Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 27 March and 1 April be approved.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.

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

My Lords, I beg to move, I hope en bloc, the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise but I wish to make two very quick points with regard to these measures that we debated last week in Grand Committee. I gave the Government Whips’ Office notice of this.

The first is that these measures relate to the foreign influence registration scheme, which is a significant legislative tool to seek to prevent countries conducting political interference within the UK. There is cross-party support for these and we passed them with the National Security Act. What gives me concern are the exemptions to the scheme that the Government have introduced in one of these measures. We know that many countries seek to influence the UK through education arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds. We debated this during the passage of the National Security Bill, when I raised these specific issues, including the use of sovereign wealth funds.

We also know, through warnings from the director-general of MI5, that they are used on an “epic scale” by China. It is the Government’s choice—at their own discretion—not to put China on the enhanced tier of this scheme. The exemption measure introduced by the Government will mean that education and sovereign wealth funds are exempted almost in their entirety from the scheme. I am not seeking to divide the House, because the Conservative Front Bench has supported these exemptions. It will be for it to explain why, but I believe this is an error.

My second quick point is that the Minister, in his characteristic way, listened to the debate and undertook to write to me and others who raised concerns, in advance of today. He honoured that commitment; we received the letter yesterday. I thank him—no doubt he was working on Sunday—and his officials for the comprehensive letter supplied with the annexe of explanations. I remain unsatisfied with the Government’s explanations. But the Minister acts with great respect to this House, and sincerity, and I thank him for honouring his commitment to reply to me.

In his letter, he said that as it is a new scheme it will be “under review” and there will be an annual report. I say sincerely to the Minister that I believe the Government are making an error with these exemptions. I respect the Minister and the explanations he has given, and I look forward to further opportunities to raise these concerns as the scheme is implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the notice the noble Lord gave to my colleagues in the Government Whips’ Office that he was going to raise these matters.

For the benefit of the House, of the five instruments before the House, four relate to Iran and Russia and one relates to the ban on ninja swords. They were moved en bloc. The ninja sword ban, I hope, has broad agreement across the House. The four instruments the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has mentioned, relate to Iran and Russia. If I may defend myself, I gave an explanation in the Committee. I took the noble Lord’s interventions and gave a further explanation in the Committee. I agreed to write to him and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—I am grateful he acknowledged that I did that over the weekend—to clarify still further the reasons the Government have taken the view they have.

For the benefit of the House, the sovereign wealth fund political tier exemption has been targeted to ensure that it does not provide a loophole for foreign powers to channel their political influence and evade the scheme. The vast majority of work done by sovereign wealth funds would already fall out of the political influence tier. The exemption will apply only where the fund is being directed by its home state to carry out political influencing relating to its investment. It is very tightly drawn.

In relation to the funding study arrangements, the exemption ensures that the scheme does not unnecessarily deter international students from studying in the UK. We want—the Liberal Democrats particularly want—international students to come and study in the United Kingdom. We have discussed this very clearly with student bodies and university institutions. We do not consider it necessary to apply the FIRS to international students whose activities are related purely to their course of study. However, for example—this is the point I made in Committee—if the international student was being directed by the Russians or Iranians to carry out wider duties over and above their studies, they would be liable to register. Someone who comes to study is studying. Someone who comes to study but is actually working for the Iranians or Russians has to register. If it becomes known afterwards that they have not registered, they will be liable for a five-year prison sentence. I understand the points the noble Lord has made, and I hope I have satisfied him.

The noble Lord mentioned two other points that I want to touch on. First, we keep this under review at all times. The scheme operates from 1 July onwards, and there will be an annual report. Ministers are going to ensure that the scheme meets its objectives, because our objective is to stop Russian and Iranian influence. The noble Lord mentioned China. We keep all regimes other than Russia and Iran, which are specified in the regulations, under review; if they cross a threshold that the Government have concerns about then action will be taken. We have brought forward these measures because the Russians and the Iranian state are a severe threat to this nation and to individuals residing in this nation, both UK individuals and nationals from foreign states who are in this country. The first scheme is designed to put measures in place—we would not be putting them in place if we believed there are loopholes through which those two countries could slip.

I hope that I have answered those points today, as I thought I had done over several hours in the Grand Committee on Thursday. I commend these instruments to the House.

Motions agreed.