Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March. Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Aggravated offences(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Meaning of “aggravated”(1) For the purposes of sections 29 to 32 an offence is aggravated if it is aggravated by—(a) racial hostility,(b) religious hostility,(c) hostility related to disability,(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or(e) hostility related to transgender identity.(2) For the purposes of the following provisions an offence is aggravated if it is aggravated by hostility related to sex—(a) section 29,(b) section 30,(c) section 31(1)(a) and (c), and(d) section 32.(3) An offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (1) if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be) (v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.(4) An offence is aggravated by hostility related to sex if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the sex (or presumed sex) of the victim, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex.(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), it is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that subsection.(6) In this section—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.”(3) In the italic heading before section 28, for “Racially or religiously aggravated offences” substitute “Offences aggravated by racial or other hostility”.(4) In section 29 (aggravated assaults)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”.(5) In section 30 (aggravated criminal damage)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”;(c) in subsection (3) for “28(1)(a)” substitute “28(3)(a) and (4)(a)”.(6) In section 31 (aggravated public order offences)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”;(c) in subsection (7) for “28(1)(a)” substitute “28(3)(a) and (4)(a)”. (7) In section 32 (aggravated harassment)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”.(8) In section 66 of the Sentencing Code (hostility as aggravating factor in sentencing)—(a) in subsection (1), after “subsection (3)” insert “and subsection (3A)”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) So far as it relates to hostility related to disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity, this section does not apply in relation to an offence under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 committed on or after the day on which section (Aggravated offences)(2) of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 comes into force.”(9) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, for sections 240 and 241 substitute—“240 Increase in sentence for offences aggravated by hostility(1) This section applies where a court or officer dealing with an offender for a service offence (other than an offence mentioned in subsection (7)) is considering the seriousness of the offence.(2) If the offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (3) the court or officer—(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.(3) The kinds of hostility are—(a) racial hostility,(b) religious hostility,(c) hostility related to disability,(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or(e) hostility related to transgender identity.(4) An offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (3) if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be)(v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.(5) It is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in subsection (4). (6) In this section—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.(7) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under any of sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (offences aggravated by racial and other hostility).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause expands the grounds on which offences may be aggravated under sections 28 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racial and religious hostility) to include hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and (except for section 31(1)(b)) sex. It also makes consequential amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very proud to introduce Amendment 334, as it delivers on a Labour government manifesto commitment by extending the existing statutory framework for aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
As noble Lords will know, under the existing provision, specified offences are aggravated and subject to potentially greater maximum penalties where it is proved that the offender was motivated by hostility towards the protected characteristics of race and religion. The relevant offences for these purposes are criminal damage, harassment, stalking and certain public order offences, as well as several offences against the person, including actual and grievous bodily harm, strangulation, assault and malicious wounding.
Through Amendment 334, the Government are not creating new criminal offences; rather, we are extending a well-established legislative model to ensure that it properly captures the full range of hostility-based offending that we know is taking place in our communities. I just happen to believe that individuals who are trans or have a disability have a right and a promise to live life free from hostility in our society today. I pray in aid that, in the last year for which figures are available, March 2024 to March 2025, 4,120 hate crimes were registered by the police against transgender people and 10,649 hate crimes were registered against people with disabilities.
The amendment fulfils the Government’s commitment to level up the hate crime legislative framework by extending the regime of aggravated offences under the 1998 Act to cover criminal behaviours motivated by hostility towards sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. We are also adding behaviours motivated by hostility based on sex or presumed sex.
As a corollary to Amendment 334, government Amendments 345, 347, 349 and 353 separately amend the new offences on abuse towards emergency workers to provide for aggravation where these offences are motivated by or demonstrate hostility to the same range of protected characteristics. This ensures, for the first time, parity of treatment across these protected characteristics and provides the police and prosecutors with a broader set of tools for recognising and responding to hate crime offences.
This measure has received a broad welcome from a range of charities and organisations involved with disability or with transgender issues. Stonewall has described the measure before the House tonight as
“a powerful message that LGBTQ+ people deserve equal access to justice”.
Galop, the LGBT and anti-abuse charity, has described the amendment as a “landmark moment” for equality. Real, the deaf and disabled people’s organisation, has said:
“It reflects long-standing calls for equal protection under the law for all victims of hate crime”.
The Spinal Injuries Association has said:
“It sends a clear message that violence and hostility directed at disabled people will no longer be overlooked and must be treated with the seriousness it deserves”.
I concur with all those comments, and I hope that the whole House will do too in due course.
Aggravated offences are well established in our criminal law. By extending the scope of the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act, we will help to ensure that criminal justice agencies identify and record hostility against protected characteristics where they take place and that perpetrators are appropriately punished for their offending.
These are not abstract virtues. They translate into better case-building, clearer communication with victims and, ultimately, more robust outcomes in court. I hope that they will also prevent people being attacked, abused and harassed for issues to do with their identity as transgender people or people with disabilities. It is simply not acceptable in the 21st century for those types of offences to take place. That is why we consider that the aggravated offences framework remains the right tool for recognising and responding to hostility based offending.
Recognising hostility based on sex within the aggravated offences regime complements our mission to tackle violence against women and girls. It will enable the courts to recognise on the face of the offence the serious harm caused when a victim is targeted because of their sex or presumed sex. Making it clear in law that offences motivated by hostility towards a victim’s sex will be treated just as seriously as those motivated by hostility towards the range of other protected characteristics in the hate crime regime reinforces our determination as a Government to confront these harms.
To ensure coherence across the statute book, the aggravated version of the existing Section 4A offence under the Public Order Act 1986 will not extend to cases involving hostility based on sex or presumed sex. That is because the behaviour targeted by that offence—namely, causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress—is already more than adequately covered by the new aggravated offence introduced by the Protection from Sex based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which will come into force on 1 April. This approach prevents duplication while ensuring the law remains both targeted and effective.
I will listen to what noble Lords say in their amendments, but I put a clear message down that this is a matter of principle for this Labour Government and people across this House. I believe and know that it will have the support of many others in this House, for which I thank them in advance. It is not right that transgender people or people with disabilities are singled out for offences. They need the protection of the law and today is the day for this House, and for the House of Commons when it is considered there, to stand up and say what is right. I beg to move.
Amendment 334A (as an amendment to Amendment 334)
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have serious reservations about the Government’s amendments on aggravated offences. I appreciate that this puts me at odds with the Minister, but I knew that long before today, because in Committee he made a passionate speech, as he has today, telling us how proud he would be to move these amendments and claiming that they show a Government prepared to protect LGBT and disabled people.
If this is such an important change in the law for the Government, and a principled flagship for progressive Labour that appeared in its manifesto, we have to ask why the Government waited until Report in the Lords—so late in the Bill’s passage—to table the amendments. They must have thought that they were principled and important before, so why are we seeing them only now? I am afraid that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, explained, this denies this House the constitutional right to properly scrutinise and mull over the complex details of the amendments—let alone the fact that that was denied to the elected Chamber.
In the limited space that we have here, I will start by raising some general concerns I have with aggravated offences. Some people might say that this is a Second Reading speech; if it is, it is because the Government did not bring the amendments forward until now, so I will say it anyway. In my view, the state’s job, via criminal justice, is to prosecute material, clearly defined offences. When the authorities attempt to either infer or impute motivation for a crime, seemingly to signal its particular gravity, that is a dangerous move towards punishing ideas, beliefs or attitudes. Some of those ideas, of course, might be bigoted or abhorrent, but they are none the less ideas and opinions. We need to be wary of inadvertently stepping towards thought-crime solutions just to signal our moral virtue, and I am worried about expanding that regime.
This has consequences. Offences such as these carry higher maximum penalties when offenders demonstrate hostility, and this can mean prison. But hostility can be interpreted broadly in the law as ill will, antagonism or prejudice. Let me be clear: violence, harassment, assault or whatever against a disabled person, a trans person, a woman or anyone should be punished appropriately—severely, if that is your take—and certainly uniformly, regardless of motive. But aggravated sentencing can lead to some perverse outcomes.
On hate crime aggravators, in Committee I used an example from the CPS report Our Recent Hate Crime Prosecutions. A man was put in jail for 20 weeks for
“assaulting his father, sister and a police officer, and using racist slurs against his sister’s partner”.
But the CPS notes that, without the racist slurs, he would have only received a community order. So for the assault he would have retained his freedom but, with the racist words, he got 20 weeks in jail. What is more problematic is that many of the offences we are talking about are not actually those kinds of aggressions but often speech that is promiscuously criminalised.
This sentencing anomaly really hits home when it comes to the much boasted-of addition of sex into the aggregation. “At last”, people will say; “misogyny taken seriously”. But, during the Sentencing Bill, the Government refused to accept a perfectly reasonable amendment exempting sexual assault offences and domestic violence offences from the early release scheme. Surely, a real, material commitment to women would be to have accepted that amendment, not increased sentences for offences deemed driven by hostility to women.
Instead, my view is that we should prosecute actual offences committed against any woman. When those offences involve, for example, sexual violence or domestic abuse, we should give appropriate sentences to perpetrators and then not let the offenders out early to free up prison places. That would help women far more than this amendment, the wording of which says that the aggravators must be announced in “open court” to declare an offence aggravated—if ever there were an indication of the performative nature of this, that is it.
One worry is that many of the offences to which “aggravated” will be attached will be the tangled plethora of hate speech crimes, already leading to the scandal of Britain’s declining free speech reputation internationally, with so many arrested for speech crimes, as we have heard about. So many of these offences are wholly subjective, because hostility can be defined by the victim. We have seen the recent weaponisation of speech against those who do not share the same views, the whole cancel culture and toxicity that has proliferated, and identity groups and those with protective characteristics pitched against each other in grievance complaints.
Although it was not in the criminal law, we saw a gross example of this when John Davidson, a man with Tourette’s and the subject of an award-winning sympathetic film, involuntarily ticked and shouted out the N-word. Subsequent commentary refused to accept that there was no intent to offend. Race and disability were put at odds, rather than empathetically understanding the issues, and that is one of the problems with playing the identity politics issue. Increasing aggravated offences will just add to this toxic mix, and that, combined with public order and communications arrests—if not prosecutions for speech crimes, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—will make this issue really difficult.
The issue of hostility to transgender identity is likely to stir up further tensions. I want to ask: what is transgender identity? At best, it is a subjective category. It is a self-defined description. That is not a criticism; it is just an observation. Transgender identity does not require a gender recognition certificate or surgery. By the way, the wording in the amendment is confusing here: it gives credence to the fact that surgery might be a key, but then it says “proposing to undergo” gender reassignment, which is a very odd phrase. That is why the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, are right to query and probe it, which is what we should be doing, even though it is so late in the day. How transgender people are defined will matter to how these amendments will be understood.
The clarification of the noble Lords from the Official Opposition, in Amendments 337, 350, 351 and 352, establishing what sex means in the Bill, is also helpful. Emphasising biological sex—sex at birth—is necessary to ensure that the cultural clash between gender identity and sex is not muddled up in this Bill or in these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in his Amendment 334A, also hopes to ensure that the proposed changes do not criminalise misgendering.
I just note that I hate the word “misgendering”. If a male identifies as a female, even if he has a certificate or has had surgery, he is still a man. Saying that is not misgendering; it is factually accurate. Asking me to call him a woman is compelled speech, asking me to repeat misinformation. But would that statement, which I am very nervous about making, be seen as evidence of hostility to someone based on their gender identity? Guess what: too often, those accused of, and punished for, so-called misgendering offences are women. Police criminalised Sex Matters’ Helen Joyce for some tweets referring to Freda Wallace by his former name Fred and using he/him pronouns, and the police recorded that as “criminal harassment” with “transgender aggravators”.
What about the young lesbian who says that she is not attracted to a male—a man who thinks that, by wearing stilettos and a dress, he is a woman and should be allowed into a lesbian-only group at a workplace—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not wish to disturb the noble Baroness’s train of thought, but how we frame this debate is important. It is an aggravated offence if the individual has committed an offence that I outlined earlier, such as grievous or actual bodily harm, public order offences, harassment, stalking or criminal damage. It is not about the issues the noble Baroness is speaking to.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
To clarify, in the first example I gave, of Helen Joyce, it was called criminal harassment for the tweets and the aggravated factors. The police actually dropped it in the end, but they—not me but the police—called it criminal harassment with transgender aggravators. In the example I was giving, the lesbian in her work group was then labelled a bigot. In other words, it is the L in LGBT, not the T, that will often take the hit. I mentioned that because she was threatened by the person, who said they would go to the police, and then she was visited by somebody who said that the police would be involved. I am making this point because I am worried about it spiralling out of control. I would say that that is misogyny: demonising a biological woman for expressing her sexuality as same-sex attracted. I want to be sure that the amendments in this group navigate such clashes and do not avoid them.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her kind comments at the beginning—if I blush, that is the reason why. I appreciate them.
I hope that this debate will be undertaken in a way that respects different views, but there is a significant difference of opinion between noble Lords who support this amendment and those who do not. That is fair, proper and right. This House and the House of Commons are places to debate those issues, and I will try to do so in as friendly and constructive a way as possible while sticking to my firm principles that the Government’s amendment is the right thing to do.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Cashman; the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Herbert of South Downs, Lord Paddick and Lord Pannick; from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green. I think that that spread of opinion from the Cross Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Government Benches and, indeed, the Conservative Benches shows that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, has argued again today. He did so in Committee. I accept his view as his view. He wanted, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, to row back on all aggravated factors in his amendment. He accepts that. I have no argument about his right to do so, but I do about my position on where I accept it. There is a real debate between us.
I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and other noble Lords who have raised this issue that this amendment is not about non-crime hate incidents or offensive tweets; it is about serious offences such as actual bodily harm, public order offences, harassment, stalking and criminal damage where a prison sentence would be given by a judge on conviction. If the judge, having heard the evidence of the prosecution and witnesses in that trial, believes that the harassment, stalking or actual bodily harm was generated not just by two people meeting in a pub and having a fight but by somebody turning up in that pub, having a fight and suffering actual bodily harm because the individual was a different colour, race, religion or sex—or because they dressed in a transgender way, because that is what they chose and that is the way they live their life—that is something that, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put his finger on, a judge should take into account when giving a sentence of up to the maximum potential sentence under the law.
That is because the law will say that it was not just an argument or stalking offence or harassment because of a general factor; it will say that the principal direction of that harassment, stalking or grievous bodily harm was because of a transgender characteristic, disability characteristic, racial characteristic or misogyny. I draw a line in the sand on this and say that this House, the Government and Parliament should stand up for those people who face that kind of activity. That is a reasonable position to take.
