National Security Act 2023 (Designated Bodies) Regulations 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 July be approved.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft instrument, which will see three bodies designated: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, and the GRU Volunteer Corps. I know that there has been significant interest in the House in this matter from both Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that they will welcome these regulations today.

Threats from foreign powers and their proxies have grown in scale and complexity. Designation is a powerful tool for disrupting state bodies and those acting in concert with them, and it sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling foreign power threat activity globally. The Home Secretary has determined that these three bodies are involved in foreign power threat activity and, as such, we propose to designate them under this new power, as I suggested we may do when the Bill, now an Act, went through Parliament recently.

Before I give more detail of the bodies in question, it is worth setting out the legislative basis for this decision. For a body to be designated, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is involved in foreign power threat activity, as defined in the National Security Act 2023. The definition of foreign power threat activity covers the most serious offences in the Act, including espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. It also covers broader activity that constitutes a serious threat to life or public safety when carried out for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit a foreign power. If that test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider whether designation is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. She will take into account considerations of foreign policy and the impact on human rights as part of that decision-making process.

Once a group is designated, it will be a criminal offence within the UK’s jurisdiction to support a designated body, assist a designated body or obtain material benefits from a designated body. The penalties for these offences are imprisonment for up to 14 years and/or a fine. Where an individual commits certain espionage conduct or sabotage for a designated body, this can attract sentences of up to life imprisonment. Designation therefore enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to disrupt designated bodies more effectively.

Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary will exercise this power only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence, including intelligence material and cross-government advice. A decision to designate is taken only after great care and consideration, and, as noble Lords will know, it must be approved by both Houses. It was approved by the House of Commons yesterday evening.

For the benefit of noble Lords I will give some explanation of the bodies in question. First, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a group that has been commented on significantly in this House over many months, before the gracious Speech and since. The long-standing threat posed by Iran and its proxies is no secret. We know that the Iranian intelligence services have established a pattern of targeting dissidents, Persian-language media organisations and journalists, as well as Jewish and Israeli communities globally.

The IRGC Quds Force and IRGC Intelligence Organisation, together with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, form the Iranian intelligence apparatus. As a key component of the Iranian state’s security apparatus, the IRGC is answerable directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Its role extends beyond conventional military operations and includes intelligence activity, the use of proxy actors and influence operations designed to advance Iranian state objectives. Activity linked to the IRGC has included threats to life and intimidation on UK soil, including credible plots to target individuals in the United Kingdom. The IRGC supports militant actors overseas and has been associated with cyber and other state threats activity aligned with Iranian state objectives. I know that noble Lords across all parts of this House have great concerns about that body.

The Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, otherwise known as Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyah, has publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and Persian-language media, including an antisemitic attack on four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March, a well-known arson attack that Members will be aware of. Sitting behind the IMCR were members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, who almost certainly directed IMCR attacks across Europe. These incidents, including acts of arson and intimidation, have caused real fear and distress and have had a profound impact on those communities. It is clear that this sustained activity directly threatens the safety and interests of the United Kingdom.

The GRU Volunteer Corps is Russia’s threat to the United Kingdom in a form that extends far beyond conventional military action to include state threats. Moreover, the Kremlin increasingly relies on proxy organisations to pursue its objectives, seeking to undermine our security while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. The so-called GRU Volunteer Corps is a clear example of that approach. It is not an independent force, nor a loose collection of volunteers; it is a proxy organisation operating under the direction and control of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service.

These formations are directed, supported and sustained by the GRU and are already operating across conflict zones, most notably in Ukraine in support of Russia’s illegal invasion. What we are seeing is a conscious attempt by the Russian state to blur the lines between military action, intelligence activity and criminality, using deniable forces to carry out sabotage, destabilisation and violence beyond its borders. This is not conjecture. It reflects a pattern of behaviour that underpins Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and that has been seen repeatedly across Europe, including here in the United Kingdom.

In 2024, two men organised an arson attack on a Ukrainian-owned business in east London. They acted on behalf of the Wagner Group—another proxy body that acts on behalf of the Russian state and is proscribed as a terrorist organisation. It is notable that large parts of the Wagner Group have also been absorbed into this so-called Volunteer Corps, which demonstrates the threat posed to the United Kingdom by this group.

With noble Lords’ consent, these bodies will be designated. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has decided that there is sufficient evidence for her to reasonably believe that each body is involved in foreign power threat activity and that designation is necessary to protect the United Kingdom. Designation will strengthen our ability to disrupt these bodies and those who support and facilitate them. More broadly, it sends a powerful message to any foreign power or proxy that the United Kingdom will not allow harm to ourselves or our interests, and that we will do whatever it takes to prevent such activity on our soil.

In conclusion, these bodies operate in different ways but are united in their role of endangering the safety and interests of the United Kingdom through violence, intimidation and destabilisation. I know this House has called for designation. It is a proportionate and necessary response, and this Government will continue to use every available tool to confront state threats wherever they arise. I commend this instrument to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me first welcome the noble Baroness back to the Home Office, even if it is only a temporary glitch. Let me also, through her, pass on my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their broad support for the Bill, which has allowed us, now that it is an Act, to effect these designations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for his broad support for the proposals before the House today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, mentioned, this proposal came out of, first, a manifesto commitment to have a review, and secondly, Jonathan Hall KC bringing forward proposals on how we deal with state threats. I am grateful to His Majesty’s Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their support in helping get the state threats Act, as it now is, through Parliament. There were some challenges, there were some amendments which we accepted from the Liberal Democrats, and there were some amendments that I tried to explain from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but with that Act passed only a couple of weeks ago and Royal Assent granted only in the last 10 days or so, we have got to a position which has allowed us to bring forward these regulations for the reasons that I outlined.

I think there was general consensus from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that this measure is required for these groups, for the reasons I outlined in my opening speech. I do not intend to delay the House too long on those matters, because I think there is general consensus that we need to do this.

In discussions that we had with both Opposition Front Benches in the run-up to the state threats Bill before it became an Act, I tried to indicate that the Act was being proposed for a purpose, and today is the first use of that power for a definitive purpose. We wanted to have that Act at speed, and I pressed both Front Benches very hard to get it through speedily, because we needed, in my view and in the view of the Home Secretary, to get this legislation passed, both in the House of Commons, which rises today, and in the House of Lords, where we face another week in Parliament, as quickly as possible. That means that this designation, once I sign the order, if it is agreed by this House, can be put into effect fairly soon. For all those reasons, I welcome the support of both Front Benches, including their support for further action, as the noble Baroness asked for.

In the gracious Speech, we promised a state security Bill later in the parliamentary Session. It will cover a number of issues, which the House will not expect me to go into because the Bill has not yet been published, but we discussed issues such as passports in Committee on the state threats Bill, and I gave indications that we wanted to take action on that. On the display of a Palestinian flag but not an IRGC flag, and the illegality of that, if a person expresses support in any way, and if their reasons for doing so are prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom, they will commit an offence. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance. That is different from the provisions in the Terrorism Act and reflects the reality of dealing with bodies that benefit from protection under international law. Individual decisions to arrest or charge will be for the police and prosecutors, but people who glorify terrorism will potentially face action in future.

The noble Baroness asked me about not criminalising the specific offence of the display or wearing of certain articles of clothing. I said during debates on amendments to the state threats Bill that we consider that the supporting of a designated body offence is wide enough to capture the display or wearing of articles when this is done for a prohibited purpose. It was therefore, in our view, unnecessary to create a specific offence, while also avoiding potential enforceability challenges by foreign state officials who are protected by international law. Whether we like that or not, that is the situation. I gave that explanation to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and I give it now to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. I hope that she will recognise that there will be further action downstream. As a former Minister in the Home Office, she will know that I cannot say what, I cannot say when, and I cannot give detail, but, if she remembers, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will concur with this, I could not say when or what or give detail about the regulations that I have brought forward today, but those regulations are here.

For the reasons I have mentioned and with gratitude for the support of both Opposition Front Benches, I condemn—no, not condemn; it has been a long day waiting for the debate—I commend these regulations to the House and hope Hansard will treat me kindly.

