Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

199: Clause 65, page 81, line 16, leave out from “person” to end of line 17 and insert—
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to clarify the operation of the CSA image-generator offence.

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

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are what I will term minor drafting changes designed to clarify the operation of the new offences in Clauses 65 to 67 and 69.

Amendments 199 to 208 and 210 to 229 make minor changes to ensure that the operation of the child sexual abuse image-generator offence at Clauses 65 to 67 is clear and consistent across the United Kingdom. Amendments 230 to 233 make drafting changes to clarify the language used in the “paedophile manual” offence at Clause 69.

These amendments do not modify the policy intention behind these offences; rather, they make necessary clarificatory changes to ensure that they operate effectively. I beg to move and hope that the House will agree.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s technical amendments. We spent some time in Committee debating the definition of a “thing” used to generate horrific CSA images. I am pleased that the Government have tabled Amendment 201 to clarify that a “thing” explicitly includes a service.

Modern AI is not just a program sitting on a hard drive but an ephemeral, cloud-based service. By adopting this broader language, we ensure that those who provide the underlying infrastructure for CSA image generation cannot evade responsibility through technical loopholes. These may appear to be technical drafting changes, but they provide the necessary teeth for the primary offences in Clauses 65 to 67.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

200: Clause 65, page 82, line 1, leave out from “image-generator”” to end of line 4 and insert “has the meaning given by subsection (1)(b);”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of relevant online services to assess and address the risks that their platforms may be used for the creation, sharing or facilitation of child sexual abuse material, placing a strengthened duty on them to take preventive action. More than anyone in this Chamber, I fully recognise the intention behind strengthening preventive mechanisms and ensuring that providers properly assess and mitigate risks to children. Requiring companies to examine how their services may facilitate abuse is, in principle, entirely sensible. The scale and evolving nature of online exploitation means that proactive duties are essential.

However, I have some concerns about the proposed mechanism, on which I hope the Minister may also be able to provide some input. The amendment appears to rely on providers conducting their own risk assessments. That immediately raises several practical questions, such as what objective standard those assessments would be measured against, whether there would be statutory guidance setting out minimum criteria, and how consistency would be ensured across companies of vastly different sizes and capabilities. There also remains the crucial question of what enforcement mechanisms would apply if an assessment was superficial or inadequate. Without clear parameters and oversight, there is a danger that such a system could become uneven in practice.

I would welcome reassurance from the Minister as to how the Government intend to ensure that risk-based duties in this space are transparent and robust for the purposes of child protection. The question is not whether we act, but how. We all share the same objective of reducing the prevalence of child sexual abuse material and protecting children from exploitation. The challenge is ensuring that the mechanisms we legislate for are clear and enforceable in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, for tabling Amendment 209 and for her commitment to doing all we can to prevent online harms. I was struck strongly by the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Bertin, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.

This is a really serious issue. The Government are committed to making sure that we have constructive engagement with the noble Baroness, as I have tried to do, including one formal and one informal meeting this very day, to ensure that we can make this work in the interests of what everybody in this House wants to do: to ensure, particularly given the rapid development of technology, that the public, and especially children, are safeguarded from harm. This Government are committed to tackling sexual exploitation and abuse and ensuring that new technologies are developed and deployed responsibly. I know that that matters; I know that it is important, and I know that this Government want to make sure that we deal with it.

A few weeks ago, the Grok AI chatbot was used to create and share vile, degrading and non-consensual intimate deepfakes. This House should ensure that no one lives in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology. From the Prime Minister to the DSIT Secretary, we said at the time that we will do something to stamp out this demeaning and illegal image production.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

If I was in the same meeting as the Minister, officials were unable to say that LLMs and generative models would be covered by that amendment. Indeed, they said that the policy of the Government was chatbots only. Chatbots are the subject of another amendment that I have tabled, which we will come to later. We have to be clear that the amendment in front of us remains only because I was told this afternoon that the new government amendment would not cover the same territory.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The government amendment has been tabled. I am asking the noble Baroness—whether she does this is self-evidently a matter for her—to withdraw her amendment and look at the amendment that we have tabled today on a cross-party basis and on behalf of DSIT and the Home Office, the department that I represent. That amendment will be debated around 18 March, and she can make comments on it at that stage. I am trying to meet the needs of the House and the Government to respond to what are complex and difficult challenges. All I will say is that, by bringing more AI services into the scope of the Online Safety Act, we will ensure that there is a clear and consistent regulatory framework that will allow us to hold companies to account.

In Clause 93, we have introduced the technology testing defence that will enable persons authorised by the Secretary of State to test technology for these harms. The defence will give providers reassurance to test the robustness of their models’ safeguards, identify weaknesses and design out harmful inputs. This, in turn, will reduce the risk of their models being criminally misused, particularly to abuse women and children. This further supports all AI companies in scope of the Online Safety Act with their risk-assessment obligations.

Given those measures—the noble Baroness will have to make a judgment on this—but the Government consider that Amendment 209 is therefore unnecessary as it cuts across the approach that I have outlined to date both in the Bill, in Clause 93 and the clauses I outlined earlier, and the proposed amendment that I shared with her as best I could prior to this debate. The House has a chance to look at that now that it is published. This cuts across that duty and imposes a broad statutory duty on online services, duplicating regulatory mechanisms, and it could create legal uncertainty. The noble Lord, Clement-Jones, challenged me on that, but that is the view of Ministers, officials and our legal departments. We are worried about the similar enforcement routes outside the Online Safety Act framework.

We take this seriously. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made are extremely important. I was not able to attend the briefing earlier, but I know how much that has impacted Members who have spoken today. The National Crime Agency and police will play a key role in protecting children from UK child abuse. It is warned that the scale and complexity of online child sexual abuse are resulting in tens of millions of annual referrals of suspected online sexual abuse. Policing resources are best spent on protecting children and arresting offenders, so it is appropriate that Ofcom continues to play a critical regulatory role in preventing and tackling the AI generation of child sexual abuse material.

I have tried to persuade the noble Baroness but, if I have not succeeded, there will have to be a Division. I do not want there to be one because I think this House should speak with one voice on tackling this issue. The laudable objectives of the amendment are, we believe, better addressed through both the existing legislative framework and the targeted government amendment we have tabled today to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to bring illegal content duties in line for chatbots. This will mean that providers need to mitigate potential risks to prevent children facing such abuse.

I hope I have convinced the noble Baroness. Again, I apologise to the House for the lateness of the tabling of the amendment. We are trying to work across government on this, and that amendment will be debated on 18 March. In light of that, I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, as a point of information, I feel it would be useful to say that Clauses 64 and 65, to which the Minister refers, are in fact a narrowing of an original amendment, laid by me and other noble Lords, that the Government deliberately narrowed so that it deals only with electronic files that have been deliberately and exclusively created to create child sexual abuse. I very much welcome those clauses. However, if the Government had not narrowed that amendment, I would not be standing here today with this amendment.

I am grateful for the Minister’s time, and I am happy with the chatbot amendment as far as it goes—and inasmuch as I have seen it an hour before everyone else—but it does not deal with this issue. I rang the Minister this morning and asked for a meeting to say, “If you can tell me that this is covered by the chatbot amendment or that it’s already covered in another way, I will back down”. But I am afraid that nobody could tell me that, because it is not. That is just how it is.

