Asylum Policy

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, and I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I am minded to think of the title of that great film, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”; I am afraid that these proposals have all three within them. I will go through some of those.

Starting with the positive, we support the Government’s intent to bring order in the asylum system, and we welcome the announcement of new, capped, safe and legal routes for refugees. These pathways, with security checks and controls, are the correct way to fulfil the UK’s responsibility to those in need. Confirmation that the Government will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights is welcome, as is the recognition that early legal advice should be a core part of the appeal system.

Moving on to the bad, or impractical, the argument that asylum seekers should contribute is undermined when they are denied the means to earn their way. Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. Why are the Government persisting in stopping asylum seekers from working when there is no evidence that this is a pull factor? We question the assumption of the UK as a magnet, given that we receive far fewer asylum seekers per capita than our European neighbours. Home Office analysis itself found that asylum seekers have little to no understanding of welfare policies before arrival. Shared language, diaspora communities and perhaps even colonial connections are the primary drivers for asylum seekers taking irregular routes to the UK. Can the UK Government provide evidence, rather than simple assertion, on this matter?

Revoking the duty to support risks creating more destitution and pushing more asylum seekers towards illegal working and exploitation. What assessment has been made of this risk? What action are the Government taking to avoid passing the financial strain onto already struggling local authorities? The use of immoderate language is also unhelpful and risks stoking division. Why do the Government feel the need to create a whole new asylum appeals structure? Why not simply expand the existing system?

The most severe criticisms target the core protection model and its administrative fallout. Core protection requires a status review every 30 months and delays permanent settlement for 20 years, which in our view is unnecessary and cruel. This prolonged state of instability will inhibit successful integration by making it difficult for refugees to secure tenancies, employment or higher education. The Home Office is currently struggling with a backlog, yet this policy would impose what has been called bureaucratic madness, requiring a huge increase in capacity to review the status of an estimated 1.45 million people by the end of 2035, potentially costing £872 million. Do the Government accept these figures or have they alternative ones to offer?

Scrapping the refugee family reunion route pushes children and spouses into the hands of smugglers, directly contradicting the goal of safe migration. Has this risk been assessed? How will the long-term separation from family impact refugees’ ability to contribute and reduce their reliance on state support? Will the Government be detaining and deporting children who were once accepted as refugees but will subsequently not be when their home country is deemed safe?

Given that Denmark’s temporary protection scheme clearly failed to result in returns for Syrians, how do the Government justify the massive cost and profound uncertainty imposed by the UK version? What is the timescale for these changes? When will they be implemented and what method will be used to implement them?

Finally, do the Government agree with the report in the i newspaper that deportations will be retrospective? It says:

“It means that, if a refugee has not already been granted indefinite right to remain before the Home Secretary’s new legislation comes into force, they will be deported if their home country is subsequently deemed safe by the Government”.


I look forward to the Government’s response to these questions.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I will try to answer his questions first of all. I am grateful for the welcome he gave to some of the Government’s proposals. I remind him that the reason we are undertaking these reforms is that we have inherited a very broken system: a system that has been in operation for 14 years, where the number of asylum claims has risen, where the backlog has grown and where the deportations have not existed where they are rightfully proposed to exist. We have a duty, on behalf of the British people, to take some difficult decisions to sort this out.

The noble Lord mentioned that the border security Bill, which has completed its passage bar one Commons amendment, has not been effective. Let me remind him that we have introduced a border security commander, who has negotiated deals with France, negotiated deals with Iraq, negotiated deals with the Germans and has been put on a legal footing by this Bill. We have put extra measures in place to support penalties for people smugglers, which will now, once Royal Assent is achieved, allow us to take some further deterrent actions against people smugglers to end that vile trade. We have put in place mechanisms to stop the manufacture and use of boats, to seize engines and to do other things which will take effect once Royal Assent is agreed. I do not, therefore, accept his contention first and foremost that the border security Bill, about which we have had many hours of discussion, is pointless.

I have to say to him, however, that the Government have to keep these issues under review because it is self-evidently a broken system, which is why we put in place additional people to speed up the backlog. The measures before the House today, outlined in the Statement, will be brought forward in legislation, subject to consultation. We will also look at a range of other measures we need to take to fix the system we have inherited from the noble Lord and his political party. He may not like that—I do not want to politicise that: I want his support for this—but we have had to take those steps because of where we are, and I think that is reasonable.

The support he has given for some of those steps is particularly good. He mentioned, for example, the tightened criteria. I think it is fair and proper that, if a country is deemed safe after two and a half years, the individual concerned is encouraged and supported to return to that country; or, as is in this proposal, they can apply for a different route through work or study to get permanent residence downstream. If the country is safe, however, it is perfectly reasonable to look at how we can remove that individual.

The proposals include tackling increased enforcement on illegal working. I think it is perfectly reasonable to put some pressure and heat into the system to tackle people who are being employed illegally, to look at increasing the right-to-work checks, to provide digital ID requirements—which I suspect he will oppose—to ensure there are mandatory right-to-work checks and collaboration to verify companies. I think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to look at return hubs: not Rwanda, not £700 million being wasted, not two people being removed voluntarily, but discussing proper return hubs for people who do not have safe countries but where their asylum claims have failed. It is perfectly reasonable to remove people whose asylum claims have failed because their asylum claims have failed. That is perfectly reasonable to do.

It is perfectly reasonable to do what we are doing in this proposal to speed up assessments and appeals. He asked about the First-tier Tribunal. We are going to put extra hours into the tribunal and we are going to ensure that we look at improving the legal system to get appeals dealt with and tribunals dealt with much more quickly. It is reasonable—and this is, again, where we will have a bit of blue and red water between us—to be committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, to be committed to legislation to uphold human rights, but actually to say that we want to look at how we can tweak that to make sure that it acts in the interest of our country, at the same time as being part of our international obligations, which is where we are. He wants to leave those conventions. I do not, and the Government do not, but we need to make sure we make them work in a better way to deal with this issue. I think it is reasonable for us to do all those things and I hope for and look forward to his support on them.

I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord German. It has been overlooked in this, but there are safe and legal routes that we want to develop, as we have done, for example, in our bespoke schemes for Ukraine and for Syria. There are bespoke routes that we can develop. There are safe and legal routes that we can look at. In this Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that we wish to look at doing that. We are committed to human rights, but we are committed to looking at these particular issues. We will encourage people to look at the work route, if necessary, for safe and legal routes, and we will ensure that a range of other issues are examined.

The noble Lord takes issue with the core protection measures that we have before us in this proposal. I think, again, that it is reasonable, given where we are, to look at how we can ensure that those people are assessed very quickly, within two and a half years, or 30 months. If the country is safe to return to, they can return. If not, let us get that asylum claim approved, or let us get that asylum claim rejected and the individual then returned. I think that is a reasonable proposal. It is reasonable that we look at family reunion, and the noble Lord asked about child deportations. I do not want to see child deportations, but what I want to see is, if people have failed their asylum claim or if they are a foreign national offender—of which we have many languishing in UK jails at the moment—we must find mechanisms to return those individuals fairly and properly to their communities if they are safe, or, if not, to look at the issue that we have talked about here of an alternative holding establishment. All of this will be consulted on.

The noble Lord asked about when and how this will be brought in. There will be legislation brought before both Houses of Parliament, at a point to be determined, and the consultation will take place. However, I ask all those noble Lords who may criticise the proposals: are they happy with the status quo? Do they think the status quo is a good place to be? I think nobody in this Chamber will say that the status quo is a good place to be. Therefore, my objective with the Home Secretary and the Home Office is to look at ways in which we can maintain our international obligations, welcome genuine refugees and asylum seekers, but also speed up a broken system to make sure it works effectively.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, who will decide whether a country is safe? The previous Government decided that Rwanda was safe, but the Supreme Court, following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, said that it was the body with the responsibility for deciding whether a country was safe. So my question to the Minister is: who, under the Government’s proposals, is to decide whether a country is safe—the Government or the Supreme Court?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. I take the view that the Government will determine ultimately which are safe countries. The Government will make that judgment. We are open to challenge and discussion, but the Government will have to make a determination on that. In doing so, we will look at a range of factors. What does the United Nations think? What do the other agencies think? In the end, however, the Government ultimately will have to determine. Again, let me just say that it may not even be a blanket “safe” for a particular country. It may be safe, for example, now, for individuals post an Assad regime to return to Syria, but it may equally not be safe for some individuals to do that. There is a case-by-case basis for the individual, but, ultimately, we have to make that call.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to human rights, and I know it is a sincere one, but the Statement itself appears to express some irritation with both Article 8, respect for private and family life, and even Article 3, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. In the light of our own justice and prison system being found in breach of Article 3 in the High Court just two days ago, can the Minister say a little more—give us a little more specificity—about the detail of the proposed renegotiation of Article 3 that the Statement refers to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. We are seeking international reform of the application of Article 3. We will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. That means we have to discuss it with our partners and get joint agreement, but it is an objective to which the Government are committed. It is one that will be tested. It will be in our consultation in due course. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. That will be subject to scrutiny, but it will be within the spirit of maintaining our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights application. Those are fair and legitimate objectives, and I hope that my noble friend will support them in due course.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary ended her Statement by saying that her reforms

“are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide”.

My greatest worry about them is that making refugee status only temporary, and subject to review every 30 months and deportation, will have the opposite effect. It will not bring unity, it will not encourage community or integration, and it is not very British. The Attlee Government did not try to deport the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in 1945. The attempt to send trucks round south London to generate a hostile environment and tell people to go home was called off very quickly because of the public revulsion. I remember being very warmed to see crowds in Glasgow blocking the streets to prevent the deportation of their neighbours.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, he did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about retrospection. Can he assure us that the change from five years to 10 years or 20 years will not be applied retrospectively to those people who are here, have been allowed to stay here and came when the rule was that they could obtain citizenship after five years? It will not apply to them, I trust.

Secondly, the Statement says that

“as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country”.

Does “as order and control are restored” imply a sequence: that we need first to see order and control restored, then we will open safe and legal routes? If it does, is that not wholly illogical? The best way of putting the traffickers out of business and ensuring that there are no deaths in the channel is to open safe and legal routes. Will the Minister also tell us how a system of capping safe and legal routes will work? How will the caps be set and how will they be made compatible with our obligations under the refugee convention?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will try to answer the three broad issues within that. The first is the reduction in time from five years to 30 months. It is not, “At the end of 30 months you are deported”; at the end of 30 months, an assessment will be made about whether the country the person has come from is safe, to go back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I hope that we will not have long backlogs on asylum claims in the first place. That is why other measures are being sped up. Part of the problem, and the reason why people are waiting for five years and beyond, is that asylum claims are not met. From our perspective, if an asylum claim can be met and sped up then a decision can be taken to grant asylum, in which case the individual has asylum—admittedly with a longer period for final settlement—or they are removed from the country under a deportation route. The purpose is to try to put some energy into the system to get that sped up very quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about safe and legal routes, and the annual cap. The Home Secretary will examine and consult on this as part of the proposals, but it is perfectly reasonable to try to set an annual cap, in discussion with our refugee convention and other obligations, to see what the country can bear in terms of housing support and everything else so that annual cap is based on community capacity. We can then look at safe and legal routes that help support individuals to come here so they do not use the illegal routes that are universally condemned across the House. We will maintain the flexibility that we have for things such as the Ukraine scheme and the Gaza scheme. If I had been putting this before the House six years ago, we would not have been talking about a Ukraine scheme. Who knows what will happen next? We retain our international obligations to do that.

The noble Lord asked about retrospection. That will be part of the discussion and consultation. Legislation will be brought forward to address what will happen, and that will be subject to tests by both Houses of Parliament.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a participant in the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Three and a half years on, we have a delightful Ukrainian family still living in our house. In the section of the report on safe and legal routes, the options in the policy document include a route to safety for students and skilled workers. Such schemes may be a useful adjunct to sufficient open safe and legal routes, but does the Minister share my concern that, in a world where safe and legal routes are limited, we may send a message that young, healthy, skilled people are more deserving of sanctuary than others?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

No. We need to look at individuals’ asylum claims based on their merit. An individual who is not of working age or is not going to be involved in education or study can have an asylum claim. The key point in the safe and legal routes aspect is that we need to look at what that is and design a scheme. We will consult on that. The work and student visa route will be one that individuals can apply for during the course of their asylum claim. If their asylum claim is granted, that gives another route into longer-term settlement, which would be valuable if the individual wishes to do that. I retain an openness to examine individuals’ claims and positions on the basis of their individual status.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the Home Secretary’s Statement and the acceptance that the current system is unsustainable. It is interesting that perhaps a year or two ago, people proposing some of these measures would have been accused of being racist, so I welcome the Statement. The Government will have to get support from other political parties to get these measures through. Does the Minister accept that he will have to work with Reform UK, whose leader, whatever noble Lords may think about him, was one of the first people to raise the issue of the difficulties and the possibilities of migrants coming in on small boats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will welcome support for the Government’s proposals wherever they come from, but if the noble Baroness thinks that I have anything in common with the honourable Member for Clacton and his crew, she is sadly mistaken. I come from a position of trying to ensure that we build a coterminous, cohesive society that is open and tolerant but manages its borders effectively. I do not seek to cause division, which I think the honourable Member for Clacton seeks to do. He wants us not to solve this problem; he wants it to continue. He wants the small boat routes to continue so that he can spread division. That is not on this Government’s agenda. We are here to fix this problem, not to exploit it.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to think again about the sequence of events regarding safe and legal routes. Many of us believe that introducing safe and legal routes would take away the business of the traffickers. Therefore, leaving it until the end of the line seems to allow the traffickers to go on doing their business. Could we speed that up, please? Secondly, on the 20-year period when people may or may not feel secure in this country—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has already referred to this—is the problem not that if people feel insecure in this country then local communities will feel less likely to support them, and integration will suffer? Is there something the Government can do to make people feel more secure, because 20 years is a long time when families are here and children have been born here? It is not a humane way to proceed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I know my noble friend takes a great interest in this, and I am very happy to discuss safe and legal routes with him and my colleagues in the Home Office, because I know that he is committed to this issue and we must ensure that we explore it extremely safely. I want to see community cohesion, and longer-term integration is an issue the Government have set their stall on. That is subject to consultation. Again, I want to work with my noble friend to ensure that we deal with this in a proper and effective way. The door is open to him at any time.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Minister made it quite clear that the Government would not in any way amend the Human Rights Act 1998 and that they were very concerned about the independence of the judiciary. Yet the Statement refers to potentially changing the approach to Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requires the judiciary to take jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights into account; this has been followed and built upon by judges in this country. How will the Government alter the approach to Articles 3 and 8 without amending the Human Rights Act and without impeding the independence of the judiciary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the question of Article 8 claims, Article 8 is a qualified right, which means that interferences with it can be justified where it is proportionate to the public interest. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. On Article 3, we will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Both of those are potential tweaks, which will be subject to legislation and consultation, but which we believe can be done within our international obligations. We are not the Official Opposition who wish to withdraw from those international obligations; we wish to maintain them. But I think it is fair, open and proper that we can examine legislation to tweak them.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, there is not a word of the Prime Minister’s foreword to this Statement that was not true on the day that he became Prime Minister. It is welcome that the Government have got to where they have. The Minister referred to our record; my recollection is that, every time we proposed tough things, they were opposed by the party opposite. I do not remember us ever being challenged because we were not being tough enough.

My question is this: having read through the Statement and the policy document carefully, there are a number of measures that require changes to the Immigration Rules, which is obviously secondary legislation, but there are also a number, as has just been referred to, that require amendment to primary legislation. Certainly, my sense of the Home Secretary’s demeanour is that she feels that this is a very urgent matter to deal with. Has the legislation been drafted and is it ready? When is it going to be introduced? Will it be introduced in this Session to carry over or will it have to wait until the next Session of Parliament? If the latter, it does not strike me that the Government are treating it very urgently.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remember serving as the noble Lord’s shadow about 10 or 11 years ago, when he was the Immigration Minister and we were both Members of Parliament. I supported a number of the measures that he brought forward then, which were very difficult. We, too, will take some very difficult decisions, and I hope to take Members of both the Government’s party and opposition parties with us.

On the question of legislation, he will expect me to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: legislation will be introduced in due course. I cannot comment on legislation in the second Session yet, but legislation will be introduced in due course.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I declare an interest, having been engaged with these matters for rather more than 20 years as the co-founder of Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University. I have read the Government’s Statement with great care. It covers a huge amount of ground, as previous questions have indicated, but it is clearly a serious attempt to deal with a matter that is a real and growing public concern. Further measures will certainly be needed, but this is at least a useful start.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. A number of Members of the House have asked why the Government did not do this a few months ago and what the Government will do next. Life is not static. There are competing challenges at all times. We are trying to bring forward the immigration Bill and bring forward proposals here. My right honourable friend will soon be making a Statement on other aspects in the House of Commons, which I suspect I will have to repeat early next week, and there is an immigration White Paper proposal as well.

This is a journey to try to ensure that we bring order to a system that is currently failing while maintaining our international obligations, being fair to people who are escaping war, poverty and terror, and at the same time making sure that we support United Kingdom citizens in finding integration and welcome where that is required. That is an ongoing process, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s support for any measures that we bring forward.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the status quo might not be where we want, but where the Government are moving to causes me some deep concern, not least about integration and the dehumanisation of migrants and people seeking sanctuary. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some interesting polling by HOPE not hate, which reveals that most people are not anti-migrant; they are angry that they do not have access to public services, a GP, hospitals and housing for themselves and their children. They are worried about the future and they need good schools. Does he not realise that, until we deal with these issues, people will always look for somebody else to blame, particularly the stranger in our midst?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a strong case for what I believe is the Labour Government’s intention, which is to rebuild public services and public trust in government. If he looks across the board at employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill, at housing measures in our housing proposals and at public transport measures with my noble friend here, he will see that we are trying to rebuild public services that have been hollowed out and to raise aspirations for an equal, prosperous society where everybody can contribute and reach their full potential. That is what the Government are trying to do. I take his point that people will always try to find scapegoats on issues where they feel uncomfortable that they are not having a fair crack of the whip. We need to encourage that integration and look at the social issues that my noble friend mentioned.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the Minister and the Home Secretary that this set of measures is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it does not quite go far enough. I have one specific question for the Minister on the Statement. The Home Secretary said this in the other place:

“We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of ‘degrading treatment’”,


in Article 3 of the ECHR,

“has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own”.

She is absolutely right to say that. She goes on to say that, in order to address this problem,

“we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 512.]

I am afraid the reality is that that sort of international method to seek amendment to the European convention will take years and years.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an objective that we have set, one that we are trying to achieve and one that the activities of the last few weeks have shown the Home Secretary to be very focused on delivering. We want to make sure that we can effect those changes. There is an appetite in certain parts of Europe to begin that dialogue and process. Perhaps I should say in conclusion that it is only a shame that the noble Lord did not do any of these things when he had the chance.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

57: Clause 28, page 32, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

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

My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement with the Scottish Government and relevant Northern Ireland departments since the Bill’s introduction, which is why we have tabled so many amendments today. That has happened since February.

