Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as indicated in Committee, we have little issue with Clause 42. If the Government believe that it is also in line with the withdrawal agreement, we do not have concerns about it standing part of the Bill.

I listened to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. While I understand her concerns, we are satisfied that Clause 42 does not undermine the protections for European Union, European Economic Area and Swiss nationals and their family members who have leave to enter or remain in the UK granted under the EU settlement scheme. The government amendments in this group simply alter the commencement of Clause 42 so that it comes into effect on Royal Assent. Given that we have little issue with this clause, we are satisfied that its commencement on Royal Assent is not inappropriate.

I will only ask one question of the Minister. Can he explain whether he expects Clause 42 to increase administrative burdens on the Home Office and, if so, what steps have been taken to increase administrative capacity?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her amendment. I assure her that there is nothing nerdy about putting amendments down in this field. As a fellow nerd on many other topics, I welcome her contribution to the debate.

The amendments, as the noble Baroness has said, are on the important issue of the discussion on the safeguards for loss of status under the EU settlement scheme. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and I have had some meetings. I think we have got a position whereby Clause 42 is welcome. I am pleased that they welcome the addition of Clause 42, because it provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement, and it is the source of their rights in the UK. I hope, therefore, that they welcome Amendments 81 and 83. These will mean that Clause 42 comes into force on the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months later as was originally planned, so that those rights are guaranteed from when the Bill receives Royal Assent. I will move those amendments in due course.

The nub of the question goes to the nub of the nerdery of the noble Baroness, which we discussed when she introduced her amendments. The EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires. As we know, there are two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: the “true” cohort, who are in scope of the agreement because they were economically active in the UK at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and the “extra” cohort, who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Clause 42 ensures that both cohorts will be treated equally in UK law by providing that all EU citizens and family members with EUSS status will be treated as being withdrawal agreement beneficiaries. This is a significant measure that gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.

Amendment 36 would remove subsection (2)(c). Its effect would be to confer withdrawal agreement rights in the UK on those who do not qualify for them because they do not qualify for EUSS status. Worse, it would mean that pre-settled status granted in error could not be curtailed or allowed to expire, because the withdrawal agreement does not permit rights to be lost on that basis.

The amendment would give such people unwarranted preferential treatment over those whose EUSS application was correctly refused. It would also undermine the integrity of the EUSS system by giving them the same rights in the UK as those of a pre-settled status holder who complied with requirements for that status. Those are outcomes that we cannot accept. A person whose EUSS status has been granted in error will not be in the “true” or “extra” cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.

None the less, none of this detracts from the proper safeguards against the loss of EUSS status. The noble Baroness is right to emphasise the importance of that issue, as are the stakeholders who have been engaging with the Home Office on this point. Nothing in Clause 42 affects the withdrawal agreement-compliant appeal rights in UK law for the refusal or removal of EUSS status. There is nothing disproportionate about allowing a pre-settled status granted in error to expire after its five-year term, given that the person had no entitlement to that limited leave in the first place.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord talked about Home Office errors. I would argue that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly, and will have failed to do so. As with erroneous grants of limited leave in other immigration routes, our approach allows people to stay in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of that leave.

Importantly, it is also open for the person to reapply for EUSS status, and, if refused, they will have the right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, mentioned this. I said this to him in Committee, and I think that I have also written to him and spoken to him about it in our meetings outside the Chamber. It also applies to any family member whose application is refused because their sponsor’s EUSS status was granted in error.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for returning to this matter. I hope I have set down that those settled rights will exist under Clause 42. In the event of errors, there are rights of appeal, as well as an existing allowance to continue work in that particular period.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Can we have clarity on this? My understanding is that there is no right of appeal against the Home Office decision that an error was made. Instead, there is the right to make another application, and then appeal if that is refused. As I set out, that is a very different thing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The argument I put is that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly. If there was an error from the Home Office, there is a period in which they can make that argument. But if we get to a position whereby staying in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of leave happens, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that people reapply for EUSS status can happen and can be considered. That is a reasonable proposal. We may disagree, but I think it is a reasonable way forward and it gives fairness to the system as a whole.

The noble Baroness’s compromise suggests a number of things, and my argument is that it is not necessary. Procedural safeguards are not dealt with in Clause 42; they are contained in the citizens’ rights appeal regulations. They implement the position in Article 21 and they stand irrespective of this clause. The compromise that she offered is effectively available under the rights in the citizens’ rights appeal regulations.

I may not have satisfied the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked whether there are any administrative costs and burdens from this. I do not have an assessment in front of me, but I will take that question away and examine it. I realise that we will have passed this clause by the time he gets the letter, but I hope he can hold us to account on that issue. I will give him further detail at a later stage. I hope that the House can agree to our Amendments 81 and 83 in due course and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I was remiss not to welcome Amendments 81 and 83. I thank the Minister for those, but I am afraid I am disappointed with what he said. To be clear, my noble friend Lord Oates’s intervention was surely right: I think the Minister made a slip of the tongue and suggested that there was an appeal right if status was left to expire. If the Home Office took a decision to cancel, revoke or curtail the status then there would be a right of appeal under Article 21 of the withdrawal agreement. Our objection is about the Home Office workaround—I called it that earlier, but I could think of a much ruder term. What the Home Office is doing is, frankly, sneaky. It is saying, “We’re not going to give you any right to appeal or apply a proportionality assessment. We’re just going to let it fade out, and if you don’t like that scenario you can make a whole new application and go through all the hassle and, no doubt, expense and trouble of that. Then, if we turn you down, you can go through an appeal right”.

We are talking about letting the status just expire, and the Minister is saying that the individual concerned should have known that the Home Office had perhaps granted it in error. How are they supposed to know that? That knowledge is within the bowels of the Home Office. The individual does not necessarily know that. The Home Office is holding all the power in this situation. It may not even say, “We think we granted this in error”; it just lets it expire and leaves the person stranded. That does not seem a very honourable thing to do. I am not saying that about the Minister, because I like him very much, but I do not think it is a very reputable thing for the Home Office to do. It is a great pity that the withdrawal agreement did not cover this situation. It covers fraud, but it does not cover where the status is allegedly granted in error.

Let us not forget that we are talking about people here: we are talking about EU citizens who ought to have a clear right of appeal and to make a case under an appeal procedure, rather than just having it slide away from them because the Home Office may think—and it may only think—that it granted it in error or that the applicant made an error. They are left hanging there and it will never be established whether it is true because the Home Office says, “Oh, you can just make another application”.

I am afraid I still think that is an unsatisfactory situation, and it is a pity that the impasse continues. I had hoped that there might be some flexibility to provide some creative wording so that the Home Office could maintain its position on the withdrawal agreement that Article 21 did not apply and that it would find some workaround in favour of EU citizens who might be subject to this black hole treatment. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot provide that offer, but he does not, so there we are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a word in support of Amendment 37, which would allow 56 days before someone who has been given asylum is thrown out. The six-month experiment of the Government trying to move to 56 days from 28 seemed to be very successful. I was therefore puzzled that its extension in July was rescinded in August. I do not know why we are heading back to 28 days, and I am sure we should have 56 days.

Why? It takes some time for the documentation to be made available to the person who has been granted asylum. It then takes some time for that person to obtain accommodation, for which he will need a bank account. He may need to go on universal credit, and universal credit applications take longer than 28 days to come through. He is in a Catch-22 situation. He cannot rent accommodation, because he has not got a bank account and has not got access to universal credit, so he is homeless. Safeguarding incidents, the main cause of which is homelessness, declined by 50% during the six-month period in which 56 days were allowed.

As I understand it, the Government’s position now is that they are not going back all the way to 28 days for everybody. They are allowing families, the disabled, the pregnant and the over-65s to stay a bit longer while they look for somewhere to live. But actually, most of the asylum seekers are young men, who will be put on to a 28-day regime, which creates a very high risk of their becoming homeless. To integrate these people properly into society, we need to be generous on the timing of their being thrown out and on to the streets, in many cases to become rough sleepers. I strongly support Amendment 37.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for Amendment 37, and for being able to listen again to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, speak in support of Amendment 37. Amendment 37 seeks to increase the period of financial and accommodation support for newly recognised refugees from 28 to 56 days and to allow the Secretary of State discretion to settle on the period following a grant of refugee status. The amendment is clear. It seeks to formalise what we are currently assessing as part of a pilot. I recognise that there have been changes to the pilot mid-flow, but, essentially, it is ongoing.

The Government recognise the importance of a smooth transition for all the reasons that have been mentioned by my noble friend and noble Lords who have spoken. I give the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the benefit of the doubt, in that he did not support the general thrust of what is been said, and I understand his position.

There is benefit in examining these issues. This is why—despite the fact that we have inherited significant pressures in the asylum system and our strategy has been to provide targeted, conditional support to restore credibility to the system and ensure value for money for the taxpayer—we are undertaking, particularly at the moment, the pilot. Extending the period by four weeks would put an additional strain on the accommodation estate, exacerbating pressures on the Government’s commitment to end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend, referred to the pilot that was introduced to extend the move-on period to 56 days from the point an individual had been notified of their grant of leave. The pilot has been put in place to support local authorities during a period when we anticipated an increased volume of asylum decisions being made, and coincides with the transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees.

The pilot, as my noble friend knows, is in place until the end of the year. In early September, the Government took the difficult decision to pause the pilot only for single adults due to pressures on the accommodation estate. But the pilot continues for those who were in the system prior to September, and it applies now to families and the most vulnerable. The key point is that there is an independent evaluation currently ongoing regarding the impact of the pilot. We want to look at the pilot and the lessons learned and make judgments on this issue before deciding the longer-term policy.

I give everybody in the House the firm commitment that the intention is that the pilot’s findings, when produced, will be shared with Parliament, so we will be transparent on what that says. Members who are today arguing that the pilot is of assistance will be able to scrutinise the impact of that assessment. Those who believe that the length of the period is too long, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will be able to judge whatever the pilot says and either revise or keep their opinions in due course. But it is important at the moment that we examine the outcome of the pilot.

A wide range of stakeholders have taken part in the evaluation, including—this was requested of me—local authorities, voluntary organisations and the community sector. Indeed, we are involving in the pilot individuals with the lived experience of going through the system. It is important that we do not see the extension of the move-on period to 56 days as a straightforward solution to a complex problem. That is why we are looking at a wider range of support measures and initiatives, including improved communications and support, and we are working with migrant help and asylum move-on liaison officers.

