Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 and 9 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 17 September.

Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 7 July. The then Home Secretary and the current Home Secretary have exercised powers under Section 82(2A) of the Data Protection Act 2018 to specify in this instrument the qualifying competent authorities that will be able to apply for a designation notice under Section 82(2A) of the DPA. During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the House debated the parent provisions for this instrument; I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Section 89 of the Data (Use and Access) Act will insert Sections 82A to 82E into the Data Protection Act 2018. I will briefly summarise those provisions so that noble Lords are reminded of the context.

Under the Data Protection Act, authorities processing for law enforcement purposes and intelligence services are subject to two separate legislative data-processing regimes for processing personal data. This precludes a joint controllership between both entities and makes working together much more difficult, especially in the context of public safety and national security.

Let me give noble Lords an example. An intelligence service and a police force working together on a joint investigation could not work from a single shared dataset setting out individuals of interest and related intelligence. Instead, each must have their own copy of the data, sharing data back and forth between one another and across data protection regimes in order to allow each other to update their intelligence. Self-evidently, this decreases efficiency and reduces joint-working capabilities. I suggest to noble Lords that there is a clear public interest in enabling closer joint working between law enforcement bodies and the intelligence services in matters of national security. I remind noble Lords that these issues were highlighted in the reports on the Fishmongers’ Hall and Manchester Arena terrorist attacks.

Once the provisions are in force, qualifying competent authorities will, together with at least one intelligence service, be able to apply for a designation notice from the Secretary of State under Section 82A of the Data Protection Act where it is required for the purposes of safeguarding national security. This designation notice will allow the intelligence services and qualifying competent authority in question to form a joint controllership for that processing activity. It does not mean that open sharing of all data between the organisations can take place. When applying for a notice, the organisations must set out the processing for which they are applying, and a designation notice will apply to that processing only. Prior to granting a notice, the Secretary of State must consult the ICO.

I turn to the instrument itself. The Data (Use and Access) Act inserted Section 82(2A) into the Data Protection Act 2018, allowing the Secretary of State to specify by regulations which competent authorities are able to apply for a designation notice alongside an intelligence service. Competent authorities are defined in Section 30(1) of the DPA 2018 as

“a person specified or described in Schedule 7”

to the DPA 2018 or any other person who

“has statutory functions for any of the law enforcement purposes”

and is, therefore, capable of processing data under the law enforcement regime.

Paragraph 5.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum lists the 23 qualifying competent authorities under the Data Protection Act 2018. The list includes, as noble Lords can see, police forces—including territorial police forces, military police and other policing organisations, such as counterterrorism police—and authorities with operational roles, such as the Prison and Probation Service. As noble Lords might be expected to understand, the regulations include competent authorities involved in areas where national security is a consideration. All 23 authorities are listed by name in paragraph 5.2.

These regulations have been drafted in consultation with the partners operating in the area of national security. I hope that noble Lords will understand that, given the sensitivities involved, the Government cannot go into detail publicly on the rationale behind individual authorities included on the list. However, the authorities that have been included are those where there is reasonable potential for a joint controllership to be formed for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

Finally, the Home Office consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on the proposed qualified competent authorities and the ICO confirmed that it was content. There is no fixed review period for the list and competent authorities may be added to or removed from the regulations as the Secretary of State sees fit, but the legislation requires amending regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I hope provides noble Lords with the appropriate safeguards.

I hope that noble Lords will understand the importance of this instrument and that the explanation will enable them to support this detailed legislation, which will strengthen the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence services to work closely to protect the UK and its citizens from the diverse threats that we face. I commend the instrument to the Committee.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument is a welcome step in increasing the efficacy of our data sharing and protecting our national security interests. Until the enactment of this instrument, authorities processing information under the Data Protection Act 2018 have been subject to two separate legislative data-processing regimes for law enforcement and intelligence services respectively, as the Minister outlined. The previous Government recognised the unduly burdensome process of data processing between two bodies with no means of centralising multiple datasets for analysis and operation, which is why the previous Government put forward the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. It is a welcome step that the current Government are now taking the same initiative.

There is an evident public interest in correcting the inertia. Data sharing between authorities has proved inefficient and bureaucratic at the expense of national security. In particular, reports into the Fishmongers’ Hall and Manchester Arena terror attacks highlighted the shortcomings in the current arrangements. As has been stated here and in the other place, we must heed the lessons learned from those tragedies and act on them.

As the Minister summarised, the instrument lays out the list of those entities or persons considered qualifying competent authorities that, once this measure is in place, will be able to apply for a designation notice from the Secretary of State alongside an intelligence service for the purpose of safeguarding national security, thereby allowing both parties to form a joint operational controllership.

I am aware that the Government cannot divulge further information about their decisions as to which bodies are included in the list of qualifying competent authorities, but I am none the less aware of the challenges that come with data sharing across different entities and the variance of protection and sophistication that they may use. It is always worth being sceptical when it is announced that intelligence services will begin to share their data or at least permit others joint operational control. While I am sure that none of the competent authorities’ data systems is subpar and that the Secretary of State will thoroughly have vetted this, it is still worth asking the Minister for reassurance that the qualifying competent authorities are prepared to enter into joint controllership.

This also extends past security to efficiency. Can the Minister assure us that forthcoming partnerships between civil and intelligence bodies will not become some kind of bureaucratic battleground for control? The established legislation and these regulations exist to increase effectiveness and promote our national security interests. If there is insufficient integration following designation, they will be meaningless. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us on this side that these hurdles have been foreseen. With those few questions, I advocate the support of these Benches for the instrument.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his broad support for this instrument. As he mentioned, the competent authorities, which we have now specified as qualifying competent authorities, have been selected following consultation with partners operating in the area of national security. They include competent authorities involved in areas where national security is a consideration. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we cannot go publicly into the details of the rationale, and I do not wish to publicly comment on the differing preparedness of the bodies, but I can assure him that authorities have been included where there is a reasonable potential for joint controllership to be formed. There will be activity to make sure that that synergy occurs. It is done for a purpose.

The 23 authorities are clearly listed in the regulations before us today. They are all very competent authorities. They include chief constables and commissioners of police, the British Transport Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Royal Navy Police and the Royal Air Force Police. They are very assured in dealing with security issues and having secure data control. The bodies include HM Revenue & Customs, the National Crime Agency, the Parole Board, the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. They are all public bodies that have great experience in managing, controlling and, where appropriate, sharing data.

The noble Lord is right to test that question, but I believe that the competent authorities can be trusted with the information that is there to be shared. Again, I confirm to him that these recommendations follow serious terrorist incidents that have taken place. The risk of not having that sharing capacity is much greater than the issues he mentioned. I am grateful for his support and for the work of the previous Government. Unless there are further comments, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, this statutory instrument was laid before the House on 9 July. It brings forward revised codes of practice for the exercise of powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. I contend to the Committee that the powers are vital tools in our national security framework. They allow a counterterrorism police officer to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port, or in the “border area” of Northern Ireland, to determine whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism or hostile activity.

These changes follow a widespread public consultation held earlier this year, which ran from 17 March to 27 April 2025. The consultation invited a wide range of views from stakeholders including legal experts, civil liberties organisations, operational partners and, indeed, members of the public, who also contributed. It focused on proposed updates to the codes of practice to ensure that they remain clear, proportionate and fit for purpose. The Government’s response was published on 23 June this year and I will take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who engaged with the consultation.

The feedback from the consultation helped us shape the final versions of the codes, which now provide greater clarity on how these powers are to be exercised, thereby strengthening safeguards for individuals subject to examination. I thank, in particular, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, who, in expressing support for the proposed changes in discussions with the Home Office, was also a very strong advocate of this instrument. We are grateful to him for taking the time. I will briefly summarise the key changes the instrument makes.

Firstly, a minor element of how examining officers can use the powers in the border area of Northern Ireland will be clarified. The updated guidance makes it clear that officers can ask someone why they are in the border area, to help decide whether that person falls within the scope of the powers, before any formal examination begins. That is an important safeguard for an individual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise again on behalf of the Official Opposition to speak to these regulations and again offer broad support to the Government for them.

The powers allowing individuals to be stopped, questioned, searched and detained without suspicion are among the most intrusive the state can exercise. As a result, they must be governed by clarity, oversight and restraint. Several changes in the revised codes are sensible: clarification around notification, consular access and the distinguishing of counterterrorism from public order policing are all welcome. But clarity must not be mistaken for accountability.

We particularly welcome the firm statement that Schedule 7 should not be used for public order policing: a point developed by the Minister just now. However, the distinction between protest and terrorism remains finely drawn and places significant judgment in the hands of front-line officers, so can the Minister confirm how updated guidance is being communicated to those officers? Can we have an assurance that previous instances of disproportionate use will not recur?

On the consultation itself, I will raise one concern: only one formal written response was received. While engagement with front-line officers is useful, it is not a substitute for wider consultation with civil society, legal experts and those most affected. Does the Minister agree that more could and should have been done to seek broader perspectives during the consultation?

I will ask about Northern Ireland. The revision clarifies the use of preparatory powers near the border, yet this sits awkwardly with the Independent Reviewer’s recommendation that Schedule 7 powers be abolished in that context. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current view on the necessity and proportionality of Schedule 7 in Northern Ireland and whether any future appeal remains under consideration?

Finally, the IOPC proposed several changes to improve transparency and clarity, some of which have not been accepted. Can the Minister explain why not? Will the Government take forward the IOPC’s recommendation to monitor and analyse the use of these powers to help identify any patterns of disproportionate impact?

In conclusion, these revisions are largely clarificatory, but the powers themselves remain expansive and their use must be continuously scrutinised. We support improvements that enhance transparency but urge the Government to remain vigilant, to engage widely and to ensure that the powers are exercised proportionately.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the broad support he has given to the instrument. He asked a number of legitimate questions that I will try my best to answer.

The guidance that we are issuing and the instrument that amends this guidance is essentially the bible of guidance for those who have to exercise those powers. The purpose of the order is to codify and give strength to the powers that individuals who are exercising those powers have to refer to. As well as something for officers and others to have as their code of practice and guidance, it is also essentially a bible for those who wish to say, “I haven’t been treated well by the officers because they have contravened areas of this code of practice”. Further guidance on the guidance would I think confuse matters. This is the guidance. I appreciate that question but, essentially, I hope that we can judge those who exercise those powers against the guidance and those who feel aggrieved by any exercise of that power can also refer to the guidance.

The noble Lord mentioned the consultation. It was a full consultation. It ran from 17 March to 27 April. We invited views from stakeholders, legal experts, civil liberty organisations and operational partners, and members of the public responded. There was a consultation. Maybe not everybody who wanted to be consulted has responded, but it is a tried and tested method and it was a reasonable consultation. As ever, there are opportunities to submit any further views to Ministers, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and other organisations that are dealing with the code of practice. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that the consultation teased out a number of views and, as I said in my introductory comments, some changes were made as a result of that consultation.

Again, I am very aware of the sensitivities regarding the border area in Northern Ireland and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising them. The Government recognise those sensitivities. The code provides greater clarity on the preparatory powers available to officers and explicitly addresses concerns that were put down by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in his 2022 report. The reviewer is supportive of the changes. They ensure that the powers will be used only for national security purposes.

On Northern Ireland engagement and consultation, we had considerable discussions internally in government with the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and both were content with the changes. In relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as these are non-devolved matters, there was an opportunity for it to contribute to the consultation and again, as far as I am concerned, the powers appear to have broad support in Northern Ireland—but obviously I am especially sensitive to the challenges on the border.

I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord on the three points that he mentioned and, with those brief comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Undocumented Migrants

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Massey of Hampstead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the specific factors driving the increase in the number of undocumented migrants leaving France to enter the United Kingdom.