Motion agreed.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Order laid before the House on 10 June be approved.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July.

Motion agreed.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

This instrument, laid before Parliament on 10 June, takes urgent action to control a new and very dangerous class of synthetic opioid. In the space of little over a year, orphines have been involved in at least 22 deaths in the United Kingdom, and 14 of those deaths were sadly between December and March. The UK is not alone in this respect: between 2024 and April this year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime received 206 reports from numerous countries of drug samples that contained orphine compounds.

I am particularly grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for prioritising an assessment of these deeply harmful substances. Its report was published on 30 April, and the dangers we face here are encapsulated in the following line from that report:

“the risk to the population from these recently emerging compounds is sufficiently great that urgent steps are required to protect public health”.

The Government have heard that message loud and clear, and we are acting at pace. We enacted a temporary class drug order, TCDO, to control these drugs, less than six weeks after the council produced its report. The TCDO covers seven orphines: three that have tragically been involved in those deaths here in the UK, and four that the EU Drugs Agency has notified as being present in EU drug markets.

This is the first TCDO in 10 years, so I will take a moment to remind noble Lords about what these orders do. A temporary class drug order makes it a specific offence to produce, supply or offer to supply these seven orphines; to export or import them; or to possess them when there is also an intention to supply. Doing any of these things can result in up to 14 years in prison, the same as for a class B drug.

The TCDO also provides that the substances should be treated as if they were in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. Scheduling here covers the circumstances in which a controlled substance can be used legitimately, and the procedures that must be followed in doing so. Schedule 1 covers substances with no known medical uses, which is the case with these seven drugs. Anyone who needs to make legitimate use of them, for example in research, would need to apply to the Home Office to obtain a licence.

This instrument uses the made affirmative procedure. This reflects a balance between the requirement to put in place urgent measures to safeguard public health and the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of measures, which expand the scope of criminal law. Under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the TCDO must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 days of it being made. I know noble Lords will be pleased to note that the other place, the House of Commons, approved it last night, and I hope this House will do so by Friday’s deadline.

My colleague Sarah Jones MP, the Minister for Policing and Crime, also accepted the further recommendation from the advisory council that the TCDO be followed by a permanent control, which would make orphines class A drugs. This would cover not only these seven substances but also two “generic definitions” of orphines. The purpose of those is to make it harder for criminals to circumvent the controls by making slight tweaks to the chemical composition of what they sell. Noble Lords will doubtless agree with colleagues on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the class A control should come into force swiftly. So, although I am not able to give a precise timetable today, I can confirm that we will act as soon as possible.

Self-evidently, the devastation that harmful drugs inflict on our society is intolerable, and it demands a response commensurate with the scale of the threat. The order before the Committee today stands as further evidence of the Government’s commitment to mounting such a response. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the Committee. It is a simple and uncontroversial order, and I am pleased to support it. As the Minister established, the purpose of this legislation is to make a temporary class drug order under Section 2A of the 1971 Act in respect of seven substances that fall under the category of orphines, which are a class of synthetic opioids that have been recommended for control by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Given the reports that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have received regarding the presence of orphine compounds in drug samples and their links to deaths, the Government are absolutely right to seek to control these substances.

However, I seek a couple of clarifications. As its title suggests, this order makes a temporary class drug order for the listed substances. I note that Section 2A of the 1971 Act states that TCDOs expire within one year of the order being made, which means that the Government will need to come forward within one year with a new Order in Council under Section 2 of the Act that lists these substances as controlled drugs. If the Government do not do that, these substances will cease to be controlled, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will bring forward a new order within that timeframe?

As a linked query, it is interesting that the Government have sought to make a TCDO now rather than simply to bring in an Order in Council. Why make a temporary order and then a permanent order later? There is an argument for the Government to have added these substances straight away to Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. If we accept that they cause enough harm to justify a temporary order, surely they should be controlled permanently in the first place. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the rationale for their approach.

Other than that, as I said at the start, I am more than happy to support the Government in their endeavours on this order.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his broad support for the order. As he said, it is quite sensible that we do this, but he asked two legitimate questions. In answer to his first question, we are mindful that the TCDO lasts for just one year and we will lay a permanent control before Parliament as soon as possible, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has urged us to do. I cannot give the noble Lord a timescale for that but, self-evidently, with the expiry of the order, we want to get that done and make sure that it is covered as a whole.

As the noble Lord said, we could have brought in an urgent, permanent class A control, which the advisory council has suggested is preferable. However, controlling new substances as class A, B or C drugs takes some time, and rightly so. Such controls expand the scope of the criminal law and amend primary legislation, and it is right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them. That is precisely why the legislation also allows for these temporary class drug orders. They do everything that class A, B or C controls do, except that the maximum sentences are not as long as for class A drugs.

I say with due respect to my colleagues in the Privy Council, of which I am a member, that the need for the relevant order to be made at the Privy Council adds some weeks to the process, and there is no real need for that at the moment. In the previous Session of Parliament, the Government supported a Bill sponsored by the honourable Member for Gloucester which would have removed this requirement. For the moment, we think that we can put the controls in place, mindful of the expiry, and revisit that in due course. We will look at the longer-term procedure more slowly, but the purpose of this order is to make sure that we put some definitive controls in place on the seven new opioids that have, sadly, caused deaths in the past year. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s questions.

Motion agreed.

National Crime Agency: Reform Party Funding

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many Suspicious Activity Report enquiries are currently being conducted by the National Crime Agency concerning the funding of the Reform Party.

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

The Government do not comment on the submission of suspicious activity reports. The National Crime Agency is operationally independent and has been clear in its statements that it does not confirm or deny the receipt of a suspicious activity report nor comment on how such reports are used. Suspicious activity reports are confidential and breaching that confidentiality risks committing a tipping-off offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the Minister’s honest Answer, perhaps he can advise the House on how many suspicious activity reports the Government would expect to be lodged against political parties annually as a result of political donations. Does the Minister agree with me that it is extraordinary for a party, Reform UK, which pitches itself as being anti-establishment and always claims the moral high ground in politics, to be reliant on funding from questionable—not to say dodgy—donors?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always try to be helpful, but, for the reasons I have mentioned, I cannot give information to the House or to my noble friend on the number of reports that are taken. I can say that it is in the interest of all of us in this House to make sure that our politics is clean and not funded by illegal sources, and that we take action to make sure that all political parties are held to account for the funding they receive to exercise their political activity and to get themselves elected—or not, as it may be. I am very happy to talk through the details of the Rycroft review; the Government have received the review and have accepted all the recommendations made. That includes a range of measures, which I think my noble friend will welcome, that will put great pressure on a number of political outlets, which will find that their involvement in some of the areas that the Rycroft review is trying to tighten will make it much more challenging for them to receive donations from various sources.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, on the subject of alleged dodgy donations, can the Minister update the House on whether the Cabinet Office or the Electoral Commission is able to commence or conclude inquiries into the £740,000 of secret, undeclared donations generated by Labour Together and funnelled to Labour Party members, including MPs Nick Thomas-Symonds, Darren Jones and others? Is he aware that calls for an independent inquiry were backed by Labour MPs in the other place via an EDM in May? Failure to properly deal with this scandal definitively simply undermines faith and trust in party funding and politics.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What I will say to the noble Lord is that I think it is important we have clean financing of political parties. I refer him to the Rycroft review—let me say some of the things we have agreed and accepted that we will have: a cap on donations from overseas electors; a tightening of corporate donation rules; a moratorium on crypto donations, which will be of interest to my noble friend Lord Bassam; strengthened non-party campaigner and candidate controls; strengthened “know your donor” checks; and standardised political financing reporting. Any political party that wishes to adopt clean funding should sign up to those principles, and, when we bring measures before the House, I trust that the noble Lord will support them. I will look at what he said with regard to Labour Together, but I also say to him that we should try to take the party politics out of this and have an even and level playing field, so that all political parties know who has been funded, why and how, and ensure that those fundings are clean, transparent and open.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, is it not the case that one thing that has allowed Reform and Nigel Farage to get off a little here is the sheer complexity of electoral law and the whole area around this? We are about to start consideration of the 27th Representation of the People Bill, and the 26 others are not consolidated; is there not a good case for the Government to decide that we need to consolidate electoral law? In the simplicity that might follow that, there would be greater control over dodgy dealings in party funding.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Bill that the noble Earl mentions will probably now go before the House of Commons in September: it was due this week, but we have put the Hillsborough law in place this week, which I welcome, and that has been moved back. It is important that we have clear electoral law. He tempts me to talk about issues that are not my direct departmental responsibility, but I will reflect on what he has said, listen carefully to representations and pass them on to the appropriate Minister.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the National Crime Agency gave evidence to Parliament earlier this year in which it said:

“There are quite a lot of our covert powers … that we can only use if the sentence is three years or over”.