The amendments strengthen support and protection for victims. No one will go down for a tweet or a non-crime hate incident under this; they will go down because they committed a serious offence, and they will get an aggravated sentence because they did it for a reason that this society should not tolerate.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am asking a question; is that allowed on Report? I want just to clarify: when the Minister says a tweet versus a serious offence such as a public order offence or harassment, will he accept that that can be a speech crime? I have never mentioned tweets. It is serious if you get sent to prison for a speech crime. That is why there is concern about speech.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are going to have a whole debate at some point in the next couple of weeks on non-crime hate incidents involving the type of issues that we are debating. I am putting the case for the Government. That is my view, it is what we are saying, and I have had support from people who have been political opponents in the past, people who I share political views with, opposition parties and Cross-Benchers. That is a reasonable coalition that has said that this is the right thing to do.
Genuine points have been raised about the tabling of this amendment at this late stage on Report. I say three things in response to that. First, this is a manifesto commitment. Secondly, the Law Commission report in 2022 developed this. It is a complex area of criminal law and has been a long time in gestation. Had we been able to draft an amendment that met the objectives we set then I would have tabled it in Committee, but we have drafted and tabled it now after a long period of gestation.
I also say to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rooker, that it was announced at Second Reading in the House of Commons that we would bring this amendment forward. In Committee in the House of Commons, an amendment was tabled from the Back Benches by Rachel Taylor, MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to meet the Labour Government’s manifesto commitment. The House of Commons debated that amendment and the Government said they accepted it in principle but needed to look at it in the context of the Law Commission and its drafting. After a full debate in the Commons, we accepted the amendment and have brought it back.
At Second Reading in this House, I took great pride in saying that we would bring the amendment back. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, he tabled an amendment in Committee that would sweep away every aspect of race and other protected characteristics. That is his view. In my argument against that view during the discussion we had in Committee, I said to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that I would table an amendment on Report and that we would debate it. We have had two and a quarter hours on this debate so far today. We may have a Division on it, on which I hope to get support from other colleagues. But I say to all noble Lords that this is an important issue.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would, in essence, water down that proposal. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, would water down that proposal. The amendments seeking to strike out the offences in Clauses 122 and 124 of threatening emergency workers would mean that individuals could abuse emergency workers on a racial basis. That is simply not acceptable to me, the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrats, Members of the Conservative Back Benches and the Cross Benches. It might be a legitimate view, and I will not deride that view, but is not one I will ever share. I say to my noble friends: join me in that Lobby—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti reminds me that I have been in this House for just under two years now and have voted only once in the Lobby on that side of the Chamber.
Tonight, I ask my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join me to vote for this amendment, because it does what the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, said: it says to people who have protected characteristics, “Society is on your side”, and if you are picked out because of that characteristic, we will make sure that the people who pick you out pay a penalty for that if the judge in that trial determines that, having had a guilty verdict, your motivation was one that attacked protected characteristics. If it is good enough for people who are Jewish, Muslim or Black, it should be good enough for trans, disabled and other people. That is why I take great pleasure in asking my noble friends to join me in this Lobby any moment now to vote for this amendment. I hope that all noble Lords who support the principle will do so.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and, on the basis that I have understood him correctly that none of these amendments or the Government’s intention of commencing the new Clause 4B of the Public Order Act is intended to encourage the police to investigate misgendering on social media—I can see the Minister is nodding—I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Guidance about honour-based abuse(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about honour-based abuse to such public authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2) Guidance under this section may include guidance about—(a) the prevention of honour-based abuse;(b) the identification of honour-based abuse;(c) the collection and sharing of information about honour-based abuse;(d) how public authorities should work together in relation to honour-based abuse.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) A public authority to which guidance under this section is given must have regard to the guidance when exercising its public functions.(5) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance.(6) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance.(7) Subsections (3) to (6) apply to any revised guidance, except that subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.(8) In this section “public authority” means a person exercising public functions, other than a court or tribunal.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confers a power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities about honour-based abuse.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee—and I am grateful for the comments made at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and others urged the Government to grasp the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deliver on the Government’s commitment to introduce statutory guidance to assist front-line practitioners in tackling honour-based abuse by supporting a statutory definition of such abuse. I am pleased to say that we agree that this is not an opportunity to be missed. The Government have tabled Amendments 339 and 340 in response to comments in Committee to deliver on the Government’s commitment.
Amendment 339 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on honour-based abuse. This guidance will sit alongside the statutory definition, operationalising it by clearly setting out expectations on prevention, identification, information sharing and multi-agency working across policing, health, education, social care and other safeguarding partners. Public authorities will be required to have regard to this guidance, meaning that professionals must factor it in to how they carry out their existing duties and safeguarding responsibilities.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for her determined and tireless work on honour-based abuse. I know that the Government had intended to bring forward a statutory definition at some point, but it is purely down to her efforts during the passage of this Bill that we are discussing it today, and she fully deserves the commendation she has received this evening.
I will not repeat the points of my noble friend’s speech but simply reiterate that we plainly welcome the introduction of a statutory definition. I hope it will help in getting justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. I also offer my support to her amendment, which aims to provide legal clarity and remove ambiguity about the nature of honour-based abuse. It can take a wide array of forms, but a common trend among them is that it is often committed by families and community groups. My noble friend is, I think, simply seeking clarity on the Government’s new provisions so as to provide explicit confirmation of the position.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her Amendment 340A, which has had the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Verma, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I understand where she is coming from and I will try to explain where we are and how we can interpret her point.
On the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Lord Mandelson, formerly of this Chamber, I do not think that now is the appropriate time for me to comment on that—first because a number of potential legal cases are going on, and secondly because I do not conflate anything that will or will not face Lord Mandelson with the horrors that people have faced with honour-based abuse. The noble Lord has made his point, but I will not respond to it today.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I merely chose it as an example that we would all be aware of. It seems to me that the clause as drafted catches a lot of people who should not be caught by it. I will write to the noble Lord, if he will allow that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always happy to have letters—or, potentially, one of those newfangled things, an email—from Members of this House. If the noble Lord wishes to send something through, I shall happily examine it with my colleagues.
The contributions in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, rightly emphasise the need for clarity and to ensure a proper definition that covers situations where multiple people are involved in perpetrating abuse. I completely agree that the definition must reflect both the survivor experience and capture multiple perpetrator contexts. However, I put the caveat to her that we have to be careful that what appears a straightforward change to the wording does not create drafting ambiguity in itself or add complexity that would hinder practitioners. As I stated in my opening comments, as drafted this amendment covers a situation where there is more than one perpetrator. I am happy to put on the record that the Government will also make that clear in the Explanatory Notes and the statutory guidance, to be published in due course, so that front-line practitioners understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators. Again, I hope that that goes to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool.
I understand and recognise the noble Baroness’s point but, again, the Home Office wants fully to consider the impact of the amendment. However, I hope the statement I have given from the Dispatch Box—which, again, for ease of practice, is that front-line practitioners can understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators—is clear. I hope that, with that commitment, these government amendments will ensure that we have a significant milestone in strengthening the Government’s response to honour-based abuse, but more importantly that the public authorities have the tools, guidance, understanding and clarity they need to ensure that we provide a better overall multi-agency, victim-centred response.
I thank the noble Baroness for her amendments. A number of noble Lords have referenced organisations outside Parliament that have campaigned long and hard. I pay tribute to them and share their objectives. I hope with those comments that the amendments that I have tabled can be moved—
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, and it is great to hear that the Home Office is considering how this might impact the legislation. However, I do not think I have heard exactly what harm this might do or why it is allowed in other legislation but not in this. I therefore wonder whether the noble Lord might consider bringing it back at Third Reading, if the Home Office is able to find a way to get the provision concerning multiple perpetrators into the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I always try to be as clear as I can from this Dispatch Box, when I can. I simply say to the noble Baroness that the Government would not want to table any amendments to the Bill at Third Reading. We want to try to ensure that the discussions we have had are complete and that Third Reading is a relatively straightforward procedure. So I cannot offer her that comfort, and I might as well tell her that now. But I am also saying, notwithstanding the points she has made, and in the light of the guidance we are going to produce, that I hope the interpretation I have given, which I think reflects the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is one she can accept. I shall move my amendments, but I also ask her in due course not to press hers.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Meaning of “honour-based abuse”(1) For the purposes of section (Guidance about honour-based abuse) “honour-based abuse” occurs where—(a) a person (“A”) engages in abusive behaviour towards another person (“B”) who is a member of A’s family or is a relevant connection of A, and(b) A is motivated wholly or partly by A’s perception that B has behaved, is behaving or may behave in a way which—(i) shames or dishonours A, B, A’s family, B’s family or A’s community, and(ii) does not comply with the accepted norms of behaviour in A’s community.(2) The reference to A engaging in abusive behaviour towards B includes A causing another person to engage in abusive behaviour towards B.(3) A person’s behaviour may be behaviour “towards” B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).(4) Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of—(a) physical or sexual abuse,(b) violent or threatening behaviour,(c) controlling or coercive behaviour,(d) economic abuse (see subsection (5)),(e) spiritual abuse,(f) psychological or emotional abuse, or(g) other abuse,and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.(5) “Economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to—(a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or(b) obtain goods or services.(6) A person is a member of another person’s family if any of the following applies—(a) they are relatives,(b) they are, or have been, married to each other,(c) they are, or have been, civil partners of each other,(d) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(e) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(f) they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with each other, or (g) they each have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child,(and references to a person’s family are to be read accordingly).(7) A person is a relevant connection of another person if they are friends or acquaintances who are known to each other in person.(8) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g) a person has a parental relationship in relation to a child if—(a) the person is a parent of the child, or(b) the person has parental responsibility for the child.(9) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;“civil partnership agreement” has the meaning given by section 73 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004;“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see section 3 of that Act);“relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause defines “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of my new clause (Guidance about honour based abuse), inserted after clause 121.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3) The conduct of a person (“D”) is hostile towards another person (“E”) if—(a) at the time of that conduct, or immediately before or after that time, D demonstrates towards E hostility based on—(i) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of E,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of E,(v) E being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(vi) the sex (or presumed sex) of E, or(b) D’s conduct is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation,(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender, or(vi) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the kinds of hostility relevant to an offence under clauses 122 and 123 to include hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and sex.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(5) In subsection (3)—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership”, in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by D.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for setting out his amendment on the issue of controlling or coercive behaviour by psychotherapists and counsellors. I fully understand the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in support of it. I am pleased in some ways—and in other ways I am not—that the noble Lord has managed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to back his cause. However, while I accept that there are concerns in this area, I am sort of with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this one.
The amendment seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients, mimicking a similar offence in the domestic abuse context. I understand the need for that, as explained by the noble Lord, and I fully recognise that those who seek psychotherapy and counselling services may be vulnerable. As the noble Lord knows, psychotherapists and counsellors are not statutorily regulated professions in the UK. However, there are other safeguards in place for the public to acquire such services with confidence.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt of King’s Heath said in Committee, this is a complex area where there is an overlap of roles and titles. It is difficult to differentiate between and reach agreement on defining what these specific roles are, be it psychotherapist, counsellor, therapist, well-being coach, talking therapist, mental health practitioner, lifestyle mentor, family coach or spiritual healer—the list could go on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on, regulation is not always the answer. Quack and unscrupulous practitioners can, as has been described today and during previous debates, easily refer to themselves as something slightly different to avoid any proposed new offence, and regulation does not define the scope of practice.
In Committee, I heard the request for the noble Lord and supporters of the amendment to meet the relevant Minister at the Department of Health. I was pleased to facilitate that discussion, which I know took place on Monday—though there still appears to be a gap between the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my colleague Karin Smyth MP.
The amendment as it stands is intended to protect vulnerable people from rogue practitioners who call themselves psychotherapists or counsellors, but it does not include a legal definition of counselling or psychotherapy services. I respectfully submit that the amendment is not the right route to take, in the light of that issue.
As I and my honourable friend the Health Minister in the Commons have said, the Government are focused on managing the underlying risks. We are ready to work with sector partners to commission a formal assessment of the oversight of such therapies in order to understand current risks as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguards and whether they need to be strengthened to protect the public better. As I mentioned in Committee—I will repeat it again for the noble Lord—if the Government are satisfied that the conditions for the regulation of a profession are met then they can take action through secondary legislation under existing powers in the Health Act 1999 to make changes and to bring into effect criminal offences relating to a person’s registration with a professional regulator.
I openly and honestly say to the noble Lord that we cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that there is some comfort from both the meeting and the direction of travel that I have set out on behalf of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I am not content to withdraw my amendment.
First, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for highlighting how the opinions of the public may be affected, and the fact that the reputations of psychotherapy and counselling services, which are of value and honestly provided, may be tainted by the dishonest quacks who have absolutely no right to be practising—as a matter not just of regulation but of plain, honest practice—because they are there to take money from innocent clients. My view is that the definition of
“providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services”
is wide enough to catch those quacks.
Secondly, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for reconsidering the opinions he expressed in Committee. That is what the gap between Committee and Report is for—to give us all a chance to think—and I am grateful to him for his change of mind and his support for the amendment.
I simply did not understand the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I understood the Minister’s objections when he talked about regulation, but he does not seem to have taken on board my point—which is central to all this—that regulation for the purposes of a new criminal offence is simply a red herring. What is important here is creating a criminal offence to catch dishonest people who are quacks, who are taking advantage of vulnerable people by coercive and controlling behaviour, and who ought to be punished for doing so. Others also ought to be deterred from doing so.
With some regret in view of the hour, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment; I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for moving Amendment 359. I know that she has been pursuing it with tenacity. This amendment and Amendment 361 relate to the Government’s proposal to create a specific, stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker at work. I want to be clear from the outset that it is already an offence to assault a retail worker, because it is an offence to assault any person, full stop. That is the law. I do not believe that criminal law should treat anyone differently based simply on whether they are a retail worker. I fully recognise that retail workers face an appalling level of abuse and violence in the course of their jobs, but to say that the creation of a new, specific criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker will stop assaults on retail workers is, frankly, for the birds.
What will stop these assaults, or at least reduce them, is the police stepping up enforcement, and the Government stopping the release of criminals and handing anyone convicted of these offences suspended sentences. However, the Government clearly believe that creating this new offence will reduce violence against retail workers. If we are to take their logic to its conclusion, why would we not extend the offence to cover all public-facing workers? Does the Minister believe that transport drivers, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Stowell and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, are of lesser value than retail workers? If the Government believe that this new offence will work then why do they not believe it will work for other public-facing workers?
My noble friend’s amendment exposes the absurdity of the Government’s position. They argue that violence against retail workers is a significant problem that needs to be tackled, which is absolutely correct, but then propose a solution that they refuse to extend to other workers who also face significant levels of violence at work. There is simply no logic to the Government’s approach. Either they believe that creating a new offence for specific groups of people will reduce violence against them or they do not. They cannot argue both. I would prefer that we did not have any new offences that outlawed things that are already outlawed and that we did not legislate to criminalise actions towards specific groups of people but not others. That would be my preference, but if we are to do these things, then we must take them to their logical conclusion. For that reason, I support the amendments from my noble friend.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment, and for the opportunity to discuss it with her and with the organisations she brought in for face-to-face discussions with us. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for his contribution and for our meeting.