In each case, we are bringing forward these amendments at the request of the devolved Governments. The amendments unavoidably cover a significant number of pages of the Marshalled List, but I assure noble Lords that, importantly, in general they do not import new policy into the Bill. The amendments all relate to the offensive weapons provisions in Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Bill. These will contribute to our safer streets mission to halve knife crime in a decade. I am pleased to report that, even now, in the latest crime survey, figures for the year to the end of June show a 5% reduction in knife-enabled offences. This is to be welcomed, but of course there is much more to do.

Clause 28 amends Sections 141 and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It increases the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons from six months to two years imprisonment. This includes the offence of manufacturing, selling, hiring, offering for hire, lending or possessing in private any prohibited offensive weapon as detailed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Also covered here is the offence of selling a knife or bladed article to anyone under the age of 18.

Amendments 57 to 70 to Clause 28 simply extend the increase of the maximum penalty for those offences to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Government. Existing legislation in England and Wales provides that anyone over 18 years of age found guilty of any of these offences will face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. We believe that the maximum penalty does not reflect the seriousness of these offences and should be increased in line with the current offence of unlawful marketing of knives, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. This will align the maximum penalties for the offences in relation to the sale of knives.

In Clauses 31 and 32 we are introducing a stricter two-step age-verification check for the sale and delivery of knives bought online. These provisions will require at the point of sale specific checks of a photographic identity document and a current photograph of the buyer, as well as photographic identity checks at the point of delivery, be it a residential address or a collection point. In addition, we are providing for a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife to someone other than the buyer if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company, so that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours. These are both welcome measures.

Amendments 71, 72 and 74 confirm that, under Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where a passport or driving licence is used as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, it is required to be a copy of a physical version. We are, however, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations—subject to affirmative procedure, so that this House and the Commons have the opportunity to debate them further—so that alternative means of age verification such as digital ID, including digital passports and digital driving licences, can be used. These amendments are required to ensure that the appropriate digital proofs can be used as evidence of identity in place of a physical document, and that the necessary safeguards can be attached to their use.

It is clear that many consumers already expect to be able to use digital forms of ID, rather than just the physical version, to prove to a seller they are aged 18 or over in order to purchase knives or crossbows. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 lays the foundation for trusted digital verification services that are already widely used across the economy. Digital versions of government-issued documents such as driving licences and veteran cards will become available soon. For both consumers who buy and businesses that sell knives or crossbows, it is also important to provide consistency with the existing position across different sectors where digital age verification is used or soon will be—for example, in the purchase of other age-restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco, or for gambling.

The other amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 extend the provisions made by these clauses for England and Wales to Scotland, and the additional clause makes provision for Northern Ireland. This is at the request of both devolved Governments.

I apologise for the length of the discussion on the amendments in this group. The amendments to Clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Crossbows Act 1987, which requires that crossbows, or parts of a crossbow, can only be sold or let on hire to someone aged 18 or over. Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the same stricter two-step age-verification checks for the sale and letting on hire of crossbows, or parts of crossbows bought or let on hire online, that have been introduced for the sale and delivery of knives bought online.

Government Amendments 124 to 189 extend the provisions in Clauses 33 to 35 to Scotland—again, at the request of the Scottish Government—and Amendments 190 to 192 insert new clauses that amend the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order to ensure that stricter age-verification checks for the sale, letting on hire and delivery of crossbows also apply to Northern Ireland. It is important that there is a cross-UK approach on these significant issues.

Finally, Clause 36 provides for the mandatory reporting of the bulk sale of knives. Clause 36 defines reportable sales as the purchase of six knives in a single transaction in England and Wales, or when made over two or more occasions in a 30-day period. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or up to two or more persons where these are to be delivered to the same residential address. As noble Lords probably know, there are exemptions for business sales and for sales of cutlery knives without a sharp point, safety razor blades, and pocketknives with a cutting edge that does not exceed 3 inches.

There will also be exemptions for qualifying sets of knives, such as kitchen knife blocks. These will be sets of at least three knives that are each of a different size or shape, no matter how many knives the set contains—we are all very familiar with that type of kitchen equipment. The purchase of multiple sets of knives, or the purchase of a single set alongside individual knives where these combinations lead to a total purchase of at least six knives, will also be reportable.

That is what is currently in the Bill. Amendments 193 to 209 extend these provisions to Scotland, and similar provisions are also being introduced for Northern Ireland, so, again, there is consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are various consequential and drafting amendments at the back of the Bill relating to the power to make consequential amendments. But, in essence, the policy positions in the Bill, through these Government amendments, are being replicated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It is a Home Office-approved document and is widely used. Maybe he said it and I missed it—we were going at quite a pace—but could he confirm that the physical proof of age card is still acceptable for these purposes?

We are expecting the mandatory conditions for digital proof of age to be published before Christmas, possibly. Is the noble Lord able to confirm that the Government are still on track to publish these changes so that sales of alcohol and other proof of age purposes can be done by a digital proof of age card as well as by a physical card?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I can say yes to both those points. If I cannot, I shall revert to her shortly.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we support the intent behind this blizzard of government amendments. Of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and, in certain cases, Northern Ireland.

It would be extremely useful if the Minister could say whether the law in each of the home nations is the same. I assume that is the effect of all these different amendments—that the UK should be on exactly the same footing, however and wherever you commit that offence. Even though I understand that it was at the request, in the first instance, of the Scottish Government.

We very much support the way in which the amendments reflect the gravity of the kinds of violence that plague our communities from these offensive weapons and that the manufacture, supply and possession of these articles will be met with the full force of the law. We welcome not only the amendments but the original provisions of the Bill, but we need to think of not just penalties but prevention. I hope some of those provisions will make individuals accountable with the digital identity, which we also support.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like an answer to the question of whether the analogue identity provision will continue. Otherwise, that could lead to forms of digital exclusion, which I do not think that we or the Minister would welcome.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that digital passports or driving licences can be approved documents. There is a power by regulation to add other documents; at the moment, the PASS card is not added to that as a form of identification, but obviously it potentially can be in due course, if Governments decide to add that. That will again be subject to regulation. I apologise, but the noble Baroness asked me a question and I gave her the answer in good faith, but it is best that we clarify that point now.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties for the offence in Clause 28 in Scotland, and for extending the provision in Clauses 31, 32 and 35 to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I have no issue with the government amendments about the bulk sale of knives.

I do, however, take issue with government Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 110, 111, 129, 130, 141, 142, 170, 171, 185, 186, 187 and 188. These amend the Bill to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying further forms of identification that can be used for age-verification purposes relating to the online sale and the delivery of knives and crossbows. That might seem innocuous at first, but all it takes is to look at the explanatory statements to realise what these amendments are really about. The explanatory statement for Amendment 71 says that the amendment

“allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID)”.

That is the point.

What is happening here is that the Government are attempting perhaps to sneak in provisions permitting digital ID by the backdoor. I say that the Government are sneaking these in, because they have not only tabled amendments to change clauses already in the Bill but included the regulation-making power permitting digital ID in the drafting of the new clauses that extend provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland. On top of that, they have lumped these amendments together with all the others in this enormous group. I can only assume that the Government hoped that perhaps no one would notice their attempts to take the very first step towards legislating for mandatory digital ID. That is why we cannot support these amendments.

The Government will perhaps attempt to play this off as a small and practical change to allow Ministers to retain flexibility by allowing new age-verification processes, but that is a red herring. Digital ID is an affront to our rights, and the Government have repeatedly stated that it will not be mandatory, that it is no big deal and that it will simply make things easier. Yet here we are with the Government seeking to insert provisions for digital ID into the Crime and Policing Bill. They have not even enacted the policy, yet they are already trying to expand its purpose. Does this not tell us all we need to know? They say that it will not be mandatory, but how can we ever be sure of that?

We notified the Government of our opposition to these amendments in advance to let them know that we would not accept any amendments to this Bill, or for that matter any Bill, that enables digital ID. It is in that spirit that I tabled my Amendments 72A, 72B, 87A and 131A to remove provisions in the Bill that permit the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify other identity documents. My Amendments 75A, 75B, 75C, 76A, 76B, 76C, 190A, 190B, 191A and 191B amend the government amendments for that same purpose. If the Government accept these proposed changes to their amendments—that is, if they accept that there can be no power to specify digital ID for the purposes of these clauses—I have no further concerns with them. However, if they do not want to accept my changes to their amendments to remove the ability to specify digital ID for age-verification purposes here, then we will not be able to support them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has done it. We are in the 21st century; digital ID is becoming a commonplace issue. I understand that we are going to have steps to have age verification, such as acceptable digital ID, as the norm in future.

As I set out earlier, it is to allow different forms of digital ID to be used to verify purchasers’ identity information. When changes to the acceptable proofs of identity, digital or otherwise, are proposed, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would have been an opportunity for the noble Lord, and in both Houses, to oppose or question at that time, but I understand where he is coming from. I am of the view that as technology progresses, there will be different types of digital ID which might be acceptable. It is not an attempt by the Government to speed up or usurp the process; it is just future-proofing, because there may be digital ID on a range of issues.

As an example, I have a digital and a hard copy of my railcard. I show both at different times, depending on which one is easiest to get to. Digital ID is progressing, and it will continue to do so. There are potentially new digital documents, such as the recently announced digital ID card, coming downstream. As with any new legislation, that is still a matter for Parliament to consider, but if a Bill comes before the House—after the outcome of a consultation, it might be in the next few weeks—that is something we are trying to future-proof accordingly.

I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord is prepared to support all the amendments, but I guess that he will not—that is a reasonable position for him to take and one we must look at. To help him today, in a genuine spirit of trying to help, if the noble Lord remains unpersuaded, which I think he is—he confirms that he is—I will move only Amendments 57 to 70 and Amendments 193 to 209 to Clauses 28 and 29, respectively. I will not move Amendment 210A, which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland to that contained in Clause 36 and, in due course, the related consequential and drafting amendments to the Bill, so that we can look at these matters on Report and not have that debate and discussion today. At this stage, I will not move the amendments to Clauses 31 to 35 and the associated back-of-the-Bill consequential amendments. The Committee should rest assured that I will bring them back on Report, and if the noble Lord has his disagreements then, we will test the House. If the House votes one way, we accept it; if it votes the other way, we potentially test the House again. That is a matter for discussion and debate downstream.

There is nothing to fear from the proposals for someone having a digital ID and showing it when receiving a knife or weapon through the post. That is not something to be afraid of. We are in the 21st century—I am in the 21st century at least, let us put it that way. We will go from there.

I also assure the noble Lord that paper documents such as passports and driving licences will be acceptable as forms of ID, as well as potentially any digital versions of those in due course. I hope that satisfies his question.

I welcome, in a spirit of co-operation and consensus, the agreement from both Front Benches to the provisions for Northern Ireland and Scotland, so that in those areas there is a United Kingdom response from the three Administrations who deal with these matters in a devolved or non-devolved way. I commend the amendments I said I would move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance, whatever is prescribed by the Secretary of State, is an alternative form of identification—wholly convincing, but if we must come back on Report and debate this at length, so be it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a date at the moment, but I will reflect on that with colleagues and return to her, because there are a number of other departmental interests as well.

Amendment 57 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

58: Clause 28, page 32, line 8, leave out “level 5 on the standard scale” and insert “the statutory maximum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches believe that this group contains sensible and prudent amendments. They require us to review the effectiveness of the Government’s measures and to consider carefully the potential implications of the new regulations around the sale of knives. They also seek to ensure that we have the necessary evidence base to improve legislation where needed. These, in our view, are good principles.

Amendment 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, contains both those elements. The first part of the amendment seeks a review within two years of the effectiveness of the measures in preventing the online sale of knives to persons under the age of 18. This would plainly be sensible. There is little point in legislating to prevent something if we find out that in fact that prohibition is not taking effect. We all want to stop the sale of knives to children, but we should want to do so in the most effective and proportionate manner. By reviewing the impact of the Bill, the Government would be able to make the necessary adjustments in response to the evidence. Having said that, we should listen carefully to the observations of my noble friend Lord Hailsham in this respect.

Another aspect of the question of efficacy is our obligation to the law-abiding public. It is right that we should attempt to ban children from purchasing knives. We are all aware of the severity of the knife crime epidemic and that part of the problem is the easy access to knives. But we should not pretend that the entire problem stems from their online availability. Of course, it is a factor, but children and young persons intent on committing knife crime will have plenty of other opportunities, if they are determined enough, to buy knives and to acquire them from other sources. They could use an older friend’s or family member’s identification, or indeed, they could ask them simply to make the purchase. They could steal a knife—given the current rates of shoplifting, I suspect this already happens—or they might simply go no further than their kitchen drawer and take one of the many easily accessible knives there.

By adding restrictions to online sale, the Government are merely stemming one route of access, but doing so adds an extra burden to the great majority of law-abiding citizens and retailers. As I have said, we understand why action is necessary, but, if we are to make it mandatory, we should ensure that it is genuinely effective in practice. Here, we should listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We must know, therefore, that we are not adding regulation for its own sake and that we are simultaneously taking other meaningful measures to address the wider issue. The Government should continue to explore this further.

Proposed subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c) in Amendment 122 address another aspect of the knife problem. While the first part reviews the effect of the Bill on the sale of knives, these subsections turn to the design and legality of the knives themselves.

If the knives which we make harder to purchase are not the ones being used in knife crime, our efforts will be in vain. Collecting data both on knives sold and, separately, on knives used in crimes, as Amendment 194 argues for, could offer a remedy for this. It would provide the Government with the necessary data to identify which types of weapons in particular lie at the root of the problem and to take action accordingly. This principle also underlies Amendment 123—I had already noted the typo, if I can put it that way, and have marked the noble Lord’s homework accordingly. But, taking it seriously, consulting on what knives are used in offending and on the measures to be required to curb their circulation must be sensible and proportionate, and it should complement the Government’s proposals.

This is a moderate group of amendments on a subject that clearly needs further review and refinement. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the Government’s position. At the same time, I think we need to hear carefully and take heed of what noble Lords have said in their words of caution on this topic.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for these amendments, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing his front-line experience of the tragedy in the school in which he currently works. I am also grateful for the comments of other noble Lords and I will try to respond to those in due course. I note the broad support from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for the amendments before the Committee today.

I want to start with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I accept that there have been numerous attempts by numerous Governments to take numerous courses of action to reduce knife crime and that this is another one. But I just say to him that it is still worth trying, and it is still worth examining how we can best reduce the level of knife crime. The measures in the Bill before the Committee today are an honest attempt by the Government to put further obstacles in the way of individuals who might use those knives for nefarious purposes. I simply say it is worth trying, and we are seeking to do that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained, Amendment 122 would require the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of Clauses 31 and 32 in preventing sales to under-18s within two years of those clauses coming into force. I agree in principle that we should have to keep under review the impact of those measures, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned: to look at what works and what has not worked.

The Government are providing £1.75 million of funding for a new national police co-ordination unit to tackle the online sale of knives, and the police will be responsible for enforcing this legislation. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about enforcement but it is for the police to understand the legislation’s effectiveness and what more can be done to tackle knife crime. I will return to the other points that she mentioned in due course.

It is standard practice—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that all measures in the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. This scrutiny will consider the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill; self-evidently, that includes Clauses 31 and 32. The noble Lord is asking for a two-year review; it will be undertaken within three to five years. I hope that reassures him that the measures will be reviewed in a timely and appropriate way—and, again, to learn the lessons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned that we need to examine.

Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would require the Government to consult on regulating the sale of sharp-tipped knives and provide a report to Parliament. The design of knives is also addressed in Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: bladed articles with pointed ends have legitimate uses. They are often needed for a wide range of purposes: they are used as tools in work, and for farming, fishing and cooking. The Government are keen to try to strike the right balance between allowing access to knives for legitimate reasons, which the noble Viscount ably outlined, and the need to protect the public from dangerous weapons.

If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Government are actively exploring options for how we can strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, including consulting on a licensing scheme for all knife sellers in the future. I hope that the noble Lord can accept that as I progress the discussion today.

Amendment 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require regulations relating to the reporting of remote sales of knives to ensure that such reporting takes place as soon as possible following a bulk sale. I am sympathetic to the overall aim of the amendment. Clause 36 provides for a duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. It makes it mandatory for online sellers to report bulk sales. It defines those bulk sales as purchases of six or more knives, two or more qualifying sets of knives or one qualifying set or five knives, in a single transaction or made over two or more occasions within a 30-day period. That is set out in Clause 36. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person or two or more persons where they are believed to be delivered to the same residential address.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

193: Clause 36, page 55, line 9, leave out “England and Wales”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

195: Clause 36, page 55, line 26, leave out “England or Wales” and insert “the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

210A: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland(1) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 54A insert—“54B Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk(1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in an order made by the Department of Justice, report to the person specified in the order any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles.(2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in paragraph (4), sells—(a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles;(b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles;(c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set.(3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others.(4) The ways are—(a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in the United Kingdom, or(b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days—(i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in the United Kingdom, or(ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in the United Kingdom.(5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller is not in the presence of the person (“the buyer”) to whom the bladed articles are sold at the time of the sale.(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5) the seller is not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale if—(a) where the seller is an individual, the seller or a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time;(b) where the seller is not an individual, a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time.(7) A sale is not reportable if the buyer—(a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and(b) is—(i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or(ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006.(8) A person who fails to comply with paragraph (1) commits an offence.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this Article if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(11) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(12) In this section—(a) “bladed article” means an article to which Article 54 applies, other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food;(b) “residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes).(13) An order made by the Department of Justice under paragraph (1) may in particular include requirements about—(a) how reports are to be made,(b) when reports to be made, and(c) the information reports must include.(14) The Department of Justice may by order amend—(a) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(a);(b) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(b);(c) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(c);(d) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(c);(e) the period specified in paragraph (4)(b).”.(3) In Article 57 (rules and orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) in that paragraph for “or 54(3)(c)” substitute “, 54(3)(c) or 54B(1)”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“(2) An order may not be made under Article 54B(14) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”(4) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(3) (guidance by Department of Justice) after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) Article 54B of that Order (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 36.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of interesting amendments regarding knife crime. As we have already heard, my noble friend comes to this debate with the experience of some time in the Home Office—a real experience at the sharp end. Although the rates of knife crime have fallen a little over recent years, any victim of a crime, particularly one caused by knives, is a victim too many. Just recently, we heard of the terrible incident on fireworks night a year or so ago and the trial, which finished in the Old Bailey earlier this autumn; 16 year-olds were involved, and one of them died, and it all happened very quickly. So, knives are a real problem. The Government pledged in their manifesto to halve knife crime by 2030. If they wish to make good on that premise, it is imperative that they really do something to reduce it.

My noble friend’s amendments are a welcome practical measure in that direction but are subject to a number of reservations. I begin with schools. Amendment 214B introduces an important clarification to the law in respect of defences for carrying a knife in school premises. It makes plain that the only justification for someone having a knife at school can be in relation to educational services. It is also right that, in turn, this justification should apply only to teachers or those holding a position of authority. There is no plausible reason why a student should come on to the school premises carrying a knife. We welcome the amendment as an important step to ensure that both pupils and teachers are safe from knives at school, and we hope that the Government look at this and consider the amendment seriously.