I say to my noble friend that the Government remain committed to offering support, improving the process that underpins transition from Home Office asylum support, and ensuring that any changes to the system are informed by robust evidence, which is the very reason why the pilot is in place. I think I mentioned that to my noble friend when I dealt with her Bill earlier in this Session, as did my noble friend Lord Katz when he dealt with this Bill in a later part of the Session. We both emphasised that point, so I hope that will help her. The pilot needs to run its course.

[Lord German (LD)]

Can the Minister say when the pilot is due to end and when it will present its report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have said, even in the last few moments—as I am sure the noble Lord will remember when I tell him again—that the pilot runs to the end of this year. The end of this year is about seven weeks away. We have to evaluate the pilot. I do not have a date for him as to when the pilot’s evaluation will be produced, but the circumstances of where we are now remain in place. The pause on single individuals from September is in place, but people from before September will still have been dealt with under the old system, and individual families and others are still being dealt with under the terms of the pilot. I will report to the House as soon as possible, but the actual period of the pilot finishes at the end of this year.

[Lord German (LD)]

I am grateful for that answer. There will be a gap between the end of December and whenever the pilot evaluation takes place. Is it therefore expected that when the pilot ends, all people will go back to the 28 days rather than just some?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, again, tempts me. We are examining a whole range of issues and I will announce and report to this House when decisions are taken. As I have said to him to date, the evaluation is ongoing. Local authorities and others are looking at that. We will make decisions in due course and report them to this House.

That gives me a straight segue into his own Amendment 73, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seeks to provide “Nightingale” accommodation to clear the backlog of asylum cases. Again, I welcome the interest in and support for dealing with that backlog. We want to ensure, as a Home Office, that we invest in a programme of transformation and business improvement to speed up decision-making, reduce the time that people spend in the asylum system, decrease the number of people in that asylum system and maximise our capacity. The noble Lord, Lord German, is absolutely right to say that we inherited a massive backlog from the previous Government, which in part is due to the fact that they effectively paused asylum application assessments because they wanted to find a mechanism to send people to Rwanda, which failed miserably. That backlog built up before we took office in July last year.

At the end of June 2025, there were 70,532 cases awaiting an initial decision. By December 2023, the Home Office had completed processing the majority of the legacy backlog. However, everything was put on hold by the Illegal Migration Act. That meant that a number of decisions made by the Home Office in 2024 led to an emergency backlog being developed and, as noble Lords will be aware, the then Home Secretary laid a statutory instrument on 22 July 2024, not 19 days after the general election, to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act.

As a result, we have been able to take decisions on claims being resumed, and the number of people waiting for decisions has fallen again. We have seen in the past 12 months—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned—that despite the record number of people claiming asylum, we now have 28,000 fewer people awaiting an initial decision than in the month before the general election—a 24% reduction. The backlog inheritance left by the previous Government has now been cut by 18%, and the percentage of cases processed within six months has increased from 7% to 41%. So we are in the process of taking action to deal with the very backlog that the noble Lord mentions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

38: Clause 43, page 39, line 26, leave out from “section” to end of line 27 and insert “3 (general provisions for regulation and control)—”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 43 at page 39, line 40.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On that note, I will try to move Amendment 38 as quickly as possible to help support my noble friend. This group includes three government amendments to Clause 43. On this occasion, the Government have listened to debates that have taken place in the House. We have carefully considered recommendations in the JCHR report and listened to representations from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the light of this, government Amendment 40 does not alter the original purpose of Clause 43 but instead sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring and curfews placed on their leave to enter or to remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security, public safety or has been convicted of a serious crime or offence.

The powers in Clause 43 are therefore in place to protect the public and to meet our obligations under domestic and international law. The clause will end the disparity in powers available to protect the public in respect of immigration bail and conditions of leave to enter or remain. I know that the Government have listened to the points made in Committee and I will therefore move the amendments on their behalf.

I note that my noble friend Lord Bach has tabled Amendment 41. I will respond to any points he raises once he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is quite right. I have a short but important amendment that is very fittingly in this group. It is unusual in that lawyers who act in immigration cases and the Home Office itself are at one on the issue. Both sides agree that in paragraph 9(1)(a) of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, “specified in the condition” should be widely interpreted to mean

“that is known at the time of the grant or variation of immigration bail, or”—

and this is the important point—

“an address that is yet to be specified”.

This has been the Home Office’s interpretation of that paragraph for a number of years. There is evidence from 2018 that that is the Home Office’s view. It has occurred in cases, and guidance was issued as recently as this summer. In my submission, it is a practical and sensible way of interpreting it.

Why, then, does this amendment, with its proposed change of words in paragraph 9(1), need to be laid and discussed in your Lordships’ House at all? The reason is that there is a Court of Appeal case in Northern Ireland called Bounar, which was decided not many years ago, in which their Lordships in that court took a different view and decided on a much stricter interpretation of the words of the schedule: for a person to be given bail by the Secretary of State, they must already have been granted immigration bail—and here are the words that matter—with a condition to reside at a specific address. So one has on the one hand the decision of the court in Northern Ireland and, on the other, I submit, a practical, sensible way of dealing with a situation that arises more often than the House might think. The Home Office has dealt with it in that way, as have the lawyers on the other side.

Why does it matter that there are these two conflicting decisions about and ways of looking at this element of this schedule? It matters, first, because it is unsatisfactory in principle to have legislation that has been interpreted quite differently in the courts and in practice in government when dealing with this issue. Secondly, who knows what situations may arise where a court, for example, would prefer the Northern Ireland precedent. Thus, a bail claimant—someone who the Home Office wants to give bail to—might lose his or her bail merely because, for good, practical reasons, the specific address is not yet known. This is what happens in a number of cases.

There are already significant delays between grant of bail in principle and people being released to Home Office-sourced accommodation. In recent months, 21 people have faced a delay of more than three months. The Home Office wanted to bail them and was happy to, but there was no specified address at that moment so everything had to start all over again. Without amending the statutory provision relied on in the case of Bounar, every individual would need an address provided by the Secretary of State prior to applying for bail, resulting in wasted places and longer delays. My invitation to my noble friend, to whom I very grateful for having taken the trouble to meet me on this issue, is to accept this amendment to the schedule. I very much hope that he feels that he can do that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the government amendments in this group would place limits on the circumstances in which conditions referred to in new sub-paragraphs (vi) to (x) of Section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by Clause 43(2), may be attached to a person’s limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. This does not require too much comment from me. This is, in my view, a tidying-up amendment which would clarify the circumstances in which these conditions can be imposed.

Clarity on this point is welcome. Can the Minister explain how the circumstances could be altered to either augment or narrow the scope of the circumstances which would come under this section? As we all know, the nature of the threats we face can change, and it is important that we do not have an unwieldy and prescriptive list to which these conditions can only be applied, although, that being said, it is imperative that this does not undermine the role of Parliament in scrutinising what comes under this section. If the Minister could update the House on how this balance will be achieved with respect to his amendments, I would be very grateful.

On Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, while I appreciate some of the intention behind this amendment, I cannot support it. If we want to maintain the integrity of the immigration system, we simply must ensure that those awaiting removal or further decision remain within the reach of the authorities. In short, while I understand the desire to make the system more flexible, this amendment would do so at the expense of the very oversight and accountability that make immigration bail credible and enforceable. For those reasons, I do not believe it would be wise to support it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. The government amendments were tabled in response to requests in Committee, not just from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who I hope to see back in her place as soon as possible—but the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others, including Members from the Opposition Back Benches and Front Bench. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that we have taken all those matters into account in bringing forward the amendment today.

On Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with him outside the Chamber and get clarification on the points he is pressing me to examine. I hope that the explanation I give him now will meet his points of concern, but we will see whether that is in fact the case. We believe that the amendment, while testing the Government, is ultimately dealt with in other ways, and would make no material difference to the operation of the legislation. The Bounar case, which my noble friend mentioned, pre-dated changes to our bail accommodation guidance. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision was handed down in December 2024, and the Home Office guidance was republished on 31 January 2025.

There is a key extract from the guidance that I want to read to my noble friend, so I hope the House will bear with me:

“Where an individual is not subject to a residence condition, but they are applying for accommodation under Schedule 10, they may request for their bail conditions to be varied to include a residence condition on the BAIL 409 application form. Bail conditions can be varied to include a residence condition at an address yet to be specified, where the individual does not have a residence condition imposed and a refusal of accommodation would be in breach of their Article 3 ECHR rights”.


The key point for me in that extract is that in the case of Bounar the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal found that the person could not be given bail accommodation because they did not have a bail residence condition. Although that is technically correct, I believe and hope that our guidance—and I hope this satisfies my noble friend—now makes it clear that bail can be varied to impose a residence condition that will enable a person to be granted bail conditions, where to refuse to do so would breach the person’s human rights under Article 3. The key point that I emphasise to my noble friend is that our guidance is now clear that the situation in Bounar should not arise. If the person requires a bail condition in order to prevent an Article 3 breach, we will create one rather than refusing the application, and the courts can now apply that, as our guidance makes clear.

I am genuinely grateful for the discussions that I have had had with my noble friend outside both Committee and Report. He has raised these issues with me regarding the Bounar case as recently as today, outside the Chamber, prior to Report commencing. I have tried to give him an answer based on our legal interpretation of the understanding of that case in relation to our guidance, and I hope that, with that clarification, he is able to reflect on that, if not today then later in Hansard. I am happy to have further discussions with him about the application outside the Chamber at a later date, but I hope that the explanation I have given meets the objectives in his amendment, and I ask him not to press it.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, as always, for his response. I cannot hide that I am disappointed by what he had to say, but I have not yet had the chance to read it in Hansard. I am sure I will want to take up his remarks with him, but I will not be moving my amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

For clarification, it is the Minister, with the lead amendment, who must now seek to press his amendment, if he so wishes.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 38 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

39: Clause 43, page 39, line 28, at beginning insert “in subsection (1)(c)—”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 43 at page 39, line 40.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.

Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.

Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments tabled today. I was pleased to meet my noble friends Lord Rees of Easton and Lord Barber of Ainsdale to discuss these matters outside the Committee. I was pleased also to have discussions with a number of other noble Lords on this matter. Today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have all spoken broadly in favour of these amendments. I just want to try to put some context to it.

