Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for the confusion—it is one of those days.
First, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, to her new role. I wish her every success in holding the Government to account and raising those issues. I hope that she enjoys the new role and does it as successfully as possible. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her report and for her continued interest and comments on this.
The central point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has raised is around the ethnicity and nationality of grooming gang offenders. She is right that we have not yet got a reliable picture, because the underlying data has been incomplete and inconsistent. That is why the former Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, has written to all chief constables setting clear expectation that suspect ethnicity data must be recorded. But the noble Baroness is right that we need to do more, and that is why we will legislate to mandate collection as soon as possible. The police reform White Paper that we published in January said that we would set out our intention to create a framework to mandate data, and this will be taken forward through the upcoming police reform Bill. I cannot give an introduction date for the police reform Bill, but when it comes—it has been announced for this Session of Parliament—that will be done as part of the Bill’s proposals.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, drew attention to the fact that victims may have had convictions for underage prostitution quashed yet they still remain criminalised for offences such as drug possession, which have been forced on them by their abusers. Will the Minister commit to broadening the Government’s approach to quashing convictions so that survivors are no longer haunted by criminal records that are a direct product of the despicable abuse and exploitation they have already suffered?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness has a very strong point. It is horrific that the law has historically treated children, including victims of grooming, as capable of being child prostitutes when they were and are sexually exploited children. We have already legislated to introduce a disregard scheme for those who were cautioned or convicted of on-street prostitution offences as children, and we have also invested £100 million to tackle child sexual abuse. The independent Criminal Cases Review Commission recently referred its first grooming gang case to the courts. That is an important step, and obviously we will keep all these matters under review.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, many of those convicted under the provisions of the grooming gangs were actually taxi drivers, and yet they are a category of people who have to pass all sorts of checks before they are able to pick up—particularly vulnerable young women. How did they escape those checks and how were they allowed to perpetrate these crimes over such a long period?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important point. I do not know the answer to why that was the case specifically, but it is an important point that people who are providing licensed taxi services are sufficiently vetted and have that level of scrutiny to ensure that they are appropriate people to undertake those roles. We have established, as the noble Baroness knows, the grooming gang inquiry under our noble friend Lady Longfield. That is currently working its way through its work and objectives, and I have no doubt that the type of issue that the noble Baroness has raised will be examined as part of that inquiry.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised a very important question to do with the quashing of convictions, and I am delighted and very proud that the Government are dealing with the quashing of convictions for prostitution. However, there are other offences which, in the view of many people, need to be quashed, because they are having a blighting effect on the future lives of these young people. I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell me that the Government are going to look at wider quashing of offences.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important issue that has been raised. I can give my noble friend the assurance that we will keep that matter under review. We have taken initial action in response to the initial inquiry, and we will continue to look at it in future.
Referring back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I may say that the Department for Transport will legislate to address the important issues raised in the report, tackling the inconsistent standards of taxi and private hire vehicles. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 includes the provision to set those national standards. I apologise for not giving her that answer immediately—it is not my direct brief—but I hope that helps the House.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, in 2011 or 2012, I asked a Question on behalf of Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—about child sexual exploitation and how children were encouraged by their abusers to delete the evidence on their mobile phones that could lead to prosecution and that the children were not believed by the authorities. What provisions are in place today to collect such evidence that could prosecute evil perpetrators of child sexual abuse?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The point the noble Baroness has made is extremely important. In the 14 or 15 years since she asked that Question, the police’s ability to collect information and to analyse data in a way that can lead to prosecution has significantly improved. There is a range of mechanisms now where deleted data can be recovered. If there is an evidential trail, that can be looked at. I have just taken note of a range of government reviews about how we can manage and use particularly AI to improve the analysis of information, so that the manual element is still there at the end but there is a great deal of consideration of how we can collect that information and analyse it in a much better way. So I hope that, since she asked that Question, the situation has improved.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, this yet another inquiry is long overdue; I think we all accept that, but we understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, is committed to ensuring that it works as well as it can. Does the Minister agree that it is incredibly important, for social cohesion and for public confidence in our justice system, that the first public servants who were involved over that very long period a long time ago will be called to give evidence and to provide statements? Does she have the statutory powers to do that in the way that the inquiry is currently framed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The terms of reference for the inquiry are set out and the scope of the inquiry has been developed, and included in that are legal obligations to protect relevant information that was used by responsible individuals at the time. The conduct of the inquiry, with due respect, is a matter for my noble friend Lady Longfield to establish. It is not for Government to set out the terms of the inquiry. I have every confidence that she will address the issues that matter to this House. Self-evidently, the noble Baroness has raised an important issue to ensure that those who participated in issues that cause failings have an opportunity to explain and are held to account.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of the most vulnerable young people are those who are in care. Too often, we see young people put in care homes many hundreds of miles away from where their kinship relationships are, making them even more vulnerable. Will the Minster say what can be done to stop the practice of young people being moved to the poorest parts of the country, to the cheapest care homes, where they are made the most vulnerable of all?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important point. It is not directly within my gift to be able to answer that question, but I will make inquiries with my colleagues in the Department for Education for the right reverend Prelate. Whether people are moved to a poor area or a wealthy area, the issue of child sexual abuse is unacceptable, and the purpose of government policy is to ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place, that criminal sanctions are there to be used, that the preventative measures that we have talked about today already are developed, and that the lessons from the inquiry conducted by my noble friend Lady Longfield are implemented as a matter of urgency. I will reflect on what he said, but the important point is that child sexual abuse is unacceptable wherever it comes from.
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the sentencing of Peter Wai and Bill Yuen for assisting a foreign intelligence service, what plans they have to (1) protect Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom from transnational repression; and (2) to review the status, privileges and immunities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Question. I assure her that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This trial has shown that anyone working to assist a foreign state to undermine our security will face the full force of the law. The Foreign Secretary has also made it clear to the Chinese Government and directly to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office that this activity is unacceptable and clearly counterproductive to our relationship.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but given that one of those convicted under the National Security Act for spying on pro-democracy activists was an immigration officer and special constable, himself sentenced to 10 years, can my noble friend assure me that his Government will take greater steps to ensure that no such agents are working under such a guise? Can he also assure me that the Government are taking all possible action to protect Hong Kong citizens living in the UK, especially those with a bounty on their head, from harassment or even worse from the Chinese Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As my noble friend indicated, the two individuals concerned received significant prison sentences of eight years and 10 years for their offences. Immediately following the arrest, officials in the Home Office took steps to bolster protections across Home Office systems. This has included further strengthening access management and monitoring of systems, expanding the use of enhanced integrity checks and reviewing conflicts of interest policies. In addition, the Prime Minister set out to the House in April that Sir Adrian Fulford will undertake a review of national security vetting, which will report in due course.
My noble friend asked about Hong Kongers generally and transnational repression. The Government take the safety of individuals who may be at risk from transnational repression extremely seriously. We have recently updated GOV.UK guidance on transnational repression for individuals, and counterterrorism policing in particular has rolled out training across all UK police forces, including upskilling of 999 call handlers to improve front-line identification and response.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I welcome what the Minister just said about the updating of some of the guidelines but will he return to the report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights published exactly 10 months ago, which called for the highest enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to apply to the Chinese Communist Party regime, along with Russia and Iran, but also raised concerns about people such as Chloe Cheung, a young woman from Hong Kong who has a 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty on her head? Surely, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, this is a relic from the past and it is high time that this spy hub was simply closed down.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised the foreign influence registration scheme. That was introduced less than a year ago. As he knows, we have designated initial nations accordingly. It is still a relatively new tool. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under close review at all times. The noble Lord would not expect me to announce any further reviews to this House at this time, but we will announce any changes to Parliament in the usual way. It is not acceptable for individuals to have bounties placed on their heads, and the Government, as I said, take the safety of individuals who may be at risk extremely seriously, and there is always support when there are threats tailored to specific circumstances, such as those that the noble Lord mentions.
