Temporary Skilled Worker Visas: Creative Occupations

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall ask about another class of skilled and creative workers in need of temporary visas—namely, sheep-shearers during the sheep-shearing season. They are fundamental to animal welfare. There is a serious issue about the grant of visas. I do not imagine that the Minister knows the answer immediately. Will he be good enough to write to me and copy his response to the chairman of the NFU?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Funnily enough, as the noble Viscount will know, sheep-shearers were not on my briefing for the creative industries. I am sure it is extremely creative and extremely high skilled, but it was not specifically part of my research in answering the Question. The key point is that the Government are trying to ensure that, where possible, we encourage locally grown talent to fill all skilled worker positions. I will look at the specific issue that he has mentioned, and I will ensure that any future creative industries Question includes sheep-shearers as part of my paragraphs.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which was passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to kirpans, and long kirpans as well. This included extended defences so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons. But let me be clear to this House and to people outside: carrying a knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing; using it to perpetrate a murder is quite another. In saying that, the focus of our ire and concern should be on the perpetrator, who is now serving a long prison sentence. It is not a reflection on the Sikh community nor on the many people in that Sikh community who will, as the noble Lord has done, condemn this act. The noble Lord raised the role of the media. In terms of news media, there is what I would call old media and there is currently social media. In my view, both need to report all instances of violence in a constructive, truthful and factually based way—not one designed to inflame areas where, as was witnessed last night in Southampton, there are potential tensions generated as a result.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, the guidelines are being reviewed. May I suggest that part of the review should address the use of handcuffs? In this case, it is not at all clear to me that it was right, or indeed seemly or appropriate, to apply handcuffs to Mr Nowak.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Viscount, the area he is discussing strays into two issues which are really important. One is on the IOPC investigating what actually happened, both before the footage that we have seen on TV and during the incident of handcuffing and the original response. It is best that it reports on that and give some views on it. That will also stray into the issue of the guidance. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is responsible for that guidance, not Ministers. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is reviewing the approach to that guidance, and I am sure it will ensure that the type of issue the noble Viscount mentions are ones that are considered, both in terms of IOPC response and that of the police chiefs themselves.

Unite the Kingdom March

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The one thing that struck me about the demonstration on Saturday was the completely offensive demonstration involving three people wearing burkas and purporting to be Muslim women. I support the noble Baroness’s wish. I will look at what she has said. She knows—and I will not repeat it now—that there is significant resource going into protecting the Muslim community. We have also a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility which was put in place only in April this year. She has my support to ensure that she and other women like her who have the Muslim religion are allowed to lead their lives freely and openly.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, can I ask the Minister to confirm that the police will be very robust in tackling antisemitic remarks and actions at pro-Palestinian marches?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The law does not discriminate against individuals who are Jewish or Muslim. The law says that people who bring forward hate crime or encourage discrimination on the basis of a religion, or indeed a faith of any kind, face the full force of the law. The Metropolitan Police showed that on Saturday with the number of arrests it made, and will do so again, free of political interference, according to the law set down by both Houses of Parliament.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I follow the noble Baroness by apologising to your Lordships that I was not here for the commencement of the Minister’s speech, but I heard the great majority of what he said, and I was also present for the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick.

I want to emphasise my considerable support for subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 311, which deals directly with the concerns that I expressed in Committee and on Report. I am deeply troubled by the fact that people who are expressing support for Palestine Action in the streets of London are in fact using shorthand simply to protest at what they think is going wrong in Gaza and the West Bank. I do not think that those people should be charged with or arrested for terrorism. The proposed new subsection deals directly with that, and I think it is a very useful way forward. I very much hope that in the review, or if any amendment to the Terrorism Act is brought forward, the provisions of that subsection would be incorporated into any change of law, because that subsection makes it plain that, unless somebody is doing something which is really in furtherance of a criminal offence, they are not to be treated as a terrorist simply for demonstrating.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Before we have any other contributions, I remind your Lordships that there is a very clear rule here, that if one is not present in the Chamber for the beginning of a group it is unacceptable to participate. Apologising and then proceeding is not the way that we do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am not willing to take that risk. It is a matter for noble Lords opposite. We are making a recommended change—we have accepted every recommendation from the College of Policing—but such an approach from the noble Lord risks removing information that may still be relevant. I am not willing to take that risk.

The noble Lord’s amendment also, if I may say so, overstates the impact of non-crime hate incidents on Disclosure and Barring Service checks. Such records do not appear on basic or standard DBS certificates. They can be disclosed only on an enhanced check, and only where a chief officer reasonably considers the information to be relevant, applying statutory Home Office guidance and strict tests of seriousness, relevance and proportionality. Enhanced checks are used solely for the most sensitive roles involving children or vulnerable adults, and there is no evidence of systemic or inappropriate use of non-crime hate incident information in that context.

