Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will speak to each in turn.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, moved Amendment 385 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s winter of action that took place over the Christmas period, between the beginning of December and the end of January. That complemented a summer campaign that focused particularly on the issues that the noble Lord mentioned, namely anti-social behaviour and mobile phone theft. As the noble Lord mentioned in his introductory comments, the actions that we took over that 12-month period resulted in a 12% fall in mobile phone theft in London. That is still not good enough; it needs to fall further. It is a horrendous crime that is damaging to tourism and to the individual, but there has been a fall in the first year of this Government due to the hotspot action that we took. The winter and summer action campaigns took place in 650 town centres across the country, and were supported by additional resources from local police forces to deal with this issue. We know that we will see more analyst data in the coming months as to the impact of that action.

My point echoes some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. The Government’s road safety strategy was published on 7 January and sets out commitments to increase robust enforcement of road traffic laws to protect road users. It is under the auspices of the Department for Transport and indicates an important role for the police to play in taking action against the type of behaviour that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is concerned about.

As I stated in Committee, the police have a suite of powers under existent legislation to tackle street crime facilitated by bicycles and scooters and, as the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have mentioned, to address the use of face coverings intended to conceal identity. I encourage the police to make full use of those powers, especially in the crime hotspots that we have identified. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for example, permits the police to require individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas, so the police could designate a particular areas, such as a high street, where they believe crime is likely to take place. In those areas, the police have the powers under that legislation to remove face coverings.

There is a range of reasons for wearing a face covering that I am not going to pray in aid. Those were made very strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. They focused on weather, ill health, fumes, and the added protein of insects going into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. These are all valid reasons. They are not ones I pray in aid strongly today, because the legislation is there.

This includes Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, referred to. It provides for anybody driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle to stop if directed to do so by a constable. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 permits police to seize motor vehicles that are being used in an anti-social manner. Furthermore, Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits police to seize motor vehicles. That includes, in this case, e-scooters being driven without an appropriate licence or insurance. I encourage the police to use those powers. Public space protection orders can also be used. Therefore, there are reasonable powers on the statute book that can be used to meet the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment.

I turn to Amendment 386, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I said in Committee that I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment, and it is supported by the Police Federation. I want to see police officers doing their vital job. As I mentioned, we recently published the road safety strategy. The consultation on that strategy includes proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences and specific proposals on the existing offence of failing to stop and report following a collision. It also seeks views on related measures around compliance when drivers are stopped by the police—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The Department for Transport is considering the results of that consultation and aims to respond when it closes on 11 May. I encourage noble Lords to refer this debate to that consultation.

I have great sympathy with the amendment. I want to ensure that police officers have the necessary tools to enforce our road traffic laws and make our roads safe, but I ask the noble Lord to wait for the outcome of the consultation. Following the consultation, there will be areas that we could potentially take forward at some point when legislative time allows.

I turn next to Amendment 387A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I say straightaway that she raises an important point. Not all the businesses that she mentioned are criminal outlets, but there are a number of businesses that are potentially involved in criminality. The new high streets task force is looking at whether the current data sharing between agencies supporting enforcement teams is appropriate as we want to maximise our response.

In the summer, the Government will publish a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy that will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including better sharing and exploitation of financial information. Further, the Home Office has a cross-government high streets illegality task force that is developing strategic long-term policy to respond to money laundering and associated illegality in UK high streets, including forms of economic crime that the noble Baroness mentioned, as well as tax evasion, illegal working, systematic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit, and issues to do with HMRC and trading standards.

In the summer of last year, I had the great honour of attending a raid in Birkenhead, in Merseyside. HMRC, the National Crime Agency, Merseyside Police and trading standards raided a premises that was allegedly—I use that word because I am not sure whether the matter has come to court yet—defrauding HMRC, selling illegal goods and purporting to be a legitimate business when it was not. That raid was perfectly reasonable, so action is currently being taken.

I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who supported a similar level of action, that the Government are trying to design a number of actions to drive out illegal businesses in a range of ways. As the noble Baroness said, they undercut legitimate businesses, reduce government tax revenue and illegally employ people. That is not good or acceptable, and we need to take action. The question is whether the noble Baroness’s amendment to increase the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and closure orders from three months to 12 months, would assist in that process.

In Clause 3, we are, as the noble Baroness knows, increasing the duration of closure notices from 48 to 72 hours. That gives the police and others time to investigate initially. If her proposal was taken, does she think that having more empty premises on the high street or in a village for 12 or six months is good for the high street as a whole? I am not sure that it is. We do need to drive out illegality, and I accept that there is illegality going on, but I hope I have pointed out the challenges we have. The increase to 72 hours in the Bill will help address operational challenges and give agencies more time to progress an application for a closure order and to protect any victims and the community in the interim while a closure order is sought.

The closure power itself, as the noble Baroness will accept, is a very powerful tool and routinely used in a housing context to protect the most vulnerable. I argue that the extension to 72 hours in Clause 3 is sufficient to provide respite to victims and to the community from anti-social behaviour. Closure orders are intended to provide short-term relief, which is why we are increasing their duration only by a further 24 hours. I say to the noble Baroness that, while a closure notice cannot prohibit access to anyone who habitually lives on the premises, a closure order can. Closure orders are intended as temporary, targeted measures, not long-term sanctions, but I accept that there is a real issue that needs to be addressed and I hope it can be with the measures I have outlined. What the Government are doing now, on a cross-government basis with HMRC, the Home Office, the police, the National Crime Agency and trading standards locally, is trying to root out where that illegality takes place, and further action will be taken in due course.

I hope that, with those reassurances, despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his indication that he is not going to press his and I hope that the assurances I have given and the favourable view I have of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, will allow us to complete a proper consultation on that point and that he will not press his amendment, either.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate, and thank in particular my noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, with his interesting intervention in the debate. I reassure my noble friend Lord Hailsham that these are permissive, discretionary powers, not blanket ban powers, and they are targeted at a particular subset of criminals. There is clearly a quantum difference between people passing through a locale who are dressed to cycle on the public highway and those who are flooding the zone on e-bikes, dressed in black, with helmets and face coverings, with a rucksack, who may wish to rob a shop or assault someone by snatching their mobile telephone. With all due respect to my noble friend, I think his concern is misplaced, but I fully respect the arguments he made.

I also thank the Minister. We have had a lot of debate on this issue, and I am partially reassured by the measures that the Government have brought forward that are currently in train. I hope that we can return to this issue, not least the breaking of the mobile phone theft model that organised crime is engaged in. In the meantime, as I indicated, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling these amendments, which, as we have heard, raise questions around how the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit victims. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for stepping into the breach today to speak to these amendments in my noble friend’s absence.

My noble friend Lord Banner has tenaciously pursued this matter for many months. The intention behind his amendments is clear: to ensure that, where criminal assets are confiscated, the courts have flexibility to direct those funds towards compensation for victims or towards wider public interest purposes linked to the harm caused. In Committee, I spoke sympathetically on these amendments. I shall not seek to repeat the points I made then but other noble Lords explored how these proposals would interact with the existing confiscation and forfeiture regimes under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those are complex frameworks, and any changes to them must be carefully considered, but these amendments make an important point about ensuring that justice is not only punitive but restorative. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for moving this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Goudie for speaking in support of the noble Baroness.

As the noble Baroness and my noble friend know, I arranged a meeting for the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to discuss these matters with Redress. Both attended, as did other Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I set out then, as I did in Committee, the rationale for the Government’s position in relation to these amendments. I should say to my noble friend Lady Goudie that, although today I will restate the Government’s position, which is not to accept the amendments, we always keep these matters under review and will continue to do so.

The compensation of victims is an extremely serious issue and something that we take seriously. Last time out, in Committee, I laid out the UK’s various mechanisms for victim compensation; I will not repeat those now, in the interests of time. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, raises this issue in the context of Russia’s war with Ukraine. I appreciate the continued support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the approach that has been tabled today, but, if I may, I shall speak to this amendment in the context of where the noble Lord, Lord Banner, was, I think, coming from. I acknowledge the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, has spoken to me on many occasions about the need for wider community compensation, rather than just for individuals, in the context of the war in Ukraine. I affirm this Government’s support for Ukraine. Indeed, the UK is already one of Ukraine’s largest supporters and donors, providing significant financial aid alongside working with international partners to support Ukraine as much as possible. The UK has already committed £21.8 billion, of which £13 billion is for military support, £5.3 billion is for non-military support and £3.5 billion is for UKEF cover; there is also an ongoing commitment to provide £3 billion annually either for as long as it takes or until 2030-31. We are also supporting, along with the G7, loans backing profits belonging to Russian sovereign assets in the EU, as well as the interest on those assets being put towards Ukrainian interests.

Therefore, there are a number of issues on which we are fully supportive and where we are using resources to meet the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. However, I say to him and to those who have spoken in favour of the amendment today that, given the limited number of cases to which these amendments would apply, they would create only a minimal impact on the people of Ukraine. I suggest that it would be better for us, in the initial stages, to focus our efforts on the larger international mechanisms for compensation, in line with our international partners, which provide far greater funds. I have pointed in particular not just to the UK’s direct taxation commitment but to the G7’s $50 billion ERA loan, which is backed by interest generated from Russian sovereign assets in the EU and the UK.

I understand the noble Baroness’s support on this issue. I particularly understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, around this matter, as well as his desire to help and support our friends in Ukraine; I completely share that desire. However, following the rationale that I have laid out, I suggest that this would be best done through the current mechanisms of government, not through these amendments. I will keep all matters under review but I feel that these amendments would distract the UK—and, indeed, our partners—from the core principle of supporting Ukraine, particularly in this time of great need. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to withdraw Amendment 387C.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister as always for his response and for the support that the Government are providing, particularly in Ukraine after the Russian aggression. I still feel, however, that the definitions within the Bill of “victim” and “loss” are too narrow and indirect victims are clearly not eligible. We all know that there are many tragic indirect victims of war crimes. It is very likely that there will be more sanctions to come and that there will be further need for victim compensation. At present, there are 2,500 Russia-targeted sanctions. The Government still retain most of the proceeds of these.

Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister has said about keeping this under review. Given the fact that I do not think these amendments have been properly addressed by me—although they have by the Member opposite and by the Opposition Front Bench—I will not press them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 387C.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

388: Schedule 18, page 420, line 9, at end insert—
“51A In section 161E(5) (making an income reduction order) (as inserted by section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2026), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) section 15A (where court sentences before confiscation proceedings).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds, to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill, an amendment of a provision inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sater for tabling this amendment on a hugely important issue. I can be relatively brief because she gave ample reasons for the amendment. When criminal records are disclosed, they should be done so regularly and proportionately across all cases. She gave many compelling reasons for the amendment and, as she said, it is modest. It does not ask much of the Secretary of State. I agree absolutely with my noble friend that this system would simply benefit from an updated review. For all those reasons, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her amendment, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Perhaps I should explain why I am responding to it instead of my noble friend Lady Levitt, who has had considerable engagement with the noble Baroness and other Members of the House on this matter. The amendment relates to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, so I am responding to it. In principle, there are a number of areas where there is crossover between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. I noted the support from the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Brinton, for the general principles of the amendment.

The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to strike a balance between supporting ex-offenders to put their past behind them and ensuring that we keep people safe. The regime plays a crucial role in helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions, particularly, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for roles in health, social care and education. It also aims to avoid the disclosure of old and trivial offending so that people can make fresh starts and get on with their lives. We all know that employment and a fresh start are critical to preventing reoffending. The significance of employment—along with housing, family support and optimism for the future —for reducing reoffending should never be underestimated.

We keep the regime regularly under review as a matter of course, so that it remains fit for purpose and responds to concerns as they arise. I recognise the value of stepping back and carrying out a more strategic assessment, which the amendment would do.

I know that noble Lords know this, but the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, gave a commitment on 2 December, in response to the Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I, that the Government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is clear and proportionate, particularly—given the discussions we have had and reflecting what my noble friend Lady Levitt had said—in relation to childhood offences. My department—the Home Office—and the Ministry of Justice are working together to look at the next steps.

We intend to publish a consultation that is, in a sense, the review that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, asks for, setting out proposals for specific reforms on disclosure of childhood criminal records. Currently, the plan is to have that consultation published by the end of the year. If we can do it earlier, we will. There is a lot of work to do but I want to get it done as quickly as possible and I know that my noble friend Lady Levitt will want to do the same. I can certainly give the assurance that we will have that consultation out by the end of the year, and that will, I think, provide the strategic review that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks.

I believe that it is right to prioritise consideration of how the regime affects those who offend as children. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Levitt and the work that has been done on engagement to date, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for the external pressure she has put on us on these matters but, in the light of those reassurances, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I thank the Minister and am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Bailey all spoke very positively and passionately about the amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely positive response and look forward to hearing more about the consultation at the end of the year. Speed is of the essence and we would like to see it as soon as possible. We have heard, from me and others, about lots of anomalies in other situations involving criminal records that we think we should deal with, but I thank the Minister again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, sits down, I wish to say that this is not a rigid timeline for anything other than a review to look at the timeline. I accept that a complicated case may need to run, but even in a complicated case, somebody should say, “Okay, this is complicated—we need more time”. In many instances, 12 months would be the point where somebody said, “We need to wrap up and move on”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for initiating his Amendment 391. I know that it is motivated by the desire to support police officers in the difficult role they perform. He and I share that motivation. I say to him, however, that the amendment as drafted would have the effect of curtailing existing powers that the Independent Office for Police Conduct can use to reinvestigate or reopen a case that it has previously closed. The amendment also seeks, more generally, to prevent the reopening of investigations into complaints against the police from the public, again if such complaints have resulted in criminal proceedings which have not resulted in a conviction.

I take very straightforwardly the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who made the point that I was going to make: we know of no recent cases where the Independent Office for Police Conduct has reopened a closed case. However, it is in the public interest that cases of alleged police misconduct can, if need be, be reopened in the light of substantive new evidence or evidence that the original investigation was flawed. As has been said by the three noble Members who have spoken, not all criminal proceedings against serving police officers involve line-of-duty incidents. Some may involve serious corruption or sexual violence by police perpetrators, and there may be compelling public interest arguments for reopening such cases.

The powers of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to reinvestigate a case are already limited by existing law, which requires the IOPC to have compelling reasons to reopen a case. This is a legal threshold and is already a high bar. Disciplinary proceedings involve different evidential tests, as was mentioned by those who contributed, and the lower threshold for finding misconduct or gross misconduct is the balance of probabilities. They also serve a different purpose from a criminal trial. We rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers, so a blanket presumption that no police officer who has been acquitted in the criminal courts should face disciplinary proceedings would, in the Government’s view, be quite wrong—I think that reflects the points of view put by the noble Viscount, the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness. That is a compelling argument which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will reflect on if he seeks to push the amendment, which I hope, in due course, he will not.

Amendment 392, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to improve the timeliness of police complaints and misconduct investigations by creating a new system of legal adjudicators with the power to overrule both chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct by closing down investigations where they determine that there is no good or sufficient reason for any delay. As we have previously debated, unnecessary delays in these investigations are not in anyone’s best interests. I know the impact they will have on public confidence and on the welfare of the police officers involved. However, while it is right to strive for improvements in timeliness, this amendment risks adding another layer of bureaucracy, thereby adding cost and delay and not removing it.

The Government are committed to supporting chief constables to remove those who are not fit for purpose, but the amendment has the potential not only to overrule the responsibilities of chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but to create some perverse outcomes. The Government’s recent police reform White Paper already confirms our commitment to an independent, end-to-end review of the police conduct system, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would support. It will include looking at timeliness and how this can be improved. Again, further process will be brought back following the police White Paper proposals.

Amendment 393A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would require that, where a police officer uses force based on an honestly held but mistaken belief, that belief can justify the use of force only if the mistake was objectively reasonable. In effect, as she knows, it seeks to codify the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of police officer W80, which found that the civil standard applied to this test. As the House will know, police officers carry out important and demanding roles. The Government are determined to ensure that both the public and the police are able to feel confident in the police accountability system. That is why we commissioned a review—again, the noble Baroness referred to this—from Timothy Godwin, a former senior police officer, and Sir Adrian Fulford. They carried out a rapid, independent review into police accountability.

The findings of that review were published in October 2025—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to this—and it recommended that the Government change the legal test for the use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test. The Government, again, have accepted this recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes via secondary legislation. Our intention is that these changes will come into force later this year, in the spring of 2026.

While I understand the noble Baroness’s concept, I cannot support it, because we have put in place the independent commissioners to examine the matter thoroughly and they heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their recommendation was clear: the current approach has created confusion, inconsistency and, I accept, a very bad effect on police morale, particularly among firearms officers. I hope the changes we are making will bring clarity to the system. I reassure the House that it will still be the case that any force used must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, after her comments—it may not—and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

Finally in this group, I will speak briefly to government Amendments 395 and 397. These are technical amendments to ensure that specialist police force barred and advisory lists are consistently applied across police forces. The provisions in Clauses 173 to 181 and Schedule 21 are part of a broader effort to raise standards and conduct within law enforcement. They also include the closure of a legislative loophole. These technical amendments have been tabled to ensure that we have alignment in the treatment of civilian employees within the police service.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I hope not just that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but that on reflection he is able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and therefore not push his amendment to a vote. But, as ever, that is entirely a matter for him.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his valid points and for injecting his valuable experience into this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that it is wrong to draw a comparison between policing and the medical profession. Policing is uniquely different.

This has been a thoughtful discussion about how we maintain robust police accountability while ensuring fairness to the officers who serve the public. The case of Martyn Blake has brought this issue into the public consciousness. Whatever view one takes of the circumstances of that tragic incident, the fact remains that the case was heard in open court before a jury and the officer was acquitted, yet the prospect of further investigation has remained. For many officers watching that case unfold, the concern is not about accountability; it is about whether there is ever a point at which a matter can truly be regarded as concluded.

