Constable about the disclosure of police information for the purpose of protecting persons from risks associated with stalking.(2B) The Chief Constable must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (2A).”;(c) in subsection (3) for “subsection (1)” substitute “this section”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause requires the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about disclosure of police information about stalking.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Of course it matters. It is quite a serious matter, in my opinion.

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

My Lords, I agree: it does matter. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Clause 106.

I will bring the debate back to what Clause 106 is about, which is ensuring that every road user complies with road traffic law in the interests of their safety and that of other road users. This includes cyclists, which is clear in the Highway Code. Clause 106 should stand part of the Bill. We put the clause in so that there is parity between cars and cyclists in the event of death and serious injury. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for that. If I accepted the recommendation that the clause should not stand part, we would not have that provision before the Committee today.

It is important that we agree to the clause for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that over the past 10 years an average of three pedestrians have been killed by cyclists per year. In total, there were 603 pedestrian injuries following a collision with a pedal cycle in Great Britain in 2023, which was a quite considerable rise on 2014.

In the earlier debate, we heard concern around cyclists riding on pavements and going through red lights and zebra crossings. This is not about putting cyclists in prison for serious offences; it is about trying to change behaviour. It is about ensuring that people recognise that there is a penalty for poor behaviour. If somebody is killed or seriously injured as a result of someone cycling badly, it is absolutely right that we take action with Clause 106.

The Government do not believe that the current offences for cyclists who exhibit dangerous or careless behaviour have appropriate penalties, particularly when it results in death or serious injury. That is why we are introducing the new dangerous cycling offences here in Clause 106. That will bring equality before the law. It will make sure that there is parity with motoring offences. If somebody is killed because of the poor performance of a road user, that road user should ultimately face a penalty whether they are on a bike or in a car.

I say again: this should be about trying to make cyclists aware that their vehicle is dangerous, even though it is a bike, and that it can lead to death or to serious injury. At the same time, we want to ensure, as we are doing, that we get the huge health and environmental benefits of cycling. The Government have committed £600 million in the spending review for new cycling and walking infrastructure, and that is the right thing to do.

I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on these matters. She has asked two specific questions, about insurance and about defining the type of vehicle involved. They are both amendments to the clause, in effect, but I accept the discussion. The question is about the clause and its implementation, but the clause is not about insurance or about defining. Any change to insurance requirements would require some very careful consideration, as it could put people off cycling and have adverse effects on health and congestion. It might well stop people cycling; they would use cars for short journeys instead. It might involve an enforcement regime, which we have talked about earlier, being examined again. Some cyclists have third-party insurance and that is good.

This is predominantly a Department for Transport matter. I will examine both the issues, on insurance and on definition, that the noble Baroness raised and discuss them with the Department for Transport. Ultimately, Clause 106 is about prevention of death or serious injury by cycling. It should stay part of the Bill and should not be deleted. That is why I hope the noble Baroness will not take that option at an appropriate moment, if not today. I hope she reflects on what I said, and I will certainly reflect on what she said.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord replied on the definition.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect, I am very happy to look at that. Essentially, there is a Home Office aspect to this clause, which is death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, but the issues the noble Baroness raised about insurance and the definition are for the Department for Transport. I will take those issues away and make sure that my noble friend Lord Hendy examines them, but it is not for me to look at issues that I have not thought through because they are Department for Transport issues. We have thought through this Bill and the clause before us, and it is about death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, not the two issues that the noble Baroness raised.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for responding. There will be another opportunity in the other Bill to do this. I tried to table an amendment on insurance, but we were told it was out of scope. However, it is a corollary of creating the offences, and we welcome the creation of the offences.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.