I declare my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which I joined 47 years ago and which sponsored me as a Member of Parliament. I put that on the record. I must also say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I understand that he would prefer to have no offence. I understand that because when, as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, I tabled amendments to put these types of offences down, the then Government rejected them. I therefore understand where he is coming from, because that is consistent with the position of previous Conservative Governments.
In this case, we have a Labour manifesto commitment endorsed by the electorate. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned USDAW. I pay tribute to that union, which has collected evidence and, through three general secretaries, including my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, campaigned strongly for an offence against retail workers. The Labour Party listened to that in opposition and put in its manifesto—I cannot claim credit for this, because I was out of Parliament at the time—a commitment to legislate for that offence, which appears in the Bill before the House today.
I have heard the comments from the noble Lord, Hogan-Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on why they think that the bespoke offence against assaulting a retail worker should be extended to all public-facing workers. Along with proposing a new broader offence of assault against public-facing workers, the noble Baroness has tabled an amendment that would place a duty on courts to make a criminal order in the event of a conviction.
I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but I repeat the arguments that I put to her in Committee and elsewhere. Public-facing workers such as those mentioned by my noble friend, the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, are covered under existing legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes a range of violent offences, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Further, the provisions of Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, makes it a statutory aggravating factor of assault against any public-facing worker. That offence means that if someone, having been charged with the serious offence of assault and having gone through a trial, is deemed to have committed assault against public-facing workers, the court has the power to add aggravating factors to that sentence. That covers every type of worker that has been mentioned by noble Lords today. The aggravating factor applies in cases of assault where an offence is committed against those public service workers performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. That is an important factor.
Noble Lords have asked why there is a specific offence against retail workers that is additional to the aggravating offence. That is a reasonable question to ask. In clauses that have been mentioned there is provision for additional prison sentence capacity, criminal restriction orders and an unlimited fine for this stand-alone offence. Retail workers are still covered by Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, so why have we put that extra power in place?
The reason for this—and why I declared an interest—is that USDAW has, to my knowledge, for 17 or 18 years campaigned regularly for this in the Freedom From Fear Campaign. It has done so under the three general secretaries that my noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned, and it has done so for a purpose—one that the Government share. Retail workers are fundamentally on the front line of upholding the laws passed by both Houses of Parliament on a range of matters. It is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of cigarettes, it is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of alcohol, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a knife, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a solvent, and it is a retail worker who protects the community by upholding all the laws on those issues that we have passed in this House and in the House of Commons. That is why USDAW campaigned for the specific offence, and it is why the Labour Party in government has been pleased to support the creation of that offence by putting it in the Bill.
That goes even further to the appalling shop theft situation. I do not call it shoplifting—it is shop theft. There has been a continued rise in shop theft over many years, and it is the retail worker who is on the front line saying, “Put that back”, calling the police and taking action in the shop. The Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and a whole range of retail organisations have campaigned for this, alongside USDAW, over many years. It has been thought through and there is an evidence base. It is a manifesto commitment, and we are trying to introduce that extra offence. I do not wish to see a train operative or members of customer services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned, attacked with a knife. This is covered by common assault legislation from 1861 and by the 2022 Act as an aggravating offence. But the Government have put forward a stand-alone offence for shop workers for the reasons I have outlined.
Does that potentially create an anomaly? Let us discuss that and reflect on that view. But the manifesto commitment is clear, and we are delivering on that manifesto commitment. This is an important issue, based on evidence and campaigning by a range of bodies—retail organisations and trade unions—and it has my support. Therefore, I cannot support the noble Baroness—I have told her that—or my noble friend.
That is not to say that the Government accept that attacks on those members of staff are a normal part of what they should face. We are committed to driving down assaults and to enforcing, with the courts, the legislation on the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked what the Government are doing to reduce the attacks in the first place. This Government are rebuilding the police force—13,000 neighbourhood police officers—and have put in place, with this Bill, changes in shop theft legislation. This Government are focusing on retail crime in hotspots and on making sure that we drive it down. We will ensure that the police forces have retail crime as a major priority.
In the last 14 years before July 2024, police numbers fell, neighbourhood policing fell and the focus on the high street fell. It was not a Labour Government but a Conservative Government who did that. They refused the legislation on assaults on shop workers that I proposed in the House of Commons, they refused to take action on shop theft on high streets and they refused to stand up for the workforce. With due respect, I will not take lessons today from the Conservative Front Bench.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
May I check whether my assertion is accurate or whether I am wrong? Would someone enforcing an age limit in a betting office not be protected by the retail workers’ protection but someone enforcing an age restriction in an off-licence would be? It seems to me that the distinction is simply between providing a service and providing a good. If I am wrong in that, I withdraw my comment, but I am not sure that the Minister has said I am.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have clearly defined in the Bill what we believe a retail worker is. I accept that there are areas of interpretation for the courts, such as, for example—we have discussed this with colleagues outside the House—whether a post office is covered by the retail worker provision. Somebody might walk into a post office to buy Christmas cards or birthday cards and go to the post office counter—is that a retail worker? Those are areas where there may be some interpretation, but we have identified this as tightly as we can. It is a straightforward clause that defines a retail worker. I commend it, given that there has been a considerable amount of work by the Home Office in drafting the amendment, after a considerable amount of work by retail organisations and trade unions to develop the campaign.
I go back to my point that all attacks on all staff are unacceptable. Other areas are covered, but the reasons I mentioned on the specific provision of upholding legislation are why we have put in a specific offence against retail workers. That is why I commend those clauses to the House. I ask the noble Baroness—although I understand that she cannot do this—at least not to push her amendment to a vote.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I think there was appetite among many of us to see the beginnings of a strategy for each sector that we know is facing rising violence. I know that that is not within the gift of the Minister, but a request to talk to Ministers and get people around the table in those sectors so that we can deal at a strategic level with the causes of violence, as well as big issues such as resources for enforcement, would go a long way to give comfort to people that this is the beginning of a conversation about how we deal with violence against working people.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said to the House, I do not support, encourage or condone any violence against anybody under any circumstances. The public-facing workers are covered by two pieces of legislation; we are adding a specific offence for retail workers, for the reasons I have outlined. I have met personally with a range of bodies that the noble Baroness has brought before us. I understand that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill has met organisations and met and discussed issues with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is here today, and will continue to do so. However, this campaign on the clauses in the Bill has been a long time in gestation—it has taken 15 and 16 years to get where we are today—and I want to get them over the line, so I cannot accept the amendments that the noble Baroness has introduced. I ask her to withdraw her amendment but if she puts it to the vote, I shall have to ask my noble friends to join me in voting against it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s amendment, which would remove the word “alarm” from the relevant sections of the Public Order Act. I entirely support his aims. Alarm is not an emotion that should be policed, if emotions should be policed at all. The Act in question has been used for the unprecedented policing of speech that we have seen recently, for which Sections 4A and 5 have been largely responsible, and any measure that weakens the effect of this law is welcome. So, although I am sceptical that he will, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment, and I will explain why to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. We will therefore have another opportunity to look at the offences in the Public Order Act 1986 and to reflect on the balance we must continue to strike between free expression and ensuring public safety.
The Government remain firmly committed to protecting freedom of speech. The ability to voice strong and at times uncomfortable views is fundamental to democratic life. However, as I set out in Committee, the ability to intervene early is an important tool for police to protect both the public and those involved, a point that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson, will accept. The definitions in the 1986 Act, passed by a previous Conservative Government, including the words “alarm” and “distress”, are there so that there can be early intervention and examination, and so that people who feel “alarm” and “distress” can have that support.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has also referred to the review of public order and hate crime legislation led by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. Government has given it the task of examining the threshold definitions of public order legislation, which are needed to protect the public, while ensuring that we do exactly what I know the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wants to do: ensure that we do not have undue interference in freedom of expression. The review is expected to conclude in the spring—it is a flexible definition, as we know, but it will be in the spring—and the Government will carefully consider its recommendations before determining whether legislative change is necessary.
I cannot commit to where we are on that because we have not seen the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. Given the circumstances —and given that the Act is now 40 years old and has stood the test of time from Mrs Thatcher’s Government to those of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, however many Conservative Prime Ministers held the office between 2010 and 2024, and my right honourable friend the current Prime Minister—it strikes me that it is a sound piece of legislation. It has stood the test of a number of Prime Ministers and Governments. With the review pending, I hope that we can examine and look at all those issues. With those comments, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
It gives me inordinate pleasure—it warms the cockles of my heart—to listen to the Minister praising the legislation of the late Baroness Thatcher in her pomp. We do not often get that, but we should be grateful for small mercies.
We have had a short and interesting debate. I take in good faith the comments of both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Her contribution was very thoughtful in really drilling down into what the word “alarm” means. I think the debate we had in Committee was about the consistent nature of a criminal offence. That is harassment and distress: if someone harasses or threatens someone on a consistent basis. It is different from a momentary issue that might arise.
I say that because we have seen too many examples of where individual police officers, who may not have had appropriate training and education in interpreting these pieces of legislation from the 1980s, have, in my opinion, overreached. That has a very corrosive impact on the faith and trust that the public have in the police force. It leads them to believe that there is such a thing as two-tier policing, which is not good for any of us.
I take on faith what the Minister said. I look forward to what I think will be a very comprehensive and thorough piece of work by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. On that basis, we will no doubt return to this specific issue and piece of legislation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) a device which is capable of using five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably, for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1A), or(b) an article specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(1A) The purposes are—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to specify different articles as SIM farms in regulations.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the kind of articles that the Secretary of State may specify under clause 132.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his amendment regarding cloud-based services and access restrictions for lost or stolen devices. As my noble friend said, a similar amendment to the one before us was presented in Committee, during which it was pleasing to see Cross-Bench support from noble Lords on this proposed solution to an increasing problem.
Mobile phone theft is now a high-volume and high-impact crime. It is particularly prevalent in urban areas, obviously, and can often cause distress to its victims, as well as financial loss. Rather than simply creating new offences or imposing more severe punishments, we must address the current incentives that sustain the criminal market for stolen mobile devices. As was our position in Committee, we must act to remove the profit motive that fuels this behaviour in the first instance.
Amendment 368 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson seeks to achieve that precise goal. By requiring providers to take reasonable and timely steps to block access to services once the device is verified as lost or stolen, stolen phones would no doubt be less valuable on the resale market. This would result in the substantial removal of the economic rewards that drive organised and individual phone theft. The blocking of access to cloud synchronisation and authentication services would plainly strip stolen devices of much of their value to criminals. Quite bluntly, this proposal has the potential, as we have heard from other noble Lords, to undermine the business model of those stealing phones.
The amendment would also build on important safeguards. It would require a verified notification, a mechanism for appeals or reversal in cases of error or fraud, and an obligation to notify both the National Crime Agency and local police forces, thereby strengthening intelligence. Of course we must recognise that any operational mandate of this kind must be technically feasible and proportionate—the Secretary of State must therefore set appropriate standards and timelines through regulation—but the principle behind my noble friend’s amendment is vital. If smartphones lose value as criminal commodities, the incentive to steal them will be reduced. We on these Benches give this amendment our fullest support, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Once again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling this amendment. I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in particular, but also to the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this Government take mobile phone theft seriously. That is why we have measures in the Bill to take it seriously, and why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a mobile phone summit for the first time last year. That is also why we encouraged the Met to undertake its conference next week on mobile phone theft.
That is also why, in figures I can give to the noble Baroness, over the past year—the first year of this Labour Government—mobile phone thefts in London have fallen by 10,000, a reduction of 12.3% from the previous Government’s performance. It is a real and important issue. We are trying to tackle it and are improving on the performance from the time when she was Deputy Prime Minister. I just leave that with her to have a think about that, even at this late hour.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
So will the Minister accept my noble friend’s amendment?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will come on to that in a moment, if I may. I accept the principle of the work the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is bringing forward, but I do not accept it in the context that the noble Baroness put it: that we are doing nothing. We are doing quite a lot. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which is the important thing—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness did, actually. She said that nothing was happening under this Government. Every Member on this side of the House heard her say that.
The hour is late so I will go to the nub of the issue, which is the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Law enforcement partners—the police and the Home Office—are taking robust action to drive down instances of mobile phone theft. We have delivered the most comprehensive, intelligence-led response to mobile phone theft, and Operation Reckoning, supported by the Home Office through the Metropolitan Police Service, is tracking down criminal gangs on this issue, going to the point the noble Baroness did not mention.
I agree that we need to take action to make sure the companies that design these devices provide services, play their part and do absolutely everything they can to ensure that a stolen mobile phone is not a valuable commodity and therefore not worth stealing, which was the very point the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Law enforcement partners—all of us in the law enforcement sector—are currently working in collaboration with technology companies and partners, including phone manufacturers, to look at the technical solutions, which, I must say to the noble Baroness, is something that the previous Government did not do. The Home Office is supporting this important work, and I thank everybody involved for their constructive engagement.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular, that it is our preferred approach to allow this collaborative work between mobile phone manufacturers, mobile phone operators, law enforcement partners and the Home Office to continue, so that we find a positive solution to this problem, rather than accepting the amendment before us today and mandating a specific, untested solution through legislation. It does not mean that we will not do this—we want to try to do it—but we have to make sure that we do it in a way that works, is sustainable and is in partnership with the mobile phone authorities. The approach we are taking will reduce the risk of legislation not achieving the desired output.
I want to be clear to the noble Lord that we are working on that now. If it does not work, and if we find blockages and we do not make progress, we reserve the right to look at any and all options. At the moment I cannot accept his amendment, because it would mandate us to do something, but we are already trying to work on this to make sure that what we do works. We are doing that in partnership with all those authorities. At the same time, we are doing practical stuff by tracking down people and putting more police on the beat, including the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are introducing over the next few years. We are also ensuring that we take action through the Bill on tracking mobile phones and giving police superintendents more action. That is a positive programme of action. However, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment and I ask him to withdraw it. If he does not withdraw it, I will ask my noble friends to vote against it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I had hoped the tone of this debate was going to be a bit more productive, collaborative and consensual. I just wish that the noble Lord would sometimes bite his lip on this. Frankly, we had a consensus, but he had to go into partisan, party-political mode, attacking the previous Conservative Government.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am a fairly gentle soul, but if the noble Baroness provokes this Government by saying that they are taking no action, then this Government will fight back and explain what action they are taking.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Let me talk in detail about something I remember.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(6 days, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this fee order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maxima amounts that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. In the order, we propose a number of changes that will facilitate government policy. Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the department’s funding settlement.
This order will increase fee maxima across a number of chargeable functions, including those for the new electronic travel authorisation—ETA—and entry clearance as a visitor for visas valid for a period of more than 12 months. It will also include a visa on a route to settlement, a settlement visa, naturalisation and registration as a British citizen or as one of the specified other categories of citizenship, and certain nationality-related services. I should explain that the actual fee levels that are to be charged for those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not being changed in this order. Any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation and will be accompanied by a full economic impact assessment.