We also thank my noble friend for his Amendments 214C to 214E. As we have heard, these seek to create a special category of particularly dangerous weapons: machetes, zombie knives, cleavers, swords and cutlasses. The merit is in identifying particular weapons by name. That will strike a chord with the public and with those who might otherwise carry them. They will know that, if they carry one of these weapons, just having it in their possession risks a very heavy prison sentence. Just having existing powers of sentencing does not, it seems, carry that resonance with those who most need to hear it, so we have got to do something.

Given the substantial increase in the use of machetes in recent years—we heard from my noble friend about the increase in their use in particular—something has to be done which identifies them, singles them out and curbs their circulation and use. In 2024, there were 18 machete homicides, an increase from 14 in 2023. Amendments 214D and 214E similarly ensure that manufacturing, selling, ownership and possession of these dangerous weapons will be regarded as a specific new offence.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham was right to point out that the drafting causes problems, and there are people, in the countryside in particular, who may have a legitimate use for machetes. But we are not in the jungle of Belize; we are in the United Kingdom. Sickles and scythes can be used, of course, but if there is going to be a use for something such as a machete, there should be specific clarity to make sure that we do not allow it to be put forward as a specious defence.

To call these amendments bizarre would, in my submission, go too far. If we take this matter seriously, as we all should, we will know full well that this really is an important mischief which has to be addressed, named and called out. My noble friend has raised an important issue, and the Government, if they are serious about cutting knife crime—and not just knife crime but the use of these appalling tools and weapons—must work to bridge the drafting gap so that the sorts of things which we have seen and heard about in the last few years are heavily reduced and people can walk and live in safety, particularly in our big cities.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I confess that despite preparing for the debate on these amendments, I did not expect to venture into Glasgow razor crime in the 1950s, the use of Waterloo swords or, indeed, the brambles of Lincolnshire, but this has been an enjoyable debate on a very serious subject and I welcome the contributions from across the Committee today.

Amendment 214B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asks whether existing defences to possession of a bladed article—that is, a knife—should be removed in educational establishments. I am of the view that the defences listed under Section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are appropriate and in line with similar defences that already exist for the offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place.

The defence for educational purposes, for example, which Amendment 214B seeks to remove, would cover instances where both the teacher and the student may need to use a knife in the classroom or for educational purposes on the premises, such as in craftmanship or cookery lessons, or others. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made common cause with the view that there is a need for certain uses of knives in schools under strictly controlled circumstances.

The issue of prevention, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, is important, and I endorse the idea that we need to look at how we prevent the use of knives. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that in Amendment 214B his withdrawal of those definitions would cause some difficulties in educational matters.

The religious reasons defence takes into account the need sometimes to carry a knife for religious reasons. The noble Lord and others have mentioned the position of individuals of the Sikh faith. The Government are not aware of any cases where this or any other existing defence has been abused in educational establishments by members of that faith.

Again, it is appropriate to put on record that educational establishments can introduce their own rules and regulations, and, of course, if someone brings a knife into an educational establishment or uses a knife already in the establishment to cause harm, even if they have a defence such as for work purposes, they will have a committed a serious criminal offence under existing legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

And the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Indeed. On reflection, I think I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that his dirk is a dagger and therefore does not fall within the remit of the legislation proposed—I think that information was considered by my noble friend Lord Katz but it was not able to be deployed at the time. However, we can return to that at some point.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am greatly relieved.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord is relieved about that.

The serious point here is that getting the defences and exemptions under which weapons may be legal to own, import or sell under certain limited circumstances right also requires consultation—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, acknowledged that. In the absence of such consultation, I suggest that the Bill is not the right place to legislate on a specific category of knives and weapons, and we risk not taking account of some important matters if we have not consulted first.

In any event, it would be possible to give effect to these proposals for further restrictions through existing regulation-making powers provided for since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so, again, they would be subject to debate in and approval by both Houses of Parliament.

We have debated the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2 which introduce new measures to provide the police with the power to require social media marketplaces and search services to take down online illegal content. I understand the honest, genuine motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in tabling these amendments, but just a casual listen to the debate today shows that there are a number of issues that we need to consider, and I believe that the existing powers that we have, the actions that we have taken and the measures under the Bill will be sufficient. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, some mildly in support of my amendments and others liking the concept but pointing out the serious drafting flaws in them. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham; he is right that the drafting is flawed. Any future amendments I make would need to include “legitimate and lawful use”. He pointed out that he would need to go on to the high street or to another public place to use his machete. I would have to do the same myself, with a buddleia overgrowing the road. If I had a machete, I would have to go on to the pavement to use it. Instead, I have an electric trimmer, which my wife can use. There are legitimate flaws in my drafting.

I suspect that many of my noble friends from a hereditary background have houses stuffed full of dangerous, sharp weapons—from pikes to swords—as well as armour and all the other accoutrements acquired over centuries in this great and noble land of ours, where tremendous battles have been fought to secure our freedoms since 1066. Of course they are not for public display; I accept that this too is an error in my drafting. They are there because they are owned by the family, who should not be penalised for having them.

My concept is right. There is a problem here, and I hope that if we come back to some elements of this amendment on Report, my noble friend Lord Hailsham will help me in the drafting. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that a dirk is not included in my definition. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier hit the nail on the head: tough sentences are required, though that may not require some of the amendments that I have suggested. I am so grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for pointing out that with the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it was tough sentences that cracked down in Scotland. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he said that there was then full judicial discretion. We did not have the Sentencing Council, which to me ties the hands of our judges—judges who should have full discretion to sentence as they see fit.

In some of those cases in the last few months which I quoted, people got a minimum term of 24 years or 30 years for an appalling murder, but hundreds of others who attacked people who did not die received much lesser sentences. Machete attacks have now become endemic. It is the weapon of choice for bad guys, for youths who want to commit crimes or terrorise their opponents in other gangs. We need unique and specialised exemplary action.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not calling for children to be criminalised. I referred to three instances, and I was wrong in suggesting removing educational uses. But I can see no justification for maintaining a religious exception and a national dress exception allowing kids to bring such knives to school. The Government are wrong to stick to that.

Introducing this has been worth while. I do not mind that my noble friend Lord Hailsham called some of it “bizarre”. What is happening on the streets of London and elsewhere in England today is bizarre. If, 20 years ago, we had said that we would see these gangs fighting on the streets outside Starbucks with machetes, we would have said, “Don’t be fanciful; it’s barking mad; it’s never going to happen”. It is happening day in, day out on our streets. It is not only bizarre; it is obscene and dangerous. Therefore, we need to take special action, exemplary action, to deal with this problem. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 214B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward Amendments 214F and 214G, which address a gap in the protections afforded to retail workers under Clause 37. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.

The amendments seek to ensure that delivery drivers who are employed as part of the retail and distribution process are fully included in the scope of the proposed offences against retail workers, and that delivery vehicles themselves are recognised as an extension of the retail premises. We understand and support the underlying principle behind these proposals. Delivery drivers in many cases are the face and point of contact between businesses and consumers and they often work alone, sometimes at unsociable hours and in circumstances where they may be exposed to heightened vulnerability and increasing levels of aggression and abuse.

The safety of delivery drivers should not depend on whether they are standing behind a shop counter or stepping out of a branded van. The rise of home delivery as a core component of modern retail means that this work is an integral part of the sector, and it is only right that the law reflects that reality. It is regrettable to read that certain major supermarkets have rolled out bodycams for their delivery drivers in an effort to protect them. I therefore hope the Government will consider carefully how these protections might sensibly be extended to those whose job it is to ensure that goods reach the customer.

Turning to Amendment 351 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I fully understand the principle and intent behind this amendment. It raises significant questions about whether the current scope of legal protection is sufficiently broad. The question of whether other public-facing workers, such as in transport, hospitality or civic buildings, face similar risks is one worth raising and discussing. Many of those workers play a crucial role in maintaining order, ensuring safety and supporting essential public functions in spaces accessible to the public.

I similarly thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 214FA. This would include premises used by the hospitality industry for the supply of food or drink as part of the definition of retail premises for the purposes of this offence. This is also an important question to pose to the Government, and I hope they consider it with care.

The issues raised by this group of amendments deserve serious consideration. They invite the Government to reflect on whether extra provisions are needed to protect certain public-facing roles and, if so, which roles specifically need to be highlighted. The question that needs to be answered in response to all the amendments in this group is why only retail workers should be afforded a special criminal offence. Does the A&E receptionist not face the threat of violence and intimidation too? What about the bar staff at a nightclub? A wide range of people are at higher risk of assault during the course of their work. If we are to create a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, it would make sense to expand this. I hope that the Government will give this careful thought and return the clarity in how they intend to address the concerns expressed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their amendments. I should note—if not declare an interest—that I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 46 years now. That is a long time. I think it is worth noting that I have an interest in this matter. Indeed, I spent many years trying to raise this very issue when a Member of Parliament and outside Parliament before coming to this House.

I should also say at the outset that I am meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to discuss this matter, and am very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as well. I had a request from my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton to meet him and the USDAW general secretary, Joanne Thomas. I am also happy to do that between now and Report; it may not be immediately.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I would be very happy to join a group meeting rather than the Minister having to have several meetings with each of us. If there were to be third parties involved in a meeting, such as USDAW, I wonder whether he would also consider including the Institute of Customer Service. It is in a unique position—and I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Customer Service—as it looks at this across the board, and the letter it organised included signatories from a range of different industries.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will reflect on that. It is a helpful suggestion, if colleagues are happy to have a joint meeting. I would also like to involve the Policing Minister, who has an interest in this matter as a whole.

I want to place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton. They have campaigned very strongly as representatives of the supermarkets, in this case Tesco, and the workforce. My noble friend has campaigned for many years on this issue. Freedom from Fear is a campaign that Paddy Lillis, the previous general secretary, Joanne Thomas, the current general secretary, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, the general secretary before Paddy Lillis, worked on for a long time. It has been brought to them by members of the union as an important issue. It is worth putting that on record, and we can examine how we organise the discussion and consultation in due course.

Assault on anyone, including delivery drivers and transport staff, is wholly unacceptable. Everyone should be protected from assault. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, common assault has a maximum sentence of six months in prison and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers serious violence, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm.

I come back to the reason why I have campaigned on this issue for many years. Retail workers have been at the forefront of upholding much of the legislation. They uphold legislation on solvent abuse sales, tobacco sales, knife sales, drink sales and a range of other issues. They are also very much the first port of call on shop theft and the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. USDAW figures show that 10% of staff have reported a physical attack on them in the last year alone; that seems to me to be a very strong reason why the Government have brought forward this amendment. There is a wealth of evidence to back the position that there is a significant problem specific to retail workers because of the nature of that work.

Clauses 37 and 38 provide for the bespoke offence of assaulting a retail worker. They also place a duty on the courts when sentencing an offender to make a criminal behaviour order; shop theft may often be linked to drug and alcohol abuse issues as a whole. Our definition of a retail worker is intentionally narrow, given the vital need to provide legal clarity and ensure there is no ambiguity for courts in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker when impacted by their job.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the hospitality sector. This sector is specifically excluded, but if he looks at the definition of retail premises in Clause 37(3), he can see that it would be open to a judge to determine what might be included. For example, cafes might have stalls inside the shop, so that could be potentially defined as a retail premise as well. There is no specific offence, and I would not wish to extend it to the hospitality sector, but a judge could potentially interpret some aspects of hospitality being within the retail sector under Clause 37(3).

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I think the Minister’s remarks make quite a telling case. In particular, I was struck by the point that retail workers, because of the things they sell—cigarettes and tobacco—are more on the front line than people serving chicken nuggets, or whatever. I accept that there is a very good point that the retail sector needs to be guarded specifically, possibly differently from the hospitality sector. I shall look carefully at what he said.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles and therefore including them could potentially cause an issue with definition and therefore with the courts using the legislation. Again, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have put that case. I am happy to meet them, and we can examine and discuss and hear what they have to say outside the Committee.

With regard to public-facing workers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, also mentioned, the previous Government—again to their credit—introduced a statutory aggravating factor for assault against any public-facing worker via Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I am advised that that would include, for example, train staff, and the aggravating factor would apply in assault cases when an offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty, or providing a service to the public. There may be areas of definition, but I hope that the issue that the noble Baroness has raised ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence and will send a clear message that violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker will not be tolerated.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the intention behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is absolutely right to refer to it as theft. It is theft, under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. He is right that there is no such offence as shoplifting.

We have all heard the same stories from businesses, large and small: prolific offenders walking out with hundreds of pounds of stock in broad daylight; staff frightened or, in many cases, not allowed to intervene; police too stretched to attend; and, time and again, the same individuals returning to commit offence after offence because they believe, with some justification, that nothing will happen to them.

My noble friend’s first amendment in this group deals with the ability to share clear evidence of theft with those who need to see it. At present, retailers might be reluctant or legally uncertain about whether they can circulate images of offenders, even to neighbouring stores, to their own head office or to crime reduction bodies. Yet, these are precisely the channels that allow patterns of offending to be identified and prolific offenders to be caught.

The amendments set out a lawful, proportionate system. Images can be shared where a theft has occurred, provided the originals are preserved, time-stamped, unedited and sent to the police. This ensures the integrity of evidence and prevents misuse. Importantly, it provides a remedy and compensation if a photograph of the wrong individual is mistakenly published. My only concern here is that being required to pay £300 per day in compensation might deter the shop owner from circulating the evidence.

I am particularly supportive of Amendment 216B. We know that a number of retailers have told their staff to not intervene when they see a person shoplifting. This has led to numerous instances of brazen theft, whereby people walk into a shop, grab armfuls of products and walk out in full sight of security guards and staff. Such scenes make a mockery of law and order. The amendment permits the lawful detention of suspected thieves by trained security staff. Shopkeepers should not have to look on helplessly while brazen thieves simply walk out of the store. What my noble friend proposes is eminently sensible: properly trained staff equipped with body-worn cameras, using only minimum force, operating under strict rules and with constant video recording. This is not a free-for-all; it is the opposite. It is a controlled, transparent, safeguarded process that both protects the rights of suspects and gives retailers the ability to intervene proportionately when theft is happening before their eyes.

The amendment also places obligations on the police when they are called. They must attend promptly, take custody of the suspect, secure the evidence and make decisions based on a full review, not a hurried assessment at the store door. This is entirely right. Retail staff are repeatedly told to detain no one because the police will not come. The amendment would send the opposite message. When retailers correctly do their part, the police must do theirs.

Finally, Amendment 216C addresses a growing and deeply troubling phenomenon, whereby organised gangs loot shops, raid entire streets or retail parks and steal thousands of pounds-worth of goods. These are not opportunists; they are organised criminals. Yet, the system too often charges them with individual, low-value thefts rather than with conspiracy or organised crime offences. The amendment establishes that, where there is reliable evidence of at least 10 thefts involving two or more individuals, a full investigation with conspiracy charges must be instigated where appropriate. The sentencing framework my noble friend proposes is proportionate and targeted: higher penalties for organised groups of five or more and the automatic confiscation of vehicles or property used in the crime. These are necessary deterrents: the current penalties are not.

Taken together, these amendments represent a robust but balanced response to an urgent and worsening problem. They support shopkeepers, empower security staff and assist the police with the collection of evidence.

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

My Lords, I begin by, in part, sharing the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I agree with him. It is not shoplifting; it is shop theft. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on that same point. When I began my working career 45 years ago after university with the Co-op on a management training course, we called it “leakage”. I found that term offensive then, and I find it offensive now. It is shop theft. So I agree with him that there needs to be an effort made by the Government to tackle this issue.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the Home Office is working with police representatives through the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make it easier for retailers to report crime. The current Policing Minister and the previous Policing Minister are now both supporting a Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy launched by the chief constables and industry. We had a summer of action on shop theft, which involved visible policing on the streets and targeting hotspot areas.

This winter, the Home Secretary plans for police forces across England and Wales to partner with local businesses, local councils and police and crime commissioners to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season. There are plans to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground, from neighbourhood policing through to special constables and PCSOs. The measures in Clause 39, which we debated earlier, try to raise the level of importance of shop theft. As a Government, we recognise that we want to take action on that.

Where I disagree with the noble Lord is on some of these proposals. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who, again, has great experience of the retail world, I take the issue of shop theft extremely seriously. Probably like him, I am one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who have apprehended a shoplifter and reported them to the police, along with the manager of the shop, and I have been present at the shop theft interview as part of my duties. It was shop theft then and it is shop theft now, and it should not be tolerated, whatever the level of that shop theft.

On the measures the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, brings forward, such as Amendment 216A, which seeks to enable deterrent actions by shopkeepers through the use of video or photographic evidence, it is important that we have evidence such as that supplied by CCTV. Widespread introduction and publication, which is one of the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment, would meet the objectives of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. However, it would potentially impinge on the rights of individuals, who may or may not be guilty, and could well incite vigilante action and undermine the fundamental presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. I have no objection to CCTV, but the noble Lord needs to be careful with that, which is the reason why I cannot support the amendment.

Before I move on to the noble Lord’s other amendments, let me say that I appreciated his support for Operation Opal. Retailers are able to refer cases of organised retail crime to Operation Opal, and the national police acquisitive crime intelligence unit then investigates. It is unnecessary to specify that in the legislation because it is an operational issue, but again, it shows the importance we place on the issue of shop theft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I did not think my amendment was creating considerable extra powers of arrest for the security guards, but it seems that the current power largely mirrors a lot of things that I put in this amendment. My question then is, why are so many shops scared to use it? I appreciate that the retail unit or outlet has to determine whether they let the security guards arrest people, but there is certainly a fear among many security guards in this respect, and many shops say, “We can’t let you arrest people”. We must, somehow or other empower, them to do so.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is a genuine fear about what the response would be, and I understand that. The days when I—and potentially the noble Lord, Lord Randall—stopped a shop theft in a retail premises were a long time ago. The climate was different, and now there is the carrying of knives and the threat of violence. That might be a fear, and it is up to individual shops to determine their own policy. Clause 37, which deals with attacks on retail workers and will apply to a whole range of retail staff, adds an extra protection. It will be up to individual shops, but it is important that those two measures are seen as coterminous. Protection of retail staff in the event of shop theft and assault is a further measure to support action on shop theft. However, it is ultimately for individual stores to determine their policy.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of multiple thefts and planning for thefts. I find it objectionable to see criminal gangs organising mass hits on shops, but that is already a factor that aggravates the seriousness of the theft offence. If, therefore, there is evidence that multiple parties were involved in a theft, each of those parties could and should be charged with theft, as well as conspiracy to commit theft. The amendment would require the police to consider charging with conspiracy to commit theft if there is evidence that two more people are involved. I know that the noble Lord knows I am going to say this, but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on relevant charges, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. I do not want to put on statute what charges the police or CPS should bring, but again, the potential is there should they wish to do so.