I say to the noble Lord speaking for the Official Opposition, no, no, no. It is not okay to say, “We must work out how to do this”. This is an opportunity to work out how. We always do it this way. We pass an amendment; we get a power; and Ofcom and the Government do the guidance. I say to the whole House, and particularly to my friends on the Labour Benches who may be considering voting against this, have any of you seen child sexual abuse made out of your image? I have. It is not funny; it is serious and it is easily done. I think it is unacceptable to vote against an amendment that says only, “Risk assess”. It is not okay to put a product out in the world if you do not have any responsibility for the harm it causes. So, I do not expect to win, because the Government are whipping against and the Opposition are sitting on their hands, but I think it is important to say to the people who are in a vortex of this kind of abuse that at least some of us in this House have their backs.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

When the noble Baroness says that some of us in this House are concerned about this issue, I want to say to her that all of us in this House are concerned about this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and myself have many differences in this House, but we are at one in trying to improve the position of the regulations to tackle this issue. The amendment that I have tabled is a very important step forward on behalf of the Government, on a DSIT and Home Office basis, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord. I do not want to have a Division in this House. The Government and the Opposition may well win that vote, but I do not want that Division to happen; I want us to go forward in a constructive way, to look at the amendments that are tabled and to make a change that really benefits people.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I say to the noble Lord that there is only one way to prevent a Division on this issue, which is either to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that it is covered, or that we will keep it alive until Third Reading so that we can make sure that it is covered. If I have insulted anyone by suggesting that only some of us are willing to walk through the Lobby to protect children from child sexual abuse, forgive me, but unless the Minister has something to say, then as a matter of principle I shall divide the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

210: Clause 66, page 85, line 17, leave out from “person” to end of line 18 and insert—
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to the operation of the CSA image-generator offence in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

220: Clause 67, page 89, line 9, leave out from “person” to end of line 10 and insert—
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to clarify the operation of the CSA image-generator offence in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

230: Clause 69, page 95, line 17, leave out “obtaining actual knowledge” and insert “knowing”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses one of the gravest and most distressing areas of criminality: the sexual exploitation of children and the creation and circulation of child sexual abuse material. There will be no disagreement among noble Lords about the objective behind these amendments. The scale of this crime is deeply alarming and becoming increasingly technologically sophisticated. The question before us is not whether we act but how.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash. Once again, I entirely understand and support the underlying aim. The goal of ensuring that devices supplied in the UK have highly effective, tamper-proof system software capable of preventing the transmission or viewing of CSAM is a commendable one. Preventing abuse at source is always preferable to prosecuting it after the harm has occurred.

I recognise that Amendment 239A includes express provisions intended to safeguard user privacy, requiring that any such software must operate in a way that does not collect, retain, copy or transmit data outside the device, nor determine the identity of the user. It also provides for affirmative parliamentary approval of the regulations.

However, it is still hard to overlook the practical challenges that may arise from this amendment. Determined offenders frequently exploit encrypted platforms and modify operating systems, often using overseas-hosted services. A requirement limited to devices supplied for use in the UK could be circumvented by overseas purchases or software alterations. Even with privacy safeguards written into the regulation-making power, this amendment may still raise complex issues relating to encryption, cyber security, technical feasibility and enforcement. Mandating tamper-proof software across all relevant devices would represent a significant expansion of the regulatory framework established under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.

While I strongly support the objective of forestalling child sexual exploitation and disrupting the circulation of abuse material, I am not yet persuaded that this amendment provides a workable legislative solution. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are strengthening preventative technology and ensuring that industry plays a meaningful role in protecting children, while maintaining a framework that is technically feasible and legally robust.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for setting out his amendments. I know that he met last week with the Minister, my noble friend Lady Lloyd, and I hope that was a productive discussion. I was pleased to meet with him as well—I have lost track of the date, but it was some time in the last few months—when he graciously brought along representatives of companies that are developing the technology he talked about today. I found that meeting useful.

I acknowledge the noble Lord’s intention to protect children through this amendment, and I want to be clear, as I was on the previous amendment, that the Government share the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and prevent the spread of CSAM online. I hope that my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, showed that this is a matter the Government are taking seriously. That is why, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images. We strongly agree that nudity detection on a device is an effective way in which this could be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing back her amendments, and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments in this group. I recall that this topic prompted one of the more robust debates that we had in Committee, and I am grateful for the chance to touch on the key points again.

This group touches on the issue of child sexual exploitation. While the previous groups focused on creating specific offences for crimes against children, these amendments consider the failure to report sexual offences when they occur. As was our position in Committee, we are broadly supportive of the principles behind the noble Baroness’s amendments. I entirely understand her concern that criminal sanctions work as both an impetus for, and as a punishment for not, reporting child sexual abuse, and that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not underpin the duty with an offence.

Similarly, I see the logic in removing Clause 77(6), which removes the duty if the individual in question believes that another person will make a notification, and of Amendment 263, which would remove the “best interests” defence. I accept that this may be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye, which would render the new provision rather meaningless, but I also accept that there needs to be some leeway in reporting duties. Perhaps the Minister can touch on this when he speaks to Amendment 266.

Regrettably, I cannot accept the argument behind Amendments 240 and 242. While I accept that the duty of care lies with the local authority, it is the police forces that are tasked with intervening and arresting those committing child sexual offences. There are undoubtedly cases where it would be necessary to contact police forces first, and I do not think that restricting reporting to simply the local authority is wise.

I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Polak’s amendments, particularly those to Clause 84. Amendment 257 underscores the importance of clear and delineated settings in which these new provisions would be applicable. However, although this is important, I do not think it should be exhaustive. CSA takes place in all walks of life, unfortunately, and confining reporting it to categories risks removing the duty in other places.

My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 264 goes past the current drafting of the Bill, which introduces an offence of preventing or deterring the reporting of child sexual abuse, and would create a new offence of intentionally concealing a child sexual offence. I support the intent behind my noble friend’s amendments and hope the Minister will be sympathetic.

I also support the intention of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We should be guided by evidence, which the IICSA report provided, and that is why the last Conservative Government accepted its findings—a policy we still champion.

On the Minister’s Amendment 266, guidance is the correct and obvious next step. There are many nuances involved in this new provision, as we have heard throughout this debate, and accompanying it with thorough guidance would allow for requirements to be more clearly outlined. That being said, I hope the Minister will now confirm that the guidance will address the concerns raised today, particularly around exceptions to reporting requirements—that would benefit from further guidance from the Secretary of State.

Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to those who tabled amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was absolutely right: there was ministerial tutting on this Front Bench when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that the Government are looking at “How little can we do?” I refer the noble Baroness, for her interest, to the document we produced on 9 April 2025, which I have just looked up online. It has 87 paragraphs of cross-government action, in response to the Alexis Jay report, that the Government will take on this. I refer her to Clauses 77 to 86 of the Bill, which bring forward amendments. I do not wish to make a party-political point about the previous Government, but there is a point to register here: the Alexis Jay report was produced in October 2022, and this Government have not just brought these clauses before the House but, on 9 April 2025, produced an 87-point response to the legislation. So it is not about how little can we do but about how much we can do from a standing start on 4 July 2024.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the Minister has taken offence at my comments. I accept that this Government have brought forward legislation and taken a number of actions, but I am very much influenced by the disappointment of the IICSA board members. As my noble friend Lady Brinton said, it is very unusual that such people should write in the terms that they have to the Home Secretary. It is in those particular sections of their report they are very disappointed, and so am I. But I am sorry if the Minister was upset and offended by my comments; I never intend that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments. I am not upset or offended; I just want to put the record straight. We are trying to deal with this issue, having been in office for just under 20 months. This Bill was produced some time ago, and we put in it a response that meets most of the IICSA recommendations to date. We produced a report on 9 April last year setting out the direction of travel. I am not upset personally; I just want to put this on the record. The noble Baroness cannot say that it is about how little we can do when we are trying to do as much as we possibly can.