As my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington pointed out, there is much current discussion about police morale and those young-in-service officers leaving the police service. The proposal in my amendment is fair to officers. It is clear for the system and maintains the integrity of the oversight framework. It is highly unfortunate and extremely disappointing that the Minister has not been able to at least meet me half way and make the commitment that I sought. On that basis, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. It is a measured proposal that would simply require a police and crime commissioner, before suspending a chief constable, to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so and to consult His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.

Chief constables occupy one of the most demanding leadership roles in public life. They are responsible for operational policing, for thousands of officers and staff, and for maintaining public confidence in the rule of law. Therefore, decisions to suspend them are of the utmost seriousness, not only for the individual concerned but for the stability and effectiveness of the force they lead.

Recent events remind us why clarity in these processes matters. The policing of the Maccabi Tel Aviv fixture generated significant public and political debate about policing decisions and leadership accountability. In that context, the actions and judgments of the then chief constable of West Midlands Police, Craig Guildford, have been the subject of rightful scrutiny and commentary. There is potential concern about the necessity for the amendment, but I look forward to what the Minister has to offer on it.

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. I say at the outset that she has a point: the process by which police and crime commissioners may suspend a chief constable should be looked at.

The noble Baroness has suggested that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services should be involved in this process. As I discussed in Committee, the inspectorate already has such a role for the enforcement of resignations or retirements of chief constables under the Police Regulations 2003. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that the Government agree with the suggestion she has made; I do not wish to surprise the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Amazed is the word.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope she can recover from that shock. I ask her to look at paragraph 134 of the White Paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing, which we published on 26 January. It says:

“We will reform the process for the appointment, suspension and dismissal of Chief Constables to introduce greater fairness, transparency and balance into the process. This will include introducing a requirement for Mayors and Policing and Crime Boards to seek views from His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary before taking any action to suspend the Chief Constable”.


I confirm that we intend to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We want to do that as part of the wider police reform package, so that it is not a piecemeal approach. There will be a wider police reform follow-through on the White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. It is a very ambitious programme. I want to make sure that we do not just deal with it in isolation. That reassurance is on the record, and on that basis I hope the noble Baroness will not push her amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, tells me that it is a victory. I thank the Minister for that confirmation, and I am very pleased that it is not just when some chief constables are going to be sacked; it is actually at the stage I asked for in my speech. That is the key point. If they can be suspended and that does not require consultation with anyone, the fact is that practically all of them have just taken the view that they do not want a big public outing, so they have just resigned anyway. That is what I am trying to stop. The Minister has said that he is going to do exactly what I have asked for. Can someone write that down? I am delighted, and I therefore withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

395: Clause 179, page 231, line 37, at end insert—
““law enforcement employer” has the meaning given by section 174(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of “law enforcement employer” in clause 174 to all of clauses 173 to 178.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

396: Schedule 21, page 467, line 28, leave out “or Condition 2”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement to add civilian employees to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and British Transport Police advisory lists, where allegations are made against them after they resign or retire. This reflects the position for civilian employees of territorial police forces under section 88I of the Police Act 1996.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, introduced Amendment 402, which proposes that the police should be exempt from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, to ensure that they are

“solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions”.

I still have some difficulty in following the arguments for this amendment; I also raised this in Committee. I wonder whether the noble Lord seriously believes that applying the PSED takes away from the police carrying out their duties effectively. In speaking earlier to Amendment 400, my noble friend Lady Doocey mentioned the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and the importance of standards, training and inspection: the perfect circle that ensures police forces are working effectively. The PSED is absolutely at the heart of that.

A number of high profile cases have absolutely strengthened the need for the PSED. Indeed, it has been failings in policing that shocked the country, and every report on those incidents has talked about appalling attitudes to vulnerable people. On Monday evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, spoke about the murder of her son Stephen, and how that racist murder might have been stopped if the police had done their job earlier, when the harassment was escalating. Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson report of 1999 was a means of changing the culture in public institutions, not just the police, to ensure that they had due regard to race equality decisions. This was later extended to disability and gender issues.

It was clear in Macpherson’s report then that the police were “institutionally racist” and had a lack of curiosity, in the Lawrence case, about the anti-social behaviour of young white gangs and what they were doing to local Black young people. The whole design of the PSED was to ensure that the police could do their job properly, without fear or favour, and support vulnerable communities. There are many excellent, moral and dedicated police officers who fulfil this every working day. Sadly, it has not always been consistent.

When sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman were murdered in a park in June 2020, the public were appalled by the behaviour of the police. Photographs of the dead girls were taken and shared by police officers: this was racism and misogyny. In that case, more work was needed to change the culture of the Met. When Sarah Everard was murdered in March 2021 by a serving police officer, the country was shocked. The background story about misogyny in the force was equally shocking, as was the fact that, at work, the dreadful behaviour of the murderer had been tolerated and not dealt with. I raise these cases because each of the reports on these incidents keeps returning to the culture that engenders racism and misogyny in certain places in the police.

I have absolutely no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, that there is an enormous amount of work going on to change that culture, and in many forces it is working well. But without the PSED there would be no priority to have due regard to race, gender and disability. There would be no yardstick for the police inspectorate to look at and address culture. There would be no clear duty to ensure that staff are trained. Worst of all, it would be all too easy to slip back into the old ways. I am sure that the Conservative Front Bench would not want that to happen. The PSED is an important tool in the armoury of the police to keep us all safe, including those who are both vulnerable and at high risk. Please do not support Amendment 402.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are here again. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to understand why I am not going to change my position. There is a view that, for all the reasons that have been given, equality is extremely important for a public sector body. I did not disagree with a single word that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, and I stand here to say that the public sector equality duty is one that this Government fully support.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is not going to press this amendment to a Division this evening. If he did, I would ask my noble friends to vote against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the police are the public, and they have the confidence of the public. The Peelian principles, on which the police were established all those years ago, are about the police reflecting the public, understanding the public and taking the public into account. The public are made up of people who have disabilities, people who are gay, lesbian and trans, and women who face particular challenges. The public are people who have protected characteristics. We need to understand that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important issue of mental health and well-being for those serving in police forces. Amendment 408, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey, and Amendment 409, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seek to improve the collection and publication of data relating to suicide and attempted suicide among police officers and police staff.

The intention behind them is clear. If we are serious about supporting the well-being of those who serve in policing, we must first ensure that we properly understand the scale and nature of the challenges that they face. Policing is a profession that places extraordinary demands on those who undertake it. Officers and staff routinely encounter traumatic incidents and cumulative stress that comes from protecting the public in difficult circumstances, and I can personally vouch for that. While the vast majority serve with resilience and dedication, it is clear that these pressures can have a profound effect on mental health.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Bailey spoke movingly about the importance of ensuring that the police covenant is underpinned by robust evidence. Without reliable national data, it is difficult to identify patterns, understand risk factors or evaluate whether the support structures currently in place are working as intended. The same point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who emphasised that better data is essential if we are to design effective prevention strategies.

There is already recognition across policing on the need to strengthen the evidence base in this area, and work is under way through national policing bodies to improve the collection of welfare data. However, the amendments before the House highlight the importance of ensuring that this work is transparent and capable of informing meaningful action. Ultimately, the police covenant reflects our collective commitment to those who protect the public. Ensuring that we understand and address the mental health risks faced by officers and staff is central to that commitment.

For those reasons, this group of amendments raises issues to which the Government should give careful consideration. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling the amendments in this group. I am conscious of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, supported the amendment’s general direction of travel.

First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that suicide and attempted suicide in the police workforce have devastating consequences. I and the Government recognise fully the need to address mental health and well-being in policing seriously and responsibly. As the noble Lord will know, the National Police Wellbeing Service already does vital work in tackling suicide risks to the police workforce, including work on prevention, postvention support for forces, a 24/7 mental health crisis line for anyone working in policing, and specialist trauma services.

I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has framed his amendment and brought it forward. However, I say to him respectfully that placing an additional statutory reporting duty in primary legislation is not, I feel, the right approach at this time. I say this for three broad reasons. First, much of the information sought by the amendments, particularly in relation to attempted suicide, is often clinical, confidential, medical data. In many cases, it cannot be lawfully or ethically shared with employers, so mandating this through primary legislation would be the wrong approach and would risk unintended consequences around confidentiality, trust and data integrity. In my view, that is a significant blockage in the amendment to date.

Secondly, I reassure the noble Lord that the absence of legislation does not mean the absence of action. This is a really important point. Police forces already collect data on deaths by suicide, and there is national co-ordination of that data. The challenge is not in getting forces to comply; it is in what we ask for from forces, how it is defined and, most importantly, how it is used to drive meaningful prevention. Again, I look forward to the future and looking at a revised national police service downstream, following the White Paper, where training, well-being and personnel functions are brought into the centre and where there is a smaller number of police forces on the ground. There will be a real focus on this, and I know it is important to do that.

Thirdly, I do not want to be locked into a rigid framework before necessary clinical, operational and ethical questions have been resolved. This is not simply a matter of reporting; it also requires high-quality support. In particular, as I think the noble Lord will accept, it demands a culture that understands that mental health challenges are there in police forces. Police officers see some horrendous things on the ground. They have really hard experiences and are very often traumatised. It is important that we embed in the culture of the police force how we respond to those issues. It is not simply about collecting statistics. I know that that is the noble Lord’s prime motivation but, ultimately, it should be about having an automatic, embedded culture that recognises the stresses and strains, helps identify them and puts in place measures to help people with their mental health.

That is why the Government are focusing their efforts on strengthening well-being support, trauma care and early intervention in the police White Paper, and also why my colleague, the Minister directly responsible for policing and crime, has engaged with police leaders, staff associations and experts to look at how we can improve the quality of the data and, more importantly, the quality of preventive action. As it happens, I had a useful discussion with the Police Federation at my party conference in Liverpool in October last year. We understand that there is a real issue to help support, but I do not believe that the amendments before the House on Report today would be the right solution at this stage.

With this recognition of the problem and a grateful Minister who says to the noble Lord, “Thank you for bringing this issue forward”, I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response and for the nature of his response. I truly believe that the Government are beginning to focus on this long-lasting issue. My slight pushback and challenge are around the embedding of a culture. The organisation is so big and so diverse in its approach to this problem. Many forces do not collect the figures and certainly could not provide them when asked by the Police Federation. We need to ask them officially because, as was said, we need to embed that culture. By asking for those figures, we build a mechanism that embeds that culture.

However, in view of the Minister’s very generous approach to this subject, and my belief that the Government truly are beginning to focus on this, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for bringing forward Amendments 409A and 409B, which raise the question of devolving policing and youth justice to Wales. As discussed in Committee, these amendments engage an important constitutional issue about the structure of the devolution settlement. It was argued that devolving these responsibilities could allow them to sit alongside other public services already devolved to the Welsh Government, such as education and health.

However, as was also noted, these matters currently form part of a single legal jurisdiction covering England and Wales. Policing and youth justice operate within that shared framework which supports co-operation between forces and national capability across the system. Changes of the scale proposed here would represent a significant constitutional shift. A matter of such importance cannot properly be considered through two amendments to an ever-growing policing Bill. Indeed, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd: he is absolutely right that this certainly requires more time. It would require a broader, more fundamental discussion about the future structure of the devolution settlement which, in respect of policing, we on this side, I am afraid, would resist. I look forward to the noble Lord’s remarks.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for returning to the issue on Report. We find ourselves in a very strange situation today where the noble Baroness who moved the amendment resides in Wales, the shadow Minister was a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales, and the Government Minister is a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales. We are having a bit of a Welsh fest today where every Member who spoke also resides in Wales. I apologise to my noble friends for keeping them here on this Welsh discussion. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I regret it being this late in the evening. It is slightly out of my control because of the way in which the debates have fallen.

As has been seen in the debate, there are a number of different views and within Wales there are a number of different views on this matter. The Government are still of the view, and the position remains clear, that policing operates effectively within a single integrated England and Wales criminal justice system, and it is really important that we examine that.

As my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Jones of Penybont mentioned, there is a lot going on in the policing world at the moment, not just in Wales but in England. There will be legislation to abolish police and crime commissioners and an examination of the model for their replacement. As has been said, that model will include the mayoral model in England but also a local authority model. We have given a very strong commitment that the structures in Wales will be a matter for discussion in the review that is being undertaken, pending the legislation that will come before this House, when parliamentary time allows, to abolish police and crime commissioners.

A review of the number of police forces, currently 43, will be undertaken in the next few months and completed in the summer. There will be significant engagement with the Senedd, Welsh police forces, current police and crime commissioners, Welsh Members of Parliament and anyone else who wishes to have a view on what the format should be in relation to any revised structure in Wales. Self-evidently, there are a number of options: the existing four police forces; a smaller number of police forces; a single police force; and the different types of governance structure that could be put in place. That will be part of the discussion that is undertaken.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I am following what the Minister is saying with great interest because it responds to the numerous points that have been made about the reorganisation that is needed to make sure there is no vacuum. The point I would press is that we have an election for the Senedd coming up in May. Trying to get a coherent discussion, debate and conclusion at this point becomes extremely awkward. It would be good if it could be started immediately, before we find ourselves in the middle of an election, with the intention of bringing everybody on board very rapidly afterwards. The Minister will understand the challenges.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I fully do. The review that is being undertaken of force sizes throughout the whole of England and Wales will commence very shortly. The terms of reference, if they are not public already, will be very shortly. The input of the Senedd, the political parties, the current Administration and, potentially, an Opposition Administration in the Senedd is absolutely valid for that discussion. At the end of that period, we want to try to have an understanding of the preferred models through negotiation and discussion on issues such as force size and governance. That is really important because there has to be legislation at some point to abolish police and crime commissioners. In doing that, there will be opportunities to discuss force size and governance accordingly.

I would like to take up the suggestion of a meeting made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am very happy to meet any colleagues who have spoken today. It may be more appropriate that we do that either with the review team for force size and current structures or directly with the Police Minister, but I will reflect on that request and get back to the noble and learned Lord at a sensible hour to determine how we undertake that.

I understand the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys—another resident of Wales speaking, in effect, from the Front Bench, in this case on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I have set down the principle: the Government do not believe that this reorganisation is about devolution. We have different views on that, but that is the principle of where we are. There are issues still to look at, such as force size and governance, that are for discussion to get the best deal for Wales and avoid, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, causing any interregnum in service. I plan to meet some new police officers in Wales shortly, and I will be engaged as someone who has an interest in the matter for this House.

The system currently provides operational resilience, shared capability and strong cross-border co-operation. We do not believe that fragmenting it would improve outcomes for victims or communities. That is the Government’s position. There is an honest disagreement here, but there are still issues that need to be resolved.

On the issue of youth justice, which was mentioned in the debate, it is true that the Ministry of Justice is working constructively with the Welsh Government on delivery and oversight arrangements. The manifesto committed to considering the devolution of youth justice and that work is under way. Consideration does not equate to immediate legislative change, which is why I cannot accept it in the Bill today. No decision has been taken to devolve youth justice through this Bill, but that work is under way. It is a complex issue, and we want to get the best outcomes, but that is the position. I hope the noble Baroness can accept that in the context that I put to her today.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

In looking ahead to a future legislative vehicle for progressing the devolution of youth justice, does the Minister have a specific timeline in mind and what stage of the programme have the Government got to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness a timeline or a commentary on that discussion, but what I can say, as I have said already, is that work is under way. This Government were elected for a five-year Parliament and work is under way—that is what I can say today. She will undoubtedly test us again, as there will be opportunities for questions and debates, and there will be legislative scrutiny whenever any legislation is brought forward on the question of police and crime commissioners. However, today, with the principled position the Government have taken, I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments on devolution or on youth justice. As I have said to her and other interested Members, a process is under way on the question of the structures and governance in Wales, which anybody can contribute to in the next few months. The work under way on the justice issue is being dealt with by my colleagues in the MoJ and by the Senedd.

Whatever happens in the election, there will be a Welsh Government of some form, though I do not know what that will be. We are discussing this with the Welsh Government now and we will discuss this with the Welsh Government afterwards. As the Minister responsible for devolution in the Home Office, I have regular meetings with counterpart Ministers in Wales on those issues, as do my policing colleagues. I hope that, with those reassurances at this late hour, the amendment can be withdrawn.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. What is most important from what we have gathered this evening is to ensure that, whatever arrangement is decided going forward, it is decided not just in England for how it can benefit and work for police forces in England but that there is particular engagement in Wales.

The Minister mentioned engagement with the Senedd and police forces in Wales, but making sure that it is genuine engagement, and that they can design what the system looks like for the benefit of Wales and not have just another version of what will happen in England, is important. I think that all of us who took part in this debate would welcome further discussion to find out more about the next steps. I am sure we will have further discussions about this, but today I will withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments returns us to an issue debated at some length in Committee: the use of live facial recognition technology in policing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling these amendments on this important topic.

As set out in Committee, we on these Benches cannot support proposals that would severely restrict or pre-empt the operational use of live facial recognition by law enforcement. Live facial recognition is an increasingly important tool in modern policing. Used lawfully and proportionately, it has already demonstrated its value in identifying serious offenders, locating wanted individuals and preventing violent crime before it occurs. It has been deployed particularly effectively in high-risk environments such as transport hubs and major public events, where rapid identification can make a decisive difference in protecting the public.

That does not mean that safeguards are unnecessary. There must always be a careful balance between the protection of civil liberties and the need to equip police with effective tools to tackle serious crime. The use of new technologies must be proportionate and subject to appropriate oversight, but the amendments before us would go significantly further than that. In different ways, they would either prohibit particular uses of the technology, place rigid statutory barriers in its way or create restrictions that would unnecessarily impede the ability of the police to deploy it where it may be most needed. Amendment 374 would prohibit the deployment of live facial recognition in the context of public assemblies or impose extensive prior authorisation requirements. It risks tying the hands of the police at precisely the moments when rapid and flexible operational decision-making may be required.