However, many political finance offences do not have a tariff of three years or over. Therefore, the NCA is not currently able to use its full range of investigatory powers to ensure that it is playing its role in keeping our politics clean. That is a topic that the Rycroft review raised, but so far the Government have not tabled any amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to rectify this loophole in our investigatory framework. Will the Minister commit to looking at this issue again with colleagues over the summer and make sure that amendments are tabled in the autumn so that we can close this loophole?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, Report and Third Reading of the Representation of the People Bill will take place as soon as parliamentary time allows. I am not the Minister directly responsible for that Bill, but I will pass on the noble Lord’s comments. I hope that I share with the noble Lord the aspiration of ensuring that we put as tight a ring as possible around those donations, so that there is transparency, clarity and openness, and so that, if any amendments are made, the National Crime Agency has the independent policing ability to follow through.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, as I understand it, the Electoral Commission will be given the power to share information with third parties, which is very welcome and long overdue. But will it also be given the power to require information from third parties, which is normal for any regulator that one can think of, with tough sanctions for non-compliance?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the Rycroft recommendations is that we standardise political finance reporting, and the Government have accepted that. Accepting that means that we have given the Electoral Commission powers to prescribe standardised reporting formats. We are continuing to work with the Electoral Commission on a number of other areas. I will reflect on what the noble Lord has said.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour Together episode has already been mentioned. Not only did that organisation fail to declare donations but it paid to have journalists investigated. Does the Minister agree that it would be inappropriate for anyone involved in these scandals to be given a senior role in government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Ultimately, who gets senior roles in government is a matter for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will make a judgment on that and, with due respect, I do not think he will be taking advice from the Conservative Front Bench on whom he appoints.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, no matter what action is taken by the Government, dodgy people will try to find a way around it. Will the legislation be drafted in such a way that it is flexible enough to take into account things that might happen in the future?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The acceptance of the Rycroft recommendations means that the Government have accepted a whole range of measures on tightening up political donations from overseas, crypto currency, reporting and transparency. We have yet to put those measures into effect, but we have accepted the recommendations and will bring forward legislation to give effect to them at the earliest opportunity. That will help everybody in this House, from His Majesty’s Opposition to the Government to other political parties represented here, to have that transparency. I look forward to taking that forward in due course.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Earl on the Representation of the People Bill, pages 104 to 193 of that Bill are there only because the legislation has not been consolidated. The people who have spent their time preparing all those pages could have spent their time preparing consolidation. When the Bill comes to our House, we will waste time debating things that would have been much better considered as a consolidated piece of legislation. I have had a very good discussion on this subject with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, because it appears to be an enormous waste of time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The department I am responsible for is about making sure that, through the National Crime Agency and policing, we catch those people who are committing offences under legislation. The framing of future legislation, which the noble Lord just mentioned, is a matter for another government department. But, with the involvement of the Home Office, the Rycroft review recommendations have been accepted, we have introduced a moratorium on political donations through crypto assets, and we are progressing wider reforms through the Representation of the People Bill. The point about consolidation, which he and the noble and Earl mentioned, is one that I am sure my noble friend Lord Lemos will reflect on.

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we join others in extending condolences for the death of Ann Widdecombe. The reaction to this tragedy has rightly included tributes from every party and from all sections of society. That is a reminder that, under fierce disagreement, there is a shared commitment to our democratic institutions and a shared vulnerability when violence enters political life.

Like every Member of this House, we were shocked and saddened by her death, the circumstances of which are subject to an active police investigation. The police have been clear right from the outset that they are treating this as a suspected murder. However, they have not yet established a motive. The situation seems to change constantly, and I suspect that it will continue to do so, as they uncover more and more evidence.

They have also asked us to respect their request not to speculate and to allow them to do their work. If only we could have the same lack of speculation on the internet and on social media. Would that not be great? Unfortunately, however, it is never going to happen.

Ann Widdecombe commanded widespread respect for her commitment to democratic debate and public services, first as a councillor, then as an MP for two decades, then as a Government Minister and, finally, as a Member of the European Parliament. This tragedy is a reminder that those who serve in public life should be able to do so safely.

We depend on people from all parties and none to put themselves forward and speak their minds without fear or favour, but my personal experience suggests that younger people, in particular, will not even consider the possibility of making politics their life. When you ask them, even though they are highly articulate and very happy to tell you what the Government should and should not do, they say, “We are not going to put ourselves forward to be shot down”. I honestly think that we all ought to work together to change this system. They should not be feeling like that. They should want to serve and realise how great it is to do so.

From these Benches, we send our sympathy to Ann’s family, her friends, her former colleagues, her constituents and her community, who will all be grieving her loss. Our responsibility now is to continue our arguments, definitely with seriousness but also with civility, and to give the police the space they need to establish the facts of her very sad death.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from both the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Everybody in this House knows that politics is about beliefs, about standing for things, and about making your views known. No one can deny that Ann Widdecombe did that in a way that was energetic, forthright, occasionally humorous and, unlike many Members of this House, occasionally on “Strictly Come Dancing”, which is important.

I spent 18 years in the Commons with Ann Widdecombe, and I cannot think of many areas where we ever agreed, but we disagreed with civility, with humanity and with mutual respect for views that we held. The loss of her in these circumstances is devastating for her family and for all who knew her, particularly for Members of this House who knew her as well. She brought conviction to our politics. She was forthright in her opinions. She argued courageously for things she believed in. She did not deserve to be murdered in this way.

As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have mentioned, I cannot comment on the current police investigation; it is not appropriate for me to do that. What I can say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord True, is that the police are making a further statement on the developments in the murder investigation possibly as I speak—they were due to hold a press conference between 3 pm and 3.15 pm and they may well be doing that now; I am trying to check whether anything further has been said. It is important that we give the police time to examine that.

The issue that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned about Devon & Cornwall Police and the counterterrorism police is a step that has been taken in co-operation with both forces to look at further leads. It does not necessarily mean that terrorism was involved, but it is important that we give the police the opportunity to investigate. The counterterrorism police have now taken the lead on the investigation. As Laurence Taylor, the head of national Counterterrorism Policing, has said:

“We … have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the investigation … We are pursuing multiple lines of enquiry to establish the motivation for this attack”.


Ann Widdecombe had an inimitable style in politics. She was valued by her own side and across both Houses of Parliament. She served Maidstone for 23 years as a champion for her constituents. She served the country in government as Minister for Employment and then Minister for Prisons. She served with pride and with a commitment that means that today we mourn her loss tremendously.

Both noble Lords who have spoken mentioned security for elected politicians. I can remember every case of the murder of a politician that the noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned. I have seen colleagues of mine, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, murdered. I have watched from afar as Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Reverend Robert Bradford were murdered. It is not a way to do politics. We do our politics by discussion. It is important that we ensure that Members of Parliament and Members of this House have the support to be able to do that job free of fear. I do not think there is a single Member of Parliament who has not faced threats at some time or other, and many Members of this House do so as well.

Ultimately, it is the parliamentary authorities who are responsible for the security of this House, but we in the Home Office will work with them and we will continue to review how we can work with Operation Bridger, which is the police support, through local forces and through national support to ensure that we get that protection. It will be done on the basis of threat and of particular support for Members of Parliament who require it.