The key to all this, ultimately, is for us to be able to speed up the asylum decision-making system, so that individuals either have asylum claims accepted and are therefore integrated into society on the basis of their asylum claim being accepted, or those individuals who have had that asylum claim turned down are therefore then removed from the United Kingdom as a failed asylum seeker. That is the key to all this, ultimately. What the Government are trying to do, as I have tried to explain on previous amendments, is speed up that process very significantly. The question then remains: what do we do with those individuals in the system at the moment? The amendments seek, first, to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three—a proposal which does not find favour with all those who have spoken today—and to address issues on domestic workers and modern slavery that I will come to in a moment.

As noble Lords would expect me to say, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system, the speeding up of claims and supporting those with genuine protection needs. Our principal concern is that reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor. We can debate that; it is a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I share his concerns.

It would be a pull factor because after three months you would be able to get work in the United Kingdom. That would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. I ask noble Lords: what will happen when a decision is reached on someone who is in work for three months and then maybe finds that they are not eligible for an asylum claim? That is a real issue.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I was afraid that the pull factor would rear its ugly head. There is a pull factor and it comes from the black economy. The smugglers have friends in the black economy and are often in it themselves—they are the employers. The pull factor exists now, but if we permitted people to work legally and not in the black economy, the pull factor would be reduced.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me turn to that in a moment. I have spent my entire life making sure that people have protections at work and are not exploited, and that unscrupulous employers are weeded out, tackled and dealt with according to law. That is why, in the previous Labour Government, we introduced justice measures on things such as the minimum wage, and have spent hours, with Members from the Opposition Benches opposing us, trying to put an Employment Rights Bill through this House. That is why we have fought long and hard; I refer to arguing against the changes the then Government made on overseas domestic workers in private properties, where they did not have the rights that were later restored to them in this House. I accept fully that there will be exploitative, unscrupulous businesses that try to employ people who are in the difficult situation of being here while their asylum claims are processed, and that is why we need to speed up asylum claims.

However, I am afraid that a legal requirement to work would still be a pull factor; we need to deal with unscrupulous employers, and we will do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. Ultimately, any policy change must carefully balance allowing asylum seekers to work and protecting fair job opportunities for British citizens and lawful residents. I therefore cannot support the amendment.

On Amendment 43, individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract. Support is tailored to each victim, according to their individual circumstances. Those with permission to work are helped to access employment and, through the modern slavery victim care contract, there is support for recovery and integration. Victims without immigration status who receive positive conclusive decisions may be granted temporary permission to stay, and that includes the right to work. There is no time limit on how long a victim can remain in support after receiving a positive conclusive grounds decision.

Therefore, there are several reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment; expanding access to employment at an early stage would, in my view, incentivise the misuse of the national referral mechanism. The current framework maintains a clear distinction between protection and economic migration routes, and this is essential to uphold the integrity of our immigration system.

Again, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, well. On her Amendment 44, moved ably by the noble Lord, Lord German, the Government remain concerned about links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. As the noble Baroness will know, the immigration White Paper has already set out our intention to reconsider how this route operates.

My noble friend Lady Lister suggested that she would welcome the amendment. I understand why, but I believe that it tries to combine visas for two different groups of workers, and it would not be appropriate to do so. There are those on the overseas domestic worker route, who are accompanying private households visiting the UK for a short period, and there are domestic workers in diplomatic households, who are served by the temporary work international agreement visa and are required to stay longer to support them.

The conditions of each route reflect important differences. For overseas domestic workers, it is not the purpose of the route to establish them in the labour market full time. The visa grants permission for up to six months and cannot be extended, as this aligns with that of the overseas domestic workers’ employer, who, as a visitor, cannot intend to stay in the UK for longer than six months. They can also now change their employer during their stay. I argued for that when I was a Member of Parliament in opposition; we pressed for that and the Government listened. They should be able to change their employer because they are not slaves tied to an individual.

My noble friend Lady O’Grady made some very valid points, which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I know that my noble friend is fully aware of this, both from her professional background and from her championing of these issues in this House, but I remind her that the fair work agency, which we are currently establishing, will strengthen the ability to identify and respond to labour exploitation —and rightly so; I celebrate the fact that it will do that. We will be able to share intelligence more effectively between enforcement partners, making it easy to spot patterns of abuse, in order to pursue the kinds of unscrupulous employers that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, it will provide protection for vulnerable workers, including those—this goes to the point my noble friend made—employed in private households. That was previously beyond its remit. This Labour Government will make those changes in the Bill, to provide people working in private households with those rights at work. I cannot accept the amendment in its current form, but I hope that my noble friend will know that we are not shying away from this, because people have a right not to be exploited at work.

In summary, Amendment 44 would significantly alter the purpose of the route—a route that we have already committed to reviewing. We welcome any views that the noble Lord, Lord German, wants to put through that review. We will also hear from some expert stake- holders, who are currently looking at how we can improve the route. The immigration White Paper is looking at that and, on behalf of the department, I will bring forward changes in that area in due course.

My noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke to Amendment 45, which seeks to produce annual reports on the restrictions placed on asylum seekers seeking to engage in employment. That is a noble and valuable point to make, but the Home Office already engages in policy reviews and stakeholder consultations, and Ministers are accountable to both Houses. Ministers directly responsible for this issue, such as my honourable friend Alex Norris, the Immigration Minister in the Home Office, meet regularly and review those matters. I hope that that information will be examined without the legal necessity of putting a provision in the Bill.

I remind noble Lords that the Government will shortly announce reforms to modernise the asylum system later this year in our asylum policy statement. I touched on that in the Statement I gave to this House on 2 September. Reforms are under way and forthcoming, and we will bring that forward in relatively short order. I always use that phrase and people ask me what it means; in this case, I expect it to be done, dare I say it, before Christmas. I hope that gives noble Lords some reassurance. The Government remain committed to reviewing and improving the asylum system, including the permission to work policy, but that must be done with greater detail and evidence-based reform, not through statutory reporting obligations.

I recognise that I will not have satisfied noble Lords who feel very passionately and strongly about this issue; however, I say from the Dispatch Box that I am not in the business of supporting poor employers who exploit people or provide work opportunities that undercut British workers, who deserve our full support. That is why we, the Labour Government, have supported, through the whole of our existence, improvements to rights at work. However, I feel that this amendment would be, in the framing of today’s discussion, a pull factor; it would add additional burdens to the issues we are looking at. We will bring proposals back to this House in due course. I urge noble Lords not to press the amendment and to give the Government an opportunity to look at these issues in a new way over the next few weeks and months.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I just cannot understand why the Government are resisting placing the controls of work in the hands of the Government instead of in the hands of the black economy. It just does not seem the correct way to do things. There is so much support for letting people work in our communities and in the public sector that I think I must test the opinion of the House on Amendment 42.

--- Later in debate ---

Fundamentally, this package of amendments is a retreat from fairness, legal certainty and our commitment to justice. They risk creating a system that results in serious and potentially irremediable injustice and harm. We cannot willingly sacrifice the fundamental principle of judicial independence and the essential scrutiny provided by our tribunals simply to achieve a politically attractive yet practically unworkable position of vesting absolute power in the hands of the Government. We oppose those amendments, and we look forward to the interesting discussion on what is happening with the British Government and the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This discussion reflects some of the discussions we had in Committee and, as a sort of aperitif for the House, I am likely to say pretty much what I said in Committee. I hope Members will bear with me, because the Government take these matters seriously and welcome the scrutiny and discussion that we have had today.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their Amendments 46, 47, 68, 82 and 86, which seek to abolish the immigration and asylum chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals, create a review board in the Home Office and limit the ability of an individual to challenge, by way of a judicial review, a decision of the Secretary of State as proposed by an asylum and immigration review board. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, was correct in saying that I would not accept those amendments. I hope I have not surprised him by saying that I will not accept them.

Amendments 47A and 68A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would further restrict the ability to challenge in the cases of those with modern slavery experience. I regret to tell the noble Baroness that I will not accept those amendments either.

That does not mean we are denying that there is a real challenge in the asylum system. I could say that we have inherited a mess, and I think we have. It is not satisfactory for published statistics to show appeals taking over a year to be determined on average. That is why the Government are working hard to end these exceptional delays.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

The Minister says that he inherited a mess, but I have scars from trying to promote the idea of the Rwanda Bill, which might have provided an answer. We were excoriated as being mad, bad and dangerous to know. We were told then that Labour had the answers. Where are the answers now, only 18 months later?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I mention to the noble Lord the deal with France, the deal with Iraq, the scheme we are taking upstream with the Germans to tackle various issues, the work of the Calais Group, the work of the Border Security Command being executed by this Bill, the important measures in this Bill to tackle illegal migration, the measures we are taking to speed up asylum claims and get them through quickly, the two new barracks that we announced last week would be opened to speed up asylum claims and get a deterrent in place, and the work on illegal working in migration. We have done a whole range of things. Although I never cross my fingers on these matters, the last couple of weeks have seen no small boat crossings whatever. It is a difficult challenge, but let us look at how we deal with these issues.

We know that more must be done to address the backlog in the immigration and asylum appeals system. Clauses 46 and 47 set a statutory timeframe on First-tier Tribunal decisions. We have put in place additional funding to increase sitting days in 2025-26 to speed up the processing of asylum claims. I know that more needs to be done, which is why we are introducing a new appeals body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals, fully independent of government. We are committed to setting out further details of our plans very shortly.

Although the Government share the frustrations about the inefficiencies and delays in the immigration and asylum system, there is still a need to ensure due process, which is a fundamental part of our legal system. That touches on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, because we have to have due process as part of our legal system. The amendments would remove any judicial oversight of Home Office decisions and prevent an independent review of a decision other than by a Home Office board—effectively putting the department in charge of marking its own work. That is not a good place to be; judicial oversight is an important matter. There would inevitably be legal challenges against the Government based on that lack of independence. It would also be contrary to important UK legal principles, notably the rule of law, the protection of rights and access to justice, as well as more proposals on the most vulnerable, including in modern slavery cases—the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, mentioned this.

Without alternative ways of independent and impartial redress, these amendments would cause serious issues with the withdrawal agreement, which—like it or lump it—is in place. It is a legal agreement with the Government of the day. This also impacts upon the Windsor Framework and the relationship with Northern Ireland. All this points me to saying that I cannot accept those amendments.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I might be wrong, and I hesitate to say this in the presence of so many eminent lawyers, but my understanding is that there is a precedent for this suggestion, in that coronial verdicts are not traditionally appealable unless there has been irrationality or the coroner has erred in law. It is not the case that every single decision made in the criminal justice system, or the justice system generally, is necessarily traditionally appealable.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I defer to those who have expertise in coronial decisions—that is an MoJ matter—but in this case, this is what we have, and I am not prepared to give it up. We can disagree on that, and there are Division Lobbies on either side if we need to sort this out, but I do not expect to support those amendments, on the basis of the arguments that I have put forward today.