We must recognise the points raised in Committee that the Government are currently consulting on the future regulatory framework for live facial recognition. To attempt to settle these questions piecemeal through amendments to this Bill would risk creating an incomplete or inconsistent framework. While the concerns raised by noble Lords are legitimate and deserve careful consideration, we should not default to restricting a technology that has already shown its potential to disrupt serious criminality and protect the public. The challenge is not to prohibit its use but to ensure that it is deployed responsibly, lawfully and proportionately. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments in this group. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling these amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for supporting some of the arguments that I will make in response to them. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Strasburger and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, have all put their finger on their concerns around the use of this technology.

I will begin by providing a view of what live facial recognition does. It allows for real-time location of individuals of interest to the police. It scans the faces of those passing a camera in real time, comparing faces against a predetermined, specific watch-list of, potentially, wanted criminals, vulnerable missing persons or individuals posing risks to public safety. If no match is made—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, made—currently, the scanned face is deleted instantly. Every deployment and every specific bespoke watch-list for that deployment must have a defined policing objective, be supported by clear intelligence and ultimately be determined by humans.

Noble Lords will be aware that the use of facial recognition technology in all circumstances, including in live facial recognition, is already subject to safeguards, including those provided in the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. I agree that there needs to be a framework, which is the nub of what I think all noble Lords have said in this debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, will know that the Government had a 10-week consultation for that very purpose—to look at the issues of a legal framework where law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies could be used. The consultation ended on 12 February. I give the House an assurance that the Government intend to respond to it by the summer; we have more or less a 12-week deadline from the end of its closing, but it will be by the summer. The consultation is clear that the Government need to design a new framework and assess how the police use technologies such as facial recognition. It needs to ensure that there are safeguards, as noble Lords have mentioned, around the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, that we protect these rights and that facial recognition technology is demonstrably proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed.

We are currently considering the consultation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said, that should take its course. However, we intend to set out our proposals in due course, which will be subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. I hope noble Lords accept that it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation or the proposals that Government will bring forward, which we will ensure have new legal framework for the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies.

While I think that the points made by noble Lords have real merit, I hope that, with the comments I have made and the reassurances I have given, we will save the difficult debate about regulation, how it operates and what the proposals mean for a proper legal framework for another day, which will come very soon. I hope the noble Baroness will—

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, could he give the House some indication of when the day will come when we have a debate on some meaningful proposals? Could he also tell the House whether those proposals will cover the use of this technology by the private sector—which is happening a lot already in retail—as well as the public sector?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I have tried to indicate to the noble Lord, we have had a consultation that finished on 12 February, and we intend to respond to it by the summer. Currently, what that response will be is to be formulated, so I will not give him chapter and verse on when and how. However, if legislation is required, we will look at that at the earliest opportunity, as we always do.

I cannot pre-empt the King’s Speech and I cannot give a timetable on that, but I will give a timetable when we respond to the consultation. We should remember that the Government initiated the consultation—we were not forced into it—to get to a position whereby the very issues that noble Lords have mentioned today are considered. With those comments, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken. I have no doubt at all that everything the Minister said, he actually believes. But it reminds me of when I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority for the first time and I went round all the police stations in London—I think there were 32 at the time, with 32 borough commanders. The first thing I noticed was that, at the time, if you took samples, they had to be stored in a fridge for X number of days at a particular temperature and then they had to be destroyed within another number of days. In almost 60% of the stations I visited, none of this had happened.

So I understand what the Minister is saying: that unnecessary facial recognition photographs will be destroyed instantly. But I would feel much happier if there was some process for ensuring that that is being done and a way of checking that. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a debate on what guardrails are needed—because they are desperately needed—but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

375: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause—
“Return to unauthorised encampments: prohibited period(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.(2) In section 60C(3) (offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle) for “12” substitute “three”.(3) In section 61 (power to remove trespassers on land)—(a) in subsection (4)(b) for “prohibited period” substitute “period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given”;(b) omit subsection (4ZA).(4) In section 62 (supplementary powers of seizure)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “prohibited period” substitute “period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given”;(b) omit subsection (1A).(5) In section 62B(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: offences) for “twelve” substitute “three”.(6) In section 62C(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: seizure) for “twelve” substitute “three”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause changes the period within which a person directed to leave an unauthorised encampment must not return from twelve months to three.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 375 in my name I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for the discussions we had both in Committee and outside it, which resulted in the amendment being brought forward today on Report.

Amendment 375 addresses the no-return period for individuals directed to leave an unauthorised encampment. This new clause restores the previous three-month period, replacing the 12-month prohibitions introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that communities feel safe, public spaces are protected and unauthorised encampments do not cause disproportionate disruption or distress. At the same time, we must ensure that enforcement powers are applied fairly and in a way that respects the rights of all individuals, including those in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her campaigning on this issue, and for meeting with me and representatives from the all-party group for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities earlier this year.

As she knows, and as I hope the House will be aware, in May 2024, the High Court found that setting and extending the no-return period to 12 months was incompatible with ECHR rights. This was because of the limited availability of authorised transit sites, meaning that individuals could be placed at risk of criminal sanction even when no lawful alternative was available. In light of this ruling, on their election in 2024 the new Government examined this, and it is right that we use this Bill to remedy that incompatibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I accept that, to a certain degree.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me clear up something straight away. There is not going to be a meeting of minds between me and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the abolition of the ECHR. I will leave it at that. There is no common ground between us. Yes, we are generally looking at some reforms, but there is no common ground on abolishing the lot, which is what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. There is blue/red/orange water between us on this; I will leave it at that.

On the question raised, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. We have moved in light of the judgments that were made, and we have instated the three-month period in this legislation. That is the right thing to do in relation to the legislation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, accepted that, while having a wider target. At the moment, I will take his acceptance of that as support. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support, and I am grateful for the constant chivvying of my noble friend Lady Whitaker on this issue.

In my opening remarks, in anticipation of what would be said, I said that the Government agree that planning appropriately for the housing and accommodation needs of our diverse communities is essential in supporting sustainable and inclusive growth. It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, just reminded the House, that the responsibility to set pitch and plot targets for Traveller sites lies with local authorities, and absolutely right that they must identify specific deliverable sites sufficient for five years against targets. As I said in my opening remarks, a revised National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites were published at the end of December 2024, following extensive consultation.

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on a new national planning framework. That consultation runs until 10 March. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker mentioned the need to look at more sites. That is actively being looked at. Despite the wide reservations of the noble Lord, but with the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches and my colleague Lady Whitaker, I hope that my amendments can be accepted by the House tonight.

Amendment 375 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

376: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause—
“Harassment of a person in their home(1) The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 is amended as follows.(2) In section 42 (police directions stopping harassment etc of a person in their home), in subsection (1)(b)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);(b) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—“(iii) that they should not have done something they were entitled or required to do; or(iv) that they should have done something they were not under any obligation to do;”.(3) In section 42A (offence of harassment etc of a person in their home), in subsection (1)(b)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);(b) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—“(iii) that they should not have done something they were entitled or required to do; or(iv) that they should have done something they were not under any obligation to do;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands sections 42 and 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (protests outside homes) to cover protests about something done in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

378: Clause 154, page 200, line 19, leave out from beginning to “for” and insert—
“(1) The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 is amended as follows.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 154, page 205, line 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 380 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Strasburger. I am grateful to them for raising an issue that deserves careful consideration. The amendment would prevent authorised persons using information held on the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency database for biometric searches using facial recognition technology. It is right to ensure that Parliament scrutinises these emerging powers thoroughly. Public trust in policing is vital, and it is only through open debate and clear safeguards that such trust can be maintained.

The DVLA database contains photographs and personal information provided by millions of law-abiding citizens for the specific purpose of licensing drivers, and it is therefore entirely understandable that noble Lords should question whether it is appropriate for that information to be used in other contexts, particularly the context of advanced biometric searches. The principle that personal data should not be repurposed without clear justification is one that many of us across the House share.

However, while the concerns behind this amendment are sincere and valid, I fear that it is unnecessary and ultimately misguided. It would risk undermining the ability of our police and law enforcement agencies to prevent and investigate serious crime. First, it is important to recognise the operational value that carefully regulated facial recognition tools can provide to modern policing. The technology, when used responsibly, can assist officers in identifying suspects in serious crime, locating dangerous offenders and protecting the public in situations where time is of the essence. It can be particularly valuable when investigating crimes involving unidentified individuals captured on CCTV or other images.

The police already rely on a range of databases and identification tools to perform these tasks. Photographs from custody suites, passport records and other lawful sources have long assisted the police in identifying suspects and victims alike. Facial recognition technology represents in many ways a technological evolution of that long-standing investigative practice. The amendment before us would place a blanket prohibition on the use of DVLA images for biometric searches involving facial recognition. Such prohibition risks creating an artificial and potentially harmful limitation on investigative capability. If a suspect’s image appears on CCTV and the only high-quality image available for comparison is contained within a DVLA database, the amendment would prevent police even conducting that comparison. We must ask ourselves whether that is a proportionate outcome.

Secondly, it is worth emphasising that the use of facial recognition technology by police forces in the United Kingdom is not taking place in a regulatory vacuum. The deployment of such technologies is already subject to a framework of legal safeguards, oversight and guidance. Police forces must operate within the boundaries of data protection law, including the principles established under the UK general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Their activities are subject to oversight by bodies such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and, where appropriate, the courts. Moreover, the use of live facial recognition by police has already been subject to significant judicial scrutiny. The courts have made it clear that deployments must be proportionate and transparent, and accompanied by appropriate safeguards. That jurisprudence has helped shape operational guidance and policing practice in this area.

Given that context, I question whether it is wise for Parliament to impose a sweeping statutory ban in relation to one database. Doing so risks pre-empting the careful regulatory balance that is already evolving through legislation, oversight and case law. That does not mean that the concerns raised by the amendment should be dismissed—far from it. The growth of biometric technologies demands a clear and robust legislative framework. Many Members across this House have rightly called for greater clarity about how facial recognition should be governed in the future. I feel the same. Questions of transparency, accountability, accuracy and bias must continue to be examined with great care.

However, those broader questions should be addressed through a comprehensive approach to biometric governance rather than through a single amendment targeting one database in isolation. If Parliament concludes that additional statutory safeguards are required for facial recognition technology then we should consider them holistically, ensuring that any rules are consistent, proportionate and grounded in operational reality. A piecemeal prohibition risks creating unintended consequences while failing to resolve the underlying policy debate.

For those reasons, while I commend the spirit in which the amendment has been brought forward, I regret that I cannot support it. Instead, I hope that the House will continue the broader necessary conversation about how facial recognition technologies should be regulated, ensuring that we protect civil liberties and the ability of our police to keep our communities safe.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for speaking in support of it. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which echo some of the points that I will make. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed to one of the arguments that I will make: that access to the data will be subject to a statutory code of practice to ensure that its use is appropriate.

I remind noble Lords of the purpose of Clause 154: it is simply about bringing legislation up to date, which is what I said in Committee when we debated this matter. As a result of technical changes to the way police and law enforcement access driving licence data, it has become clear that we need to improve the DVLA data access regime by setting out clearly in statute—which is what Clause 154 does—which persons can access DVLA driving licence data. The legislation provides additional clarity on this issue.

The measure will enable us, through secondary legislation made under these new powers—this goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to expand the purposes for which DVLA data may be accessed automatically to include policing or law enforcement purposes. This means that the police will have another tool to cut crime and keep the public safe, in line with the commitment by chief officers to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry when investigating an offence. I emphasise that access to the data will be subject to a statutory code of practice to ensure that its use is appropriate.

We are clear that there will be strong safeguards around the use of DVLA data, which, as I have said, will be introduced via regulations made under the new provisions. We debated earlier government Amendment 382, which ensures that these regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses, in line with a recommendation from the Constitution Committee.

We want to ensure that officers undergo training prior to being able to access information. The police are already legally required to consult with local communities. Extensive audits of who has accessed DVLA driving licence data are maintained. It is already standard practice that each time the DVLA driver database is accessed by a police officer, the details of what information is accessed and for what purpose is logged. This will continue to be the case once the revised measure is implemented.

On the issue of facial recognition technology, I want to make it clear to all noble Lords who have signed this amendment, including the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that police forces do not conduct biometric facial recognition searches against images contained on the DVLA database. Officers use the DVLA database for day-to-day policing matters. Anybody who has watched a police programme on a Monday night—when they get the opportunity in the recess to do so—will have at some point seen a police officer pull over a car and look at an individual who says, “I haven’t got my licence with me”, and tell them they are Jimmy Jones of X address. The police officer then wants to check that they are Jimmy Jones of X address, and so they access the DVLA database. Nine times out of 10, on the police shows that I watch on a Monday night during recess, it is a false name, and therefore there is police action accordingly. That is the purpose for which the police currently use the database.

As I said in our earlier debate on Amendment 374, the use of facial recognition technology in all circumstances is currently subject to safeguards, such as the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. As I have said in previous discussions, any use of facial recognition technology will be subject to the outcome of the consultation that we finished on 10 February. That will be completed in about 12 weeks and, by the summer, we will have government proposals which the noble Baroness, along with both Houses of Parliament, can scrutinise, to achieve some view on whatever the Government propose following the outcome of that consultation.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that, if the amendment were agreed by the Government tonight then the police officer who stopped somebody on the street—potentially a drunk driver, an unlicensed driver or a driver with no insurance—would not be able to access the DVLA database. That goes to the very points that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made in his speech.

This is not about mass surveillance. It is about using the DVLA database in an appropriate way—logged, recorded and monitored by the police to ensure that we check that person A is actually the right person who can drive that vehicle at that particular time. It is not, with due respect to noble Lords, mass surveillance. It is proper use of police technology to ensure that the DVLA database helps catch bad actors in the act of doing bad things. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, there is no chance at all that I am going to withdraw the amendment, but I think the Minister knows that. We are not on the same page on this. How on earth can the Government justify taking information that people have given for one purpose and using it for something else? It is totally and utterly disgraceful. People have given their photographs to get a driving licence; it is wrong that they can now be repurposed to be checked by police. Just let me finish the sentence. There is nothing wrong with the Government, in their consultation, saying to people, “We want to repurpose the DVLA driving licence database because it would be really helpful to police. Would you be willing to agree to this?”, but they did not say that. They have just taken it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness think that a police officer, at 11 pm, on a street here in Westminster, should not access the DVLA database to check that the person is who they say they are? If she thinks that, she would really be blowing a hole in every Monday night television programme that I have ever watched.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I suggest that the Minister has been watching too many of these television programmes. There is a complete lack of transparency. The Information Commissioner’s Office had to learn about the use of passport databases through media reports, rather than Home Office disclosure, even though this appears to have been happening since 2019. It is just so completely and utterly wrong. If people had given their information for it be used for those purposes, it would be fair enough and no problem at all, but they did not and the Government have taken it without permission. The whole situation is absolutely appalling.

There is the potential for 50 million drivers to be put on a permanent database and to be checked every single day. Of course, the police want it; I would want it if I were the police. It will make their lives so much easier. It will make it very easy for them to check everything they need to check, but that should not be the purpose of this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

381: Clause 154, page 204, line 23, at end insert—
“(3A) The requirement in subsection (3) may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s duty to consult in preparing a code of practice under section 71B of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (inserted by clause 154) may be satisfied by pre-commencement consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

383: After Clause 154, insert the following new Clause—
“Code of practice relating to non-criminal hate incidentsIn the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, omit—(a) sections 60 and 61 (code of practice about police processing of personal data relating to hate incidents), and(b) the italic heading before section 60.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment repeals sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 383, which repeals the statutory code relating to non-crime hate incidents issued under Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Consideration of the review undertaken by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has shown that to be the appropriate policy to take forward. The interim findings of the review commissioned, in conjunction with the College of Policing, by the former Home Secretary were published in October. They were clear that the existing system no longer operates as intended and should be replaced with a clearer, more proportionate model.

Non-crime hate incidents were originally introduced following the landmark Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Their intent—to gather information to prevent crime, support investigations and safeguard the vulnerable—remains as relevant today as it did 30 years ago, and we remain committed to safeguarding against hostility and collecting information to support an effective policing response. However, the environment in which policing operates has evolved significantly since that inquiry and over time non-crime hate incidents have expanded beyond their original intention. The growth of social media in particular and online polarisation has drawn the police into disputes that fall outside their core duties. Police officers must be able to focus on catching criminals, cutting crime and ensuring public safety, and the present statutory code has not provided the clarity needed to support that focus. It must therefore be revoked.

The College of Policing—I am pleased to see its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in his place—and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are clear that the current system is not fit for purpose. They intend to set out a more appropriate framework that ensures that recording is proportionate, clearer and firmly focused on the most serious incidents to ensure the police are not drawn into matters they should not be drawn into. It will do this by tightening the definition of an incident, raising the recording threshold, moving from recording all incidents that are a cause for concern to capturing only those that relate to core policing purposes. These reforms will be supported by robust guidance and training so that the incidents are handled appropriately. The new framework has been developed by police experts in consultation with community representatives. It will, I believe, strike the right balance between safeguarding vulnerable communities and protecting lawful freedom of expression by ensuring that recording is consistent and focused on genuine risk.

The amendment before the House today repeals the statutory framework to facilitate the introduction of a new framework. Commencement will be timed to ensure an orderly transition aligned with the introduction of the replacement framework. As I have indicated to the House previously, further detail will be set out following the publication of the college’s final report, which I expect in very short order in the coming weeks. The report is going to the National Police Chiefs’ Council for consideration next week and I expect it to be published by the College of Policing shortly afterwards.

Amendment 383 will end a system that policing experts agree no longer works. However, the original intention behind non-crime hate incidents to help prevent crime and safeguard the vulnerable remains important. Our commitment to tackling hate remains, as witnessed by the amendments we brought forward last week that were approved by this House, but the mechanism by which the police assess and record information will change, with a higher threshold for police involvement. We will continue to safeguard our communities but through a clearer, more proportionate framework that works. When that is brought forward, I will make sure that the results are published and that noble Lords, as well as Members of the House of Commons, can see the outcome of that final report once the National Police Chiefs’ Council has issued it for clearance. The amendment enables the changes that I have explained.