I pray in aid that the House of Commons has disagreed with the noble Lord’s amendment for clear reasons. Its objectives are being met through the accepted review undertaken by police experts, and a blanket deletion requirement would be potentially harmful, removing information that—I say this again, and slowly—may be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities. Everybody in this House, every noble Lord who walks through a Lobby today to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is going to be potentially—I emphasise “potentially”—removing information that may still be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities.

I am not willing to do that. I urge noble Lords to recognise the Government’s approach, which has effected and is effecting real change. We have accepted the recommendations of the College of Policing, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is a member of the Conservative Party and a Peer with that knowledge.

Turning to Motion R and Amendment 339, the Government take police accountability very seriously. We believe it is right to strike a balance between allowing appropriate scrutiny of the police and ensuring that they can carry out their powers. I know that noble Lords opposite agree with that. We made a commitment in the police reform White Paper to commission an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. We will confirm who will lead this review and publish the terms of reference very shortly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that he will have input into that review.

We cannot support Amendment 339 as it stands because it would introduce a blanket presumption that any case involving a police officer that has resulted in an acquittal in the criminal court and subsequently been closed should not be reopened to go forward to misconduct proceedings. Such a blanket presumption would not be appropriate in all cases—for example, in allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers. Anybody in this House today who votes for Motion R1 and the noble Lord’s Amendment 399B will be leaving open the opportunity that allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers, will be potentially not able to be taken.

We will have honest disagreements in this House, but I say to noble Lords, particularly those opposite—and I am grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrats—that the changes we are making are important and effective. There is a risk in both amending Motions of potential safeguarding issues and compromise for the future, around not being able to look at cases of sexual abuse and others by the police. I am very happy to have a debate about that, but I suggest to my noble friends, and to anybody who wishes to join us, that we vote those Motions down and support Motion Q, in my name.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

On Motion R1, I agree with the Minister, not with my noble friend Lord Davies. It is important to remember—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We have wound the debate up, and apparently the noble Viscount was not present at the start of the debate. We have had the wind-up by the Minister. We now need to proceed to divide or not divide the House.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, more on terrorism, and proscription in particular. Amendment 420 is in my name, and I support Amendment 422B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which would beef up parliamentary involvement, and the role of the ISC in particular, in the proscription process. I oppose later amendments that seem to limit or completely remove the role of the courts in this area.

The Home Secretary’s power to proscribe a terrorist organisation under Section 3 of the 2000 Act is an awesome power. It is none the less necessary in a democratic society, because people should not be able to have private armies. We all understand that. None the less, getting these decisions right is incredibly important. In this debate, I will not relitigate any past or pending decisions. I am looking at it from the point of view of constitutional principle. The consequences of proscription are very serious, now and in the future, so getting these decisions right is very important.

My Amendment 420 is very modest, and I am grateful to all noble Lords across the House who supported it last time, and to colleagues in the other place of different political persuasions who spoke to me privately, expressing their support for this type of change. At the moment, a single proscription order may contain umpteen organisations, which means that when that order is put before each House, there will be a yes or no vote on an entire list, rather than an opportunity for Members of the other place or noble Lords to properly scrutinise and vote on each proscription decision. By contrast, the courts are able to review these decisions individually. I suggest that, as a matter of constitutional principle, both Houses should have a similar opportunity. That is what Amendment 420 would do.

Last time, my noble friend, amiable and courteous as always, as noble Lords know, was able to offer one argument against me, which was that we have always done it this way. I hope he forgives me, but I do not think that a good enough argument. There may be a further one to come, but that is not a good enough argument to limit the reasonable opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to vote on each individual proscription decision. There is no speed issue or emergency issue because even after my amendment, the Home Secretary could make multiple orders on the same day and sign them with the same pen; there would just be individual votes and debates, as required by Parliament. That is the argument. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in the circumstances I shall confine my observations to Amendments 422A and 422B. Before I do so, I say that I strongly support the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness. Were she to divide the House on it, I would support it, but I gather that, perhaps because of the press of business, that is not her present intention.

The purpose of Amendment 422A is to ensure that individuals can be prosecuted under Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act for the offence of supporting an act of terrorism only if the alleged acts amount to supporting terrorism in the sense that the ordinary citizen would understand that concept. Amendment 422A makes explicit that the necessary intent that the prosecution must prove is that the alleged acts were done with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism. The amendment also restricts the possibility of a demonstrator being arrested under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. In general, an arrest must be authorised by a senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.

My suggestion to your Lordships is that the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. It has been widely criticised, for example, by the judges in the Palestine Action case. In that case, judicial concern about statutory overreach contributed to the proscription of Palestine Action being held to be unlawful. It has also been the subject of much distinguished criticism—for example by Lord Sumption, a former member of the Supreme Court. I suggest that the position is profoundly unjust. If we consider, for example, the demonstrations that have been taking place in the streets of London, hundreds of people have been holding up placards that say, “I support Palestine Action”. Many of these characters are elderly and retired folk, rather like me; most self-evidently respectable, rather like me; and usually without knowledge of the secret workings of Palestine Action, rather like me. Now they may be self-indulgent—rather like me—and some accuse them of being naive, but are they really guilty of terrorism in the sense that most of us understand that concept? I suggest, surely not. What they are doing is using a form of shorthand to demonstrate their opposition to the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, and that they are entitled to do.