I will touch briefly on the sentencing aspects of the amendment. At present the maximum penalty for theft is seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit theft or robbery has the same maximum penalty as the base offence. The effect of this amendment, therefore, would be to create a form of conspiracy to commit theft offence that would potentially have, if fewer than five people were acting together, a lower maximum penalty than theft or conspiracy to commit theft have now.

As we discussed previously, the amendment also introduces minimum sentences. I made it plain in our debates on Monday that minimum sentences are rare in law. Parliament has set them in statute only exceptionally. They are not appropriate in this instance. Sentencing guidelines for theft, which courts are required to follow unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so, already highlight when considering the culpability of an offender factors such as involvement of others through “coercion, intimidation or exploitation”. The issue of

“sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning”

is also relevant. The other aggravating factors that the court must consider include taking account of previous convictions.

Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, for my reasons and those that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned. However, I do not want him to leave the Committee tonight thinking that this Government are not committed to tackling shop theft. We are, through the measures that we have taken and are encouraging police to take, through the measures in this Bill to change the definition of shop theft in Clause 39 and in providing protection for retail workers in Clause 37.

Shop theft is shop theft. It costs all of us resource on our bills. It costs businesses resource. It is money which should be invested in the local economy rather than going into the pockets of people who opportunistically, individually, for whatever reason—from poverty to organised criminal gangs, from drug abuse to alcohol abuse—commit shop theft in many of our stores. I want to make sure that we do all we can to reduce it and to provide deterrents to it. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, including my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and, for his full support for my amendments, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that if someone is stealing from their shop, shopkeepers do not have time to go through the video cameras to get the evidence. If a shopkeeper has someone stealing from their shop and cannot be bothered to look at the TV cameras to see the evidence for it, he cannot complain about shop theft. If he has the evidence, for goodness’ sake, he should use it. I do not think that the noble Baroness read my amendments on all the protections that I have built in for those who do want to arrest criminals. The Minister set out in his excellent speech all the powers of citizen’s arrest that a security guard or a shopkeeper can have, but the noble Baroness said that no one should have the power to arrest except a policeman who is properly trained. That is rather bizarre, to use a word that was used earlier about my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

217: Clause 40, page 59, line 27, after “over” insert “who is in a part of the United Kingdom (“the relevant part” of the United Kingdom)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “the relevant part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41 as the part of the United Kingdom in which the person aged 18 or over engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence in Clauses 40 and 41 are intended to provide legal certainty and further tighten the grip of the law against those who seek to draw children into criminality.

At the request of the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice, the child criminal exploitation offence was extended UK-wide in the other place. As the offence is committed where an adult intentionally takes action to cause a child to commit criminal conduct, it is now necessary to provide further clarification about where the child’s conduct must be criminal. This is owing to the fact that the criminal law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a child’s conduct that is criminal in one may not be criminalised in another.

Perpetrators who exploit children for criminal purposes do not care about the UK’s internal borders, so it is right that we ensure that this new offence prevents them from taking advantage of them. Government Amendments 217, 220, 221 and 223 to 230 ensure that it does not matter whether the intended conduct of the child is criminal in the part of the UK where the adult is acting to exploit them or the part of the UK where they intend the child to act. If it is criminal in either one, the perpetrator can be prosecuted. If it is not criminal in either one, the offence is not committed.

Amendment 231 puts beyond doubt that a perpetrator commits the child criminal exploitation offence where the child they have exploited is under the age of criminal responsibility. Even though a child under 10 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or under 12 in Scotland, cannot technically commit an offence or be prosecuted for it, they can still be exploited, and it is right that this offence says so clearly and explicitly on the face of the Bill.

Amendments 487, 493 and 510 make consequential amendments to the general provisions at the back of the Bill. Together, these amendments demonstrate the Government’s unwavering commitment to leave no space for perpetrators who target children for criminal purposes to expose loopholes or to escape to.

There are a series of other amendments in this group; the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have Amendments 218, 219, 222 and 222A. I want to listen to what noble Lords say and will respond to any comments on those amendments at the end of my comments. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The group largely seeks to clarify the Bill as it stands and that is important when we are addressing child exploitation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the amendments tabled in his name. I know we may not always see eye to eye at the Dispatch Box, but I can wholly support the principle behind his amendments in this group.

It may seem like semantics to clarify that offences may differ in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an important point. We must ensure that the legislation allows crimes to be prosecuted only where they are crimes. His Amendments 217 and 220, and the many consequential amendments, aim to ensure that this is the case. Similarly, his Amendments 487 and 493 extend the devolutionary power to make regulations for the area of child criminal exploitation. It is right that this is consistent. Those who create the laws should have the legislative right to make provisions within their remit.

We also broadly support the principles behind the other amendments in this group, which aim to give more protections to children. Amendments 218 and 219, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek further to define what constitutes child criminal exploitation and extend the provisions to actions that may support criminal activity while not being criminal themselves.

Amendments 222 and 222A aim to narrow the scope of reasonable excuses that offenders can give when claiming to believe that the child was over the age of 18. The sentiment behind these amendments is a noble one. Whether the adult believed they were a child is largely inconsequential to the exploited child. Therefore, if the adult is not to be prosecuted, the court must be absolutely certain that they did not believe the child was under 18. That being said, I am slightly wary of completely disapplying reasonable excuse as a defence. It would take away the opportunity of defence in the very rare cases where the adult had a genuine and proven reason to believe the child was an adult. As I say, this is very rare, and it is still criminal exploitation, but we must still account for it.

Overall, this group is sensible, procedural and necessary; I therefore offer my support to the Minister’s intentions.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top for their amendments, and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for putting his name to them and for his supportive comments.

Before I lose the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about a national register, I will just say that the Police National Computer and the child criminal exploitation prevention orders can impose notification requirements on persons subject to orders requiring them to inform the local police of their name and address. I had that on my phone before I peered at my notes, and I did not want to lose that point.

I will start by welcoming Clause 40. It is a positive, forward-looking clause that will help support the reduction of child exploitation. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled, and I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the amendments I have tabled.

Amendment 218, tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would require that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to have been committed, the perpetrator had used

“threats, physical force, intimidation, persuasion or any other means”

against the child. In doing so, my noble friend seeks to illustrate the ways in which children can be criminally exploited. However, I put it to her that, in specifying the required means by which an adult gets a child to commit criminal conduct, the way in which the amendment is phased risks narrowing the application of the offence, because the prosecution would have to additionally prove those means of exploitation took place. Currently, the child criminal exploitation offence does not require proof that the child was subjected to threats, physical force, intimidation or any other harmful ways in which the child’s compliance was obtained by their exploiter. This is because, as a Government, we are very clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, so the offence could be committed regardless of whether and how the child was compelled to engage in the intended criminal activity.

Although my noble friend’s amendment includes the words “any other means”, which mitigates against any narrowing of the scope of the offence, I do not consider it necessary to include an illustrative, non-exhaustive list in this way. It would cause courts potentially to wonder about its purpose as a legal test and may have the unintended consequence of limiting the circumstances in which the child exploitation offence may be made out. I want my noble friend to think about that. I suggest to her that the prosecution wants to get the best case, and, by accepting her amendment, we might end up narrowing the potential success of legislating against this offence.

My noble friend also tabled Amendment 219, which would more specifically capture adults who intend to cause a child

“to engage in actions that support or facilitate”

crime. My noble friend indicated in her speech that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the offence of child exploitation also includes causing a child to commit an action which, while not itself illegal, can lead to future criminal behaviour. We have looked at this amendment in some detail, but I consider the objective is already met by subsection (1)(a)(iii) of the clause, which captures where the adult does something to the child now to facilitate or make it easier to cause the child to commit a criminal act in the future—the noble Baroness can find this on page 59 of the Bill as currently drafted. I hope she will look at that and reflect on it as part of these discussions, before any further discussion takes place on Report.

Furthermore, actions that support or facilitate crime may already amount to an offence, such as the offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Where an adult intentionally causes a child to commit an offence, the child criminal exploitation offence may be committed.

I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in support of his Amendment 222. This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, it must be proved that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim is aged 18 or over. My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned the issue of migrants—we are currently examining facial recognition issues in relation to migrants, and we had a discussion about that in the other Bill that I am taking through the House at this moment on immigration very recently. But she makes a very important point. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that all adults who target children to draw them into crime can be caught by this offence, but that is precisely why the reasonable belief test is important—to ensure that perpetrators who deliberately and intentionally target children to commit crime are correctly identified and prosecuted. If there was no requirement to prove a lack of reasonable belief that the alleged victim was a child, it would risk criminalising people as exploiters of children who genuinely did not intend or contemplate involving a minor in criminality.

We must remember that the child criminal exploitation offence requires no proof of harmful behaviours against the child, such as coercion, force or threats. This goes back to the first point that I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s first amendment. It is committed simply when an adult engages in any contact or conduct towards or in respect of a child intending to cause them to commit a crime. The exploitative nature of this offence is the imbalance of power, which is exercised by an adult in deliberately and purposely seeking to involve a child in crime. Where that is not a factor in a case, as demonstrated by what they believed about the child’s age, there are other more appropriate offences that might be charged. For example, where a person encourages or assists someone to commit an offence regardless of their age, there is already an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

Again, I welcome the discussion that we have had this evening, I welcome the contribution of Action for Children, and I welcome the discussion that we have had from the Children’s Commissioner for England, who called for this amendment due to concerns that perpetrators will seek to take advantage of considerations around the reasonable belief of age to undermine the credibility of victims and potentially escape prosecution. I welcome those contributions to the debate. I want to give them, with my colleagues in the Home Office, serious consideration. However, I make the point to the noble Lord that at the moment we do not consider reasonable belief of age to be a loophole, as is suggested—and in support of that I make a number of points.

First, there is a test of reasonable belief that does not necessarily require that the defendants have specific knowledge about the victim’s age, which would be a higher burden. Secondly, a perpetrator’s claim as to their belief alone will not be enough to escape prosecution, as prosecutors can and, I hope, would establish either that they did not believe the victim was 18 or, even if they did, that that belief was not reasonable. Thirdly, it only applies to children aged 13 to 17, not the most vulnerable children aged under 13. Finally, it follows established precedent in other offences, where the core offending relates to an adult’s conduct towards a child—for example, to child sexual exploitation offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on Amendment 222A—she is not here today. It is commendable that someone has looked at other amendments and decided not to move their own; it is a very un-egotistical way of approaching this business.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Cross-Bench.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, says “Cross-Bench”. I will take that as a bonus point for the Cross Benches. It is a noble approach to take towards the amendment. So I will not deliberate on those points as I would potentially have done, but I ask the noble Lord simply to pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness for her self-awareness on that issue, which is commendable.

I hope that, with those comments, my noble friend and other noble Lords will not press their amendments, will reflect on what I have said and, if need be, will consider this outside the Committee. I commend the amendments in my name to the Committee.

Amendment 217 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

220: Clause 40, page 59, line 31, leave out from second “the” to end of line 33 and insert “relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part, or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (ii) so that it covers the child doing anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

223: Clause 40, page 60, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (1)(a) “offence” means an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in subsection (1)(a), references to an offence are to an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

225: Clause 41, page 60, line 40, after “the” insert “relevant part of the”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.

Police Reform

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, police and crime commissioners were an innovative idea, but experience has shown they have not delivered as intended. Instead, they have proved to be a costly and flawed experiment, so we welcome their abolition. However, I hope the Minister will be able to provide the House with rather more clarity on what will replace them. We do not believe that transferring PCC powers to mayors is the answer, as this would concentrate even more power in single individuals, with too little scrutiny or accountability.

The proposal for a police and crime lead, described as

“akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime”,

risks being a rebadged PCC. Unless the legislation is crystal clear, this role could again become a focal point for political leverage over chief constables. It must be made abundantly clear that chief constables retain full operational independence, and that these new leads and boards will not have hire-and-fire powers. If not, we risk repeating the mistakes of the PCC model, drawing policing further into politics rather than strengthening impartial policing by consent.

The Government say that these boards will not be a return to the invisible committees of the past, but this assurance needs substance. How will they work, and how will their work be accessible and visible to the public? The former Metropolitan Police Authority may offer some useful lessons. Having served on that body for seven years, I can attest that no one could describe it as invisible. Its meetings were in public and widely reported, and its scrutiny of senior police officers was robust. Will the Home Office carefully consider what worked in that model before finalising these new arrangements?

I was particularly disappointed to learn from the Minister’s Statement in the House of Commons that the £100 million that could be saved in this Parliament through the abolition of PCC elections will go to the Treasury rather than to front-line policing. An over- stretched police service will find that a very difficult pill to swallow. The Home Office says that reforms to police governance will save at least £20 million a year —enough to fund 320 extra police constables. Can the Minister give a clear undertaking that this money will definitely be spent on recruiting those 320 extra police officers? Saying that something can happen is very different from saying that it will happen.

Finally, rebuilding public trust in police goes far beyond governance. True accountability demands transparency. Will the Government require police forces to publish data on officers under investigation for sexual or domestic abuse, and will they now act to bring police record-keeping in England and Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, ending the discretionary destruction of police records, as recommended by the Hillsborough Independent Panel?

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

I am grateful for this opportunity to outline the Government’s plans for police and crime commissioners. In doing so, I hope I can answer the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord, Davies of Gower.

First, we anticipate doing this for efficiency reasons. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there is a potential £100 million saving. Some £87 million of that £100 million will be through the cancellation of elections. They are currently funded centrally, which is why that resource will go to the Treasury. This will save around £20.3 million over the course of the rest of this Parliament, which will be put into front-line policing and fund around 320 additional officers. They will be part of the 13,000 officers we intend to put on the ground over the course of this Parliament, either as specials, PCCs or warranted officers, of which 3,000 are already in place.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, there is currently a patchwork of responsibilities for policing. Five existing mayors—in London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and York and North Yorkshire—have policing powers. The existing mayors in Merseyside, Nottingham, Derby, the West Midlands and the West Country do not have policing powers. There are new mayors coming on stream in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Sussex, Cumbria, Hampshire, and potentially in Cheshire and Lancashire, who do not currently have policing powers. There are also other areas, such as Humberside and Lincolnshire, where the responsibilities of police and crime commissioners overlap with those of their directly elected mayors. That is a big patchwork. As far as possible, we are trying to get the mayoral model to have accountability for policing, as is the case for the five such mayors to date. Usually—but it is up to the mayor—a deputy mayor is appointed to be responsible, as the lead person, for those statements. I think that is helpful.

The noble Lord asked why we have brought this forward now. We thought it was useful to give as much notice as possible that the cancellation of the elections would happen in 2028. The noble Lord also asked about the police White Paper. I can assure him that it will be produced before Christmas of this year and will therefore be before both Houses of Parliament before this Christmas. It was important to give as much notice as possible once the decision had been taken, and we wanted to ensure that police and crime commissioners had an opportunity to reflect upon that.

The noble Lord asked how this helps with crime. It gives a focus, direction and greater efficiency but, equally, it is not to be seen in isolation. As he knows, almost every day of this week we will be dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill. We have 13,000 extra officers in place, additional initiatives on shop theft and a whole range of proposals to deal with anti-social behaviour and knife crime. He mentions London; it has had its lowest murder rate this year. It is still very high, with 93 people being killed—I am not denying that—but it is the lowest rate for many years. There is a push to try to reduce crime across the board, of which this will be part.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, operational independence is critical. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to move away from this model, because there is still a temptation for police and crime commissioners to want to be the chief constable as well as setting the budgets for police and crime. Operational independence from political interference is vital. The police and crime boards that we will establish in areas where there is not a mayor will potentially have the same role, with lots of senior councillors from an area being able to hold a chief constable to account and set a budget. The London model might be very appropriate for that, because there is an opportunity for the lead councillors in an area, usually the leaders of local councils, to hold a chief constable to account and set a budget, and to do so. I say again that, in local council areas, the budget settlement is a precept; the police precept is usually included in the rates bill, which is held to account usually by the leader or leaders of the council. So there is scope there as a whole.

I welcome the noble Baroness’s welcome for the abolition and hope she will work with us when we publish legislation, as we will have to do to implement this measure, at some point in the future. She will have the ability to test those issues at that time.

I say to all noble Lords that the first election had a turnout of 15%. The second election was slightly higher. The third was down from the second, at 24%. There is not necessarily an awareness. Anybody in Greater Manchester knows who Andy Burnham is; everyone who lives in my neck of the woods in Merseyside knows who, ah—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Knows who Steve Rotheram is. I am being distracted by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, who is anxious to bounce up. We have 20 minutes in this first part—he should know that by now. He is bouncing away and trying to get in. I will give him the opportunity, but I still have up to eight minutes before the 20 minutes for questions from the House. Everybody in the area knows who Steve Rotheram is. The noble Lord put me off at a crucial moment there, but I forgive him and will continue.

I say to the House generally that this is an efficiency measure that will focus policing and help support the Government’s crime and safer streets mission. I commend it to the House.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House and declare that, as a former director of Liberty, I was in unusual lockstep with chief constables in opposing what was to become the cross-party mistake of police and crime commissioners. Does my noble friend agree that the design fault that distinguishes the PCC model from others that have been discussed, including committees of councillors, mayors and so on, is in the word “temptation” in the Statement? An elected politician whose sole raison d’être is policing faces the almost inevitable temptation to dip their toes, particularly in media statements, into operational matters, and it is that design fault we need to avoid in future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. Key to the potential new model is that the police mayoral model/policing board model will be accountable for setting the budget and for holding the chief constable, whoever he or she may be, to account for the delivery of a police and crime plan that the police and crime commissioner signs off.

The temptation is there now for a running commentary and wanting to be the front person on any incident in a community because, ultimately, that election depends solely on police and crime performance. It does not depend, as mayoral elections do, on a whole range of issues, many of which are not directly political but many of which are. So there is a shift there which I hope will be welcome. Again I say that, at some point, this House will have an opportunity to test our proposals, because legislation will be required to facilitate these changes.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Minister. We will shortly be debating the English devolution Bill, where it will be interesting to raise these matters again, because, of course, some local authorities are moving to unitary and others to mayors. This will all fit into that new template.

How can the Minister convince us that this will actually improve the quality of some of our senior police? We have some very good chief constables, not least the chief constable of Greater Manchester: we need others of that calibre. Equally, we have some situations, as in my own area of Devon, where we had at one point three chief constables: one suspended, the temporary one suspended as well, then an interim chief constable, all being paid for at the same time. That is bad policing and bad leadership. How is any of this going to increase the quality of those at the top of policing?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: we must ensure we have extremely good support, via the police service, for improving the quality of senior officers. If he looks and the Crime and Policing Bill in detail, he will see that there are measures to improve training, support, promotion opportunities, quality, vetting and other mechanisms, in relation to improving the quality of police officers.