Amendment 79A from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, would require the Home Secretary to disregard the Human Rights Act. I am not going to support that either. It would further limit when the UK could comply with interim measures and how they should be treated in domestic courts. The UK is fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as the Prime Minister has made clear—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he will have seen, the amendment would not require the Home Secretary to ignore human rights; it would require courts not to consider the Human Rights Act when considering applications in relation to immigration legislation, which would greatly help his department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s comments clarify, from his perspective, what he seeks to achieve. I have to clarify again from my perspective that I still cannot support the amendment. I am very sorry—we are not going to get an agreement on these matters.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am just wondering whether it would be worth the Government looking at what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the margin of appreciation in looking at an international document. In particular, it may be that the courts are applying Article 8 too narrowly, and it might be worth the Government reconsidering how Article 8 should be applied. That would not be getting rid of the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, but it would look at how Article 8 is being applied.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely valid point, and I shall come on to that issue in a moment. The commitment to the ECHR does not mean complacency on the Government’s part. To retain public confidence in our policies on irregular migration, asylum and criminal justice, the ECHR and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. I must say to the noble and learned Baroness and the House as a whole that the UK is safer and stronger when we work with our international partners—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord German. That is why we need to co-operate with Europe, in answer to the noble and learned Baroness, to look at a whole-of-route approach to tackling these challenges. Membership of the ECHR is essential to our ability to work with our European partners, including on the trade and co-operation agreement, the sharing of intelligence and evidence, and practical agreements to stop people-smuggling.

The Government have set out their plans to reform the immigration system in the immigration White Paper. We will reform the framework for family migration, including strengthening the public interest test to take back control. To answer the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Faulks, as well as the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in the immigration system, and we are also reviewing the application of Article 3 in immigration and extradition cases.

I accept that I may be pressed on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pressed me on it in September in Committee. I have repeated what I said in November, now, on Report, but I hope the noble Lord will recognise that I have given a commitment that we will look at those issues and bring back things that this House can investigate, test, challenge and question to try to achieve the objective of giving greater flexibility on Articles 3 and 8, in line with what the Prime Minister has said and what the noble Lord, Lord German, has suggested, as well as what the noble and learned Baroness has just intervened on me to suggest. I ask the noble Lord for patience, after saying that it will be brought forward. I have given commitments to this House on two occasions, but I cannot do it in the way he wants it to be laid before the House today—but the commitments are there to achieve that.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I do not want the noble Lord to have to repeat himself, but he said earlier that there was going to be a statement in relation to the Government’s approach to asylum, but then he said to me that there was going to be legislation. Now, I understand that he has not yet got clear riding instructions. Is there to be a statement of intent or is there to be legislation? Which is it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me phrase it this way: the Government will always bring before the House, in the form of a Statement, matters on which we intend to provide policy changes. When we are in a position to make further policy announcements in this area, there will undoubtedly be a Statement in the House of Commons and in this House that Members can question and examine in detail. That Statement may include signalling for legislation; the two things are not incompatible. I know I said this in September and I have said it again today, but that is the direction of travel, and when we are in a position to make clear the policy direction the Government wish to take for public scrutiny, we will make that Statement and bring forward proposals accordingly. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.

I cannot agree to the amendments, and I hope that Members will not press them. I hope too that, if nothing else, the case I have made today on Report is as clear as I can make it in the circumstances.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate. I rather suspected that the Liberal Democrats and the Government would decline to support these amendments. I am aware of some of the concerns noble Lords have. I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, had to say, but the public want us to end illegal migration via small boat crossings. They want us to deport illegal entrants. Ending the legal logjam of endless appeals is crucial to giving the Government the ability to get a grip on this border crisis. If the Government are too weak to act, then I submit that we will have to try to force them to. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is not that there are no means to enter the country, nor that families are being involuntarily separated at the French border; it is that we continue to allow unfettered and illegal entrance to the country and offer the amenities that make separating from one’s family a worthwhile choice for some. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for whom I have enormous regard, I submit that the amendment perhaps does nothing to solve these issues.

I understand that, in attempting to provide a legal route for asylum-seeking children to reunite with their families, the noble Lord’s intentions are well-meaning and indeed magnanimous. In practice, however, I suggest that his amendment might well cause even more issues with the asylum system and that more families would be split up. Those considering crossing the channel and illegally entering our country would be even more emboldened to do so if they were given the impression that having to part ways with their children would be a temporary measure. There is a great risk that more parents would board small boats, making the dangerous and sometimes fatal channel crossing. Their children, left behind with the promise of a future reunion, would be left exposed to the dangerous gangs that control the people-trafficking operations into this country.

To solve the issue of separated families, we must focus on what we can control. It is not in our power to force the migrants in France to remain with their families, but we can show them that the journey over here is not worth the risk, by taking away the luxuries offered on arrival, denying asylum claims after illegal entering and making it clear that, should you choose to leave your family, it is not the British state’s responsibility to reunite. These are clear and effective ways to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, this amendment incentivises the first set of prospects. It would fundamentally worsen the asylum crisis and, as such, I submit, it is not well judged.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubsfor tabling the amendment and for bringing to it not just his passion on this issue but his personal experience. I cannot imagine how my noble friend faced these issues as a child himself and I fully understand, and hope have empathy with, the driving motivation that he has brought to the House today.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Wigley and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, |Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Berkeley, all spoke in support. However, I find myself, along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, being a voice that will have to test my noble friend’s aspirations in this amendment and try to offer him a way through that understands the issues he has raised, at the same time as putting down the policy that the Government seek to have this House endorse in relation to the Bill.

The amendment, in effect, seeks to significantly expand the qualifying relationship eligibility for family reunion and make redundant the appendix child-relative policy by removing all current financial requirements on accommodation, maintenance, the immigration health surcharge and application fees, as well as the current exceptionality test of that route. My noble friend’s amendment would seek to ensure that the asylum-seeking children include children

“under the age of 18 … the child, sibling, half-sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild, or stepchild of the person granted protection status”.

I make it clear to the whole House that the Government firmly uphold the principle of family unity, especially for vulnerable children. Self-evidently, we have to recognise that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and because of the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum are often forced to flee their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I gather that it is proposed to have a meeting. Would it be possible for other Peers to join?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I offered the meeting to my noble friend Lord Dubs but I am very happy— I am committing my honourable friend Alex Norris to a meeting—for, let us say, a representative group of Peers to join my noble friend, should he wish them to. Let us make an offer: we have space for a Member from the Liberal Democrat Bench, from the Cross Benches, from the Bishops’ Bench, should they wish to do so, and from His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as well as my noble friend Lord Dubs. I think that it is a fair approach, on a difficult issue, for him to take the case to the Home Office and bring with him a representative group of NGOs. Maybe it could be a separate meeting, if Peers want to meet the Minister personally. I will try to be present, given my commitments to taking the Crime and Policing Bill, as well as this Bill, through this House.

I do not want to find myself in the opposite Lobby to my noble friend Lord Dubs but, if he pushes the amendment, I am afraid that I will have to. I hope he can accept the offer and look at exploring further with Ministers the appropriate points which he has rightly put in a passionate contribution today, supported by Members across this House.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has gone out of his way. He will always be my friend, even if we are in different Division Lobbies tonight. I appreciate that he has done his best to meet me, and I have had discussions with him up until now.

I have listened to the debate, and I have talked to many people outside. We are faced with a position where, for example, we may have a 14 year-old in Calais, sleeping under the trees, who has an uncle or another family member over here and who wants to join them. The answer, unless we pass this amendment, is that he or she will not be able to do so. That would surely encourage that 14 year-old to use the traffickers, which is the last thing we want; I would rather see a legal and safe route for that child to come here. I do not want it to be so exceptional that it would hardly ever happen.

I say this with a heavy heart: I do not want to be in a different Lobby. I have never done this before—I am not a rebel anyway. With a heavy heart, I honestly feel—for the reasons to which over the years I have committed, the Labour Party in the past has committed, the whole House and the Commons have committed—that morality suggests this is the right course of action. I regret having to say this, but I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Elon Musk

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the comments made by Elon Musk during his speech to a demonstration in London on Saturday 13 September.

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

Freedom of speech is a vital democratic right, but it is not without its limits. Elon Musk’s remarks, particularly those which appeared to suggest that the public resort to violence, were wholly inappropriate. We will always defend free expression but never tolerate language that incites disorder.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, while I fully support my noble friend’s comments about freedom of expression, sometimes people go a bit too far. Is it not a fact that Elon Musk has posted that civil war is inevitable in this country and that the USA should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical Government?

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I wondered how that would go down. What action can we take about the use of social media that abuses freedom of expression? Perhaps we should declare Elon Musk persona non grata if he ever wanted to come to this country.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend; personally, I just ignore Elon Musk. We had an election, and we had 400-plus Labour Members of Parliament elected. I stand here because the people of Great Britain have chosen a Labour Government. We have a duty to deliver what we can. The people of Great Britain, and not some billionaire foreigner, will choose the next Government in perhaps three and a half or four years’ time, so I suggest that he buys a book on the British constitution out of his money, reads it, understands how we work and minds his own business.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I declare that I am CEO of Muslim Women’s Network, which has just set up the Muslim Safety Net helpline. What are the Government doing to protect the safety of Muslim women, who are very vulnerable to hate crime? So far, they have announced protection for mosques, which is welcome, but what about the safety of Muslim women? Why do the Government not care about the safety of Muslim women?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Government care about the safety of all women, and that is why we are putting in place a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls over the next 10 years. That strategy will be produced very shortly. I know that the noble Baroness has made representations to me and others about what it should contain. It is important that we defend people’s right to live their life in peace without interference, and I include interference in this case from Elon Musk, who has no mandate in this country and no interest in this country’s future, and who should, quite frankly, stay in the States and count his cash.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am no lawyer, but I am told that calling the left “the party of murder” and saying, “Violence is coming” and

“You either fight back or you die”

is not enough to prosecute this odious man, but we do not have to do business with him, do we? Ed Davey says that we should rule out any further contracts with Tesla and stop Musk being granted a licence to supply energy to British homes. Will the Government at least agree with me and not make him even richer at the expense of the people whom he is maligning?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government can look at any time at contract issues, but I would not wish to equate Mr Musk and his comments, which I also find reprehensible, with doing business—that is an important point to make. We have relations with the American Government and American business, but I think he overstepped the mark and this House probably thinks he overstepped the mark. Perhaps he should reflect and look at what we are, which is, in this Parliament, an active democracy representing the people, challenging each other on fair and open decisions, criticising when necessary, but not inciting the mob to violence.