On the letter which was mentioned, it was sent on Friday and has gone to the Home Office. I have not seen it myself yet. The noble Baroness may have a copy, and I am sure she will pass it to me in due course. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is itching to give me the letter, but I say to both noble Baronesses that we will respond to it in due course—the Home Secretary will assess its contents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

The Minister gave a commitment earlier, I believe, to read the letter from IICSA. I have not seen the letter, although, unlike anyone from the Home Office, I was one of the two MPs who attended the inquiry. In fact, I represented people for 30 days at the inquiry, so if there are recommendations from those who spent many hundreds of days with the experts on the detail of the inquiry, can I take it that the Minister and his team will read and give consideration to the implications in relation to these or any similar amendments to the legislation that might come from the logic, the conclusions and even the specificity of what IICSA is proposing?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to noble Lords who raised the issue, we will look at and respond to the letter from the IICSA members, but I have not seen it, I have not got it in front of me and I am not going to respond to it today, even if it is passed to me, because I have to have some collective discussion with colleagues about the points that are raised. I just say to my noble friend that what the Government have tried to do since 4 July 2025—again, I pray in aid the statement, if he has not looked at it, of 9 April 2025 —is to meet the objectives of IICSA as far as we can. We have met an awful lot of the objectives that have been set, and they are before the House in the legislation today.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

I apologise that the Minister has not seen the letter. If I had realised that he had not seen it, I would have made sure he did. I recognise that it is difficult for him to respond to a letter that he has not seen. Will the Minister make a commitment at the Dispatch Box that, if I do not move Amendment 248B, we will be able to have a discussion and I will be able to bring the amendment back at Third Reading, if we are not able to find a suitable route through?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always try to be helpful, if I can. I do not want to have amendments at Third Reading, and therefore I cannot help the noble Baroness with that request. As I say, I have not seen the letter. It is in the ether of the Home Office system. It has arrived, so it will be acknowledged and responded to. But it was issued only on Friday, as the noble Baroness mentioned; to be fair to the Home Office, that is an issue that we will have to look at. Obviously, we will respond to that letter. I will make sure that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Grey-Thompson, have the response, if appropriate, because they have raised it today. I will check with IICSA that it is happy for me to do so—that is important.

The further amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Amendment 248A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also seek to supplement or remove the criminal offence of preventing a reporter carrying out their duty. Amendments 264 and 248A would provide for proposed thresholds that, again, I cannot accept. The proposed thresholds—when a person “suspects” abuse has taken place, even if that suspicion is poorly founded, the alleged offence never occurred or the relevant concealment actions had no actual effect—are far broader, and harder to justify or prosecute, than interference with a well-known statutory duty. The Government’s preferred model for this type of offence is narrowly targeted, purpose driven and clearly aligned.

On Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on protection for reporters, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 already provides a legal framework for protecting child abuse whistleblowers from dismissal, victimisation or other workplace detriments. Attempting to legislate against, for example, social shunning, reputational harm or informal exclusion would pose significant legal and practical problems.

This Government have progressed the recommendations on IICSA in a significant way since 4 July 2024 when we took office—the House may disagree; that is a matter for the House to take a view on. Beforehand, there was a significant gap of inactivity for a range of reasons that I will not talk about today. We have put potential measures in the Bill, and we have made, through a range of other measures to which I referred earlier, a significant amount of progress on these issues.

I accept that there may be issues that are still being pressed, but the progress that has been made is significant. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to withdraw her amendment and I invite the House to support the government amendments I introduced earlier.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was able to speak. She has worked extensively in this area for decades, and I have leant heavily on her expertise. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, makes the strongest point on the unusual nature of a board writing to the Home Secretary. As I previously said, I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to see that. On page 1 of the letter, paragraph 2 says:

“we are deeply concerned that the mandatory reporting duty, as currently drafted in the Crime and Policing Bill, does not fully reflect our recommendation. In particular, there is: a lack of appropriate sanction for failure to report; an insufficient definition of who should be a mandated reporter; and a narrow trigger for the duty that does not include reasonable suspicion and recognised indicators of abuse”.

I go with the opinion of Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank and, as much as this Government have moved things on, they have not moved things on far enough. While I am happy not to press my Amendments 240 to 246, when it is called I will seek to divide the House on Amendment 248B.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

251: Schedule 10, page 319, line 11, leave out “67A (exposure and voyeurism)” and insert “66B, 67 or 67A (offences relating to exposure, intimate images and voyeurism)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends paragraph 2(d) so that it does not include offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as only adults can be victims of those offences).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

256: Schedule 10, page 320, line 38, leave out “unsupervised”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 17 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

258: Schedule 10, page 321, line 2, leave out “unsupervised”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the definition of looking after a child on an individual basis, in paragraph 18 of Schedule 10, to cover supervised contact.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

266: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the duty under section 77 to persons who engage in relevant activities.(2) Those persons must have regard to the guidance.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.(5) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(6) Subsections (2) to (4) apply to revised guidance, except that subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the duty to report child sex abuse.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly. As was the case in Committee, we wholly support the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment. It would serve to prevent those who commit a sexual offence obtaining a gender recognition certificate and is a necessary step that would stop criminals retroactively exploiting gender recognition laws. Our view is that we should not put inmates at risk by placing other criminals of a different sex in prison with them, for instance. I have direct experience of this in Scotland, where a few years ago there was the celebrated case of Isla Bryson, who was a double rapist initially housed in the female prison estate having decided to transition while standing trial, and I would not want to see those mistakes repeated in the rest of the UK. I hope that the Minister can offer his support for this amendment and I look forward to hearing his reply.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for setting out Amendment 307. As she knows, we have discussed this in Committee, we have corresponded and I am grateful for her acknowledgement of that. Amendment 307 seeks to prevent anyone with a conviction for an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 being eligible to obtain a gender recognition certificate.

As I said in Committee, individuals with sexual offence convictions are already subject to a comprehensive set of post-conviction measures, including the notification requirements, sexual harm prevention orders and oversight through multi-agency public protection arrangements. These ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present and not their gender. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, obviously we believe that the measures in place are supportive and preventive and will manage offenders. We can never guarantee that offenders do not reoffend, but there is very close supervision and oversight through those multi-agency protection arrangements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, mentioned the number of gender recognition certificates issued and the potentially small number of people with a gender recognition certificate who commit an offence. Most of those who have one are living their lives legally, honestly and decently and will not come within the remit of this legislation. Given the strength of the post-conviction risk management systems that I have just mentioned, together with the very small number of gender recognition certificates issued each year, the Government do not consider a statutory prohibition of this kind to be necessary. To return to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the notification regime exists to support risk management, and we remain unconvinced that a blanket restriction on access to a gender recognition certificate will provide any meaningful additional protection.

Where a registered sex offender seeks to change their name following a change in gender—which goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, with the Scottish example that he gave—whether or not a gender recognition certificate is involved, in England and Wales, the measures as outlined in Clause 98 will apply.

I think that the measures in Clause 98—I know she has read them—are quite important. The notification requirements state:

“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.


The measures are there to ensure that reasonable, practical steps are taken. The clause provides the recognition that we are putting in place, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned: a registered offender must notify a new name to the police before a name change is put in place. In the small number of cases where somebody wishes to have a gender recognition certificate involved in a name change, Clause 98 covers the points clearly. It becomes clear that requiring offenders to notify the police of the acquisition of a gender recognition certificate will aid the police in the risk management of sex offenders. The Government can exercise existing regulation-making powers to introduce such a requirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Just to be very clear and direct, it would be one less individual for the MAPPA arrangements to worry about, because that individual would not have changed their gender. They would still be living in their previous gender and there would be a very straightforward process there. There would be no risk of loopholes and that person falling outside the MAPPA arrangements.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I again draw the noble Baroness’s attention to Clause 98, which says:

“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.