Again, it is important that the policing individual for the mayor’s office, or the police board, holds the chief constable to account. In the case that he mentions, it is arguable that that did not happen to the extent that it should have done. There is an important distinction between budget, holding to account and agreeing a plan versus day-to-day operational activity. Improving the quality of staff is absolutely important, and that is what our new proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill are designed to do.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the Government have done the right thing in removing PCCs. That said, some of them were very good and they sometimes made some good decisions. However, interestingly, as PCCs came along, we ended up with selections for chief constables with one applicant: the home candidate. Unsurprisingly, they ended up with people who agreed with them. So, I am afraid that some change was necessary, and that is a good idea.

I am less convinced by the Government’s solution in other respects. First, the move to mayors may be a good idea, but I worry about the rest. The Minister said that, at the moment, it is a patchwork. I am afraid that the alternative solution to a mayor looks like a hodge-podge. I include in that the City of London, which appears to be keeping its own committee, for reasons entirely beyond me. Why does the City of London, the smallest force in the country, need a committee that nobody else can manage?

Finally, I am not sure about these savings. I can almost guarantee that the council leaders who take on this responsibility will want their own people to support them, so will absorb that saving immediately. The Government may want to look at what arrangements will be in place and whether there will be any cap on the expenditure for the new governance, which frankly has gone through the roof. As the Minister has just explained, that saving will be gained by the new arrangements.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I first echo what the noble Lord has said. This is not in any way directed at the performance of individual police and crime commissioners. There are many good people who have given a lot of commitment and time and, in many cases, have made significant changes. However, at the end of the day, we are looking at the governance model. In my view, it needs to move towards the mayoral model. Where we can do that, we will.

The genuine problem is that not every area is seeking to have a mayor at the moment and not all police authorities are coterminous with mayoral authorities. Those are issues that we will have to look at downstream, but the general presumption is to build on the models we have now, in London, Greater Manchester and the Yorkshires, to ensure that we firm up that mayoral accountability.

The police White Paper—which, as I have just confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be published before Christmas—will look at issues such as efficiency, a range of matters to do with the improvement of training, going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and how we can improve performance outputs in policing. I will bring that back to the House before Christmas but, at the moment, I cannot stray too much into that area.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as a superintendent some years ago, I spent some time at the FBI academy in Quantico, studying the criminal justice system in the USA. This is where the idea of police and crime commissioners emanated from. Judges and district attorneys, not to mention county sheriffs, are elected by political parties. This goes right up the ladder, and we see today the FBI director being sacked by President Trump because he did not carry out his wishes. Incidentally, he also appoints the members of the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice is directed to carry out the President’s wishes.

Does the Minister agree that the rule of law is a precious thing to have been born out of Magna Carta, which places legal limits on government power? It evolved the idea of fair trials, habeas corpus and universal legal rights, and political parties should not be involved in political governance, which is evidenced by the low turnout in police and crime commissioner elections. Chief officers should be independent of party politics. I opposed the PCCs as president of the Police Superintendents’ Association and still do. I whole- heartedly welcome these changes.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can take my noble friend back to 2010-11, when the Labour Party, then in opposition, opposed police and crime commissioners in principle but fought the elections because when there is an elected position, you have to try to fight to fill it. We have looked at the issues of governance and at the issues that my noble friend mentioned. We think it is important that we have independence of policing, but we still believe that there has to be some oversight of that policing, of the budget and of the chief constable to make them accountable. That is why the directly elected mayor will have the responsibility, among many others, to appoint a deputy mayor, potentially, to run policing. In areas that do not have directly elected mayors, we will look to have an indirectly elected policing board comprising senior people from the council, but it is absolutely important that the integrity of that independence is maintained.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement and agree with its direction of travel. Fellow bishops serving in more urban contexts where elected mayors now hold policing functions speak positively about the clarity and democratic accountability that the new approach has engendered. Other communities, such as my own, have had to work extremely hard to interest the electorate in voting for a police and crime commissioner. I think we have done slightly better than average in that regard, but even then the turnout is comparatively low. Will the new policing and crime boards lead to tensions in communities where so-called upper-tier leaders, who are often not used to working together, take very different perspectives on policing priorities? What might be done at this stage to lessen the potential of stalemate in such situations?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an important point, because in areas such as the right reverend Prelate’s there are always going to be tensions between rural councils and the urban council. There are going to be tensions in any authority between high crime levels and lower crime levels. Again, I hope that the policing board model—which I think will be the minority, because of the numbers of mayors that are either in place or coming on stream before the election in 2028—will be one of serious grown-ups having to set a rate for police funding, set a plan for police funding and then hold the chief constable to account for delivering it. Those are their three essential roles. With due respect to the police and crime commissioners, those three roles can be managed in addition to what council leaders are doing. It is no different from council leaders contributing to a wider district plan on environment, transport or housing issues, which happens in every other field of local government responsibility now.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a paid but fiercely independent adviser to the Metropolitan Police. The Statement says that the PCC model has drawn policing more into politics and

“had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables”.

Are these problems not the result of concentrating the power to hire and fire chief constables in the hands of one party-politically aligned individual? How does moving to elected mayors address this problem?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The power to appoint the chief constable will reside with the appointed person who has responsibility for policing. That could well be the mayor, the person appointed by the mayor as the deputy mayor, or the lead councillor in a policing and crime board. The dilemma that the noble Lord mentioned will still be there, but it is important, given their wider responsibilities, for the chief constable to be appointed by the person to whom they will ultimately be accountable. That is the same as for any chief executive. Political interference on the day-to-day business of the chief constable is an absolute red line that we want to strengthen.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Statement to which my noble friend the Minister is responding. He was right to remind us of the history, which is that the Labour Party opposed the creation of these positions. We were 100% right in doing so, because they failed in their central objective to make policing more accountable. The abysmal turnout for the elections shows that that has not worked. Added to that is the recognition figure in the Statement, whereby only 16% of people can say who the police commissioner is in their area. I have only one rather nosy question to ask my noble friend. With his insight and information, and bearing in mind that this was a decision by the coalition Government, who do we primarily blame for this: the Tories or the Liberal Democrats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As a believer in collective government responsibility, which I have to be at this stage, I say that there was joint and several responsibility for the policy. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady May, cannot be with us today; as Home Secretary at the time, she was the prime deliverer of the policy. I wrote to her to give her advance notice of the Statement. To answer my noble friend, it is a shared responsibility.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand that those of us who live in Lincolnshire are not seeking the removal of Marc Jones, who is a rather good police commissioner? We are seeking a recognition of the difficult circumstances that face rural counties, such as Lincolnshire, which are sparsely populated and where policing costs are very great. Does he understand that we seek a further adjustment in the funding mechanism to recognise the sparsity factor? To be fair, I have been making this point since 1979, when I first became a Member of Parliament for a Lincolnshire seat.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Viscount cannot persuade Mrs Thatcher, I do not know who he can persuade. The issue with Lincolnshire is interesting, because Humberside Police includes parts of the mayoralty of Greater Lincolnshire, such as Grimsby and Scunthorpe, but the rest of Lincolnshire is separate. Some discussion must be had about what we settle on and how.

A police settlement will appear in draft form before Christmas, following which the noble Lord can again make representations around the police settlement for his county. We are trying to make sure that we deal with rural as well as urban policing. Tremendous effort has been put in place to look at rural crime, and some of the measures we have in the Crime and Policing Bill deal specifically with that. Issues on the Government’s agenda include livestock worrying, equipment theft, and small villages being subject to a great deal of shop theft and intimidation. However, we will have to look at the circumstances around Lincolnshire specifically, given the model that we are trying to drive forward: there is a mayor in Hull and a mayor in Lincolnshire, but the police forces currently overlap both. That subject is for another day.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, the Statement describes policing in Wales as “unique”. Perhaps that actually furthers and strengthens the case for the devolution of policing to Wales. I welcome the news that discussions are to take place with the Welsh Government on new arrangements to replace PCCs in Wales. We do not have mayors in Wales, so that is not an option. May I ask the Minister how much better off Wales would be if police funding was devolved and funded through Barnett?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The issue of devolution is not part of this Statement. We are looking at the governance of policing, not the devolution of policing. There are no mayors in Wales—that is a vital point to make. The Policing Minister and I have had discussions with Jane Hutt, the Minister in the Welsh Government responsible for this area. We want to look at how we can build a better model of policing boards in Wales. That is a matter for discussion, but there is general agreement that police and crime commissioners will not happen in Wales. There will continue to be different political views from different political parties on devolution, but it is not on the agenda in this Statement.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the last question regarding Wales—my noble friend the Minister was a Welsh MP and Minister and is now a Welsh Peer—I assume that the police and crime commissioners in England will be abolished and that the Welsh commissioners will be abolished at exactly the same time. I do not know what that exact timescale will be, but of course there are elections next year to the Welsh Senedd. A new Government, of what political sort we do not yet know, will be formed.

Presumably, the negotiations that the Minister has been having with Jane Hutt are on what will replace the police commissioners in Wales, bearing in mind— as has been said—that we have no mayors and are very unlikely to have any mayors. Perhaps the Minister could give a little more detail on the negotiations.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Police and crime commissioners across England and Wales will be abolished at what would have been their next election. There will not be another election for police and crime commissioners, which means that they will serve out their term of office until early May 2028, when the election would have been held. In the meantime, we will be establishing further discussions. That abolition requires legislation in this House, which will be brought forward at a suitable time. In the meantime, we will discuss with this Administration in the Senedd and whoever forms the Administration after the election in May how we manage a policing board and local government involvement in the management of police forces in Wales.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the introduction of powers going to mayors where there are mayors. That remains the democratic accountability. Can I ask the Minister to think again about policing boards, though? That did not work in the past. It is very important that there is proper democratic accountability for priorities and budget setting. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government just want to get rid of a set of difficult elections ahead of the next general election.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I take issue with the noble Lord’s last point. This is a very difficult decision. Remember, we are abolishing 17 Labour police and crime commissioners who are doing a good job and would have been seeking re-election in that year, along with a number of other party-political and independent PCCs.

We are trying to support the mayoral model. As I mentioned earlier, there will be a list of new mayors in 2027. There are existing mayors in place who do not have police powers, and there are existing mayors in place who do have police powers. I intend to ensure that we minimise the number of boards by maximising, wherever possible, the mayoralties. That has to be done in conjunction with discussions over time. This House will have an opportunity to discuss this, because it has to be facilitated by legislation.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, before we conclude the Lords stages of the Bill, I wish to express my deep sadness following the news last week of the passing of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. On behalf of the Home Office, I praise her dedication and her work in supporting victims, drawing on her personal experience, as Victims’ Commissioner. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences and thoughts to her family and friends.

The Bill has been subject to many hours of debate across this House, and I thank all Peers for their contributions. It was introduced in the House of Commons back in January and is part of a serious and credible plan to protect the UK’s border security that sees the Government working very closely with our international partners and with colleagues across the country, so that we can ensure law enforcement and have the powers and tools that we need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime.

The Bill is about protecting those who need it, swiftly removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. It establishes landmark new offences which deliver our manifesto commitment on counterterrorism powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening border security. It also establishes the new Border Security Commander, about which we have had much discussion.

During debate in this House, the Government have also introduced a new offence to criminalise those who advertise illegal migration services online and through social media. We have listened to your Lordships’ House, and to the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and amended the new offences in the Bill where appropriate. These proposals, alongside the asylum policy statement being announced today by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, are important matters. I thank all noble Lords who have tabled and spoken to amendments during the passage of the Bill.

I also thank the Ministers in the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have seen and supported the relevant provisions in the Bill. We have had legislative consent from each of the relevant Parliaments and Assemblies. I also thank the Bill team, without whom this Bill would genuinely not be possible, and officials in my private office.

The passage of the Bill by this House is an important step to develop and strengthen the UK’s border security. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Bill team. I also thank him, because I cannot recall the number of meetings he has held with officials and Members who have raised issues during the passage of the Bill. That does not mean that those meetings resulted in satisfaction for all those who made those comments, but I think the fact that we were given those opportunities is respected across this House.

It would be foolish to say that the Bill marks the passing of an endpoint for the immigration and asylum services of this country. We are told that we are to have two Statements, one today from the Home Secretary and one on Thursday, which will take this matter further forward. It is rather like having the London bus come along, then suddenly you have more than one. This will probably end up becoming an annual event: a new immigration Bill. We expect that to happen.

Many of the issues that have been raised in the background to the Statement that is going to be made in the other place in, I think, a few minutes’ time have been raised in the debates on the Bill, so I ask the Minister: will any amendments be attached to this Bill on the questions that are being raised in the two Statements, to give some speed to its passage? I hope the answer is no and that we have dealt with the Bill before us in the proper manner.

I think we can safely say that three distinct approaches have been set out on the Bill. From the Labour Government, it is pragmatic, law enforcement-led control; the Conservative Opposition demand a policy of absolute deterrence based on previous legislation; and we on these Benches seek to balance necessary enforcement with safe, legal and humane routes, ensuring that international obligations are fully codified and respected—in essence, a policy of control and compassion, which I think go together.

At the outset of the Bill, we laid out our concerns that it dealt only with the supply side—the smugglers. As long as the smugglers have customers, that is the problem which this side of the equation deals with, but our belief—I hope that it will be proven with Thursday’s Statement, rather than today’s—is that the demand side also needs to be looked at appropriately. We are told that the proposals to be outlined today are that if you are harsher on those making irregular routes, this will stop people taking the dangerous journeys. That is what this Bill has been about: trying to reduce and put a stop to the dangerous journeys that people are taking. That debate will now proceed, because there are now points around the demand-side issues that I understand the Government are going to make.

In passing this Bill, it seems appropriate that we have all had learning experiences which are going to be useful for at least the next 12 months as we proceed to the next stage. Perhaps the Minister will say, but are we going to have one in the year after as well? I hope, given the strength he has demonstrated, the amount of time he has put in, and the amount of time he is having to put into another Bill, that at least he will have some respite over Christmas.

I also thank those on my side who have been helpful to us in making sure that the Bill has been debated fully: my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee, Lady Ludford and Lord Oates, and Elizabeth Plummer in our office here in Parliament. With that, I thank the Minister and the team behind him for the helpful way they have dealt with this Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a long time since the Bill was introduced in the other place and since then much has happened. The Government have brought forward the immigration White Paper detailing changes to the Immigration Rules. They have established a one-in, one-out agreement with France which has so far returned just over 100 migrants. Meanwhile, since that deal was announced on 10 July, almost 18,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats.

We know that the Government are now bringing forward new measures relating to the asylum system. We will have the opportunity to debate those once the Home Secretary has announced the full details today in the other place, but many of the plans have been trailed already and it is evident that new legislation will be required to implement a number of those changes. The point is that events have moved at such a pace that this Bill feels out of date before it has even become law. The Prime Minister’s “smash the gangs” pledge has fallen so flat that the Government appear to have ditched the slogan. But as we have consistently said, simply going after the gangs will not work. What is required is a credible deterrent but, unfortunately, as we know, this Bill repeals the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

We put our plan to the House, and it is a shame that the Government and the Liberal Democrats appear unwilling to take the action necessary to put an end to the small boats crisis. That said, I am pleased that we were able to amend the Bill in a positive manner. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is not in his place today, sadly, has been pushing for the Home Office to release data on overseas students for a long time now. His successful amendment to the Bill requiring the publication of those statistics is welcome and I hope the Government will finally listen and agree to publish that data. It is also welcome that the Government agreed with me that the new offences in Clauses 13 and 14 contained gaps as originally drafted. They did not cover possession with intent to supply an article for use in immigration crime, nor handling by third parties, and I am very pleased the Government took this on board and brought forward their own amendments.

I thank the Minister. I do not share his enthusiasm for the Bill, but I know how hard he has worked to steer it through your Lordships’ House with his willingness to meet Members of this House privately. I extend my thanks to the Bill team and to all noble Lords who contributed, particularly my noble friends Lord Harper, Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lady Lawlor, Lord Goschen and Lady Maclean of Redditch. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who supported our amendments both in Committee and on Report, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

To conclude, the Government had the opportunity with this Bill to take serious steps to fix the crisis in the asylum system. They could have banned illegal migrants from getting asylum. They could have committed to detaining and removing anyone who enters illegally. They could have committed to deporting all foreign criminals. Unfortunately, they have not, and we will have to wait to see what new ideas the Government bring forward and whether they will have any real impact, because the Home Secretary was right when she said that illegal migration is tearing this country apart. It is well past the time to take the comprehensive action necessary to protect this country’s borders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their contributions to this debate. We have had some differences but I think both noble Lords will accept that the Government have a plan to try to deliver on our manifesto commitments. Additional proposals are being discussed, and they will be outlined shortly in another place, that will form an answer to the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord German. They are not part of this legislation, but I will be outlining further the Government’s approach once my right honourable friend has made her Statement. I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches for their contributions; they have helped generate discussion on the Bill.

As well as the Bill team and my private office, my two colleagues on the Government Bench today from the Whips’ Office have provided stalwart support. I also place on record my thanks to the Chief Whip for ensuring that only one defeat of the Government took place on the Bill, which on an issue as contentious as immigration is a matter of some joy for the Government and of some frustration, undoubtedly, for the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for tabling these amendments. The case he set out seems clear and obvious. His amendment would ensure that the offence of trespassing with intent to commit an offence extended to people’s gardens and grounds, and it goes no further than that. Any intrusion into those grounds or gardens with mal-intent should be reflected in the level of criminal fines.

My noble friend’s amendments simply proceed on the assumption that gardens or grounds, in their simplest terms, should be treated the same in legislation as residences and buildings. Private property does not stop existing once you step out of a physical doorway; the grounds or gardens surrounding buildings are extensions to them, to be bought and sold just as freely. I think the word “curtilage” often appears—certainly in the law, but often more widely—to describe the land or garden around someone’s house. Indeed, there may be even as great a need to create an offence for this as there is for trespassing on a property with intent. I can imagine criminals using back gardens to navigate between houses to commit burglary. I can imagine confrontations taking place not inside a building yet still in the garden or grounds owned by a victim. They are just as serious as entering a property to commit a crime.

However, I acknowledge that there is generally a difference between entering someone’s house and entering their garden. The former is in most cases far more intrusive—a far greater infringement of someone’s right to a private property. It therefore follows that entering a house should regularly carry a harsher sentence than merely entering the grounds, but that can be the case while ensuring that both are offences. We do not have to disapply the latter simply because it might carry a lower fine than the former.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 47B provides for this, as he set out. It seeks to give the court the discretion to alter the fines levied on an offender based on the seriousness of the offence, creating a higher maximum fine to be used for the most serious offences. Additionally, creating a minimum fine will ensure that any form of trespassing with the intent to commit another offence is dealt with to a minimal acceptable standard.

Whatever form it takes, trespassing in order to commit crime is incredibly invasive and often traumatic, and it is right that this is acknowledged in the range of the fine level. I hope the Minister has listened to these points, and I look forward to his response.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling the amendments. I hope I can half help him today and, in doing so, assist the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

I confirm that the Government will repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824. In Clauses 10 and 11, the Government are legislating to introduce targeted replacement provisions for certain elements of the 1824 Act, to ensure that the police have the powers they need to keep our communities safe. Those targeted replacement measures include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain, which we will come on to shortly, and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. Both were previously provided for under the 1824 Act, and the police have told us that it would be useful to retain them.