There are at least three serious objections to the present law. First, it is a serious restriction on free speech. I refer here not to the European convention, although it may be engaged, but to the long-standing tradition of English law. Secondly, to use the law in circumstances that offend the common sense of the ordinary citizen brings the whole body of criminal law into disrepute.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Viscount Hailsham]

422A: After Clause 207, insert the following new Clause—
“Support for terrorism: intention(1) The Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 12 (support) after subsection (4), insert—“(4A) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.” (3) In section 13 (uniform and publication of images), after subsection (1B), insert—“(1C) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”(4) Subject to subsection (5) a person may not be arrested in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, unless that arrest has been authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.(5) When determining whether to authorise the arrest under subsection (4), that police officer must have regard to the provisions of sections 12(4A) and 13(1C) of that Act.(6) Subject to subsection (7), subsections (4) and (5) of this section shall not apply where an arrest has not been authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above, but a police officer, having regard to the urgency or gravity of the relevant circumstances, reasonably believes that it is necessary to arrest a person in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.(7) When determining whether to make an arrest under subsection (6), that police officer must have regard to the provisions of sections 12(4A) and 13(1C) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments are designed to ensure that arrests under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act are in general confined to cases where a person is reasonably suspected of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I am very grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches, but for a similar reason to that advanced by the noble Baroness, I am not going to trouble the House by seeking to divide.

Amendment 422A not moved.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have real reservations about Amendment 385, which I am afraid I cannot support. I am glad that my noble friend is not thinking of testing the opinion of the House.

I speak as a cyclist and I fear, for the reason touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that what is proposed in Amendment 385 is likely to damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists. The truth is that, when bicycling, we all wear a variety of things that are capable of disguising our identity. I did this morning. One always wears a helmet, very frequently one wears goggles or spectacles, either as sunglasses or to keep the rain out, and when it is cold one wears a ski mask or scarf around the bottom of one’s mouth. All these things are capable of concealing one’s identity. I saw several people doing this today when I was bicycling in from King’s Cross. This will damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists.

I ask, rhetorically, what kind of person is the police officer likely to stop? Most probably, I suspect, it will be a person from an ethnic minority, who may be young too. Anybody who has been in Parliament as long as I have knows the trouble that you have from stop and search. That is proportionate, because the carrying of weapons is a serious risk. I acknowledge that it is perfectly correct that cyclists on occasion conceal themselves in order to seize bags and mobiles—that is true—but the remedy is disproportionate.

Furthermore, the amendment gives rise to an interesting question of principle. If it is right to impose this restriction in respect of cyclists, what about motorcyclists? They come into exactly the same category and are perfectly capable of snatching a bag or mobile, and most of them now have visors over their helmets. So, what are you going to do about that?

My own view is that, yes, there is a problem, but this is a disproportionate remedy. It will impact on innocent cyclists, as I venture to describe myself, and it will damage relationships between the police and the cycling community. I was very glad to hear that my noble friend indicated he will not test the opinion of the House because, had he done so, I would have voted against him.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I hear the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about Amendment 385. It would confer a power on a constable to stop a cyclist without any basis, reasonable or otherwise, to suspect that they are committing an offence or are about to commit an offence, when they may have, as the noble Viscount said, a perfectly good reason to be wearing a face mask. They may have influenza, which they do not wish to share with others, or they may be concerned to avoid diesel or petrol fumes on the road. Moreover, the amendment would confer an unrestricted power on the constable to require the person concerned to remove the face covering, with the sanction of a fine or imprisonment, without any requirement on the constable to consider whether that individual has a proper reason for wearing a face mask and without any defence of reasonable excuse. I too could not support such an amendment.

In Amendment 387A, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a powerful case about the mischief which afflicts local communities. My only concern is whether her proposed new clause would do much, if anything, to address this real mischief. The remedy would still depend on enforcement action by local authorities or the police, and would still depend on evidence which is difficult to obtain. I appreciate that police forces are independent, but the Government need to do all they can to encourage them to take action to deal with these problems. If that requires further resources then they should have further resources, but it should be a priority for effective policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

In family cases of sexual or physical abuse, someone can be tried and acquitted but then dealt with in the family court on very much the same evidence. That is partly because there is a difference in the standard of proof, which, in a criminal case, is much greater than in civil and family proceedings. Having said that, I am entirely sympathetic to this amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot support this amendment, for two reasons. First, it imposes a regime which is wholly different from the regulatory practices in every other regulatory authority. For the last 15 years, I have practised exclusively as a legal adviser to regulatory panels, including for doctors, nurses, midwives, healthcare practitioners and social workers. In each and every case, a practitioner, a registrant, who has been acquitted by a criminal court can be brought before the regulatory panel to face misconduct proceedings. That is because the standard of proof is different: the criminal acquittal means that they failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the regulatory panel is entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that misconduct has been made out.