[Lord Ranger (Con)]

My Lords, in the run-up to 13 September, numerous messages were sent around on WhatsApp groups to people in the Asian community warning them not to go into London on the day of the march. I felt desperately sad seeing those messages. It reminded me of days in the 1980s when communities would not go out at night, and I would not be allowed out in the evenings, because we were worried. That all came back on that day. I admire the businesses of Elon Musk but not what he did on that day, aligning himself to the far-right racist platform of an individual he was sharing the platform with. Will the Government look at what can be done on an individual basis to say to Elon Musk that this was not the right thing to do, not just in itself but in the damage done to the community cohesion of this country—which is not the Britain that we are?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. The Britain I know is tolerant, understands different religions and different cultures, respects and celebrates those different cultures, and supports a multicultural society. There were people on that demonstration who do not share that value or that objective. That is not about people wanting to raise flags or express their patriotism. True patriotism is about celebrating this United Kingdom. Elon Musk’s remarks were wrong. The people who stepped over the line in that demonstration and injured police officers were wrong. The incitement to that, which I think Mr Musk was on the border of doing, is absolutely wrong. However, ultimately, it is for the police independently to make a judgment on any action taken against him in the event that he visits this country.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, would not a period of silence from Mr Musk be most welcome, particularly when he seeks to give an opinion on our domestic affairs? Why give him the dignity of a response?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I would certainly welcome much silence from Mr Musk, but, again, I would defend his right to have his opinion; I just do not agree with it. It is not for somebody in his position to ally himself with individuals who are trying to destroy much of the fabric of British society by their comments, nor is it appropriate for him to express his views via some new-fangled machinery down the line to the United Kingdom. We are a democracy; we know what we are doing. Members opposite disagree with us, but all people in this society have a chance to judge the Government, and they voted for the Government less than 15 or 16 months ago.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Could the Minister arrange for a copy of this part of Hansard to be sent to Elon Musk?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I fear that I will be a star of Twitter, or X, before the evening is finished; I will probably be retweeted to thousands of people who will take a different view from me. I stand here not because I am me but because I am a representative of an elected Government who have won a clear majority and who ultimately will have to defend their record to the same people who elected them.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, for the last month or so, members of the Sikh community in the West Midlands have been experiencing deeply distressing incidents. Two Sikh girls were reportedly victims of racially motivated sexual assault, and two Sikh taxi drivers were violently attacked at Wolverhampton railway station. Understandably, many Sikh women are now fearful of going about their daily lives, and the community as a whole is living in fear. What assurance can the Minister give to the Sikh community in the West Midlands that their safety and security are a priority for this Government? Can he outline what specific steps are being taken to protect them and bring the perpetrators of these hate crimes to justice?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As with the noble Baroness’s question on Muslim women earlier, it is absolutely important that people are not attacked for a characteristic that they cannot change. Part of the problem with the approach of Mr Musk is that he plays to people who wish to generate activity against special-characteristic individuals—who have a view politically or who have characteristics such as being Muslim or being from the Sikh community. My noble friend will know that the Policing Minister is meeting Sikh MPs this afternoon to learn about the challenges they are facing and to provide reassurance and will, no doubt, report back to my noble friend as well.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, we have just had 10 minutes of people on the Government Benches saying why they disagree with Elon Musk. Do not basic fairness and reciprocity imply that he has an equivalent right to say what he thinks about this Government, including that free speech is in retreat in this country, which is a view shared by a great many people in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me find the actual comment, if I may. Does the noble Lord then agree with the following comment from Elon Musk, which he portrayed down the television line to the rally?

“You’re in a fundamental situation here. Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die”.


That might be free speech, but I regard it as borderline incitement to violence. I do not think it is the part of Elon Musk or anybody else to incite violence in America or, indeed, in the United Kingdom. I will defend having that free speech, but I hope that the noble Lord recognises that free speech brings responsibilities and Elon Musk did not have that responsibility on that day.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse everything that has just been said by the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrats—

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

I am grateful to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and to the Liberal Democrat Benches for their contributions this evening. I give a broad welcome to their comments on the work of the emergency services, the British Transport Police, the Cambridgeshire Constabulary, the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service and the East of England Ambulance Service. I would add to that the officials in the gold team in the Home Office and in the Department of Transport who also liaised on these matters.

I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Hendy is present in the Chamber, as some aspects of the responsibility fall within the Department for Transport, and he wished to be here this evening to hear contributions and comments.

It is also extremely important that we place on record the heroism that I have seen reported from passengers as well as the train driver, Andrew Johnson, and the member of LNER staff, Samir Zitouni, who is in hospital tonight. All our wishes are for his speedy recovery.

A number of points have been raised, and I want to try to deal with them as best I can. First, it is right that there have been—I use the word—allegations of issues prior to the incident on the train at Huntingdon that occurred within other areas of the United Kingdom, notably in Cambridgeshire. It is important to say that the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable of Cambridgeshire have initiated a review of those incidents. It is best to not comment on that until we hear what the facts are.

It is also important to note that British Transport Police has now taken overall responsibility for examining all incidents that took place, even those not strictly on transport policing areas. Again, I cannot comment too much in detail because there are outstanding potential charges to be made and investigations to be undertaken, but I am very clear—and I will give this assurance to both Front Benches—that when both British Transport Police and Cambridgeshire police produce reports, they will be subject to scrutiny in this House as a matter of course.

The noble Lord mentioned the question of knife crime, which is important. This is not a political point, but I hope it is reassuring in one way: in the year to June 2025, British Transport Police has reported a decline of 33% in knife and sharp instrument offences in its area of responsibility, which is positive. More widely, knife crime is falling: knife homicides are down by 18%; all knife crime is down 5%; knife assaults have dropped by 6%; and hospital admissions for under 25s have fallen by 10%.

It is worth putting on the record that there are further measures that we can take. The noble Lord will know that, in the Crime and Policing Bill before us now in this House, there are strong measures on a range of issues on knife crime, including sales, age verification and further measures on possession of knives. Those measures will come before the House, and we will have a debate on those issues. It is right that the Opposition table amendments and test government policy, but I hope there will be a consensus in part on some of those key issues. There is also the Sentencing Bill that will come before the House in about a week’s time. Again, there will be a discussion on sentencing issues then. But that is best left for another day, because today is about the immediate response.

My noble friend Lord Hendy has drawn to my attention the actions of the driver, Andrew Johnson, who took a decision when the first incident was reported to him without any visuals on that incident. He phoned and got in touch with the signallers and got into Huntingdon station. British Transport Police was notified, and an arrest was made by British Transport Police within eight minutes of the first violence occurring. It is remarkable, particularly given the strategic challenge of getting a fast-moving train off a main line into a non-mainline station; that takes great skill, and the staff involved deserve great praise.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned British Transport Police. I can tell her that British Transport Police had a 6% rise in funding in this recent financial year. I have the exact figures here somewhere. Obviously, that is a matter for discussion, and we will make assessments on that, but it is important to recognise that I do not think funding is an issue now—obviously, more funding is always available. I have found the figures: the British Transport Police funds were up 6% and were £415 million in the last financial year.

There have been allegations of mental health issues related to this, potentially—we will examine that in due course. Mental health funding is up £688 million this year as well. There are issues to be developed and looked at.

We will examine all the points that the noble Baroness raised. We are open to scrutiny from the House on that. However, we should recognise today that this was a very serious incident. There was immense bravery and skill on the part of individuals and a very good response by the police. There is now a criminal justice procedure to follow, and there will be an investigation into allegations that have occurred elsewhere. Ultimately, I wish those injured a speedy recovery. Whatever the criminal justice outcome of this case, we will examine any lessons to be learned both by my noble friend at the Department for Transport and by those of us at the Home Office.

It is also worth placing on record that this was initially assessed as a potential terrorist incident. That assessment lifted very quickly. We are looking at specific circumstances that are not political, or terrorist related or motivated. We can reflect on that and be thankful that, as of now, no lives have been lost.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I first apologise to my noble friend the Minister for jumping the gun earlier. I have been here long enough to know better, and I will see that it does not happen in future.

I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, representing the Liberal Democrats: we owe a great debt of gratitude to the railway staff concerned in this incident. I will come to the driver and the member of train crew in a moment, but my noble friend the Minister should acknowledge the prompt action of the signallers. As a former railway signalman, I know that it is a grade that is often overlooked. The fact that, once he was informed of the circumstances, this train was moved from the fast line on which it was booked to the slow line platform, ought to be commended.

My noble friend rightly paid tribute to driver Johnson. I point out to him that driver Johnson acted initially after being informed of the circumstances on the train by a member of the train crew. I also pay tribute to the gallantry of Mr Samir Zitouni, the member of train crew who acted in the highest traditions of the railway industry by placing himself in a position of considerable danger between the assailant and the passengers for whom he felt justly responsible. All too often, we forget the daily efforts of our railway staff to keep trains moving and to keep passengers safe. The fact that it is still, despite incidents like this, the safest form of transport in this country, is enormously commendable, so far as our railway workers are concerned.

I say to my noble friend the Minister, however, that if the assailant in this case had boarded a train from Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport, for example, he would have boarded a 12-coach train full of passengers with no staff on there at all, other than a driver locked in the cab. I say with respect to my noble friend—and I am glad that my noble friend the Minister of State at the Department for Transport is present—that there is still considerable concern, not just among railway staff but among passengers themselves, about the continuous destaffing of the railway industry. A combination of driver-only operation and unstaffed stations is not one that makes passengers—particularly women passengers, and particularly at night—feel any safer. I hope that, once Great British Railways is formed, the question of further destaffing is looked at by Ministers and that we take steps to ensure that passengers and the railway industry are properly protected.