In laying this order we have sought to provide clarity to Parliament, and indeed to the public, about our intention to increase certain fees when parliamentary time allows. These are as follows. We will increase the fee maxima applying to an application for an ETA from £16 to £20 in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee to £20. This will be by negative resolution in the event of those fees being brought forward. The fee maxima for entry clearance as a visitor for a period of more than 12 months will increase from £250 per year to £253 per annum. This will allow the Home Office to increase the fee for a two-year visitor visa from £475 to £506. We are increasing the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement from £3,600 to £3,635. This is to facilitate a subsequent increase to the fee applications by other adult dependent relatives of a British citizen, or a person with settled status who wishes to join their family in the UK. That will rise from £3,413 to £3,635.
In this order, we are amending the fee maximum for settlement applications from £3,600 to £3,635 in order to align with the changes to the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement, reflecting, I hope, the connection between these two chargeable functions. The fee maxima for naturalisation as a British citizen or as a British Overseas Territories citizen and registration as a British citizen or other nationality status will increase from £1,605 to £1,709 and from £1,500 to £1,540, respectively—all subject to parliamentary approval. This will allow us to increase the fees for naturalisation and registration as a British citizen by adult applicants to the new maxima levels. We are also increasing the fee maxima for nationality-related services by 6.5% to support a subsequent increase in relevant fees to the new maxima level. This will include the fee for a certificate of entitlement of right of abode, which will increase from £589 to £627.
To be clear, we have announced our intention to increase the fee levels later this year, but they will not be increased until we lay separate legislation—the immigration and nationality fees regulation—which will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. These changes will facilitate the generation of additional income for the migration and borders system, which will in turn support the broader funding of the system, reduce reliance on the general taxpayer and support the delivery of government priorities. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. The principle behind the changes that he has just outlined is well-established. Since 2003, under the then Labour Government, successive Administrations have accepted that immigration and nationality fees may be set above administrative costs in order to contribute to the wider operation of the system. We have consistently supported the view that those who use and benefit from the immigration system should make a fair contribution, reducing the burden on the taxpayer.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument is a precursor to proposed increases in the maximum fees that may be charged across a range of products. The ETA will rise from £16 to £20, visit visa maxima will be uprated, the cap for limited leave and settlement will increase, and nationality-related maxima, including naturalisation as a British citizen, will rise. With the exception of the ETA, these increases are 6.5%.
The impact assessment suggests that setting fees at these maxima could generate around £1.8 billion over five years. That is significant revenue in the context of a system whose annual costs run into many billions. The Government argue that demand for visas is relatively inelastic and that modest increases do not materially reduce volumes. If that assessment is robust, it provides a rational basis for the approach.
In our view, two issues merit scrutiny. First, the ETA increase represents a 25% rise. Has any assessment been made of the impact on visitor numbers? Why was £20 judged the appropriate level? Given the acknowledged uncertainty in the modelling and potential implications for tourism, including in Northern Ireland, it would be helpful if the Minister could update the Committee on any evaluation that is under way and confirm when its findings will be published.
Secondly, how will the additional income be used? The Government have committed to reducing migration and tackling illegal entry, yet the costs of irregular migration remain substantial. Will the revenue primarily fund those pressures, or will it deliver tangible improvements in efficiency and border security? Does the Minister anticipate further increases in the near future?
In closing, we support the principle of the order and will not seek to divide the Committee. However, it is right that we seek assurance that higher fees will support a system that is not only self-sustaining but demonstrably more effective. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the principle behind the order. I am grateful for his generous support for the direction of travel that we are undertaking. He has asked two specific questions, which I will try to answer for him.
On the ETA scheme, we are increasing the fee maximum to £20, rising from £16. As he said, that is an increase of around 25%. Moving from £16 to £20 will put us in line with the American fee and the pending European fee. In general terms, it is a reasonable amount of resource.
The noble Lord asked whether that will have an impact on tourism, particularly in Northern Ireland. Last week, I answered questions in the House on the Northern Ireland ETA. We have had discussions with the Northern Ireland tourist board to look at the impact of that, because many people enter the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland via planes to Dublin from America or other ports. We discussed that in detail. We are introducing ETAs in Northern Ireland to enhance our ability to screen travellers upstream. People who arrive in the United Kingdom, including those travelling from Ireland into Northern Ireland, will need an ETA, in line with the UK’s immigration framework. I genuinely do not believe that a £20 fee is going to deter someone from visiting the great city of Belfast, the Mountains of Mourne or the Giant’s Causeway, or, in a wider UK context, from visiting London and seeing all the sites that we have here. It is a reasonable fee for people entering to pay. Although it is a higher fee than the 6.5% general fee, it is a reasonable fee and it brings us in line with other partners.
The noble Lord asked the perfectly legitimate question of what happens to the money that the Home Office makes on the application fees. The Home Office does not make any profit from the fees, in line with the charging principles set out in the Immigration Act 2014. Fees for immigration and nationality services are set in consideration of the costs of processing an application, the wider costs of running the migration and border system, and the benefits enjoyed by successful applicants. Any income from the fees set above the costs of processing goes towards funding the wider immigration system.
The noble Lord will know that, in the past year, we have put additional staff into processing asylum claims and into border control. Through the then immigration Bill, on which the noble Lord gratefully served and offered good scrutiny, we have established a new border command and new border scrutiny. We have put in place the work that we are doing with the French, the Belgians and the Dutch on border control. We have done the work with Germany. We have passed the immigration Act. All of that is still a cost to the system, and any surplus made from the application fees will go towards that and stop us having to have recourse to the Treasury for additional funding.
The Home Office believes that it is right that a greater share of the cost of operating the system is borne by the applicants who directly use it, rather than funding being provided additionally through HM Treasury from general taxation. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord is a considerable sum of resource. That will be used entirely within the Home Office for funding what will be, I hope, a strong and important immigration system.
Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this important debate and for the work of his committee on understanding the issues of transnational repression. I note that he has been sanctioned by a number of regimes; I have been sanctioned by Russia, and I take that as a badge of honour on some occasions. He brings immense experience and moral clarity to the role of chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
It is clear from contributions across the House that this is a subject of utmost importance. I must start with my noble friend Lord Isaac, who made an excellent maiden speech, combining his championship of human rights, particularly LGBT rights, with his warmth and experience in education. It is clear that he will bring great experience to this House, and I welcome him on behalf of the Government—and, I hope, the whole House—to his new role.
The committee brought a very thorough and detailed report and its inquiry has presented a thoughtful contribution to the UK’s understanding of foreign states and how they operate on our soil. The Government have carefully considered the recommendations, as the noble Lord knows, and we responded formally on 30 October. That included welcoming much of the committee’s report, including on co-ordination, international co-operation, strengthening resilience and the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I cannot share all her analysis of the United States, because it is part of international co-operation and strengthening resilience when we look at how we deal with some of the state bad actors in the world at large. But she has made her point in her usual way, and I note the point as a whole.
Let me say at the outset that this Government are unequivocal that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass and harm individuals in the UK will not be tolerated. The position that we have is very clear: transnational repression in the UK will not be tolerated. I reassure the House that it is targeted and specific. Perpetrating states focus on individuals they believe to be threats, vocal critics, dissidents and activists, as in the many examples given in the House today. Our message, therefore, is that people should be alert but not afraid. From the Government’s perspective, we must not inadvertently amplify the fear that perpetrating states actively seek to create. The UK is a safe, open and democratic society, and we will always defend those principles. While transnational repression does not affect large numbers of people, its impacts can be severe for those directly targeted and for wider communities.
We have had some discussion around the term transnational repression, what it means and the behaviour it captures or not. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned this in particular. The UK has a long, mature and well-established system across legislation, policing, intelligence, diplomacy and community engagement to counter state threats, including conduct that amounts to TNR. This issue demands positive, constant vigilance and proactivity to ensure our defences are strong, resilient and robust.
That is why, already, in the light of the committee’s report and of our own wish, we have conducted, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, a review into the UK’s response, which has focused on building an understanding, through the collection of data, of the scale, nature and impact domestically, as well as making recommendations to strengthen that response. I want to share with the House some of the lessons that we have learned from our internal examination. These include, partly in response to the report, the continued implementation of the National Security Act 2023, which provides world-leading, modernised tools to counter state-linked threats, notably FIRS, which colleagues in the House today have referred to. I will talk a little more about that in a moment.
Another important issue that has been raised, including just a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is training on foreign interference and call handling, delivered by counterterrorism policing across 45 territorial forces in the UK to strengthen front-line identification of state-directed activities. These are all issues that we have reviewed and are working to improve.
There is clear and practical guidance published on the GOV.UK website for those who believe they may be at risk. We have a dedicated TNR team within the Home Office, giving a central point of contact on co-ordination and analysis. We are deepening international co-operation, including with Five Eyes—I say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and looking at how we can work with like-minded partners to bring collective resilience.
FIRS, which has been noted, including by my noble friend Lord Cryer and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, does feature Iran. Iran is included in the scheme and we keep under constant review whether we should expand it to other countries. I have had representations on other countries here today. However, it is not something we discuss in public, but we keep it under review at all times. The Government have accepted the thrust of the committee’s findings, and we must continue to strengthen resilience.
The question of proscription of the IRGC has been mentioned by a number of people, notably my noble friend Lord Cryer. I say to him and others who raised it that that is an issue that we cannot comment upon but keep under review at all times. We do so because the safety of individuals, the integrity of our national security and the actions of foreign states in the United Kingdom are our foremost priority. The UK is a safe and open democratic society, and we must defend those principles.
The question of definition was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Dholakia, and my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Rooker. The Government, in our review, considered the issue and the recommendations in depth and we recognise transnational repression in the following terms:
“certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals, which may be carried out both physically and online”.
Any such activity will not be tolerated. There is no international universal agreement on a definition of TNR, but the definition we are using is deliberately broad so that we can capture the totality of the issue, provide maximum flexibility and ensure that we can address what is an evolving threat.
We have looked at the issue of data, mentioned by my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, among others. We recognise the importance of robust data as evidence in shaping an effective response. We are taking steps to strengthen our understanding of the threat, to improve data collection and to ensure that our systems are responsive. To further support data collection, the police have now established a system for reporting crimes that include reference to foreign interference. I will be happy in due course to reflect on the comments that have been made today.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of the foreign influence registration scheme and asked whether we will publish data on it. The Government plan to publish data on the operation of FIRS by 30 June 2026, which is the first anniversary of its operation. I hope that that will help to give some colour to the discussion that we had today.
The noble Lord also mentioned the ISC and asked whether it can have oversight of FIRS and the sanctions regime. The Government are trying proactively to update Parliament whenever we can on all these issues. The ISC has statutory powers to call in anything it wants to. I sat on it for five years. It can call in and examine any of those issues if it so wishes, and we will obviously co-operate: it has oversight of those matters should it so wish.
There was a lot of discussion, notably from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Moore of Etchingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about academic issues. Our universities, because they are world-class, are a prime target for foreign states and hostile actors who seek to erode their reputation by promoting, shaping or censoring what universities can offer. I do not take those threats lightly. We are collaborating with universities, we are meeting vice-chancellors, we have looked at how we can develop a new academic interference reporting route and we have put in £3 million of investment to ensure that we give guidance and support on the very issues that the noble Lords mentioned today. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights are protected under UK law. Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, passed by a previous Conservative Government, requires providers to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers, and I totally uphold that right.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned Interpol, and SLAPPs in particular. Perpetrating states use a wide range of methodologies to conduct transnational repression, and the UK’s response in tackling state-directed threats is, I think, world-leading. We have appropriate tools and systems and we will certainly be examining those issues in detail.
A number of noble Lords raised individual issues. My noble friend Lady Blackstone mentioned issues in Pakistan and my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned a number of specific deaths. I have to say to the House that, owing to the sensitive nature of these topics, the need to protect individuals who may be at threat and the need not to compromise cases, I cannot talk about individual cases, but I will reflect on what was said. However, I will say something on individual countries, if I may.
China was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Moore, Lord Morrow, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young of Acton, and by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Front Bench. The Government recognise that China poses a series of threats to the UK from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage. We understand the transnational repression of Hong Kongers and China’s support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we will challenge those issues robustly, but we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities. It is the second largest economy and it is currently the UK’s third largest trading partner, so we have to develop both challenge and pragmatism in relation to these issues. We are working with Five Eyes colleagues to build collective resistance to the threats China poses, but we also have to look at the business and economy of the United Kingdom in doing so. It is an issue that we will continue to return to.
There has been pressure, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to include China in the foreign influence registration scheme. We continually look at whether, how and why this should be examined. No decision has been made about China. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires consideration of a broad range of issues, which will remain under consideration at all times. As I have mentioned, the same is true with Iran. We have already put Iran in the FIRS, and we will examine and continue to look at Iran in relation to other matters. The proscription issue is always under review.
The Chinese embassy was mentioned in passing and I will touch on that. The planning decision was independently taken, but national security is our first duty as a Government. Therefore, intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Those risks can come from any nation at any time. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate seven current sites in London into one site, which in my view will bring clear security advantages.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I do not seek to delay matters at this time on a Thursday night, but the Minister did say that China was our third-largest trading partner. I wanted to be sure, for the record, so I have just looked it up. We had a £60 billion deficit with China in 2025. Chinese exports to the UK were £77 billion, far exceeding British exports to China of £17 billion. So yes, it is a big trading partner, but we are the weak one and China is the one getting all the benefit.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have to work with China. We will challenge it at all times and trade with it when we need to. It is important that we hold standards of democracy to account across the world.
I am conscious of time—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I do not want to detain the House and I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just said, I think, that he will keep us informed about the proscription issue. This has been said for months and months. Can he please give us some idea of when there might be some actual news?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is not in the interests of the UK’s security or the security of the individuals we are trying to protect to give a running commentary on the issue of proscription. This House will be informed if any proscription decision is ever taken on any individual, country or organisation. That is the process we have followed recently and we will continue to do so, but, unfortunately, I cannot give a running commentary on whether, when and how we will consider these matters. We keep them under review and, in the event of a decision being taken, I will be held to account in this House for that decision, as will Ministers in the House of Commons.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Can the Minister tell me this, then? Jonathan Hall produced a proposal for dealing with the issue. Is that being accepted by the Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will respond to the Jonathan Hall review very shortly. Again, Members of this House will be able to hold me to account for the response the Government give, but I cannot give a running commentary at the Dispatch Box on issues of national security in the way in which the noble Baroness tempts me.
I am conscious of time. This has been a very fruitful and useful debate for us. I will look at Hansard in detail when it is produced and, if there are issues I wish to respond to further, I will write individually to Members. I thank the noble Lord for securing the debate today. I hope that we can continue our discussions on how we keep people in this country safe from transnational oppression and how we support the security of the United Kingdom.
Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, any suggestion that there have been insufficient transitional arrangements for the ETA system is surely for the sky. The scheme was introduced three years ago but was not made mandatory, to allow for people to adjust. It is absolutely right that the Government are now making this system mandatory and that dual nationals should have to enter using British passports—I am with the Minister on that. My question is: now that we have this system in place, how will the Government utilise the information for stronger immigration enforcement?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. As he knows, this position was introduced by the previous Government, and I am very pleased that we have been able to see it through. He asked how we will use this information for important border control. The whole purpose of the system is to have border control. As he probably knows, today we have had some new figures on immigration positions. They show that asylum hotels are at the lowest level for 18 months, which coincides with the UK Labour Government; the asylum backlog has fallen for the fourth quarter in a row to 64,426; and small boat arrivals are 9% lower than the peak in 2022. This is part of a government strategy to control our borders and ensure that they are firm. I welcome his support not just for this measure but for the wider government agenda.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am not sorry but pleased to disrupt this cosy consensus because, honestly, the Government’s temporary mitigation measure is no good at all. It leaves discretion to carriers on what evidence to accept for entry, resulting in, as was said by my friend in the other place, Manuela Perteghella, who tabled this Urgent Question yesterday,
“chaos for law-abiding British citizens”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/26; col. 351.]
and the separation of families. Why can this Government not do what Canada did: delay enforcement and create a low-cost, temporary authorisation? Why do this Government not do something similarly common-sense? We understand that controls should be properly enforced, but, for goodness’ sake, leave a breathing space for people for whom the impact is very personal.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly said, this scheme has been in planning for three years; it was introduced by the previous Government and we have seen it through. There is always going to be a deadline at some point in any scheme, and the deadline for the introduction of this one was 26 February—today. What we have tried to do is to ensure that, if there are individuals who are impacted today, this week or in the near future, there is a temporary mitigation so that carriers may—at their discretion, as the noble Baroness said—accept an expired UK passport, alongside a non-visa national third-country passport, as evidence of British nationality.
Dual nationals may also ask their carrier to contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which is available now. Dual nationals overseas may also wish to contact the embassy. There is provision for urgent travel without a British passport in certain circumstances, as set out on GOV.UK. If there are particular problems, my colleague the Immigration Minister will hold drop-in sessions in the Houses of Parliament next week and the week after. Now that the scheme is available, dual nationals who wish to come to the UK can apply for either a British passport or a certificate that is a lifetime allowance on that dual-national approach.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his answers so far. He will recall that I have written to him on several occasions about an anomaly in the electronic travel authorisations that results in an impediment being placed in the way of the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. The majority of people who come from the United States to Ireland come through Dublin Airport and thus travel to Northern Ireland, adding to our local economy and revenue. However, the issue of ETAs presents an impediment and inconvenience. Therefore, will my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office look again at this issue to see whether an exemption is possible?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful and can reassure my noble friend that the Government wish to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from inward tourist economy issues. We have, in discussing the proposals to date, worked with a range of partners, including the Northern Ireland tourism association, to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively and ultimately will not prove a barrier to people wishing to come to Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom to support their tourism objectives. We have looked at, and will look at, with the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency the impact of this issue, but I say to my noble friend that I cannot offer an exemption for visitors to Northern Ireland, because that would undermine the rationale of the scheme as a whole, which is to strengthen our borders, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the rules say that the personal details on the two passports must match, but Britons in Greece are among the those highlighting the fact that this is extraordinarily discriminatory against women, given that, for example, in Greece—and this applies to a number of other countries—there are rules about the name they must have on the Greek passport. If they are married to a Greek, they must have their maiden surname as well. The Minister may say that the Government have said that, under extraordinary, exceptional circumstances, the two names do not have to match. Can he confirm that that applies in this case, where people have no choice but to have two different names on their passport? More than that, can he guarantee that every agent for every airline and other travel company will understand that when people turn up to travel?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will look at the specific instance that the noble Baroness has mentioned with regard to Greece, because that has not been drawn to my attention to date. I will contact her directly. We have made a strong effort, since the last Government introduced the principle of this, to inform and work with carriers to ensure that they understand the situation. Without repeating what I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see that there are a number of mechanisms whereby individuals who feel they have a problem now in this temporary period of transition can follow that up with a range of authorities to make sure they get proper access. As ever, when a date is introduced, there will be a little friction, because that is always the case. But, in the long term, the ETA arrangements and the ability to provide stronger borders is a task worth working for.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, further to the point raised by my noble friend, the Minister himself confirmed that the Home Office’s current arrangements are that, “at their own discretion”, carriers “may” accept “some” expired British passports as appropriate documentation. Does he not accept that that is the worst of all worlds and that dual nationals will have no idea which carriers are going to accept the documentation, and under which circumstances? Given that he has admitted that there is a transitional period, would it not make a great deal of sense for the Government to tell all carriers that they can accept expired passports for a set period of time?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The scheme has been introduced this week, as the noble Lord will know. The friction that may occur on occasions now is because people do not understand or are unaware of the results. But we have made a strong effort to make sure that carriers know that they can accept expired passports. Again, I advise individuals who wish to travel to the United Kingdom to contact the carrier to see whether their documentation is in order in this period when the scheme has been introduced. There are a number of measures, even at the point of refusal, whereby an individual who has been refused at a gate can contact a number of things, which I do not wish to outline because of time. The noble Lord will know, and be able to read in Hansard, about those that I have just mentioned, which are available. The feedback we have had so far is that there is a limited number of concerns in the initial introduction, and I will obviously monitor that over the coming weeks.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the UK Government’s trade envoy for Australia. This issue is causing considerable consternation in Australia, a country with which we are developing our defence, security and other relationships, to the benefit of the wider world. It seems slightly extraordinary that an Australian who is not a British national can much more easily gain entry to the UK than one who is, even if it is a residual matter and they do not have a passport. Should we not be looking at ways to facilitate this? The Passport Office, when we had difficulties two or three years ago, moved at pace and had people here to deal with the cases. Should we not be doing that in Australia and encouraging movement between our countries rather than creating an incident?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Any Australian dual national who wishes to prove their British nationality can do one of two things. They can apply for a British passport, which is usually a nine or eight-day wait at the moment, or they can even get one speedily if they need to: that can be done. They can also apply for a certificate of exemption, which is a lifetime exemption that can be attached to their Australian passport and will allow them to travel to the United Kingdom without the need for an ETA. That is a reasonably sensible approach to make. It is a short-term thing. Now that the system has been introduced, any Australian citizen who wishes to travel to the UK can either get a certificate, get a British passport or travel here, and if they travel here and are refused, in the meantime there are a number of mechanisms—I outlined them to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—that they can adopt. However, in the long term, this ETA scheme is a sensible thing to do and I commend it to the House.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsWednesday 25th February 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 167-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Feb 2026)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that these Benches maintain our opposition to the Government’s respect orders. We have heard, in Committee and today, many concerns about the new regime. Our concerns are slightly different from some of those expressed by other noble Lords, in that we oppose them because we view them as simply unnecessary.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower asked the Minister what the true difference would be between respect orders and the current anti-social behaviour injunctions. The response confirmed that, in the Government’s view, the only difference is that breaching a respect order will be a criminal offence, whereas breaching an injunction is not a specified criminal offence. That may seem tougher on the surface, but, in reality, it will not make any difference. A person who breaches an ASB injunction can be prosecuted for contempt of court, as they have defied an order of the court; in addition, the power of arrest can be attached to the injunction under Section 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Where that is the case, a police officer may arrest a person without warrant for breaching the terms of their injunction under Section 9(1) of that Act. Furthermore, an arrest warrant may be made by the court if the person who applied for the injunction believes the person has breached that injunction.
For all those reasons, therefore, a number of avenues exist for enforcement of these injunctions. But, even if the Government believe that creating a specific criminal offence is necessary, why not simply amend the ASB injunction regime to create that offence? Why introduce an entirely new regime? Having said all that, we are where we are. In Committee, the Minister responded to my noble friend’s criticism by stating that it was a manifesto commitment. I do accept this, and that is why I suspect they will pass today unhindered.
I turn briefly to some of the other amendments in this group. I have a rather specific concern about the requirement in Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that a respect order may be applied for only if the local authority has agreed to do so at a meeting of the full council. Subsection (8A) in his amendment states:
“A relevant authority may not make an application for a respect order … unless the relevant local authority has complied with the requirements … in subsection (8B).
However, the definition of relevant authority in new Section B1 includes
“the chief officer of police for a police area … the chief constable of the British Transport Police”,
and a number of other authorities, such as Transport for London. What this means is that, should the police wish to apply for a respect order, they must first seek the approval of the local council. I do wonder whether this might create an overly burdensome and time-consuming requirement.
Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is, however, something I do have sympathy for. In 2024, a record 14.4 million parking fines were issued, representing a 13% increase from the previous year. There are widespread concerns about unclear parking signage, faulty machines and companies using quotas to increase the number of fines they collect. Parking firms and, indeed, councils using fines based on spurious violations simply to make money is surely not right. Where a person has violated the rules, of course the use of penalty charge notices is justified, but we should not allow them to unfairly issue fines to those who do not deserve it.
Finally, and having been somewhat critical of respect orders, I say to the Minister that I welcome his Amendment 4. As much as I may think that respect orders are unnecessary, if we are to have them, it is welcome that the Secretary of State will be required to consult on the guidance they issue.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
It is good to be back, is it not? It feels like we have been away for ages and now here we are again, back for another session of interesting amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, recognised, respect orders are a Labour manifesto commitment. They are made for securing action on anti-social behaviour in our town centres across this country. We secured a mandate to implement them. I welcome the amendments and we will discuss them, but this is a core element of Labour government policy.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Would the Minister accept that it is very difficult ever to think of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a court to impose a respect order, with all the implications that has for an individual, unless the court is satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has made his point. I am trying to give the defence from the Government’s perspective. That is our view. He has made a reasonable point, but that is our view and I hope he accepts our comments on those issues in good faith.
On Amendment 2, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, will understand when I say that I agree with the points that he made. Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is rather bureaucratic, in that the council must carry out a full public consultation prior to any application to the court for a respect order to be made.
I was leader of a council for some years. We had six or seven meetings per year. Does the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, really expect, in the event of this legislation becoming law, that the council would consider respect orders and agree them on a six or eight week basis, six times per year, before the police could go? I am with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this one. Some areas undertake this as a matter of course as part of local practice, but there is no requirement for a public consultation prior to a public spaces protection order being implemented. It is certainly my and the Government’s view that such requirements would add an inappropriate and disproportionate barrier to respect order applications and delay important relief for ASB victims. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will agree with His Majesty’s Opposition and me. He may not, but I put that point to him for his consideration.
Amendment 3, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would add a provision for a respondent to appeal the making or variation of a respect order. I hope I can assure noble Lords that there are express provisions in the Bill that provide for an application to be made to vary or discharge a respect order. The ordinary rules of appeal will apply to decisions to grant a respect order or a refusal to vary or discharge an order. To be absolutely clear on this issue, decisions to grant or vary respect orders, as well as decisions not to grant or vary one, will be appealable through the usual avenues under Civil Procedure Rules. I hope that assists.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for his Amendment 5. I know that he wished to speak to that in Committee. He seeks to add for-profit registered social housing providers to the list of relevant agencies that can apply for a respect order. I recognise the importance of relevant agencies having the tools to tackle anti-social behaviour, but we should exercise caution before extending these powers without more consideration. I say that in the spirit of friendship and co-operation with the noble Lord. The Home Secretary has a power to amend the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order. If it is considered appropriate to add a for-profit registered social housing provider to the list then we can do that via secondary legislation after the Bill has achieved Royal Assent, but I would like to give more consideration to this point. This is not a “no”; it could be added later with more consideration. I hope that will at least help him in the discussions that he has had today.
Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would require the Home Secretary, within six months of the Bill becoming law, to commission an independent review of the existing powers under the 2014 Act prior to introducing respect orders, housing injunctions or youth injunctions as a whole. Again, I go back to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. It is a manifesto commitment that we fought the election on to improve anti-social behaviour responses, and one such response that we specifically put in the manifesto at the general election was respect orders. So, the idea that we wish to—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I rise just to clarify and to help the Minister. I would not want in any way to stop the Government implementing their manifesto promises. The aim of the review was not to stop respect orders; it was to suggest that the anti-social behaviour on the statute book was reviewed before respect orders were brought in, because the Government cannot learn what has gone wrong with the previous anti-social behaviour orders if they never review them. The review aimed to help the Government make sure their manifesto promise on respect orders was effective rather than just a piece of paper.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always grateful for the noble Baroness’s help on these matters. It is as rare as hen’s teeth normally, but I am always grateful. I still say to her that the implementation of respect orders is crucial to ensuring that we tackle anti-social behaviour effectively. I put it to her gently, as I know she is keen on reducing bureaucracy and the cost of government et cetera, that this would be a very costly, unnecessary review of all ASB powers, when we already know that we agree with those powers, and it would cause unacceptable delays to the rollout of the orders promised in our manifesto.
We are already 19 months into our Labour Government term and people are impatient for change. One of the changes we want to make is in tackling anti-social behaviour. So, I say to the noble Baroness that the respect order, housing injunction and youth injunction are not novel; rather, they replace and improve upon an existing order, the civil injunction order, which has been in place since 2015. We are committed to ensuring that the powers to address anti-social behaviour remain effective, and we will routinely engage with practitioners across the board. Given those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on her amendment.
Amendment 7 seeks to provide that any accredited or authorised person working on behalf of a local authority may not profit financially from the issuing of fixed penalty notices for breaches of public spaces protection orders and community protection orders. I point out to those noble Lords who tabled the amendment that the Bill makes it clear that the fixed penalty notices that can already be issued for breaches of these orders are still in place, and that we have increased only the upper limit of the fine. It is expected that the figure issued will be based on the individual circumstances and severity of the case.
As of now, local agencies are expected to ensure that fixed penalty notices are issued only in circumstances where it is considered proper and appropriate. I recognise that there are some concerns. The noble Baroness referenced her home area of north Wales, where an excessive and unreasonable number of fixed penalty notices have been issued. I fully accept that point, but I put it to her again that contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement. Councils will not do it all themselves in-house; they do some of it contractually.
There is statutory guidance, which all relevant agencies have a legal duty to have regard to, which underscores the importance of applying the new fixed penalty notice limits in a proportionate and balanced way. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has cosigned this amendment, the importance of the proportionate use of the new thresholds, and that local authorities and agents acting on their behalf should not be issuing fixed penalty notices to generate profit. We will be consulting on the revised guidance, and I will undertake to share a copy of that guidance with the noble Lord and any other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, should she so wish, before any action is taken to implement any proposals passed by Parliament. That statutory guidance will be implemented, and I hope we can examine it in due course.