The noble Lord has looked at the Hong Kong trade office. The purpose of that office is to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region. It is a legitimate activity, which may continue. However, as has been shown in this case, where people conduct state threat activity we will hold them to account. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May and explained that the behaviour was unacceptable, and we will continue to take action when required.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. However, these convictions do not come in isolation; they follow a series of recent incidents involving alleged Chinese state-linked activity in the UK, including espionage prosecutions and reports of surveillance directed at dissidents and members of the Hong Kong community. At what point do the Government conclude that these incidents represent not isolated events but a systematic challenge to the United Kingdom’s national security, requiring perhaps a more robust response than has so far been forthcoming?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, we will take action, where required, against the Chinese authorities. We assess that China poses a significant threat in a number of areas, from cyber attacks to foreign interference, espionage targeting our democratic institutions and transnational repression, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. We are also alive to the fact that there are common areas of interest with the Chinese Government on the international stage. China still presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s current third-largest trading partner. It is not inconsistent to challenge at the same time as examining where British interests lie as a whole.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, Peter Wai was a UK Border Force officer and a special constable, but it has also been reported that he was a director of a private security company. A third defendant, Matthew Trickett, who died before the trial, was an immigration officer and a director of a different security company. It seems to me that it is a conflict of interest to be both an immigration officer and running a private security company. Can the Minister explain what is now going on to make sure that we do not have these conflicts of interest in our important Border Force employees?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has mentioned an important point. The former Security Minister, my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis—who held the post until he was appointed Defence Secretary a couple of weeks ago—commissioned Home Office officials to undertake a thorough examination of whether there is a case for further regulation of the sector under the Private Security Industry Act. Those working in private investigation do important work, but their specialist skill sets make them attractive targets for foreign states to exploit.
As I mentioned, we have bolstered our robust security vetting regime, which will protect assets and information as a top priority for government, and we have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to undertake a review of the vetting issues. I await his recommendations; it is important we have consideration of those things. I say again that eight- and 10-year sentences show that the National Security Act is working and that there are significant penalties for those who dare cross the legitimate line of their employment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reveals the other side of the coin in relation to a resident of Hong Kong who is a United Kingdom citizen, who has been “convicted” under the Chinese national security legislation—namely, Jimmy Lai? When was the last time that either the Minister’s department, or, if more relevant, the Foreign Office, let the Chinese ambassador in London or the Chinese Government in Beijing know that his improper incarceration is offensive and will have some bearing on the status of the Hong Kong trade office here in London?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the question. As I mentioned in my initial replies, to my knowledge, the Foreign Secretary last had contact with the Chinese authorities through the embassy on 8 May, when she made significant representations. It is the role of the Foreign Secretary to make representations in relation to prisoners elsewhere. I will go back to the Foreign Office to inquire whether there has been further contact since 8 May, but that is my understanding of the last contact.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, while I am not aware that there was any religious element to the incidents referred to, we know that many Hong Kongers have come to this country seeking religious freedom and, indeed, many thousands have joined our churches. Can the Minister give reassurance to those people that the freedom of religion and belief will be honoured here?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I certainly will give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that freedom of religion and expression is essential in the United Kingdom. Residents of this country should know that, whatever nationality they have, the Government take the safety of individuals extremely seriously; that we will not tolerate transnational repression; that we will use legislation to take action where it has surfaced; that the prison sentences, in this case for espionage, of eight and 10 years are significant; and that we keep all matters, such as the foreign influence registration scheme and all the other measures we have, under continuous review.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talks about things that are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, but the Chinese Communist Party is using the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office as a tool for its repressive activities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to it as a relic of a time when it was a valid trade and economic office. The two front men have recently been caught, but there is a whole apparatus behind them. Why is the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office still being allowed to exist as a smokescreen for those repressive activities?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office exists to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region, and that is a legitimate activity. If there are allegations of criminality, or where there is proven criminality, the Government will take action, as has been the case with the two individuals who are now serving time in prison for their crimes. I can only reiterate that we take this matter seriously. The Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May. She explained quite clearly that that behaviour is unacceptable. We will continue to monitor it and, if need be, take action.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I raised the issue of the new proposed Japanese super-embassy—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
—sorry, the Chinese super-embassy—on 29 January 2025 and articulated the very serious concerns that a number of us had about the efficacy of the decision to let that go ahead. The Minister will know that since then, there are still very considerable concerns about the impact of the embassy with respect to financial infrastructure near the City of London. Despite that, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, allowed it. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House whether his view is that the Government will now resile from contesting the judicial review brought by the Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association and scrap the decision to build the new super-embassy, which is a threat to our national security?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The security services were involved throughout in the advice given to independent authorities on the development of the embassy. The Secretary of State has taken his decision. The decision stands, but we are confident that the merger of embassies into one super-embassy and the advice we have taken from the security services mitigate against the threats that the noble Lord is concerned about.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
When it came to recent so-called spyware lawsuits, various Governments tried to claim state immunity. Can the Minister just update the House on the Government’s view on this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If proof is given and the state is taking action, the Government will consider what action we will take against that state. We have a number of potential tools at our disposal. The FIRS is one tool, which we can always examine and keep under review. The state threats Bill will be before the House tomorrow. When that is passed in due course, we will consider what action we can take. Our security services advise Ministers on every occasion about what the threats are and what action we can take. As has been proved in this case, the National Security Act provides a vehicle to take action against individuals who have committed offences. The two individuals are spending eight and 10 years in prison as a result of that action. We will not take any action that undermines the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I have not yet heard an answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on conflict of interest. Is it acceptable for a Crown servant—an immigration officer, a Border Force employee—to be a director of a private security firm? If not, will it now be stopped?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord has put that question. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we are keeping all matters under review. We have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to look at vetting. Let us wait for the responses to that review. They are very important points. We will reflect on them at all times, but I have set out to the House what I can today in response to my noble friend’s Private Notice Question.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In our report on transnational repression, published some 10 months ago, one of the recommendations was that those perceiving themselves to be the victims of transnational repression should have access to a dedicated reporting mechanism. The Government indicated that they were favourable to that, but we have not heard any further on what progress has been made. Perhaps the Minister could update the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have had a number of requests on that matter. We have considered carefully, in conjunction with counterterrorism police, how best to encourage reporting and ensure that reports are received and treated seriously. The existing functions have been found by the counterterrorism police to be effective and efficient. We are looking at how we can improve the training and support of call handlers and particularly trained officers dealing with crime reporting on a 24/7 basis. Translators and language support are embedded within the existing reporting mechanisms. We will keep things under review but, in essence, we are meeting the objectives of the review that the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Alton of Liverpool, requested.