Finally, I am always delighted to hear praise from the party opposite for railway staff. I hope they will feel just as well disposed towards them the next time they want to fight to protect their jobs, or, even worse, ask for a pay rise.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I know that he spent time in a Stockport signal box in a previous life, and he is right to pay tribute to the signallers who helped with the safety measures that undoubtedly saved lives. Whatever the incident on the train, arriving at the station with police and ambulance services there saved lives. That speedy response was made by the driver, who made instant judgments and took steps that involved risks, which is something that the House should commend. I hear what my noble friend said on staffing. The Transport Minister, my noble friend Lord Hendy, is here, and this is an area for which he has responsibility, so I am sure he will reflect on that.

It is worth pointing out something that I have learned only in the last hour: Samir Zitouni, the LNER staff member who put his own life at risk to save the lives of others by standing in the way of the alleged assailant, is a customer service host. He is the person who would normally be serving tea or refreshments, but he stepped up to the plate and put his own life at risk by taking strong steps. We should recognise his act of tremendous bravery, and I wish him well for the future.

My noble friend made a number of points around the need for good, well-paid staff. I use the train every week. During one bored day, I worked out that, over 28 years, I have probably spent a year of my life on the train transporting myself back and forth to this House and the House of Commons. This Monday, I looked at the train guards and the train staff in a very different way from how I looked at them last Monday. I pay tribute to them for the service that they give.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, according to the Statement, the Government are committed to halving knife crime within a decade. However, recent research shows that last year there were 1,300 offences in schools. Does the Minister agree that a watertight, zero-tolerance policy should be taken in schools, so that if you bring a knife into school you will be expelled—end of story? Surely that would ensure a positive knock-on effect into adult life and help to reduce knife crime.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that contribution. It is slightly off the topic we are talking about today, but it is important that we focus on the issue of halving knife crime. The measures we have brought forward to date concern education, policing, new legislation on knife sales and tackling the culture of young people in particular carrying knives for defence. The noble Earl raises points that, with respect, are not directly for me, but I will make sure that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is apprised of his view. The point we can agree on is that, in the Crime and Policing Bill that will come before this House for Committee shortly, there are a number of measures that we believe will assist in continuing to reduce the level of knife crime. I will certainly reflect with my colleagues on the points that the noble Earl has made.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, these Benches pay tribute to the train crew and others who responded so heroically. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all those who have been impacted. The traumatic effects of being involved in an incident like that, in an enclosed space, do not just go away after a short period of time. I declare my unpaid role as co-chair of the national police ethics committee. I am grateful that information about the perpetrator was got out early, and not just the fact that it was not terrorism. Since Southport last year, we have known that releasing other information is vital to calming some of the public’s fears. That is something that my ethics committee has been discussing at length in recent times.

Like many noble Lords—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who may want to intervene shortly—I travel a lot on trains that do not stop for quite a long distance and which have many carriages. I could have made some of the points that have already been made about this. It is about having enough first responders, who are equipped to respond effectively, on those trains throughout the journey.

My trains have CCTV in every carriage—it usually works. That helps. I think facial recognition technology has been referred to. That needs to be managed very carefully. Many of the models that I have seen still have an in-built ethnic bias, inherited from the fact that the original training of their algorithms is often based on the faces of white men such as me. These models sometimes struggle to distinguish people from other groups within society, leading to too many false positives and causing people who are entirely innocent to have their lives interrupted by being stopped and accused of an offence. If we are to increase stop and search, there is no problem with that as long as we ensure that the officers involved are trained in unconscious bias so that they are not carrying it out in a way that is unfair.

Finally, does the Minister agree that deterrence for knife crime and other crime is driven much more by fear of detection and arrest than by the theoretical length of a maximum sentence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. A number of us in this House spend lots of time on trains. He makes a very interesting point about the distance between stops. On the train I get every week, the last stop before London is normally Stafford, and there is a lot of time between those stops, a lot of carriages and a lot of individuals. I had a very brief conversation with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who said that the most important thing that he expects on a train is the ability to have contact with the driver, so that the driver can take immediate action, such as was taken in this instance by diverting the train to a non-mainline station, Huntingdon, where police and resources were made available. I know that my noble friend has heard what the right reverend Prelate has said on staffing issues and will reflect on that as part of his normal day-to-day duties.

The question of stop and search is an interesting one. I have some statistics, which I hope will help the noble Lord who raised this issue—I may not have given him as full an answer as I perhaps should have at the time. In the last year, 16,066 stop and searches led to an offensive weapon or firearm being found on the individual, but, interestingly, that was only 3% of all stop and searches. It is an interesting statistic. We can make of that what we will in slower time, but only 3% of stop and searches found a weapon on the individual who was stopped and searched.

The question of facial recognition is important. As a Government, we have invested in live facial recognition. We have 10 new vans in static location pilots. We have undertaken piloting of this, and it saves a lot of police time. We need to ensure that we trial it so that the right reverend Prelate’s points on facial recognition and characteristics are taken into account. The main thing it will do is this: in the case of convicted offenders who are known to the system, it will potentially help draw down the ability to identify them more quickly in a large crowd than would be the case otherwise. We are undertaking a public consultation on a new bespoke legal framework for law enforcement on the use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, and that will be launched very soon. There is an opportunity for the right reverend Prelate and others to raise those issues of interest and concern so that they can form part of our final judgment on the benefits versus some of the challenges.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said about the courage and skill of the staff and the efficiency of response in the emergency services and the police. I also take the point about the signallers. It would be fascinating and would make a good drama—sorry, it is in a tragic context, but the way in which the driver had to communicate with the signallers, and goodness knows who else, is above my pay grade and was all extremely impressive.

I want to ask about the last point on CCTV and facial recognition. I absolutely hear what my noble friend Lady Pidgeon said about how we cannot jump to conclusions about what the police should have done, should be doing or whatever. I have been somewhat intrigued to see it reported that the British Transport Police had the CCTV of an incident on a DLR station and apparently identified the person involved on the police national computer, but that did not go anywhere before the Huntington train incident. I put down a marker that I would be interested to know about that in future as one of the lessons learned. I share all the reservations about privacy issues, CCTV and facial recognition, including the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the accuracy of facial recognition and the way it has been used. It would be interesting to know what lessons we can learn about identification and sharing that data across the country. I am not saying anything could have been prevented, but I would be interested to know what lessons can be learned about what happened between knowledge of the DLR incident and what happened in Huntington.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On what happened in Cambridgeshire and the DLR, that will be the subject of an internal inquiry by Cambridgeshire Constabulary. It will reflect on that, and I suspect it will produce a report that surfaces the issues. We use facial recognition in a number of ways. There is the opportunity, potentially, to look at a crowd and determine from a database of known individuals—or even, for example, missing people —whether they are in that crowd by identifying them. That is one way. Police can use operator-initiated facial recognition, which is an app that allows officers to take a picture of a person and compare it against any database we have of people who have been convicted of offences, and others. There are ways in which we can have live footage of people passing a camera, which we have been testing and monitoring.

British Transport Police, under my noble friend, will be piloting live facial recognition technology very shortly. That pilot will look for a short period—six months —to determine whether it is valuable and what lessons can be learned. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, it needs to be put into a legal context, and we will also look at that, potentially later this year. The issues about what happened, we need to examine. I do not know as yet what lessons are to be learned from the CCTV and how it was used, but that is what the investigation will lead to.

I want to go back to one point the right reverend Prelate mentioned, which is the early announcement of what happened and who, potentially, is the subject of the investigation. That is an important point, because we have learned from previous examples that putting information into the public domain—although not, in the first instance, the name of the individual, until any charge is made—takes away social media and other speculation that can lead to people having false information that leads them down alleyways that are not productive of public good and public order. I welcome the fact that in this instance, early information was given, and I would expect that in any situation. This individual was described in one way, others may be described in other ways; but the fact that further information was given about who the individual of interest is, is extremely important.

House adjourned at 9.23 pm.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we begin the second day on Report with the first of two groups on age assessments. As in Committee, they have produced a stimulating debate.

The two amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, approach the issue from a different standpoint from our later amendments. That is perhaps not surprising, but it will also come as no surprise that we take a different and opposing view from the underlying principles of both these amendments.

It cannot be right, as is proposed, for a person to be automatically assumed to be a child where their age cannot be proved by way of documentary evidence. We know that too many illegal migrants purposefully tear up or coincidentally lose their passports or identity documents, or, as has been said, lie about their age, so as to game the system once in the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Harper made several compelling arguments in respect of both these amendments. I have little to add, except to say that we have seen too many cases where individuals have claimed to be children, despite being grown adults. To these Benches, that represents a grave safeguarding failure. For all those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.

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

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her Amendment 57, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her Amendment 27, which has stimulated a discussion. I am grateful for the letter that I received today from my noble friend Lady Longfield, in which she asked me to support my noble friend Lady Lister’s Amendment 57. We have had a number of contributions, and I will try to refer to the issues that have been raised. I was grateful for the chance to have a meeting with the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Brinton, to discuss these amendments. I do not think my noble friend Lady Lister was present—I have had so many meetings that I lose track.

There is general consensus to date that age assessment is a difficult area of work and that no single combination of assessment techniques is able to determine chronological age with precision: Members from all sides of the House have raised that issue. The Government take it extremely seriously and the amendments are right to press the Government on the issues we have raised. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on the difficulty, sometimes, of age assessments, and this is self-evidently a difficult area for us to examine in detail.

I will mention the report from the independent borders inspectorate. It is important to say at the start of this discussion that the Government accepted all eight recommendations, several of which are in progress—the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Lady Lister, among others, referred to that. They include plans to proactively engage with local authorities—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I hope that, throughout this, Members of the House will recognise that the Government take this issue extremely seriously.

Amendment 57 seeks to incorporate an age assessment measure into the Bill. The proposed clauses would change the current age threshold for a “significantly over 18” policy from 18 to 21, with written reasons, and would put this on to a statutory footing. Initial decisions on age are an important first step to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct immigration process. Immigration officers currently treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age and two Home Office staff members independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over the age of 18. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court and held to be lawful.

The Government believe that “significantly over 18” is the right threshold, and that raising this even higher would present significant safeguarding risks by putting adults into settings with children. The principle of doubt remains a key element of the policy. Where there is doubt that an individual is not significantly over 18, they will be treated as a child pending further assessment by the local authority—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised this. This is extremely important because, obviously, if an individual is deemed to be over 18 and is not, that presents safeguarding risks—and vice versa: if an individual is deemed to be under 18 and is actually over 18, that equally presents safeguarding risks. So it is extremely important that we examine this individual point in some detail.