Again, criminal or not, if people wish to identify in the way in which they identify, I think they are entitled to be allowed to do so. I give way again.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise for intervening at this time of night. Surely the key point is that, once someone has been convicted of a sex offence, being on the register, either indefinitely or for a particular period, is the trigger for the monitoring of that offender. Whether they have a gender recognition certificate or not is almost irrelevant. It is not irrelevant to the noble Baroness, and I absolutely accept that, but all the monitoring of that individual will happen regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I said this in my opening remarks, but I will repeat myself to enforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: the arrangements in place ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present, not according to their gender. That is the key point that I put to the noble Baroness. The gender issue is covered by Clause 98. The management of risk is covered whatever their gender happens to be at any time. People still have the right to change their gender and identify as they feel right, according to their own circumstances.

I say again to the noble Baroness that the vast majority of people who apply for a gender recognition certificate are not going to be sex offenders. They are going to be ordinary people walking round the streets and living in communities and never even thinking of being sex offenders. I do not wish to tarnish those individuals who have a full right to live their life as they choose, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I will not detain the House. I have heard what the Minister said and I am unsatisfied, but I will withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

309: Clause 108, page 147, line 18, after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order is the civil standard.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

311: Clause 109, page 150, line 8, after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order is the civil standard.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments in this group, and all noble Lords who spoke.

Amendments 417 and 419, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, would provide courts with the power to make public interest compensation orders during the sentencing of certain offences. He made a typically eloquent and compelling case for these amendments. He has consistently and powerfully campaigned, especially on Ukraine and the proceeds of sanctions, and I pay tribute to him for that.

Public interest compensation orders would grant the courts the ability to compel offenders to pay money to approved international or public interest bodies that support victims of serious human rights violations, such as torture or aggression. The courts would have to consider relevant factors, such as the broader human rights impact of the crime and the need to prioritise direct victims where relevant.

The amendment also lists relevant eligible recipient organisations with powers for the Secretary of State to update them, creating a structured mechanism for using the proceeds of sanctions-related crime in reparative funding for victims in the wider public interest. The amendment proposes a reasonable and practical process through which courts could divert illegally obtained funds to support victims, and I hope that the Government consider it very carefully. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendment 418 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, similarly proposes a mechanism through which the courts could direct a portion of confiscated proceeds for public interest or social purposes. It is very similar in nature to Amendment 417; it differs slightly in that it specifically requires the courts to consider whether the crime in question

“involved serious human rights violations, mass atrocity crimes, or grand corruption”.

But like Amendment 417, it raises very important issues as well as a broader question: if we are to make public compensation orders, what crimes should they apply to? I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on that matter too.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his amendments. He has had a wide level of support today from, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Kempsell, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lady Goudie. They have all spoken well on this series of amendments. I will try to address the amendments, self-evidently, but I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in particular, that I know how committed he is to Ukraine. He has my support in addressing the viciousness of the Russian regime and the international crimes that it has committed by invading Ukraine. There are obviously a number of consequences to that, but the principles that he puts forward today could apply to a number of other regimes as well.

The amendments seek to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to enable courts to issue public interest compensation orders. These orders would be for public interest or social purposes to support those who may be impacted by offences under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, including victims of human rights violations, as well as other offences added by the Secretary of State via secondary legislation. I recognise the intentions behind these amendments and affirm the Government’s support for victims of human rights abuses and our commitment to tackling economic crime.

On Amendment 417, courts already have the power to impose a compensation order on an offender, which would require them to make financial reparation to a direct victim of a specific offence for any resulting personal injury, loss or damage. Therefore, in seeking to amend the Sentencing Act to allow courts to award compensation orders for public interest or social purposes, there is a danger that it would undermine the current victim-centred approach of the legislation to date.

In passing, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that I know he is seeking a meeting with my noble friend Lady Levitt. It may be my fault that it has not happened, because of a diary clash, but we are agreeing to examine that, and either my noble friend’s office or mine will get back to him with regard to a meeting on those issues.

I recognise the critical importance of supporting victims of crime. As noble Lords will know, the victim surcharge is imposed on offenders by the court in the public interest to ensure that they hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses. The revenue raised from this surcharge is currently used to fund victim services through the victims and witnesses general fund, so the principle has been established.

The UK provides support for victims of human rights and sanctions violations worldwide. Noble Lords may wish to know that we have committed to provide £22 billion of funding to Ukraine. The Government are currently exploring further avenues—such as the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan to Ukraine—alongside our colleagues in the G7 and the EU. This has seen a $50 billion loan to Ukraine, which—this goes to the heart of the amendments tabled—is to be serviced and repaid by future profits generated from frozen Russian sovereign assets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, if ever there was a pertinent time to debate this matter, it is now. The mechanism by which chief constables can be removed has faced significant scrutiny, given the very controversial actions taken by West Midlands Police in the Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Nick Timothy MP for his tenacity in pursuing the truth of that matter. I think it is now axiomatic that the former chief constable of West Midlands Police failed in his professional duties, and it is welcome that he has now accepted that his position is no longer tenable and has announced his retirement. It is against this backdrop that we discuss the amendments in this group.

On Amendment 421, I am of course aware of the Government’s indication that they will abolish PCCs in due course; that is important context to this amendment. For the time being, of course, they remain in place. I am not entirely convinced about the necessity of Amendment 421. With the Maccabi Tel Aviv affair, it was evident for quite some time that the PCC for the West Midlands should have dismissed the chief constable. As it happens, he did not, but I am not sure that consulting His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services beforehand would have had any bearing on the PCC’s decision. Furthermore, if the PCC was required by statute to consult the inspectorate, would that not have provided further delays to any decision?

Amendment 438EC seeks to grant the Home Secretary the power to remove chief constables. In her Statement to the other place on the 14 January, the Home Secretary said that until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. On the face of it, that is correct. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 repealed the direct power of the Home Secretary to remove the chief constable of a police force, and Section 38 of that Act grants the power of dismissal to the PCC of the police area. However, the Home Secretary has the power to give directions in relation to police forces and local policing bodies under Sections 40 and 40A of the Police Act 1996. If, for instance, it was clear that West Midlands Police was failing to discharge its functions in an effective manner, the appropriate measure to remedy that failure would have been the removal of the chief constable. Therefore, according to those sections, the Secretary of State has perhaps an indirect ability to remove chief constables.

In her Statement to the other place, the Home Secretary also said that the Government are going to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. Does the Minister have a timeline for when the police reform White Paper might be published, and, if he does not have precise date, can he give us an indication of its rough progress? Will any change in the law be brought forward in time for Report on this Bill, or will we have to wait until the next Session for another policing Bill?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment, which concerns the process by which police and crime commissioners may call on a chief constable to resign or retire. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has mentioned, the Government’s intention is to replace police and crime commissioners with a mayoral model or, in some cases in which the mayoral model is inappropriate, with a policing board made up of local councillors, and that will be brought forward in due course. Further details will be set out again in the policing White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, asked me when that would be produced. I say again to him the time-honoured phrase of “shortly”, but by shortly I do mean shortly; I hope he will not have too long to wait for the report be published as a White Paper. Self-evidently, it is a very complex document with lots of discussion items in it. Again, any legislative proposals in it will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I am not trying to short-change him, but we will give that detail in the near future.

As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of her amendment is to ensure that, before taking steps to dismiss a chief constable, a police and crime commissioner must first seek the views of HMICFRS. I agree that this is a desirable approach, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that this is already in place as a requirement. The noble Baroness should know, and I hope that it is helpful to her, that under Section 38(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs may call upon the relevant chief constable to resign or retire. Before exercising this power, and under regulation 11A of the Police Regulations 2003, police and crime commissioners are required to seek the views of HM inspectorate in writing and provide them to the chief constable and the relevant police and crime panel, alongside their rationale for why the PCC is proposing to call for retirement or resignation. I appreciate that it is a confusing landscape to have regulations under the Act and under police regulations. However, the position currently is there in black and white, and what her amendment seeks to do is already enshrined in law.

