Asked by: Lord Jamieson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what non-privileged advice or guidance they have given to public bodies on whether a public body may exercise a legal power that is subject to a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, both specifically with reference to the High Court declaration of incompatibility directed to sections 60C(3), 61(4ZA)(a), 62(1A)(a) and 62B(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made in May 2024, and more widely.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
In May 2024 the High Court ruled that the twelve month no-return period in Part 5 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in relation to unauthorised encampments was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the limited availability of authorised transit sites.
A government amendment has been tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill to reduce the period during which an individual who has been directed to leave an unauthorised encampment must not return, from twelve months to three months. This applies to sections 60C, 61, 62, 62B and 62C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. This will rectify the incompatibility with Convention rights.
The Home Office has not provided advice to public bodies on whether they may exercise these legal powers in light of the High Court ruling. Police forces are operationally independent of government and any enforcement action against encampments is an operational matter for the police.
Statutory guidance issued by the Home Secretary under section 62F of the 1994 Act is published here: Statutory Guidance for Police on Unauthorised Encampments
The guidance will be updated when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent.
Asked by: Lord Jamieson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of protests being undertaken (1) within the curtilage of the private property of elected representatives' family homes, and (2) within or on top of elected representatives' family homes; and whether they consider those protests to amount to intimidation.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government has been clear: harassment and intimidation of elected representatives is never acceptable. Such behaviour undermines our democracy and discourages public engagement.
As Chair of the Defending Democracy Taskforce, the Security Minister is clear – as set out in the Defending Democracy Policing Protocol - that protesting at the homes of elected representatives is unacceptable and should be treated as harassment by the police. The Security Minister has also written to Chief Constables recently, encouraging them to use all powers available to them to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected representatives.
Under the Taskforce’s renewed mandate, we are reviewing how to strengthen protections and close any legislative gaps, including in the context of protecting public office holders in their private homes. Measures such as the new aggravating factor proposed in the recently published Elections Strategy will provide clearer consequences for behaviour that crosses the line into abuse. The Government also welcomes the important work of the Speaker’s Conference and looks forward to its final recommendations.
Asked by: Lord Jamieson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Home Office has seen the unredacted drawings of (1) the cultural exchange building, and (2) the basement, for the new Chinese Embassy at the former site of the Royal Mint.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
A public inquiry was held on this case between 11 and 28 February, at which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and make representations. On 10 June 2025, the Planning Inspector passed their report to MHCLG for consideration.
Given the independence of this quasi-judicial process, it would not be appropriate for me to comment any further on aspects of the planning process, but I can assure the Noble Lord that we have considered the breadth of national security issues in relation to the proposed new Embassy.
Asked by: Lord Jamieson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 20 March (HL5602), what representations the government of China or its representatives have made to the Home Office relating to the latest planning application for the Chinese Embassy, prior to and after the Secretary of State's call-in decision, and on what dates.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
Having conducted reasonable due diligence, we are not aware of any such representations. In any event, final decision sits with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in her independent, quasi-judicial role.
Asked by: Lord Jamieson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the net cost of supporting (1) asylum seekers and (2) their children, to local authorities in England across all public services, including schooling and housing.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office does not hold an assessment of the kind requested, but we regularly publish details of the costs of the asylum system in our departmental annual reports.