The important question of data has been raised, and I gave assurances in our meeting with the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that we are collecting data and that the Government expect to resume publishing age assessment data in early 2026. We have developments now representing a significant advancement in technical infrastructure, enabling the more accurate and consistent recording of key activities. Therefore, the up-to-date age assessment data is not currently published, but work is under way to develop improved recording and reporting on those issues. I hope that addresses the amendment seeking to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay annual reports on this data. We will have that data very shortly and I hope we can publish it.

There has been significant discussion—the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made reference to this—of the facial age estimation technology and its use in age assessment processes. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on this subject issued by my colleague the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in July 2025. Facial age estimation is indeed currently being explored by the Home Office as a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process.

To go back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, further testing and trialling has been commissioned, with the intention of developing this technology further in late 2026. The results of this testing and the necessary validation are required before any final decisions are made on how best to implement this technology. However, the exploratory work that we have undertaken has shown that the technology is continuously improving, as evidenced in the emerging scientific literature, including the recent report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which shows that the potential is there for this to be of assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I asked a specific question about how the Government propose to respond to the chief inspector’s recommendation about involving stakeholders. At the meeting that the Minister has forgotten I was at, I asked about a task and finish group that would involve particularly NGOs, because they bring such understanding to the issues. I said I would be very disappointed if my noble friend refused that, but I am even more disappointed that he has not even addressed it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I did address that. I said at the very beginning of my statement that the Government have accepted all eight recommendations from the inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I have met my noble friend, I think, three times in various meetings in the last couple of weeks; in that meeting I gave her an assurance, and I give her that assurance again, which I hope will satisfy her.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am really sorry to push this, but I was asking how that recommendation is going to be implemented. If the Minister is giving me an assurance that NGOs will be included in the discussions as to how all the recommendations of the chief inspectors should be implemented, I am very happy—but I am not sure that is exactly what he said.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me say it again and see whether I can help my noble friend: the Government have accepted all eight recommendations. That is clear. We have accepted all the recommendations from the borders inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders—voluntary agencies are key stakeholders, and I met them again last week to discuss this very matter—to progress the recommendations. How that pans out will be for my honourable friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Alex Norris, to take forward, but I give this House the assurance that that is the level of engagement that we are trying to have. On that basis, I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend and that she will not press her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw hers.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken during the debate on age assessment, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her amendment, which, as the Minister recognised, sets a wider framework for concerns about age assessment, whereas my amendment was highly specific about one area of concern. I say to the Minister and to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Cameron, that nobody is saying in either of these amendments that there should not be any age assessments. We are arguing for age assessments that are appropriate and safe for the particular circumstances that the two amendments address.

I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said that this is not an exact science. We understand that, and it is exactly where part of our concerns come from. I think that full assessment is the only way, particularly when young people who say they are children might end up being treated as adults in a criminal case. That is a very particular concern, which is why I tabled the amendment, because during cases those under 18 are afforded particular support that is not available if they are over 18. Therefore, age assessment is extremely important, which is why my amendment asks for a full age assessment, not the abbreviated age assessment that the Minister says is now taking place.

To summarise as best I can, without taking anything away from the intervention just now from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we hear the Minister saying that there have been changes and that he is watching development as time progresses. From this side of the argument, we say that we do not see enough evidence that these systems are safe. I hope that the Minister will continue to discuss this with us outside the passage of the Bill, because some of us have been arguing for this for three years or more. We still have concerns, which we are seeing in the current system right now, when a child has been treated as an adult and then found to be a child. That should not be happening. But on the basis that this is a progression and that I hope the Minister will meet us in the future, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by making plain our opposition to the amendments in this group. In Committee, we spent much time rehashing the arguments over the Illegal Migration Act 2023. We have made our position abundantly plain. It is obvious that there exists a gulf in opinion regarding that Act between many of us in this House. This is Report, so now is not the time for me to repeat those arguments. As noble Lords know, we strongly oppose the repeal of the bulk of the Illegal Migration Act, but I should say that it is at least some solace to us that the Government have deemed it right to retain Section 12. Since we support the Government’s intent to keep that section on the statute book, we oppose Amendments 28, 30 and 32, notwithstanding the elegant arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendments and how she presented them. She said that she was trying to be helpful and supportive on these matters, and I am grateful for that.

Amendment 28 seeks to add Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act to the list of sections of that Act being repealed under this Bill. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act establishes that it is for the Home Secretary, rather than the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period to detain an individual for a specific statutory purpose, such as for removal. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised a point that I would wish to set out: the Home Secretary is a Member of the House of Commons, and I answer for the Home Secretary in this House on matters to do with the Home Office. Therefore, we are accountable to Parliament for the decisions that are taken.

The important point that I want to put to the noble Baroness is that, even with Section 12 in force, the courts will continue to have significant oversight over detention. That goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, made today and my noble friend Lady Lister made in Committee. Individuals detained under immigration powers may apply at any time to the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber for immigration bail, where a judge will assess whether their continued detention is justified. If they consider that it is not, they will grant immigration bail. Therefore, the Home Secretary will have more discretion, but there will still be judicial oversight of immigration bail.

Additionally, as I said in Committee, individuals can challenge the legality of their detention through a judicial review in the High Court, where the court will consider whether the Secretary of State made a reasonable decision in detaining a person or in continuing their detention. If the court considers that the Secretary of State did not act reasonably, it will ensure that that person has access to an appropriate remedy, including ordering a release if appropriate. Again, there will be greater discretion for the Home Secretary, but there will also be strong judicial oversight and parliamentary oversight of this matter.

Section 12 simply makes it clear that the Secretary of State’s judgment of what is a “reasonable” period of detention should have more weight. That is logical, since the Home Office is in full possession of all the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in all the circumstances. That could include safeguarding the public, safeguarding an individual or the issues of cost that have been mentioned. Ultimately, the Home Secretary will determine what is reasonable based on the information before her. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, from the Opposition Front Bench, added his voice to those general concerns.

Section 12 also provides for detention to continue for a reasonable period while arrangements are made for a person’s release. That is particularly important when, for example, we need foreign national offenders to be accommodated in a specific location in accordance with their licence conditions, or to make safeguarding referrals for vulnerable people. Previous case law established the principle of a grace period to enable a person’s release, and Section 12 now provides legal clarity by placing that on a legislative footing.

Section 12 applies to all immigration detention powers. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 30, which is consequential to Amendment 28, seeks to ensure that the provisions that apply to Section 12 are repealed. Although I know that the noble Baroness is trying to be helpful on this matter, for the reasons I have just set out, it is right that Section 12 is retained for all immigration detention powers, to give the Secretary of State an additional discretion. None the less, that will be subject to parliamentary oversight and judicial oversight.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 32 seeks to remove the retrospective effect of Clause 41. As Members have discussed, Clause 41 clarifies the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good and consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, efforts to tackle modern slavery are indeed a noble and important cause—we all agree on that—but, as my noble friend Lord Harper said in Committee, there is a balance to be struck.

My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch has made many of the points I would have made, and I will not repeat those arguments, particularly on Report. Suffice to say, however, that protections which were initially intended to protect victims of modern slavery have now become loopholes that are being exploited by those with no right to be here, and whose claims are too often totally spurious. It does our country no good. It does not build public faith in the immigration and asylum systems when illegal migrants abuse modern slavery protections to circumvent their own legitimate deportation.

To that end, my noble friend Lady Maclean is right to highlight that the Government have a number of legislative tools at their disposal. It is unfortunate that they are seeking to repeal those powers, and even more unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats wish to remove those others that the Government intend to retain.

We take particular issue with Amendment 69. When it comes to tackling the border crisis, surely there cannot ever be enough information sharing. The noble Baroness’s amendment would prohibit public authorities mentioned in it sharing information regarding a suspected victim of modern slavery. We fear this may only encourage more people to make spurious claims in a last-ditch attempt to halt removal from the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for this series of amendments. Having served as the lead shadow spokesperson for the Labour Party in the other place on the Modern Slavery Bill in 2015, I can say that we continue to be steadfast in government in our commitment to tackling modern slavery in all its forms and to supporting survivors.

Amendment 29, from the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. I argue that Section 29 needs to be retained in its current form so that it can be considered for future commencement alongside potentially wider reforms as part of the Government’s commitment to work with partners on the long-term reform of the national referral mechanism. I will come back to that point when I discuss Amendment 69.

Amendments 29A and 31A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, seek to retain further modern slavery sections from the Illegal Migration Act and for those sections to be commenced on the day this Act is passed. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord German, has mentioned, the Government have been clear that we are repealing those sections because we have committed to ending the migration and economic partnership with Rwanda, which we did not feel served a useful purpose. The Government are going to retain only the measures in the Illegal Migration Act that are assessed to provide operational benefit in delivering long-term, credible policies to restore order to the immigration and asylum system. I am afraid that Amendments 29A and 31A, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord German, has mentioned, are not ones that we can accept today. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for her contribution and for raising those issues.

Amendment 69, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, seeks to prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, from His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench, made valid points on the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German.

On restricting information shared in respect of modern slavery identification, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides certain public bodies in England and Wales with the statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking. This information provides that notification enables the UK to fulfil its obligations to identify and support victims. The duty to notify is discharged for adults by making a referral into the national referral mechanism for consenting adults, or by completing an anonymous entry on digital systems where the adult does not consent. The information provided is used to build a better picture of modern slavery in England and Wales and to help improve law enforcement responses. It does not include—this is the key point—information that identifies the person, unless the person consents to the inclusion of that information. It should be noted that child victims do not need to consent to enter the national referral mechanism. As such, the national referral mechanism referral discharges the duty to notify.

This is another key point. If a person is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking, they are currently eligible for a recovery period during which they are protected from removal from the UK if they are a foreign national and are eligible for support, unless disqualified on grounds of public order or bad faith. Imposing restrictions on the information provided to identify and support victims of modern slavery would be to the detriment of our obligations to those vulnerable people and, I suggest, to our duty to protect UK borders and protect the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is an expert on the Modern Slavery Act, as are the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German. I am not. Can the Minister explain, as I still have not quite got it, why it is right that, if Section 29 survives from the Illegal Migration Act 2023, a known victim of modern slavery, if convicted of a crime, loses all the protections that he or she has had as a victim of modern slavery and is to be deported? The opposition argument against Amendment 29 seemed to be that it would create spurious claims of modern slavery. I follow that argument to a degree, but what about the person who has an established claim under modern slavery legislation and is entitled to asylum here but, if Section 29 survives, will be deported? Have I understood it correctly?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling me an expert on modern slavery matters. I dealt with the Bill 10 years ago, and a lot of swimming around the goldfish bowl has been undertaken since then. We should recognise the importance of that Act in establishing basic criteria, which the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, brought forward, and which I, as the then shadow Minister, supported and tried to stretch even further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, continues to remind me.