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

The Government are committed to tackling illegal migration and the criminal networks that are behind it. There is no single universal push or pull factor independently driving irregular migration to the UK. In many cases, migrants are directed or coerced by organised criminal networks. That is why the Government’s focus is on tackling criminal gangs and securing ground-breaking co-operation with international partners while keeping all issues under review.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

The Home Secretary recently issued a statement with positive plans to deal with the crisis in relation to small boats. But, as we witnessed yesterday, even the deportation of a very small number of people back to France proved impossible. The focus of successive Governments on the criminal gangs and attempts to reach agreement with France has not impacted on numbers at all thus far. We are perceived quite widely as a soft touch, and our compassion is being exploited. So what further plans do the Government have to address the specific issues that make the UK so attractive relative to France? Does the noble Lord share my concern that the problem could get worse as European countries tighten their own immigration rules?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that the UK Government are not a soft touch. He will know that, through the immigration Bill, we are putting in place a Border Force command. We have employed 200 staff since last year to up our efforts on that. We have put an extra £150 million into Border Force funding. We have signed the agreement with France, and I can tell the noble Lord that returns are imminent and that that agreement is in place, delivering detention of individuals for return to France. Irrespective of that, we are also tackling some of the illegal migration and putting extra efforts into focusing on that undercover activity that allows people to work. I can give the noble Lord, outside the Chamber, a great deal of statistics on that result. We are not a soft touch; we are taking action and intend to reduce that flow over time.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, surely if we really want to reduce undocumented migrant movement pull factors, we should stop the emphasis on the resolution of conflict through costly military interventions that provoke worldwide population movements and plunder our development aid budgets. Is not the answer, in part, to more greatly resource third-world development, with measures to de-escalate conflict and—the holy grail—to re-examine the world’s commitment to the principle of prohibited intervention in failing states, as defined by the ICJ?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will share part of my noble friend’s analysis, in that factors of war, poverty and starvation are driving migration from many parts of the world into western Europe. He will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and other European countries and international partners, are looking at what those driving factors are. Part of the overall strategy needs to be how we deal with poverty, hunger, starvation and the impact of war. There are times when the UK and other partners need to help and support interventions, but I take the first part of my noble friend’s question extremely seriously, and that is something our international partners are very focused on.

[Lord German (LD)]

The Government’s French scheme has the benefit of giving us a safe route for people to come to this country. However, as the noble Lord has explained, it will not work unless it is ramped up. So would I be wrong in my expectation that the ramping up of the scheme will take place some time before the end of next year? In the meantime, what is happening to those who are now legally going to come to the United Kingdom? How are they being assessed, by whom, and where?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As noble Lords will know, we have negotiated the French pilot for the first time with the French to ensure that we have detention in the UK and return to France. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Massey, we intend to have returns under that scheme imminently. That is a pilot scheme; it will be assessed, and the intention, if both parties think it is valuable, is to increase its capacity over time to meet our obligations. In the meantime, there are a number of legal routes that people can apply to. There are asylum claims that individuals can make. We have put in additional support to speed up those asylum claims to determine who can stay and who can go. It is the responsibility of any responsible Government to try to deal with this with constructive solutions, of which I know the noble Lord is supportive. I look forward to his support in evaluating the success of the French pilot.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that we would be in a far better position to deal with issues like border security, access to services and knowing who is in the country illegally and who is not if the last Labour Government’s identity card scheme had not been scrapped by the Tories and the Liberals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that, when I was last a Minister in the Home Office, we had an identity card scheme in place that was scrapped by the then-incoming Coalition Government of 2010-2015. It is an expensive business to re-jig ID cards, but all options are always being examined by this Government. I am genuinely sorry that the Coalition Government took the decision at the time to scrap that deal.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, leading on from the question from my noble friend Lord Massey, this week we were due to see the start of the Government’s much-vaunted one-in, one-out returns deal with France. However, due to the ongoing human rights claims and last-minute legal challenges, no one has yet returned to France, on the flights that left yesterday or today. Does the Minister not think that now is the time to endorse Conservative proposals to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration and asylum matters to prevent this very issue occurring in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That was another good effort from the noble Lord to try to get me to say “yes” to an answer to which he knows I am going to say “no”. Amendments can be made to the ECHR, and the Government intend to make those amendments to ensure that we will make changes, particularly in relation to Article 8, and provide better interpretation for judges. On the French scheme, removals are imminent. It is a scheme his Government did not negotiate, and one that, hopefully, this Government and our French colleagues are going to make work to ensure that we have a proper deterrent and return people—unlike the wasteful Rwanda scheme, which achieved absolutely nothing and which the noble Lord supported.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, Home Office analysis of the factors that influence where people claim asylum highlights that the presence of family exerts a particularly strong effect on decisions on the ultimate country of destination. Given this finding, what assessment have the Government made of how the pause in family reunion applications might impact the level of channel crossings?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question. I will certainly drop her a note after Question Time to give her detail on how we are examining the family reunion policy and the impact on children. I am afraid that in a 25-second answer I cannot sum up the detail that I would like to, but I will certainly write to her on that point.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, has Minister had any recent discussions with the Irish Government about the fact that there are so many migrants—some illegal, some not so illegal—coming across the border into Northern Ireland and then on into the rest of the United Kingdom? The Irish Government are now stopping people going the other way. Are His Majesty’s Government taking this as something that needs to be looked into very quickly?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. The UK Government continually discuss with the Irish Government the impact of a range of matters on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, including access to the rest of the United Kingdom via Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is extremely important, and we are focusing on that. I will certainly report back to the noble Baroness on that issue.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, does one of the principal answers to this question lie in the statistics the Minister was kind enough to give me last week: of the 160,000 small-boat arrivals since 2018, only 4% have been returned? In other words, if you come here illegally in a small boat, you stand a 96% chance of not being returned.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I did give those statistics to the noble Viscount, but I can also give him some more today if it helps. For example, between 1 January and 1 September this year, nearly 17,000 crossing attempts were stopped by joint action between the French and the British. Those do not show up in the statistics I gave the noble Viscount earlier. I can also tell him that in the past 12 months and in the period just before, 245 years of custodial sentence have been given to people traffickers who have been caught and captured. This is a very extreme challenge—let us not get away from it. We have to accept asylum seekers, we have to speed up the claims of those asylum seekers, and we have to determine who has a right to be here and who has to leave; but we have to stop at source the pernicious trade that is forcing people through illegal migration routes.

Nepal: Protests

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas.

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

The UK and Nepal share a deep historic relationship. The Government are appalled at the violence that transpired in Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal, following protests that were triggered by the Government of Nepal banning a number of social media platforms, as well as by public frustrations about the levels of corruption and nepotism. In public statements in September, including with partners, we have condemned violence and called for accountability and a peaceful way forward. The UK supports fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights, including the right to protest and peaceful assembly. We are closely monitoring events in Nepal, along with our international partners.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Your Lordships’ House will be as saddened as I am to see the chaos that has descended over Nepal over the last week. What started as a peaceful protest by Gen Z-ers against the banning of social media and corruption has resulted in more than 20 people being killed, Nepal’s Parliament being burned to the ground, a Government in chaos and a country under military curfew. We have a long and proud history and friendship with Nepal, based on over 200 years’ service of Gurkha soldiers to the Crown, but now is the time that Nepal needs our support. In recent years, bilateral aid to Nepal has fallen. I simply ask the Minister: is now not the time to review that level, not only in quantity but also ensuring that, as we move forward, bilateral aid will focus on good governance and democracy building to ensure that the young people of Nepal get the future they deserve?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and for his service and close association with the Gurkha regiment. The UK remains Nepal’s largest bilateral aid donor, with funding currently invested in areas such as green growth, education and gender equality; we spend some £46.5 million each year on that. There is no indication at all that that figure will change downwards as a result of the incidents happening currently. He mentioned good governance, which is really important. Of the £46.5 million, approximately £5 million is spent on security and justice elements, and £1.6 million on rights, inclusion and voice, and gender recognition. I will take from his comments that need to keep good governance. We condemn the violence and will continue to work to ensure stability in what is a really important partner for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, what support are His Majesty’s Government—or, for that matter, any Government—providing to civil society organisations and human rights defenders in Nepal as they alone work to promote accountability for the violence that caused 19 deaths, and to protect fundamental freedoms?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important point. As I have mentioned to the noble Lord previously, the UK is a long-standing partner, and the British embassy in Kathmandu currently forecasts that the entire spend of £46.5 million bilateral overseas aid for this year will be spent. There is a range of programmes within that, on business, resilience, infrastructure, rights inclusions, security and justice. Obviously, in the light of the instability that has occurred, the purpose and objective of the overseas development department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office there is to ensure that we help regain that stability, but to look at the causes and how we can provide resilience to ensure that we tackle some of the issues that have led to that instability.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, reference has rightly been made to the long and constructive relationship between Britain and Nepal, which includes a period at the beginning of the last century when suspension bridges were exported from Aberdeen to link remote villages across their deep valleys. May I make a specific proposal to the Minister? The Westminster Foundation—I declare an interest as one of its mentors, although not in Nepal—is working there, but it could extend its programme to include public and political engagement for Parliament. Will the Government consider doing that? This is vital work, which it is very well equipped to do. Its representatives are on the ground now, and it would really be helpful if they could be part of the process of ending this conflict.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not know of the link between Aberdeen and Nepal, but one of the great things about this job is that I learn something every day. The Westminster Foundation provides great support on a parliament-to-parliament basis to help with resilience, to look at good governance issues and to ensure that we can improve the scrutiny of and approach to government. I will draw his suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who I hope will be able to respond.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the lifting of the social media ban in the wake of these protests and the resignation of Nepal’s Prime Minister have rightly resulted in celebratory scenes in Nepal, but, of course, the issue of underlying corruption is more intractable. Can the noble Lord give us more detail on what steps the Government are taking to monitor and help eliminate corruption in Nepal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the question; it is important. Nepal is responsible for its own affairs; therefore, the Government have to support good affairs being developed but not take over those issues. The £46.5 million we are currently spending and the programmes we are looking at will be utilised this year, but it is a fluid situation, and the Government need to examine the underlying causes and the potential to provide help and support to overcome those. As part of the review of future years’ expenditure and future programmes post 2025-26, I am sure the Government will reflect on the concerns the noble Lord has mentioned.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Can the Minister ensure that remittances from Gurkhas here in the UK, which are vital to some families back in Nepal, are still getting into Nepal? Secondly, we are a large donor to Nepal, and we have a long and established relationship, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought our influence was as profound as that of its neighbour India. With that in mind, what discussions are the Government having with the Government in Delhi about the current situation there?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that the relationship between people who are receiving salaries or pensions from the United Kingdom as Gurkhas previously will still be maintained. In fact, I can also assure the noble Lord that recruitment for Gurkha regiments is still ongoing, despite the current unrest in Nepal. We are having discussions with international partners, and India is obviously a significant international partner. The important point from all the contributions of noble Lords is that an assessment needs to be made of what help is required to support stability and good governance, using this year’s £46.5 million overseas programme to support the objectives of stability, good governance, business and growth for what is a long-standing international partner.

Gaza Protests: Anti-terrorism Legislation

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following further arrests of people protesting about the situation in Gaza, whether they are reviewing the appropriateness of using anti-terrorism legislation in relation to peaceful protest; and what assessment they have made of the implications for the UK’s international reputation.

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

The Government currently have no plans to amend the existing legislation. Palestine Action has satisfied the test in the Terrorism Act 2000, having conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage. Some of its members have been charged with serious and violent offences. In passing, I thank the police for their professionalism in policing recent protests. The House should note that there were 17 arrests for assaults on police officers at the demonstration on 6 September, which is totally unacceptable.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his sadly predictable reply. Using terrorism laws on peaceful, elderly protestors is ridiculous. They are no more terrorists than the Minister himself. This absurd misuse of terrorism legislation is deeply damaging to our freedom of speech. Will the Government please stop shooting the messengers in Parliament Square and start listening to their message, which is that Britain is doing nowhere near enough to stop the daily atrocities in Gaza?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord should know that 20,000 people marched in support of Palestine in a recent demonstration, with totally peaceful activity and no arrests. There was no support for and encouragement of the type of activity undertaken by Palestine Action. As Ministers, we received an assessment from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre which said that it meets the tests of the Terrorism Act 2000. Are we to ignore that?