Ultimately, we will find out who murdered Ann Widdecombe and they will face a severe prison sentence in due course. But we should remember the contribution that Ann made and the affection in which she was held, and remember, dare I say, the differences we had. We should engage in our parliamentary democracy and our public life to reflect those values in the way in which we know they should be reflected—mutual respect, honest disagreement and sometimes open discussion. Ultimately, we should recognise that Parliament is there for a purpose—to reflect the will of the people—and our job is to make sure we do that, as Ann would have wanted, in a civilised, humorous but principled manner.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, just referred to the assassination of Airey Neave here in the precincts of Parliament in 1979. It was the day after I was elected in a parliamentary by-election, so some of the horrors we have witnessed in the years that have passed have left an indelible mark on me, not least because Sir David Amess was a very close friend, as indeed was Ann Widdecombe, so much so that Ann was a godparent to one of my children and a close family friend.

On one occasion, after a particularly tough battle on a Home Office Bill in another place, where she at the time was a Home Office Minister, Ann told me that I was “her favourite bleeding-heart liberal”. But as the House may imagine, we often had our differences, and as recently as last month in a curry house which was a favourite watering-hole of Ann’s—where I have seen the noble Lord from time to time and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Clarke—we argued again about so many things, respectfully recognising our differences.

Ann was intelligent, principled and kind. Yes, her beliefs were founded on those twin pillars of faith and patriotism in a very toxic environment, fuelled often, as the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, have said, by hatred. We have to do far more to respect difference and diversity and uphold minorities in our community. We must work far harder to create a climate in which difference of opinion can be expressed with tolerance and respect. Now, we must do all we can to honour Ann’s memory. I hope there will be a book of condolence which we can all sign. In addition, we have to honour her memory by creating an environment where people can express their differences in tolerance and respect.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and, may I say, he is one of my favourite bleeding-heart liberals as well. But, that said, his point is vital. Essentially, this is about expressing our political differences in a way that understands our basic humanity. Whatever the circumstances, and we cannot speculate as to how and why Ann was murdered, she held her arguments in a way that understood that humanity underneath.

I hope that we can look at how we can develop that still further. I know that other government departments will continue to look at how we can support the development of mutual understanding and parliamentary democracy in a way that respects differences and respects the individuals concerned. To reflect further on what the noble Lord, Lord True said, we want to look with the House authorities at Operation Bridger as it works currently for MPs. It is also worth us examining the lessons to be learned for individuals in this House and that is something the Home Office is quite happy to do in due course.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord True, and thank the Minister for what he said about our friend Ann Widdecombe. There has been much conversation in the media about whether the Government or the police take seriously the protection of those in public life. I know from my own experience, both in the Home Office and as a Minister, that they absolutely do. Members of Parliament receive enormous numbers of threats, some credible and some not. Can the Minister say one or two things about what the Home Office and the police do, and take seriously, to assess what is credible and what is not, and to put in place both the appropriate steps to advise those in public life and the necessary measures to protect them? Threats to people in public life are not just an attack on them but an attack on democracy and therefore the public. It is important that that protection is put in place.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He will know that Operation Bridger was established and, since 2024, the Home Office has funded a full-time network of national official advisers across all territorial police forces in the UK to bolster the Operation Bridger network. Each officer appointed by each force, funded by the Home Office, is a dedicated point of contact for MPs and, indeed, for candidates. In specific instances, such as by-elections, the police make assessments of the security threats, as they would have done in Makerfield recently and as they will do in the Clacton by-election that is occurring in August. There is a greater level of support for MPs now within constituencies than ever before. All MPs are advised to report incidents to the police and to reference Operation Bridger. The police will then do what I expect the noble Lord would do: triage those, look at what are serious, credible threats and take action accordingly, independently of government and of the House. As I mentioned, we will examine how the House of Lords can be involved in that as well.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend, I pay my respects to Ann Widdecombe and her family. She was an extraordinary woman. Like my noble friend, I did not agree with her, but I respected her. I associate myself with the comments that have been made about respecting politics, and the way in which a lack of respect in politics diminishes our democracy. Debate has become so polarised; it is frightening in many ways. Does my noble friend think that now is the time to do more to tackle online algorithms? Social media and the algorithms that perpetuate violence and threats against politicians have gone too far. We absolutely must do something so that we can truly restore respect in politics and have a healthy democracy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend; I do not disagree with any word she said. Increasingly, threats and views are delivered in an online way. That online way has increased the toxicity of the debate we have in the public forum. We need to ensure that we examine that. Legislation is currently available to look at the online space and how it is managed.

I come back to the main point, which I want to re-emphasise for all noble Lords: there has been a vicious murder. We do not know the motivation for that murder yet, and speculation and the discussion today have strayed into potential political aspects. We do not yet know the causes of that murder. We will have proper investigation and I hope that charges will at some point be made against somebody for that murder and that they will be held to account in the courts. We can then examine whether there are lessons to be learned, whatever happened with the murder of our colleague Ann Widdecombe.

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

My Lords, I offer my condolences to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. I have felt for many years that the Government underinvest in the protection of those in public life who face potential terrorist threats. I realise that there has been considerable progress in recent years, both on resourcing and co-ordination of support to those at potential risk, but would the Minister agree that although it is very important that there should be an assessment of the threats that individuals face, in reality that is merely informed guesswork in most cases? There is no specific intelligence. Therefore, if we opt not to take action, we expose ourselves to very considerable risk. We see the implications of that for our public life more widely. Therefore, the default should be to act, rather than to dismiss threats on the basis of their assessment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord speaks with great authority about the type of threat that many elected politicians and Members of this House may face, and I bow to his experience and knowledge. We keep this under review at all times; in fact, following the murder of Sir David Amess, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary commissioned Robert Buckland, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to examine the security arrangements for Members of Parliament and others. We expect him to report as soon as possible. It is extremely important that we keep ourselves safe, for the very reasons the noble Lord mentioned: a Member of Parliament represents 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000 people in their constituency. They are sent here by the population to do a job; they should not face threats in doing that job. They should face political discussion and debate, but should not be intimidated or face intimidation in undertaking that role.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Ann and I were on totally different sides in the hunting debate, which went on for many hours in the other place. All through that we remained friends, because Ann understood that differences could be respected. She was in a minority in her party on the hunting Bill and I was in a minority in my party on it. More recently, I was delighted when she came over to Northern Ireland to speak in a unionist meeting in an Orange hall, as a Reform spokesperson, against the protocol. That raised all sorts of questions: how could Ann Widdecombe, a devout Roman Catholic, speak in an Orange hall? She got a rousing reception when she came in. She said, “I’m Ann Widdecombe. I’m a unionist. I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m in an Orange hall and proud to be here”. The place absolutely erupted.

Ann was someone who understood and could cope with any kind of audience. She was also—and it is important that we say this today—a proud member of Reform UK and a close friend to Nigel Farage. Does the Minister not think it was really unacceptable that when Nigel organised a memorial, down near where she lived and with members of the family present, members of the Minister’s party, at senior level, were really nasty? They said that Nigel Farage was using her death as some kind of political football. That was disgraceful. I hope that he, as a Minister, will renege from those remarks and say that that was totally wrong. Ann would have been proud of what Nigel Farage did.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we allow people to grieve and express their view on the death of Ann in whichever way they feel appropriate. I am not going to criticise anybody for laying flowers or a wreath at the site of Ann’s home. That is a matter for individuals to do personally. Again, what the noble Baroness has exemplified in her comments is that Ann Widdecombe was a politician who was not afraid, who was committed to a matter of principle, and who could do it in a way that deflected criticism and tried to win round support to her view. We all have our differences and members of Reform are entitled to their political views. I do not agree with them, but they are entitled to their views. What they are not entitled to is intimidation and threats, just as any other Member is not. I come back ultimately to this: let us not make a judgment on how Ann was murdered yet. Let us just grieve for her and resolve to learn the lessons in due course.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to put on the record of the House that I met Ann in the early 1980s and we became close friends. We worked together to become Members of Parliament. We debated with anybody and on anything, and she taught me a lot. She was ahead of me, having already fought one election. We did so well that, even before we were elected, we were invited once to go to No. 10 to have coffee with Margaret Thatcher. As we came out of the door of No. 10, Ann said to me, “Come on!” I said, “What do you mean?”, and she said, “We’ve got to get a press release out”. We went back to her office and she taught me such a lot about campaigning. She got into Parliament before me, but we were Ministers together in the Major Government and in my noble friend’s Lord Hague’s shadow Cabinet.