I will respond to Amendment 387B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, once I have heard noble Lords, but for now I beg to move the amendment.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 387B. I declare my interest as a director of the Free Speech Union.

I am grateful to the Minister for summarising the final report of the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on non-crime hate incidents, for the courtesy he has shown me and the co-sponsors of this amendment in the run-up to this debate, and for arranging for me and others to be briefed by Sir Andy Marsh and his team at the College of Policing about the recommendations in the final report, which I will get to shortly.

As I made clear to the House in Committee, I have long-standing concerns that the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents has been a huge waste of police time and had a chilling effect on free speech. According to a report for Policy Exchange published in November 2024, police in England and Wales are spending an estimated 60,000 hours a year investigating and recording NCHIs—non-crimes. That is time that could be spent solving actual crimes. Based on FoI requests submitted by the Telegraph and others, the Free Speech Union estimates that over a quarter of a million NCHIs have been recorded since they were first introduced in 2014, and that is in England and Wales alone. That is an average of more than 65 a day.

Why so many? Because if a hate incident is reported to the police by a member of the public, they have little choice but to record it as an NCHI. All that is required is that the victim, or indeed any witness, believes that the incident in question was motivated by hostility towards one or more of the victim’s protected characteristics. No additional evidence is required. Examples include a man accused of whistling the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” whenever he saw his neighbour, a woman who said on social media she thought her cat was a Methodist, and two schoolgirls who told another girl in the school playground that she smelled like fish.

It is hard not to laugh, but for the people who have had NCHIs recorded against them it is no laughing matter. If you apply for a position or a voluntary role that requires you to carry out an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, an NCHI can show up on your record. That is why I say that NCHIs have had a chilling effect on free speech. People are rightly concerned that, if they say something that another person takes offence at, it can permanently blot their copybook and may prevent them getting a job as a teacher or a carer, or volunteering at a charity like the Samaritans. There is also the broader concern that the amount of time the police are spending on investigating and recording non-crimes is undermining public confidence in the police.

That is why I welcome the recommendations that the Minister has shared with us. It sounds like we have finally seen the back of NCHIs—something that the Free Speech Union has been campaigning for for six years now. Assuming that the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Secretary of State sign off on these proposals, the kind of incidents that were recorded as NCHIs in the past will in future be recorded, as I understand it, as anti-social behaviour incidents, and only those that meet the higher threshold—that is, that recording the incident is considered necessary for the prevention or detection of a crime or for another policing purpose, and it complies with the new recording guidance.

I am particularly encouraged by what we have heard about the new guidance. We have been assured that it will have due regard to the right to freedom of expression and in that way, we hope, protect the police from being dragged into bad-tempered arguments on social media as well as petty disputes between neighbours. In future, if someone calls a control room to complain about a supposedly offensive remark they have seen on Twitter or overheard across the garden fence, the call handler can say, “I’m sorry, but that’s not a policing matter”. That is all to the good, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on producing such a sensible report. This is a welcome dose of common sense that I hope will go some way to restoring public confidence in the police.

Nevertheless, I do not intend not to press the amendment. Our amendment would not prevent the police recording incidents where doing so served a legitimate policing purpose, even in some circumstances logging those incidents on an intelligent management system. Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised concerns about that during the debate in Committee, and we have adapted our amendment accordingly.

To be clear, this amendment will not prevent the police recording incidents involving a hate element for intelligence-gathering purposes. However, I still have concerns that historic NCHIs could show up in enhanced DBS checks. That is why proposed subsection (5) in this amendment says that the police must not disclose historic NCHIs that would not meet the new higher recording thresholds. I think your Lordships would agree that data entries that would not be made under the new regime, but which are hanging around on police computers, must not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks.

I have reluctantly come to accept that asking the police to comb through their databases and delete historic NCHIs that would not meet the new recording threshold would be too resource-intensive because of the sheer number that had been recorded, and that demand no longer appears in our amendment. Nevertheless, proposed subsection (5) says that any NCHIs that police come across that would not be recorded under the new regime must be deleted. I do not think that is a big ask, and it would enable people who believe NCHIs have been recorded against their names—trivial incidents that would not be recorded under the new criteria—to ask the police to delete them.

I welcome the assurance that the new recording guidance will have due regard to the right to freedom of expression, but, in the absence of putting any of these recommendations in statute, what guarantee do we have that the College of Policing, under new leadership, or a different Home Secretary, would not dispense with that requirement? Consequently, proposed subsection (4) in the amendment says:

“Guidance in relation to incident recording must have due regard to … freedom of expression”.


That brings me to a broader point. As I understand it, the Government’s plans for taking forward these recommendations—assuming they are signed off—is to include them in guidance, but not statute. The government amendment in this group will repeal the statutory basis for the current NCHI regime, thereby clearing the ground for a new regime to spring up in its place. But that new regime will be wholly reliant on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister will do what he has said he will do with the full support of my noble friend Lord Herbert, the chair of the College of Policing, Sir Andy Marsh the CEO and the chief constables on the national council. But what about their successors? What happens if a more authoritarian Government replace the current one?

The only way to future-proof these recommendations, to guarantee that this new, more sensible arrangement is not short-lived and that NCHIs do not spring back to life, Freddy Krueger-like, in a few years’ time, is to give the new regime some statutory underpinning. Proposed subsection (1) in this amendment drives a stake through the heart of NCHIs and makes sure they cannot be resurrected in the absence of primary legislation to the contrary. No Parliament can bind its successors. Indeed, if the Home Secretary wants to take up some, but not all, of the report’s recommendations, the Government could amend this amendment at Third Reading. In the meantime, I urge them to support these sensible suggestions and put them on a statutory footing.

In my view, too many of the rules governing how public authorities behave are found in guidance when they should properly be in statute. Indeed, the current NCHI regime, which I think we are all agreed is not fit for purpose, emerged from guidance issued by the College of Policing in 2014 and was not put on a statutory footing until 2022, by which time it was too late for Parliament to wrest control over it. A bureaucratic leviathan had been created in the form of ever more voluminous guidance. Let us not make the same mistake again. Something as important as what incidents reported to the police are investigated and recorded and, in some cases, disclosed in enhanced DBS checks is properly a matter for Parliament, which is why I urge your Lordships’ House to support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches from noble Lords across the House who recognise the problems that non-crime hate incidents have caused. I am very pleased to see that there is much agreement on this matter, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, for his update, as it were. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, for her very important intervention.

Like many of my noble friends and many noble Lords around the House, I fully support Amendment 387B tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Acton and the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger and Lord Hogan-Howe. The amendment would bring about the abolition of the category of so-called non-crime hate incidents. If this were to become the law of the land, NCHIs would be permanently dead. Their recording and retention would end, and we could finally put this well-intentioned but ultimately damaging experiment to bed.

We have had many debates during the passage of the Bill about the various tenets of hate crime laws and aggravating factors based on hostility. Indeed, only last Wednesday, the Government were successful in expanding their enormous web of legislation even further, despite our best efforts to stop them. We have lost that battle for now, but I reiterate my opposition to those provisions. While related to the debate we had last Wednesday, the matter before us now is rather different. Non-crime hate incidents are not hate crimes; they are something quite different. They represent the recording by police of incidents that are not crimes at all.

The House will have heard the background to NCHIs from other noble Lords, so I will not repeat that, but their establishment in 2014 via guidance issued by the College of Policing was motivated by sincere intentions. They were supposed to assist police in identifying patterns of hostility in communities that might escalate into criminal behaviour, and that objective was understandable, but in practice, the policy has drifted far beyond that limited purpose. We now find ourselves in a position where individuals can have a police record created about them for conduct that is entirely lawful, simply because another person perceives it to have been motivated by hostility. That is a very serious matter indeed.

The threshold for the recording of these incidents is ridiculously low. A person needs only to be concerned by another’s conduct in order for them to report such conduct to the police for recording as an NCHI.

The matter has quite rightly received serious scrutiny in recent years, and I particularly want to reference the independent review conducted by the College of Policing and led by my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs into the use of non-crime hate incidents. The review acknowledged a number of very significant concerns, and it recognised that the recording of such incidents had in some cases created a chilling effect on free expression. It also identified problems with the threshold for recording and the potential for disproportionate interference in the lives of individuals who had committed no crime.

The review led to revised guidance from the College of Policing intended to raise the threshold for recording NCHIs and better protect freedom of expression. I welcome that effort. It was a step in the right direction.

The review also demonstrated something more fundamental—that the concept itself is deeply problematic. We have seen, over the years, a number of examples where the recording of non-crime hate incidents has been plainly vexatious, trivial or disproportionate. In one widely reported case, a former police officer found himself the subject of a non-crime hate incident after engaging in a debate on social media about gender identity. There are several examples that have been given in the debate, so I shall not provide further evidence. There have been cases where individuals have had police records created simply for sharing satirical material online, expressing controversial opinions or engaging in perfectly lawful political debate. We should pause and consider what this means in practice.

In some circumstances, such records may be disclosed during enhanced background checks conducted by the Disclosure and Barring Service. That means that an allegation about a non-criminal matter could potentially affect a person’s employment prospects, particularly in professions involving children or vulnerable adults. There have been documented cases where individuals have feared precisely that outcome.

I also recall the remarks of Ministers during our Committee debates, in which the Government acknowledged the importance of protecting free speech in this area, and the Home Office has repeatedly recognised the need to strike the right balance. Indeed, the Home Secretary herself has spoken publicly about the importance of ensuring that policing does not stray into the regulation of lawful expression. She has emphasised that police officers must focus on real crime and genuine threats to public safety. I agree with those sentiments, but I suggest that the time has come to move beyond incremental reform. The fundamental difficulty is that the concept of a non-crime hate incident places the police in the position of adjudicating perceived hostility in circumstances where no law has been broken. That is an uncomfortable and inappropriate role for the police service.

I put on record my thanks to the Minister for making the time to meet us and to the College of Policing for the briefing it gave on its plans for the future recording of such incidents. It was helpful of the Minister to set out some of that when we opened.

As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton said, the proposals by the college are certainly welcome. It has been clear that NCHIs will not exist any more and that any incident where hostility is a motivating factor will now be recorded as an ASB incident. Critically, these will not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. The college has also said that it will be providing updated guidance and training to clarify the higher standards of proof required for the recording of such incidents, and a new triaging method.

This is all welcome, but that does not mean that all is perfect. I still have some concerns and will briefly outline them. My first concern is that, if the abolition of NCHIs is not embedded in statute, there is the possibility of them being brought back to life in the future. All it would take is a change in Home Secretary, or a new Prime Minister, who could reintroduce them by the back door. If all we have is guidance, there is no legal safeguard to prevent them returning. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that they are gone for good and will never be resurrected from the dead.

Secondly, it must be explicitly acknowledged that any guidance produced by the College of Policing about the future recording of incidents will have freedom of expression at its heart. If this had been the case when the NCHI regime was created, we might not have seen as many unintended consequences. It is a fairly basic requirement, which is why I am pleased that my noble friend has included that in his amendment.

Thirdly, the issue of historic NCHI recordings needs to be addressed. Given that the Government have now agreed to abolish them, it does not seem right that thousands will still exist and may very well be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. That is a matter of fairness. Individuals should not carry the burden of a police record relating to conduct that was never a crime in the first place. That has now been acknowledged as a mistake.

However, like my noble friend, I appreciate the point made by the College of Policing: that to require their deletion within a few months, as the original amendment sought, would be a highly labour-intensive process. If our purpose is to prevent the police wasting time and allow them to do their job, requiring them to sit down and trawl through every single file does not make sense. However, where NCHI recordings are discovered, they should be deleted and they most certainly should not be disclosed. It is sensible to have the guarantee in statute.

The college and the Government have made commendable progress and I reiterate that I am genuinely pleased at the direction of travel. However, we still need some guardrails. That is why we on these Benches believe that there must be a provision in legislation to ensure that NCHIs are gone, that they do not return and that the new regime is more transparent, reasonable and respectful of freedom of expression. For that reason, I very much support Amendment 378B and, if my noble friend does press it to a Division, we will follow him into the Content Lobby.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the discussion and, in winding up this debate, I put on record my thanks to Sir Andy Marsh of the College of Policing for the work he has done on this exercise of examining non-crime hate incidents. I remind the House that we are here today with the amendments I have tabled and with the outline that I have given from the College of Policing response, which the chair of the College of Policing has also endorsed. We are here today because the then Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, commissioned that review and asked for a report to be produced. That is why we are here today: we have taken action.

I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talking about his experiences. That was not the responsibility of this Government. We are trying to change that regime. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that we are trying to change that regime. I say to all noble Lords who spoke that we are trying to change that regime. However, I say to my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon that, in doing so, we want to ensure that we keep the essence of what that regime was established for: to identify precisely the issues that she mentioned in her very powerful contribution. The intent—to gather information, to prevent crime, to understand tensions, to look at potential areas where tensions could arise, to support investigations and to safeguard the vulnerable—remains as relevant today as it did 30 years ago.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord Lebedev, Lord Fuller, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who have spoken on this issue, that we understand the issue. However, I hope that we are making some movement to address the concerns, at the same time as keeping the essence of why those non-crime hate incidents needed to be recorded in the first place, and to have the revisions that the College of Policing have brought forward. Once they are endorsed, we will look at how we put those into practice in due course. I hope that will help both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am struggling to understand what the rationale would be for disclosing in an enhanced DBS check an NCHI which, under the new recording thresholds, would not have been recorded. The Minister elided the issue by suggesting that the police—a chief constable—might think in future it would be sensible to disclose relevant information if someone is applying to work with children or vulnerable adults. But if the police would not have recorded that historic NCHI under the new higher recording threshold—because it would not be considered to have any police or intelligence value, or value in the detection or prevention of a crime—what justification could there be for disclosing it in an enhanced DBS check? If there is not one, what will it cost the Government to put it in statute that it cannot happen?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is asking for the deletion of historic records. That is the important point I am trying to make. If the chief officer determines that that non-conviction information should be disclosed—I go back to the 4,920 disclosures out of 4.1 million, including all matters for an enhanced DBS check—then it is important that we do not fetter the chief officer’s hands and apply a prohibition to disclose information which may be relevant to individuals. That may be a difference between us and, as the noble Lord, Lord David of Gower, said, we may well test that in a Division when the time comes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made the absolutely right point that we need to ensure that we do not repeal Sections 60 and 61 until a replacement framework is in place. We will try to do that. As I said at the start of the debate and in the comments I have just made, it is essential that police and others continue to have the ability to monitor hate and hostility to prevent crime and safeguard the vulnerable. That is also the assurance I give to my noble friend Lady Lawrence.

In summary, the Government’s amendment is designed to repeal the statutory guidance, restore focus and reduce administrative burdens. We have made those changes because of the type of incidents noble Lords referred to. Amendment 387B would risk creating precisely the opposite effect and, for those reasons, the Government cannot support it. I invite the noble Lord not to move his amendment when the time comes, but, in the meantime—tonight—I commend Amendment 383 because, having considered and reviewed the matter, it is the right thing to do. In establishing the new regime, we will make sure that we keep the essence of the important matters from the former regime.

Amendment 383 agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

A lot has been discussed this evening, and I will try to respond to the amendments as best I can. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has moved his amendment. I had a chance to talk to him earlier online; he has arrived on time, and I am pleased he is here to move it. He has had support from across the House, including from the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Pannick and, in part, Lord Davies, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, and I thank him for his amendment. Other noble Lords and Baronesses have spoken in favour of the legislation, and I note the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Verma, and, in the context of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I will come to the separate amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, in due course.

The nub of the argument is that Amendment 371A shows that there is an impact of sustained criminal activity, including serious incidents involving damage to property, intimidation and risks to public safety, and it should be dealt with as an interim measure between proscription and criminal damage legislation as a whole. I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in a recent letter that the Public Order Act 1986 grants police powers to manage protests by imposing conditions, and looks at those it is necessary to place on protests, including location, route and date. I also pointed out to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, whom I also met today, that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is currently undertaking an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which will cover whether existing legislation is effective and proportionate. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, acknowledged that the review, which will report later in the spring, will discuss and give some potential framework to the existing legislation. Also, the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, the action we have taken on Palestine Action under the 2000 Act, the work of Prevent and the protest legislation in the Bill are all measures that deal with similar issues to those the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has brought forward.

To come to the nub of the problem, which I hope noble Lords will accept, I understand that there are a range of views on the amendment, and I may find myself in a minority on this if it goes to a Division, which I hope it will not. When I look at the amendment itself, if there was such a tool as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, below the threshold in the Terrorism Act 2000, it would not have stopped the Government proscribing Palestine Action under the 2000 Act. The assessment was made that Palestine Action passed the statutory test for proscription at that time. As noble Lords will be aware, although there is a Court of Appeal hearing on Palestine Action, the High Court agreed in its first consideration that Palestine Action had organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism. A case is pending that will be reviewed and the Government will have to respond to it in due course.

However, I would argue that, at present, we have the tools in existing public order and related legislation to tackle the type of criminality that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, mentioned. We are significantly upscaling our efforts on counterextremism as a whole. Groups that meet the Terrorism Act threshold, and individuals acting on their behalf or in support of them, will be dealt with under existing proscription powers. Where groups do not meet the threshold for proscription, we will continue to assess the activities of organisations against our legal frameworks and existing legislation. If there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate action will be taken. I have mentioned already things such as Prevent, the protest legislation and other measures. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will review those matters in due course.