I hope this helps the noble Baroness, because the new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence recreates an offence that is already set out in the 1824 Act. It does not add to it; it recreates it. As is currently the case, it will be an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—meaning any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention to commit an offence, and that is currently in the legislation.

Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to ensure that trespassing in gardens and grounds of a private dwelling is captured by the replacement offence. This is where I think I can half help him by indicating that gardens and grounds would already be included in the definition of “premises” in the 1824 Act, so, in essence, that is covered already.

His Amendment 47B would introduce a minimum level 2 fine and increase the maximum level fine from level 3 to level 4 for this offence. Again, the measure in the Bill replicates entirely—going back to the noble Baroness—the maximum penalties currently set out in the existing legislation that we are repealing, but replacing in part, through the clauses addressed by these amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness on the proportionality of the current level of the fines. I say to the noble Lord what he anticipated I would say to him: sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we need to afford it appropriate discretion. Parliament rarely specifies minimum sentences, and this is not an instance where we should depart from that general principle. I know he anticipated that I would say that—as the good old, former Home Office Minister that he is, I knew he would clock that that was the potential line of defence on his amendment.

It is important to say that the penalties set out in the current legislation, which we are replicating, are considered appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the offence. Therefore, with what I hope was helpful half clarification on grounds and gardens, and with my steady defence on the second amendment, which the noble Lord anticipated, I ask him not to press his amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, half a loaf is better than no bread, of course. All I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is that she has got totally the wrong end of the stick. I will not go into more detail to argue against her, except to say that I too had a footpath right across the middle of my garden in Cumbria, and I had no problem with it at all. However, that is quite separate from the guy who, in 2000, threatened to burn down my house because he did not like my view on hunting. That is quite a different matter. He committed an offence on my driveway, as opposed to the thousands of people who used the footpath, which I built special turnstiles at either end of for them to use.

I accept entirely what the Minister said and am delighted to see that grounds and gardens of public dwellings will be included in the definition—that is the half I am very happy with. I knew he would not accept my amendment on the penalties. He said that it is up to an independent judiciary—I wish we had one, without a Sentencing Council tying its hands, but that is a matter for another debate. With the Minister’s courteous remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

That may be the case in the year the noble Baroness cited, but the fact remains that these provisions have been brought into force, have been effective and have responded to representations from local authorities and members of the public, who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on their community. I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. For those reasons, these Benches cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for tabling the amendment. She has obviously secured widespread support—from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

As my noble friend explained, the High Court ruling in May 2024 found that the specific changes made by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 relating to Traveller sites were incompatible with convention rights. This is where I am going to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, because the Government respect the decision of the court. The Government—I hope that this is helpful to my noble friend—are working now on a response to that court judgment. I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the High Court ruling, and the response is needed. I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that I can undertake to update the House ahead of Report on this matter. We are not able to finalise the exact response as yet, but I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.

I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment today, but it is important that we signal to her that this matter is one we have to resolve speedily. In considering the court’s judgment, the Government will carefully balance the rights of individuals to live their private lives without discrimination, while recognising the importance of protecting public spaces and communities affected by unauthorised encampments. That balance will be made, and I hope to be able to resolve that issue by Report, as I have said.

A number of noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the question of the shortage of unauthorised sites available to Gypsies and Travellers, and that is an important point. Local authorities, as Members will know, are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area and must plan to meet that need. These decisions are made locally; they reflect specific circumstances in each area and operate within the national planning policy for Traveller sites, which is set by the Government. We aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of Travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

Does the Minister accept that, aggregated across the country, the effect of lots of local decisions by local authorities is that there is a calamitous shortage of legitimate sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people? If so, what do the Government plan to do about that, rather than simply saying that it is up to each local authority?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The position of the Government is that it is up to each local authority. I understand the right reverend Prelate’s point, but there is overarching guidance in England, provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which basically indicates that local authorities are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area. That is a conflict; there is a shortage, there is always a debate on these matters, there is always opposition, there is always discussion, but, ultimately, local councils have to settle on sites in their areas and I cannot really help the right reverend Prelate more than that. There is guidance and a process to be followed.

Issues around the proportionality of enforcement action were also mentioned in passing today. Again, our laws are designed to address unlawful behaviour such as criminal damage or actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, rather than to criminalise a way of life. This distinction is central to ensuring fair and proportionate policing. Harassment, alarm and distress are well established within our legal framework, so there is a careful balance to be achieved. The response to unauthorised encampments, locally led, involves multi-agency collaboration between local councils, police and relevant services. This approach supports community engagement and ensures that responses are tailored to local needs.

My noble friend’s amendment goes slightly further than the court’s judgment: she seeks to repeal the offence of residing on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, as well as the power for police to direct trespassers away from land where they are there for the purpose of residing there. I just say to my noble friend that those are matters the court did not rule on, and the Government still consider these to be necessary and proportionate police powers, but I give her the undertaking today that I did in my earlier comments, that we hope to be able to bring forward solutions by Report. In the light of that undertaking, I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my cosignatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who spoke tellingly about recent experience. I thank warmly my noble friend the Minister for being the first Minister to offer a way through. The sites issue will, all the same, be pursued, but then there are other routes to pursue that with areas that are not within Home Office responsibility.

I simply make one point: the 1994 Act does give the police powers to remove people when there is damage caused. It is the criminalisation element of Part 4 of the 2022 Act which is so discriminatory, but we shall discuss these aspects before Report, I hope, including the way through that my noble friend the Minister outlined. I hope we shall have the opportunity to talk about that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I listened attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I am inclined to agree with him—in part. I start by declaring my interest as the part owner of a property that has high hedges on both sides of our home. One side is higher than the other: approximately four to five metres high. It may well keep the sun out of our neighbour’s front garden in winter when the sun is low in the sky, but since it is where they park their cars and it is their hedge, they are not that worried. We cut our side of the hedge and bought a special three-legged ladder to ensure that this was conducted safely and my husband did not break his neck. I stress that neither hedge is Leylandii.

The right to light is something that many of us take for granted. However, travelling to Waterloo on the train every day, I can see that many of those who live towards the bottom of high-rise flats have little or no right to light. I understand and sympathise with those who live close to a property which has a high hedge obscuring the sun from their house and garden.

While good hedges and fences make for good neighbours, excessively tall and untidy hedges may not. It is always better if neighbouring properties can come to some accommodation about what is acceptable as the height of a hedge. Where this is not possible and communication has broken down, there must be some recourse for those suffering from being on the wrong side of a very high hedge. In the first instance, this will be the local authority.

Currently, local authorities have the right to enter a property without the owner’s consent to investigate a high hedge complaint. Given the current budget restrictions on local authorities, I cannot imagine that many officers will pitch up unannounced at a property to investigate. They would much rather not have a wasted journey, and hope to solve the problem easily—that is, unless they have previously been threatened when visiting the hedge.

The problem with the hedge will depend on what is growing in it. Leylandii causes a significant problem, being dense and fast-growing, enabling a hedge to reach unsatisfactory heights in a relatively short time. If there is a considerable problem with such a hedge, then just how is it to be resolved if local authorities are not involved in finding a solution? Will one party continue to have the disadvantages of living with the high hedge and all that involves while the owner of the hedge remains intransigent and deaf to their protests?

This is unacceptable. I have sympathy with those who suffer from high hedges and am keen to find a solution. The legislation in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 was introduced not on a whim but in a serious attempt to tackle unpleasant situations arising between neighbours. While the best solution is for difficulties to be sorted out between the interested parties, that is not always possible. In those cases, the local authority should have the power to intervene. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling what he termed a niche amendment today—there is nothing wrong with a niche amendment; it has generated discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said, this puts the focus back not on the legislation or even on the enforcement but on whether, when discussions between parties break down, the local authority should be and is the arbiter of the dispute and, in order to be the arbiter of the dispute, whether the local authority can have access to the property.

It is important to say that, when assessing a complaint or appeal, issuing a remedial notice to an individual or assessing whether an individual has taken the necessary action, entering a property to assess the hedge in question surely is not a niche issue; it is part of the role of the local authority to be able to assess that issue. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to consider unresolved disputes on high hedges; the procedures are set out in national guidance.

On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has mentioned, I note that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 enables local authorities to intervene, as a last resort. It should be for neighbours to try to sort these matters out, but there are opportunities for people who are unhappy with the council’s decision to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in cases in England. The power of local authority officers to enter someone’s property is an important part of ensuring such disputes are resolved and any remedial action is taken.

I assure the noble Lord that the power of entry is a power to enter a “neighbouring land” to carry out functions under Part 8 of the Act. The term “the neighbouring land” means the land on which the high hedge is situated—effectively someone’s garden. A local authority must give 24 hours’ notice of its intended entry and, if the land is unoccupied, leave it as effectively secured as it was found. I stress to the noble Lord that there is clear guidance on GOV.UK for local authorities in exercising their powers. The Government will keep this guidance under review.

In the absence of disputes being resolved by neighbours themselves—as the noble Baroness has said—amicably between the parties, it is possible that there are remedial powers to step in and require the offending property owner to take action. Where they fail to do so, it is also right that the local authority should be able to undertake the remedial work itself and charge the householder concerned. To do this, it is necessary to undertake the niche point of entering someone’s garden to examine the fence or hedge or to erect a platform on the highway to do the same.

If we accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, today, I do not know how local authorities would be able to assess in terms of the legislation under the Act. If he says he does not believe the legislation under the Act is appropriate, and we should not have high hedges legislation, that is a different point. If we do have that legislation, then we need a mechanism whereby the local council can enter a premises. There might well be occasions where the local council must do that because relations have broken down to such an extent that only the local council can resolve it, and therefore it must undertake entry into a person’s garden or erect a platform to assess the issue in the first place. That is not a gross invasion of a householder’s property; it is a sensible resolution by a third party—given the powers to do so under the 2003 Act—to resolve an issue that neighbours have not been able to resolve.

The local council may resolve the complaint in favour of the complainant or in favour of the person with the high hedge; that is a matter for them. But if the council does not have access to the property to do that, then the niche discussion will be about not being able to resolve the problem, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank those in your Lordships’ House who have spoken in this debate. I am delighted to have a degree of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who, as she recounted, has had some personal experience of this issue. I reiterate to the Minister that it seems entirely disproportionate for local authorities to be able to enter a person’s private property without their consent to investigate this issue—that is what underpins this amendment. I do not want to beat around the bush any more, and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his Amendment 53, which, as he explained, would introduce a new offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaging in this behaviour. Failure to comply with the notice would constitute a criminal offence. I note also Amendments 53A and 53B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seek to further extend what constitutes nuisance begging under the proposed new offence.

I start by saying to noble Lords that the Government do not wish to target or criminalise individuals who are begging to sustain themselves or rough sleeping because they have nowhere else to go. That is why we are committed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, to repealing the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, and why we will not be introducing measures that target or recriminalise begging and rough sleeping. It is also—for the very reason the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned—why the Government have invested more than £1 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year, which is up £316 million compared to last year. So there is an increase in support to tackle the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned.

However, we are legislating in the Bill to introduce targeted replacement measures for certain elements of the 1824 Act to ensure—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will welcome this—that police retain the powers they need to keep our communities safe. These targeted replacement measures, in Clauses 10 and 11, include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime, both of which were previously provided for under the 1824 Act.

As noble Lords mentioned, begging is itself a complex issue, it can cause significant harm or distress to communities and local areas need appropriate tools to maintain community safety. But where I come back to in this debate is that there are powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which many police forces use effectively to tackle anti-social behaviour in the context of begging and rough sleeping—for example, the very point the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned, where an individual may be harassing members of the public on a persistent basis, including potentially outside their own home, as in his amendment.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides for current statutory guidance. I hope that it partly answers the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to say that we will update that anti-social behaviour statutory guidance. This will ensure that it is clear to agencies how ASB powers can be used in the context of harassment and this type of begging, if an individual’s behaviour reaches a threshold that will be set in the ASB statutory guidance.

Existing criminal offences can also be applied where the behaviour crosses the current criminal threshold. I expect the updating of the guidance to take place very shortly after Royal Assent is given to the legislation passing through the House of Lords. In the light of the assurances that we take this issue seriously, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will not press his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is somewhat mollified that there are powers in place to deal with the issues that he has raised.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful for what the Minister said. I admire his style at the Dispatch Box; he is courteous and thorough in giving his answers. In view of his assurances that this is really covered by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the contributions we have heard demonstrate the seriousness of the issue and highlight why communities and victims need reassurance that persistent anti-social behaviour will be confronted robustly and effectively. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward these amendments. They provide a welcome opportunity to examine whether the current response to repeat breaches of injunctions is sufficient.

It goes without saying that ongoing and persistent anti-social behaviour has a profound impact on the lives of ordinary residents, including the feeling of individual safety and a wider sense of cohesion in our neighbourhoods. Amendment 54 seeks to provide that if someone under 18 breaches three injunctions of supervision orders, they must be given a detention order. It seems likely, to me at least, that someone who has broken three such injunctions is plainly on the path to becoming an habitual offender. Repeated breaches should not simply be met with ineffective sanctions—communities have to know that the law has teeth and that those who repeatedly defy court orders will face meaningful consequences. The amendment seeks to reinforce that principle and to signal clearly that a cycle of breach, warning and further breach is unacceptable.

I hope that the Government give the amendment the thought and time that it deserves, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 54 and for fessing up to Amendment 55, which we will accept as an honest mistake. I welcome his honesty in raising the issue.

There is a recognition that Amendment 54 still wants to provide for minimum sentences for persistent breaches of youth injunctions. I emphasise that the Government do not want to criminalise children unnecessarily, an aspiration we share with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That is why the new respect order in the Bill will not apply to those under 18. However, we know that in many cases the behaviour of offenders under 18 requires a more formal deterrent and intervention. That is why we have retained the civil injunction as is for those under 18. Practitioners have told us that it is a particularly helpful and useful tool to tackle youth anti-social behaviour and to ensure that their rights and the safety of the community are upheld.

Youth injunctions are civil orders and fundamentally preventive in nature, which again goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. It is more important to intervene to prevent than it is to punish afterwards, particularly when young people are the individuals who are causing those challenges in the first place.

The important point about youth injunctions, which, again, goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, is that if the respondent abides by the terms of the order, they will not be liable for any penalties but, self-evidently, where a respondent does breach an order there needs to be some action. The noble Lord has suggested one course of action. I say to him that the courts already have a range of responses, including supervision orders, electronic tagging, curfews and, in the most serious cases, detention orders for up to three months for 14 to 17 year-olds.

I hope there is a common theme across the Committee that detention of children should be used only when absolutely necessary, and that courts should consider the child’s welfare and other risks before imposing such a response. This should be on a case-by-case basis, and the prescribing of a mandatory minimum sentence, even for repeat offenders, would both undermine the ability of the independent judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence and potentially be disproportionate. There is a place in our sentencing framework for mandatory minimum sentences, but I submit that this is not it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is quite right again that one of the best preventive measures we can have is to have large numbers of boots on the ground in neighbourhood policing. She will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground during this Parliament. In this first year or so, the Government have put an extra 3,000 in place. We intend, where we can, to increase the number of specials, PCSOs and warranted officers to replace those who were lost between 2010 and 2017. When I was Police Minister in 2009-10, we had 20,000 more officers than we had up to around 2017. That is because they were hollowed out and taken out by the two Governments who ran the Home Office between 2010 and 2017.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that visible neighbourhood policing is critical to tackling anti-social behaviour, but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to provide minimum sentences, which I do not think will achieve his objective. It does not have my support either. I hope he will withdraw the amendment, having listened to the argument.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, once again, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous and detailed answer. I did not realise that electronic tagging was already an option and it is very important that it is applied in appropriate cases. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not creating a new criminal offence here. The power of detention already exists to be used by the court when it thinks fit.

On the general principle of minimum sentences, why do we fetter a judge’s discretion by having a maximum sentence? If we want proper judicial discretion, we should say that the judge can sentence anything he likes, but we do not—and I am glad we do not. We say that Parliament cannot set a minimum. Why is it appropriate, in a democracy, for Parliament to set a maximum sentence but not a minimum? I knew that the Minister, in his courteous way, would say that we would fetter judicial discretion, but I have suggested three breaches of injunctions. When can a court say, “You’ve done six now”, or, “You’ve done 10, Johnny”, and impose a sentence of detention for continued breaches of injunctions? As a democracy, it is perfectly legitimate for us as parliamentarians—and Members in the other House, whose constituents are suffering—to say that judges will have a discretion to impose orders of detention up to a certain level, but once the breaches of injunctions go past a certain threshold, Parliament demands that they impose a level of detention, whatever that level may be.

I have made my point. The Minister will probably hear me make a similar point about minimum sentences at various other points in the Bill but, in view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, nearly half the murders in the UK over the last three years are due to knife crime, so we recognise the vital importance of equipping police with the necessary tools to intervene when there is clear evidence of intent to commit serious violence. We give Clause 27 our full backing.

Before I turn to the amendment, I want to make a couple of points around the new offence. Will the Government ensure that robust guidance and oversight are in place to prevent unjustified or discriminatory use of this power? That needs to be accompanied by improved training for police and judiciary. The reality is that young black men are already significantly overrepresented in knife crime prosecutions, and we must be careful not to compound that position. Discrimination and justice are opposites.

I hope this may also help stem the rising number of incidents in which people suffer life-changing injuries after being attacked with acid or other corrosive substances. Reports of such offences increased by 75% in 2023, including 454 physical attacks. Half these victims were women, with attacks often occurring in a domestic abuse context, but only 8% of these cases resulted in a charge or summons, partly due to the victim’s fear of reprisal. The hope is that this new offence may allow prosecutions to be brought before harm is inflicted, since proving intent would not necessarily require the victim to testify. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the offence to this end?

On Amendment 56, the Liberal Democrats agree with Jonathan Hall that four years in prison in insufficient when there is clear evidence of the intention to cause mass fatalities. The court must have the full weight of the law behind it in the hopefully rare cases in which a lengthy sentence is thought necessary for public prosecution. I would expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, and I hope this will guard against sentence inflation. Nevertheless, we are minded to support this amendment and I urge the Government to look again at the maximum penalty.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his amendment, which, as noble Lords will know, increases the maximum penalty to 14 years for possessing a weapon with intent. I happen to think that sentences should be proportionate to the offence, and that is why the maximum sentence for this offence has been set at four years. This is in line with other weapons offence penalties, such as that for possession of a bladed article. To set the sentence for this offence at 14 years would be disproportionate.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked legitimate questions about the difference between existing offences and this new proposed offence. It is already an offence to carry a bladed article in public without good reason. It is also an offence to then threaten a person with a bladed article or weapon. Under Section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, it is an offence to intentionally threaten someone with an offensive weapon in public or in private.