Transnational Marriage Abandonment
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government monitor data on applications under the transnational marriage abandonment route and publish quarterly data on GOV.UK under the “Settlement VDA” section. The latest data shows 82 applications in 2024 and 69 in 2025. Transnational marriage abuse behaviours are covered by a number of existing offences. As part of our work to tackle violence against women and girls, we are working with policing partners so that perpetrators are pursued and victims are protected.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, transnational marriage abandonment has devastating consequences. It separates mothers from their children—a form of gender-based abuse. Australia has made it illegal, so perpetrators who abandon their wives and children abroad are charged with exit trafficking. Will the Government bring in similar legislation? At present, perpetrators are not held accountable, and it has been going on for decades. My father abandoned me, my mother and my brother abroad, and it took us years to get back. It is still going on, so please can the Minister give this serious thought?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s personal experience and her commitment to resolve these matters. The Government are keeping all matters under review, but, in essence, we are looking at prevention through existing legislation. In January 2024—this would have helped the noble Baroness in her circumstances—we expanded the victim of domestic abuse category to include transnational marriage so that individuals can apply to the United Kingdom, without a fee, and get these matters treated quickly. As I said in my Answer, a large number of people have taken this route: there have been some 203 applications since 31 January, and we encourage others to do so.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, women and children who are repatriated often rely mainly on charities. What support do British embassies give, and will they help with repatriation to lift the burden on charities?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an important matter. Without repeating myself, let me say that we have waived the fees that would be expected in normal applications for victims of transnational abuse. That is a big commitment. Obviously, there are other costs, and the individual or charities can potentially cover them, but the Government’s contribution is to say that, if you are a victim of transnational abuse, you will not have to pay the expected fee that would normally need to be paid for consideration, which is around £3,200. That is a significant government contribution.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in recent months, I came across a very strange case in my community. A couple who had lived here for about three or four years had a child, and they were working and paying their taxes and so on. They then went on holiday to India and took their child with them. On their way back, they were told at the airport that they could enter the country, but their child could not, so they had to take their child back to India and leave them with their parents before coming back. Is that government policy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I would be grateful if my noble friend would write to me with the specifics of that case. I cannot comment on the reasons why any particular entry was refused at that time. Self-evidently, the Government want to see families reunited, and I am not aware of the circumstances of that case. That is not transnational abuse in the way in which the noble Baroness raised it, which is a deliberate act of malicious behaviour. This may be an issue that I will have to investigate, and I am happy to do so.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, just two nights ago in Parliament, there was a two and a half-hour session organised by one of the all-party parliamentary groups at which a number of women and girls gave evidence. Evidence that was given by Professor Javaid Rehman and Professor Mariz Tadros is germane to my noble friend’s Question, and I hope that the Minister might be willing to meet both those reputable academics to talk about some of these associated issues as part of the review that he has said is under way.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always happy to meet when possible external bodies via Members of this House, and I will ensure that is arranged accordingly.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, a recurring feature of these cases is that the victim’s passport is taken by the perpetrator before or during travel, leaving them unable to return to the UK independently. Improperly obtaining another person’s passport is already a criminal offence under Section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. Can the Minister say how many prosecutions have been brought for that offence in the context of transnational marriage abandonment cases and whether the Government will issue clearer guidance to the CPS on charging this offence in such circumstances?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the main causes of transnational abuse is where the passport is taken from the person so they cannot travel. We have tried through the new visa route to ensure that issue can be addressed locally so that travel can happen—free of the fees, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness a moment ago.
One problem we have—and I encountered it in preparing for this Question—is that some offences, for example of passport theft, will not be broken down in relation to the number of individuals who have had their passport stolen in the context that the noble Lord mentioned. We need to examine that as an issue. I cannot give him figures now, and I suspect I will not be able to do so in writing for that reason, but he raises an important point, and we need to get the whole picture of how transnational abuse works.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can I raise with the Minister another group of very disadvantaged women: those who come from overseas to marry somebody in this country? They go through a religious marriage, very often a nikah, but they never have their marriage registered. The husband then abandons them, and they have no right to remain in this country. That seems to me an issue which the Government ought to consider.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, in the context of transnational abuse, passport theft, abandonment abroad or abandonment in this country are issues where we have those potential difficulties. We are trying to ensure that we treat the individuals—almost always women and children—as victims and not as people who need to be tested by the state as to their validity to stay. That is why the transnational visa route we introduced in January 2024, which was not there before, is an important measure to help support those individuals.
State of Extremism Report
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goodman of Wycombe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to identify individuals, groups, organisations, businesses or bodies in the annual State of Extremism report they committed to publishing in Protecting What Matters, published on 9 March.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Answer to the noble Lord is yes. Where necessary and proportionate, the report will include examples of those propagating extremism and where they have been disrupted.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
That is an extremely welcome Answer. Does the Minister not agree that the antisemitism emergency is being driven not only by hostile states but by hostile non-state actors such as Hezbollah and Hamas and their agents here? Is it therefore not essential, as he says, that the report names them to ensure that they have no access to public money, government platforms and—this is extremely important—engagement with public services such as the police? Is it not vital that they be isolated and shunned?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is vital that those spreading extremism are tackled in every form by the state and by other parties. The Home Office will publish, as the noble Lord knows, the landmark state of extremism report by the end of this calendar year. We are delivering a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and want to make sure that we have the tools, capabilities and partnerships to match the scale of that threat. The report itself will cover not just government action but the available support and powers on disruption, particularly relating to case studies.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have recently learned about and am deeply concerned by the Prevent programme, which has a voluntary participation clause. Can the Minister explain the criteria being used to identify young Muslim people, in particular, who are deemed fit to be “trained”? How are the Government ensuring that young Muslim people are not targeted and profiled, and that this practice is not forced down their and their families’ throats, as happened with young Black people during the stop and search period, which was a shameful time for many families and particularly for institutions?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The purpose of government policy and of Prevent is not to colour all Muslims as being related to extremist activity. The purpose of Prevent is to help identify those individuals who are vulnerable and at risk. That identification is done by social workers, support workers, police and other agencies. If an individual is vulnerable, the idea of Prevent is to help them have defences against that vulnerability so that they do not get drawn into extremism. The Muslim community as a whole should have nothing to fear from that process.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. The issue of how to tackle extremism while preserving the right to freedom of expression falls squarely within the terms of reference of the review carried out at the request of the Home Secretary by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which examined hate crime and public order legislation. Can the Minister tell us what has become of that review, and when it is likely to be placed in the Library so we can all read it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The review has been received by the Home Secretary. We are examining its contents, and we intend to publish it before the Summer Recess.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the proposals outlined in Protecting What Matters, namely, to tackle the abuse of charitable status for the purpose of promoting violence and hatred. However, phrases in the extremism definition such as creating a “permissive environment” for the destruction of “fundamental rights” are quite vague. If applied without further elaboration this could, as the charitable sector has warned, have the effect of chilling lawful advocacy, campaigning and community involvement. What progress is being made in producing and consulting on these proposals? Will the Government ensure that the thresholds are clear and understandable when they emerge, so that we all know where we are?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the quotes mentioned by the noble Lord, I bow to his significant experience in managing these issues and I will certainly look at his comments. On the commitments set out in the proposals, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is looking at strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist and terrorist exploitation in the charitable sector. There will be consultation and development of further powers on persistent misconduct, while ensuring that the power to close a charity exists and that the focus is on extremism rather than any other issue.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, given the recent incidents in Southampton and Belfast—in which individuals who appeared to belong to either the Black or the Asian community were particularly targeted for no reason other than what they looked like—does the Minister agree that social cohesion must now be a national priority if we are to tackle extremism in all its forms?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. I condemn the incident in Belfast—an individual has now been charged, but I cannot comment further—and the actions that were taken in Southampton. People have the right to protest, but they must do so in a way that does not damage businesses, the community or police officers who are trying to protect the public at large. On 9 March the Government published a social cohesion action plan, Protecting What Matters, which sets out a number of points on our efforts to build social cohesion. We accept that we must do that, in order to ensure that everybody in our society has the right to live their lives and conduct their business free from political violence and extremist intervention.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Protecting What Matters document says that
“we must be clear that we are a society built on shared values”.