That takes me to the second point. Not only is it contrary to all the practices that we as a Parliament have imposed on other regulatory authorities, which I have identified, it is contrary to the merits. It may very well be that an officer who has properly been acquitted is none the less, on the balance of probabilities—the test within the regulatory authority—guilty of misconduct. I believe that that option should remain. I am very close to the position of the noble and learned Baroness, who draws from her experiences in the family courts. My experience is in regulatory proceedings, and what is proposed in this amendment is profoundly different from what we have imposed on the regulatory authorities.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, set out the case for very well. It is linked particularly to the Chris Kaba case.

I will try to address the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He made a fair point. There are times when, even if someone has been acquitted of a criminal offence—in this case, a charge of murder—disciplinary issues might be discovered which are not directly related to the death but a professional body may want to address, such as ammunition not being signed out properly or something else that was important but not relevant to a criminal charge. The concern in this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained, is that it appears from the press release, which is all we have to go on, that the IOPC basically laid its charge based on the criminal case—the charge of murder. That might seem very difficult to understand.

The amount of time this takes—I am sure that this can happen in medical cases—is substantial. In the Chris Kaba case, from event to criminal case took about three years. The officer will probably wait another two years. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, addressed the double jeopardy point—it is probably nearer to triple or more jeopardy. There are two or three bites of the cherry as far as the officer is concerned, although we must look at it beyond the officer’s understanding.

There is first an assessment of whether there is a criminal charge. Should that be negative, there is then a misconduct charge. Should both be negative, if there is a death involved, which we are particularly concerned about with respect to police firearms officers, a coroner’s court will be convened, after waiting for the two previous decisions. At the end there can be a verdict of unlawful killing, at which point the whole thing starts again. All this accounts for the very long processes. Why can these decisions not be considered in parallel rather than sequentially? I have still not really heard a proper explanation for that.

If the IOPC considered in the police case that there was gross misconduct or a conduct issue, why did it not lay a charge at the beginning? Why did it wait for the outcome of the criminal case, unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has suggested, more evidence had been discovered in the criminal case that might have made a difference? No one has said that.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

The noble Lord was suggesting, I think, that it is wrong to hold a subsequent disciplinary proceeding on precisely the same facts that gave rise to the acquittal. But in the regulatory proceedings of which I have been speaking, that is precisely the case. Very often a practitioner or registrant who has been acquitted before a criminal court then comes before a regulatory panel facing misconduct proceedings on precisely the same facts. My point is that the amendment is seeking to put in place a regime wholly different from that which operates in every other profession, and deprives people of the option of finding an officer guilty of misconduct when, on the balance of probabilities, the officer is guilty of misconduct.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I am not going to try to argue the case; I am making my argument, and the noble Viscount is making his. The other regulatory bodies do not have something called the IOPC, a body that is charged with investigating this type of thing. That is fine, but it imposes a further burden and further process. Two groups are badly affected: the family of the person who has died and the officer in the case. Of course, I make the case for the officer, but both matter in that both are badly damaged. For me, this is a subset of the later discussion we will have about police firearms officers, but it is just one indication of some of the aggravation of their position, when, in every case, when charged, they have been found not guilty. In the Kaba case, following a three-year process, it took three hours for a criminal court to find that there was no case to answer and the officer was found not guilty.

It is very hard to understand why the IOPC, after all that time, having not charged in the first place at the time of the event, suddenly instigated the case at a later stage. For all those reasons that I have tried to identify, police firearms officers, who take incredible risks on our behalf, are an important group that we have to consider and, unless we find some comfort for them in law, the danger is they will turn around and stop doing it on our behalf. I think this is a help. I accept the fundamental point from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that it may be inconsistent, but I would argue that we are in a pretty inconsistent place now so far as the law and the process is set up.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

I do not wish to move the amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it inappropriate that, although Amendment 14 was not moved, it should be spoken to.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

For the administrative ease of the House, I have not moved Amendment 14, but I do have another amendment in this group, Amendment 21, which I do intend to talk to, if that is in order.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I do not want to intrude unnecessarily, but I did have a brief word to say about Amendments 14 and 21, both of which I welcome very much. This arises from a particular problem I had in my own area. We had a very efficiently run waste disposal area, which was closed—and the consequence was that we had a lot of fly-tipping. The advantage of Amendments 14 and 21 is that they would impose on the waste disposal authority certain obligations: obligations to pay and obligations to clear away the mess. The advantage of that is that it may make the waste disposal authorities much less willing to close sites. If the sites remain open, the prospect is that fly-tipping will not be as great. I was going to support Amendments 14 and 21, because what they would do is valuable, in the sense that it would encourage waste disposal authorities to keep sites open, and not to close them.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend.