The introduction of this new offence bridges a gap, which I believe is there, between being in possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in public or on education premises, and it being used to threaten or harm anyone. This offence will target those who equip themselves with bladed articles with the intention to endanger life, cause serious harm or fear or violence, but are intercepted by the police before they have had the chance to carry out any attack on the intended victim. It will therefore empower the police to bring charges against those individuals, which, in my view, is a differentiation which I hope has been clarified for the noble Viscount. He shakes his head.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

The issue is not the Minister’s explanations. I will have to think carefully about this. If the police can already stop someone and already have an easier test to make an arrest and prosecute that individual for the carrying of a knife, how does the carrying of the knife with the intent to commit harm make that easier to do? Surely, it makes it more difficult, because not only do you have to show that the person was carrying the knife, but you also have to prove their intent. I am not criticising the Minister’s intention here; I just do not understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Viscount can examine Hansard tomorrow. The maximum sentence is the same, but the intention will be reflected in the courts being able to give a penalty close to the top end of the range, whereas a simple possession offence is likely to attract a sentence close to the bottom end of the range. Therefore, again, this is for judicial interpretation, but it gives a flexibility within the proposed clause that allows for a potentially different level of maximum sentence within the four-year range that we have.

We believe that 14 years is disproportionate, which is where we have a difference with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I cannot support that amendment for this reason. However, we have introduced this new power, which will be of additional benefit for police forces to examine and work with at a local level.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned the report by Jonathan Hall, KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which followed the Southport attack in July 2024. He has indicated that he wants us to examine creating a new offence, proposed by the independent reviewer. He said in his report:

“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill”.


We are currently considering his recommendations and examining them with operational partners. We want to look at how we can close that gap, but, as yet, we are not in a position to make a further announcement on this issue. However, as I have said, the maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment is consistent with maximum penalties on other knife-related possession offences. To answer the noble Viscount’s point, it gives greater flexibility to police forces to take action under Clause 27, if the Bill becomes law in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, took a wide view, perfectly legitimately, on the issue of knife crime. We have a clear government objective to reduce knife crime—to halve it—and we are trying to do that. There is an awful lot of work going on with my colleagues in the policing side of the Home Office on how to ensure we tackle some of that disproportionality, focusing on young black men particularly. Ultimately, we want to focus on all individuals who are victims of knife crime. There is a range of public education work being done at the moment, and a range of new resilience measures are being talked about, as well as support for neighbourhood policing. This is part of the back-up we will have to support individuals through highly visible policing, looking at issues such as stop and search, which are still valuable in identifying and collecting weapons.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Despite that, his amendment rightly draws the attention of your Lordships’ House to the list of safe countries under Section 80AA, and that is an important part of the Act. To conclude, I simply ask the Minister a couple of questions about that list. Do the Government have plans to expand the list to better reflect the number of safe countries there are across the world? Will he set out the process of engagement that exists between the Foreign Office and the Home Office to ensure that that list is kept up to date?

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

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Cashman for the amendment today, and to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his support. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet my noble friend outside the House to hear his concerns at first hand. I again wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, all the best for a speedy recovery and return to this place.

Amendment 59 seeks to change the way in which Section 59—that is confusing, I know—of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 would, if fully commenced, amend the inadmissibility provisions of Sections 80A and 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I am grateful to my noble friends for the consideration they have given to this matter and I acknowledge the importance of the issues raised.

As my noble friend has said, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act has not been fully commenced. The Government have been clear that we are retaining it to allow for flexibility—that goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, made—in its future implementation in a way that best assists us to address the significant challenges brought by asylum and migration.

Section 59 itself will, if commenced, amend Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, with the effect that the existing inadmissibility provisions in respect of asylum claims made by EU nationals will extend to human rights claims made by nationals from a wider list of countries set out in Section 80AA(1) of that Act. The first part of the amendment in my noble friend’s name seeks to change the duty at Section 80A to a power, and to add an explicit provision allowing the power to be exercised only where it would not result in a person’s human rights being breached. I understand why my noble friends Lord Cashman and Lord Browne of Ladyton put forward this amendment, but, as I hope to explain, it is not necessary and could prevent us implementing Section 59 in a different, more robust way.

Those bringing this amendment are aware of the provision currently set out in Section 80A of the 2002 Act which displaces the duty to declare an EU asylum claim inadmissible in the event that exceptional circumstances are identified. Although Section 80A(5) sets out some examples of when an exceptional circumstance will arise—currently in respect only to certain EU claims—these examples are not exhaustive or indeed rigid. Exceptional circumstances can already be applied more broadly, on a case-by-case basis, to ensure fairness and lawfulness in all EU asylum claims, and well-established case law already sets this out very clearly.

If Section 59 is commenced in its current form, updated policy guidance will be published to set out clearly how the exceptional circumstances safeguard should be applied for all claim types, taking account of the different considerations due in asylum and human rights claims. This will allow us to robustly and promptly process unmeritorious asylum and human rights claims at the earliest juncture, but—and this is the important point that goes to my noble friend Lord Cashman’s point—whenever necessary, it will allow us to divert claims from inadmissibility action and instead consider them substantively, ensuring that individuals’ rights under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights are maintained. It is not our objective to not have those rights upheld.

This amendment seeks to impose a duty for the Secretary of State to remove a country from the list at Section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act if that country no longer satisfies the rules in that section. I say to my noble friend that the intent of this amendment is clear and commendable. It is well understood—this goes to the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu—that countries’ conditions may change, and that may mean that a country previously assessed as safe can no longer be regarded as such. It is for that reason—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, was seeking further clarification on the power in Section 80AA(6)(b), under which regulations to remove countries from the list can be made—that if Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced in its current form, and the list at Section 80AA(1) has effect, it is unquestionable that a country assessed to be unsafe would be removed from the list by the Secretary of State under regulation. In the short term, however, ahead of regulations being made in such cases, the exceptional circumstances safeguard would apply, displacing that inadmissibility duty and allowing the claim to be considered substantially.

Noble Lords have asked why we are keeping inadmissibility under Section 80A of the Nationality and Immigration Act as a duty, rather than a power. While the exceptional circumstance provision does admit a measure of discretion, allowing for individual risks or changes in circumstance to be taken into account, the overall duty provides for greater consistency and focus in processing such claims.

I hope that, following the meeting I have had with my noble friend on the issues that he has raised and the debate that we have had today, I have reassured him that although his points are valid, they are covered by the discretion in the legislation currently in place. I hope he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cashman for his contribution to the debate and his continued support on these matters. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for repeating the points he made when we debated this in Committee very powerfully. I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I would be grateful if he would wish her well in these circumstances and thank her for her unstinting support.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his personal comments. I am disappointed, as he expected I would be, but not surprised at his contribution to the debate. I recollect that, in Committee, although there were numerous contributions from the Conservative Benches behind him, not one speaker supported the provision in Section 59 of the IMA. Today, there are no speakers at all from his party on the Benches behind him even to support it by their presence, if not by their contribution to the debate.

Behind these amendments is not my legal brain—which has been relaxed for many years—but advice that I got from an expert in the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. I thank them very much for their support.

I am disappointed by my noble friend’s response. I have no intention of dividing the House on this issue, but I reserve the right to keep it open for the next stage of deliberation. I ask my noble friend, who is generous with his time and support, whether he will reflect on—I think that is the phrase used—the implications of the provisions that I have put before the House and why they are a better resolution to the challenges of Section 59 than the view of those who support him.

I should have thanked my noble friend for his willingness to meet me and others to discuss this. We did our level best to find the time on a very busy day last Wednesday to have that meeting. It probably lasted for about three or four minutes, while I was out of the room—if I remember correctly, I was voting, but then I was voting almost every minute of every day last week. Would it be possible between now and the next stage of deliberation on this Bill to have a meeting at a time when those who have been advising me and those advising him can sit in the same room for a reasonable period of time to go through the implications of the differing approaches?

As I say, I do not intend to divide the House on this matter and therefore withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for her speech. We recognise the principle behind this proposal. The good character test has been in place since 1981. It asks applicants for British citizenship to be of good character and is controlled by the guidance issued by the Home Office. The test must safeguard the integrity of citizenship but must also be applied with common sense and humanity.

However, while we understand and respect the intention behind this amendment, I am afraid we cannot support it. It would require the good character requirement to be applied in line with a wide range of international conventions. Decisions on who can become a British citizen should be for the UK Government applying national tests under domestic law. More broadly, we are cautious about references to multiple international bodies and agreements that could, in practice, limit the United Kingdom’s ability to manage its own borders and nationality system. Our view is that the UK must retain the freedom to make its own decisions on immigration and citizenship while still acting with fairness, decency and respect for human rights in our own right.

Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of international co-operation, but our domestic framework is set by Parliament and should serve the national interest. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment in its form.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for Amendment 60 and in particular for her courage in bringing her personal experience to the Chamber today. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for speaking in support of the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord German, indicated that there may be different political parties that may at some point in the future have the power to make changes that he and maybe even I would not find palatable. In the event of either of those political parties that he is concerned about winning an election, they could probably do what they wanted in both Houses of Parliament anyway, taking forward those policies that they probably would have won a mandate on. I may not agree with that point, but his argument not to make a change against the right reverend Prelate’s proposal today, because it might open up a gateway for a future party to exploit that amendment’s acceptance, does not seem to be a sensible way forward. If a Government of any political party, not mine, wish to make a change, they would be the Government. Like me standing at this Dispatch Box, they probably would have the numbers in the House of Commons to take that policy through and the numbers in this Chamber to make that case over a period of time for that discussion. So I do not accept that contention.

Having said that, my concerns are different. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one that goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made, it is for the Home Secretary to make changes to the discretion in that policy. This amendment seeks to limit that discretion by preventing the consideration of illegal entry into the UK if the person was a child when they entered the UK.

Apart from this potentially encouraging people to make false claims about their age to benefit from the provision, the amendment also seeks to ensure that the consideration of good character is compliant with the UK’s international obligations. The right reverend Prelate may not have received it yet, but I sent her a letter this morning which she can have a look at later. In it I say that the good character policy is compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. Where a person has come directly from a country where they fear persecution, their protection under Article 31 of the refugee convention means that they will not be penalised when their application for citizenship is considered.

I hope that this will partly reassure the right reverend Prelate, but I will say again that the decision-makers are required to take into account the UK’s international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, when assessing whether a person meets the good character policy. Furthermore, guidance on the good character policy provides for a decision-maker to be able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. It may not find favour across the whole House, but it does include disregarding immigration breaches such as illegal entry if it is accepted that this is outside the applicant’s control. That case is for the applicant to make when they make that decision.

For example, a victim of modern slavery, or a person who is trafficked, or, indeed, going to the very nub of her argument, someone who entered the UK illegally as a child, would not be implicated by the policy and would have that discretion open to them by the decision-maker. I will just emphasise that still further by saying the good character policy does not apply to children under the age of 10 on the date of application.

The amendment would seek also a more generous approach for migrants—

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the question of children, the Minister has just said the policy does not apply to children under 10. What is the logic for applying it to children over 10? I do not understand the distinction, and it would be helpful to.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a valid question. I can say to the right reverend Prelate that it will normally—I say “normally”—be appropriate to disregard immigration breaches if it is accepted this was outside the applicant’s control. Given that illegal entry is normally considered outside a child’s control, most children would not be held accountable for their immigration breach. Certainly, as I have said before, no child under the age of 10 at the date of their application would be dealt with in that way. I hope that gives her some reassurance.

I consider that individuals seeking to become British citizens should demonstrate an equal regard to immigration legislation as we expect them to show to other aspects of the law, including the criminal justice system. We do not consider there should be an expectation that a person will benefit in the future from the policy in place when they arrived. This is consistent with the position taken in previous changes to the good character policy, such as the change in 2023 to align the criminality thresholds with the Immigration Rules.

I say again that I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing her personal experience to the Chamber on Report today, but the Home Secretary makes the policy—they are accountable to the House—decision-makers have discretion, particularly for children aged 10 to 18, and no child under the age of 10 would be impacted.

I hope that gives her the reassurance that the good character test, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, is valid and accountable to the House, but that changing it today would lead to confusion and, potentially, particularly at the borderline areas of the older child, a contention that would cause difficulties for our purpose in life, which is, in the Bill, to try to stop small boats and illegal migrant crossings, and to not provide an incentive for them. I would hope that, on that basis, she could, with all humility, withdraw her amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for engaging in the debate. Forgive me, I am not going to name individuals, but all the contributions—both those for the amendment and those against it—have been very heartfelt and some of them deeply moving, enabling us to reflect even more widely than the issues specifically pertinent to the amendment.

I have listened with care to the Minister and I want to thank him for his thorough response. However, regrettably, I have not received the assurances that I was hoping for, that the character guidance will adequately prevent a scenario where an immigration caseworker is not having to choose whether to break international law or not, or that, without further changes to the guidance, a child’s right to naturalisation will be safeguarded.

It is not right, I believe, that discretion remains to hold a child responsible for their travel to the UK when they had no control over it, even if that is only a small possibility. As I think I have already clearly expressed, dividing access to citizenship in this way for those who have a legal right to remain in the country will have grievous societal and, I believe, cultural consequences, however unintended. Therefore, I would like, with respect, to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

That still does not happen here in the United Kingdom, which means that, if the Government have the right to make a decision and speed up a process if a person does not give consent for that examination, that person has no protection under the law. That is worries us on these Benches considerably. With that in mind, and the fact that we do not seem to progress with the scientific evidence, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments. We have indeed been around the Houses, but in trying to reach some common ground, I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken that we need to have some method of assessing age. Children who are placed in settings with adults are at risk, and adults who are placed in settings with children potentially pose a risk. I think there is common ground across the House today on the need to find some mechanism to establish age verification.

Amendments 63 and 64 refer to scientific methods of age assessment, and Amendment 63 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations under Section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act within six months of the passing of the Bill. This is one of the reasons, in addition to those that I have given, that I support the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Regulations have already been made under this power that specify X-ray and MRI methods of age assessment.

Amendment 64 would, in effect, reintroduce Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Bill looks to repeal. Under the powers given to the Secretary of State in Section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act, the Secretary of State would not make regulations to the effect that this amendment seeks to achieve unless and until the specific scientific methods in question were sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent would be compatible with the ECHR. The specified methods—that is, X-ray and MRI images of certain body areas—do not currently meet this threshold. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, also emphasised that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harper, to some extent.

That does not mean that the Government do not wish to have age verification measures in place. I can assure the House that, in the context of the Government’s wider work to reform age assessment systems, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, the then Minister for Security and Asylum set out in a Written Ministerial Statement in the House of Commons, which I repeated in this House in July, that this Government have commissioned work to determine the most promising new and emerging methods of age assessment to pursue them further. As a result of that, currently the work to operationalise X-ray and MRI methods of age assessment have been stood down, because facial age estimation methods—this goes to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—are less intrusive, cheaper and faster, and there is no requirement for a physical medical procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, we are not there yet, but facial age estimation technology is currently being explored by the Home Office. It is a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process, and we have commissioned further testing and trialling with the intention of implementing the technology during 2026 if it proves a worthwhile addition to our armoury.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The last Government produced an expert report in the run-up to our 23 debates on various amendments. Will the Government undertake to have an expert report from doctors and scientists, which would then be published in full, so that Parliament and the wider community can actually see the detail? The Minister is absolutely right to say that AI age assessment is not there yet, and I always worry about passing something that might mean that we do not see the detail when doctors are unhappy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it is in the interests of the Government to get technology in place that is less intrusive and more accurate and does not rely on X-rays and MRIs, as we have now, for that physical contact. The question of what that development will be is something that we are working through at the moment, and I am expecting that in the latter part of 2026 I will be able to come to this House—if still in post—to argue the case for the implementation of a better facial age estimation technology. I will, on the basis of what the noble Baroness has said, make sure that I can put into the public domain whatever information I think does not compromise the operation. That is the best I can give her today, but I will reflect on what she said and look at whether I can agree to her request. I do not want to give her an immediate response, because there may be reasons why it is not in our interest to put some of that information into the public domain, because people will always try to subsume facial recognition technology or any other method. I will just reflect on that, if I may.

The key point is that these emerging new methods and the regulations applying the automatic assumption of adult provision for refusal to consent to methods of scientific age assessment as set out in the IMA cannot be laid until the specific methods are sufficiently accurate. Because we do not believe that they are going to be, these amendments are not necessary. For those reasons, I hope that we can share common ground with the noble Lord: his objective, my objective, and I think that of every noble Lord who has spoken, is to ensure that we have accurate age assessment. The methodology he has brought forward in these amendments is not the way forward, but I give an assurance to the House that the exploration of other methods is under way and I will report back when those tests are complete. I urge him, therefore, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed. As I said in my opening remarks, there is clear evidence of adults pretending to be children in order to gain refugee status in the United Kingdom. As boat crossings rise, so does the number of fraudulent asylum claims. This means that there is a high number of unchecked people who should not be here and, perhaps more importantly, a high number of adults in children’s schools. This is a crisis that the Government can and must face head on. Ensuring that people are the age that they claim to be is just one step that we must take to end this crisis, but it is an important step, and Amendments 63 and 64 offer a framework for how it may be done.

Amendment 64 would provide a fair and balanced approach to age assessments. It would not provide the state with overreaching powers to assess anyone who enters the country, but it also would not retreat to the position where the age-disputed person is given the right to deny any form of comprehensive assessment. It would give the relevant authorities the discretion to enforce a scientific test where there are no reasonable grounds not to consent to one. This measure would allow for a fairer immigration system that incentivises honesty, rather than one that rewards fraud.

However, if we are to take away the right to consent when there are no reasonable grounds, then it is just that we also specify which methods may be used to assess age. As I have said, assessing age has become a necessary measure in certain cases, which is why Amendment 64 is so important. Amendment 63 is just as important, as it would allow the Secretary of State to lay out a clear and comprehensive list of scientific methods that may be used to achieve this end.

The current system in place incentivises dishonesty and puts children across the country at risk as a result. These amendments provide a comprehensive framework that goes a long way to resolving that problem, and I hope the Minister considers taking them on board. I have heard what he has said about finding common ground for age assessment, and for now I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the importance of family life and family unity is a principle that no one in this House would dispute. The principle already has a firm statutory protection. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. It is a duty embedded in every decision taken by immigration officers and by tribunals that consider appeals.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment before us would, in effect, duplicate these existing safeguards and reduce them in a way that risks generating uncertainty and inconsistency. It would open the door to litigation and invite the courts to revisit and reinterpret established principles of immigration law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the House to resist the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 75. As she outlined, it would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. She has raised an important point, but the amendment is unnecessary. I will try to explain for her the reasons why.

The important protections it seeks are already firmly embedded in legislative frameworks and policies, such as Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010. As announced in the immigration White Paper in May, we are exploring further reforms to the family route. As she mentioned, there is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That every child matters is set out in our statutory guidance.

The Immigration Rules balance the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases.