To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, that the Government have brought forward legislation, we have commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to undertake a review, but the amendments we have brought forward are in response to urgent matters that we felt we needed to tackle. I have tabled those in relation to protest legislation to ensure that we manage difficult challenges by putting forward legislation on, for example, protests, marches and giving the police powers. I suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, that it is something we should take our time to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is bringing forward his review shortly, in the spring. This amendment, whether in its original form or as amended by Amendment 371B put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, effectively seeks to create a parallel regime to that in the Terrorism Act, which the Government believe is not necessary and risks unjustified interference with rights to free speech and freedom of association. The Government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred but, in doing so, we must strike the right balance between protecting freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.

Amendment 441B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concerns access to public funds for organisations promoting or supporting criminal conduct. Again, I say to him that the Government provide funding to a huge range of organisations through grant schemes administered by departments and arm’s-length bodies across government. Any grants of public funds are subject to Treasury guidance set out in Managing Public Money, which looks at risk, control and assurances that grant controllers are required to take into account. Is the legislative route required?

Today, and this goes to the heart of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, we have published the social cohesion action plan. A number of comments have been made about the issues in the plan, including by the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe. It was put on the website probably less than an hour ago and is many pages long. I simply ask that Members look at what is in it, its context and the things we are trying to challenge so that all communities, whatever their religion, can live their lives in freedom, and so that we have social cohesion in what is, and will remain, a multicultural society. The engagement principles will be updated so that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups.

On Amendment 419, which would require the publication of a counterextremism strategy, the noble Lord said that he has raised it in Questions, in amendments in Committee and in Grand Committee in a special debate. We are looking at the issues he has raised; there will be further updates and reports on the matter, and I advise him to look at the social cohesion strategy—which, as I said, was produced within the past hour—in full.

Extremists often deliberately operate without meeting thresholds for criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for their actions. Despite this, this Government still have a responsibility to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. But in doing so, we still have to protect the balance between freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.

We have been very clear in our approach to counterterrorism and counterextremism. We have an overarching counterterrorism strategy, an approach that ensures counterextremism efforts are focused on the highest harm threats, in direct support of our core counterterrorism and wider security mission. The local social cohesion strategy, published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the past hour following a Statement in the House of Commons—which I suspect will be repeated here shortly—is trying to marry those things together to provide social cohesion. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, on those issues.

Finally, with Prevent, Contest and the definitions of extremism we have examined, set out by the previous Government in 2024, we believe there are strong mechanisms to tackle extremism while ensuring we support all members of our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that Jews do not count. I say to her, genuinely, that everybody in society counts; everybody has a right to protection; and everybody has a right to live their lives free from persecution, harassment, terrorist activity and extremism. I felt genuinely sorry when she said that phrase. We are trying to support all members of our community, particularly the Jewish community. If she looks at the measures in the Bill, she will see they have been driven by allowing people to express their religion and for them not to be harassed or put into a box by people on marches and protests on a regular basis. That is what we are trying to do.

I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is coming from, but I wish for him to withdraw and not to push his amendment. We have a framework in place to deal with criminal activity and those organisations that cross the terrorism threshold, and to ensure through the social cohesion strategy that all members of our community have the right to live a free life in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent and thoughtful debate, and I have been touched by the kind words and expressions of support from nearly all sides of the House. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I hope he knows how much I respect the work that he and the Government do, but on this occasion I am not convinced by his central assertion that the framework exists and is working.

The Minister raised the issue of Palestine Action, as so many have done across the Chamber today. It is indeed looming large over this discussion. Whether or not you take the view that the Government were right in proscribing Palestine Action, the fact that it took five years of this organisation committing criminal damage in a sustained and organised way before it was deemed to have met the terrorism threshold—which is now obviously being challenged, and I hope the Government win on appeal—shows that there is a gap. This gap is not filled by the public order measures which are used to place conditions on marches, which the Minister has cited in response as to why the framework is working. That is a different thing.

I am really pleased—and it is really unusual—to get such a broad expression from, reductively, the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrat Benches on a difficult issue like this. It shows that it is proportionate. I quote in conclusion the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, back at him. He has—reluctantly, I would think—come to the view that he will abstain, but he made the point himself that not supporting this amendment leaves on the table a choice between the status quo of doing nothing, or full terrorism proscription. I really respect his view that he would like to see encouragement of proscribed terrorist organisations taken off. That is a complex question, but if I had opened that up in this amendment, the whole thing would probably have been subsumed.

Therefore, it is right that we push this particular narrow change to the legislation. The Government and the Minister’s concerns can be tightened up after this, when the Bill goes into ping-pong. Then, we can deal with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in the shortest order after that. With that all having been said, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 January be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March. Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Motion agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

334: After Clause 121, insert the following new Clause—
“Aggravated offences(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Meaning of “aggravated”(1) For the purposes of sections 29 to 32 an offence is aggravated if it is aggravated by—(a) racial hostility,(b) religious hostility,(c) hostility related to disability,(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or(e) hostility related to transgender identity.(2) For the purposes of the following provisions an offence is aggravated if it is aggravated by hostility related to sex—(a) section 29,(b) section 30,(c) section 31(1)(a) and (c), and(d) section 32.(3) An offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (1) if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be) (v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.(4) An offence is aggravated by hostility related to sex if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the sex (or presumed sex) of the victim, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex.(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), it is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that subsection.(6) In this section—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.”(3) In the italic heading before section 28, for “Racially or religiously aggravated offences” substitute “Offences aggravated by racial or other hostility”.(4) In section 29 (aggravated assaults)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”.(5) In section 30 (aggravated criminal damage)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”;(c) in subsection (3) for “28(1)(a)” substitute “28(3)(a) and (4)(a)”.(6) In section 31 (aggravated public order offences)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”;(c) in subsection (7) for “28(1)(a)” substitute “28(3)(a) and (4)(a)”. (7) In section 32 (aggravated harassment)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”.(8) In section 66 of the Sentencing Code (hostility as aggravating factor in sentencing)—(a) in subsection (1), after “subsection (3)” insert “and subsection (3A)”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) So far as it relates to hostility related to disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity, this section does not apply in relation to an offence under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 committed on or after the day on which section (Aggravated offences)(2) of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 comes into force.”(9) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, for sections 240 and 241 substitute—“240 Increase in sentence for offences aggravated by hostility(1) This section applies where a court or officer dealing with an offender for a service offence (other than an offence mentioned in subsection (7)) is considering the seriousness of the offence.(2) If the offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (3) the court or officer—(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.(3) The kinds of hostility are—(a) racial hostility,(b) religious hostility,(c) hostility related to disability,(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or(e) hostility related to transgender identity.(4) An offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (3) if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be)(v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.(5) It is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in subsection (4). (6) In this section—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.(7) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under any of sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (offences aggravated by racial and other hostility).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause expands the grounds on which offences may be aggravated under sections 28 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racial and religious hostility) to include hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and (except for section 31(1)(b)) sex. It also makes consequential amendments.

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

My Lords, I am very proud to introduce Amendment 334, as it delivers on a Labour government manifesto commitment by extending the existing statutory framework for aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

As noble Lords will know, under the existing provision, specified offences are aggravated and subject to potentially greater maximum penalties where it is proved that the offender was motivated by hostility towards the protected characteristics of race and religion. The relevant offences for these purposes are criminal damage, harassment, stalking and certain public order offences, as well as several offences against the person, including actual and grievous bodily harm, strangulation, assault and malicious wounding.

Through Amendment 334, the Government are not creating new criminal offences; rather, we are extending a well-established legislative model to ensure that it properly captures the full range of hostility-based offending that we know is taking place in our communities. I just happen to believe that individuals who are trans or have a disability have a right and a promise to live life free from hostility in our society today. I pray in aid that, in the last year for which figures are available, March 2024 to March 2025, 4,120 hate crimes were registered by the police against transgender people and 10,649 hate crimes were registered against people with disabilities.

The amendment fulfils the Government’s commitment to level up the hate crime legislative framework by extending the regime of aggravated offences under the 1998 Act to cover criminal behaviours motivated by hostility towards sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. We are also adding behaviours motivated by hostility based on sex or presumed sex.

As a corollary to Amendment 334, government Amendments 345, 347, 349 and 353 separately amend the new offences on abuse towards emergency workers to provide for aggravation where these offences are motivated by or demonstrate hostility to the same range of protected characteristics. This ensures, for the first time, parity of treatment across these protected characteristics and provides the police and prosecutors with a broader set of tools for recognising and responding to hate crime offences.

This measure has received a broad welcome from a range of charities and organisations involved with disability or with transgender issues. Stonewall has described the measure before the House tonight as

“a powerful message that LGBTQ+ people deserve equal access to justice”.

Galop, the LGBT and anti-abuse charity, has described the amendment as a “landmark moment” for equality. Real, the deaf and disabled people’s organisation, has said:

“It reflects long-standing calls for equal protection under the law for all victims of hate crime”.


The Spinal Injuries Association has said:

“It sends a clear message that violence and hostility directed at disabled people will no longer be overlooked and must be treated with the seriousness it deserves”.


I concur with all those comments, and I hope that the whole House will do too in due course.

Aggravated offences are well established in our criminal law. By extending the scope of the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act, we will help to ensure that criminal justice agencies identify and record hostility against protected characteristics where they take place and that perpetrators are appropriately punished for their offending.

These are not abstract virtues. They translate into better case-building, clearer communication with victims and, ultimately, more robust outcomes in court. I hope that they will also prevent people being attacked, abused and harassed for issues to do with their identity as transgender people or people with disabilities. It is simply not acceptable in the 21st century for those types of offences to take place. That is why we consider that the aggravated offences framework remains the right tool for recognising and responding to hostility based offending.

Recognising hostility based on sex within the aggravated offences regime complements our mission to tackle violence against women and girls. It will enable the courts to recognise on the face of the offence the serious harm caused when a victim is targeted because of their sex or presumed sex. Making it clear in law that offences motivated by hostility towards a victim’s sex will be treated just as seriously as those motivated by hostility towards the range of other protected characteristics in the hate crime regime reinforces our determination as a Government to confront these harms.

To ensure coherence across the statute book, the aggravated version of the existing Section 4A offence under the Public Order Act 1986 will not extend to cases involving hostility based on sex or presumed sex. That is because the behaviour targeted by that offence—namely, causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress—is already more than adequately covered by the new aggravated offence introduced by the Protection from Sex based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which will come into force on 1 April. This approach prevents duplication while ensuring the law remains both targeted and effective.

I will listen to what noble Lords say in their amendments, but I put a clear message down that this is a matter of principle for this Labour Government and people across this House. I believe and know that it will have the support of many others in this House, for which I thank them in advance. It is not right that transgender people or people with disabilities are singled out for offences. They need the protection of the law and today is the day for this House, and for the House of Commons when it is considered there, to stand up and say what is right. I beg to move.

Amendment 334A (as an amendment to Amendment 334)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have serious reservations about the Government’s amendments on aggravated offences. I appreciate that this puts me at odds with the Minister, but I knew that long before today, because in Committee he made a passionate speech, as he has today, telling us how proud he would be to move these amendments and claiming that they show a Government prepared to protect LGBT and disabled people.

If this is such an important change in the law for the Government, and a principled flagship for progressive Labour that appeared in its manifesto, we have to ask why the Government waited until Report in the Lords—so late in the Bill’s passage—to table the amendments. They must have thought that they were principled and important before, so why are we seeing them only now? I am afraid that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, explained, this denies this House the constitutional right to properly scrutinise and mull over the complex details of the amendments—let alone the fact that that was denied to the elected Chamber.

In the limited space that we have here, I will start by raising some general concerns I have with aggravated offences. Some people might say that this is a Second Reading speech; if it is, it is because the Government did not bring the amendments forward until now, so I will say it anyway. In my view, the state’s job, via criminal justice, is to prosecute material, clearly defined offences. When the authorities attempt to either infer or impute motivation for a crime, seemingly to signal its particular gravity, that is a dangerous move towards punishing ideas, beliefs or attitudes. Some of those ideas, of course, might be bigoted or abhorrent, but they are none the less ideas and opinions. We need to be wary of inadvertently stepping towards thought-crime solutions just to signal our moral virtue, and I am worried about expanding that regime.

This has consequences. Offences such as these carry higher maximum penalties when offenders demonstrate hostility, and this can mean prison. But hostility can be interpreted broadly in the law as ill will, antagonism or prejudice. Let me be clear: violence, harassment, assault or whatever against a disabled person, a trans person, a woman or anyone should be punished appropriately—severely, if that is your take—and certainly uniformly, regardless of motive. But aggravated sentencing can lead to some perverse outcomes.

On hate crime aggravators, in Committee I used an example from the CPS report Our Recent Hate Crime Prosecutions. A man was put in jail for 20 weeks for

“assaulting his father, sister and a police officer, and using racist slurs against his sister’s partner”.

But the CPS notes that, without the racist slurs, he would have only received a community order. So for the assault he would have retained his freedom but, with the racist words, he got 20 weeks in jail. What is more problematic is that many of the offences we are talking about are not actually those kinds of aggressions but often speech that is promiscuously criminalised.

This sentencing anomaly really hits home when it comes to the much boasted-of addition of sex into the aggregation. “At last”, people will say; “misogyny taken seriously”. But, during the Sentencing Bill, the Government refused to accept a perfectly reasonable amendment exempting sexual assault offences and domestic violence offences from the early release scheme. Surely, a real, material commitment to women would be to have accepted that amendment, not increased sentences for offences deemed driven by hostility to women.

Instead, my view is that we should prosecute actual offences committed against any woman. When those offences involve, for example, sexual violence or domestic abuse, we should give appropriate sentences to perpetrators and then not let the offenders out early to free up prison places. That would help women far more than this amendment, the wording of which says that the aggravators must be announced in “open court” to declare an offence aggravated—if ever there were an indication of the performative nature of this, that is it.

One worry is that many of the offences to which “aggravated” will be attached will be the tangled plethora of hate speech crimes, already leading to the scandal of Britain’s declining free speech reputation internationally, with so many arrested for speech crimes, as we have heard about. So many of these offences are wholly subjective, because hostility can be defined by the victim. We have seen the recent weaponisation of speech against those who do not share the same views, the whole cancel culture and toxicity that has proliferated, and identity groups and those with protective characteristics pitched against each other in grievance complaints.

Although it was not in the criminal law, we saw a gross example of this when John Davidson, a man with Tourette’s and the subject of an award-winning sympathetic film, involuntarily ticked and shouted out the N-word. Subsequent commentary refused to accept that there was no intent to offend. Race and disability were put at odds, rather than empathetically understanding the issues, and that is one of the problems with playing the identity politics issue. Increasing aggravated offences will just add to this toxic mix, and that, combined with public order and communications arrests—if not prosecutions for speech crimes, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—will make this issue really difficult.

The issue of hostility to transgender identity is likely to stir up further tensions. I want to ask: what is transgender identity? At best, it is a subjective category. It is a self-defined description. That is not a criticism; it is just an observation. Transgender identity does not require a gender recognition certificate or surgery. By the way, the wording in the amendment is confusing here: it gives credence to the fact that surgery might be a key, but then it says “proposing to undergo” gender reassignment, which is a very odd phrase. That is why the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, are right to query and probe it, which is what we should be doing, even though it is so late in the day. How transgender people are defined will matter to how these amendments will be understood.

The clarification of the noble Lords from the Official Opposition, in Amendments 337, 350, 351 and 352, establishing what sex means in the Bill, is also helpful. Emphasising biological sex—sex at birth—is necessary to ensure that the cultural clash between gender identity and sex is not muddled up in this Bill or in these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in his Amendment 334A, also hopes to ensure that the proposed changes do not criminalise misgendering.

I just note that I hate the word “misgendering”. If a male identifies as a female, even if he has a certificate or has had surgery, he is still a man. Saying that is not misgendering; it is factually accurate. Asking me to call him a woman is compelled speech, asking me to repeat misinformation. But would that statement, which I am very nervous about making, be seen as evidence of hostility to someone based on their gender identity? Guess what: too often, those accused of, and punished for, so-called misgendering offences are women. Police criminalised Sex Matters’ Helen Joyce for some tweets referring to Freda Wallace by his former name Fred and using he/him pronouns, and the police recorded that as “criminal harassment” with “transgender aggravators”.

What about the young lesbian who says that she is not attracted to a male—a man who thinks that, by wearing stilettos and a dress, he is a woman and should be allowed into a lesbian-only group at a workplace—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not wish to disturb the noble Baroness’s train of thought, but how we frame this debate is important. It is an aggravated offence if the individual has committed an offence that I outlined earlier, such as grievous or actual bodily harm, public order offences, harassment, stalking or criminal damage. It is not about the issues the noble Baroness is speaking to.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

To clarify, in the first example I gave, of Helen Joyce, it was called criminal harassment for the tweets and the aggravated factors. The police actually dropped it in the end, but they—not me but the police—called it criminal harassment with transgender aggravators. In the example I was giving, the lesbian in her work group was then labelled a bigot. In other words, it is the L in LGBT, not the T, that will often take the hit. I mentioned that because she was threatened by the person, who said they would go to the police, and then she was visited by somebody who said that the police would be involved. I am making this point because I am worried about it spiralling out of control. I would say that that is misogyny: demonising a biological woman for expressing her sexuality as same-sex attracted. I want to be sure that the amendments in this group navigate such clashes and do not avoid them.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, as I said, we already have a huge number of laws, especially Section 66 of the Sentencing Act, that allow for offences to be aggravated by hostility towards a person based on their protected characteristics when it comes to sentencing. We do not believe that this opinion should stand part of the Bill. We accept that the amendment is based on an explicit manifesto commitment and we respect the Government’s mandate, although we disagree with the amendment, but it is not acceptable for the Government to bring forward an amendment drafted in this way at such a late stage. Unless it is withdrawn, we will vote against it.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her kind comments at the beginning—if I blush, that is the reason why. I appreciate them.

I hope that this debate will be undertaken in a way that respects different views, but there is a significant difference of opinion between noble Lords who support this amendment and those who do not. That is fair, proper and right. This House and the House of Commons are places to debate those issues, and I will try to do so in as friendly and constructive a way as possible while sticking to my firm principles that the Government’s amendment is the right thing to do.