This is an important issue. I have campaigned for many years around fly-tipping and the importance of having a stronger regulatory settlement, so I very much support my noble friend’s amendments in this group. It is a very large-scale problem: the noble Lord, Lord Katz, I believe, referred at an earlier stage to an estimate of some 1.15 million fly-tipping events reported to local authorities. That is a huge number, and I expect that that thoroughly underreports the true scale of the problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Katz, was kind enough to write to me in response to a question I raised on 17 November in Committee, when I inquired as to the number of cost recovery orders that had been successfully made by the courts. It appears that the Government do not hold that information. I looked at the manifesto, about which we have heard an awful lot in this Parliament, and indeed today, and there was a commitment to make the fly-tippers pay for the clear-up, yet the Government do not hold the statistics. I am slightly puzzled as to how the Government are going to make progress on that without holding the relevant information. The noble Lord, in his letter to me, did say that 1,378 fines had been made in respect of fly-tipping. That is a tiny number: it is 1 in 1,000, or 0.1%. It is quite clear —the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in response to a question about the Kidlington outrage, agreed—that the current regulatory position is not working. This is a particular issue in the countryside, where there is a heavy burden on farmers, as we have heard. Here, I declare an interest of sorts, as the owner of a farm.

I have Amendment 21 in this group. Its effect is simple: it would place a duty on local waste authorities to remove waste and then to attempt to pursue cost recovery from the culprits. It builds, really, on Amendment 13, in my noble friend’s name, which seeks to amend the guidance. Both have a similar intent. In my view, it is simply unfair that the victim of the crime should be responsible for clearing it up. There are many factors that drive this crime, but at least two are within the direct control of public authorities as a whole—namely, the pricing of the landfill tax and, as my noble friend referred to, the accessibility of waste disposal facilities, and the Environment Agency and police enforcement effort.

My noble friend referred to the incident reported of a farmer who recently had 200 tonnes of rubbish dumped on his land. This is a perfect illustration of the problem that landowners, and indeed community trusts and others—for example, sports grounds and football clubs and so forth—can face. This individual faced a bill for some £40,000. Now, I understand that the council and the police had failed to identify the culprits and had failed to protect him after repeated previous incidents. Indeed, he alleges that he had also been the victim of intimidation. Why should he face financial ruin for the failures of public authorities to protect him from the actions of a criminal gang?

I would argue that it is simply not realistic, nor is it fair, to expect landowners to take on the role of detective to identify offenders and then to pursue them for the recovery of costs. They do not know how to make the various agencies involved work more effectively, they are vulnerable to intimidation and they do not have the resources.

The time has now come for the responsibility for protection, clear-up, investigation and prosecution to sit with the appropriate and relevant public agencies. To my mind, the arguments for doing this are clear, as it would create a complete system where public sector agencies control landfill pricing, access to legitimate waste disposal sites, identification and prosecution of culprits, and recovery of costs. This would incentivise the Environment Agency, the police and local waste authorities to be much more proactive in pursuing the culprits, facilitating their prosecution and recovering their costs. It would allow for faster removal, which is a very important factor. With waste lying around on farmland, private land or any open ground, one thing follows another, and more suddenly turns up. It would also give much fairer treatment to landowners.

It is clear that the current system is not working. On the one hand, we have had a member of the public being fined for pouring the dregs of her cup of coffee down the drain, but, on the other hand, no one seems to have noticed or done anything to stop at least 300 heavy goods vehicles dumping upwards of 10,000 tonnes of rubbish illegally in Kidlington. How can that possibly have happened? How can we have confidence in the system? If it cannot catch 300 trucks, what chance does the poor landowner have in this type of situation? This is a failure of the whole government system in the broadest sense of the term—central agencies and local—to protect victims. They now need to take responsibility.

I support my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s other amendments, all of which are designed to strengthen the regulatory settlement to tackle fly-tipping. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for setting out the case for these amendments. I am also grateful for the comments made in support from the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Elliott, among others. I will refer to other colleagues in a moment.

I think that we can all agree that fly-tipping blights communities, adds to the burdens on local authorities and there is a need to take action on this. I welcome the fact that my colleague, Mary Creagh MP, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as referenced by a number of noble Lords, has this very day issued a press release urging councils to crush more fly-tipping vehicles. She also issued new guidance for local authorities to crackdown on waste crime and ensured that we have our first overview for councils, offering clear instructions on the identifying, seizing and disposing of vehicles and strengthening deterrents. She also gave guidance for maximising public awareness and ensuring that the Environment Agency has new technology and boosted funding to put more waste crime officers on the ground. By happy coincidence, that happened this very morning, ahead of our debate here today. The statutory guidance in Clause 9 will help in that regard.

I will now comment on the amendments before the House, starting with Amendment 13. I note the technical issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I would have referred to it had he not done so. I endorse that. I also note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the issue in Amendment 13.