I turn now to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who was not able to speak to it today. Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on the operation of respect orders. Amendment 24 would require the publishing of quarterly data. I recognise that information held by central government on anti-social behaviour is, in some areas, limited. I want to see that improved, because that helps the Government understand the causes of anti-social behaviour.
Clause 7 provides for the provision of information about anti-social behaviour to the Secretary of State. Subsections (1) to (7) list the range of matters on which the Secretary of State may wish to collect information. The extent to which data will be reported and published will be confirmed after consultation with relevant agencies.
The Home Office publishes data on the use of stop and search powers, including the number of stop and searches conducted, arrests following a search, and demographic data. It includes information broken down by community safety partnerships as well as by police force areas.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Nobody doubts or questions that addressing anti-social behaviour is a manifesto commitment; that is taken as read. However, if it is a manifesto commitment, it must be put in words that clearly describe what the Government are trying to say. I find it quite baffling that in their first amendment, the Government prefer the words, “just and convenient”. What is convenient in there? Why are the Government dressing it up? I would have thought that the normal language of “necessary and proportionate” is much easier to understand. Why are the Government rejecting words that will help deal with anti-social behaviour, and instead fishing for other words that make no sense? Can the Minister try to make sense of it for me? I was given an explanation, but I was not persuaded, and I am sure I am not the only one. The words that we know in the Human Rights Act—necessary and proportionate —would ease the fear that the police will go on a spree and do a number of things because they judge it to be “just and convenient”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As ever, I am genuinely sorry that I have not been able to persuade the noble and right reverend Lord of the Government’s case. We have taken the view that “just and convenient” mirrors the civil injunction regime of the 2014 Act, passed by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government. They are not words from a Labour Minister but from an Act passed in 2014 that we are mirroring in the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce respect orders. I am sorry that I cannot convince the noble and right reverend Lord of that, and that I have not persuaded him accordingly. We may—although I do not know—very shortly have an opportunity to see whether anybody else is persuaded.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am afraid that I remain unpersuaded. The Minister keeps mentioning the manifesto commitment, but the manifesto makes no mention of the liability threshold for a respect order, so it is surely perfectly legitimate to question the basis on which the respect order the Government are introducing is based.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The basis on which the respect order is introduced, and the phraseology used, is the phraseology his and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Government put in place for previous orders. I am not changing the wording of anything that, presumably, at some point in 2014 he and other Liberal Democrat Peers walked through a Lobby to vote for.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has got me there. Let me rephrase my challenge. The noble Lord did not support it, but the coalition Government he supported passed the 2014 Act. I like to be accurate in my barbs at noble Lords, and I hope that accuracy persuades him that, even if he did not vote for it, some of his noble friends in the coalition Government of the time did—a coalition that our side of the House did not look too favourably upon. I accept his personal position, but if there is division of opinion in this House and we test it, I shall move Amendment 4. I hope that other noble Lords will not press their amendments, but if I have not convinced them, they will put them to the test in the House.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as a final throw, I wonder whether the Minister remembers how the Labour Benches voted in respect of those orders at the time.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It was 12 years ago. Although I was a Member of the House of Commons at the time, I would probably have done whatever my noble friend the then Chief Whip asked me to do.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I am very grateful for all the support that I got. I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, by the Minister’s response because, in my experience, the Minister is good at listening but not particularly good at hearing. I think we have done everything we can to put the case, both in Committee and tonight on Report, so I do not really see any point in examining the arguments any further. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply to revisions that the Secretary of State considers are not substantial.(2C) The requirement in subsection (2A) to consult before issuing guidance may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consultation requirement to section M1, inserted into the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his work on these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution to the debates on anti-social behaviour reviews, both today and in Committee. It is an important issue that touches on how our system responds to persistent harm affecting families and communities. We on these Benches are very sympathetic to these amendments.
In Committee, noble Lords rightly underlined that anti-social behaviour is rarely about a single, isolated incident, but often results in repeated conduct that causes cumulative distress and disruption. The ASB case review—previously known as the community trigger—plays a very important role as a safety net. It is designed to bring agencies together to ensure a joined-up response where local action alone has not resolved the problem. Its predominant purpose is to give victims an early opportunity to have their situation collectively reviewed when they have reported multiple qualifying incidents over time.
The amendments in this group seek to strengthen that mechanism by bringing into statute some elements that are currently left to local discretion. A statutory threshold for convening a case review—removing caveats that frustrate victims—would provide clarity and consistency across the country, ensuring that victims do not face a postcode lottery when accessing this right. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott echoed this point, noting that a statutory threshold would streamline the process and prevent agencies imposing additional barriers that can deter applications. That would depend, of course, on where exactly the threshold was set.
These amendments also include measures targeted at transparency. They would require authorities to publish the reasons why they determine that a threshold has not been met, and to publish data on independent chairing and on victim attendance. That increased transparency would build confidence in the process and assist in identifying patterns of variation between areas. However, as was raised in Committee, it is important to balance those laudable aims with the need to avoid imposing disproportionate bureaucracy on bodies that are, perhaps, already under pressure. The Government explained that updated statutory guidance has been published, as we have heard, to strengthen awareness of the case review mechanism and to help agencies guide victims through the process. We should therefore reflect on whether mandating every procedural step in statute will, in practice, make the process smoother or potentially risk diverting resources from handling the underlying behaviour. None the less, this group of amendments is rooted in a shared desire to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are heard, supported and treated fairly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his amendments, and for the opportunity to meet and discuss them in person. I am also acutely aware that he developed and examined the amendments with the late Baroness Newlove, to whom I again pay tribute, and with Claire Waxman, the current Victims’ Commissioner, and indeed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have had, I hope, a fruitful discussion, during which I have given the Government’s view both in Committee and in our head-to-head meetings.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 8 and 9 aim to limit the relevant bodies’ discretion to set criteria to underpin an application for a case review. Amendment 8 would also require the relevant bodies to provide more transparency as to their reasoning, but also to promote awareness of the case review and publish the provision in place for situations when the victim is dissatisfied about how the case has been handled. I am aware that the noble Lord knows this, but it is worth putting on record: an individual may currently apply for a case review after making three qualifying complaints. We updated the statutory guidance in September last year, and it already dictates that the relevant bodies involved in these reviews may, where appropriate, set different thresholds from those described, provided that they do not make it more difficult for the victim to make a successful application. The Government maintain that the ability to set different local thresholds is important to allow flexibility in handling each case, particularly where agencies may want to add caveats to make the threshold for a review lower in cases of high harm or those involving vulnerable adults.
It is also important that noble Lords examine the provision in Clause 6, which gives powers to police and crime commissioners to set up a route for victims to request a further review when they are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case review, including when the relevant bodies determine that the threshold was not met for the initial case review. That adds a further safeguard to the case review process to ensure better victim outcomes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for setting out the case for these amendments. I am also grateful for the comments made in support from the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Elliott, among others. I will refer to other colleagues in a moment.
I think that we can all agree that fly-tipping blights communities, adds to the burdens on local authorities and there is a need to take action on this. I welcome the fact that my colleague, Mary Creagh MP, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as referenced by a number of noble Lords, has this very day issued a press release urging councils to crush more fly-tipping vehicles. She also issued new guidance for local authorities to crackdown on waste crime and ensured that we have our first overview for councils, offering clear instructions on the identifying, seizing and disposing of vehicles and strengthening deterrents. She also gave guidance for maximising public awareness and ensuring that the Environment Agency has new technology and boosted funding to put more waste crime officers on the ground. By happy coincidence, that happened this very morning, ahead of our debate here today. The statutory guidance in Clause 9 will help in that regard.
I will now comment on the amendments before the House, starting with Amendment 13. I note the technical issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I would have referred to it had he not done so. I endorse that. I also note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the issue in Amendment 13.
I recognise the financial burden that clearing fly-tipped waste places on landowners. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, currently, where there is sufficient evidence, as per the point made by the noble Earl, fly-tippers can be prosecuted. On conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is not available for a successful prosecution—this is, again, a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—there will not be sufficient evidence to force a fly-tipper to take responsibility for the clean-up either. If there is a prosecution, the clean-up can, in effect, be added to the sentence. It is therefore unclear how Amendment 13, by addressing this in statutory guidance, would help, when a criminal prosecution is already the best route for the desired outcome.
I note that Amendment 21, which was moved in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and had the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks in effect to place a duty on waste authorities to clear up waste left by fly-tippers. Again, I fully understand and share the sentiment behind the amendment. It is legitimate to ask why a farmer, landowner or occupier of any land should be liable for clean-up costs. As I have said to the House, where there is a conviction, the courts currently have the necessary powers to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, and the guidance today is clear evidence of the Government’s willingness—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Would the Minister be good enough to focus on this argument? If a burden were placed on the waste disposal authority, either by being liable to clear up the mess or by having to pay for it, it would be much less willing to close waste sites, and if waste sites are kept open then fly-tipping is likely to diminish.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount tempts me down the path of the direct responsibility of local councils, but that goes slightly wider than the amendments before us today. My point is that if there is already a conviction of someone for fly-tipping then the courts have the power to make the offender meet the clean-up costs. We encourage local authorities, as again by today’s guidance, to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, including those on private land.
We also want to make good the enforcement powers, as I described. Defra is talking to a number of groups, such as the National Farmers’ Union and the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, to promote and disseminate good practice. However, the problem I come to again is that, where there is no prosecution and conviction, the long-established position currently is that local authorities are responsible for cleaning up fly-tipping on public land, while the landowner is responsible where the offence is committed on private land. I accept that that is unfair, it is a challenge and it is a cost to local taxpayers and landowners alike, but it would be a fundamental shift of responsibility for cleaning up waste on private land to hard-pressed local authorities, from the position where the local individual landowner themselves currently provides that.
Again, I want to put on the record that the Environment Agency does not have a responsibility to clear illegal waste sites, but it does so where—to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said—there is a potential risk of fire, there is a risk of impact on the watercourse or there are other environmental factors. I come back to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said: prevention, better enforcement, and the provisions in this Bill and other actions the Government are taking forward, are the way forward on these issues.
Amendment 19 sought to ensure that penalty points would be added to the driving licence of an offender for fly-tipping. Again, I hope I can help the noble Lord by saying that the Government are currently considering the benefits of adding penalty points to driving licences for fly-tipping offences. I noted the questions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on that, but there is still potentially a benefit in this area. However, I cannot accept the amendment at the moment, not least because any amendment would have to be considered under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which deals with driving licence enforcements, as opposed to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the Government are looking carefully and quickly at the issue of penalty points and, although I cannot accept the amendment today, we will have to look at how we can put that principle into practice in due course.
Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord Davies, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would add the offence of fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but, as I have said, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles linked to waste crime under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and vehicles can be kept, sold or disposed of by local authorities.
I will refer to today’s press notice, which is available on GOV.UK. It says that the new guidance published today
“will provide the first comprehensive overview for councils, offering clear instructions on identifying, seizing, and disposing of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, as well as advice on taking cases to court and securing convictions against vehicle owners”.
I think that best practice is intended to provide, not replace, statutory documentation. It is therefore an important matter to my colleagues in Defra to ensure that we bring forward that statutory guidance on fly-tipping to examine the case for penalty points and how we deal with those matters in due course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first instance, the noble Lord commented on the proposals announced today. This Government are advising on a range of issues, through Defra today, about how we take action on fly-tipping. It is all very easy to be cynical about that and say that it will not work or stop the criminals. Any action that any legislation takes will not stop determined criminals, but it is important that the Government try to ensure that we deal with this effectively. Irrespective of the debate we are having, coincidentally, Defra has taken issue with that today and is trying to strengthen the response. I would rather welcome that than take shots at it. I say that in a friendly way to the noble Lord, but it is an important issue that we need to act on and the approach we are trying to take is important.
The noble Lord mentioned the waste management issues and difficulties in Kidlington. Again, I say to him that, in that instance, a criminal investigation ongoing and a total of four arrests have been made to date. As I said in response to the debate earlier, if those arrests end up with a criminal conviction against an individual proved in court, then that individual can have a cost element put against them to ensure that the costs of that clean-up are put to the individual or organisation concerned. That is an important mechanism which, again, the amendments are trying to examine, but that mechanism is there now.
Let us judge what happens in Kidlington and whether the investigation leads not just to further arrests but to convictions. That will be a matter for responsibilities which are not mine, but it is important to say that there is a mechanism to do that. Given the current debate around Kidlington, the figures we have produced today show that there were 1.26 million incidents of fly-tipping last year, which is quite simply unacceptable. Those figures and the Kidlington incident have focused the Government’s mind on this, and we are trying to respond responsibly. I hope noble Lords will accept the offer I have tried to give on penalty points, look at what I have said, and not press the amendment on the basis of the correspondence and the discussions we have had today.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3A) A draft of any guidance or revised guidance proposed to be issued under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires draft guidance to be laid before Parliament.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too have concerns about this amendment. Nobody could dispute that waste crime is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed. But as I understand it, the NCA’s strategic priorities at the moment—whether they are required by the Secretary of State or otherwise—focus on degrading the highest-harm organised crime groups, with a particular emphasis on tackling drugs, online fraud and organised immigration crime. There may be others. The NCA surely cannot treat all serious matters as a priority. The whole point of a priority is that it focuses on the most serious criminal offences that our society faces. I am not persuaded that identifying this very real problem as a strategic priority is going to assist.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment. As he explained, it would allow the Secretary of State to include serious and organised waste crime as a strategic priority for the National Crime Agency. We have all agreed that waste crime blights local communities, that it damages the environment and that serious organised crime—which is on the rise—is a factor in that. The Environment Agency is now regularly alerted to new illegal waste sites.
As evidence for the noble Earl that the Government take this matter seriously, the Environment Agency’s additional waste crime enforcement budget for 2025-26 has been increased by more than 50% to £15.6 million, a £5.6 million increase on the previous year. That is because we recognise that there is a potential area of concern here. It has allowed the Environment Agency to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource by 43 full-time staff in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and area environmental crime teams, as well as bringing additional staff for enforcement duties under our major waste reforms.
The Environment Agency works closely, as the noble Earl mentioned, with the National Crime Agency and the Joint Unit on Waste Crime. There are multi-agency prevention and disruption tactics taking place, as well as investigatory activities to impact successfully on criminals. Between the organisations, they have developed enhanced intelligence-sharing and an enhanced approach to targeting organised criminal gangs. We are looking, with other law enforcement bodies, at recommending and introducing new technical capabilities to look at how we can, through an agreed strategy, target waste crime.
Therefore, there is a role for the National Crime Agency but, as the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Pannick, alluded to, the National Crime Agency is not the lead agency for tackling waste crime. That is the Environment Agency. Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency need to reflect changing threat levels in respect of different crime types. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, here, who would have been lead Minister on the 2013 Act that established the National Crime Agency. I served as a shadow Minister at the time, when dealing with that Bill. Section 3 of that Act is deliberately silent on types of organised crime because it does not want to fetter the National Crime Agency—the very point the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made in relation to the Home Secretary’s discretion to skew the National Crime Agency’s priorities. Therefore, to insert a crime type, however well-meaning or needed, would be to undermine the principles of Section 3 of the 2013 Act.