The powers in this legislation mean that to support Palestine Action publicly is to commit an offence. If the police, as they did on 6 September, make judgments to make arrests, those arrests and potential charges will be put by the CPS before the court and an individual will be charged, convicted and sentenced accordingly. It does not matter whether they are elderly or otherwise; the offence is defined very clearly under the Terrorism Act and the threshold for that Act has been met. If I am predictable in saying so, it is because I am fulfilling a duty on behalf of the UK to keep businesses and people safe from violent terrorist activity.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, a perfectly good case can be made for proscribing Palestine Action, and I agree with that decision, but does the Minister know that in this country there has always been discretion not to prosecute in a case where there is no public interest in arresting and prosecuting? Does he not accept that what is happening with the arrest of hundreds of harmless old ladies simply for holding a placard is exactly what the demonstrators want the police to do? They see it as giving valuable positive publicity to their views on Gaza and the survival of the proscribed organisation. Could he at least discuss with the police authorities whether it is really in the public interest to carry on using these massive police resources for what is a counterproductive effect?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The police do have discretion; it is not for Ministers to order arrests or bring forward charges. It is for the police at a local level to interpret the legislation that has been passed overwhelmingly by the House of Commons and this House to proscribe the organisation. I say “proscribe the organisation” because, on advice, the organisation has met those tests.

If people wish to protest in support of Palestine, they can do so. They can march, protest, criticise Israel and make their views known on Palestine, but Palestine Action has crossed that threshold. As the noble Lord is a former Home Secretary, he will know that it is now for the police to make their judgments on that, and for the CPS to decide whether charges should be brought forward and for individuals to be prosecuted accordingly. We have put in place legislation that draws a line in the sand on the actions of Palestine Action. I hope people will not mistakenly support those actions while still supporting the state of Palestine, if they wish to, and making any criticism they wish to of the State of Israel.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend how exactly the arrests on terrorism charges of over 1,000 peacefully protesting retired magistrates, as well as vicars, priests, war veterans and descendants of Holocaust survivors, help combat real terrorists like Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic State and, in the past, the IRA, who have deliberately targeted and murdered innocent bystanders? He and I worked together in Northern Ireland, so he will know about this. Should our hard-pressed police not be prioritising real crime, such as shoplifting, burglaries and anti-social behaviour, instead of being forced to frog-march normally law-abiding middle-Britain citizens into further clogging up our courts?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend and I have worked in Northern Ireland and on terrorism-related issues. If he received a report from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre saying that Palestine Action had met a threshold for terrorist activity, I doubt very much that he would not have signed that order as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did. We have done that because Palestine Action has already had people convicted of not just criminal damage but intimidation and physical threats. There are cases about which I cannot comment that are before the courts; there are allegations around a range of other behaviours and there is strong evidence from JTAC about underground cells and plots against defence organisations and others.

Again, if people wish to hold up a placard saying, “I support Palestine Action”, that is an offence under the terms of the terrorism prevention order that we have. People are sometimes mistaken in their conflation of support for Palestine and support for Palestine Action. That is where the dividing line should be.

My noble friend says that we should concentrate on neighbourhood policing, shoplifting and other things. I just say to him that ensuring 13,000 new police officers will be on the beat over these four years, introducing measures on shop theft in the Crime and Policing Bill and conducting a drive to tackle anti-social behaviour are all things that this Government are doing. But we in this House and in this Government have a duty to protect our citizens against terrorism activity. When we get advice that this threshold has been crossed, it would be irresponsible of me and other members of the Home Office Ministerial team to ignore it.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, a Labour MP recently commented that the people who have been arrested were not, in fact, supporting terrorism but objecting to the prohibition of the group. This is a very fine distinction for the police to try to make on the streets. Surely we should all be supporting the police because, after all, this is a logical consequence of prohibiting the group and having a law to make sure that support for terrorism is illegal, which was passed by this place and another. The Government must have considered that this group had some mass support for its general intent, if not its methods. This is one of the consequences that the police will have to try to resolve, and we all need to support them until this matter is resolved politically.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The police are acting extremely professionally, and I am grateful for their support on this matter. I assure the House that it is not an offence to say, “I wish to see the Palestine Action proscription overturned”. People can hold a placard saying that, but they cannot say, “I support Palestine Action”. In the same way, because of the tests that have been made under this legislation, they cannot say, “I support Hamas”.

I hope the police will exercise their discretion and examine those issues, and the CPS will do the same, but under the legislation there has to be a clear line in the sand. The JTAC assessment to Ministers was that this line had been crossed. Therefore, we have had to take action. I will continue to support the police in their difficult task of interpreting that action in an executive way, which it is not my responsibility to do.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, peaceful protest about the unspeakable suffering in Gaza is entirely legal and allowed, but supporting an organisation which has been proscribed by Parliament, and which engages in illegal activity, allegedly including hospitalising a female police officer, should not be permitted. How will the Government explain the reality to the public and ensure that this distinction is crystal clear?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Earl’s support. We will do that and have done that, but there are several cases pending on which we are not able to comment. Therefore, I hope the public will accept and understand the reasons why that assessment has been made, but he is absolutely right in his comments .

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I absolutely condemn any demonstrators who attack the police; they should face the full force of the law. However, I have no doubt that the current approach is unsustainable. It blurs the line between violent or subversive action and legitimate, peaceful protest. The front-line police officers are strictly following the letter of the law in the name of national security, but does the Minister honestly believe that mass arrests of clearly well-intentioned members of the public are proportionate, necessary and wise, or that they serve the public interest?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am in danger of repeating myself to the House, but I have to, because the situation is quite clear: there is a line in the sand drawn by legislation passed by this House in 2000 on what a proscription order test is. We have had advice on that proscription order test and have passed legislation in both Houses which proscribes the particular organisation. Proscribing it then bans certain activity, of which protest in support of that organisation is one, not protest against the proscription in the first place. If that line is crossed, it is then for the police to exercise their discretion, for the CPS to determine whether charges should be brought and for a court to determine the activity.

None of that at all stops anybody from walking into Parliament Square today, standing up and condemning the State of Israel, protesting in favour of Gaza and for a Palestinian state, or condemning this—or any other—Government about our actions in favour of or against Palestine and a Palestinian state.

However, the line has to be drawn, and it has been. I hope those individuals who support Palestine will say so in a way that meets the legal obligations of free protest, but does not support organisations which, as the noble Earl said, cause criminal damage, have destroyed businesses, have carried out three major attacks, have thrown fireworks and pyrotechnics, have assaulted people in those buildings and have several court cases ahead. When they come out, if convictions are pursued, they will again show that there is further evidence in support of the actions that the Government have taken.

Child Houses for Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support the opening of more child houses in England, on the model of The Lighthouse, to provide services to child victims of sexual abuse.

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

My Lords, the Government have highlighted the Lighthouse as a model of good practice in the provision of multi-agency, joined-up, child-friendly support for children affected by sexual abuse. We want to see more local areas adopt such multi-agency models and we are working across government to develop ambitious proposals to improve therapeutic support services for victims of child sexual abuse.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

I so welcome that commitment, but 500,000 children are sexually abused each year in England and Wales. Seven years ago, this single pilot centre was created in London, providing cost-effective wraparound healthcare, therapy and access to justice under one roof. It treats several hundred of the half million children who experience sexual violence every year. Scotland has seven child houses; we have one. The model works; the Children’s Commissioner and the incoming Victims’ Commissioner have called for a national rollout. Will it be rolled out and, if so, when?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. She will know that the Government have accepted—certainly from the Home Office’s perspective—the recommendations of the report on child sexual abuse from IICSA. Some recommendations have been mirrored by the recent report on grooming gangs by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. One recommendation is that we do exactly what my noble friend has said. As part of our response, we are including an ambitious proposal for therapeutic support, and we are going to work across government to look at how we can future-fund support services to enable victims and survivors to access and receive better care and support. In doing so, we have in this year doubled the support funding for adult victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to a total of £2.59 million.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I welcome the Minister’s excellent Answer to the Question from the noble Baroness, but will he go a step further and tell us that the Home Office will use the Lighthouse project as the template around the country, given that it is cheaper than existing less specialist sexual abuse services, helps children recover more quickly from terrible trauma and enables quality court decisions to be made when necessary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. As I said in my initial Answer to the Question, we have recognised the great importance and success rate of the Lighthouse model. As part of the response to the recommendations from IICSA, we are looking at how we can roll that out. That is a cross-government issue with other government departments as well as the Home Office, but we are intent on ensuring that we have an ambitious proposal for therapeutic support, and that model is certainly one we are looking to roll out still further.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, to carry on in the same vein as the other question, it seems quite clear that you have to work across departments which often bump into Chinese walls. Do we have a structure where local authorities come together to have a coherent strategy in clusters to do this, and to work with the various police forces?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the important issues that came out of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 was a duty to collaborate on this issue. That duty to collaborate is now law and will incentivise and promote joint working needed to ensure that we achieve that multi-agency model of support. My colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are consulting on the guidance on the duty to collaborate and there will be further announcements in due course, but that very co-operative approach is what is needed.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the commitment that the Government are giving to a multidisciplinary approach for these child care centres. The Minister will know, however, that many children are put into child care homes a very long distance away from home. Therefore, they are faced with not having community support, traditional support or other areas of expertise. What are the Government going to do to address this? These children are vulnerable to sexual exploitation because they are so far from home.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. We have tried to respond to the IICSA recommendations. From the Home Office, we also have legislation on that downstream. We are also looking at a violence against women and girls strategy, which is being developed now within the Home Office specifically, with cross-government input. The point she mentioned is extremely important to make sure that victims have support, and I will certainly look at the issues she has raised and take them into account as part of the development of the strategy.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the key word in my noble friend’s question was “holistic”: that is that the victims have to tell their story only once within the Lighthouse model—which I have visited, like many other noble Lords. What can my noble friend say about extending that holistic approach into the criminal justice system, so that those victims do not have to keep repeating their story as the cases proceed within the court system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I first take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend for his service in the Ministry of Justice, both in opposition and in government, and his service both to government and to our party. I also thank him for being an office buddy for the past 13 months. There are four of us in a very small office, so it is great fun.

My noble friend makes an extremely important point: that we ensure that the victims of child sexual abuse are not retraumatised by having to keep on reliving their experience every time they come in front of a particular agency. That is central to ensuring we have better support for victims of sexual abuse. I will certainly examine the points that he has made and discuss them with him still further. I wish him well on the Back Benches, holding the Government to account.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Support for victims of child sexual abuse is of course absolutely vital, but it is equally important that we tackle the issues at their root cause. What actions are the Government taking in regard to prevention of child sexual abuse?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that there is a violence against women and girls strategy that is being brought forward, and the prevention of child sexual abuse will be a considerable part of that strategy. The Home Office has accepted all the IICSA recommendations. I responded on a Statement in this House on Thursday of last week, on the work that is being done on grooming gangs. We are trying to ensure that we examine the lessons produced for us, not just by Alexis Jay in the IICSA report but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her report. There is an ambitious government programme not just to put resources into that but to try to learn those lessons and better co-ordinate how we respond and prevent. That includes training for police and social workers and the duty to report that is in the Crime and Policing Bill that is coming up shortly. There is a range of measures. Again, I welcome the noble Lord’s support for those measures, and his suggestions as the Crime and Policing Bill goes through this House. It is an important issue; it should not divide this House. It is one where we have an ambitious programme to help prevent future child abuse and to support victims who exist already.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I think I am like everybody across the Chamber in that we are all very favourable to some of the noises the Government are making about how they are listening on this and how they understand the issues and the problems. The issue I, and I think many others, have is it is invigorating to hear the Government say they understand the problems, but what so many of us are waiting for is action resulting from that level of understanding. As others have said, other countries have many more Lighthouses than we do; they roll them out a great deal more quickly. There appears to be something endemic in our inability to move quickly. In the interest of those children—and to echo the words of the Children’s Commissioner that every area that has had the grooming scandals should have a Lighthouse project on its doorstep—could the Government act more quickly?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Government are trying, as I know the noble Lord knows, to respond to the long-term recommendations of the Alexis Jay report, which lay relatively idle until July of last year. We have tried to re-energise the approach to those very severe areas where grooming-gang activity has taken place. We commissioned the national report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. There are a range of recommendations that we have accepted in full. Also, as I mentioned to my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, we have an ambitious programme to expand that therapeutic support, of which the Lighthouse is an extremely good model. To do that requires cross-government activity. I will happily report back to this House when plans are forwarded. I hope the noble Lord will rest assured that this Government intend to help prevent future child abuse and give support, solace and help to those people who have been victims in the past.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, just before we broke up for summer, I invited victims of the Pakistani rape gangs to come into Parliament and tell their stories. I thank many noble Lords from across the House who came to that. It was shocking to hear that one of the victims said that her niece was today being groomed, even after everything that her aunt had gone through. Will the Minister tell the House, and of course those victims, how quickly this national report will get off the ground?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. She will know that the inquiry recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, have been accepted by the Government. We have accepted the Alexis Jay IICSA recommendations—certainly from the Home Office’s perspective and we are working with other government departments on those and have an ambitious plan to put that in place. For the national inquiry to take place, we need to appoint a chair. As I said on the Statement last week, we are seeking to consult victims on the chair and on the terms of the inquiry, so they are involved in that, but I am anticipating that we will be able to respond and announce those details extremely shortly. But there is a process and we want to make sure it is done in a fair and effective manner for victims, particularly, as well as the community at large.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I too offer best wishes, from these Benches, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for a speedy recovery.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments but, like several other speakers before me, it is our party’s position that the legislation already strikes a careful and considered balance between the public interest in deporting foreign criminals and the need to protect the rights of their partners and children under Article 8. Section 117C of the 2002 Act is clear: in the case of those sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, deportation is the default position unless one of two well-defined exceptions apply. Exception 2, to which Amendment 136 relates, already provides that where there is a genuine and subsisting relationship with the qualifying partner or qualifying child, and the effect of deportation on that partner or child would be “unduly harsh”, deportation should not proceed. So the amendment before us appears to restate protections that are already embedded in the legislation, and the courts already have the discretion—indeed, a duty—to interpret and apply that exception.