I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Cashman; the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Herbert of South Downs, Lord Paddick and Lord Pannick; from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green. I think that that spread of opinion from the Cross Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Government Benches and, indeed, the Conservative Benches shows that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed.

I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, has argued again today. He did so in Committee. I accept his view as his view. He wanted, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, to row back on all aggravated factors in his amendment. He accepts that. I have no argument about his right to do so, but I do about my position on where I accept it. There is a real debate between us.

I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and other noble Lords who have raised this issue that this amendment is not about non-crime hate incidents or offensive tweets; it is about serious offences such as actual bodily harm, public order offences, harassment, stalking and criminal damage where a prison sentence would be given by a judge on conviction. If the judge, having heard the evidence of the prosecution and witnesses in that trial, believes that the harassment, stalking or actual bodily harm was generated not just by two people meeting in a pub and having a fight but by somebody turning up in that pub, having a fight and suffering actual bodily harm because the individual was a different colour, race, religion or sex—or because they dressed in a transgender way, because that is what they chose and that is the way they live their life—that is something that, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put his finger on, a judge should take into account when giving a sentence of up to the maximum potential sentence under the law.

That is because the law will say that it was not just an argument or stalking offence or harassment because of a general factor; it will say that the principal direction of that harassment, stalking or grievous bodily harm was because of a transgender characteristic, disability characteristic, racial characteristic or misogyny. I draw a line in the sand on this and say that this House, the Government and Parliament should stand up for those people who face that kind of activity. That is a reasonable position to take.

The amendments strengthen support and protection for victims. No one will go down for a tweet or a non-crime hate incident under this; they will go down because they committed a serious offence, and they will get an aggravated sentence because they did it for a reason that this society should not tolerate.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

If I could clarify—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am asking a question; is that allowed on Report? I want just to clarify: when the Minister says a tweet versus a serious offence such as a public order offence or harassment, will he accept that that can be a speech crime? I have never mentioned tweets. It is serious if you get sent to prison for a speech crime. That is why there is concern about speech.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are going to have a whole debate at some point in the next couple of weeks on non-crime hate incidents involving the type of issues that we are debating. I am putting the case for the Government. That is my view, it is what we are saying, and I have had support from people who have been political opponents in the past, people who I share political views with, opposition parties and Cross-Benchers. That is a reasonable coalition that has said that this is the right thing to do.

Genuine points have been raised about the tabling of this amendment at this late stage on Report. I say three things in response to that. First, this is a manifesto commitment. Secondly, the Law Commission report in 2022 developed this. It is a complex area of criminal law and has been a long time in gestation. Had we been able to draft an amendment that met the objectives we set then I would have tabled it in Committee, but we have drafted and tabled it now after a long period of gestation.

I also say to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rooker, that it was announced at Second Reading in the House of Commons that we would bring this amendment forward. In Committee in the House of Commons, an amendment was tabled from the Back Benches by Rachel Taylor, MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to meet the Labour Government’s manifesto commitment. The House of Commons debated that amendment and the Government said they accepted it in principle but needed to look at it in the context of the Law Commission and its drafting. After a full debate in the Commons, we accepted the amendment and have brought it back.

At Second Reading in this House, I took great pride in saying that we would bring the amendment back. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, he tabled an amendment in Committee that would sweep away every aspect of race and other protected characteristics. That is his view. In my argument against that view during the discussion we had in Committee, I said to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that I would table an amendment on Report and that we would debate it. We have had two and a quarter hours on this debate so far today. We may have a Division on it, on which I hope to get support from other colleagues. But I say to all noble Lords that this is an important issue.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would, in essence, water down that proposal. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, would water down that proposal. The amendments seeking to strike out the offences in Clauses 122 and 124 of threatening emergency workers would mean that individuals could abuse emergency workers on a racial basis. That is simply not acceptable to me, the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrats, Members of the Conservative Back Benches and the Cross Benches. It might be a legitimate view, and I will not deride that view, but is not one I will ever share. I say to my noble friends: join me in that Lobby—

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti reminds me that I have been in this House for just under two years now and have voted only once in the Lobby on that side of the Chamber.

Tonight, I ask my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join me to vote for this amendment, because it does what the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, said: it says to people who have protected characteristics, “Society is on your side”, and if you are picked out because of that characteristic, we will make sure that the people who pick you out pay a penalty for that if the judge in that trial determines that, having had a guilty verdict, your motivation was one that attacked protected characteristics. If it is good enough for people who are Jewish, Muslim or Black, it should be good enough for trans, disabled and other people. That is why I take great pleasure in asking my noble friends to join me in this Lobby any moment now to vote for this amendment. I hope that all noble Lords who support the principle will do so.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response and, on the basis that I have understood him correctly that none of these amendments or the Government’s intention of commencing the new Clause 4B of the Public Order Act is intended to encourage the police to investigate misgendering on social media—I can see the Minister is nodding—I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

339: After Clause 121, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance about honour-based abuse(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about honour-based abuse to such public authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2) Guidance under this section may include guidance about—(a) the prevention of honour-based abuse;(b) the identification of honour-based abuse;(c) the collection and sharing of information about honour-based abuse;(d) how public authorities should work together in relation to honour-based abuse.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) A public authority to which guidance under this section is given must have regard to the guidance when exercising its public functions.(5) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance.(6) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance.(7) Subsections (3) to (6) apply to any revised guidance, except that subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.(8) In this section “public authority” means a person exercising public functions, other than a court or tribunal.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confers a power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities about honour-based abuse.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee—and I am grateful for the comments made at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and others urged the Government to grasp the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deliver on the Government’s commitment to introduce statutory guidance to assist front-line practitioners in tackling honour-based abuse by supporting a statutory definition of such abuse. I am pleased to say that we agree that this is not an opportunity to be missed. The Government have tabled Amendments 339 and 340 in response to comments in Committee to deliver on the Government’s commitment.

Amendment 339 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on honour-based abuse. This guidance will sit alongside the statutory definition, operationalising it by clearly setting out expectations on prevention, identification, information sharing and multi-agency working across policing, health, education, social care and other safeguarding partners. Public authorities will be required to have regard to this guidance, meaning that professionals must factor it in to how they carry out their existing duties and safeguarding responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for her determined and tireless work on honour-based abuse. I know that the Government had intended to bring forward a statutory definition at some point, but it is purely down to her efforts during the passage of this Bill that we are discussing it today, and she fully deserves the commendation she has received this evening.

I will not repeat the points of my noble friend’s speech but simply reiterate that we plainly welcome the introduction of a statutory definition. I hope it will help in getting justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. I also offer my support to her amendment, which aims to provide legal clarity and remove ambiguity about the nature of honour-based abuse. It can take a wide array of forms, but a common trend among them is that it is often committed by families and community groups. My noble friend is, I think, simply seeking clarity on the Government’s new provisions so as to provide explicit confirmation of the position.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her Amendment 340A, which has had the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Verma, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I understand where she is coming from and I will try to explain where we are and how we can interpret her point.

On the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Lord Mandelson, formerly of this Chamber, I do not think that now is the appropriate time for me to comment on that—first because a number of potential legal cases are going on, and secondly because I do not conflate anything that will or will not face Lord Mandelson with the horrors that people have faced with honour-based abuse. The noble Lord has made his point, but I will not respond to it today.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I merely chose it as an example that we would all be aware of. It seems to me that the clause as drafted catches a lot of people who should not be caught by it. I will write to the noble Lord, if he will allow that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always happy to have letters—or, potentially, one of those newfangled things, an email—from Members of this House. If the noble Lord wishes to send something through, I shall happily examine it with my colleagues.

The contributions in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, rightly emphasise the need for clarity and to ensure a proper definition that covers situations where multiple people are involved in perpetrating abuse. I completely agree that the definition must reflect both the survivor experience and capture multiple perpetrator contexts. However, I put the caveat to her that we have to be careful that what appears a straightforward change to the wording does not create drafting ambiguity in itself or add complexity that would hinder practitioners. As I stated in my opening comments, as drafted this amendment covers a situation where there is more than one perpetrator. I am happy to put on the record that the Government will also make that clear in the Explanatory Notes and the statutory guidance, to be published in due course, so that front-line practitioners understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators. Again, I hope that that goes to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool.

I understand and recognise the noble Baroness’s point but, again, the Home Office wants fully to consider the impact of the amendment. However, I hope the statement I have given from the Dispatch Box—which, again, for ease of practice, is that front-line practitioners can understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators—is clear. I hope that, with that commitment, these government amendments will ensure that we have a significant milestone in strengthening the Government’s response to honour-based abuse, but more importantly that the public authorities have the tools, guidance, understanding and clarity they need to ensure that we provide a better overall multi-agency, victim-centred response.

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendments. A number of noble Lords have referenced organisations outside Parliament that have campaigned long and hard. I pay tribute to them and share their objectives. I hope with those comments that the amendments that I have tabled can be moved—

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, and it is great to hear that the Home Office is considering how this might impact the legislation. However, I do not think I have heard exactly what harm this might do or why it is allowed in other legislation but not in this. I therefore wonder whether the noble Lord might consider bringing it back at Third Reading, if the Home Office is able to find a way to get the provision concerning multiple perpetrators into the Bill.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always try to be as clear as I can from this Dispatch Box, when I can. I simply say to the noble Baroness that the Government would not want to table any amendments to the Bill at Third Reading. We want to try to ensure that the discussions we have had are complete and that Third Reading is a relatively straightforward procedure. So I cannot offer her that comfort, and I might as well tell her that now. But I am also saying, notwithstanding the points she has made, and in the light of the guidance we are going to produce, that I hope the interpretation I have given, which I think reflects the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is one she can accept. I shall move my amendments, but I also ask her in due course not to press hers.

Amendment 339 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

340: After Clause 121, insert the following new Clause—
“Meaning of “honour-based abuse”(1) For the purposes of section (Guidance about honour-based abuse) “honour-based abuse” occurs where—(a) a person (“A”) engages in abusive behaviour towards another person (“B”) who is a member of A’s family or is a relevant connection of A, and(b) A is motivated wholly or partly by A’s perception that B has behaved, is behaving or may behave in a way which—(i) shames or dishonours A, B, A’s family, B’s family or A’s community, and(ii) does not comply with the accepted norms of behaviour in A’s community.(2) The reference to A engaging in abusive behaviour towards B includes A causing another person to engage in abusive behaviour towards B.(3) A person’s behaviour may be behaviour “towards” B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).(4) Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of—(a) physical or sexual abuse,(b) violent or threatening behaviour,(c) controlling or coercive behaviour,(d) economic abuse (see subsection (5)),(e) spiritual abuse,(f) psychological or emotional abuse, or(g) other abuse,and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.(5) “Economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to—(a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or(b) obtain goods or services.(6) A person is a member of another person’s family if any of the following applies—(a) they are relatives,(b) they are, or have been, married to each other,(c) they are, or have been, civil partners of each other,(d) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(e) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(f) they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with each other, or (g) they each have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child,(and references to a person’s family are to be read accordingly).(7) A person is a relevant connection of another person if they are friends or acquaintances who are known to each other in person.(8) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g) a person has a parental relationship in relation to a child if—(a) the person is a parent of the child, or(b) the person has parental responsibility for the child.(9) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;“civil partnership agreement” has the meaning given by section 73 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004;“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see section 3 of that Act);“relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause defines “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of my new clause (Guidance about honour based abuse), inserted after clause 121.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

345: Clause 122, page 168, line 12, leave out “racially or religiously hostile towards E” and insert “hostile towards E, within the meaning of section 124(3)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

347: Clause 123, page 169, line 2, leave out “racially or religiously hostile towards E” and insert “hostile towards E, within the meaning of section 124(3)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

349: Clause 124, page 169, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) The conduct of a person (“D”) is hostile towards another person (“E”) if—(a) at the time of that conduct, or immediately before or after that time, D demonstrates towards E hostility based on—(i) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of E,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of E,(v) E being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(vi) the sex (or presumed sex) of E, or(b) D’s conduct is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation,(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender, or(vi) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the kinds of hostility relevant to an offence under clauses 122 and 123 to include hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and sex.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

353: Clause 124, page 169, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) In subsection (3)—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership”, in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by D.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, I wholly understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I am sorry that we are not able to support it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for setting out his amendment on the issue of controlling or coercive behaviour by psychotherapists and counsellors. I fully understand the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in support of it. I am pleased in some ways—and in other ways I am not—that the noble Lord has managed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to back his cause. However, while I accept that there are concerns in this area, I am sort of with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this one.

The amendment seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients, mimicking a similar offence in the domestic abuse context. I understand the need for that, as explained by the noble Lord, and I fully recognise that those who seek psychotherapy and counselling services may be vulnerable. As the noble Lord knows, psychotherapists and counsellors are not statutorily regulated professions in the UK. However, there are other safeguards in place for the public to acquire such services with confidence.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt of King’s Heath said in Committee, this is a complex area where there is an overlap of roles and titles. It is difficult to differentiate between and reach agreement on defining what these specific roles are, be it psychotherapist, counsellor, therapist, well-being coach, talking therapist, mental health practitioner, lifestyle mentor, family coach or spiritual healer—the list could go on.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on, regulation is not always the answer. Quack and unscrupulous practitioners can, as has been described today and during previous debates, easily refer to themselves as something slightly different to avoid any proposed new offence, and regulation does not define the scope of practice.

In Committee, I heard the request for the noble Lord and supporters of the amendment to meet the relevant Minister at the Department of Health. I was pleased to facilitate that discussion, which I know took place on Monday—though there still appears to be a gap between the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my colleague Karin Smyth MP.

The amendment as it stands is intended to protect vulnerable people from rogue practitioners who call themselves psychotherapists or counsellors, but it does not include a legal definition of counselling or psychotherapy services. I respectfully submit that the amendment is not the right route to take, in the light of that issue.

As I and my honourable friend the Health Minister in the Commons have said, the Government are focused on managing the underlying risks. We are ready to work with sector partners to commission a formal assessment of the oversight of such therapies in order to understand current risks as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguards and whether they need to be strengthened to protect the public better. As I mentioned in Committee—I will repeat it again for the noble Lord—if the Government are satisfied that the conditions for the regulation of a profession are met then they can take action through secondary legislation under existing powers in the Health Act 1999 to make changes and to bring into effect criminal offences relating to a person’s registration with a professional regulator.

I openly and honestly say to the noble Lord that we cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that there is some comfort from both the meeting and the direction of travel that I have set out on behalf of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that I am not content to withdraw my amendment.

First, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for highlighting how the opinions of the public may be affected, and the fact that the reputations of psychotherapy and counselling services, which are of value and honestly provided, may be tainted by the dishonest quacks who have absolutely no right to be practising—as a matter not just of regulation but of plain, honest practice—because they are there to take money from innocent clients. My view is that the definition of

“providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services”

is wide enough to catch those quacks.

Secondly, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for reconsidering the opinions he expressed in Committee. That is what the gap between Committee and Report is for—to give us all a chance to think—and I am grateful to him for his change of mind and his support for the amendment.

I simply did not understand the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I understood the Minister’s objections when he talked about regulation, but he does not seem to have taken on board my point—which is central to all this—that regulation for the purposes of a new criminal offence is simply a red herring. What is important here is creating a criminal offence to catch dishonest people who are quacks, who are taking advantage of vulnerable people by coercive and controlling behaviour, and who ought to be punished for doing so. Others also ought to be deterred from doing so.

With some regret in view of the hour, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment; I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for moving Amendment 359. I know that she has been pursuing it with tenacity. This amendment and Amendment 361 relate to the Government’s proposal to create a specific, stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker at work. I want to be clear from the outset that it is already an offence to assault a retail worker, because it is an offence to assault any person, full stop. That is the law. I do not believe that criminal law should treat anyone differently based simply on whether they are a retail worker. I fully recognise that retail workers face an appalling level of abuse and violence in the course of their jobs, but to say that the creation of a new, specific criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker will stop assaults on retail workers is, frankly, for the birds.

What will stop these assaults, or at least reduce them, is the police stepping up enforcement, and the Government stopping the release of criminals and handing anyone convicted of these offences suspended sentences. However, the Government clearly believe that creating this new offence will reduce violence against retail workers. If we are to take their logic to its conclusion, why would we not extend the offence to cover all public-facing workers? Does the Minister believe that transport drivers, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Stowell and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, are of lesser value than retail workers? If the Government believe that this new offence will work then why do they not believe it will work for other public-facing workers?

My noble friend’s amendment exposes the absurdity of the Government’s position. They argue that violence against retail workers is a significant problem that needs to be tackled, which is absolutely correct, but then propose a solution that they refuse to extend to other workers who also face significant levels of violence at work. There is simply no logic to the Government’s approach. Either they believe that creating a new offence for specific groups of people will reduce violence against them or they do not. They cannot argue both. I would prefer that we did not have any new offences that outlawed things that are already outlawed and that we did not legislate to criminalise actions towards specific groups of people but not others. That would be my preference, but if we are to do these things, then we must take them to their logical conclusion. For that reason, I support the amendments from my noble friend.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment, and for the opportunity to discuss it with her and with the organisations she brought in for face-to-face discussions with us. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for his contribution and for our meeting.

I declare my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which I joined 47 years ago and which sponsored me as a Member of Parliament. I put that on the record. I must also say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I understand that he would prefer to have no offence. I understand that because when, as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, I tabled amendments to put these types of offences down, the then Government rejected them. I therefore understand where he is coming from, because that is consistent with the position of previous Conservative Governments.

In this case, we have a Labour manifesto commitment endorsed by the electorate. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned USDAW. I pay tribute to that union, which has collected evidence and, through three general secretaries, including my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, campaigned strongly for an offence against retail workers. The Labour Party listened to that in opposition and put in its manifesto—I cannot claim credit for this, because I was out of Parliament at the time—a commitment to legislate for that offence, which appears in the Bill before the House today.