In short, the Government fully agree with the sentiment underpinning the amendment. We take waste crime extremely seriously; the increase in the budget is evidence of that, as is the co-operation between the NCA and the Environment Agency. I hope that with those comments, the noble Earl will agree that his approach of tying the National Crime Agency to specific targets would not be as helpful as he had hoped and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank everyone else who has spoken in this debate. This might be an unusual move but the truth is that waste crime is out of control. It is interlinked and intertwined with all these other serious forms of crime. Under the 2013 Act, it may be under the Home Secretary’s priority to deem waste crime as coming under the National Crime Agency. If the Minister had said to me that the Home Secretary will do that, I would absolutely have withdrawn the amendment. The truth is that that is not the case. The problem continues to grow and is out of control.
I very much welcome everything that is being done in this space. I recognise the work that the Environment Agency is doing. I am thankful to its staff who are working to clear up Kidlington and other sites. I also welcome the extra budget and new technology. I know the Government announced just last week that drones will be used, but frankly, they should have been used all along. If waste crime were dealt with as a serious organised crime issue, these matters would be intertwined and done already. I therefore have no choice but to test the opinion of the House on this matter because waste crime is a serious issue. It is not being addressed and is not part of the responsibility of the National Crime Agency.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3) A draft of any guidance proposed to be issued under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament. (4) The Secretary of State must not issue guidance under this section until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid before each House of Parliament, or if it was laid on different days, with the later day. (4A) If, within that period, either House of Parliament resolves that the guidance should not be issued, the Secretary of State must not issue it.(4B) In calculating any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(4C) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for guidance under clause 24 to be laid before Parliament before being issued and to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I rise to express the support of these Benches for Amendment 27, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, which seeks to increase the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing a weapon with intent. We entirely support the creation of this new offence, which rightly bridges the gap between the simple possession of a knife in public and actually using it to threaten or harm someone. Creating a separate category for those who carry weapons with violent intent is the right approach, to target the most dangerous individuals in our society. However, as my noble friend Lady Doocey made clear in Committee, if we are to treat carrying an offensive weapon with violent intent as a distinctly more serious crime than simple possession, that distinction must logically be reflected in the punishment.
As the Bill is drafted, the new law carries the exact same maximum four-year sentence as the blanket offence of carrying a bladed article. This fails to give the courts the means to sufficiently differentiate between those who might pose a threat and those who actively intend to inflict damage or harm. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, stated, this is not merely a theoretical sentencing debate. We agree with the stark assessment made by Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, in his review following the horrific Southport attack. He made it clear that four years in prison is simply insufficient when there is clear evidence of an intention to cause mass fatalities. He recommended substantially tougher maximum penalties for possessing a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence, using the Southport attack as a case study. In his March 2025 independent review on the classification of extreme violence used in the Southport attack, Mr Hall argues that where someone arms themselves with a weapon intending serious violence, this is properly comparable to terrorism-style preparatory conduct, and that the maximum sentence should be very significantly higher than existing norms for simple possession offences.
In short, post Southport, Mr Hall has been arguing that possession with intent to use a weapon in serious violence should carry far higher maximum penalties than the traditional four-year ceiling, and that a new preparation for mass killing offence, up to life, is needed to close the pre-attack gap. By raising the maximum penalty to 14 years, this amendment would provide a ceiling, not a mandatory minimum—and we would, of course, expect the Sentencing Council to issue clear guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, to guard against general sentence inflation. Nevertheless, the court must have the full weight of the law behind it in those, hopefully rare, cases where a lengthy sentence is deemed absolutely necessary for public protection. We cannot treat violent premeditated intent as a mere secondary factor. The punishment must be reflective of the severity of the crime, so we welcome this amendment to give the judiciary the vital tool that they need.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for moving it. I do believe that sentences should be proportionate to the offence. That is why the maximum sentence for the new offence of possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with intent to use unlawful violence has been set at four years’ imprisonment. That, I have to say to the House, is in line with penalties for other weapons offences.
Such offences currently carry a maximum penalty of four years, including other more serious offences, such as threatening with an offensive weapon and repeat possession of offensive weapons. It is also worth noting that even though the maximum penalty is four years, the courts—judges in court after trial—are currently not giving sentences anywhere close to the upper range on the sentencing scale, which seems to indicate that judges view the maximum penalty of four years as adequate. A maximum penalty of 10 years for the possession with intent offence would therefore, in my view, be out of line with other possession offences and potentially disproportionate, given where we are.
This is not meant to be a tennis-ball political point, but I say to the noble Lord that the new offence was included in the previous Conservative Administration’s Criminal Justice Bill, and the then Policing Minister, who is now the shadow Home Secretary, spoke eloquently in Committee on that Bill in support of the four-year maximum penalty. So there has been a change; that might be legitimate and right, but the Member for Croydon South, Chris Philp, spoke in favour of the four-year penalty that the Government are seeking only a couple of years ago. That is an interesting fact, but not one that I am intending to use aggressively; I simply want to put it on the record.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has given a recommendation, which the Government have accepted, in his review into the Southport attacks: that the penalty for new possession offences at Clause 27 be kept at four years if the Government consider introducing a new offence of planning a mass-casualty attack. Let me reassure noble Lords that we are considering how best to close the gap identified. However, I do not believe that there is a case for increasing the maximum penalty for the offence in Clause 27 as proposed by the amendment.
I hope the noble Lord will agree with what the Conservative shadow Home Secretary said when he was the Policing Minister and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am especially grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his citation of Mr Hall on the tragic events in Southport.
I have no doubt that all noble Lords understand the seriousness of knife crime and weapon-related violence. As I have previously stated, we support this new offence. However, my amendment acknowledges that there is a meaningful moral and legal difference between someone who unlawfully carries a weapon and someone who carries it with the intent to cause harm. If the maximum sentence remains the same as that for simple possession, the differentiation risks being more symbolic than substantive. A person who arms himself with the purpose of inflicting violence presents a far greater and more immediate threat than someone who does not. Our sentencing framework should reflect that reality. It is a sincere shame that the Government will not accept this amendment. We stand by it, and for the reasons I have outlined I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint ExcerptsWednesday 25th February 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 167-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Feb 2026)
Lord Hanson of Flint
(i) obtained from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in a physical form and a photograph of the buyer, or(ii) took such steps to verify the buyer’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a requirement to section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on a remote sale of a knife to be a physical version, and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name are substantially the same as those that I tabled in Committee. As the House may recall, I withdrew those amendments following concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but today I am reintroducing them for the House’s consideration. The amendments relate to the provisions in Clauses 31 to 35, which introduce stricter two-step age verification checks for the sale and delivery of knives and crossbows bought online.
For the House’s convenience I will recap: Clauses 31 and 32, on knives, and Clauses 33 and 34, on crossbows, will require at the point of sale, or point of sale or hire, for crossbows, specific checks to include photographic identity plus a current photograph; and, at the point of delivery, photographic identity checks; and they will create a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife or crossbow to someone other than the buyer—if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company—so that knives and crossbows cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours.
These amendments clarify that the passport or driving licence required as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, or for a remote sale or hire of a crossbow, must be a physical version. We are also again adding provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations, subject to—I hope this helps the House—the affirmative procedure, prescribing an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. These amendments are required to ensure that a digital ID can be used as evidence of identity wherever the physical ID is accepted.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised concerns that the use of digital ID would be mandatory. However, I assure him that this is not a blanket requirement mandating the use of digital ID to purchase knives or crossbows; it is simply making provision for alternative forms of ID, digital or otherwise, to be used. This is to ensure that the legislation keeps pace with future potential developments in digital ID. I know that the Benches opposite have concerns about the Government’s plans for digital ID, but we have been clear that under those plans it will not be mandatory to have a digital ID. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. These provisions are about giving people a choice in how they verify their identity. It will continue to be possible for the purchaser to present a physical passport or driving licence, where they have one, as an alternative to a specified digital ID.
Furthermore, with the permission and support of the authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, these amendments also extend these clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We are amending the legislation to ensure that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products and crossbows to residential premises. This is to account for situations where the delivery company engaged by the seller to deliver the bladed product sub-contracts the delivery to other companies. We believe that it is essential that all companies in the chain are responsible for ensuring that age and identity are verified before the package is handed over to the buyer; otherwise, regulations made under the Bill would be meaningless.
I hope that, having reflected on the debate in Committee, and given the changes and the clarification I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be content with these government amendments. There are other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will, if he so wishes, move Amendment 177. I will respond to the noble Lord once I have heard his speech. For the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who is nodding, which is good news. I thank him; it is much appreciated. There is nothing worse than writing a speech and being unable to deliver it.
I welcome the government amendments in this group, brought forward by the Minister, concerning the remote sale and delivery of knives and bladed articles. As I noted in Committee, we on these Benches fully support the intent behind the Government’s measures in this area. We must strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales. We welcome the robust two-step age-verification checks being implemented. It is entirely right that we ensure a consistent UK-wide approach by extending these provisions, including those relating to crossbows, to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is vital that the law across the home nations is exactly on the same footing, so that criminals cannot exploit cross-border differences to acquire lethal weapons.
I also welcome the amendments that clarify the rules around identity documents. The requirement for a physical identity document to be shown upon the delivery of a bladed product provides a necessary safeguard. Furthermore, we acknowledge the provisions allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe alternative age-verification steps such as digital ID.
As I made clear to the Minister previously, there is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrats’, so we remain highly supportive of the assurance that analogue physical forms of identity will continue to be accepted alongside any new digital alternatives. Embedded among these amendments, however, is our Amendment 177, referred to by the Minister, on the remote sale of knives. This amendment requires that regulations mandate the reporting of bulk knife sales to the police
“in real time, or as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
In Committee, the Minister stated that he was sympathetic to the overall aim of this amendment but argued that the current duty in Clause 36 was sufficient and that exact timeframes would be handled later in regulations, following consultation. Sympathy does not intervene in a crime. We have seen cases where young people effectively act as arms traders, buying huge numbers of illegal weapons online for community distribution. If the police are to effectively track and intercept these bulk purchases, they need that intelligence immediately, not days or weeks later when the weapons are already on the streets. Amendment 177 would ensure that operational effectiveness is guaranteed in the Bill, turning bureaucratic compliance into actionable, life-saving intelligence.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in Committee, I asked the Government to withdraw their amendments that permitted them to require by regulations the use of digital ID for age verification for the online sale of knives and crossbows. My concern was that permitting this would be the first legislative step towards mandating digital IDs. Since then, of course, the Government have conceded that digital IDs will not be made mandatory and, while I still harbour some reservations, I am now content for the amendments to be made to the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If I may, I will address the points from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and thank him for returning to the issue of fixed-penalty notices with his Amendment 177.
We are clear that, in order for the reports on bulk sales of knives or other bladed articles to be a useful tool for the police to prevent knife crime, they must be sent to the police in a timely manner. I say to the noble Lord that we are working with the police on the details of a reporting system, and I want to reassure him that the points he has raised both in Committee and in his amendment, and during the debate today, will be taken into account when drafting the regulations. I do not believe there is any difference of substance between us on that; it is just that we are of the view that the timeliness of reports is best left to regulations, rather than primary legislation. We will be bringing those regulations forward, and I hope he will be able to support, comment upon and discuss them at that time. I hope the noble Lord will be content not to move his amendment.
Before I finish on this it is worthwhile, both in the context of this debate and the previous group, to place on record that while overall knife crime was previously climbing, since the start of this Parliament knife homicides have fallen by 27% and knife-enabled offences have recorded an 8% decrease. The latest admissions data for NHS hospitals in England and Wales also shows a 10% fall in admissions for knife assaults. Now, I am not complacent and will not stop pressing on this, but those results demonstrate progress. Given the measures in this Bill, and the measures we may have on digital and non-digital ID two-step verification, I hope we will further reduce those figures in the coming months. In the meantime, having moved my Amendment 28, I will beg to move the other amendments and hope that the noble Lord will be content not to move his.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 31, page 36, line 23.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale or letting of knives etc: Scotland(1) Section 141C of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (remote sales and lettings of knives) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (5) substitute—“(5) Condition A is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) the accused either—(i) obtained from the recipient a copy of an identity document issued to the recipient in a physical form and a photograph of the recipient, or(ii) took such steps to verify the recipient’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the recipient was aged 18 or over.(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.”(3) In subsection (6)(b) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(4) In subsection (7) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(5) In subsection (9) omit “or a person acting on behalf of the recipient” in both places it occurs.(6) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5)(a)(ii) are subject to the affirmative procedure.(12) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5A)(d) are subject to the negative procedure.(13) For the meaning of “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure” see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10).”(7) In section 141A(4B) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sale of knives to persons under 18: Scotland) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation; (b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 31 (as amended by my amendments to that clause).
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) In section 38 (delivery of bladed products to residential premises)—(a) omit subsection (4);(b) in subsection (8)—(i) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both.”(1B) In section 39 (delivery of bladed products to persons under 18)—(a) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (c) to (e) substitute—“(c) before the sale, the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the contractor”) by which the contractor agreed—(i) to deliver bladed products for the seller, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed products for the seller,(d) the contractor was aware when they entered into the arrangement with the seller that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, bladed products, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf.”;(b) omit subsections (2) and (3);(c) for subsection (6) substitute—“(6) The contractor commits an offence if, when the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6A) A person acting on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed product pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf.(6C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed product by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, bladed products (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed products).”;(d) in subsection (7)—(i) for “subsection (6)” substitute “this section”;(ii) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(iii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other of my amendments to clause 32, extend the provision made by that clause to Scotland and Northern Ireland and make related drafting changes. It also ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products to residential premises.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) After section 1 insert—“1ZA Defence to offence under section 1: England and WalesExcept where section 1B applies, it is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 1 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.”.(2B) In section 1A (defences: Scotland)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) for “It” substitute “Except where section 1B applies, it”;(ii) after “charged” insert “in Scotland”;(b) in subsection (3) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971),(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation,(b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State, or”;(c) for the heading substitute “Defence to offence under section 1: Scotland”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendments to clauses 33 to 35, extend to Scotland the amendments made by those clauses to the Crossbows Act 1987, and make related changes.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) “Relevant national authority” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale and letting of crossbows: Northern Ireland(1) The Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) is amended as follows.(2) In Article 3 omit “, unless he believes him to be eighteen years of age or older and has reasonable ground for the belief”.(3) After Article 3 insert—“Defence to offence under Article 33A. Except where Article 3B applies, it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.Defence to offence under Article 3: remote sales etc(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) is charged with an offence under Article 3, and(b) A was not in the presence of the person (“B”) to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire at the time of the sale or letting on hire.(2) It is a defence for A to show that the following conditions are met.(3) Condition 1 is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) A either—(i) obtained from B a copy of an identity document issued to B in a physical form and a photograph of B, or(ii) took such steps to verify B’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that B was aged 18 or over.(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.(5) Condition 2 is that when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A, it was clearly marked to indicate— (a) that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow, and(b) that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of B.(6) Condition 3 is that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of B.(7) Condition 4 is that A did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.(8) Where the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A to a place from which it was to be collected by B, references in paragraphs (5) and (6) to its final delivery are to be read as its supply to B from that place.(9) In paragraph (7) “locker” means a lockable container to which the package is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 33 for England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is made for the purposes of my amendment at line 19.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, on this occasion, I hope I can be accused of listening and hearing in order to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. These amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence will, in cases involving children aged 13 or over, remove the requirement that a perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was an adult. In bringing forward these amendments, I am directly responding to concerns raised in debates in the House, having listened in particular to the cogent arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. Indeed, arguments were made in the House of Commons for the same.