We have to be mindful of clarity in the law and not introduce duplicating or potentially confusing provisions. In short, with the greatest respect, the amendments would not meaningfully add to the safeguards already in place, and for that reason we cannot support them.

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for moving the amendment. I hope she will pass on the best wishes of His Majesty’s Government and myself to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding her absence from this House. We look forward to undoubtedly seeing her back for day 6 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, on a date to be determined in October.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 187 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of the family in exercising immigration functions. It is important that the noble Baroness has raised this point, but I share the view expressed by both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the amendment is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches agree that detained persons should, of course, have access to good legal representation when they are detained. This amendment pertains to legal aid for those detained persons. As noble Lords are aware, legal aid is already provided for those who bring asylum cases or other matters such as immigration bail, certain applications by victims of domestic abuse or trafficking, proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, asylum support applications and applications made by separated children. Put simply, this support is already clearly in place. It is our position that extensive provision is already made and at significant cost.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on behalf of her noble friend Lady Ludford. I have also heard contributions from the Floor of the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, all of which were broadly in support of my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 137.

This amendment would impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours. I am going to repeat what noble Lords have said already, because it is important to put it on the record. People detained under immigration powers in prisons and in immigration removal centres are provided initially with 30 minutes of free legal aid advice through the detained duty advice scheme—DDAS. This is a triaged appointment which supports people to meet with a legal provider who may provide further advice, subject to the matter being within scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility. I want to be clear that there is this 30-minute availability, as noble Lords have mentioned. It is important to re-emphasise that, following that DDAS assessment, whether a legal representative accepts or takes on a case is subject to a merit test and to a decision about independent legal representation, in line with legal aid. There is already some scope for reassurance. I hope that the Committee can accept that this well-established service is in place to provide people with quick and easy access to legal provision.

I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Bach mentioned the take-up. I fully accept that this is an important matter for him, and for the Committee and the Government to consider. Take-up is monitored by officials from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It will be examined in detail. I am happy to look at how we can improve take-up of the initial provision, but the initial provision is there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says, but does he not agree that the very high percentage of these cases that reach an appellate level in which the litigants are not represented by lawyers is alarming evidence that if legal aid is available at an early stage, it is not having much effect?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not have before me, although I perhaps should, the figures to which he refers, but Ministers can certainly examine, and look at how we improve, that. It is in the interests of the Government—never mind of the individuals who are seeking asylum—to ensure that we have speedy, correct asylum decisions that get to the heart of the person’s asylum claim as a matter of urgency, rather than going through tortuous numbers of appeals and other legal matters. We must get to a position whereby the Government can determine whether someone has a legitimate asylum claim and, if so, can act upon it or, if not, can take action to deny that asylum claim and put in place the consequential action to be taken.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

So the Goschen/Empey number is neither here nor there. It is not a watertight compartment. The country can decide how much money to put into legal aid. There is also an offsetting benefit, which the Minister has been explaining, from speeding up the process, making sure that good decisions are taken and courts’ time is not wasted. So the Goschen question, to be honest, is irrelevant to this issue. My argument for economy is based on taking the two things together: the speed of the system, the cost of delays, unnecessary detentions and backlogs of asylum cases versus the undoubted additional cost of legal aid.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I put it to the Committee that I sense that my noble friend Lord Bach’s amendment is now being interpreted as being potentially much wider than certainly I took it to be on initial examination of that amendment.

Recess has meant that we have not had as much discussion about that as we may have wanted to have. The main point here is that, under current MoJ/Home Office determinations, 30 minutes is available, and subsequent legal support is available subject to tests of eligibility, et cetera. I think that goes parallel to the wish of the Government to put in additional advisers to speed up applications, to make sure that there is better-quality initial decision-making, but I am always grateful to be advised by the Committee.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. While he is still on his feet—I love that device—and before my noble friend Lord Bach responds, I think I am hearing an understandable response to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that at the moment none of us has a view of precise figures, but we could examine that, and maybe that should go into the mix of a future discussion on Report.

However, I have to agree with noble Lords who have said that this is not a zero-sum game between justice and efficiency. Indeed, I just wanted to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees—I think he indicated that he does—with judges who have had to deal with cases of unrepresented people about how much time and energy that adds to hearings that, I believe, the Government actually want to speed up. In any calculation that the Minister comes back with on Report, I hope that officials will add that component for delay—an unrepresented person in an asylum case; that should go into the mix.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I draw the Committee back to where we are at the moment: an individual in detention can have 30 minutes’ worth of legal advice very quickly after they have requested it. There may be an issue around take-up. We are monitoring take-up on a regular basis and want to increase that take-up, but that 30 minutes is there. If further advice is required, on the merits test that can be taken forward as of now.

My noble friend’s amendment may take that issue wider than that discussion. It is the Government’s objective to speed up claims to get to decisions on asylum. We are doing that through executive action, not legislation, increasing the number of people taking decisions and making it much quicker and fairer, because that is in the public interest, as has been mentioned by all. I do not think we are going to resolve that issue in Committee today. I have tried to set out where I think we are, and my noble friend has tabled his amendment.

Serious questions have been raised on these issues by me, by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, because I believe the Government’s case as I have put it is the right course of action on those issues. If we are going to have even further discussion on the points he has made, we need to have some better information on which to base it, even though I accept that for some members of the Committee, that becomes a matter of principle.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful. The noble Lord has been very generous with time on this important matter. I entirely understand his point that further factual information is required. Will he do his best to ensure that we do not wait until Report to receive that information, and that at least those who have spoken in this debate and the Library generally receive a written explanation of the factual position as seen by the department on the cost of implementing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the 30 minutes, and the take-up? Will he also commit to meeting with noble Lords who are concerned about this matter, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so we can see whether there is a way forward prior to Report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are valid and I will do my best to examine them. Some of these issues are within the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office, but I will examine those points in detail and make sure that we respond to those who have spoken in the debate and potentially put a note in the Library of the House accordingly.

I want to re-emphasise that the Government strongly believe that there is a good offer at the moment. That offer is available to all who seek it, and there is the potential for further advice if the case merits it and for us to examine how we monitor take-up. I will certainly look at the points that have been raised, but in the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee that in this very complicated and important Bill, this is the only amendment, and therefore the only discussion there has been, on the legal aid issue, so I do not apologise for the time this debate has taken. Everybody who has spoken, on all sides, has taken this issue seriously, as they ought to, because it is very serious, given the principles behind the rule of law. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord on the Front Bench repeat what I knew to be the case—that that side as well as this side, and all sides of this House, believe it important that the rule of law applies when non-nationals are detained, and that those people are as entitled as anyone else to have the benefit of legal advice. That is a big principle and the one behind this amendment, so I am glad it is accepted.

I am really grateful, in that no mover of an amendment could have enjoyed a more expert team of people speaking on behalf of the amendment—or, indeed, not on its behalf. Every contribution was important, not least of all that of my noble friend the Minister, who in his usual courteous way listened to the debate and answered it as well as it could be answered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, the question was posed by my noble friend Lord Jackson—and touched on by, I think, my noble friend Lord Harper—as to why Irish citizens are not deported. The answer lies in the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed by this Parliament when the Irish Free State turned itself into a republic. The Ireland Act 1949 states that Irish citizens should not be treated as foreign citizens for the purposes of British law, which is why Irish citizens can vote in our elections and why Irish prisoners are not sent to the Republic of Ireland.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, for their amendments. I echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Jackson, about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He has served his party and Government over many years, and he deserves to be recognised for the efforts that he has put in. I am pleased to endorse those sentiments from the Committee today, not least because I have shared an office with him for the past 13 months of my term in this Government. I will pass on the Hansard reference to him, so he can read the responses himself.

Foreign nationals who commit crime in the UK should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned this in passing, but it is worth placing it on record that 5,179 foreign national offenders have been deported in the 12 months between July 2024 to July 2025—a 14% increase on the previous year.

On a personal note, I am grateful for the comments about my continuing tenure in this job. I am commencing my 15th year as a Minister, 28 years overall as either a Minister or a shadow Minister, which is quite a long time. I have been around this block several times and I can recall, on foreign national prisoners, going to Nigeria in 2008 and negotiating a foreign national prisoner transfer with the Nigerian Government. Because this falls within the MoJ, I will update colleagues in due course about any potential new prisoner transfer agreements being developed.

Amendment 138 seeks to prevent any challenge—this is a key point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to an automatic deportation decision and to prevent a deportation order being made when there is an appeal against a sentence. Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation; I will refer to the circumstances around that in a moment. Both amendments would remove any challenge to deportation and would, if nothing else, be contrary to the withdrawal agreement, which the previous Government negotiated and which requires us to provide a right of appeal against deportation for beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement.

For other foreign national offenders, the right to appeal deportation was removed by statute in 2014 by the previous Government. Appeals can now be made against only the refusal of a human rights claim, the refusal of a protection claim or a decision to revoke a protection status. In any event, the amendments would be contrary to Article 13 of the ECHR when read with other rights. We can have a debate about the ECHR, and I am sure that we will, at the moment, the amendments would be contrary to those rights. It would also be unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR to deny courts the ability to set aside a decision by the Secretary of State when such a decision may be manifestly wrong. This Government take citizens’ rights very seriously and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would also undermine the UK’s agreement with Ireland on the deportation of Irish citizens. There is a range of legislation around that, but since 2007, public interest has been the qualifying matter. Irish citizens are exempt from automatic deportation, except in exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State can determine that it is in the interests of the public at large. It would also undermine the protections against deportation afforded to certain Commonwealth nationals. It would set an artificial deadline for the making of a deportation order, preventing any leave being granted to a person who made a successful human rights or protection claim.

Amendment 139 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, mentioned, it would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. In my view, these amendments would not be workable and would be contrary to our international obligations.

For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say again that the Government are committed to the protection of human rights and to meeting our international obligations. The Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the ECHR, and these amendments would not prevent persons being deported from raising human rights claims with the European Court of Human Rights. They would deliver nothing except the outsourcing of deportation considerations to Strasbourg and would slow down the removal of those being deported. The amendments would also undermine our obligations to identify and support victims of trafficking, as set out in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory.