I recognise the financial burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, currently, where there is sufficient evidence, as per the point made by the noble Earl, fly-tippers can be prosecuted. On conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is not available for a successful prosecution—this is, again, a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—there will not be sufficient evidence to force a fly-tipper to take responsibility for the clean-up either. If there is a prosecution, the clean-up can, in effect, be added to the sentence. It is therefore unclear how Amendment 13, by addressing this in statutory guidance, would help, when a criminal prosecution is already the best route for the desired outcome.

I note that Amendment 21, which was moved in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and had the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks in effect to place a duty on waste authorities to clear up waste left by fly-tippers. Again, I fully understand and share the sentiment behind the amendment. It is legitimate to ask why a farmer, landowner or occupier of any land should be liable for clean-up costs. As I have said to the House, where there is a conviction, the courts currently have the necessary powers to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, and the guidance today is clear evidence of the Government’s willingness—

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Would the Minister be good enough to focus on this argument? If a burden were placed on the waste disposal authority, either by being liable to clear up the mess or by having to pay for it, it would be much less willing to close waste sites, and if waste sites are kept open then fly-tipping is likely to diminish.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount tempts me down the path of the direct responsibility of local councils, but that goes slightly wider than the amendments before us today. My point is that if there is already a conviction of someone for fly-tipping then the courts have the power to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities, as again by today’s guidance, to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, including those on private land.

We also want to make good the enforcement powers, as I described. Defra is talking to a number of groups, such as the National Farmers’ Union and the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, to promote and disseminate good practice. However, the problem I come to again is that, where there is no prosecution and conviction, the long-established position currently is that local authorities are responsible for cleaning up fly-tipping on public land, while the landowner is responsible where the offence is committed on private land. I accept that that is unfair, it is a challenge and it is a cost to local taxpayers and landowners alike, but it would be a fundamental shift of responsibility for cleaning up waste on private land to hard-pressed local authorities, from the position where the local individual landowner themselves currently provides that.

Again, I want to put on the record that the Environment Agency does not have a responsibility to clear illegal waste sites, but it does so where—to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said—there is a potential risk of fire, there is a risk of impact on the watercourse or there are other environmental factors. I come back to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said: prevention, better enforcement, and the provisions in this Bill and other actions the Government are taking forward, are the way forward on these issues.

Amendment 19 sought to ensure that penalty points would be added to the driving licence of an offender for fly-tipping. Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord by saying that the Government are currently considering the benefits of adding penalty points to driving licences for fly-tipping offences. I noted the questions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on that, but there is still potentially a benefit in this area. However, I cannot accept the amendment at the moment, not least because any amendment would have to be considered under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which deals with driving licence enforcements, as opposed to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the Government are looking carefully and quickly at the issue of penalty points and, although I cannot accept the amendment today, we will have to look at how we can put that principle into practice in due course.

Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord Davies, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would add the offence of fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but, as I have said, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles linked to waste crime under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and vehicles can be kept, sold or disposed of by local authorities.

I will refer to today’s press notice, which is available on GOV.UK. It says that the new guidance published today

“will provide the first comprehensive overview for councils, offering clear instructions on identifying, seizing, and disposing of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, as well as advice on taking cases to court and securing convictions against vehicle owners”.

I think that best practice is intended to provide, not replace, statutory documentation. It is therefore an important matter to my colleagues in Defra to ensure that we bring forward that statutory guidance on fly-tipping to examine the case for penalty points and how we deal with those matters in due course.

Shamima Begum

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We have plenty of time. We will hear from the Cross Benches first and then from the noble Viscount.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Lord, I am not hiding behind that. We have taken a judgment that we are in discussion on that matter in the European court with legal teams. I am not able to give a running commentary on those matters in this House. The noble Lord may not like that, but that is the position I have to give the House today.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I re-emphasise that when Shamima Begum went to Syria, she was 15 years-old. She absconded from school. She was a child. What is the public interest in excluding her from the United Kingdom now? Are we just making political gestures? I of course acknowledge that the original decision was made by the previous Administration.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The original decision was made by the previous Administration, and it happens to be one that this Government upheld and support. I say again to the House that there are ongoing proceedings about her status, and the decisions were very clear. Under legislation which the previous Government took, we have examined this matter and are now in discussions in the European Court of Human Rights. I think it is best left to be determined in the way in which it will ultimately be determined.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Hailsham]

449: After Clause 185, insert the following new Clause—
“Proscription process: parliamentary involvement(1) Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3), insert—“(3A) Subject to subsection (3B) the Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (3) unless prior to making such an order, the Secretary of State has placed before the Intelligence and Security Committee (the ISC) or any committee which by statute may have replaced the ISC (the replacement committee), a statement of the reasons for making the order and the ISC or the replacement committee has published a report regarding that order.(3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that by reason of urgency the requirements of subsection (3A) cannot reasonably be complied with and the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.(3C) If subsection (3B) applies, the Secretary of State must within seven days of the making of the order, place before the ISC or the replacement committee, a statement of the reasons for making the order and within a reasonable period thereafter, the ISC or the replacement committee must make a report to Parliament.”.”