The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is not in his place so I will not say too much now, if anything, about Amendment 438EC. However, because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, I want to place on record for the Committee the fact that the Home Secretary has already announced the Government’s intention to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to remove chief constables. It has been a difficult few weeks in the West Midlands and, following the changes that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, it has highlighted the absence of such a power allowing the Home Secretary to act. We believe that action is needed, and I can assure your Lordships that this is high on the Government’s agenda. The White Paper is due in very short order. It will set out exactly the Government’s intentions in this regard and will be followed by legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, because we need to make changes on a range of matters, not least the abolition of PCCs. I look forward to debating this with noble Lords across the House. However, if the noble Baroness accepts that, difficult though they are to find, the regulations and the requirement are there, I hope she will be able to withdraw her amendment for the moment. I look forward to further discussion when the other matters come before the House at some future point.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

In view of what the Minister has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

295A: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Obscenity etc offences: technology testing defence(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide defences to relevant offences for persons who are authorised by the Secretary of State to carry out technology testing activities.(2) “Technology testing activities” means activities which are carried out in the course of, or in connection with, testing technology for the purposes of—(a) investigating whether it may have been made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, prohibited material, or(b) testing whether it may be used to create, or facilitate the creation of, prohibited material.(3) “Prohibited material” means anything in relation to which a relevant offence may be committed.(4) The regulations may make provision about authorisations by the Secretary of State to carry out technology testing activities, including provision—(a) for authorisations to be subject to conditions (which may be specified in the regulations or determined by the Secretary of State);(b) for the variation, suspension, or withdrawal of authorisations and conditions;(c) for the enforcement of any breaches of conditions (which may include provision creating criminal offences punishable with a fine);(d) for fees to be payable to the Secretary of State, as a means of recovering costs incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising functions under the regulations.(5) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under this section containing provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament. (6) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making regulations under this section containing provision that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause creates a power to make regulations providing a defence to certain offences which may be committed in the course of technology testing, where the technology testing is authorised by the Secretary of State.

Prison Officers: Pension Age

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

I will just give my second reason, which is that allowing private companies to make a profit out of the incarceration of human beings is simply immoral.

[David Hanson (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Lady’s intervention, I remind hon. Members that the debate is tightly focused on the pension age of prison officers, and I hope that interventions and contributions will focus just on that.

[Jo Stevens]

Thank you, Mr Hanson; I will do a quick swerve. On the point about private prisons and the influence of private companies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that privatising probation—the state’s care for people on probation—was the wrong thing to do?

Ministry of Justice Spending

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

May I welcome this debate, as well as the introductory remarks from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—in this case, he is my hon. Friend—who spoke on behalf of the Justice Committee? Like him, I pay tribute to staff who work throughout the justice system. Today’s estimates pay their wages, provide their conditions of work and give them the tools to do the job that I know they are committed to. Therefore, while exploring these estimates, I hope we can focus on some of the real challenges faced by those staff.

I welcome the Minister to his new job. It is 10 years since I was Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice—a long time ago. When I was Minister—this is one of the challenges we face—there was 40% more expenditure on justice matters than is proposed today. Although changes were made by the Government in August this year—we will touch on that—there has been a 40% reduction in the amount of resource going into the Ministry of Justice over that time. Those provisions were volunteered by Ministers, some of whom not even members of the Conservative party these days.

The Ministry of Justice budget fell from £10.6 billion in 2010 to £7.9 billion in 2020. Let no one be mistaken: those reductions have had a consequence on the services delivered by the Ministry of Justice, on the performance of staff under pressure and on the safety of staff in prisons across the estate for which the MOJ is responsible. They have also had a consequence on the MOJ’s ability to improve reoffending rates and reduce crime and to provide a service to consumers and constituents of mine and every Member of the House regarding work on legal aid, access to justice, fighting for employment rights through the tribunal system and a range of other matters. That 40% reduction has made a real difference, and I wish to explore with the Minister the proposals for the revised sums he has brought forward.

Let us take this year’s figures. In many prisons, the safety of staff and those sentenced to prison is at higher risk than it was 12 months ago. We must address that issue to ensure a solid performance across the prison estate and achieve the reoffending rates that I know the Minister would want. Over the past 12 months, there has been a 24% rise in incidents of self-harm, to a record high of 57,968. The number of assaults has also risen to a record high of 34,425 in the past 12 months—an 11% increase on the previous year. In the 12 months to March this year, there were 10,300 assaults—11% of which were serious assaults—on staff and those doing their job to try to turn around those offenders in our prisons. That figure is up by 15% on the previous year.

The funding settlement needs to address ways to recruit more staff and to retain existing staff and support them in the workplace. We must try to professionalise and support staff on the front line. We know about the situation in prisons and about issues such as drugs entering prison, new psychoactive substances, increasingly violent prisoners being placed in prison and a range of people with mental health problems that cause aggressive behaviour. Those are real challenges, and the reduction in funding to date has meant they have been exacerbated by having a smaller number of staff, by the loss of experienced staff and by not allowing people out of cells to achieve some of the rehabilitation work, drug training courses or educational work that they need to turn their lives around. This settlement—the expansion in resource that the Government propose—needs to focus first and foremost on safety in prisons. Without safe prisons, we cannot have rehabilitation on the scale of our ambitions.

In August, the Government made a series of additional spending announcements. They announced additional police officers—I have also been the Police Minister—with 20,000 more officers to replace the 20,000 who have been cut. The Government announced the recruitment of police officers and prison officers: some would say that it is about recruitment of votes, rather than staff. The key point for the Minister to explain today is how he will address the issues. The policy announcements that have been made to date include 10,000 additional prison places, including investment in prison security—undoubtedly welcome—and an additional prison building programme. But we have no detail yet on how, when, where and at what stage those prison officers are to be recruited. We have no detail about the period over which those new prison places are to be built and whether they will replace new prisons or are genuinely new and additional prison places.

At the same time, a review has been announced by the Prime Minister of sentencing in England and Wales. It will not look at increasing community sentences or tackling short-term sentences, which the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) wanted to look at. Instead, it will look at how we can put longer prison sentences in place. How will that all fit together? There were no policy details in the budget announcement in August about the condition of the prison estate, despite the fact that the prison estate is key to improving the rehabilitation of prisoners. The MOJ estimates a current backlog of some £900 million of repairs that need to be done in our prisons. There was nothing in the announcement in August that I could see about how much money will be put towards the maintenance work needed to ensure that we have safe cells. Fixing draughty cells, dangerously fitted cells, old cells and cells that people cannot leave to undertake education and training is material to improving reoffending rates.

Reoffending costs us £18 billion a year, which is far more than the Ministry of Justice’s budget for investment in prisons and probation. Reoffending, especially by prisoners with short-term sentences, is extremely high. We had a lot of rhetoric six to nine months ago about tackling short-term prison sentences. I have seen nothing in the estimates about a change to super-charge community-based sentences as an alternative to short-term prison sentences of under six months, particularly for women offenders, many of whom are in prison on a short-term basis that will not secure their long-term rehabilitation back into society.

I will discount the 40% cut for now, even though it has been significant over the past nine and a half years. Instead, I ask what steps will be taken, under the current budget settlement, to make the prison estate a place of safety for staff and prisoners. What steps are being taken to ensure that we recruit and retain professional staff? What steps are being undertaken to super-charge the effort to reduce reoffending? What steps are being taken to ensure that people on short-term sentences see a real and effective shift in the time they are in prison? What steps are being taken to reduce the female prison population as a matter of urgency?

There are real arguments for reviewing short-term sentences, supporting alternative sentencing for women and looking again at the rehabilitation and employment links that require money. The emphasis on a capital building programme is wrong. We should look at investing in and improving the existing estate, retaining and improving the quality of staff and making prisons safe. I welcome the debate, because there are some serious discussions to be had. I wish the Minister well in what is a tough old job for him and his team, but real dividends can be achieved and real changes can be made. It will require political drive, but that drive seems to have shifted back towards longer term prison sentences and away from community-based rehabilitation in the statements made since the Prime Minister took office.