I hope that noble Lords are getting the general sense that I am not going to be in favour of the amendments. I can continue, should noble Lords wish me to do so.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The Minister has made very clear his approach to the amendments, but I want to press him a bit. The Government accept that in some cases the courts are not drawing the lines in the right place, which is why the Government have suggested, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referenced, that they will issue further guidance to courts to make these decisions and draw the lines in a different place. Is guidance going to be sufficient to alter where judges make these decisions, or do we need to change the law? The Minister may not agree with these proposals, but I would argue that you do need to change the law. If he does not think that these proposals are okay but thinks that courts are not getting it right at the moment, the Government should bring forward their own amendments on Report. I suspect that this House will give them a fair hearing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises perfectly valid questions. I was clear to the House and have been today to the Committee that the Government will examine the European Court of Human Rights Article 8 requirements. We will be issuing guidance on that and have some further discussion on what that means in practice. We are still considering those matters, but we not minded at the moment to bring forward legislation—and I am certainly not minded to support, for the reasons that I have said, the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that I have been clear on that.

We are committed to reforms across the immigration system. It is right that we take action against foreign national offenders in the UK before they get the opportunity to put routes down in the UK. We will do what we can to protect local communities and prevent crime. We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate.

Later this year, as the noble Lord is intimating, we will set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. We will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK. We need to strike that balance between family rights and the wider public interest. That is why we will clarify Article 8 rules and set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will also set out when and how a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 139, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to amend the penalty for immigration offences in Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, replacing this with a sentence of deportation and removing the lack of knowledge as a defence against these offences. We have been clear in our response to the sentencing review that we will reduce the use of short sentences and increase the use of suspended sentences, so there will be a significant reduction in the number of such offenders being sent to prison. Foreign nationals convicted of immigration offences can be considered for deportation at present, and we will act to ensure that such action is taken in future.

Removing lack of knowledge as a defence will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more ECHR challenges, resulting in delay, the consequence being fewer successful removals.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

To pick up on a point made by the Minister, he confirmed that the Government are undertaking this review of Article 8 and how it is interpreted by the courts. He also said that, if necessary, the Government would bring forward legal provisions to put reforms in place. We have a bit of time before Report, with another day in Committee in October and Report a little bit after that. Can I urge the Minister to speed up that review? If it is necessary to put into statute any changes in how Article 8 is being interpreted, he can then bring that forward in this legislation, to take advantage of bringing those reforms in urgently, rather than waiting for another piece of legislation to come down the track in a year or two.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We keep all matters under review. This will go at the pace that it goes at. We will be making further announcements in due course on how we will review Article 8 and the issues that will result accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I have very little to add except that I await the explanation from the Minister with great interest. The amendments in this group and Clause 42 itself concern the rights of those granted settled status in the UK under the EU settlement scheme after the UK left the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has ably explained, there are a number of avenues for an individual to apply for this scheme. As I understand it, the impact of Clause 42 is to standardise the rights applicable to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens who are granted leave to remain under the settlement scheme so that they can rely on them under UK law. Subsection (2) of the clause defines precisely who this applies to, and Amendment 142 seeks to amend that. I am not quite certain of the intent behind that, because the language is very similar to the original text, so I think it is essential for the Minister to clarify what Clause 42 lacks that makes these amendments necessary.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for moving the amendments on behalf of himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. He will know that we had some meetings in relation to this, and I have tried to engage on behalf of the Home Office as the answering Minister here, but, as he realises, the Minister who has been dealing directly with this issue was until recently one Minister in the Commons and is now another Minister in the Commons. But we will return to that in due course.

First, I want to set out the purpose of Clause 42. As the noble Lord said, Clause 42 is designed to provide legal clarity for those EU citizens and their family members with EU settled status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement that it is the source of their rights in the UK. This has been achieved very simply by confirming in UK law under Clause 42 that any EU citizen or their family member with EU settled status will be treated as being a withdrawal agreement beneficiary. Where they do not already do so, they will have directly effective rights under the withdrawal agreement as brought into domestic law by Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.

Because the EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires, there are, as the noble Lord has mentioned, two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: there is the “true cohort” who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement because, for example, they were economically active or self-sufficient in the UK as per EU free movement law at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020; and there is the “extra cohort” who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Although the UK has sought, through both the previous Government and this Government, to treat both cohorts the same, certain court judgments since the end of the transition period, as the noble Lord mentioned, mean that some differences in treatment have emerged. The whole purpose of Clause 42 is to address that anomaly.

Amendment 142 in the noble Lord’s name permits all those granted EUSS status to benefit from the clause where that status has not been cancelled, curtailed or revoked. This would mean, for example, that Clause 42 would benefit a person who was granted EUSS status but has since committed a serious criminal offence, for example, and has been deported from the United Kingdom. In my opinion, that would not be an appropriate outcome, but it would be the effect of the amendment that the noble Lord has tabled.

In respect of those with pre-settled status under the EUSS who obtain another form of immigration leave, I can confirm that this amendment is not needed because the clause as drafted covers that point. We have listened carefully to representations with stakeholders on these issues and we have decided that, where a person with pre-settled status obtains other leave, such as the domestic abuse route, they will retain their pre-settled status. That will enable them easily to show that they still have withdrawal agreement rights, should they need to do so.

The noble Lords spoke to Amendments 143 and 145 together, and I will deal with them together, if I may. These are concerned with those with EUSS status based on certain derivative rights under EU law. Those individuals include people who are the primary carer of a self-sufficient EU citizen child or with a child in education in the UK where the EU citizen parent has been a worker here and their primary carer. Both these categories are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and are included in the EUSS on a basis which reflects the relevant EU law requirements. Complex though this is, a person granted EUSS status on that basis will be in the “true cohort” and will have the withdrawal agreement rights in the UK. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

That is so regardless of whether the caseworker applied evidential flexibility in granting EUSS status. Such flexibility—for example, not requiring missing evidence to be provided and therefore minimising administrative burdens on the applicant—can be applied only where the caseworker is already satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the relevant requirements of the EUSS rules are met.

Finally, Amendment 144 would remove subsection (2)(c) from Clause 42. This would mean that we were granting withdrawal agreement rights to people in the UK who do not qualify for EUSS status, which would not be right. Subsection (2)(c) protects the integrity of the EUSS and of Clause 42. It ensures that, to benefit from Clause 42 and therefore have withdrawal agreement rights, the person was correctly granted EUSS status. This amendment is not needed to ensure that the status of a person in the “true cohort”, or by virtue of this clause in the “extra cohort”, can be removed only by applying the procedural safeguards contained in the withdrawal agreement.

The noble Lord mentioned the issue of a decision to cancel, curtail or revoke EUSS status. It carries a right of appeal under Regulation 3 or 4 of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and nothing in Clause 42 changes that. I hope that will give him the reassurance that he seeks. A person whose EUSS status has manifestly been granted in error will not be in the true or extra cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.

Safeguards are still in place in such cases. Where the Home Office comes across the case of EUSS status granted in error, the individual is contacted and provided with a reasonable opportunity to show that their grant of EUSS status was correct. If they cannot do so and they have pre-settled status, our current approach is to allow them to remain in the UK for the remaining period of their leave. They are also informed that they can reapply to the EUSS. If such an application is made and refused, it will give rise to a right of appeal. Any family member application that is refused because the sponsor was granted EUSS status in error also attracts a right of appeal. Safeguards that I hope the noble Lord will find adequate are therefore in place in both these cases.

We have had a discussion and I hope the noble Lord can look at what I have said. Again, this is always a complex area. I have read deliberately from my brief so that the issue is, I hope, clarified by what I have said, and he can read Hansard in the morning and look at what I have said to date. The purpose of Clause 42 is to clarify the very points that the noble Lord has concerns over, and that is why I hope he will withdraw this amendment today. If he remains unhappy then obviously he has the opportunity to return to this issue on Report.

The noble Lord asked about data. I answer in this House for the department, but I often answer for other ministerial colleagues who are looking at these issues in detail. I will revisit the questions that the noble Lord put to me on data sharing, and I will make sure that, well before Report, I get him a fuller response to clarify the issues that he has raised, because I am unable to give him a definitive answer on that today. While I might wish to do so, it is best if I examine that in the cold light of day and drop him a note accordingly. With that, I hope he will not press the amendments.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and for taking time to meet me and my colleagues to discuss these matters, as he referred to. I am grateful for his clarification regarding Amendments 143 and 145, which will give welcome reassurance.

I am not entirely convinced that the response he has given to Amendment 144 addresses all the concerns that we have raised, although I will certainly study Hansard carefully in case I have missed some of those issues. While it is true that someone whose status expires because the Home Office has determined that it was granted in error has a right to subsequently apply again, and if that is refused then they can appeal, that is not an appeal against the decision that the original status was granted in error, so that remains a cause for concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is particularly in cases where the Home Office has made an error that we want all the safeguards to exist.

Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We will look at it and decide how to proceed from here. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree with everything that the noble Lord said, although I slightly dissent from his description of his discussions with his civil servants. I used to be a civil servant and I thought that the main job of civil servants was to stop Ministers doing things they should not do or did not have the powers to do. Otherwise, however, I entirely agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made a powerful case. To me, this is a very strange clause. We have to listen to what our Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. I followed what the Minister said in the Commons, which was that the power conferred on Ministers would be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism—I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—or serious crime, or when a person poses a threat to national security or public safety and, presumably, cannot be deported. If the clause said all that, limiting and ring-fencing the powers of the Minister, I could understand the rationale for it and might even support it. However, with no ring-fencing, it is—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said—a sledgehammer. The absence of any judicial oversight provision is wrong. It is dangerous to give Ministers the power to add such other conditions as they think fit. This is just too broad and, if it is to be there at all, it needs to be limited. If the Government’s intentions are as Angela Eagle said in the other place, let that be spelled out in the Bill.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful as ever for the discussion around Clause 43 and for the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I will start by setting out the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 43. There will be an opportunity, as has been discussed, to follow the course of action suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope, to delete the clause. There is also the possibility on Report to look at strengthening the clause by some amendments that could be brought forward on judicial oversight. However, I want to put on record where the Government believe they are at the moment.

Noble Lords will know Clause 43 will end the disparity in the powers available to protect the public from migrants who pose a threat but currently cannot be removed or deported because of our obligations under domestic or international law. It will also make absolutely clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail. Where a person is liable to be detained—for example, they are in the UK without the required permission or are subject to deportation proceedings—they may be placed on immigration bail. Those on immigration bail can be subject to measures such as electronic monitoring and curfews, which are imposed in accordance with our ECHR obligations.

A person who does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention, but who cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, may fall to be granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation currently prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subject to while on immigration bail. The Government believe that this is perverse. I hope that I can give the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Deben, the assurance that the decisions to impose these conditions will only be taken on a case-by-case basis in order to appropriately address the specific risks that a person is assessed to pose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. He has really said just one thing, which is not in dispute across the House: he and his colleagues would use these powers on a case-by-case basis and in a very responsible way. However, with great respect, he has not answered either of the two points that were made to him in the debate. The first was the question of why serious crime prevention orders, TPIMS or prevention and investigation measures under the National Security Act 2023 would not be sufficient to deal with all the categories of people that Angela Eagle referred to. That is the question of whether Clause 43 is necessary at all.

Secondly—assuming he makes that case—how can he justify a power that is designed for such a narrow purpose being drafted in such an impossibly broad fashion? Although the Minister says, quite rightly, that we can put this to a Division on Report, I remind him that the TPIM Act, with all the safeguards that it contains, is 59 pages long. Drafting thresholds, proper provisions for scope, and safeguards is not a simple matter—not for a humble and unlettered Back-Bencher or Cross-Bencher such as myself.

I remember a similar case with the deprivation of citizenship, in which, under the last Government, a clause was put forward that allowed anyone who was subject to deprivation to be deprived of their citizenship without notice. It was seen that this was far broader than it needed be and the Government met with me and others and assisted with the drafting. We ended up with something much more tailored to the policy that the Government were seeking to advance, which nobody has questioned in this debate. Will the Minister meet with us in a constructive spirit and with a view to finding a clause that meets the Government’s policy but is not open to the sort of abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others have referred?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, knows from our 13 months or so of engagement with him that I am always open to meet with noble Lord and to have input into the legislative process to make sure that the Government’s objectives are workable and practicable. I will happily meet with him to reflect on those points. I have Members from the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benches pressing me on this issue; it is important that I listen to those reflections with the policy Minister who has argued that case in the House of Commons.