I have heard the comments from the noble Lord, Hogan-Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on why they think that the bespoke offence against assaulting a retail worker should be extended to all public-facing workers. Along with proposing a new broader offence of assault against public-facing workers, the noble Baroness has tabled an amendment that would place a duty on courts to make a criminal order in the event of a conviction.

I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but I repeat the arguments that I put to her in Committee and elsewhere. Public-facing workers such as those mentioned by my noble friend, the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, are covered under existing legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes a range of violent offences, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Further, the provisions of Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, makes it a statutory aggravating factor of assault against any public-facing worker. That offence means that if someone, having been charged with the serious offence of assault and having gone through a trial, is deemed to have committed assault against public-facing workers, the court has the power to add aggravating factors to that sentence. That covers every type of worker that has been mentioned by noble Lords today. The aggravating factor applies in cases of assault where an offence is committed against those public service workers performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. That is an important factor.

Noble Lords have asked why there is a specific offence against retail workers that is additional to the aggravating offence. That is a reasonable question to ask. In clauses that have been mentioned there is provision for additional prison sentence capacity, criminal restriction orders and an unlimited fine for this stand-alone offence. Retail workers are still covered by Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, so why have we put that extra power in place?

The reason for this—and why I declared an interest—is that USDAW has, to my knowledge, for 17 or 18 years campaigned regularly for this in the Freedom From Fear Campaign. It has done so under the three general secretaries that my noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned, and it has done so for a purpose—one that the Government share. Retail workers are fundamentally on the front line of upholding the laws passed by both Houses of Parliament on a range of matters. It is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of cigarettes, it is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of alcohol, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a knife, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a solvent, and it is a retail worker who protects the community by upholding all the laws on those issues that we have passed in this House and in the House of Commons. That is why USDAW campaigned for the specific offence, and it is why the Labour Party in government has been pleased to support the creation of that offence by putting it in the Bill.

That goes even further to the appalling shop theft situation. I do not call it shoplifting—it is shop theft. There has been a continued rise in shop theft over many years, and it is the retail worker who is on the front line saying, “Put that back”, calling the police and taking action in the shop. The Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and a whole range of retail organisations have campaigned for this, alongside USDAW, over many years. It has been thought through and there is an evidence base. It is a manifesto commitment, and we are trying to introduce that extra offence. I do not wish to see a train operative or members of customer services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned, attacked with a knife. This is covered by common assault legislation from 1861 and by the 2022 Act as an aggravating offence. But the Government have put forward a stand-alone offence for shop workers for the reasons I have outlined.

Does that potentially create an anomaly? Let us discuss that and reflect on that view. But the manifesto commitment is clear, and we are delivering on that manifesto commitment. This is an important issue, based on evidence and campaigning by a range of bodies—retail organisations and trade unions—and it has my support. Therefore, I cannot support the noble Baroness—I have told her that—or my noble friend.

That is not to say that the Government accept that attacks on those members of staff are a normal part of what they should face. We are committed to driving down assaults and to enforcing, with the courts, the legislation on the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked what the Government are doing to reduce the attacks in the first place. This Government are rebuilding the police force—13,000 neighbourhood police officers—and have put in place, with this Bill, changes in shop theft legislation. This Government are focusing on retail crime in hotspots and on making sure that we drive it down. We will ensure that the police forces have retail crime as a major priority.

In the last 14 years before July 2024, police numbers fell, neighbourhood policing fell and the focus on the high street fell. It was not a Labour Government but a Conservative Government who did that. They refused the legislation on assaults on shop workers that I proposed in the House of Commons, they refused to take action on shop theft on high streets and they refused to stand up for the workforce. With due respect, I will not take lessons today from the Conservative Front Bench.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

May I check whether my assertion is accurate or whether I am wrong? Would someone enforcing an age limit in a betting office not be protected by the retail workers’ protection but someone enforcing an age restriction in an off-licence would be? It seems to me that the distinction is simply between providing a service and providing a good. If I am wrong in that, I withdraw my comment, but I am not sure that the Minister has said I am.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have clearly defined in the Bill what we believe a retail worker is. I accept that there are areas of interpretation for the courts, such as, for example—we have discussed this with colleagues outside the House—whether a post office is covered by the retail worker provision. Somebody might walk into a post office to buy Christmas cards or birthday cards and go to the post office counter—is that a retail worker? Those are areas where there may be some interpretation, but we have identified this as tightly as we can. It is a straightforward clause that defines a retail worker. I commend it, given that there has been a considerable amount of work by the Home Office in drafting the amendment, after a considerable amount of work by retail organisations and trade unions to develop the campaign.

I go back to my point that all attacks on all staff are unacceptable. Other areas are covered, but the reasons I mentioned on the specific provision of upholding legislation are why we have put in a specific offence against retail workers. That is why I commend those clauses to the House. I ask the noble Baroness—although I understand that she cannot do this—at least not to push her amendment to a vote.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, I think there was appetite among many of us to see the beginnings of a strategy for each sector that we know is facing rising violence. I know that that is not within the gift of the Minister, but a request to talk to Ministers and get people around the table in those sectors so that we can deal at a strategic level with the causes of violence, as well as big issues such as resources for enforcement, would go a long way to give comfort to people that this is the beginning of a conversation about how we deal with violence against working people.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to the House, I do not support, encourage or condone any violence against anybody under any circumstances. The public-facing workers are covered by two pieces of legislation; we are adding a specific offence for retail workers, for the reasons I have outlined. I have met personally with a range of bodies that the noble Baroness has brought before us. I understand that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill has met organisations and met and discussed issues with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is here today, and will continue to do so. However, this campaign on the clauses in the Bill has been a long time in gestation—it has taken 15 and 16 years to get where we are today—and I want to get them over the line, so I cannot accept the amendments that the noble Baroness has introduced. I ask her to withdraw her amendment but if she puts it to the vote, I shall have to ask my noble friends to join me in voting against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s amendment, which would remove the word “alarm” from the relevant sections of the Public Order Act. I entirely support his aims. Alarm is not an emotion that should be policed, if emotions should be policed at all. The Act in question has been used for the unprecedented policing of speech that we have seen recently, for which Sections 4A and 5 have been largely responsible, and any measure that weakens the effect of this law is welcome. So, although I am sceptical that he will, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment, and I will explain why to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. We will therefore have another opportunity to look at the offences in the Public Order Act 1986 and to reflect on the balance we must continue to strike between free expression and ensuring public safety.

The Government remain firmly committed to protecting freedom of speech. The ability to voice strong and at times uncomfortable views is fundamental to democratic life. However, as I set out in Committee, the ability to intervene early is an important tool for police to protect both the public and those involved, a point that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson, will accept. The definitions in the 1986 Act, passed by a previous Conservative Government, including the words “alarm” and “distress”, are there so that there can be early intervention and examination, and so that people who feel “alarm” and “distress” can have that support.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has also referred to the review of public order and hate crime legislation led by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. Government has given it the task of examining the threshold definitions of public order legislation, which are needed to protect the public, while ensuring that we do exactly what I know the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wants to do: ensure that we do not have undue interference in freedom of expression. The review is expected to conclude in the spring—it is a flexible definition, as we know, but it will be in the spring—and the Government will carefully consider its recommendations before determining whether legislative change is necessary.

I cannot commit to where we are on that because we have not seen the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. Given the circumstances —and given that the Act is now 40 years old and has stood the test of time from Mrs Thatcher’s Government to those of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, however many Conservative Prime Ministers held the office between 2010 and 2024, and my right honourable friend the current Prime Minister—it strikes me that it is a sound piece of legislation. It has stood the test of a number of Prime Ministers and Governments. With the review pending, I hope that we can examine and look at all those issues. With those comments, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

It gives me inordinate pleasure—it warms the cockles of my heart—to listen to the Minister praising the legislation of the late Baroness Thatcher in her pomp. We do not often get that, but we should be grateful for small mercies.

We have had a short and interesting debate. I take in good faith the comments of both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Her contribution was very thoughtful in really drilling down into what the word “alarm” means. I think the debate we had in Committee was about the consistent nature of a criminal offence. That is harassment and distress: if someone harasses or threatens someone on a consistent basis. It is different from a momentary issue that might arise.

I say that because we have seen too many examples of where individual police officers, who may not have had appropriate training and education in interpreting these pieces of legislation from the 1980s, have, in my opinion, overreached. That has a very corrosive impact on the faith and trust that the public have in the police force. It leads them to believe that there is such a thing as two-tier policing, which is not good for any of us.

I take on faith what the Minister said. I look forward to what I think will be a very comprehensive and thorough piece of work by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. On that basis, we will no doubt return to this specific issue and piece of legislation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

362: Clause 129, page 173, line 35, leave out from “means” to end of line 37 and insert—
“(a) a device which is capable of using five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably, for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1A), or(b) an article specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(1A) The purposes are—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to specify different articles as SIM farms in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

365: Clause 132, page 175, line 24, leave out from “that” to “by” in line 26 and insert “it is made or adapted for use in perpetrating fraud”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the kind of articles that the Secretary of State may specify under clause 132.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his amendment regarding cloud-based services and access restrictions for lost or stolen devices. As my noble friend said, a similar amendment to the one before us was presented in Committee, during which it was pleasing to see Cross-Bench support from noble Lords on this proposed solution to an increasing problem.

Mobile phone theft is now a high-volume and high-impact crime. It is particularly prevalent in urban areas, obviously, and can often cause distress to its victims, as well as financial loss. Rather than simply creating new offences or imposing more severe punishments, we must address the current incentives that sustain the criminal market for stolen mobile devices. As was our position in Committee, we must act to remove the profit motive that fuels this behaviour in the first instance.

Amendment 368 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson seeks to achieve that precise goal. By requiring providers to take reasonable and timely steps to block access to services once the device is verified as lost or stolen, stolen phones would no doubt be less valuable on the resale market. This would result in the substantial removal of the economic rewards that drive organised and individual phone theft. The blocking of access to cloud synchronisation and authentication services would plainly strip stolen devices of much of their value to criminals. Quite bluntly, this proposal has the potential, as we have heard from other noble Lords, to undermine the business model of those stealing phones.

The amendment would also build on important safeguards. It would require a verified notification, a mechanism for appeals or reversal in cases of error or fraud, and an obligation to notify both the National Crime Agency and local police forces, thereby strengthening intelligence. Of course we must recognise that any operational mandate of this kind must be technically feasible and proportionate—the Secretary of State must therefore set appropriate standards and timelines through regulation—but the principle behind my noble friend’s amendment is vital. If smartphones lose value as criminal commodities, the incentive to steal them will be reduced. We on these Benches give this amendment our fullest support, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Once again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling this amendment. I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in particular, but also to the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this Government take mobile phone theft seriously. That is why we have measures in the Bill to take it seriously, and why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a mobile phone summit for the first time last year. That is also why we encouraged the Met to undertake its conference next week on mobile phone theft.

That is also why, in figures I can give to the noble Baroness, over the past year—the first year of this Labour Government—mobile phone thefts in London have fallen by 10,000, a reduction of 12.3% from the previous Government’s performance. It is a real and important issue. We are trying to tackle it and are improving on the performance from the time when she was Deputy Prime Minister. I just leave that with her to have a think about that, even at this late hour.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

So will the Minister accept my noble friend’s amendment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will come on to that in a moment, if I may. I accept the principle of the work the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is bringing forward, but I do not accept it in the context that the noble Baroness put it: that we are doing nothing. We are doing quite a lot. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which is the important thing—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I did not say that the Minister was doing nothing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness did, actually. She said that nothing was happening under this Government. Every Member on this side of the House heard her say that.

The hour is late so I will go to the nub of the issue, which is the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Law enforcement partners—the police and the Home Office—are taking robust action to drive down instances of mobile phone theft. We have delivered the most comprehensive, intelligence-led response to mobile phone theft, and Operation Reckoning, supported by the Home Office through the Metropolitan Police Service, is tracking down criminal gangs on this issue, going to the point the noble Baroness did not mention.

I agree that we need to take action to make sure the companies that design these devices provide services, play their part and do absolutely everything they can to ensure that a stolen mobile phone is not a valuable commodity and therefore not worth stealing, which was the very point the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Law enforcement partners—all of us in the law enforcement sector—are currently working in collaboration with technology companies and partners, including phone manufacturers, to look at the technical solutions, which, I must say to the noble Baroness, is something that the previous Government did not do. The Home Office is supporting this important work, and I thank everybody involved for their constructive engagement.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular, that it is our preferred approach to allow this collaborative work between mobile phone manufacturers, mobile phone operators, law enforcement partners and the Home Office to continue, so that we find a positive solution to this problem, rather than accepting the amendment before us today and mandating a specific, untested solution through legislation. It does not mean that we will not do this—we want to try to do it—but we have to make sure that we do it in a way that works, is sustainable and is in partnership with the mobile phone authorities. The approach we are taking will reduce the risk of legislation not achieving the desired output.

I want to be clear to the noble Lord that we are working on that now. If it does not work, and if we find blockages and we do not make progress, we reserve the right to look at any and all options. At the moment I cannot accept his amendment, because it would mandate us to do something, but we are already trying to work on this to make sure that what we do works. We are doing that in partnership with all those authorities. At the same time, we are doing practical stuff by tracking down people and putting more police on the beat, including the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are introducing over the next few years. We are also ensuring that we take action through the Bill on tracking mobile phones and giving police superintendents more action. That is a positive programme of action. However, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment and I ask him to withdraw it. If he does not withdraw it, I will ask my noble friends to vote against it.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I had hoped the tone of this debate was going to be a bit more productive, collaborative and consensual. I just wish that the noble Lord would sometimes bite his lip on this. Frankly, we had a consensus, but he had to go into partisan, party-political mode, attacking the previous Conservative Government.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am a fairly gentle soul, but if the noble Baroness provokes this Government by saying that they are taking no action, then this Government will fight back and explain what action they are taking.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Let me talk in detail about something I remember.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this fee order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maxima amounts that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. In the order, we propose a number of changes that will facilitate government policy. Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the department’s funding settlement.

This order will increase fee maxima across a number of chargeable functions, including those for the new electronic travel authorisation—ETA—and entry clearance as a visitor for visas valid for a period of more than 12 months. It will also include a visa on a route to settlement, a settlement visa, naturalisation and registration as a British citizen or as one of the specified other categories of citizenship, and certain nationality-related services. I should explain that the actual fee levels that are to be charged for those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not being changed in this order. Any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation and will be accompanied by a full economic impact assessment.

In laying this order we have sought to provide clarity to Parliament, and indeed to the public, about our intention to increase certain fees when parliamentary time allows. These are as follows. We will increase the fee maxima applying to an application for an ETA from £16 to £20 in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee to £20. This will be by negative resolution in the event of those fees being brought forward. The fee maxima for entry clearance as a visitor for a period of more than 12 months will increase from £250 per year to £253 per annum. This will allow the Home Office to increase the fee for a two-year visitor visa from £475 to £506. We are increasing the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement from £3,600 to £3,635. This is to facilitate a subsequent increase to the fee applications by other adult dependent relatives of a British citizen, or a person with settled status who wishes to join their family in the UK. That will rise from £3,413 to £3,635.

In this order, we are amending the fee maximum for settlement applications from £3,600 to £3,635 in order to align with the changes to the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement, reflecting, I hope, the connection between these two chargeable functions. The fee maxima for naturalisation as a British citizen or as a British Overseas Territories citizen and registration as a British citizen or other nationality status will increase from £1,605 to £1,709 and from £1,500 to £1,540, respectively—all subject to parliamentary approval. This will allow us to increase the fees for naturalisation and registration as a British citizen by adult applicants to the new maxima levels. We are also increasing the fee maxima for nationality-related services by 6.5% to support a subsequent increase in relevant fees to the new maxima level. This will include the fee for a certificate of entitlement of right of abode, which will increase from £589 to £627.

To be clear, we have announced our intention to increase the fee levels later this year, but they will not be increased until we lay separate legislation—the immigration and nationality fees regulation—which will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. These changes will facilitate the generation of additional income for the migration and borders system, which will in turn support the broader funding of the system, reduce reliance on the general taxpayer and support the delivery of government priorities. With that explanation, I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. The principle behind the changes that he has just outlined is well-established. Since 2003, under the then Labour Government, successive Administrations have accepted that immigration and nationality fees may be set above administrative costs in order to contribute to the wider operation of the system. We have consistently supported the view that those who use and benefit from the immigration system should make a fair contribution, reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

As the Minister outlined, the instrument is a precursor to proposed increases in the maximum fees that may be charged across a range of products. The ETA will rise from £16 to £20, visit visa maxima will be uprated, the cap for limited leave and settlement will increase, and nationality-related maxima, including naturalisation as a British citizen, will rise. With the exception of the ETA, these increases are 6.5%.

The impact assessment suggests that setting fees at these maxima could generate around £1.8 billion over five years. That is significant revenue in the context of a system whose annual costs run into many billions. The Government argue that demand for visas is relatively inelastic and that modest increases do not materially reduce volumes. If that assessment is robust, it provides a rational basis for the approach.

In our view, two issues merit scrutiny. First, the ETA increase represents a 25% rise. Has any assessment been made of the impact on visitor numbers? Why was £20 judged the appropriate level? Given the acknowledged uncertainty in the modelling and potential implications for tourism, including in Northern Ireland, it would be helpful if the Minister could update the Committee on any evaluation that is under way and confirm when its findings will be published.

Secondly, how will the additional income be used? The Government have committed to reducing migration and tackling illegal entry, yet the costs of irregular migration remain substantial. Will the revenue primarily fund those pressures, or will it deliver tangible improvements in efficiency and border security? Does the Minister anticipate further increases in the near future?

In closing, we support the principle of the order and will not seek to divide the Committee. However, it is right that we seek assurance that higher fees will support a system that is not only self-sustaining but demonstrably more effective. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the principle behind the order. I am grateful for his generous support for the direction of travel that we are undertaking. He has asked two specific questions, which I will try to answer for him.