Do the Government accept that Britain is about far more than just shared values? Social cohesion relies upon a shared sense of belonging and a common culture. This requires those who move to Britain to integrate into our society and live according to British cultural practices. What further action will the Government take to ensure that cultural integration is one of the foremost aims of their strategy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I happen to believe that some of the cultural differences are things we should be celebrating. I value living in a culturally diverse community, and I aim for a society where we can all live our own lives, live our own religions and enjoy our cultures, but have a shared ownership of being within the United Kingdom state. That is our objective—one that I hope the whole House shares.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend will recognise that an increasing number of the subjects of interest, in both the right-wing space and the Islamic space, being investigated by the security services are individuals under the age of 16. What more can be done to tackle the radicalisation of individuals, which is mainly done online?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point, and it is extremely important that we challenge the poison of online extremism that sometimes occurs. Existing legislation, particularly the Online Safety Act, empowers Ofcom to order the taking down of material that is damaging or extremist, and significant fines can be levied. However, we need to further examine how the online space is used to radicalise people, particularly those who, very often in their own bedrooms, are looking at such material, being sucked into an extremist pit—be it the right, Islamic extremism, or any other form of extremism—and groomed, in a sense, to undertake further activities. This is an extremely important issue that is difficult to challenge, but it is one the Government need to address.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, when she talks about the importance of extremism criteria. How can we ensure objectivity and avoid politicisation of the term? In this House and the other House, we have seen the political winds propagating the false notion of two-tier policing, which is really divisive. Equally, in this House and the other House, we have heard politicians calling for more Black stop and search, when we are already disproportionately targeted. So criteria are important, and I urge the Minister to ensure objectivity in, and not the politicisation of, the process.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government do not accept the principle of two-tier policing: policing should be done according to the circumstances that a police officer faces. This is not about two-tier policing. We have embedded across government the 2024 definition of extremism and engagement principles to ensure a consistent understanding of extremism, and we are updating the 2024 engagement principles to ensure that public bodies understand that issue in a proper and effective way.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will give the Minister a case study that he has previously referred to. In university campuses, student union committees get elected on a platform of antisemitism, Holocaust denial and insisting on the sacking of a Jewish professor of economics. Does the Minister agree that, while antisemitism has no place in universities, it is alive and kicking in universities? What can be done to hold universities to account?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Through the Department for Education and Home Office activity, we have given significant support to universities to help root out antisemitism in particular and extremism in general. The noble Lord raises a really important issue, and as some of this is not within my direct gift, I will drop him a note, but the point he makes is absolutely valid.
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Proscription
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards drafting a bill creating the legal framework for the proscription of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The National Security (State Threats) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 9 June. This legislation will create a new power for the Secretary of State to designate bodies engaged in foreign power threat activity equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Designation will disrupt and deter the hostile activities of these bodies and those working with them, through new criminal offences.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government are bringing forward legislation, but it is not before time. We have seen IRGC proxies and operatives attacking British Jews and Jewish institutions. We have just seen two such proxies prosecuted and convicted for an almost fatal attack on an Iranian journalist. Is it not time to get this welcome new legislation through every stage of its parliamentary procedures sharpish, and then ban this bunch of homicidal maniacs?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend will know that in the King’s gracious Speech we said we wanted to get this matter on the statute book as quickly as possible. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and this noble House with regard to that, but we want to get this done so that the power is there for the Secretary of State to make judgments on any state threat that we face and to take action which, if agreed by both Houses, will potentially result in sentences of 14 years’ imprisonment for anybody convicted.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I certainly welcome the legislation that is proposed, plus the Minister’s own personal commitment to this, because the use of these proxies, behind which countries such as Iran are obviously hiding, is doing untold harm. It is not just the IRGC but the Iranian-linked Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, which claims credit and responsibility for some of the recent antisemitic attacks. Will it also be included in the legislation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The legislation gives the Secretary of State a power, and then how the Secretary of State uses that power will be for the Secretary of State to consider on the basis of the threats that are presented. The Government condemn antisemitism and are very much aware of the Iranian state threat. In fact, we have already sanctioned some 550 individuals from Iran and organisations, including the IRGC in its entirety. We take the threats from Iran extremely seriously, and we will continue to monitor that. But I hope that this power will be given speedy passage; then we can assess how best to use it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, these Benches support this legislation and, when it comes to us in the next few weeks, we will ensure that there is a very constructive process. The IRGC and similar groups operate under proxies, as we have heard, but there is also enormous state capture of commercial organisations both within their countries and in the wider areas—especially in the Gulf. Can the Minister assure us that under the powers this legislation will allow, any organisation with a commercial link through complex legal, financial and trade routes that ends up in any part of the United Kingdom economy will be captured? Can he assure us that we will not only proscribe this organisation but starve it of funds if they are from the UK?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the legislation and for its fast track. We are getting ahead of ourselves. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to end up with a legislation product that may or may not be amended. I hope that it will be passed speedily. I assure the noble Lord that the Government take this matter seriously and will make all the assessments that he has mentioned in relation to any power that the Government are given by the legislation that is passed. If this legislation can be fast-tracked, we will be able to make any assessments that we wish to make as soon as practicable after it is passed. As I say, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, now that the Government have published the National Security (State Threats) Bill, I can confirm to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill can progress swiftly. I do have a few concerns, however, with the drafting of the Bill. One is that, unlike the Terrorism Act 2000, the Bill does not criminalise membership of a designated group. Can the Minister explain why?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have had a detailed letter from the noble Lord raising a number of points that I will respond to. I am hoping to see him before the Bill comes to this House, for a private discussion on some of those matters. We have acted upon recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, whom we asked to review this legislation. The Bill before Parliament is what he has assessed is a workable piece of legislation.
On including issues such as a membership offence, Jonathan Hall has judged that that is not workable because of international law considerations. We will have to debate that detail, but I hope that ultimately we can settle on a Bill that gives the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—the power to act against any state threat in a way that we are not able to do now. The House has pressed me about this on many occasions. We have not been able to do it because of the failings in the legislation to date. To deal with those challenges, this Bill will make that difference. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I strongly welcome the role that the Minister has played in ensuring that this legislation is brought forward. I remind him of the debate that we had in in your Lordships’ House on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, Transnational Repression in the UK. We took evidence from Iranians who had been left bleeding on the street after being attacked by members of the IRGC, and BBC Persian journalists who were targeted in the way that the noble lord, Lord Cryer, described.
Can the Minister ensure that the recommendations in that report are acted upon? Will he also look at what more can be done to hold to account those who have been executing Iranians in Iran at an unprecedented rate—some 2,159 in the last 12 months, 52% based on the death sentence issued by the revolutionary courts? Of course, in our minds is the young woman, Mahsa Amini, who was arrested and died in police custody because she offended the dress code.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support as well. I know he has a long-standing interest in this matter and has put pressure on the Government accordingly, which I welcome. We are trying to put in place a framework for legislation where we can act on any potential state threat. The type of incident that he has mentioned are ones that we will reflect upon. The Bill itself, unless amended by both Houses, means that there must be a UK connection of some sort for any designation to take place. Those are matters that we will discuss. I do not want us to get ahead of ourselves. I want this Bill to be an Act so that the Secretary of State can legally act to take action against any actor who is providing a state threat against this United Kingdom and its citizens.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He and I are the only two people here who are proscribed by the IRGC. I too put on record my thanks to the Minister. We have pushed hard and will continue to push hard. This needs to be done. As I said yesterday in this Chamber, it is not just the IRGC and its activities but what is going on in the charity world here. I hope that the legislation will be able to look at that too, because it is a serious matter. Money is being raised here in this country—British taxpayers’ money—which is going towards helping the IRGC.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He will know that we have already introduced a comprehensive set of measures against Iran, including the sanctioning of the IRGC in its entirety and of 550 Iranian individuals and organisations. Those sanctions mean a whole range of things, such as travel bans. That is already in place.
Importantly, we have also put the whole of Iran under the foreign influence registration scheme. If an individual is working for the Iranian Government and being paid by them but has not declared it, they face potentially a five-year sentence if found and convicted. A range of measures are in place but, if passed by both Houses, this power will give the Secretary of State an additional power to take action against any state threat that the Secretary of State deems to be a threat to the United Kingdom. Let us get this Bill passed first. We will consider and assess all potential state threats, but I will not comment on the detail until I bring the measures forward.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the virtue of the Bill is the flexibility that it gives the Secretary of State, allowing him or her—depending who is there—to take action swiftly on the basis of security advice. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Cryer that it is now time. I hope that both Houses support the Minister, because he has been very active in this. I understand why it has taken so long. There is a balance of risk. Once you have proscribed an organisation, it is much more difficult to get information to counter that organisation. However, on any measure, the balance is now weighed heavily on one side for proscribing the organisations that have been mentioned and giving the Secretary of State the power to step in swiftly to act against anyone who is a threat to this nation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, who has great experience in these matters. When this Government came to power in July 2024, we recognised—this is not a political point—that there were challenges in the legislation that needed to be addressed. We commissioned Jonathan Hall KC to do a thorough review of that legislation. He has reported back and we have accepted those recommendations.