I always remember standing in my kitchen in Devon one day. I lived quite close to Haytor at one time, so I have sadly pictured it all horribly in the last few days. I was making a fruit salad when Ann stood in my kitchen and instructed me every step of the way on how to make it. In the end, I was so annoyed that I said, “Ann, I used to be a cookery teacher”, and she said, “I think I’ll lay the table”. I shall miss her sadly. I just pray that whoever has done this foul deed is caught quickly.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her personal tribute to and recollections of Ann Widdecombe. I cannot say I ever had a fruit salad with her and I cannot say I ever went for tea in No. 10 with Mrs Thatcher, but I understand the mood in which she has placed those comments and I thank her for them. I also echo wholeheartedly her wish that, at some point and at some time, somebody will be charged with this murder, will be brought to account and will face the consequences of their foul deed.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am humbled by the quality of this debate and conversation about somebody I did not know. My association comes from being a resident of Devon, living on the other side of Dartmoor and having spent significant time at Buckfast Abbey, and the shock of hearing of her death was very great. I send condolences to her family and friends, many of them in this Chamber.

Looking at it from the outside, I thought Devon & Cornwall Police handled things rather well in the first few days and I think it is collaborating well with counterterrorism police now. As the investigation continues, I believe that what we all need as we get new insights and facts is to wholeheartedly support all the police involved in this investigation, the counterterrorism police and Devon & Cornwall Police, because they are collaborating very well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and I agree with and wholeheartedly support his wish for the police to be allowed to get on with the investigation. I was just checking my phone because the police are in fact making a statement as we speak. I cannot update the House on the level of co-operation between Devon & Cornwall Police and Counter Terrorism Policing, but both have the same objective, which is to bring to account an individual, at some point and whoever that individual may be, for this crime. I wish them well in their success and I hope they have speedy outcomes to those investigations.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I send my condolences to Ann Widdecombe’s family. I served as a Member of Parliament with her on the other side and, rather surprisingly, when I stepped down as an MP in 2017, a very kind letter arrived from Ann thanking me for my public service. There was always a side to her that we did not anticipate.

One of the things in the light of this is again quite extraordinary. Apart from the armed services, which other profession could say, as many of us in here have said, that three, four or five of our colleagues have been killed in the performance of their duty? One very concrete thing I ask of the Minister is to take a very close look at our home addresses, whether of Members of Parliament or of Members of this House. This is probably the most vulnerable data, and we need to ensure it is not publicly accessible.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness will allow, I will not give an opinion on that immediately. It is important that, through the Robert Buckland review, we look at the security issues for all elected parliamentarians and Members of this House. I say that simply because we can jump to speedy conclusions on a whole range of matters, but ultimately we commissioned a review from Robert Buckland in the light of the murder of Sir David Amess and I am waiting for that review to come back with a general review of security. We will work with the authorities in the House of Commons, and indeed with the House authorities here, to see whether improvements can be made. The bottom line in all this is that every person who holds public office has the right to hold that office free from fear and free to enjoy their property free from demonstrations. The noble Baroness will also know, as I have reminded myself in my comments now, that in the police and crime Act we passed legislation that prevents demonstrations outside the properties of Members of Parliament.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, like many other people, it seems to me, I was an unlikely comrade of Ann Widdecombe across the political divide when we were Brexit Party MEPs. I think she started off with some hostility to me but, one way or another, we ended up hugging, laughing and arguing civilly more than we had both anticipated. We were great friends, so it is very hard to accept what has happened.

One concern from what I have heard today—it was also a feature in the Statement in the other place and in the media—is about calls to clamp down on online speech, as though that was the cause of the violence. I urge noble Lords—a little bit of homework, if they do not mind—to listen to Ann’s Oxford Union speech on free speech. It is full of moral clarity and great courage. It is preposterous for me to say this, but I am going to say it: she would not want this brutal murder to be used politically to bring in more censorship, or even for people—such as those academics and activists who have wallowed in her murder and said that she more or less deserved it—to be sacked or cancelled. She would want us to have a debate about it and to argue over it, and truth, not censorship, to prevail. Please let us not go down that road.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not know what Ann Widdecombe would have wanted in relation to that, and I am not going to opine on it. I want to have a free and open debate on those matters, free from intimidation outside this House, and for people to be able to hold their views, whatever they might be, explain them, outline them, defend them and hopefully do so—as all parties in this House do—from the perspective of trying to make this great country a better place to live in for all our citizens. I am not going to give a view on what Ann would or would not have wanted. We should remember her life, not the circumstances of her death, and ensure that, whatever we do, we find whoever perpetrated this act and learn any lessons to be learned. Ultimately, we must accept that a murder has taken place and that somebody needs to be held to account for it. Today, as the whole House has done, we celebrate the life that has been ended by that act.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, perhaps I could be permitted a few words of my own. Ann Widdecombe was a friend of mine for more than 50 years, believe it or not. She had that quality that guarantees all other virtues: immense courage. She also had great empathy for people, even those she disagreed with. In the absence of anyone on the Bishops’ Bench, perhaps I could be permitted to say that she had a deep and abiding faith, and she believed that she would be with her maker now. If anyone deserves to be with their maker, it is Ann, because of her dedication and deep-held beliefs. We may not have believed in everything she said, but all of us who are sending our condolences to her family should take pride in and have gratitude for her record of public service, which honoured us all and which adorned our Parliament and our democracy.

Violence Against Retail Workers

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walker of Broxton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle rising violence against retail workers.

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

Violence and abuse towards retail workers is unacceptable. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, the Government have created a new stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker, which we are working to commence as soon as possible. We are also restoring neighbourhood policing to tackle retail crime and improve safety for retail workers, with more than 3,100 additional neighbourhood officers and PCSOs since March 2025. I declare my interest as a long-standing member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

[Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)]