We maintain that reasonable belief in age would not be a simple loophole for perpetrators and that it is a precedented and long-standing legal test. The CPS and courts are experienced in dealing with such an element. However, having reflected further, and acknowledging that there is a heightened risk of teenage Black males, who are overrepresented in the cohort of children vulnerable to child criminal exploitation, being wrongly perceived as older, we will not risk perpetrators being acquitted because of how society misperceives children as appearing older than they are in this context.
Adults who draw children into committing criminal activity should always be convicted of this offence, regardless of how old the perpetrator believed the children were. These amendments send a clear message that responsibility for involving children in crime, which is always bad and harmful, rests with the adult. I commend the amendments to the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I was just checking with another Member of your Lordships’ House before I started my winding-up speech. My apologies for not attracting his attention.
We welcome the Government’s decision to address child criminal exploitation. The range of measures in the Bill are certainly a start and address the growing concern about children being exploited into criminality. I particularly welcome the Minister’s letter, dated a couple of weeks ago—about 15 February—explaining that the amendments laid address a highly specific concern about the requirement for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was aged 18 or over, if the child was aged 13 or over. We thank him for that.
However, from these Benches we urge the Government to go further in the longer term in ensuring that all children are safeguarded from exploitation. This needs to be recognised as a form of exploitation. Along with a number of organisations, we think that this should be done through a statutory definition in Parliament, partly because that will guide the services but also because it would make it very clear where the boundaries are on CCE.
Hand in hand with this is the whole issue of cuckooing, which we will come to in the next group. That is equally important. It is one of the newer, more virulent ways of coercively controlling children. We welcome the amendment, wish it had gone further, and look forward to discussions in the longer term about how that can be remedied.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords and will try to respond briefly. I remind the House that we are responding to requests from noble Lords, and in addition from partners in children’s charities, law enforcement and Members of the House of Commons, to make a change to ensure that the child criminal exploitation offence works as intended to protect the children most at risk of being targeted.
As both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, have said, boys aged between 15 and 17 and, very often, Black and other minority children are commonly overrepresented in those figures. They are the same children at risk of being wrongly perceived as being older, and therefore not protected. We have tried to ensure that we place the responsibility for any criminal activity firmly where it belongs in this case, which is with the adult who is effectively trying to groom, encourage, lead—however we wish to describe it—the child under the age of 18. For the purposes of this legislation, a child is dealt with as being under the age of 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised again his concerns about voting at 16. That is an issue for debate, and it is a Labour manifesto commitment, but it is not an issue for debate today.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord says it is a comparison. I accept that, but for the purposes of this legislation, we are saying that individuals aged 15 to 17, particularly, are vulnerable. This goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Requiring the courts to consider what age the perpetrator reasonably believed the child to be by reference to their appearance or behaviour risks, in my view, reinforcing the injustices we have and risks somebody who has undertaken child criminal exploitation getting off because they believed that that person was older than they actually were.
That is a line we have drawn and an argument we have made, and it is in the legislation. I am not the Minister responsible for this, but I would still be happy to have a discussion with the noble Lord at some point about why votes at 16 is important. If he wants to do that, we will find an opportunity, I am sure, if it relates to a Home Office Bill at any time in the future.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) D engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child (C), and(b) D does so with the intention of—(i) causing C to commit an offence,(ii) causing C to do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part, or(iii) facilitating the causing of C, in future, to commit an offence or do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part.It is irrelevant whether or not D knows or suspects that C is a child.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement that the child is under 13 or the person does not reasonably believe them to be aged 18 or over, and spells out that the person’s state of mind in relation to whether the other person is a child is irrelevant.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“ScheduleSound moderators etc: exemptionsFirearms Act 1968
1 (1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) In section 7(1)—(a) the words from “a firearm” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) at the end insert—“(b) a relevant accessory.”(3) In section 8—(a) in subsection (1) for the words from “, have” to “ammunition” substitute—“(a) have in their possession, purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition, or(b) have a relevant accessory in their possession,”;(b) in subsection (1A)—(i) after “ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, insert “, or the possession of a relevant accessory,”;(ii) for “or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) after “of, or” insert “firearm or ammunition is”.(4) In section 9(1) for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 11—(a) in subsection (1) for “or ammunition”—(i) in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) in the second and third places it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (4)—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“and(c) a relevant accessory,”.(6) In section 11A at the end insert— “(7) Where a rifle is borrowed on any premises in reliance on subsection (1), the borrower may, without holding a certificate under this Act, borrow and have in their possession on those premises a relevant accessory for the period for which the rifle is borrowed.”(7) In section 12(1) after “firearm” insert “or relevant accessory”.(8) In section 13(1)—(a) in paragraph (a)—(i) for “or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for “or ammunition therefor” substitute “, or ammunition or a relevant accessory therefor,”;(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) for“or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for“or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) omit the “and” at the end;(c) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) having obtained a permit under paragraph (c), remove any relevant accessory from or to a ship, aircraft or aerodrome, to or from the place specified in the permit.”Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
2 (1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 15—(a) in subsection (1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (2) for“or ammunition”substitute“, ammunition or relevant accessories”.(3) In section 16A(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(4) In section 16B(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 17 after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) The holder of a visitor’s firearm permit may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in their possession a relevant accessory.””(6) In section 25(4) (interpretation), for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”.(7) In paragraph 1 of the Schedule, in sub-paragraphs (2)(a), (3) and (4) for“and ammunition”substitute“, ammunition and relevant accessories”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Schedule adds sound moderators and flash suppressors to exemptions from the requirement in the Firearms Act 1968 to hold a firearm or shot gun certificate.
Counter-Extremism Strategy
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords today. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who is persistent in raising this issue—rightly so, dare I say? He framed the debate, if I may say so, in terms of government action on examining non-violent extremism, but in the context of far-right, far-left and Islamist extremism. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who obviously has a great and deep interest in this, added the question of lone wolf independent radicalisation, which again is a common thread. I shall respond to the debate not only by addressing the points that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, raised, but also in relation to high-harm extremism, where we have a very high threshold and take action upon it.
I will start with the point the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, mentioned: the statutory definition of extremism. My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn also touched on this point. I confirm to the Committee that there are no plans to change the definition of extremism that was set out by the previous Government in March 2024. This existing definition is based on behaviours and does not look at specific ideologies, although the points that have been raised today are obviously important. The definition is a useful tool for government departments and others to look at when considering public engagement and when reaching out to stakeholders.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. He described it as a “statutory definition of extremism”. I am not encouraging him, but is there an intention to put it into statute?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It was a slip of the tongue if I used the word “statutory” in reference to the definition of extremism. If that was the case, I apologise to the Committee. In essence, the 2024 definition of extremism that the noble Earl mentioned is correct.
In the gentlest of ways, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who said that there is government inertia on this matter. There is no government inertia on this matter. We have to protect our citizens against high-harm extremism. We have to ensure that the extremism that fuels polarisation, erodes social cohesion and undermines trust between communities is challenged. Those individuals in our communities who raise antisemitism, Islamophobia and far-right or far-left terrorism and extremism have to be challenged.
The Government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. In doing so, we must have a balance between allowing freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities. There are fundamental values in our community, such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship and the freedom of democracy, which define us as a society and which the Government will continue to uphold and promote as values. Where they are challenged by individuals, groups or environments that foster or enable hatred, we will take action against them.
I say to noble Lords and Baronesses that there is a really serious issue here that the Government will try to deal with. We have a government response, which includes, for example, the Online Safety Act, which sets out that platforms, including those that are now likely to be accessed by children, must employ highly effective methods to protect children from content that is harmful or age inappropriate. We can now, through the Ofcom independent regulator, take enforcement action on those duties. Where extremists often deliberately operate below legal thresholds, we want to ensure, rightly, that they can be prosecuted and investigated and that we can take action.
Home Office efforts to counter extremism have certainly focused on high-harm threats. I understand that the noble Lord did not frame his argument around that, but we do have to focus on high-harm threats. We stop foreign individuals of extremist concern, including hate preachers and influencers, travelling to the UK through our visa watchlist programme. We advise and support public authorities and local partners to reduce permissive environments by disrupting extremist hate events, such as speaking tours featuring hate preachers. We have invested in capabilities to stop charities being exploited by extremists. We support communities targeted by extremists to ensure that there is protective security at places of worship—a point that my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn mentioned.
We have also put in place very strong mechanisms through the Prevent programme. At the very start of our term of office, we had the sprint to look at what we needed to do, and there are lessons to be learned from that. We commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to look at an independent review of Prevent. He brought forward 34 recommendations, which I note answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Lessons were learned from the Prevent programme—not just from the appalling cases of Southport and the murder of my former colleague Sir David Amess but also positive impacts—to ensure that we deal with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, mentioned on how we stop radicalisation in the first place.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned, I can say that the funding of Prevent is stable. We had £34.5 million of funding in 2023-24, and in the current financial year, the Government have committed £38.7 million to the programme. The noble Baroness asked what that does and what that achieves—I paraphrase, but that was broadly the tenor of her input. It is important, because we believe it makes a difference to people who are being radicalised by turning their lives around, pointing them in the right direction and stopping them from being influenced by far-left, far-right or, in particular, Islamist radicalisation. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, whom I thank for his work, brought forward recommendations, and we have implemented 33 of the 34 of them.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I hate to stand up again, but I want to put on the record that I made 10 recommendations. Sir William Shawcross had already made 34, and I felt that that was about as much as the system could stand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord’s recommendations and the independent review of Prevent have been accepted by the Government. We have implemented the vast majority of the recommendations, and we will continue to learn. If there are lessons from today’s debate, we will continue to look at them.
I listened to, understood and accepted the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington. She will understand that I cannot comment on individual organisations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood that she mentioned. We keep all organisations under review. That same principle applies to my noble friend Lord Cryer—I know he has heard this before—in relation to Iran’s revolutionary guards. We keep proscription under review because we do not announce what we will do ahead of doing it.
We consider whether there is sufficient evidence to proscribe an organisation, such as Palestine Action, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords in the debate. I cannot comment on the court case in which the sledgehammer was involved, because potential further action will be taken on that. People have been remanded in custody, but I cannot comment on that. However, I assure both the noble Baroness and my noble friend that, if proscription is required against any organisation at any time, we will make that proscription.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said that many of the people she speaks to feel unsafe, particularly women—I understand that. We now have a violence against women and girls strategy in place. Knife crime, which she discussed in particular, has fallen by 8% in the past 18 months. Knife homicides are down by 27% in the past 18 months. We have banned dangerous weapons, such as ninja swords and zombie-style knives, and have taken 60,000 knives off the street. I understand her concerns. We will look at organisations as and when, but, through neighbourhood policing and other things, we are trying—I hope—to make our communities much safer.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Massey of Hampstead, I do not want to see the normalisation of extremism; it should not be tolerated. We have a basic set of values in this society, and we need to uphold those societal values. There is freedom of speech, but we cannot normalise extremism as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Walney, made a number of key points. On the extremism definition that he mentioned—which I have spoken to—we keep all matters under review. On the counterterrorism review—which I know is of interest to him; he has done tremendous work in that field—we are looking at that as part of the arm’s-length body review. It does not take away from the principle that we want to ensure that we handle high levels of extremism and also deal with the issues that noble Lords have mentioned today.
I put on record—because this goes to the heart of the question of whether the Government are doing things in this area—that we are upholding the Public Order Act 1986, which imposes conditions on public processions. In the Crime and Policing Bill, currently going through the House, we have put forward a range of measures to ensure that persistent harassment on parades and demonstrations does not happen—that will be law very shortly. We put in place a range of measures through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which we still support; it allows civil injunctions to be put in place.
We have legislation, such as the Immigration Act, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Communications Act 2003 and the Education Act 2002, which was passed by Governments of both my political party and the Conservative Party to ensure that we put in place basic standards so that Governments can take action. We want to ensure that we look at all these matters.
On extremism, we have a number of other potential issues. We set out a clear response to terrorism in the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, Contest—an overarching strategy, of which Prevent is a key part, that directs our work in this area and provides a framework for us to operate in. As part of the Contest strategy, the Prevent programme has helped nearly 6,000 people at risk of being drawn into terrorism to turn their lives around. There are always lessons that we can learn, but it is important that we have that information before us today.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for bringing this important subject to the Grand Committee. I am grateful to him and to everybody who has spoken for their contributions; I hope I have referred to them all. Whatever form it takes and whatever form of bad ideology it espouses, extremism is a toxic force that has no place in our society. We have a high-level strategy to deal with high-harm extremism, but I will always look at, and work with colleagues to look at, what we do about the types of extremism that the noble Lord introduced in his opening contribution. That level of extremism remains unacceptable; the Government will not tolerate it. As I have set out, we are taking a range of actions to quell this threat and to prevent young and vulnerable minds being polluted. Counterterrorism remains a complex and multifaceted issue, but I assure noble Lords that we are unwavering in our commitment to tackle this crucial task.
My door will remain open, as will that of my honourable friend Minister Jarvis in the House of Commons. If noble Lords wish to raise issues, I am open to listening, debating and learning. The threat continues to change, as does the online approach, and so we as a society in this country need to make sure that we allow our fundamental values to remain operational, so that people do not feel harassment for their religion or beliefs or for things they cannot change. We support freedom of speech, but we also support the freedom to live life free from extremism.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clause 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 56, Schedule 5, Clause 57, Schedules 6 and 7, Clause 58, Schedule 8, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 9, Clauses 71 to 77, Schedule 10, Clauses 78 to 89, Schedule 11, Clauses 90 to 107, Schedule 12, Clauses 108 to 132, Schedule 13, Clauses 133 to 137, Schedule 14, Clauses 138 to 143, Schedule 15, Clauses 144 to 152, Schedule 16, Clauses 153 to 155, Schedule 17, Clauses 156 to 161, Schedules 18 to 20, Clauses 162 to 180, Schedule 21, Clauses 181 to 202, Schedule 22, Clause 203, Schedule 23, Clauses 204 to 220, Title.