On the ETA scheme, we are increasing the fee maximum to £20, rising from £16. As he said, that is an increase of around 25%. Moving from £16 to £20 will put us in line with the American fee and the pending European fee. In general terms, it is a reasonable amount of resource.

The noble Lord asked whether that will have an impact on tourism, particularly in Northern Ireland. Last week, I answered questions in the House on the Northern Ireland ETA. We have had discussions with the Northern Ireland tourist board to look at the impact of that, because many people enter the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland via planes to Dublin from America or other ports. We discussed that in detail. We are introducing ETAs in Northern Ireland to enhance our ability to screen travellers upstream. People who arrive in the United Kingdom, including those travelling from Ireland into Northern Ireland, will need an ETA, in line with the UK’s immigration framework. I genuinely do not believe that a £20 fee is going to deter someone from visiting the great city of Belfast, the Mountains of Mourne or the Giant’s Causeway, or, in a wider UK context, from visiting London and seeing all the sites that we have here. It is a reasonable fee for people entering to pay. Although it is a higher fee than the 6.5% general fee, it is a reasonable fee and it brings us in line with other partners.

The noble Lord asked the perfectly legitimate question of what happens to the money that the Home Office makes on the application fees. The Home Office does not make any profit from the fees, in line with the charging principles set out in the Immigration Act 2014. Fees for immigration and nationality services are set in consideration of the costs of processing an application, the wider costs of running the migration and border system, and the benefits enjoyed by successful applicants. Any income from the fees set above the costs of processing goes towards funding the wider immigration system.

The noble Lord will know that, in the past year, we have put additional staff into processing asylum claims and into border control. Through the then immigration Bill, on which the noble Lord gratefully served and offered good scrutiny, we have established a new border command and new border scrutiny. We have put in place the work that we are doing with the French, the Belgians and the Dutch on border control. We have done the work with Germany. We have passed the immigration Act. All of that is still a cost to the system, and any surplus made from the application fees will go towards that and stop us having to have recourse to the Treasury for additional funding.

The Home Office believes that it is right that a greater share of the cost of operating the system is borne by the applicants who directly use it, rather than funding being provided additionally through HM Treasury from general taxation. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord is a considerable sum of resource. That will be used entirely within the Home Office for funding what will be, I hope, a strong and important immigration system.

Motion agreed.

Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this important debate and for the work of his committee on understanding the issues of transnational repression. I note that he has been sanctioned by a number of regimes; I have been sanctioned by Russia, and I take that as a badge of honour on some occasions. He brings immense experience and moral clarity to the role of chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

It is clear from contributions across the House that this is a subject of utmost importance. I must start with my noble friend Lord Isaac, who made an excellent maiden speech, combining his championship of human rights, particularly LGBT rights, with his warmth and experience in education. It is clear that he will bring great experience to this House, and I welcome him on behalf of the Government—and, I hope, the whole House—to his new role.

The committee brought a very thorough and detailed report and its inquiry has presented a thoughtful contribution to the UK’s understanding of foreign states and how they operate on our soil. The Government have carefully considered the recommendations, as the noble Lord knows, and we responded formally on 30 October. That included welcoming much of the committee’s report, including on co-ordination, international co-operation, strengthening resilience and the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I cannot share all her analysis of the United States, because it is part of international co-operation and strengthening resilience when we look at how we deal with some of the state bad actors in the world at large. But she has made her point in her usual way, and I note the point as a whole.

Let me say at the outset that this Government are unequivocal that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass and harm individuals in the UK will not be tolerated. The position that we have is very clear: transnational repression in the UK will not be tolerated. I reassure the House that it is targeted and specific. Perpetrating states focus on individuals they believe to be threats, vocal critics, dissidents and activists, as in the many examples given in the House today. Our message, therefore, is that people should be alert but not afraid. From the Government’s perspective, we must not inadvertently amplify the fear that perpetrating states actively seek to create. The UK is a safe, open and democratic society, and we will always defend those principles. While transnational repression does not affect large numbers of people, its impacts can be severe for those directly targeted and for wider communities.

We have had some discussion around the term transnational repression, what it means and the behaviour it captures or not. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned this in particular. The UK has a long, mature and well-established system across legislation, policing, intelligence, diplomacy and community engagement to counter state threats, including conduct that amounts to TNR. This issue demands positive, constant vigilance and proactivity to ensure our defences are strong, resilient and robust.

That is why, already, in the light of the committee’s report and of our own wish, we have conducted, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, a review into the UK’s response, which has focused on building an understanding, through the collection of data, of the scale, nature and impact domestically, as well as making recommendations to strengthen that response. I want to share with the House some of the lessons that we have learned from our internal examination. These include, partly in response to the report, the continued implementation of the National Security Act 2023, which provides world-leading, modernised tools to counter state-linked threats, notably FIRS, which colleagues in the House today have referred to. I will talk a little more about that in a moment.

Another important issue that has been raised, including just a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is training on foreign interference and call handling, delivered by counterterrorism policing across 45 territorial forces in the UK to strengthen front-line identification of state-directed activities. These are all issues that we have reviewed and are working to improve.

There is clear and practical guidance published on the GOV.UK website for those who believe they may be at risk. We have a dedicated TNR team within the Home Office, giving a central point of contact on co-ordination and analysis. We are deepening international co-operation, including with Five Eyes—I say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and looking at how we can work with like-minded partners to bring collective resilience.

FIRS, which has been noted, including by my noble friend Lord Cryer and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, does feature Iran. Iran is included in the scheme and we keep under constant review whether we should expand it to other countries. I have had representations on other countries here today. However, it is not something we discuss in public, but we keep it under review at all times. The Government have accepted the thrust of the committee’s findings, and we must continue to strengthen resilience.

The question of proscription of the IRGC has been mentioned by a number of people, notably my noble friend Lord Cryer. I say to him and others who raised it that that is an issue that we cannot comment upon but keep under review at all times. We do so because the safety of individuals, the integrity of our national security and the actions of foreign states in the United Kingdom are our foremost priority. The UK is a safe and open democratic society, and we must defend those principles.

The question of definition was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Dholakia, and my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Rooker. The Government, in our review, considered the issue and the recommendations in depth and we recognise transnational repression in the following terms:

“certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals, which may be carried out both physically and online”.

Any such activity will not be tolerated. There is no international universal agreement on a definition of TNR, but the definition we are using is deliberately broad so that we can capture the totality of the issue, provide maximum flexibility and ensure that we can address what is an evolving threat.

We have looked at the issue of data, mentioned by my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, among others. We recognise the importance of robust data as evidence in shaping an effective response. We are taking steps to strengthen our understanding of the threat, to improve data collection and to ensure that our systems are responsive. To further support data collection, the police have now established a system for reporting crimes that include reference to foreign interference. I will be happy in due course to reflect on the comments that have been made today.

In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of the foreign influence registration scheme and asked whether we will publish data on it. The Government plan to publish data on the operation of FIRS by 30 June 2026, which is the first anniversary of its operation. I hope that that will help to give some colour to the discussion that we had today.

The noble Lord also mentioned the ISC and asked whether it can have oversight of FIRS and the sanctions regime. The Government are trying proactively to update Parliament whenever we can on all these issues. The ISC has statutory powers to call in anything it wants to. I sat on it for five years. It can call in and examine any of those issues if it so wishes, and we will obviously co-operate: it has oversight of those matters should it so wish.

There was a lot of discussion, notably from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Moore of Etchingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about academic issues. Our universities, because they are world-class, are a prime target for foreign states and hostile actors who seek to erode their reputation by promoting, shaping or censoring what universities can offer. I do not take those threats lightly. We are collaborating with universities, we are meeting vice-chancellors, we have looked at how we can develop a new academic interference reporting route and we have put in £3 million of investment to ensure that we give guidance and support on the very issues that the noble Lords mentioned today. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights are protected under UK law. Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, passed by a previous Conservative Government, requires providers to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers, and I totally uphold that right.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned Interpol, and SLAPPs in particular. Perpetrating states use a wide range of methodologies to conduct transnational repression, and the UK’s response in tackling state-directed threats is, I think, world-leading. We have appropriate tools and systems and we will certainly be examining those issues in detail.

A number of noble Lords raised individual issues. My noble friend Lady Blackstone mentioned issues in Pakistan and my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned a number of specific deaths. I have to say to the House that, owing to the sensitive nature of these topics, the need to protect individuals who may be at threat and the need not to compromise cases, I cannot talk about individual cases, but I will reflect on what was said. However, I will say something on individual countries, if I may.

China was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Moore, Lord Morrow, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young of Acton, and by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Front Bench. The Government recognise that China poses a series of threats to the UK from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage. We understand the transnational repression of Hong Kongers and China’s support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we will challenge those issues robustly, but we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities. It is the second largest economy and it is currently the UK’s third largest trading partner, so we have to develop both challenge and pragmatism in relation to these issues. We are working with Five Eyes colleagues to build collective resistance to the threats China poses, but we also have to look at the business and economy of the United Kingdom in doing so. It is an issue that we will continue to return to.

There has been pressure, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to include China in the foreign influence registration scheme. We continually look at whether, how and why this should be examined. No decision has been made about China. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires consideration of a broad range of issues, which will remain under consideration at all times. As I have mentioned, the same is true with Iran. We have already put Iran in the FIRS, and we will examine and continue to look at Iran in relation to other matters. The proscription issue is always under review.

The Chinese embassy was mentioned in passing and I will touch on that. The planning decision was independently taken, but national security is our first duty as a Government. Therefore, intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Those risks can come from any nation at any time. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate seven current sites in London into one site, which in my view will bring clear security advantages.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I do not seek to delay matters at this time on a Thursday night, but the Minister did say that China was our third-largest trading partner. I wanted to be sure, for the record, so I have just looked it up. We had a £60 billion deficit with China in 2025. Chinese exports to the UK were £77 billion, far exceeding British exports to China of £17 billion. So yes, it is a big trading partner, but we are the weak one and China is the one getting all the benefit.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have to work with China. We will challenge it at all times and trade with it when we need to. It is important that we hold standards of democracy to account across the world.

I am conscious of time—

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I do not want to detain the House and I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just said, I think, that he will keep us informed about the proscription issue. This has been said for months and months. Can he please give us some idea of when there might be some actual news?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is not in the interests of the UK’s security or the security of the individuals we are trying to protect to give a running commentary on the issue of proscription. This House will be informed if any proscription decision is ever taken on any individual, country or organisation. That is the process we have followed recently and we will continue to do so, but, unfortunately, I cannot give a running commentary on whether, when and how we will consider these matters. We keep them under review and, in the event of a decision being taken, I will be held to account in this House for that decision, as will Ministers in the House of Commons.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

Can the Minister tell me this, then? Jonathan Hall produced a proposal for dealing with the issue. Is that being accepted by the Government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will respond to the Jonathan Hall review very shortly. Again, Members of this House will be able to hold me to account for the response the Government give, but I cannot give a running commentary at the Dispatch Box on issues of national security in the way in which the noble Baroness tempts me.

I am conscious of time. This has been a very fruitful and useful debate for us. I will look at Hansard in detail when it is produced and, if there are issues I wish to respond to further, I will write individually to Members. I thank the noble Lord for securing the debate today. I hope that we can continue our discussions on how we keep people in this country safe from transnational oppression and how we support the security of the United Kingdom.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, any suggestion that there have been insufficient transitional arrangements for the ETA system is surely for the sky. The scheme was introduced three years ago but was not made mandatory, to allow for people to adjust. It is absolutely right that the Government are now making this system mandatory and that dual nationals should have to enter using British passports—I am with the Minister on that. My question is: now that we have this system in place, how will the Government utilise the information for stronger immigration enforcement?

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. As he knows, this position was introduced by the previous Government, and I am very pleased that we have been able to see it through. He asked how we will use this information for important border control. The whole purpose of the system is to have border control. As he probably knows, today we have had some new figures on immigration positions. They show that asylum hotels are at the lowest level for 18 months, which coincides with the UK Labour Government; the asylum backlog has fallen for the fourth quarter in a row to 64,426; and small boat arrivals are 9% lower than the peak in 2022. This is part of a government strategy to control our borders and ensure that they are firm. I welcome his support not just for this measure but for the wider government agenda.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am not sorry but pleased to disrupt this cosy consensus because, honestly, the Government’s temporary mitigation measure is no good at all. It leaves discretion to carriers on what evidence to accept for entry, resulting in, as was said by my friend in the other place, Manuela Perteghella, who tabled this Urgent Question yesterday,

“chaos for law-abiding British citizens”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/26; col. 351.]

and the separation of families. Why can this Government not do what Canada did: delay enforcement and create a low-cost, temporary authorisation? Why do this Government not do something similarly common-sense? We understand that controls should be properly enforced, but, for goodness’ sake, leave a breathing space for people for whom the impact is very personal.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly said, this scheme has been in planning for three years; it was introduced by the previous Government and we have seen it through. There is always going to be a deadline at some point in any scheme, and the deadline for the introduction of this one was 26 February—today. What we have tried to do is to ensure that, if there are individuals who are impacted today, this week or in the near future, there is a temporary mitigation so that carriers may—at their discretion, as the noble Baroness said—accept an expired UK passport, alongside a non-visa national third-country passport, as evidence of British nationality.

Dual nationals may also ask their carrier to contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which is available now. Dual nationals overseas may also wish to contact the embassy. There is provision for urgent travel without a British passport in certain circumstances, as set out on GOV.UK. If there are particular problems, my colleague the Immigration Minister will hold drop-in sessions in the Houses of Parliament next week and the week after. Now that the scheme is available, dual nationals who wish to come to the UK can apply for either a British passport or a certificate that is a lifetime allowance on that dual-national approach.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his answers so far. He will recall that I have written to him on several occasions about an anomaly in the electronic travel authorisations that results in an impediment being placed in the way of the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. The majority of people who come from the United States to Ireland come through Dublin Airport and thus travel to Northern Ireland, adding to our local economy and revenue. However, the issue of ETAs presents an impediment and inconvenience. Therefore, will my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office look again at this issue to see whether an exemption is possible?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful and can reassure my noble friend that the Government wish to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from inward tourist economy issues. We have, in discussing the proposals to date, worked with a range of partners, including the Northern Ireland tourism association, to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively and ultimately will not prove a barrier to people wishing to come to Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom to support their tourism objectives. We have looked at, and will look at, with the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency the impact of this issue, but I say to my noble friend that I cannot offer an exemption for visitors to Northern Ireland, because that would undermine the rationale of the scheme as a whole, which is to strengthen our borders, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the rules say that the personal details on the two passports must match, but Britons in Greece are among the those highlighting the fact that this is extraordinarily discriminatory against women, given that, for example, in Greece—and this applies to a number of other countries—there are rules about the name they must have on the Greek passport. If they are married to a Greek, they must have their maiden surname as well. The Minister may say that the Government have said that, under extraordinary, exceptional circumstances, the two names do not have to match. Can he confirm that that applies in this case, where people have no choice but to have two different names on their passport? More than that, can he guarantee that every agent for every airline and other travel company will understand that when people turn up to travel?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will look at the specific instance that the noble Baroness has mentioned with regard to Greece, because that has not been drawn to my attention to date. I will contact her directly. We have made a strong effort, since the last Government introduced the principle of this, to inform and work with carriers to ensure that they understand the situation. Without repeating what I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see that there are a number of mechanisms whereby individuals who feel they have a problem now in this temporary period of transition can follow that up with a range of authorities to make sure they get proper access. As ever, when a date is introduced, there will be a little friction, because that is always the case. But, in the long term, the ETA arrangements and the ability to provide stronger borders is a task worth working for.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, further to the point raised by my noble friend, the Minister himself confirmed that the Home Office’s current arrangements are that, “at their own discretion”, carriers “may” accept “some” expired British passports as appropriate documentation. Does he not accept that that is the worst of all worlds and that dual nationals will have no idea which carriers are going to accept the documentation, and under which circumstances? Given that he has admitted that there is a transitional period, would it not make a great deal of sense for the Government to tell all carriers that they can accept expired passports for a set period of time?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The scheme has been introduced this week, as the noble Lord will know. The friction that may occur on occasions now is because people do not understand or are unaware of the results. But we have made a strong effort to make sure that carriers know that they can accept expired passports. Again, I advise individuals who wish to travel to the United Kingdom to contact the carrier to see whether their documentation is in order in this period when the scheme has been introduced. There are a number of measures, even at the point of refusal, whereby an individual who has been refused at a gate can contact a number of things, which I do not wish to outline because of time. The noble Lord will know, and be able to read in Hansard, about those that I have just mentioned, which are available. The feedback we have had so far is that there is a limited number of concerns in the initial introduction, and I will obviously monitor that over the coming weeks.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the UK Government’s trade envoy for Australia. This issue is causing considerable consternation in Australia, a country with which we are developing our defence, security and other relationships, to the benefit of the wider world. It seems slightly extraordinary that an Australian who is not a British national can much more easily gain entry to the UK than one who is, even if it is a residual matter and they do not have a passport. Should we not be looking at ways to facilitate this? The Passport Office, when we had difficulties two or three years ago, moved at pace and had people here to deal with the cases. Should we not be doing that in Australia and encouraging movement between our countries rather than creating an incident?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Any Australian dual national who wishes to prove their British nationality can do one of two things. They can apply for a British passport, which is usually a nine or eight-day wait at the moment, or they can even get one speedily if they need to: that can be done. They can also apply for a certificate of exemption, which is a lifetime exemption that can be attached to their Australian passport and will allow them to travel to the United Kingdom without the need for an ETA. That is a reasonably sensible approach to make. It is a short-term thing. Now that the system has been introduced, any Australian citizen who wishes to travel to the UK can either get a certificate, get a British passport or travel here, and if they travel here and are refused, in the meantime there are a number of mechanisms—I outlined them to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—that they can adopt. However, in the long term, this ETA scheme is a sensible thing to do and I commend it to the House.