This legislation, which I have been trailing to the House in discussions when pressed on this matter, has now been produced. It was introduced on 9 June. It will be considered in both Houses of Parliament. We hope that it will be done quickly. I cannot comment on how the legislation will be used, but the power is there for the Secretary of State to take considerations, if required, on any state threat. Once this power is passed, the United Kingdom will be a safer place, because we will be able to take stronger action against those who seek to do us evil.
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s wider programme of reviewing retained EU law to ensure that the statute book operates clearly and effectively within the UK’s domestic framework following EU exit. They ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The instrument before us makes technical amendments to retained EU law relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. Its purpose is straightforward: to preserve the existing framework, maintain legal clarity and ensure that the law remains operable and enforceable in domestic law.
I want to be clear at the outset: these regulations do not weaken animal welfare protections, create new permissions for animal testing or reduce regulatory scrutiny. The UK’s strong protections remain in place. The UK continues to operate one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is important. Under that framework, animals may be used only where there is no viable alternative, the number of animals used must be kept to the minimum necessary and the most refined methods must be used to minimise harm. These requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, audit and enforcement by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Alongside the Act, animal welfare standards are supported by the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence, and these regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework so that the same high standards continue to apply.
I am very much aware that the use of animals in science attracts significant public interest and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision where animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. As noble Lords will know, in November 2025 we published the replacing animals in science strategy, backed by £75 million of investment, to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. The strategy includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, create a preclinical translational models hub and expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods.
At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system.
This is exactly what these regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when it is truly necessary. These regulations provide legal clarity following EU exit to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. I therefore commend this SI to the Committee.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I shall say a few brief words about this statutory instrument and commend my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has set out it and its purpose. My gaze wanders to our colleague from Hansard, because it has occurred to me that, since my reintroduction to the House a week ago today after a few days’ absence, my remarks might be considered a maiden speech, and I want to reassure the Committee that it is no such thing. I am just here to continue my work, much of which has involved actively promoting science at every opportunity, and to give voice to the many scientific organisations outside this House whose advice and assistance are so valuable and welcome.
I doubt that there is any member of the Committee here today who wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. But, for the time being, animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research and it helps to ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. As I understand it, for example, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only by research on animals, and who among us here today has not benefited at one time or another from an anaesthetic? The research that is done is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. It is also critical to responding to health emergencies, including any future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and indeed our very existence.
Scientific advances continue to be made by the life sciences community. Members may have heard the news a week ago from Cambridge that a research group there has developed a vaccine that might be applicable to a whole category of viruses, with the use, for the first time, of artificial intelligence. This could be a real breakthrough. Like all new technologies, it can be used for good and sometimes not. At the same time, we must recognise that alternatives to animal testing are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models, so we must continue to support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.
When this SI was laid, I contacted the Royal Society of Biology for its advice. I should declare an interest, because I worked for the Royal Society of Biology before I was elected to this House. The society confirms that, as my noble friend has set out, this statutory instrument is essentially a tidying-up of the existing standards. It represents a change that will help the sector to propose improvements in practice and for the regulator to accept them and help to embed them as expected standards across the research community. The SI is related to minor amendments to the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes, such as mandatory standards of care and housing, et cetera. These amendments themselves largely relate, as my noble friend has said, to removing references to the EU, which are no longer valid, as well as a few minor clarifications.
The amendments relate to the first two-thirds of the code of practice. The final third of the code of practice, which relates to non-mandatory guidance and leading practice, has been removed, as the Home Office will be revising this more heavily at a later date —my noble friend may be able to confirm this—and will take into account advice given by the Animals in Science Committee on strengthening leading practice. This part will now exist as a stand-alone resource. The real point that I want to make is that the benefit of this is that it can be updated more quickly than if it remains part of the mandatory code of practice and should help more effectively to embed emerging improvements and practices across the sector. On this basis, I hope that this statutory instrument will commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am pleased to say from the outset that these Benches are broadly supportive of what the Government are seeking to achieve, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s world-leading regulatory framework for the use of animals in science. It embodies the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement—the three Rs—and has for 40 years provided a rigorous harm/benefit frame- work that commands respect both domestically and internationally. These regulations do nothing to diminish that framework.
In essence, this instrument tidies the house. It restates, revokes and replaces assimilated law—the legacy EU provisions that were absorbed into our statute book following Brexit—and consolidates them properly and coherently into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Explanatory Memorandum is candid about this being a technical continuity measure. No new burdens are placed on licence holders, and no new regulatory requirements are introduced. I think that is the right approach, and I commend the Home Office for bringing it forward. I also note that Northern Ireland has been properly engaged: legislative consent was obtained and no objections were raised. That matters, given that the regulation of animals used in science is a devolved matter. I am glad that the Government have handled it appropriately.
However, there is one question that I must put to the Minister because it goes to the very foundation of the legal authority underpinning this instrument. The matter has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The regulations are made under Sections 12 and 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Explanatory Memorandum itself acknowledges, at paragraph 6.8, that any regulation made under those powers
“must be made by no later than 23 June 2026”.
That deadline is now a matter of days away. Can the Minister confirm what will happen after 23 June, should further technical consolidation of assimilated law in this area be required, whether by way of correction, clarification or updating the powers in Sections 12 and 14, which will no longer be available? The only route would be primary legislation, which, as the memorandum itself observes, is a considerably more burdensome vehicle for what may in some cases be very minor adjustments. Will the Government set out how they intend to address that gap? Are there further instruments in this area still in preparation that need to be made before the deadline falls?
I am satisfied that this instrument is legally sound and practically sensible. We support it, but I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on the question of what comes next.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the detailed questions and contributions that have been made. I welcome back my noble friend Lord Stansgate following his short interregnum in parliamentary life. Having myself been subject, at one point, to a short interregnum—slightly longer than his—I know that it is certainly a gap that is felt personally, but I am pleased to see him back in his place today.
I welcome the support, in broad terms, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The central point, which I hope reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady McIntosh, is that these regulations do not weaken the safeguards for the use of animals in science. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the cornerstone of the UK system. These regulations make simple technical amendments for restating, revoking and replacing the retained EU provisions so that the legislation continues to operate effectively in domestic law.
I reassure noble Lords that the measures do not reduce welfare standards, create new permissions for animal use or remove existing safeguards, and animal use may still be authorised only where there is no viable alternative and following rigorous independent scrutiny. I say that at the beginning of my comments because it goes to the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Grender, about the future direction of travel. In the document produced in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in DSIT, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Defra, we set out, as a manifesto commitment, the direction of travel and a road map to reduce the use of animals in science and, ultimately, to set out further downstream how we can end it altogether, if possible, which is a very big challenge. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, there are still some areas where it makes a valuable contribution to medical research. We intend to attempt to meet the 35% reduction target mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. That is a joint effort between DSIT and Defra. We have put in £75 million, and the Home Office has oversight of that regulation.
A number of points were made around the Brexit reset Bill. I am afraid I cannot comment in detail on the content of that Bill. What we are trying to do is to give statutory footing to the existing procedures to date. I will look at the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made with regard to 23 June, but my understanding is that we have brought all the changes forward to ensure that this is now in UK domestic legislation without ties to the EU, and that this instrument covers all the necessary requirements. I will check that, because it is important that we do so, but that is my understanding of the situation to date.
In response to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned a number of points, Section 3 of the code will be republished and we will seek to update the section that he mentioned. I have commissioned the ASC to look into how we deliver leading best practice for animals in science. Again, that goes to the heart of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made from the Front Bench.