My Lords, needles, knives and hammers are weapons regularly used by violent criminals—let us stop calling them shoplifters—against retail staff on our high streets. These incidents are now routine. For the next month, I will publish weekly summaries of violent attacks against my colleagues so that noble Lords can see the reality on the ground. While some improvements in police responsiveness are welcome, it remains a major issue. Will the Minister acknowledge that two-tier policing is real and issue clearer guidance to forces to ensure that violence against shop workers is properly prioritised?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Violence against shop workers is properly prioritised. In fact, recorded shop theft fell by 1% in the year to December, the number of charges for shop theft rose by 21% over the previous year and a British Retail Consortium report has shown that violence and abuse fell from 2,000 incidents a day to 1,600. As somebody who has sat in a shop front and worked in a shop, I know that such abuse is not acceptable. I know the threats that people face. We have invested £5 million into Operation Opal, which is a specialist policing unit, so we do take this issue seriously. When we bring the measures forward, they will be a further deterrent to those who choose to attack shop workers and undertake shop theft. I welcome my noble friend’s support.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, convenience stores recorded 5.8 million incidents in 2025 alone. The total cost of that was £354 million, with an average cost of over £7,000 per store. Not only is there the human cost on shop workers but the economic cost to convenience stores and larger stores. The Government must do more. What does the Minister intend to do?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have done two things that the previous Government did not do. We have introduced an offence of assault on a shop worker and lifted the £200 threshold under which the police did not have to report and act on shop theft. I remind the noble Baroness that, as a shadow Minister in the other place in 2014, I opposed the £200 limit and have since had the pleasure of lifting it as a Minister. We take this matter seriously. Shop theft is a cost to us all. It is a cost to the workers who face those threats, to the businesses—particularly small ones—and to all of us as purchasers of goods. We must drive it down. That is what the figures show that we are trying to do; it is not an easy task to drive it down still further, but we have to take further action.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, violence against retail workers does not stop at the shop door. Staff who refuse unlawful sales or challenge theft can face online threats and harassment. This includes sharing their images and personal details. What steps are the Government taking to address this rapidly growing problem and ensure that online threats and doxing of retail staff are treated every bit as seriously as violence within a shop?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is not acceptable and should be looked at. The legislation covers those potential online threats in other areas, but the bottom line, going back to my noble friend’s Question, is that we are asking shop workers to uphold sales of cigarettes, alcohol, solvents and a whole range of other things and to help prevent people walking into a store feeling that they can steal something with no recourse whatever. We are trying to say through policing, the legislation that we have passed and support for the type of areas that the noble Baroness has mentioned that shop theft—I will not call it “shoplifting”—is unacceptable. We need to drive it down.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the work that he has done on this and for taking the time to come to Brixton recently to meet shop workers in my community, many of whom told him some harrowing stories of the violence that they have faced. He heard that a small number of relatively persistent shop offenders are responsible for quite a lot of the theft. What work has been done to target those persistent offenders and what role can technology play, particularly facial recognition technology?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. I was pleased to visit Brixton with her some months back to look at this issue and to see the impact of shop theft on a range of shop owners. We have given additional resources to specific police forces, including the Met, to deal with town centre disturbances and shop theft. That operation is ongoing. The Policing Minister in the Home Office chairs a regular meeting with the lead chief constables on this matter. We have also put great emphasis on looking at the range of other issues, including facial recognition for persistent offenders. There has been a consultation on that recently, which we intend to respond to shortly. Overall, if there are persistent offenders, we have a range of mechanisms, including those passed through the Crime and Policing Act, such as respect orders banning people from particular areas of a community. I hope that the full force of all those will further reduce this plague.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, last week I met a group of retail workers from across the country, not represented by the big trade associations but from local convenience stores and corner shops. Is the noble Lord aware that their specific concerns at present focus on the violence coming from pop-up vape shops? These are a blight on our high streets and are fronts for black market sales, especially of cigarettes, which the workers believe are one of the unintended consequences of the Tobacco and Vapes Act. Following the BBC and Channel 4 exposés of this murky world, often populated by thugs and illegal migrants threatening legitimate retailers, will the Minister meet these small businesses to discuss these very specific threats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always happy to meet any businesses with colleagues. We have put £10 million of funding, announced in the Budget, into the very issue that she mentioned. We have increased dedicated support for the National Crime Agency to tackle high street money laundering. We have had a multi-agency crackdown on money laundering through the high street. We have had an HMRC targeted surge against tax evasion and illicit finance in the high street, and we will undertake further closures of premises that are not performing as they should, because they are undermining legitimate businesses. A lot has been done, but I accept that there is a lot more that can be done.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government are truly committed to tackling retail crime, such as shop theft and violence against retail workers, they need to improve enforcement and policing. Have the Government given any consideration to hotspot policing, whereby more officers are deployed to areas with particularly high rates of crime and greater use is made of stop and search?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, we have. We have highlighted particular areas through the policing assessment of shop theft, and we have identified a number of areas where we have been able to put in resource to do that. We have also, dare I say, increased the number of police officers on the beat. We have a commitment to increase that by a significant number. We have managed 3,100 in the 18 months or so that we have been in office, and we intend to increase that. With our police reforms, we intend to give additional support to look at what the priorities are at a local level, with smaller police forces more focused on neighbourhood policing. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on those measures.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister has mentioned new offences, more resources and more charges. Does he accept that the effect of these welcome measures will be undermined unless offenders are brought to court speedily? Does he accept that, at the moment, the delays in bringing these matters to court are far too great and the deterrent effect is severely undermined?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We take a whole of government approach to this. One of the reasons why we are looking at the range of issues on retail crime implementation is to make sure that we can manage new pressures in the system. The noble Lord is right: it is important from the Home Office’s perspective that we catch them or prevent them, but for the Ministry of Justice and other departments it is important that we have speedy justice and, if need be, imprison them. That is a whole of government approach. The key point I would leave the House with is that this is a really important issue.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, at a meeting of the APPG on Sport and Physical Activity in the Criminal Justice System, which I co-chair, Nike highlighted the growing scale of retail theft and violence against shop workers. Given the evidence that sport and physical activity can support early intervention, diversion and rehabilitation, I would be grateful if the Minister would be willing to work with organisations in the sector to explore how these approaches could form part of the Government’s wider strategy to tackle retail crime.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is extremely important that we prevent crime. That is why it is important that we go back to the ultimate basics on this. If people at school age involve themselves in retail crime, there need to be efforts and support to give them an alternative lifestyle. Retail crime does grow, and people who engage in what they would term low-level activity will find themselves at some time doing higher-level, more damaging activity. I go back to the basic principle that shop theft damages the shops, it damages all of us as consumers, it damages the individuals who undertake it and we have to try to drive it down. To do that, we have put in place measures on prevention of retail attacks and measures of change to shift the balance so the police can focus on shop theft. On the point the noble Baroness made about early intervention, if people are involved and come to the attention of the authorities, there should be mechanisms to help support them to turn away from that life.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 2 June be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motions agreed.

UK Migration

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sahota]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of people migrating into the UK in each of the last five years.

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

Net migration increased from 2021 to record levels in 2023, reaching 944,000 at its peak. Since 2023, numbers have fallen substantially. Net migration fell to 171,000 by the end of 2025—an 82% decrease compared to the peak and the lowest level since the pandemic.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that. I congratulate the Government on reducing net migration from, as the Minister said, its peak of 900,000 to 171,000, an impressive reduction of approximately 82%. However, despite this significant progress, a recent opinion poll suggests that almost half the public still believe that immigration is continuing to increase. This misconception is being exploited by the right-wing political parties and risks creating unnecessary division and disharmony within our communities. What more can the Government do to ensure that the public are made aware of the accurate immigration figures and are better informed about the progress that has been made?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. Immigration is a very sensitive issue, but it is also multifaceted. The figures on net migration are falling, the number of asylum claims being processed is increasing, and we have to deal with the small boats, the numbers of which are reducing. But we also have the very valuable contribution that many people who have come to this country make—from doctors to bus drivers, to factory workers, to people involved in our society as a whole. I therefore say to those on the far right who seek to exploit this that we are a cohesive, multicultural society, and we have people here who are contributing. We have to meet certain challenges, and this Government are prepared to meet them.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am very conscious that, under the points-based system, many people came into this country on a variety of visas. However, in the last two years, over half a million people have acquired British citizenship. What assessment have the Government made of the Home Secretary’s proposed policy change to extend the right to acquire ILR—and, I assume, citizenship—to 10 years, in terms of the number of people who will gain British citizenship in the next decade?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We keep that matter under review. As the noble Baroness will know, we introduced an immigration Bill in the House of Commons last week, which will bring significant changes. This Government are trying to get control of migration and citizenship issues across the board, and we are doing our best to, dare I say it, rectify some of the difficulties of the previous 14 years.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. The Minister has rightly put the contribution that migration brings to this country at the forefront. It is in all our interests to make sure that people integrate into our society as rapidly as possible, so can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to speed that process up and make it more accessible? Perhaps I might refer him to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who has just produced a report on such matters, including the role of diasporas in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have not yet had a chance to read my noble friend’s report, but undoubtedly, I will read it—because he will send it to me if nobody else does. We have to recognise that we are a multicultural society. The people who, historically, have come to the United Kingdom have had ties to it through many Commonwealth countries. The people who are coming here are bringing skills and making important contributions to our society; we should recognise that, and we should celebrate and respect their differences and their different faiths. Through my noble friend Lord Lemos, who is Faith Minister, the Government are trying to ensure that we recognise that contribution, and it is a constant challenge to make sure that we do so. One of the great challenges is making sure we have a strong, managed migration system, so that people can see that it is transparent and fair.

[Baroness Black of Strome (CB)]

My Lords, children coming into the country are an important part of our migration and immigration. What scientific methods are currently being used to assess the age of our immigrants, and how many appeals against those determinations have been upheld? I declare an interest as the previous chair of the Home Office’s age estimation committee.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness the exact figures on the appeals, but I will look into that and write to her. We are trying to ensure that we achieve accurate age assessment through high levels of technology, and we are introducing that technology at ports of entry to ensure that we can make a rough estimate of the age of individuals arriving in the United Kingdom, and whether they are over or under 18. I will write to the noble Baroness in due course to confirm all those details.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, when will the Government have a computerised system in place that can accurately track both entry into and exit from the United Kingdom, and therefore give the Government an accurate picture of who is here and what their status is at any one time?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very important point, and knowing not just who arrives but who leaves is certainly a key issue. We are trying to modernise that infrastructure. In particular, we are looking at how we can use AI to improve the assessment of the information we have. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Viscount has said and respond to him on what we are doing on those issues.