Female Offender Strategy: One Year On

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Ms Ryan. In the short time that I have, I want to place on the record my support for the female offender strategy. It builds strongly on the work of the Corston report, which I had the honour of receiving as Minister in the then Labour Government in 2007-08.

We accepted 40 of the 43 recommendations. We appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) as the champion to see the issue through, but then we ran into the blockage of democracy: the Government were removed from office in 2010. I fully support the efforts of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) to bring together a strategy to reduce the number of women in custody where possible. I take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—that some crimes demand custody—but, where possible, we should reduce the number of women in custody, look at early interventions to support women in avoiding custody in the first place, and tackle some of the causes of offending with drug and alcohol services.

Only last week, I mentioned that the number of drug and alcohol treatment orders in the community has been halved in the past four years by the Government.

[Ellie Reeves]

Some 62% of women in prison are serving short sentences. My right hon. Friend talks about drug and alcohol programmes and early interventions. Does he agree with me that it would be better to invest in early intervention and community sentencing, and introduce a presumption against short sentences to make sure that women get the support that they need, rather than custodial sentences?

[David Hanson]

It is very important that we try to support women who have committed offences. Sometimes they have committed them because forces have driven them to it. We need to find an appropriate way to remove them from prison because prison has an impact on family life as well as on them. I welcome the efforts of the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) on short prison sentences, and I hope the policy will continue with any new Minister in due course.

If I may focus on my own area of north Wales, there were 37 women on any given day last year in Styal Prison—40 miles from the border, and perhaps 100 miles from the north-west of Wales. I was asked last year by the Welsh Assembly Government to do an inquiry into the treatment of prisoners with regard to education and other services. It is important to note that in the female offender strategy, only four of the 179 paragraphs deal with Wales. It establishes a need for a blueprint. A female offender blueprint is being published by the Welsh Government, and it has very good aspirations. I would welcome an update on progress from the Minister, either in writing or when he responds at the end of the debate.

For example, in the work that I did last year in Wales, I found that there was limited access to Welsh language education for women whose first language was Welsh. There was limited understanding in the Welsh Government of how many female offenders would return to Wales, how many were linked into the labour market of Wales, and how many dependents people had. There was limited understanding of how much would be needed in the way of ongoing support requirements, to reintegrate women back from custody into the community in due course.

My hon. Friends have demanded a women’s centre, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) will reiterate that. Wales is one country, but north and south Wales are two regions, where there are different demands on people. We need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, to look at what provision there is for a women’s centre in Wales. Those 37 women need to return to the community in due course.

I welcome the document overall, but I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity about a one-year update to the female offending blueprint, and a six-month update to the implementation plan being worked on by the Welsh Assembly Government in conjunction with his Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

As we survey the decaying embers of a dying regime reaching its inevitable conclusion, it is good to see the shadow Secretary of State showing that he is waving and not drowning, as he desperately tries to draw attention to the fact he is full of vim and vigour. As he will know, we are currently reviewing legal aid thresholds and exceptional case funding. We are bringing special guardianship orders back within the scope of legal aid, and we are looking at legal support action plans.

I am unclear, the more I listen to Labour Front Benchers, about why they assume that the only way to provide legal support is to fund it through legal aid. We will shortly have a question on law centres and, for me, there have to be a number of ways to provide legal support. [Interruption.] “And for us,” I hear the hon. Gentleman say from a sedentary position, and I am pleased to hear that.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress he has made on probation reform.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

I am pleased to have announced plans to streamline probation delivery, through the National Probation Service, to build on the role of the private and voluntary sectors in driving innovation and to better support skilled probation officers. These changes will allow the public, private and voluntary sectors to play to their strengths and ensure stronger supervision and support for offenders. We are now developing the commercial and operational frameworks that will underlie the future system, and we are planning for the transition. We are undertaking a full programme of market engagement to inform our plans, in addition to engagement with probation staff and trade unions.

[David Hanson]

By any stretch of the imagination, the changes to the probation service have been a shambles, fragmenting the system and increasing risk to the community at large. A simple “sorry” may also help the Minister’s answer, but will he give an indication of the cost of cancelling the current contracts next year? What will be the replacement costs for the state or other providers in taking over those services?

[Mr Gauke]

First, “Transforming Rehabilitation” introduced bold reforms, and steps have been taken to ensure there is more innovation within our system, but I recognise that significant elements of it are not working as needed, which is why we have made the changes.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about costs, it is worth bearing in mind that we originally expected to spend £3.1 billion on community rehabilitation companies over a seven-year period, and we now expect to spend £2.7 billion over the same period. In other words, over the lifetime of the contracts, we now expect to spend £405 million less on CRCs than originally forecast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

This is one of the rare occasions when I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. For prolific offenders of minor crimes, it is my view that a non-custodial approach is the right one, but we need to ensure that that works effectively. That is why I have announced reforms to probation. One problem we have at the moment is that such offenders get a short custodial sentence, which only disrupts lives but does not allow any opportunity to do any work on rehabilitation.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T3. I agree with the Secretary of State’s last point, but in order to achieve that he will need to reverse the trend that has seen a fall in drug and alcohol rehabilitation requirement orders from 170,000 five years ago to 120,000 this year. Will he look at that point?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly will. We have recently announced an extension of the community sentence treatment requirement pilots. That is the direction that we need to be going in to address some of the substance abuse and mental health issues that often lie behind these prolific offenders who do cause great difficulties for society. If we want to reduce reoffending, we need to focus on that group and take effective, evidence-led measures.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for his contribution in opening this debate.

I want to say something at the very beginning that I hope Members will regard as helpful. All those in prison under an IPP sentence are there because at some point they committed a crime and hurt a victim. We should not forget that in this debate, because there are many people in prison for serious offences that have caused a great harm to people in the community. The question we are considering today is: how do we achieve a balance between punishment of those individuals for their offences and providing a helpful pathway to rehabilitation?

When it was introduced originally, the IPP sentence gave a minimum term, but also set out a series of conditions by which the risk that an individual who has committed an offence poses to society has to be assessed, in order for them to reach a standard that would allow them to be released back into the community.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has zoned in on what should be the two central pillars of our justice system. Does he agree that wider society needs to see rehabilitation—the second pillar that he talked about—as one way to help to reduce the risk of reoffending, so that people can have more confidence in the justice system?

[David Hanson]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman—or my hon. Friend, as I will still call him in this case—makes a key point.

The key issue that I want to raise is this. Many IPP prisoners have passed the minimum tariffs—we have heard today the figure of 2,400 prisoners currently serving over-tariff IPP sentences and now, because of where we are in the timeline, many are serving severely over-tariff IPP sentences. There are many individuals for whom we need to find a pathway, to give them clarity and to enable them to reach a conclusion after they have served their minimum term and paid back to society, but we also need clarity about their rehabilitation and ultimate release.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with his characteristic eloquence. Kevin Willis, a constituent of mine, has served 13 years in custody, which is the equivalent of a 26-year determinate sentence, after being sentenced to an IPP with a four-year tariff. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, Kevin Willis committed a serious crime and deserved to go to prison. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this kind of legal limbo, whereby Kevin has no idea when or even if he will be released, is unconscionable? Also, members of the public will find it hard to understand why some people serve only half the sentence that is announced on the steps of a court, while others seem to serve many multiples of their sentence. That is another problem that affects faith in the justice system.

[David Hanson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, in the sense that we have to assess the risk that an individual potentially presents to society. We have a minimum term; people have passed that minimum term; we now have an element of indeterminate sentencing, whereby risk is assessed and release happens when that risk is deemed to be sufficiently low for the prisoner to be released back into society.