Regulatory oversight remains the responsibility of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, which operates under regulatory principles that include proportionality, transparency and accountability. Related to points made in the debate, if there are instances of non-compliance, the regulator retains a wide range of enforcement powers, from advice and licence variation through to suspension, revocation and, in the most serious cases, referral for prosecution. Nothing in the regulations changes that. Enforcement decisions are evidence-based and risk-informed. The aim of the instrument and the work that we are doing is to secure the best outcomes for animal welfare and ensure that the regulatory framework operates proportionately and effectively while driving continuous improvement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned Herbie’s law. I understand the interest and concern around developing a proposed framework for replacing animals in medical research by 2035. We tried not to set arbitrary deadlines in our document as they could prove undeliverable. Instead, we have set out a science-based approach that provides clear timelines for specific deliverable actions as evidence and capability are developed. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s new strategy sets out a long-term vision for a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated except in exceptional circumstances, and even those might be areas where we can push forward as medicine and science develop. However, it is not yet possible to replace all animal use, given the complexity of whole biological systems.
However, I assure her and those supporters of Herbie’s law that the Government are clear that progress must be led by science. Progress must be made, but in a way that does not lose the benefits that my noble friend mentioned. We are all living healthier lives today because of the outcomes of research and investment, however difficult and challenging this is at certain points in time.
I hope I have answered all the points in front of the Committee today. Those that need further investigation I will respond to in due course. If there are no further comments, I commend this SI to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
On that 23 June issue, once the Minister has ascertained what the situation is, could he write, letting me know?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I certainly can but, again, my understanding is that the instrument before us today covers all necessary requirements. We have brought forward all the changes needed to ensure that UK domestic legislation is correct without ties to EU law and that the 23 June deadline is, effectively, met by these regulations. I will reflect on that. I cannot give details of the Brexit Bill. It has not been published yet so it is not appropriate to do so. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said and, if there is further information to add, I will write to him. If any noble Lord wishes to have that correspondence, can they please contact my office?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I understand the predicament that the Minister is in. Do we know when the Brexit reset Bill might be published?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As ever, we probably do know but are not able to tell. That is a convention of this House because it is important. We have not published the Bill. We have to publish the Bill and, at some point, we will. With that—
Lord Moylan (Con)
I hope that the Committee will indulge me if I ask a further question on this point. After 23 June, it will not be possible for the Home Office or whichever other department it is—this will arise again in the next debate—to bring forward measures using statutory instruments to adjust these regulations. It will have to be done by primary legislation, or a framework will have to be put in place by an Act of Parliament that allows those changes to be made by SI. The tenor of the Minister’s answers to the questions asked of him suggests that that framework will be put in place by the Brexit reset Bill. That has not been said before, as far as I am aware. Is it the Government’s position that the so-called powers gap will be addressed, as the Minister implies, by the Brexit reset Bill or by some other Act of Parliament, of which we have no knowledge yet?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee if I did not make myself clear. I thought that I had. I was asked a question about the Brexit reset Bill and whether any further information was required in that Bill to deal with this issue. I have said that I cannot comment on the Brexit reset Bill, but I also said, in response to the question about 23 June, that our assessment is that this SI puts us into the position that we are in, in relation to all the assimilation required.
As a third point, I also said that, as this has been raised today, I will test it again with officials outside the Committee to make sure that it is the case. It is my understanding. The Brexit reset Bill is a matter for future discussion with primary legislation on a number of issues related to the Brexit reset. This SI puts in place what we already have, with the same mechanisms that we already have, but, if there are issues around 23 June, I will examine them with officials and write to the noble Lord. With that, I commend the instrument to the Grand Committee.
Concealed Surveillance Equipment in Government Offices and Vehicles
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the reported discoveries of concealed surveillance equipment in Government offices and vehicles, what assessment they have made of the implications of this for (1) national security, and (2) public policy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
In line with the practice of successive Administrations, this Government do not comment on the detail of internal security matters, but I can confirm that an electronic device was found in a communal area of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government during a routine security check. The device was not in or near ministerial offices, and it is currently being investigated by the appropriate agencies. The Government have also looked into the Daily Mail report and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. This is based on inquiries made at the time, and more recently.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the latter point, the Government keep all matters, such as registration under the FIRS, under review at all times. Again, it is not appropriate to comment on any consideration of that at this time. I also say to the noble Lord that it is not appropriate for me to comment on what is a live investigation into the circumstances that I have already admitted have happened in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I strongly caution against any speculation at this time, because the Government will need to investigate that matter in due course.
On the Chinese embassy decision, I say to the noble Lord that intelligence agencies were involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures were developed to manage any risks. The planning decision was taken independently by the MHCLG Secretary of State and his conclusion is the result of a process that began in 2018. If I may, I return to my initial comments: the Government cannot comment on the detail of internal security matters, but those are being investigated by the appropriate agencies. I think it is best that we leave it at that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies for jumping the gun in my enthusiasm, perhaps the Government could comment on this. It is bad enough, although perhaps all too predictable, that there is illicit surveillance by way of, for example, hidden cameras. But what about when public money is actively used to procure cameras that originate, for example, in the People’s Republic of China? I know that the previous Government banned the new installation of Hikvision cameras in sensitive government buildings. Have they all been dismantled? What about banning them from the public estate more generally?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is pressing me to comment on these matters. I cannot comment on security issues—nor would the House, I suspect, wish me to do so—except to say that the Government will ensure that all matters in government activity are secure. The Government take every step they possibly can to make sure that the types of incidents my noble friend refers to do not happen and are prevented.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that this is a highly disturbing and troubling discovery, which demonstrates the severity of the espionage threat that we face today. To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, given that the camera was found in the offices where Ministers approved the application for the new Chinese mega-embassy, it seems highly likely that China or a person linked to China is behind this. Surely this has to serve as a wake-up call for the Government, so how can they still go ahead with allowing China to build a massive spy hub in the middle of London after this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I would caution the noble Lord about jumping to conclusions as to who, what, where or when was behind the device that was found. I genuinely caution him on that but, with regard to the Chinese embassy, I can say that the planning decision was taken independently; the intelligence services have been involved throughout; there have been extensive negotiations; and the Chinese Government themselves have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one, which brings clear security advantages for the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has made interesting points and we will examine, and determine, the facts in due course.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the Minister and the Government have emphasised, understandably, that the camera was not in a location used by Ministers. However, with due respect to Ministers, civil servants can be pretty important as well. Is the Minister able to give us any information about exactly where the camera was located and who uses that area? Can he reassure us that just because the camera was not in a place that Ministers use, that is no reason to downplay the importance of this issue or of an appropriate response by the Government in due course?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord will rest assured that the Government take this matter extremely seriously. They have and will investigate what has happened. I hope he can understand that I do not wish to comment on where and how the information came to light. But I have confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that the facts of the case as reported are correct. It would be best for us to investigate this through the appropriate agencies and, in due course, come to conclusions in government to understand what has happened and how.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister give some indication of when Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is likely to commence? I understand that the Government are keeping it under review. This is the section that requires English universities to include in their annual reports to the Office for Students the funding they receive from foreign states. This is so that the OfS can monitor whether those foreign states are trying to interfere in freedom of speech or academic freedom on those university campuses.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he will allow me, I will write to him on that point—for the simple reason that universities fall within a different department from the one that I have responsibility for. But I will examine that and report back to him as soon as possible.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I fear that my noble friend the Minister will probably repeat an answer that he has already given about five times; in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Precisely where within the department this camera was found makes a world of difference. The Minister used a very careful form of words: he talked about common areas, and an area that was not close to Ministers’ offices. By “common areas”, did he mean those in which the public or visitors were quite frequently present, or does “common areas” mean that it was concealed within a toilet area? If it was a toilet area, I suspect we would be having a very different conversation as that would imply that it may be an internal matter with an internal member of staff, rather than anything else. Without prejudicing any of the other things my noble friend has said, is he able to enlighten us?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In short, no. I am trying to be helpful, as is my nature, but there are certain things I cannot be helpful with. One of them is anything that may give further information about or prejudice investigations into the important matter of the location of any device found. As I have said to the House, it was not in or near a ministerial office, but we are investigating and there will be an examination of what happened. I would hesitate to speculate as to who, what, where, why or when until such time as the investigation has occurred.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is always helpful in the replies that he gives to the House, but I press him further on the second limb of the question I put to him about the discovery of cellular modules in a former Prime Minister’s car. This was not something just reported in a newspaper, as he said to the House. This was mentioned yesterday at the Business Select Committee in another place by Mr Charles Parton, who served as one of our senior diplomats and is one of this country’s leading experts on China—and also on cellular modules. At a meeting that I chaired last night in your Lordships’ House, Mr Charles Parton said it again. Will the Minister at least look at the record of the Select Committee, and undertake to have a conversation with Mr Parton?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will repeat my answer in the interests of clarity for the noble Lord. We have looked into the reports and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. That is based on inquiries made at the time and again more recently. I cannot be clearer than that. An investigation has taken place and no evidence has been provided. I saw the individual make these allegations on television last night, but I can only repeat my understanding of the security services’ follow-up of those investigations. What I have said to the House today is my current understanding of the position.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
The Minister said that the camera was found in a routine inspection. Have the Government instigated more frequent inspections as a result of this discovery?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, with due respect to this Chamber, this Chamber is not the place for me to outline how often, when, where and how the Government undertake security checks on buildings or vehicles. I hope that the noble Lord, who I know takes an interest in these matters, will understand that it is the Government’s first priority to keep our workings internally secure, and it is important that we do that. I assure him that that is what the Government are doing.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
To return to an element of the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does the Minister agree with the director-general of MI5 that China is seeking to influence our political system?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
China influences our political system in many ways, and the Government will not tolerate any foreign interference from any state actor targeting the UK. We have been consistent and unambiguous in our assessment that China presents a series of threats to the UK. We have to do business with China still and recognise China, and we have to work with China on a number of areas of common interest—but, self-evidently, there are a number of significant threats that China poses. We keep those under review and, in all our dealings with the nation of China, we bear those aspects of work in mind.