Let us look at what has been said today in the cold light of day and reflect upon it. I will certainly arrange a meeting to hear his concerns further and look at the issues. The Government believe that Clause 43 is of sound policy and that it would be used in the limited circumstances that I have described. They believe that those circumstances can be defined and, even though new sub-paragraph (x) in Clause 43(2)(b) says

“other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”,

I understand his concern on that matter. But I believe, again, that a responsible Secretary of State would be held to account, would have to explain and bring forward information on that, and would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in the House of Commons where votes from the governing party can take place, but also in this noble House.

So I say to the noble Lord: let us meet, but the Government have put forward a clause that they believe is appropriate. There are noble Lords in this Committee who believe it is not, so let us have that discussion in the cold light of day to reflect on those points.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

When the Minister goes back to the policy Minister, will he reassure her that nobody in this debate has questioned the policy that the Government are seeking to pursue? All we are questioning is the method they have chosen.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That point has been made, and I will discuss that with my colleagues in government. Clause 43 as drafted is before the Committee today, but there are opportunities to discuss it further if the noble Lord is not happy with any assurances that we can give outside the Committee to table amendments that can be debated and voted upon in due course. I will leave it at that.

Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach seeks to clarify the eligibility criteria for bail accommodation under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. Under this provision, the Secretary of State has the power to provide accommodation to someone in exceptional circumstances only when they have been granted immigration bail and are subject to a residence condition that requires them to live at an address specified in that condition. The Home Office recognises that, where the Secretary of State is required to provide a person with accommodation to enable them to meet their bail conditions, a specified address cannot always be known at the time of the bail grant. Accordingly, it has been a long-standing policy position that bail can be granted with a residence condition to an address that is known at the time of the grant of immigration bail, or an address that is yet to be specified. In 2024, this was also set out explicitly in the relevant guidance. The policy is clear, and operational teams are already operating the legislation in this way, to ensure that someone can apply to the Home Office for bail accommodation without having been granted bail to a specific address. Therefore, the amendment—with its good intention—would make no material difference to the current operation of the legislation and is not necessary. I am happy to hear further from the noble Lord, but I invite him not to move his amendment.

On the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, Amendment 146 would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against persons who breach the conditions attached to their leave in the UK. Such breaches of conditions may already be addressed by cancelling that leave and removing the person from the UK without the need to seek a deportation order. Mandating deportation in such cases is not therefore necessary. It will provide no guarantee that a person’s removal from the UK could be enforced if they were to make a human rights or protection claim against their removal.

Finally, Amendment 147 would replace existing criminal sanctions for offences under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 with a penalty of deportation. Overstayers and illegal entrants are already liable to removal from the UK. Where a person is convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, consideration will be given to their deportation. With respect to the noble Lord, the amendment risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not result in an increase in removals from the UK.

This has been a serious debate that has raised a number of points. But I hope, given what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press his objection to Clause 43. I will meet noble Lords to discuss their objections further to understand their concerns better. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments so that we can examine the clause together.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group for their contributions to this debate. This has been a group that clearly reflects several different views, and I welcome that we have been able to have a debate on these issues.

We on these Benches remain firm in our resolve that conditional leave to enter or remain should be just that—conditional on criteria that seek to safeguard our communities, our public services and our economy. These conditions do not undermine our capacity to be compassionate, our capacity to help those who are in need, or our record of supporting those who need our help. They ensure that we have a system that is controlled and protects our country, and over which the Government can exercise their dutiful authority. These are fundamental duties and we have sought to support the Government in meeting their own objectives. I therefore hope the Minister will seriously consider these amendments as a way of empowering him and his colleagues to take action that is needed to ensure that our conditions are not optional. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a very wide-ranging debate on an important group of amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and this discussion. I also join the words of sympathy for both the injuries of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Covid-related illness of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We wish them both well and look forward to seeing them back to hold the Government to account, as they do so well. I will go through each of the amendments in turn and try to give some reasonable commentary on each in the time I have.

Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is intended to probe the impact on business and employees of this clause. I hope I can reassure her that the previous Home Secretary has already engaged with businesses and representative bodies on the proposed legislation. I give a commitment that the new Home Secretary will continue to do so following this week’s reshuffle. In addition, the Secretary of State intends to conduct a formal consultation with employees and businesses, which will underpin updated guidance that we intend to bring forward, so that they are aware of their obligations prior to the implementation of the legislation. I hope that assists the noble Baroness on Amendment 150.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her Amendment 154A. It seeks to make it an offence to employ someone to deliver goods, meals or services using a vehicle if that person does not hold a full driving licence. In the UK, individuals can drive a variety of vehicles without a full driving licence, including some of the vehicles that she refers to in her amendment. There is already strong legislation in place to make sure that the DVLA, the responsible body, carries out checks to ensure applicants are not disqualified from holding a licence due to their immigration status. That is already a very strong issue for the DVLA as a whole. The Government have robust licensing and driving compliance measures in place to ensure that there is relevant driving licence regulation in force.

In this very Bill, the Government are extending the scope of employers and businesses required to carry out checks on their workers to prevent illegal working. Separately, through existing enforcement measures the Government are giving a very hard push, particularly following some examples of the type of abuse that the noble Baroness mentioned, on compliance with legislation to ensure that people are not being employed illegally, that people who have come here illegally are not being employed and that that is not undercutting legitimate businesses in their work. I think her amendment has those areas of work in mind, but we are covering that with this Bill and what is being done elsewhere.

Amendments 151 and 152, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, seek to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three. I acknowledge the intent behind these amendments. I know where the noble Baroness and others are coming from. However, I do not think these amendments are the right mechanism to achieve the aims they are seeking. We want to ensure that those who may have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery in particular are examined under that legislation. Therefore, I do not feel that this is the right way forward.

I will take the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to supply that information if he wishes to send it through to me—care of the Home Office, Marsham Street, London. We will certainly look at the information he has brought forward.

On Amendment 151, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system and supporting those with genuine protection. It allows asylum seekers to apply for permission to work if their claims have been outstanding for 12 months or more through no fault of their own. Those granted permission are limited to roles on the immigration salary list only. Employers are expected to uphold fair and non-discriminatory recruitment practices for all individuals with the right to work.

Reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor—we have had a debate about that; I know some noble Lords will disagree with the use of that phrase—and would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. Furthermore, it would undermine the established work visa routes and may act as an incentive for people to travel here illegally via dangerous routes. Again, I take on board what noble Lords have said about why people are seeking to come to the UK, but the factors before us are a real concern for the Government.

On Amendment 152, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, as has been mentioned, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract, which provides safe accommodation and financial assistance to prevent destitution. Where applicable, those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision are considered for a grant of temporary permission to stay, which includes the right to work.

There are several reasons why the Government cannot support Amendment 152, one being that expanding access to employment at an earlier stage could incentivise misuse of the national referral mechanism, which may inadvertently encourage irregular migration or exploitation by traffickers who falsely promise access to work in the UK. The current framework maintains a clear distinction and upholds the integrity of the immigration system.

My noble friend Lord Rees made a very powerful case, and I was pleased to meet him, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and colleagues to engage on this matter. I value the representations that have been made and welcome continued collaboration. There is an argument that his amendment may carry unintended consequences, particularly for wider delivery and our modernisation of the asylum system. The Government’s position has been consistently clear and introducing an additional process subject to regular scrutiny could risk diverting focus from our broader strategic objectives.

However, my noble friend made a very important case for the Government to consider, and I want to reflect on it with colleagues. There are other ways in which my noble friend can get a regular report on the impact of the concerns he has, and there are ways to put pressure on the Government, such as the very good initiative by mayors to examine this issue, whether that be through parliamentary debate, Questions, Written Statements or Commons and Lords Select Committees. I will look again at what he said today because I think there is scope to ensure that we examine some of those areas, and I thank him for his amendment.

On Amendment 153 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister—although she is not in her place today—supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the Government are very concerned by the links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. I hope all noble Lords are reassured that in the immigration White Paper, published in May, we said we intend to reconsider how this route operates. I know I regularly ask for patience on these matters, but the immigration White Paper looks at it and recognises the genuine concerns that have been raised.

Allowing overseas domestic workers to change employer without restriction is already a feature of the existing system, as they have been able to do so since 2016. The ability to change makes it very clear that overseas domestic worker status in the UK is not exclusively dependent on their current employer and gives them an opportunity to escape abuse. We do not currently require them to inform the Home Office so that they are able to move more quickly and easily. During my time as the shadow Immigration Minister in 2012, when discussions were taking place on the Bill back then, I met Kalayaan and I was impressed by the cases it made. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that that will be looked at as part of the immigration White Paper response.

My noble friend Lord Watson, supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, tabled Amendments 154 and 203D, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which concern migrant fishers and the question of seaman and transit to the UK to join a ship leaving UK waters. The Government’s long-standing position is that foreign nationals need permission to work in UK waters; this ensures consistency between those coming to work on the UK landmass and those transitioning through it. Contract seamen who enter the UK seeking to leave or join a ship are expected to leave the UK within seven days of arrival and are not given the right to work. Seafarers wishing to come and work in the UK should apply for a work visa that gives them the right to work in the UK. It would, therefore, in our view, be inappropriate to give work rights to those on temporary visas intending to allow transit only.

There are no plans to create a bespoke visa route for fishers as the immigration White Paper has very clearly set out our strategy for reducing reliance on international recruitment. However—and I hope this helps my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—we have established the new Labour Market Evidence Group to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, trading levels and participation by the domestic labour market, including at devolved government and regional levels. I expect it to make recommendations shortly about sectors or occupations in which workforce strategies are needed or the workforce labour market is currently failing. I hope that my noble friend can look at what is going to happen and the gathering of information on this issue so that we can examine it further.

In response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on migrant domestic workers, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. It is within this framework that the fishers mentioned can seek assistance.

I cantered through those points because of the discussion we had. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, and I will reflect on what has been said—I will certainly give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Will the Minister reflect a little more on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rees? He said that the noble Lord made a powerful case—I think we all thought that. His principal argument against accepting the amendment seemed to be that the reports called for by the amendment could constitute an undesirable diversion of resources. He also argued that the debates in both Houses that the amendment would mandate could be secured by different means.

I suspect that the commendable longevity of the Minister has a price: he has been got at by Sir Humphrey. I used to be a Sir Humphrey and I was very good at this. The undesirable diversion of resources is a very good argument; better still is “unripe time” or “dangerous precedent”. If all else fails, there is “with the ambit of the vote”. They are all excellent arguments, but what is the harm in having debates on this issue every year in the Commons and the Lords? There is no downside to it; it is a good thing. It would give us the space, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, proposes, for a serious debate on this on the basis of the evidence. The Minister is being a little negative. He should go back and see Sir Humphrey and say, “There was a lot in this amendment. We ought to think seriously about it”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his experience. As he knows, having been there himself, the Government reflect on, take and determine positions across the board with ministerial engagement. Having started my 15th year as somebody in government, over that 28-year period, I am very aware that, when Ministers want to do something, they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I seek clarification on something the Minister said. He told the Committee that they were seeking to address some of the problems that my amendment raised through other ways, including through the DVLA, the Home Office and certain measures. But will they include drawing in to those other measures those categories of delivery bike that do not now require any papers or licence and may have been changed to empower them to go far beyond the permitted 15.5 miles per hour? We have no way of knowing that unless our police forces are out on the streets as a response unit, like those police in the City of London, and impounding them—which is very heavy on police time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a number of issues. I start with the question of illegal employment and working. The Government are very exercised to ensure that, both in the Bill and in regular enforcement now being undertaken, we crack down on illegal employment, which effectively undercuts legitimate businesses, exploits individuals in that illegal employment and is not a good use for society as a whole, as a contributory factor. We are very focused on that, and the Bill focuses on a large amount of those elements.