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 449, I will speak briefly to Amendment 454. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her support for Amendment 449. I have a nasty feeling that I may be uniting my noble friend Lord Cameron and the Minister in opposition to my amendments; I will forgive them on this occasion. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support on the previous group—I rather hope I might get some support from him on this occasion.

The purpose of Amendment 449 is to ensure that Parliament has as much information as possible before a decision to proscribe is made. I accept, of course, that it is not possible for Ministers to disclose in general debate all the information which they may have received in private and which, in their opinion, justifies proscription. I worked in the Home Office and the Foreign Office for around seven years, so I am under no illusions. Of course, the Minister, who has a similar track record, will be under no illusions either.

Having regard to the serious consequences of proscription, we need to do all that we reasonably can to ensure that, when a proscription order is made, Parliament is as well informed as it can be and that the justification for the order is well based. Otherwise, we are wholly reliant on the judgment of officials and Ministers. Without being unduly personal, on matters of such importance, I do not wish to be exclusively reliant on the judgments of Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman or Liz Truss—however informed and considered some may suppose them to have been.

Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward. Amendment 449 would create a precondition to the Secretary of State’s ability to make a proscription order. Proposed new subsection (3A) would require that, if circumstances allow, before the Secretary of State makes an order, the Secretary of State must place before the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

“a statement of the reasons for making the order”

and, in such circumstances, a report of that committee must be published before the order is made. I accept that there may be circumstances in which the urgency of the matter demands more immediate action. Proposed new subsections (3B) and (3C) address that eventuality. In effect, the procedure would be the same as that provided for in proposed new subsection (3A), but it would be retrospective.

In either event, the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to examine the stated reasons in much greater detail than the House could do in public session. A degree of scrutiny and interrogation should be possible. The report of the ISC could be very important, reassuring Parliament as to the propriety of the order if that is the opinion of the ISC, or alerting Parliament if the ISC is not supportive of the order. I do not pretend that this would be a complete safeguard. However, it would certainly be an improvement. On that basis, I commend Amendment 449 to the Committee.

On Amendment 454, I think I can anticipate the arguments that will be advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. She and I agree on an awful lot, and I know I shall support her on this matter.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee. Of course, I speak for myself only but very much with those concerns in mind.

As noble Lords have heard from my friend who is also noble—but I cannot call him a noble friend—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I will speak to his Amendment 449, which I support, and my Amendment 454. I am grateful for his support and, on the latter amendment, for that of my noble friend Lord Hain, who is very sensibly not in his place at this hour. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.

In contrast with the previous group—I am sad that there are not more participants from the previous group here—these are modest process amendments that are capable of uniting everyone who spoke for and against the various amendments in that group. Both these amendments are about increasing parliamentary involvement in and scrutiny of exceptional executive power—in particular, the power to proscribe an organisation as a terrorist organisation under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act.

To be clear—this may surprise some Members of the Committee—I believe that such powers are capable of being proportionate. In a democracy, no one should be allowed to organise a private army, in particular one that targets humans, and a democracy is proportionately able to respond by proscribing a terrorist organisation. It is none the less an awesome and exceptional power for the Executive to say that people will be prosecuted not just for their terrorist actions but for fairly broad and loose associations with people who may or may not be guilty of terrorist offences.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for tabling Amendment 449 and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling Amendment 454. I will try to answer the points raised on both those amendments.

The amendment from the noble Viscount would require engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee in advance of proscription orders being made. As somebody who served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for five years, I know that it is a trustworthy vehicle which does not leak, and which deals with security service issues from both Houses in a responsible manner. In the light of that, the noble Viscount will be aware that my right honourable friend the Security Minister, following the Palestine Action discussion we had, has written to the Intelligence and Security Committee and expressed his intention to write to the committee ahead of future proscription orders being laid in Parliament and, if the committee wishes it, to give a privileged briefing on the reasons why the proscription is being laid so that the committee can, in confidence, have that detailed information before it. I think that meets the objectives of the noble Viscount’s amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. That is indeed a good step forward but it falls slightly short, in that I do not think he is telling your Lordships’ Committee that the committee will be making a report to Parliament.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The time gap between informing and debate would be for the Security Minister to determine. In most cases, I would expect—without wanting to put a burden on my noble friend Lord Beamish as the chair of the committee—that the chair would probably want to contribute to that debate and would be able to inform the House if they felt there were issues they wished to draw to the attention of the House. Although my noble friend Lord Beamish is the chair who sits in this House, there will be a senior Member from the House of Commons who would also be able to answer to the Commons on any issue. So the noble Viscount is right, but the spirit of his amendment is met—though obviously that is for him to make a judgment on.

Amendment 454 had support across the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked for proscription orders to include one single organisation at a time. Historically, proscription orders have come in groups on many occasions. At the beginning of 2001, some 20 groups were proscribed in one order that took effect under the first statutory instrument made under that order. Four more organisations were proscribed on 1 November 2002, 15 were prescribed on 14 October 2005, and so on. In the interests of parliamentary time and the speed and flexibility needed to put those orders down, that was the case then and it was the case when we tabled the order with three organisations in June and July last year in this House and, at the same time, in the House of Commons. Security issues sometimes require a speedy response, and those issues were dealt with in that way for that reason.