[Baroness Nargund (Lab)]

My Lords, the Health Foundation has just published a significant report with the latest evidence on immigration and the NHS. The report finds that the average person who migrates to the UK is more likely to work in the NHS, less likely to use it, and significantly contributes to NHS funds. Around one in five staff working in the NHS are non-British nationals. Will my noble friend the Minister consider this latest evidence, particularly when it comes to workers in the NHS and in social care? It will be significant in helping our health and social care workforce.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look at the report my noble friend has cited. I also want to place on record my thanks to and recognition of the value of all those who contribute to the National Health Service. As my noble friend has said, many of them originally came to this country as non-British nationals and are now naturalised Britons. Their contributions should never be underestimated. However, that does not take away from the fact that we need to ensure that those Britons who are currently unemployed and who aspire to work in the health service can also do so. One of the objectives of the Government’s migration programme is to ensure that we build up the skills and talent of people of British heritage who were born in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it has recently been revealed that, despite the previous Government placing restrictions on dependants for those on health and social care visas, people are still bringing in huge numbers of dependants. Some 12 such visas were issued to nationals of Cameroon, who were able to bring 180 people with them. I do not say this to make any great political point, but I am sure the Minister agrees that this is not how the system is supposed to operate. In the light of that, do the Government have any plans to rectify this situation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. We have seen some reports on the issue of dependants of health and social care visa holders remaining exempt from the surcharge, and on such visa holders bringing in family members. We are looking at this, but some aspects of the stories currently in the press are incorrect, and it is incorrect to link dependant visas granted in a given year with worker visas granted in the same period. I will look at the issue the noble Lord has mentioned and send him a note; but, while he himself has not been inaccurate, there are some inaccuracies in the reporting of this.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

What sustainable rate of net inward migration would the Government like to see going forward?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Unlike previous Governments, we are not setting a net migration target. We are trying to ensure—and our success in this was proved in my initial Answer to my noble friend—that we manage migration in an effective way. We have seen a massive drop in the net migration figure from when the noble Lord’s Government were in power. Setting a target would achieve exactly what Conservative Prime Ministers have done throughout the last 14 years: set a target but introduce no policy objectives to achieve it, and fail to take into account the needs of the British people and the British economy.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, there are roughly 7,000 vacancies for doctors in the NHS. According to the BMA’s records, nearly 2,000 registered refugees have a medical qualification, and some of them have been waiting over two years for their asylum application to be processed. Would it not be a good idea to have a system whereby, over a period of time, if someone’s asylum claim has not been processed, they are allowed to work, pay taxes and contribute to the country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With respect to the noble Lord, I prefer to tackle the problem from the other direction. I prefer to ensure, as the Government are trying to do now, that we speed up asylum processing and claims and get decisions on asylum. That way, those who are entitled to asylum have it granted, those who are not are returned to a safe country, and we process that in a speedy way. We have put investment and resources into that. It is not right and proper to ensure the possibility of work while asylum claims are being processed, and we are trying to speed up that processing.

European Entry and Exit System

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, there have clearly been serious issues across Europe this year in relation to the new European entry system and it is no secret that implementation has been poor. However, the European Union seems to be under the impression that the new entry and exit system is working well. What discussions have the Government had with the European Union about improving the system?

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

The Government are in constant dialogue with the European Union. We are working closely with European member states to ensure that the juxtaposed ports have the right technology and processes to enable travel to be as smooth as possible for UK citizens. This has included providing £3.5 million in funding to each of the three ports to help make their changes to infrastructure. We will continue to discuss with European partners how we can ensure that we have as smooth an operation as possible in the interests of both the European Union and British travellers.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the root cause of the EES misery that British people are suffering is Brexit. There is no running away from that. But my enthusiasm for the EU does not blind me to its flaws, and this is one of them. Will the Government convene an emergency UK-EU meeting with the European Commission before 20 July—perhaps this can be one of Keir Starmer’s leaving presents—to address the disruption and shambles that is the EES, unfortunately, and protect British travellers during the summer peak?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that, were we still a member of the European Union, this issue would not be a problem. She knows how I voted in the referendum and she knows that this is a consequence of that referendum and decision. Having said that, we are where we are. The European Union is responsible for its management of the schemes. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, we are in constant contact. She asked for an emergency summit; we are holding a summit continuously. We are in constant contact with the authorities and we hope to ensure that the transfer of passengers through the three juxtaposed ports is smooth and efficient.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I have a general question for the noble Lord. I thank him for what he is doing to try to smooth things for passengers from here across Europe. Is it right that a British passenger has to check in for each new country in the EU that they visit, whereas European passengers coming here from the EU check in just once? Is that something that he could alleviate in the discussions he is having with our European partners?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The operation of the EES is a matter for the European Community and its member states. There are different approaches, but my understanding now is that the European Union is trying to get a consistent approach from European countries across the board. It is not for us as a third-party state to have that intervention with European partners, but we can raise issues and we are doing so. We are looking at how we can off-set the concerns that are raised and are trying to ensure smooth transfer, particularly in the three ports that we have—Eurostar, Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Would not the Minister agree that this is an interesting example of how, when we thought we would take back control, actually we have given over control in areas where we could have been part of the solution?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, as ever, is wise, moderate and considered. He makes points that I may share on behalf of the UK Government, but I say to him again that, sadly, we are where we are.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

A few months ago I flew to Málaga, where they had decided not to apply the new system. Is it possible to persuade the EU to put off the system until October?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The system is operational. I have travelled to a European country in the last two months and had to ensure that my credentials were checked and established in the proper way. The operation of the scheme is a matter for the European Union. We are a third-party country. We are trying to ensure that it is as smooth as possible. We have had discussions with our European partners and will continue to do so. As I said earlier, we have put in some £3.5 million of UK taxpayers’ money to ensure that the challenges are at least ameliorated as far as possible.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I sense this is going against the masochistic mood of the House, but how is a failure of the EU our fault? The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in asking her question, said her fondness for the EU does not blind her to the fact that this is a chaotic and badly implemented scheme—for everyone, not just for us. Any third-country national trying to enter the EU will run up against these problems. How is that our responsibility? If there is a bad immigration system in Uzbekistan or Venezuela, that is not our fault. Incredibly, not everything is the fault of Brexit.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord tempts me. It is not our responsibility and it is an EU scheme, but it is our problem if lorries and cars are backed up at Dover, if our citizens cannot get into a European country easily and if we have that general mess. The point the noble Baroness made, which I thought he would have recognised given that he is a strong advocate of Brexit, was that, had we not had the referendum and the Brexit decision, we would have been part of the decision-making process on that very system. Now we are not; we are a third-party country because of the decision he advocated, which I remind the House I opposed.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, in the Government’s discussions with the French and other authorities, are we looking at the possibility that people could register in advance of travelling so that they would be good for two years rather than having to do it at the time of their first journey?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, my noble friend tempts me. The operation of this scheme is one for the European Union. We have made a number of representations to see how we can make this more efficient and simpler from the UK perspective. That includes putting in place contingency plans with the police and others for any potential back-up at the ports in the United Kingdom. It also includes working closely and raising issues with all European nations to make sure that we can make this as smooth as possible. I cannot be the European Union, even for the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. What I can be is the UK’s representative making representations about how we can ensure that, from our perspective, this system works as well as possible.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, having spent many years of my former life in the airline industry and then commuting to Brussels and Strasbourg, I must say in all sincerity that post Brexit the UK really did step up. As a country, we have not made life difficult for EU citizens to come here as tourists and in jobs that they may do. However, we have found that a number of member states, though not every state, continue to make life extremely difficult—I have no idea why—for British travellers, lorries and various others crossing the channel. This is about urging the Government; I know the Minister is trying very hard, but it is called a quid pro quo. We are where we are. This is 10 years on. If we take this in good faith and treat our EU passengers well, which we do, it is not beyond the wit of man for it to be reciprocated for British travellers going abroad.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If there are problems in the system, they are not problems for the British but for any third-party nation. We just happen to be a third-party nation now and I imagine that it is also a problem for Americans and others wishing to enter the EU. In that sense, I sort of agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—something I never expected to say—that it is for the EU to sort out. We are trying to make sure that we help as much as we can to sort out that issue so that it does not impact on UK citizens.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, this is perhaps a rather self-interested question because, like some other Members, I will be travelling to Europe during the Summer Recess. Of the three major ports—Dover, Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel—does my noble friend have any idea in advance which is likely to find itself under the greatest strain as a result of this system and, as a result, get the resources to alleviate that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope my noble friend enjoys his holiday. We are trying to have no problems at any of the three juxtaposed ports. If he wants to, he can look at GOV.UK and the Foreign Office website to get regular live updates as to what is happening at each port. I say again that, if there are particular challenges at a particular time, we have contingency plans in place—particularly for the roads approaching Dover, with Kent Police and the Medway authorities—to ensure that we manage them in an effective way. I am hoping for a smooth transfer, but I urge all noble Lords and others who are traveling to examine websites, look at the information and, as ever, give sufficient time to travel, whatever happens.