Separately, the noble Baroness raises areas outside my direct responsibility, which are Department for Transport-related issues about enforcement and regulations. I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Transport Minister, who will be able to reflect on them and who is also exercised about the very issues she mentions.

The noble Baroness will also know, I hope, that in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House shortly, there are also measures to improve police powers on seizure of bikes, rather than prosecution of individuals, where there are digressions from the law. That means going through traffic lights, going on pavements, speeding and all those things where the police, rather than having to give a warning, will potentially now be able to seize an electric vehicle used in those ways under the Crime and Policing Bill. So the three different elements are all there.

In this current piece of legislation, the amendment the noble Baroness has put forward does not meet the requirements I am seeking to achieve. With that, I hope noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister, whom I thank, started his response by saying that the Bill is not the right mechanism for the amendments. I think he was applying that comment to the whole group of amendments, not just to Amendment 154A. Without being psychic, I too have had my expectations met. Including a provision for the right to work would be the right thing to do, and it would be enlightened self-interest.

I too have never been persuaded by the idea of the right to work being a pull factor; there are plenty of push factors without one having to think about pull factors. Banning the right to work—as we have done, in effect—does not seem to have been a deterrent. That may answer the point.

I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in this whole space. He made a very powerful speech, but I thought that his amendment was less persuasive than his speech. I am more ambitious: I want to remove the restrictions so that the reports to the House can be on the impact of changes in the law, not just calling for changes in the law.

Mention was made of voluntary activity. I use the term “voluntary activity” rather than “voluntary work” because a problem for so long for people who want to put a huge amount of effort into volunteering is that it has been designated as work, not as voluntary activity. I was interested to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for training. That would be a good move forward—it really would be—so I thank him for that.

I will return to overseas domestic workers. They do not, in reality, have the ability to change employers. We are leaving people in appalling situations that they cannot escape. The changes made in 2016 were minimal, and we have failed people whom we should be protecting. I am very sad that we cannot move the situation forward tonight, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I know, I just realised that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that we will have a full discussion on Amendments 203F and 203G at a later date. I will take that as an hors d’oeuvre from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. It is important that he trails those issues because they are linked. I value that he has done that today. However, I will focus on the amendments before the Committee, Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These seek to confirm that the resources of the tribunal and legal aid practitioners are sufficient to ensure that appeals are heard fairly within the 24-week timeframe.

Clauses 46 and 47 already set out that the statutory timeframe should be adhered to unless it is not reasonably practical to do so. This enables the judiciary to take into account any relevant factors when exercising its discretion and responsibility over case management and the listing of appeals. We in the Home Office are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the tribunal has the resources it needs to meet the growing backlog. and we want to ensure that we deliver on that backlog as a matter of some urgency. The tribunal has been given additional funding to boost the number of days it will be sitting in 2025-26 to near maximum capacity, and we are also consulting on uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees to support that capacity.

The period of 24 weeks is carefully chosen, as it balances the importance of resolving cases quickly, while the Government recognise the need for appropriate safeguards to ensure access to justice for all. To provide further reassurance to the noble Baroness, the resources of the tribunal are taken into consideration, and these provisions will not apply immediately following Royal Assent. There will be a period of implementation and operationalisation, during which the Home Office, the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service will ensure the tribunals’ readiness in the coming months. I hope all that will give the noble Baroness some reassurance on those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

While I acknowledge the fairness objectives underpinning Amendment 180, I cannot support Amendment 194, which would drive us in the opposite direction towards further delay, duplication and dysfunction.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, for becoming the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this evening, particularly at this late hour. I am grateful for her introduction of the amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for being the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am still Lord Hanson for the purposes of the discussion before us today.

Age assessment is a difficult area of work and there is no single-combination assessment technique able to determine age with precision. It has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that there are serious safeguarding risks if adults are treated as children and placed in settings with children. Similarly, there are serious safeguarding issues if children are treated as adults.

I will turn to the amendments before us and try to weave through them in a way that, I hope, assuages the concerns of the noble Baroness and gives a direction forward. On Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the completion of age assessments where an individual faces criminal charges, the current approach of the Home Office is that any decision on age made by the Home Office for immigration purposes is not binding on the UK courts. Where an individual is charged with a criminal offence, the CPS is advised of any age dispute issues that have arisen and will decide if it is in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Once proceedings are instigated, should the presiding judge have doubts about the individual being a child, the courts can take a decision on the age based on the available evidence or request that a substantive age assessment is undertaken.

The Home Office has introduced additional safeguards in criminal cases to mitigate the risk of a genuine child being imprisoned in adult prison for immigration offences. This is something that none of us would want to see. Where an individual who has been assessed to be “significantly over 18” maintains their claim to be a child and is identified for potential criminal charges for immigration offences, the Home Office will provide for an abbreviated age assessment to be conducted by qualified social workers. I hope that on both those counts, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment before the Committee today.

Amendment 162 is on the suggested use of visual age assessments as part of a safeguarding determination, identifying potential risks and support needs, rather than solely for the purposes of immigration enforcement. The noble Baroness has said that the initial age assessment is an extremely important first step to prevent the detention of children generally, including any accidental detention of someone who is believed to be an adult but subsequently found to be a child, and to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct adult or child immigration process. That is key. It provides that immigration officers may treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is significantly over 18. This is a particularly high threshold, and the benefit of the doubt remains key. Where doubt exists, individuals will be referred for further assessment.

As the noble Baroness said, a social worker may be present at the initial age decision stage. Where present, they will play a crucial role in the welfare of the individuals in their care and will support our Kent Intake Unit officers with their initial age decisions carried out at Western Jet Foil. Any views expressed by the social worker at this initial stage will be given a strong weighting, given the expertise they have in regularly working with children.

The Home Office has contractual arrangements with the Refugee Council to provide support to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive by small boat and are moved to the Kent Intake Unit. That contract sees Refugee Council advisers working directly with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children providing impartial and independent information, advice and guidance to help them navigate the asylum and looked-after children system. These amendments would make it mandatory for the Home Office to publish guidance that includes mechanisms for independent oversight. I note that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration already has oversight of Home Office practices and is not short of bringing forward reports about the areas we are discussing.

Amendment 163, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 194 were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuburger, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They are about whether age assessment in relation to asylum claims should rest with the local authority according to the ADCS guidance. I ask the Committee to bear with me because we need to be mindful of unintended consequences. The amendments as tabled would mean that the Home Office would be bound to immediately notify a local authority in every instance where an individual claiming to be a child has been determined to be an adult and therefore may be placed in adult accommodation. This would apply even when an individual is obviously an adult. This creates the risk that already-stretched local authorities could cause significant safeguarding risks if adults have access, along with genuine and potentially vulnerable children, to children’s services including accommodation and education.

I hope it will reassure the noble Baroness that the Home Office already takes into account best practice within the age assessment guidance issued by the ADCS and the equivalent guidance in Scotland and Wales. Where the Home Office or an accommodation provider have concerns that an individual might be a child, it is now standard practice for a local authority referral to be raised. Even where a referral is not made, this does not prevent the individual from approaching a local authority for further consideration of their age.

As I said at the outset, the Government continue to review all options for age assessment. A parliamentary Written Statement issued to both Houses on 22 July indicated that work was being undertaken in the Home Office to look at science and technology innovation and the age assessment system. We have concluded that the most cost-effective option is to pursue a likely facial age estimation whereby AI technology trained on millions of images is able to produce an age estimate with a known degree of accuracy. Again, I recognise that the noble Baroness raised some concerns about that. I hope I can reassure her that the Home Office is taking this seriously and that further testing and trialling of the technology will be conducted ahead of any integration into the system. It is important that we get that right, but it is also important that we try to find mechanisms to give greater clarity on what that age is over and above the individual eyes-on by a particular officer at the border.

I hope that, with those reasons, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee—the substitutes for the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, respectively—will not press the amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

As the substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I would like to make a point about AI. It is important that the Home Office and others use AI only where it is appropriate and safe. Quite a lot of work has been done across the piece in Parliament about the reliability or otherwise of facial recognition—because that is what this is— including by a Select Committee which I chaired. I have not been satisfied by any comments from the Government Benches since, including on the need for regulation and oversight. That must apply here. I would be deeply worried if we were to go ahead with using AI as a substitute for the human brain without the proper regulation in effect.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I echo totally what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said. In my speech, I asked the Minister whether Parliament would have the chance to look at whether AI is used. Will he reply to that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are examining all of this, and there will need to be some further consideration. I will ensure that there is further discussion in Parliament, prior to that being undertaken.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. That is what we wanted to hear, and I very much hope we might have informal discussions before that comes to Parliament. Like some of the stuff more generally about age assessment, the meeting with the Minister was hugely helpful.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not be entirely surprised to hear I do not wholly agree with him. The point I was trying to make is that it is worse for a child to be in adult accommodation than for an adult to be in child accommodation. That is the point we ought to take most seriously.

At this late hour, let us leave it at that. With the Committee’s leave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the update as promised to Parliament earlier in the year—it is refreshing and a sign of how seriously this Government are taking group-based child sexual exploitation. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her excellent work.

I start by thanking the whistleblowers and victims, who are still speaking up about this. The speed and success of the actions forecast in this Statement will be judged to have satisfied their demands for justice, and should change policing forever, so that we never end up in this position again.

The national inquiry and national police operation must not just be survivor-centred but must always check back with survivors about process. On many, many occasions, your Lordships’ House has highlighted other victims of appalling circumstances, inquiries and compensation schemes, where the Government of the day paid the right lip service but the reality has left those survivors getting caught up in the bureaucracy that definitely is not survivor-centred. I think particularly of the Hillsborough tragedy, the Manchester bombings and the Windrush scandal, as well as the scandals of infected blood, the Grenfell Tower fire and the Horizon postmasters.

The update on the national police operation is encouraging, but there seems to be one glaring hole: all the detail is about training senior and specialist staff. There is no mention of the front-line staff, including control or police officers on the beat. Their lack of training in years gone by meant that the police missed the obvious first signs and ignored whistleblowers. This has also been a problem in other areas, such as in recognising stalking and domestic abuse. Can the Minister say what is planned for those on the front line, because, without their involvement, cases may not even make it to the high level specialist units?

The update on the Tackling Organised Exploitation programme—TOEX—is also helpful, including the details of the rollout. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches understand that things cannot change overnight, but can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when every police force will be TOEX trained and funded?

I will briefly make two other points. It is good to see the commitment to improving ethnicity data. The Statement says that this will be used for all cases with child sexual exploitation suspects, but is that not too late as well? Data needs to be consistently collected across the board. We therefore welcome the inquiry considering the intersection with ethnicity, race and culture, as well as safeguarding.

Finally, while it is right that the focus of this Statement is on the horrific gang-based child sexual abuse, as the Minister knows, the vast majority of child sexual abuse is hidden from view. NSPCC data estimates that one in 20 children face child sexual abuse, accounting for probably close to 90% of child sexual abuse across the board. The average age of a victim finally finding the courage to volunteer information about what happened to them is, shockingly, about 20 years after the event. What will the Government do to ensure that all adults—parents, teachers and especially doctors—are able to identify the signs early on and report it, so that this serious scourge can be reduced too?

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

I am grateful for the questions, and the broad welcome for our measures, from both His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I too echo the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her work and focus on these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, rightly pressed me on the final stages of the appointment of the chair of the inquiry. I reassurance him that we are working at pace to do that. He knows that it took two years to get Alexis Jay into post. We are trying to do this as a matter of urgency. We want to make sure that the victims and survivors are consulted, and we are undertaking formal measures, as is outlined in the Statement, to ensure that they are involved in the process. That is similarly the case for the terms of reference. I am hopeful that we will be able to bring forward proposals to both Houses of Parliament, in relatively short order, to finalise those issues. It is the Government’s intention to establish the inquiry as a matter of urgency.

I cannot give the noble Lord too much detail today on the violence against women and girls strategy, because that will be developed and then announced and put before both Houses of Parliament in due course. I assure him that tackling violence against women and girls is a key manifesto commitment, as is the strategy. The Minister responsible directly in the Home Office, my honourable friend Jess Phillips, has a very keen interest in making sure that the strategy has a real impact on violence against women and girls. I expect to make a Statement in this House, alongside the Minister in the Commons, at some point in the relatively near future.