I want to know from the Minister what assessment is being made of the current potential risk from the 2,400 prisoners serving IPP sentences, including 43 women. The reason they are still in prison is either that they have been moved from prison to prison and not been tracked effectively, or the courses to help with their rehabilitation have not been made available, or they pose a risk because of the deterioration of their mental health while in prison or because of other issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said. What assessment has the Minister made of those prisoners, and how can he prove that there are pathways for each of those individuals? That is the key thing that I want to know from the Minister in this debate.

It seems to me that there are three clear pathways left for individuals with IPP sentences. Either we have a rehabilitation pathway that says, “These individuals need to complete these courses in order to reach a stage where the Parole Board can assess them to be a low risk to society and therefore eligible for release,” or, if there is not a rehabilitation pathway, we might need to consider resentencing, so that there is a definitive end-date to their sentences, or the crime is such that, whatever current pathways are operational through rehabilitation, the end-date, which might be some years hence, needs to be reassessed and might take into account time already served. What we need for each of those 2,400 individuals is clarity about what their sentences will ultimately mean.

In the Justice Committee, we produced a report that indicates that we want to see that clarity, and we have said that we would like to see legislative solutions for both release and recall of indeterminate-sentence prisoners, to ensure sentencing certainty on this issue. Helpfully, the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), has this week published his response to our report, as has been mentioned. I want to complete my brief remarks by asking a couple of questions about the Government response.

In their response, the Government have said:

“We are committed to providing long-term prisoners with opportunities for rehabilitation, so they can demonstrate they can be released safely back into the community and we welcome the Committee’s acknowledgement of our efforts to improve the progression prospects of IPP prisoners”.

How many assessments have been made of those prisoners and what is the pathway for them? The Minister also said in his response that the Government

“are continuing to prioritise post-tariff prisoners in accessing rehabilitative interventions, including Psychology Services-led reviews, and enhanced case management for those prisoners with a complex set of risks and needs. We have also developed Progression Regimes at four prisons across the country”.

How many prisoners currently on that list of 2,400 does that cover? The Minister has also said that the Government are

“progressing indeterminate prisoners struggling to achieve release via the usual routes.”

With all the things that the Minister says he is doing in response to the Justice Committee’s report, at what date does he estimate that the current number of 2,400 over-tariff IPP prisoners will be in a position to be forwarded to the Parole Board for assessment? [Interruption.]

The Minister looks quizzical, but that is a question that he needs to answer, because if he has an end-date, he needs a programme to get to it. He needs to assess those 2,400 individuals, see what courses they need to undertake, establish the elements of risk in those cases and determine whether those 2,400 individuals will reach a threshold for release. We accepted in our report that there are those within that 2,400 who might never be released because they may still pose a threat to society. Nevertheless, that is still a time-pathway conclusion that the Minister and his Department can reach on an individual.

My simple plea is this: when and how? If resentencing is required to provide clarity, when will that happen? Ultimately, the key thing that I want from this debate is clarity, and that might mean a long time further in prison or a course to help to release somebody in due course, but clarity is needed.

Finally, I go back to where I started. We should not forget the victim of the original crime, and there should be some discussion and some conclusion as part of these pathways about victim management for those against whom the original crimes were committed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I agree that in the appellant procedure there will often be that check and balance, but this is slightly different. This would be a change in the law and legal framework to alter the position from the one that applied when the offender was sentenced, to the position now. Whether we like it or not that is a departure, and we must be careful to avoid setting inadvertent precedents.

We must be able fully to reflect on the assessment of risk that was made by the learned judge at the time of sentencing. In other words, how does a court properly assess the length of a determinate sentence—that, presumably, is the aim of right hon. and hon. Members—and decide whether or not to take the further step of imposing a life sentence, which might be appropriate in some very serious cases? I do not pretend that these issues are easy, but neither is it a matter that the Government should do nothing about. Other measures we are taking are already yielding significant results, not just in reducing the number of prisoners held under this regime, but by ensuring that more eligible prisoners can be considered as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee, mentioned the remarks of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who spoke not just about changing the statutory provision, but about changing the test for release, which is important. I think he would concede that the test for the release of prisoners held under this sort of regime must be as consistent as possible, bearing in mind the different classes of prisoners who are held in custody either on minimum terms or subject to parole.

We must take great care not to create too many different tests that could mean that one group of prisoners could be treated in a different or more favourable way than another group. I do not say that the argument has no merit, but there are difficulties in creating potential inconsistencies. It is beholden on me, both as a lawyer and now in this position of great responsibility, to ensure that the unforeseen consequences that occurred with this policy making do not repeat themselves thanks to any change we may make.

Let me develop the point about the ways we can best support prisoners to show that they can safely be released—that is the solution that stares us in the face regarding so many people in that position. As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) laid out well, ensuring public protection from violent and sexual crime must be paramount, and our continuing efforts to rehabilitate prisoners subject to this regime are bearing fruit. We have seen a dramatic fall in the IPP prison population over the past years, and the figures cited by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), and others, are correct. It is a dramatic fall, although I accept that there is still a significant cohort, and we must also not forget that a number of IPP prisoners have been recalled—I will come to that in a moment. However, progress is being made in the right direction.

In January 2016, more than three years ago, a joint HM Prison and Probation Service and Parole Board action plan was drawn up to deal with IPPs. Initially it was primarily focused on improving the efficiency of the parole process, because at that time there was a significant backlog in listing oral hearings for IPP and life-sentence prisoners. As a result of receiving additional resources and changing some of its processes, the Parole Board and the public protection casework section of the Ministry of Justice made progress, and their combined effect was to eliminate that backlog. Simply having a more efficient system resulted in a significant improvement to the pace with which IPP prisoners were released. Following those improvements, the plan was expanded to include a greater focus on those prisoners who, even with a much more efficient parole system, needed additional support to reduce their own risk and secure a release decision from the board.

What was done? A central case file review, by senior psychologists, of IPP prisoners who had not made the anticipated progress achieved considerable success. Out of 1,365 completed reviews, 233 prisoners in these most challenging cases achieved release, with a further 401 achieving a progressive move to open conditions. We have put in place enhanced case management for the most complex cases, so that a multidisciplinary team can work together to remove barriers to progression.

The joint IPP action plan has also overseen further improvements to the process and, perhaps most significantly, we have opened three new progression regimes, building on the success and the outstanding reputation of the first such regime, which was established at Warren Hill. Those sites operate a staged regime of increasing freedom and responsibility, allowing evidence to build on offenders’ ability to manage their own risks. The rate of release from a progression regime is higher than the average release rate across all Parole Board hearings, which is something that, I think, all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome.

As comprehensive as the plan and the opportunities it provides to IPP prisoners is, the decision actively to engage with efforts that promote rehabilitation, and so demonstrate that there can be safe release back into the community, must ultimately be for each individual prisoner. In my view, that is why Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service change programme, in delivering a new offender management model, is fundamental, not only for IPP prisoners but for all offenders. With increased staffing, and the introduction of the key worker role in all prisons, staff will be better equipped, and given more time, to work with individuals who may not be engaging in the way they need to do to reduce their risk.

We are aware that some prisoners may well have become demoralised, with no fixed date of release and the prospect of a further parole hearing currently not holding much hope for them. Here, the key worker will need to get alongside the prisoner and build hope from the foundation of a strong relationship, encouraging them to grasp the opportunities that are available.

[David Hanson]

It is not unreasonable to ask at what stage that process will be completed for prisoners currently serving IPP sentences.