Lord Farmer (Con)
Have parliamentary Members’ offices been checked for any of these devices, in the other place and in this place? I imagine that foreign powers could be quite interested in the conversations going on in the offices of certain Members of Parliament. Is there is a usual check of our offices?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an interesting and potentially helpful question. I do not have jurisdiction over this building, either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons—that is a matter for the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, and the chief officers of both Houses. I think that they will have heard that response, and it may be possible for me to facilitate a reply on that to the noble Lord via those officers, but it is not a matter for me.
Refugee Move-on Period Pilot Evaluation Report
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the Home Office commissioned an evaluation of the 56-day move-on period, which has now been completed, following the pilot concluded earlier this year. The final report, by happy coincidence, was published on 10 June and is available to read online.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the coincidental publication today of the evaluation. The conclusion of the report states that the
“extension of the move on period … to 56 days, improved refugee experience and operational planning”.
The first recommendation is to
“extend the move on period and consider an even longer move on period for single adults”.
Can the Minister say whether we can expect the Government to implement this recommendation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government began with a 28-day period when we inherited office in 2024. Following a pilot and an evaluation, we determined that the optimum period is 42 days. We have put in additional support, and we always keep these matters under review. The Government have given 14 extra days to the move-on period compared with the previous Government, and I think that should be welcomed.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, as this is an immigration-related Question, I take the opportunity to say that I am sure the whole House agrees with me in wishing Mr Stephen Ogilvie, the person who suffered the knife attack in Belfast the other day, well in recovery, as he suffered very severe injuries. We also hope that demonstrations, if people wish to have them, are peaceful.
Can the Minister, who has laboured in the vineyard for the past two years on immigration issues, not accept that we have not, as a country, got control of immigration? Even with the reduction in net immigration in the year to March, we still have 16,000 people a week coming into this country. That is not satisfactory. Even if there are 56 days, 42 days or whatever is recommended in the report, which I obviously have not yet read, the numbers are just too much, and we cannot go on ignoring the realities. We see what is happening and the reaction on the ground.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First, the incident in Belfast a couple of nights ago was truly horrific, and an individual has now been charged with offences. It is right that he go before the court and that I do not comment on those issues. It is also important, from the Home Office’s perspective, that we work closely with partners, including the police and local safeguarding bodies, to ensure that public protection remains strong. As the noble Lord will know, Northern Ireland has devolved policing; they will examine this issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is there today.
The noble Lord raises a number of issues about immigration. Asylum claims in Northern Ireland are down 7% year on year. The Government have a very strong White Paper and a forthcoming Bill to look at the potential for managing immigration. We have reduced the number of hotels in use from over 400 in 2024 to around 160 now. We will continue to make sure that our borders are secure. It is best that I let the incident in Belfast be seen and determined in the courts, and in due course we will reflect with the Northern Ireland Executive on any lessons learned.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The Minister will know that contractors acting for the Home Office—Clearsprings and Serco—are bidding for private rented accommodation as asylum seekers move out of hotels. Local authorities are also looking for private rented accommodation as they move families with children in temporary accommodation into the private rented sector. This is resulting in a local bidding war between two publicly funded authorities, driving up the price of private rented accommodation, which is already suffering from the consequences of the Renters’ Rights Act. Should there not be some memorandum of understanding or concordat to prevent what is happening on the ground in local authority areas?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very sound point. We are trying to consult with local authorities and work with them closely. We have put in place some 59 local authority support areas, where we have placed asylum move-on liaison officers to work with the local authorities to look at what the asylum move-on is and what the pressures are locally. That is an innovation, following on from the previous Government—the 59 officers were not there previously. The noble Lord makes a sensible point. We do not want a bidding war but ultimately, we have to provide accommodation, and in a positive and constructive way.
Baroness Teather (LD)
I have seen the evaluation of the pilot that was published today. Has the Minister evaluated the impact of giving asylum seekers the right to work, which might make it more likely that they can resolve their own housing situations once they are granted refugee status?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There has been lot of discussion around the right to work, and we have taken the view that it is not a route we want to go down at the moment. Ultimately, through the whole of this scheme, I want to speed up the asylum process and get people’s decisions made quickly, so that individuals can know whether or not they have a long-term future in the United Kingdom. The right to work should be at the end of that process, not during it. We need to complete the process as quickly as possible.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I cautiously welcomed the increase to 42 days, though those on the ground warn that the 56-day period, which was piloted, is needed to ensure that refugees can move on from Home Office support successfully. If the 42-day period is to work, in order to avoid the confusion reported in the evaluation, it is essential that new refugees receive all the necessary documentation to access accommodation and so on before the clock starts ticking on the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister commit to making sure that it happens, please?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is the intention. Throughout this process, we are trying to ensure that asylum claims are dealt with speedily—as quickly as possible. The points my noble friend has mentioned are relevant, and this goes back to what I said to the noble Lord earlier. We have put asylum move-on liaison officers in place in 59 local authorities across the United Kingdom, and they are working alongside Migrant Help to support individuals who will be leaving asylum accommodation, and to ensure a successful transition. It is in the interests of all parties to ensure that people make the transition and move through the housing procedure as soon and as efficiently as possible.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government talk up, of course, the number of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers they have returned, but the Minister knows that the number of enforced returns—those people the Home Office forcibly deports—was only 9,700, a small number in the grand scheme and scale of the problem. Given the significant number of people who are living in Britain illegally, what actions are the Government taking this year to ramp up deportation of those who have no right to be here?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord and his Government had jurisdiction over these matters for 14 years. The number of asylum seekers rose; the processing fell; the number of hotels increased; the number of deportations fell; and the number of criminal justice activities increased. So I say to the noble Lord quite clearly: the position now is better than it was when he left office. There are more deportations than before; there are more hotel closures; there are fewer asylum applications, and they are being dealt with more speedily. I will defend that record in front of this House and in front of him on every day of the week.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Reverting to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, if the person granted asylum has only 42 days to navigate housing, employment and the markets, and to get himself a bank account and registered for universal credit, we need to help him by giving him all the documentation he will need from the start. Eighteen months ago, the Minister told us during a debate on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that digital status existed from the moment asylum was granted. Can it not be communicated at that moment—straight away, day zero —with all the other necessary documentation, including the national insurance number?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look into the points the noble Lord has mentioned. Most e-visas are accessible within minutes of a grant; in a small number of cases, they will take up to three days, as set out on GOV.UK. We hope to ensure that we speed things up, get the proper documentation and allow people that transitional period when the asylum position is determined. We also need to ensure that the 42 days, as has been said generally, provides for a smooth transition to whatever happens next to the individual.