It is also important that the noble Lord noted—this also goes to one of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—that Operation Beaconport, which we announced today, has reopened an additional 1,273 cases to be reviewed now. Some 216 priority cases of historical abuse are being reviewed. As the Statement outlines, we are bringing together partners and police under the National Crime Agency to look at these issues and to put some energy into this. That will be trialled later this month, with further announcements, I hope, from the National Crime Agency and policing partners on how they will deal with those issues on the ground.

I think that partly answers a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but we also have the great involvement of victims and survivors. We need to look at the training issues that she mentioned, and the policing partners will review that in due course. The ethnicity data is extremely important and, as the Statement outlines, we are trying to move that forward at pace. Between that and the extra resource we have announced this week of more than £400,000, on top of the money already allocated, we have a reasonable initiative with which to take forward these issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also made the valid point that the Statement relates to grooming gangs and particular problems and challenges that have arisen because of them; the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, focuses its direction of travel on that. However, there are also many other issues to do with child sexual abuse that the Government need to grapple with and bring forward some solutions to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is aware of the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come to this House after the Conference Recess. A number of measures in the Bill will ensure that we meet the Alexis Jay recommendations, including on mandatory reporting. If the Bill achieves support from both Houses, there will be additional new legislative measures to improve performance on mandatory reporting, as well as new powers on tackling AI generation of child sexual abuse images.

It should also never be forgotten that the Home Office itself spends in the region of £60 million per year on preventing child sexual abuse, as well as on supporting victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. The Statement is therefore an update on where we are; it is not the end product. If noble Lords look at the Crime and Policing Bill, the work the Home Office is doing and the announcements in the Statement, they will see that big movement is being made to tackle this issue in an appropriate and effective way.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, when the Government first announced the national inquiry, they said that it would be an innovative—and, I thought, very interesting—new model, which would enable individual local investigations to be overseen by a national commission with statutory powers. However, this Statement, which I appreciate is not the end point, now seems to refer to a standard overarching inquiry which will identify priority areas for investigation and report the findings at a local and national level. The main body of work seems to be being carried out by the chair and whoever they may have to support them. I might be missing something, but this is exactly how IICSA operated. There is nothing wrong with that—it did a great job—but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether there is, in fact, any difference in terms of structure between this inquiry and the one that went before it? As it stands, the only thing I can see is the introduction of a time limit, and that is a very good thing, but it is perhaps a little easier to do in this instance, given the great body of evidence we have already amassed over many years in this area.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and the work she has done in this area. She will remember that in January, the Home Secretary announced a £5 million fund for local inquiries, and we are encouraging any local authority to bid for that resource if it still wishes to. The terms of reference for a national inquiry will be set when the chair is appointed. We want to consult and involve the chair in how that operation works and how we get the best information, knowledge and inquiries at a local level. I anticipate that the chair will be able to formulate the view of the inquiry’s operation in relatively short order once appointed, and that I will come back and update this House on how local and national issues are intertwined. There is that £5 million fund, and local authorities are currently developing examinations of their performance because of that fund. I am hopeful that, although we are moving to a national-based inquiry, the lessons at a local level will not be lost and, instead, will be intertwined into national conclusions from the future chair when appointed.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement, which is necessarily looking into things that have already happened. To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—and I know that I shall stray a little from the Home Office’s brief—does my noble friend agree with me that it is critical that schools are places where children are able to use their voice in their own advocacy, that children’s rights are necessarily respected, and that all schools have a sense of what trauma-informed practice looks like? Beyond the punishment of offenders, we still have young people, victims and survivors, who will be in schools, and we need to make sure that those are places where all members of staff in schools have the time, space, training and empathy to be able to understand what has happened and to help young people move forward.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend tempts me to stray into areas that are the responsibility of the Department for Education, but the points that she has made are well made. We need to have supportive mechanisms, training and the ability to identify individuals. Critically—and this is a Home Office responsibility—we are putting mandatory reporting into play in the Crime and Policing Bill, which again requires training and support for teachers particularly and those individuals who come into contact with children to ensure that children have the confidence to report and get over—and, if those reports take place, to ensure that individuals have a mandatory statutory duty to report that to the police for further investigation. The points she makes are very well made, and I will refer those comments to my colleagues in the Department for Education.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, put our record our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for the work she has done to date and for the further work I hope she will do in future.

I follow up on the comments made by the noble Baroness opposite on not only schools, but on youth workers and services in particular. Detached youth workers are in a prime position to befriend and seek the confidence of young people who may have been victims of grooming gangs. It overlaps with education, but it is really important that we do not silo things into Home Office affairs and education.

Often, victims are not only young people but vulnerable people. That is what I have seen from my experience of working in youth services for the last 30 years. People who were grooming were picking on people because they were vulnerable. One vulnerability is people fleeing domestic violence. Often, you will see that people are away from where they used to live, and in some communities they have been very visible—that is, people can see they are from outside. I seek assurances from the inquiry on the group-based gangs that we will also seek out working alongside refuges for women in particular to see whether they can bring victims forward. I am concerned that in some communities, because of the issue around honour, women will want to remain silent because they just want to put that horrific past behind them. They also have to be brought forward to be able to tell their story and hold those perpetrators to account.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely valuable contribution. I agree with him that we need to look not just at teaching staff but youth staff and other contacts within the church and community that come into contact with young people. The purpose of all that is to give victims the confidence to be able to talk about those things. The mandatory reporting measures that we have put in the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a responsibility for individuals to then report that to the police for further investigation.

The noble Lord makes a very important point about confidence in bringing forward historic sexual abuse issues, particularly honour-based sexual abuse issues. He will know that the operation I mentioned earlier, Beaconport, is looking at historic abuse. Over 1,200 cases are now being surfaced. They will be investigated. There are 216 priority cases within that. If there are further cases to be brought forward, they should be reported for further investigation of a historic nature. My colleagues in the National Crime Agency will be detailing more about that, because that is an operational matter for them, later this month.

Refugee Accommodation: Move-on Period

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a patron of ASSIST Sheffield, a wonderful charity that seeks to support asylum seekers and refugees in our city of sanctuary.

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

The Home Office monitors the impact of all its policies, especially move-on and the impact on wider communities and local authorities. We are committed to working closely with our partners to identify improvements and make efficiencies in supporting newly recognised refugees who move on from asylum accommodation.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for his response, although my concerns are not entirely allayed. It is important to remember that those affected by move-on period policies have already been formally recognised by government as refugees, with rights to protection that are enshrined in international law. First, given the success of the recent 56-day extension, as reported by local authorities and numerous organisations supporting refugees, what impact assessment was undertaken in commending a reversion to 28 days? Secondly, what metric will His Majesty’s Government use to measure the success of this reversion? Finally, will the Minister commit to update the House within six months on the impact of this change?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can assist the right reverend Prelate with some clarification on what has actually happened. First, nobody who is in the system as of 1 September will have their 56-day period changed; that will still be operational. The pilot we are undertaking runs until December this year, and we will fully evaluate the pilot accordingly. Those individuals affected by the announcement on 27 August, who will change from 56 days to 28 days from 1 September, are single applicants; no families, nobody over 65 and nobody with disabilities will be impacted. We are trying to help tackle the longer-term asylum accommodation problem, but the pilot on 56 days to which the right reverend Prelate refers is continuing, and we will evaluate it and report back in due course. We have tweaked the pilot—we have not ended it—so we will continue to monitor the impact assessment issues. There will be full accountability on the outcome of the pilot when it is completed in December, but the majority of individuals to date will not be impacted by the change.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the arguments given last year for the 28-day/56-day pilot are the same as those given currently. In the Statements given to this House at the time, it was quite clear that this pilot was until the end of July and would be evaluated and the results published by the end of the summer. We are bound to suspect that, in moving as quickly as the Government have now done in shifting people from hotels into the hands of local government so swiftly, they will meet with the same problem of more homelessness that we had last year. Can the Minister confirm that the assessment so far has found a reduction in homelessness, and will he publish the interim evaluation promised to this House last year?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I repeat what I said to the right reverend Prelate: we are running the pilot until December and it will be evaluated. We have made some changes from 1 September, but not for the vast majority of people in the system—they will still be eligible for 56 days. Families, over-65s and those with disabilities will not be affected; it is single applicants who will be affected from 1 September. As this House continues to press the Government on, we need to reduce the reliance on hotels and provide a move-on period. The objective of the actions we have taken now is to relieve some of those pressures on hotel and asylum accommodation.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, how are the Government working with places of worship to see how they could help alleviate some of the hotel usage problem? There are thousands of places of worship across our country; they should be playing their part. They are often large buildings with catering kitchens and everything else. It is about time we rethink how we look after people who come in but maybe should not be here and, in the meantime, utilise places of worship. They are often left empty and could probably do with a little financial assistance from the Government—but much less than hotels.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion; I will certainly examine it. It is important that society as a whole embraces individuals who have come to this country fleeing persecution, hunger, war and destitution.

For those who are not across the detail of this proposal, it is about individuals who have been granted asylum and who are being helped to move on from that into the community to begin their new life with approved asylum status. We are trying to ensure that we evaluate that pilot, monitor it successfully and give due regard to those who are already under the 56-day period, but to look at what tweaks we can make, because there are immense pressures in the system on hotels and the whole House wants us to resolve that as a matter of urgency.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office has reported that in some cases, when the 56 days expire, asylum seekers are simply refusing to leave the hotel. What are the consequences for them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. For individuals who have been granted asylum, under the pilot we have extended the period from 28 days to 56 days to ensure that transition takes place. We are now tweaking that for certain categories of individual applicants back to 28 days. In a sense, the noble Lord hits a very important point: the asylum claim has been approved, and the period—be it 28 or 56 days—is there for that transition. At the end of that period, the Government have fulfilled their responsibilities in the asylum claim approval and the hand-on period. Therefore, we need to ensure that individuals then begin their new life under their own steam.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, throughout the summer we all witnessed a number of protests relating to asylum accommodation, suggesting that social cohesion in certain areas is under severe pressure. Does the Minister recognise the challenges faced by local authorities and local residents’ frustration, given that the number of asylum seekers temporarily housed in hotels has increased by 8% since the end of June 2024?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always find it fascinating that the Opposition continue to raise these questions with the Government, because if I wind the clock back to 2016, there were no hotels in use for asylum accommodation. Asylum claims rose dramatically under the previous Government and only a couple of years ago asylum hotels reached a peak of over 400, which is starting to fall now. We inherited that massive number and are trying to deal with that backlog of asylum claims, and the asylum issue as a whole, in a proper and effective way.

For me, community cohesion means the best way to deal with that is to speed up asylum claims, to ensure we close those hotels as a matter of some urgency and to determine who has the right to asylum in this country. We then give them a 56 or 28-day period of settlement and remove those individuals who have no right to reside in this country, their asylum claim having failed. With due respect to the noble Lord, the previous Government failed miserably on all those things. We are trying to do them.

People have a right to protest. But people also have a right to understand why and how we are dealing with this issue and what we are doing to resolve it to maintain community cohesion so that people welcome those who are fleeing persecution, war, starvation and the other forms of economic misery driving them to seek asylum in Europe and this country.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Minister, when he refers to hotels, that in the last nine months of the last Government we halved the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers. That fall came to a grinding halt when the present Government came to power.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Young, because I do not think he answered it. My noble friend asked what the consequences are, for those granted refugee status in asylum accommodation who fail to leave when they are supposed to, of their failure to leave that accommodation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect, I thought I did try to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Heads are shaking, but I am accountable for my answers. At the end of that 28 or 56-day period, individuals will have to leave that accommodation. That is a consequence for them. We have given support, determined their asylum application and given a transition period, and then that asylum claim has been approved so people need to move on.

I will challenge the noble Lord back. At the peak in 2018, under his Government, there were 400-plus hotels in use, reduced to 210 now. In the past year we have saved £1 billion of taxpayers’ money, over and above what the previous Government—the noble Lord sat in the Cabinet—expended. That £1 billion is better spent on speeding up asylum claims and making sure we determine them as a matter of some urgency.