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman asks that question again, and I take it fairly and squarely. The answer must be that it will be on a case-by-case basis, because each prisoner has an individual story and set of needs, and that does not merit a one-size-fits-all approach. Frankly, the cohort we are now dealing with will probably be the tougher end of the spectrum. I think that the right hon. Gentleman conceded quite properly that there will be a cohort of IPP prisoners who may never be released because of the seriousness of the offences and the risk they still pose—I know he accepts that. Therefore, I cannot give him a figure or a timescale, but I can say that the work that is going on has shown a vast increase in the pace with which we have achieved release and resolution. The model we are now adopting will, I believe, lead to even greater engagement.

As the months go by, the right hon. Gentleman can, of course, hold me to account, and if there is no progress he will rightly ask me the questions and I, independently, will ask civil servants why the initial progress has not been maintained. As a member of the Justice Committee, he will hold me to account for that.

I want to deal with more of the figures we were looking at. We have rightly heard about the overall unreleased IPP population. About 200 of that cohort of 2,400 have yet to serve their minimum tariff. As I said, we have made progress in reducing that population. In 2017-18, the Parole Board progressed to open conditions or released about three out of every four IPP prisoners who appeared before it.

As I was saying, the cohort becomes increasingly challenging, which will require increasingly intensive rehabilitation. Rehabilitating, and assessing the risk presented by, these prisoners, many of whom, sadly, have committed serious sexual offences against children, is particularly challenging. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) opened his remarks by referring to that sort of horrendous offence and the need for public protection. It should be acknowledged that some IPP prisoners may never be released because the risk they pose is just too great for safe management in the community.

We are working to reduce the incidence of self-harm among IPP prisoners as part of our prison safety programme and here, again, the key worker will perform a vital role. Additionally, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is improving the process for people at risk of suicide or self-harm. We have improved prevention training for nearly 25,000 prison staff and have refreshed our partnership with Samaritans for three years, with £1.5 million in funding to support the excellent listeners scheme, through which prisoners are trained to provide support to their fellow prisoners—peer-to-peer support that we all know works in so many settings.

Working to address broader mental health issues in the IPP population remains important. Since last April, we have a new national partnership agreement for prison health. Mental health services are available in all prisons. Turning for a moment to the issue of women IPP prisoners, I am glad to say that they have a dedicated senior psychologist providing a specific progression pathway, and support from a multidisciplinary team to deal with some of the mental health challenges they face.

The commissioning of mental health services by NHS partners is based on a local assessment of health needs, and the services are provided to prisoners on the basis of individual need, which, when we think about it, has to be right. The one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as we know, when it comes to mental health. Independent professionally trained clinicians carry out assessments, and no one is refused access where there is an assessed need. We are well aware that many of those serving IPP sentences experience mental health difficulties, and part of the action plan aims to ensure access to appropriate treatment. An example that I mentioned earlier is the case file reviews carried out by senior psychologists. Alongside those who have been released or moved to open conditions, 54 of those reviewed have been transferred to secure hospitals, where they can receive the best treatment for their needs.

The issue of recall has properly been raised. With regard to the test of recall, it is important to reiterate that it is stringent when it comes to IPP offenders. They can be recalled only when their behaviour and the nature of the licence breach indicate a causal link to their original offending and that the public are at risk of further serious, violent or sexual offending. That is a different, and more stringent, test for recall than that which exists elsewhere in the system.

Work is being done to ensure that recall is properly focused only where it is necessary to protect the public, and efforts are being made to keep offenders on licence in the community wherever possible. Those efforts include the creation of new guidance for probation officers on licence variations of alternatives to recall, and on best practice in the management of offenders on licence, to improve their compliance and prevent the risk from escalating.

A new power to release IPP prisoners on the papers is being used for those on recall. The Parole Board has introduced a quicker, 48-hour turnaround time to consider licence variation requests from probation, to support continued management on licence in the community. We are investigating the rise in the number of IPP prisoners on recall, to see how that rate can safely be reduced and, citing the hon. Member for Ashfield, to get the balance right between the need to protect the public and the need to rehabilitate offenders.

A number of cases were raised with me. I agree that that of Wayne Bell is concerning and I understand that he is now receiving treatment for his mental health issues in an appropriate setting, which is welcome. The troubling case of Tommy Nicol was properly raised. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), met with Donna Mooney, Mr Nicol’s sister, earlier this year. We remain in contact with her at an official and, I very much hope—although I am a new Minister—a ministerial level. We have another meeting with her planned for the autumn. It is a particularly tragic case, but I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we will continue to work with her to address the concerns that she raises with such dignity and clarity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who sadly has been called away, asked about the work led by the University of Southampton. We are very much aware of the work of Professor Harry Annison, who works in partnership with the Prison Reform Trust and has already given us an important insight into the impact on families of their loved ones serving IPP sentences. I am looking forward to seeing the conclusions of the next stage of his work, which is currently being supported by IPP and family leads from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. With regard to the entire IPP population and the action plan, although I am not able specifically to indicate the number currently subject to that action plan, I assure the House that it is having a wide-ranging effect and will continue to be implemented.

I have lived with the IPP regime for much of my professional and political life. I am profoundly grateful to the hon. Member for Slough for having raised this issue today, allowing us to debate it in a calm and considered way that reflects the genuine concerns of the families of people who are subject to that regime, but also understands the enduring and important function that the justice system plays in protecting the public from serious and violent offences. I believe that the best approach is for us to continue our successful efforts to help those offenders rehabilitate, and redouble those efforts whenever necessary and whenever an offender wishes to engage. That will provide the best chance for those prisoners to become once again law-abiding members of the very communities that we are seeking to protect.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Justice Committee and a barrister of long standing at the criminal Bar. He is absolutely right to talk about the test of relevance. It is not the purport of any inquiry ambit or the function of any inquiry chair to adopt a floodgates approach to the disclosure and use of spent convictions. In the other place, the noble Baroness Barran put it very well when she set out to their lordships a flowchart of the way in which a particular decision about the use of spent convictions would be taken. She said:

“The first question is: does the individual have spent convictions, yes or no? If the answer is yes, are they relevant? Will they be treated anonymously? If they apply for anonymity, will that be agreed to? Further, even if it is not anonymous, is the hearing held in private or in public? If it is held in private, could the information then be published?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2019; Vol. 797, c. 1792.]

I thought that that was a clear exposition of the framework within which a decision maker would carry out their function when it comes to spent convictions. In other words, that is the sort of filter that I think meets the concerns not only of Members in the other place but of Members in this House.

I was talking about future inquiries, and was saying it is likely that other inquiries may need to consider spent criminal records, as these can be key to determining whether authorities have acted reasonably in assessing and responding to risk. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 affords offenders protection from having to disclose their convictions and cautions, once those convictions and cautions have become what is termed “spent” under the Act. That is the point at which the offender has become rehabilitated. The exceptions order to that Act lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are lifted so that offenders, if asked, need to disclose their spent convictions.

The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs—positions of public trust, for example, or those involving unsupervised work with children—where more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate to mitigate risks to public safety. The exceptions order is not limited to employment purposes, although that is its primary use. The amendment proposed here is not employment-related, but related only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions and cautions in inquiries that are caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Justice Committee has produced a report that recommends “banning the box”, to deal with the issue of spent convictions, and the Government gave a very positive response. There may be occasions when there is a crossover between an individual who might apply for a job in the public sector and somebody who is covered by an inquiry. I just want to get the Minister’s take on that particular point.

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very proper point, and I can assure him that the work that his Committee has done and the campaign to ban the box are matters that I and my colleagues in the Department are considering very carefully indeed. I will chart the changes that we have already made to the 1974 Act and the direction of travel later in my remarks, but I would say to him for that in the flowchart that I have outlined, the sort of concerns that he properly raises about an individual’s employment prospects could be raised in the inquiry before the Chair, when the Chair decides whether to publish the information or to retain anonymity. So there will be safeguards designed to protect against the sort of mischief that he properly probes me about.