I will give my noble friend one more reason, which she may want to reflect on. There is a threshold for proscription under the 2000 Act. Whether noble Lords like it or not, the decision of the Government was that the three organisations bundled together in the debate in July of last year had all met that threshold. I was available, as was the Security Minister in the House of Commons, to answer questions about each and all those organisations. The advice from the security services and officials, and ministerial examination and judgment of that advice, was that all those organisations crossed the threshold. Individuals might have wanted to vote against each one individually, but if they had, they would have been voting against exactly the same principle in each case—that the organisation had crossed the threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, have made fair and reasonable points. We group them for speed and efficiency, and historically they have been grouped because we want to clear a number of proscription orders at the same time. However, I put this point on the table for the Committee: if, in the light of the advice of the security services of officials, ministerial interrogation of that and, now, the added locus of the Intelligence and Security Committee having sight of and being able to be briefed on those orders, we brought three orders into one order, the threshold remains the same, and that threshold will have been crossed by those organisations. It might be that its members have a sympathy for the Palestinian cause rather than the Russian nationalist cause, but the threshold decided by ministerial jurisdiction, on advice from officials and the security services, is the same: they have crossed the threshold of the 2000 Act for a terrorist organisation. Making them separate orders would still mean that Members of both Houses would have to vote and say, “We do not accept that they have crossed the threshold”. That is a different decision.

I am conscious of time. Those points have been made. I hope I have put the Government’s case with the response I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and with my “take it or leave it” explanation of the points on disambiguation of the orders. Members can reflect on it. In the meantime, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious that the Committee wants to make progress, so I will be brief. I hope the Minister realises that we are not revolutionaries here; we are all parliamentarians. He refers to the threshold, but the truth is that Parliament never knows the detailed reasons. It is because we do not know the detailed reasons that we want to involve the ISC to a greater extent than the Minister has suggested. I would like to push him to say that there will be a report whenever possible, more than just a statement from the chairman.

As to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it is difficult to see any disadvantage to what she suggests. All in or all out is not a good way forward. The Minister talks about efficiency and speed, in his charming way. However, the truth is that we could lay three orders in one day, each with a separate object; that would be a proper way forward. That said, with your Lordships’ permission, I withdraw Amendment 449.

Amendment 449 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Hailsham]

447: After Clause 185, insert the following new Clause—
“Support for terrorism: intention(1) The Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 12 (support) after subsection (4), insert—“(4A) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”.(3) In section 13 (uniform and publication of images), after subsection (1B), insert—“(1C) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 448. In respect of Amendment 447, I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I am happy to say is in her place.

The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that individuals can be prosecuted under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for the offence of supporting an act of terrorism only if the acts alleged are, in substance, acts that support terrorism in the sense that ordinary citizens support that concept. Amendment 447 would make explicit the intent required—namely, that the act alleged was done with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism. Amendment 448 would provide for a defence when no such intent existed. The amendments are quite clearly in the alternative. I prefer Amendment 447 but I would understand if noble Lords preferred Amendment 448.

What I suggest is profoundly unsatisfactory and unjust is the present law. Consider the demonstrations that we see in the streets and squares of London, with hundreds of citizens holding placards that read, “I support Palestine Action”. Consider that these individuals are often elderly and retired folk, mostly self-evidently respectable and usually without much knowledge of the secret workings of Palestine Action. Now, they may be self-indulgent, and some indeed may accuse them of being naive, but are they really guilty of supporting terrorism in the sense that most of us understand that concept?

I suggest that these people are using a form of shorthand to demonstrate their opposition to the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. If they stood outside the Israeli embassy and shouted, “Down with Netanyahu”, or words to that effect, they would be doing no more than they are entitled to do, and I do not think the use of the shorthand, “I support Palestine Action”, however ill-advised the use of that phrase may be, makes them guilty of an act of terrorism.

There are at least three serious objections to the law as it is now framed. First, it is a serious restriction on free speech. I do not refer to the European convention, although that may be engaged in this instance; I refer rather to the long-established rights of citizens to demonstrate and express their views. That is a right to be restricted in only the most compelling of cases.

--- Later in debate ---

I am grateful for this debate today. It surfaces the great pain and hurt that terrorism causes. I ask the noble Viscount to not push his lead amendment today.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, not least because I seem to have had the effect of uniting the two Front Benches in a common position so far as my two amendments are concerned. There is a huge difference between the glorification of terrorism, which is deeply offensive, and those who demonstrate their hostility to the policies of Israel by holding up a placard. I do not believe they are the same. In time, we must come to restrict the application of Section 12 of the Terrorism Act. That said, we have discussed it sufficiently for this evening, and I hope I will be forgiven if I withdraw Amendment 447.

Amendment 447 withdrawn.