Where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or, indeed, their family. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. Article 8 claims, as we will discuss, will succeed only if a deportation’s impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The immigration White Paper confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under Article 8, but not in other circumstances. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I hear so often in this Chamber that the amendments the Opposition have brought are completely unnecessary, it is already in law, and we do not have to worry our pretty little heads about it as it will all be fine. The fact is, it is not. This issue, in particular, will continue to make an awful lot of money for lawyers, who will fight what the Government are doing. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, for tabling the amendments before us. They have certainly begun a short debate. I regret to inform her that I will not be able to accept them. I hope that she can withdraw them, but I will give her an explanation as to why.

The amendments seek to make the Government publish two annual reports. Amendment 79C would commit the Government to an annual report on asylum and refugee grants for those identified in the national referral mechanism as victims of modern slavery, and Amendment 79D would provide for an annual report on how many of the cohort of asylum seekers were granted asylum based on their religion or religious conversion.

The important point, which I think has been recognised across the House, is that every asylum claim is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Each claimant is given the opportunity to explain their reasons for seeking protection in the UK through an asylum interview. Although individual records are, of course, maintained for each claim and record the reasons for a grant of asylum, we do not publish statistics which set out in total all the reasons why individuals fear persecution. The Home Office publishes a significant amount of data on a range of different aspects of the asylum system, but not in the way that the noble Baroness asks for.

I take very strongly the comments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on her view, and that of other members of the Church, of the issue of religious persecution. Faith and belief—or, indeed, lack thereof—can be very complex. Just like the pride we have in providing protection for those who need it, we should pride ourselves on the religious freedoms that we enjoy in the United Kingdom. I want to continue protecting those who need it, particularly when they face persecution for having a belief that differs from the faith they are expected or, indeed, forced to have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, wishes for the annual report to include the number of those who changed their religion after arriving in the UK. Again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with changing your religion when you arrive in the UK. Those matters will be explored in the individual claim when it is presented by a claimant and, as part of the process, decision-makers must take into consideration and test the claimant’s motivation, for those adopting a new faith and those who have renounced their previous faith.

Officials at the Home Office have worked with stakeholders, including the Church, to ensure that asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution are well considered, that those in genuine need are supported, and that there are no loopholes for claiming asylum in this country.

As a resident of Wales myself, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, that the Church of England is one aspect of Christian religion and there may be other aspects, and indeed other religions, where persecution results in change. That could be due to marriage, personal beliefs, or a whole range of reasons, and these will be tested in the individual interview.

--- Later in debate ---

We cannot and should not allow the generosity of the asylum system to be manipulated. By clarifying the interpretation of the refugee convention in this specific context, guidance would be provided to decision-makers, reducing opportunistic claims. At the same time, it would not prevent genuine converts seeking other appropriate forms of protection or leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. It would simply ensure that the definition of a refugee is applied as intended. The refugee convention, admirable as it is, was drafted in a very different age and has sometimes been stretched beyond what its drafters could have envisaged. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the law reflects contemporary realities, including the growing challenge of fraudulent or opportunistic claims, while maintaining our proud record of offering sanctuary to those in genuine need.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful, again, to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, for her amendment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made a compelling case in arguing against the amendment. I thank her for her support, as I too will not be supporting the amendment.

I took the words “blanket refusal” from what the noble Lord, Lord German, said, which is a really important point on this amendment. The noble Baroness’s amendment would mean that there was a blanket refusal for anybody who claimed status on the grounds of religious persecution, even if that person converted to a new religion after they arrived in the UK. It would mean there would potentially be people who would arrive in the UK, or who are here, and did not fear persecution when they left their country, but who may well have found religious faith on arrival in the United Kingdom, through a range of routes, and therefore would not be able to claim persecution before returning to their country. That does not seem fair to me. The 1951 refugee convention applies a definition regardless of where the fear of persecution arises. It includes situations where fear develops after arrival in the host country, in which case the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, would apply.

I took strongly what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the independence of decision-makers who will consider claims involving religious conversion. They will fully explore the motivation of that conversion and what it means in a person’s life. They will explore whether the conversion took place in the UK. It is reasonable, even taking on board the right reverend Prelate’s comments, to ask for some evidence of that conversion. As the right reverend Prelate said, ministers in the Church of England are not going to take every conversion on the face of it; they have a strong process to go through to ensure that someone is welcomed into the faith.

In cases of religious conversion, conversion alone does not guarantee refugee status. Ultimately, an individual could convert and say that that is the reason they should stay, but the decision-maker will look at whether the risk of return to the person’s country of origin has an implication for the credibility of the religious conversion, based on the evidence before them. Conversions may be rejected as not genuine or accepted as genuine but, even where a conversion is accepted, there has to be some form of detailed examination of an individual’s circumstances and the situation in the person’s country of origin.

In determining whether an individual has a well-founded fear of persecution, the assessment cannot be disregarded on the basis of actions taken after arrival in the UK, even where there is suspicion or evidence that such actions were taken in bad faith to generate or strengthen an asylum claim. Frankly, every claim must be judged on its merits according with the rule of law and our international obligations. Decision-makers scrutinise the timing of conversion and consistency with prior beliefs and behaviour. A finding of a person acting in bad faith can be relevant to the person’s credibility and whether they will face risk on return to their country of origin.

I cannot accept this amendment. If it were adopted it would reduce the volume of grants and potential bad faith claims, but it would also breach our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, which was put in place after a conflict that caused a significant number of refugees.

Sufficient guidance is in place for Home Office decision-makers to make a judgment on the basis of each claim. The noble Baroness’s amendment would cause difficulty and result in individuals who have genuinely converted being returned to their country of origin, maybe to face further persecution—which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is not a matter of being chided or ostracised but could result in their deaths because of their religious faith. I therefore cannot accept the amendment and I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for listening to my comments and responding in such detail. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we should tread very carefully with this issue. I thank her for her detailed observations and welcome what she said about the work that she does with the clergy in relation to baptism of asylum seekers and conversion to the Christian faith.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord German, that I understand that there are vast numbers of denominations in the Christian Church. My comments should be interpreted as meaning the Christian faith and its various denominations, of which I am not an expert but many others are. We are talking about Christian baptism, which can include the Church of England and many other denominations, including churches in Wales, where the noble Lord lives.

As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel set out, this is a question of fairness. The fact that there is no evidence of abuse does not reassure those of us in this House who are concerned about this issue. The Minister mentioned that it is possible that bad-faith claims exist within the system. I say to him that we cannot find evidence of something if the Government are not going to look for it; I note they rejected my earlier amendments.

As I said at the beginning, I will return to this topic in further contributions to this House. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister would agree to meet me and his officials to discuss this further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

81: Clause 62, page 67, line 33, at end insert—
“(ba) section 42;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would bring clause 42 (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc) into force on Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

83: Clause 62, page 68, line 1, leave out “, 42”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 62 at page 67, line 33.

Overseas Musicians Touring in the UK

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register.

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

The United Kingdom has a thriving creative industries sector that the Government are committed to supporting. The UK has one of the most generous offers in Europe for workers in the creative industries, including for touring musicians, many of whom already benefit from the very streamlined immigration requirements.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. UK Music’s annual report will be published tomorrow, but I can give your Lordships a sneak preview of one of its findings: 95% of musicians impacted by our leaving the EU have seen their earnings decrease since Brexit. The movement of musicians in and out of the UK is vital to our live sector, our economy and our culture. Will my noble friend the Minister make two pledges today? The first is to work urgently across government to ensure that the new ETA and visa system does not make it more difficult for overseas artists to tour in the UK. The second is to prioritise sorting out the bureaucratic mess that Brexit has brought to our touring musicians by fulfilling the Government’s manifesto pledge for a European cultural touring agreement.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The UK is looking very closely with our European partners at resetting the relationship, and that means looking to make sure that we reduce as much friction as possible. As my noble friend has mentioned, this is an industry worth around £30 billion a year; it is important that we support that industry as a whole through our creative plan. I will certainly look at the points he has raised. The ETA applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and we are working to examine those issues, but the points he makes are very valid. I look forward to seeing the report when it is published tomorrow.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, one of the key asks from the sector is for visa waiver agreements, not just with the EU but with other countries. Are the Government pursuing this urgently, both as part of the reset and globally?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are certainly looking at that as part of the reset, because it is very important that we have movement between countries that is as frictionless as possible, particularly in areas where individuals can now apply for long-term visas, although obviously the amount of time that they can stay in the UK depends on the visa that is granted. Musicians, entertainers, artists and technical staff from non-visa national countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, can perform in the UK for up to six months requiring only an ETA, which costs just £16 and currently lasts for two years. That is a pretty good deal.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, another area in which musicians touring in the UK, and UK musicians touring in Europe, need help is selling merchandise. Merch was once a good earner for bands on tour, but now artists in the UK have to register as an exporter, secure an economic operator’s registration and register for VAT in every country. Europeans touring here must also do so, but for only one country—the UK. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to reach a mutually beneficial deal on this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The UK Government are currently consulting on reforms to the UK’s convention on international trade, which includes musical instruments, certificates, goods and services. The noble Baroness makes an extremely valid point. It is one of the consequences of Brexit, but we cannot relive that debate now. As part of the reset, we want to ensure that we have movement that is as frictionless as possible, which is in the interests of everybody, without the UK rejoining the EU.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, while I very much welcome this initiative from the Government, and it is overdue in many respects post Brexit, I have some concerns about reports that appear to be emanating from Europe that the Commission is looking more and more at conceding these things and various other important agreements between us only on the basis that we will contribute to the financial pot of the European Union for everything that we get. Surely that is not the right attitude and the right atmosphere for us to proceed with.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let us let the UK negotiate with the European Union on these issues. The important thing is that we have as frictionless movement as possible for these sectors, both for UK residents going to the EU and EU residents coming to the UK. For the very reason that the noble Baroness gave, we need to ensure that we have effective movement of goods. The temporary movement of goods such as equipment continues to generate significant effort and cost, and we are looking now at having a carnet with the EU for the temporary admission of goods, so that we can deal with the very issue that she mentioned. Let us have that negotiation, but the objective is quite clear: let us make it as easy as possible for us to do business with the European Union.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is vital, as we have heard, that costs for British artists touring in the EU are reduced urgently? I welcome his view on carnets—that is indeed a step forward—but what about cabotage? What about, as the noble Baroness said, the possible signing up to the CITES agreement? The merchandise issue, as my noble friend will know, can often make or break a tour, especially for small bands. If they cannot sell their merchandise because of rules of origin problems, it is not worth their while going to Europe.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said in answer to earlier questions, the Government are looking at making movement as efficient and effective as possible for all concerned. On the CITES reforms, the Government are currently consulting with the musical sector and we remain committed to making touring as straight- forward and affordable as possible. The points on merchandise that my noble friend and the noble Baroness made are extremely valid. The Government and the European Union need to look at how we make that as frictionless as possible. That does not dilute the Brexit agreement, it simply makes sure that British and European businesses can operate at a profitable level and that we can support the very acts that my noble friend is concerned to support.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem that caused this issue was not just Brexit but the bungled trade and co-operation agreement, which completely left out Britain’s second-largest economic sector—the creative industries? This does not affect just musicians, it affects dancers, theatre, fashion, and so on. Is it not now time for the Government to try to put right what was done badly at the time of Brexit?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There were a lot of things done badly at the time of Brexit. The issue is—with due respect to everyone in this House—that we are where we are. Therefore, being where we are, the first step is to engage positively on a productive reset with the European Union on issues of benefit to it and benefit to us, which retain the spirit of where we were in 2019 and where we were in 2016, but which ultimately ensure that businesses—particularly, in this case, artists—do not find themselves victims of what was a hashed settlement in the first place.

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

Arriving here, I passed a plaque which read “Mozart lived here”, and, of course, he travelled to Britain and toured freely, as it was in those days. Everyone in the cultural sector knows that the arts know no boundaries of talent, inspiration or pleasure. It is important, in making rules and administration, that the position of the cultural industries as something that is international and free-flowing between nations and audiences is recognised by the Administration.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. Anybody who looks at the cultural sector will know that it is a significant earner for the UK economy. We are world leaders in every sector of musical accomplishment, as well as in drama, cinematography and television production. That is a major earner for the UK taxpayer, which brings revenues that we can spend on health, education, transport and other matters. It is vital that we make the work of that sector as simple as possible without regulation.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the arts have long been internationally mobile, and musicians are often needed at short notice to plug a gap in an orchestra or a West End production in order for that to go ahead; I saw this as Arts Minister as the sector bounced back from Covid. What work is the Minister’s department doing with orchestras, concert promoters, theatres and others to help explain the visa requirements that are needed, and to make sure that those decisions are made in a timely manner?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is vital that people get that because there can be need at short notice, and potentially the need to put on additional concerts or gigs due to greater demand that might overrun certain times and certain sectors. The point he has made is valid.

In the European context, which I think is where the noble Lord is mainly focused, this forms part of our examination on the reset. We currently have the best regime of any European country for allowing movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. However, if there are any difficulties, I would welcome discussion with him on what they are, how we can iron them out and how we can make sure that that big revenue earner for the UK continues to earn that level of revenue.

Police: Records

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to bring police force records in England and Wales under legislative control and to make police forces subject to the supervision of the Keeper of Public Records under the Public Records Act 1958, as recommended by the Hillsborough Panel in its report in September 2012.

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

It is very important that the police properly retain records, balancing the public interest of archiving with keeping people’s data only for as long as necessary and proportionate. That is why, in 2023, the College of Policing introduced a code of practice and authorised professional practice, which updates and strengthens the existing statutory framework.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, as my Question indicates, this issue has been around for over 13 years. Bishop James Jones’s devastating report called ‘The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power’, published in 2017, said that this issue should be addressed as a matter of urgency. He noted a comment from the South Yorkshire chief constable Med Hughes, who was quoted as saying:

“I am under no obligation to disclose anything and the papers belong to me. If I wanted to I could take them into the yard and have a bonfire with them”.


The Minister has answered that, in some sense, with his comment, but perhaps he can reaffirm what he feels about that comment. Is it not the case that this could not happen in Scotland, where police archives are protected by the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Following the recommendations of Bishop James Jones that came out of the Hillsborough inquiry, there was a request for a code of practice on public sector record keeping to be introduced within the police. The code was introduced in 2023, following consultation and the support of the previous Government, and it will be in operation until 2028, when we expect to review it accordingly. My noble friend will know that the code of practice is essentially a police code, but the accountable Minister is the Home Secretary, who I suspect would take a very strong view on a chief constable seeking to undertake the course of action that my noble friend indicated could be taken by South Yorkshire Police. We should examine the code, make it work, monitor its progress and, ultimately, make sure that it is fit for purpose in 2028.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, since the College of Policing introduced its updated code of practice on records management, both South Yorkshire Police and Northumbria Police have admitted destroying records relating to Orgreave, despite long-standing calls for a public inquiry. Does the Minister accept that voluntary compliance has failed to secure proper accountability and that legislative oversight is now required?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend, the Home Secretary is the accountable Minister with political oversight for the code of practice, although it is obviously in part an operational matter for the police. The noble Baroness mentions the alleged destruction of papers by Northumbria Police. There is for the first time an inquiry into Orgreave, which is ongoing and which this Government established, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. He has terms of reference to look at all matters relating to Orgreave. I do not want to pre-empt any discussions or any judgments that he may make but, self-evidently, from my perspective, if papers are available then they should be available to the inquiry and should not be going missing or being destroyed.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Is this not complicated by the fact that we have 43 separate police forces in this country? Do the Government feel that is the right number?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are 43 police forces; I bear the scars of being the Police and Counter- terrorism Minister in 2009-10 looking at potentially encouraging some forces to merge. I will not comment on the numbers—the important thing is efficiency. A policing White Paper will be published very shortly, in which we will look at how we can improve the efficiency of police forces. I look forward to the noble Viscount’s contribution when that paper is published in due course.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the phone hacking scandal that hit Britain, which was never properly investigated by the Met, leaves a lot of things unsaid and unheard. Should we not release all the files from the police so that we can see what went on in that case?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very interesting point. I bear the scars of that one as well, in the sense that I answered for the Home Office in 2009 when the phone hacking scandal first erupted. Lessons have been learned. There have been many litigious court cases and a range of policy changes have been made as a result, but, self-evidently, transparency is key. I will certainly examine my noble friend’s comments if we can add further to that transparency.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the police release data on arrests relating to the details of the offences but do not publish data specifying aggregated information about the offenders. Will the Minister commit to publishing further data about who has committed what offences?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on that rather than commit today. There are a number of important issues around data collection. My noble friend asked about the integrity of that data; the noble Lord is asking about widening that data. It would not be appropriate to make a judgment quickly at the Dispatch Box on that issue, but I will certainly reflect on it and contact him in due course.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

Would my noble friend consider meeting the Archives & Records Association to discuss some of these issues, in particular whether the records of police forces in England and Wales could be brought under Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I make a point in this House of never refusing a request from a Member to have a meeting, if at all possible, so I will look at how we can fit that meeting in in the near future. The key point is that the organisation he mentioned was party to the consultation on the code of practice and is party to the consultation which has determined already that the code of practice will be reviewed in 2028. I can happily meet them, but it has signed up to a course of action which involves the production of a code and its exercise and review in time for 2028. I will reflect on what my noble friend has said, and if I can fit that in, I will.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Goschen, will the Minister have a look at what is going on in Norfolk and Suffolk, for example, where the two constabularies are already co-operating on things like the issuing of firearms certificates and forensics? There is a lot of collaborative effort going on between the two forces. Surely that is the best way to go, which could then lead to a merger, rather than forcing mergers through.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. There is the idea of 43 police forces, going back to the noble Viscount’s initial point, but we should be trying to encourage co-operation on procurement, on personnel services and on a whole range of other issues where we can save resource and put it into front-line policing. Without trailing too much, the White Paper will examine how we improve that collaboration. When it is published, I hope the noble Lord will welcome it, contribute to it and, if need be, challenge it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, peacekeeping needs to be local as well as national. If one centralises too much the way the police is organised, we will lose touch with people in communities. I also recall that the four Yorkshire forces have a number of collaborative operations about organised crime, terrorism and, as I remember, helicopters and animals. These are obvious things to collaborate on, but one should retain a sufficient link with local communities in order to make sure that policing makes sense to the people it serves.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. The whole principle of policing is that it represents and is accountable to the local community. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it is still absolutely vital that we get best value out of the police resources that are put in. It is a valuable course of action to follow to find mechanisms to ensure that police forces can co-operate, where they want to, on getting a better deal for the taxpayer on some major procurement or on efficiencies generally. When the police White Paper is published relatively shortly, it will offer a number of pointers for where that co-operation can potentially be encouraged.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the rural task force was first set up by North Yorkshire Police and has been quite a success in preventing urban criminals coming into rural areas. Do the Government plan to roll out rural task forces in other parts of the country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

A lot of those decisions are for locally elected police and crime commissioners or, in some cases, mayors, who have responsibility via their deputy mayors for policing. We are concerned to ensure that we look at a number of areas to do with rural policing. The Government are focused on a number of aspects here including equipment theft, sheep worrying and shoplifting in smaller towns. We are trying to encourage police forces to buy in to some of our general pushes. All police forces have had additional police officers this year to meet some of their targets, particularly on shop theft and anti-social behaviour.