Temporary Skilled Worker Visas: Creative Occupations
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change their policy on temporary skilled worker visas for creative occupations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The United Kingdom has one of the most generous visa offers in Europe for workers in the creative industries. A large number of people, including nationals of EU member states, do not require visas if coming for less than six months. The Government have identified separately the creative industries as one of their eight key growth-driving sectors and have set out a new industrial strategy, including £380 million in targeted funding.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am particularly concerned about the world of dance. Despite the fact that dancers and choreographers spend years training, their qualifications are assessed as being below degree level, and consequently they are eligible for sponsorship to work in the UK via the skilled workers visa route only if they remain on the temporary shortage list. If they do not remain, can the Government confirm that they will secure some sort of exemption or special arrangement for them, as already exists for sportspeople, otherwise there will be a huge negative impact on our world-renowned dance sector and the dance companies that all recruit from a global talent pool?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Musicians, entertainers, artists and technical staff from non-visa national countries can perform in the UK for up to six months, as she knows. They require only an ETA, which costs just £20 and lasts two years. If she will let me, I will look at the specific issue of dancers and correspond with her. The Government’s general approach is to ensure that we have as much access as we can because we want to support the creative industries at home and we want to support those in the creative industries being able to travel abroad. I will look at the specific points that she has mentioned.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall ask about another class of skilled and creative workers in need of temporary visas—namely, sheep-shearers during the sheep-shearing season. They are fundamental to animal welfare. There is a serious issue about the grant of visas. I do not imagine that the Minister knows the answer immediately. Will he be good enough to write to me and copy his response to the chairman of the NFU?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Funnily enough, as the noble Viscount will know, sheep-shearers were not on my briefing for the creative industries. I am sure it is extremely creative and extremely high skilled, but it was not specifically part of my research in answering the Question. The key point is that the Government are trying to ensure that, where possible, we encourage locally grown talent to fill all skilled worker positions. I will look at the specific issue that he has mentioned, and I will ensure that any future creative industries Question includes sheep-shearers as part of my paragraphs.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, when a skilled worker applies for a job in the UK, he pays thousands of pounds to the Home Office in fees, and then he pays thousands of pounds in surcharge every year to the National Health Service. He pays his taxes, national insurance and council tax, and in return he gets nothing—none of the benefits and no recourse to public funds. Yet right-wing parties such as Reform and others are saying that these workers are a financial burden on our country. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with that statement?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not agree that all individuals who come to this country are financial burdens. People historically have made long-term contributions, paid taxes and filled vacancies. However, the Government have to have a managed border system and ensure that, where we can, we upskill United Kingdom citizens to compete and fill vacancies. That is the objective that the Government have in the White Paper, and it is one that I know my noble friend will support.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend, when the Minister writes to her regarding the position of dancers, will he take on board that, had the existing rules applied, Acosta would never have been able to come from Cuba to fulfil the wonderful work that he has been doing since?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government’s objective in all this is to ensure that we support the creative industries, that people with skills who wish to come to the UK to participate in the creative industries or to tour as part of the creative industries can do so, and that UK citizens can travel elsewhere in the world as frictionlessly as they possibly can in order to meet their creative talents and employment. That is the objective. I will certainly reflect on all the points that have been made today relating to specific issues that have been raised.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do the Government accept that, across a wide range of skills, the country is simply unable at the moment to attract many of the most talented people that it needs in order to secure growth, and that part of the problem is the administrative burden, which has just been alluded to, of making those applications? Will they undertake a review of the administration of the scheme in order to try to obtain those skilled workers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I refer the noble Lord to the immigration White Paper that the Government produced last year, which will see itself translated into potential legislative proposals during the course of the forthcoming year that will be subject to scrutiny in both Houses. The purpose of the immigration White Paper was to say that there are certain skills that we need and that, if we can, those skills should be met from the UK’s workforce, and, if not, we will upskill. If there are other skills, then certainly there have to be some strictures around how we attract those skills to the UK. The Government’s central mission is one of encouraging growth. That is what we are trying to do within the remit of managing our borders in a secure and safe way.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, we all recognise the contribution that creative artists make when visiting our country, but we have to restrict the criteria for skilled worker visas to ensure that the system works as intended, so I welcome the Government’s action here. Given that, can the Minister confirm that the Government will hold the line on this issue, not reverse the changes that they have made, and follow through on their other immigration reforms, particularly their policy on indefinite leave to remain?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know—again, for the House’s reference—that we had the immigration White Paper, we have set a direction of travel and we have announced in the King’s Speech an immigration Bill that will be coming forth shortly. I suspect it will arrive first in the House of Commons. The Government have a duty on behalf of the UK population to secure our borders and make sure that our immigration system is fair. That is what we are trying to do with the proposals that he is aware of.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my wife was a board member of the English National Ballet for many years. I want to follow up on the original Question. It is the case, as the Home Office would know if it bothered to consult the ballet companies, that its rules do not allow visas to be granted to brilliant young dancers from all over the world. There is a particular case of people who have been recruited from the Brazilian favelas as brilliant dancers who are excluded from Britain because of a negative Home Office policy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing that to my attention in the Chamber today. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, I will look at the question of dancers specifically. There is a threshold, and I am not clear where the dancing community falls in relation to it, but I will check that and copy any letter that I write to the noble Baroness to my noble friend.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting the case for visas for those in the creative industries, I draw my noble friend’s attention to another area that I have already discussed with him: the fishing industry. That industry depends on migrant workers who come for a short period of time, but, under the current regulations, that is no longer happening. My noble friend the Minister’s colleagues in Defra are talking to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the UK about possible solutions. I urge him to have discussions with ministerial colleagues in Defra with a view to finding solutions that allow growth in the fishing economy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend and I have had a significant correspondence on this issue over the past 12 months. I recognise that there are concerns about a labour shortage for certain skills in Northern Ireland. The argument that the Government have continually made is that we need to look at how we can encourage home-grown skills, but I will certainly reflect on what she said today, discuss it with my colleagues in Defra and, if there are any updates, I will contact the noble Baroness accordingly.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, on a similar point to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I am a trustee of the National Opera Studio, which trains brilliant young opera singers and is sponsored by the country’s leading opera companies. There are problems in the operation of the global talent visa for a small number of singers who come from other countries. I know that there is a call for evidence on this. Would the Government please look at this matter? We are talking about a small number of people and about protecting the position of the UK as internationally significant in opera.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look at the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. I come back to the key point: the Government have recognised that the creative industries are not just fluffy but are an economic driver for the UK, in television, film, art, opera and dance. That is why the Government have committed £380 million towards a plan to help the creative industries to secure growth. I will look at the specific points that the noble Lord has mentioned. Again, some of these points are important but not necessarily at the front of the discussions that I have had. I will look at those points, but the House needs to be assured that this Government are committed to growth and to the creative industries and see them as an engine of employment and wealth.