Safe Refugee Routes for Students

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent progress they have made towards developing safe refugee routes for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan.

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

My Lords, the Government committed to three new safe and legal routes in the Restoring Order and Control Statement. The Home Secretary announced that the refugee study route will be open this autumn, with arrivals in autumn 2027. Officials are working closely with stakeholders to design the new routes to ensure that they are both safe and controlled, and further information will be set out in due course.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear that there is progress and that the Government are determined that the scheme should be in operation by the next academic year. However, I ask my noble friend for his assurance that those students who might be able to take up the offer being provided by the Government, and who meet the criteria and have scholarships, will know that they will be able to take up the places by 2027. Further, is the Home Office consulting with UUK to ensure that universities are not overburdened by whatever scheme is put in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We intend to set out details of the scheme very shortly, which will, hopefully, provide clarity on what the Government are intending to do with the safe and legal routes. As my noble friend said, it is also important that the universities themselves are involved in, and at least have some discussion with the Government on, the implementation and design of the scheme. I will feed that back to colleagues who are dealing with this directly.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest that I am supported by RAMP. What advice would the Minister give to Afra Elmahdi, a cancer specialist from war-torn Sudan who has secured a master’s place to do cancer science research at Oxford University? That post, that job, that relationship, has ended. What message would the Minister send to her? She seeks to be able to diagnose cancer more swiftly in a country that is torn apart by civil war.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I as have said, the Government are examining safe and legal routes. However, at the moment, we have temporarily suspended the issuing of visas to those from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. We have done that because there has been an increase of over 470% from 2021 levels, and over a third of asylum seekers have previously entered the UK on a visa. We are trying to put safe and legal routes in place. We will look at that scheme, and the noble Lord and others will be able to facilitate that scheme, with effect from autumn next year.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have recently announced that they will allow communities to sponsor refugees on new asylum routes. Given that we had 93,525 people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom in the year ending March 2026, can the Minister tell the House how the Government can be contemplating increasing this number even further?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Lord does not want the Government to meet their obligations on asylum, he should say so. The Government are about trying to meet our international obligations, which we are trying to ensure that we do through this scheme, as the Home Secretary announced in a press conference on 26 June, by giving refugees study and named sponsorship routes, which will be open to applications from lead sponsors in the autumn. That will put real guidelines around asylum applications. It is important that people have sponsorship and places to go, including at university, but it is also important that we meet our international obligations and do not have the abuse of the system that, sadly—dare I say it?—occurred under the Government opposite.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, first the Taliban prevented Afghan females studying and now the Home Office are preventing them studying. Why have the Government not given them an exemption, given that Afghan female students make up a tiny proportion of all international students, to allow them to study in this country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I have said, the Government have decided to put a brake on all applications from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The brake is not intended to be permanent; it will be lifted when the Government consider it appropriate to do so. In the meantime, we are trying to put in place proper safe and legal routes for individuals such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness to be able to come to the United Kingdom with sponsorship in a proper and effective way. That brake is temporary, but it has been put in place for an important reason that I have to report to the House today.

[Lord Isaac (Lab)]

My Lords, I reinforce the point about the devastating impact on refugee students of the introduction of the visa brake. I am really pleased to hear the assurances from my noble friend the Minister that the brake is only temporary and that there will now be an opportunity for sponsorship from universities. I declare an interest as provost of Worcester College, Oxford. Can my noble friend give an assurance that clever refugee students from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan and Cameroon will be able to come to the UK, study and return to their countries as future leaders?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is really important. My noble friend will know that one of the great things the UK has is soft power through the university sector. People will go back to their countries from United Kingdom universities to be business and political leaders. The brake is in place now, but we are looking at how we design the scheme to ensure that we have safe and legal routes from next year for the type of sponsorship that my noble friend mentions. Further discussion will be undertaken by the Home Secretary very shortly, and I would welcome any contribution he wants to make to that.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, given the interpretation that British courts and tribunals have put on the UN and European conventions in recent years, I assume that the entire population of places such as Sudan and Somalia would qualify for asylum and be granted it if they could get their feet on to British soil. Would the Government not prefer to tackle this legal problem, get our asylum rules back to common sense and consider putting a cap on the total numbers that our public services and society can absorb before opening up more safe and legal routes for people to come from these and other countries?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. He will know that I repeated a Statement from the Home Secretary last November on controlling the very issues he mentions. As announced in the King’s gracious Speech earlier this year, there will be an immigration Bill to put into effect some of the issues covered in that Statement on asylum. I suggest that the noble Lord will have a great contribution to make in ensuring that that Bill leaves both Houses of Parliament in a form that meets the objectives he has set out and the Government’s objectives to have safe and legal routes at the same time as putting some control into the system in an effective way. We are cognisant of European human rights issues and are reflecting on them as part of the legislative programme.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, if I may broaden the scope of the Question, given that the recent conflict has not led to any evident improvement in the situation facing ordinary Iranians, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the availability of safe and legal routes for Iranian nationals? I am thinking in particular of members of Iran’s persecuted and vulnerable religious minorities, including Christian converts, Bahá’ís, Sunni and Sufi Muslims.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate puts his finger on an important point. The scheme that I have outlined to the House is one that the Government are currently developing. We intend to announce further details of the scheme, and we have given a date for when it will be operational. I am happy to receive representations from the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues on how we implement that scheme for countries outside the four that are in the original Question from my noble friend.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister said about setting temporary bars for students from certain countries. However, in relation to the students who belong to the families of Afghan interpreters who are stranded in Pakistan, is there a special provision for the children of the interpreters who worked with our forces in very difficult circumstances?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, the Government will look at all cases on an individual basis. I am aware of the issue, but I am not aware in relation to where the Government currently examine that aspect of policy. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him on the specific issue of interpreters in Pakistan. Where there are legitimate claims for asylum, they will be considered under existing policies and, with the changes we are proposing, under future policy as well.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I strongly support what the Government are trying to do here. The Minister will be aware of my long-standing interest in Sudan, and I agree with what he said. There are many Sudanese students who have contributed a great deal to our society and, every time I go to Sudan, I meet many people who have been to our universities and are now in positions of considerable authority in Sudan. If students come here on the safe refugee route, the key point is that they should be returned to their home country if that country then enters a period of stability at the end of their course.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On all those aspects, the intention is to allow individuals to benefit from the safe and legal route that gives them the opportunity to study, work or bring a required skill to the United Kingdom. However, it is also important that we do not have a brain drain, or individuals leaving but not returning to their countries when possible. The noble Lords’ points are extremely important. In the scheme we are designing, we are trying to ensure that there are sponsors who have responsibility for the individuals who come to this country and that, ultimately, they return to their home countries to use the benefits they have learned in the United Kingdom to improve their home countries.