The key thing about the point made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is what I referred to in opening: a case-by-case basis. The Act, if commenced, would amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for deportation, but on a case-by-case basis for disqualification from the modern slavery protections on public order grounds. It is important that we do not have a blanket dismissal but do have the potential for the national referral mechanism, the Home Secretary and others to look at these matters on a case-by-case basis.

I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He shakes his head to say that it does not, but sometimes I cannot satisfy every Member of this House. I say to him simply that the case-by-case basis means that if someone wants to make the case that they should not be covered by this, the opportunity is there for them to do so. I therefore beg that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to the reporting restrictions, as in two of the amendments in this group, I say again that it is a matter of how those affected perceive the situation, because that affects their behaviour. With regard to Amendment 29, of course, the provision has still not been brought into force. I wish the Home Office had the courage of its convictions and got rid of it.

If we are being told, as I think we are, that the subject of modern slavery, protection for victims and so on may come before us in some new form, and is certainly being considered, that would be the point at which to bring in some of what is in Section 29 if that was thought to be appropriate—some but not all of it, perhaps. I can hope only that it remains not brought into force. I do not think that is a very good way to deal with legislation, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 29.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, in Committee we had a very detailed and well-informed discussion of this amendment in the existing framework of legal aid in the asylum and immigration system—with a House full of eminent lawyers, this was always bound to be the case. On our side, of course we welcome efficiency, and we have looked hard at this amendment, but we are not persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and other noble Lords that the proposals they advance will have the beneficial effect that they seek.

Amendment 33 would ensure that any person detained under a relevant detention power would have access to a raft of legal aid within 48 hours, but to move from the current situation, where a person is given a 30-minute window for free legal advice, to one where there is a 48-hour window in which legal aid can be given, would come with entirely unknown costs. The current system already diverts scarce resources away from those in genuine need: every pound spent on repeat litigation, in particular, is a pound not spent on border security, faster processing or refugee support. We are unable to support Amendment 33.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had, limited though it is, to speak to him outside the Chamber about the motivation for the amendment, which remains unchanged since Committee and would seek to impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours of them being detained. I note the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lady Lister for my noble friend Lord Bach. I cannot go as far, dare I say it, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in his denunciation of my noble friend’s amendment, because I feel it is a point well made, but I assure him and other noble Lords who have spoken that access for justice for those in immigration detention is a priority shared by the Government.

I agree with those who spoke in previous debates on this subject, and indeed today, that provision of legal aid for those seeking protection is important in maintaining an effective asylum system, reducing costs and reducing the asylum backlog. Indeed, it will help to end hotel use and increase returns, because speeding up the asylum process depends on good legal aid, but also depends on the measures that the Government are taking separately, putting extra investment into that area to speed up asylum claims. That is why, as I noted in the previous debate, we have legal aid available for asylum cases and immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse, modern slavery, separated migrant children and those challenging immigration decisions.

As I noted in the previous debate, to additionally support detained individuals, all those in immigration removal centres can access the 30 minutes of free legal advice that has been described today, through the detained duty advice scheme, DDAS. This triage appointment supports people to meet a legal provider who may provide further legal advice, subject to the matter being within the scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility for that legal aid.

Concerns were raised in the previous debate about the take-up of this advice. I can assure noble Lords that all detained individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre are advised of their right to legal representation and how they can obtain such representation. That is done within 24 hours of their arrival as part of their induction. All individuals arriving at an immigration removal centre in England are booked an appointment with a legal representative under the scheme that I have just described, unless they decline to have that appointment. Their appointment will take place as soon as possible after they attend the immigration removal centre, which could be as early as the next working day, but obviously, as noble Lords have mentioned, it may on occasion be longer. We have produced leaflets in 26 languages on the operation of the scheme, and I therefore suggest gently to my noble friend that Amendment 33 would have no material effect on access to justice, as those in the system are entitled to an initial appointment under that long-standing scheme.

In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I questioned the potential cost of this. I have had the opportunity to look into the costings, and I just clarify that the Government’s position on this is not now related to cost. This has been assessed, and we have looked at it in detail. Were the proposed amendment to be passed, the overall spend on legal aid would be unaffected, so the cost element is not one of the things that we need to look at now, because there is a high likelihood that detained individuals will seek legal aid-funded support regardless of a time limit, and their eligibility for legal aid would be unchanged were a time limit to be introduced. The concern and discussion around the amendment is based on the consideration that existing arrangements already enable detained individuals to seek an initial appointment, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.

I reiterate to all Members the vital role that legal aid plays, both in mainstreaming and maintaining an effective immigration and asylum system, and ensuring that the most vulnerable, such as victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, can navigate the complex legal system. As my noble friend mentioned and knows, we have taken important action to support the provision of immigration and asylum legal aid. The Government have confirmed uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees, which is a significant investment and the first since 1996. The Government are also funding the costs of accreditation for immigration and asylum caseworkers, providing £1.4 million in 2024 and a further £1.7 million this year.

I want to continue to work with my noble friend Lord Bach and with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to look at how we can improve the efficiency of this system still further. I am happy to meet them to look at the suggestions that were made today. Those made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are hot off the press this evening and worthy of examination. I am happy to reflect on those and to work with my noble friend Lord Bach. I suggest to him that the amendment does not add to what we currently offer and therefore I ask him to withdraw it, with the assurance that we will look at the issues that both he and other noble Lords have raised in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for tabling the amendments, because they have, self-evidently, generated a good discussion on some important principles. For the avoidance of any doubt, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Lord Harper, that the Government will oppose these amendments tonight, but that does not mean that they will oppose the principle of deporting foreign national offenders.

I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his measured approach to this issue—I often find myself agreeing with him now, which is contrary to what I did during the whole of the 1980s. I will take that back as a potential area of support, and I appreciate his reasoned approach to this issue, because he is right; it is important that the British people know that the Government will take action on these issues, that there is fairness on these issues and that this Government are not going to tolerate foreign national offenders committing offences in this country. That is why, and I say it to all noble Lords who have spoken today, in the period between the July of the general election in 2024 and July of this year, the Government have increased the number of foreign national deportations by some 14% over the previous year under the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, shakes his head. The Government have increased the deportation of foreign national offenders during this year. The noble Lord referenced the previous Conservative Government. In the past year, from July to July, 5,200 foreign national criminals were removed. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that is why we are trying to meet the objectives that he has set. It is important that individuals in the country know that.

Amendment 34 would seek to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of “an offence”—I take the point mentioned by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—committed in the UK without consideration of their human rights. Amendment 72 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation. Both those issues remove protections for under-18s and for victims of human trafficking in the face of the UK Borders Act 2007. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation on any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord German, on that were extremely important.

Just to back up what I have said with regard to the performance on removal of foreign national offenders, noble Lords have made some important points about how we need to put in place prisoner transfer agreements. When a Minister of Justice, I spent part of 2009 negotiating such an agreement with the Nigerian authorities. It is important that we continue to do that and continue to work with our partners, but no one is going to reach a prisoner transfer agreement if we ignore human rights issues under our international obligations. Nobody is going to sign one of those with this country if we are ignoring our human rights obligations as a whole.

What are the Government going to do if we oppose the amendments proposed by the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, today? We are going to simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders. We are going to take further targeted action against any recent arrivals who commit crimes in the UK before their offending can escalate. Later this year, we are going to set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. Later this year, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, we are going to look at Article 8 and how we can streamline that proposal. We are going to bring forward legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK, striking that right balance between individual family rights and the wider public interest—the very point that the noble Earl mentioned.

Those are things that the Government are going to bring forward later this year. It may not satisfy noble Lords that we are not doing it today, but we are going to bring those things forward. However, the amendments before us today would not be workable and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, has said, they would be contrary to our international obligations.

Again, I recognise that some Members of this House will want us to walk away from our international obligations. I understand that, but our obligations are there, and we do support the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory. We support other human rights legislation, which is important, and I do not accept that Amendment 34 or Amendment 72 would help us maintain an international reputation, which I think is important for the UK to maintain.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I hope the Minister will accept that we are discussing a Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. What he is saying is what the Government are going to do. The problem for some of us is that this Bill ought to have had this in it, and as a result, we have two unsatisfactory amendments; but the only way that we can bring home just how serious this is to the Government is to ask: how on earth can we produce what will be an Act without what the Minister is now saying is going to be? That is the problem we all have.

We support the Government’s very considerable improvement. I have already said to my own side that I think a bit of humility about how well we managed some of these things would help a lot. That does not mean to say, however, that there should not be a bit of virility about asking the Government to act more quickly. It should have been in this Act, which is why some of us are going to find it very difficult not to support the amendments, not because we think the amendments are right; not because they should not be different; but because the Government have produced a Bill which does not have this in it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This Bill covers a whole range of manifesto commitments that the Government made in the general election, including the establishment of a Border Security Commander. Going back, for example, to the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned about Albania, that Border Security Commander has established a Balkans task force dealing with a whole range of issues there to tighten up our performance with countries such as Albania. This Bill covers a whole range of other matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has been around a long time. He knows that the Government have processes to follow and legislation to bring forward.

I am saying today that we are going to bring forward, in very short order, the measures I have outlined: detailed reforms on ensuring that our laws are upheld; simplifying the rules on processing for removal of foreign national offenders; and strengthening public interest tests under Article 8. That is going to happen in very short order. Not everything can happen in the first 12 months of a Government. Actually, if I go back to the point that the noble Lord mentioned, the non-legislative drive has seen us increase the number of foreign national offenders removed from this country by 14%, so it is an absolutely important matter that we have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked me an important question, and I just want to give her a response on this. Immigration is a reserved matter. Deportation powers are consistent across the United Kingdom. Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework provides a commitment that the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunities set out in a particular part of the Good Friday agreement are not diminished as a result of EU exit. This means that certain rights people in Northern Ireland had before Brexit cannot be reduced as a result of EU exit.

The Home Secretary is currently continuing to challenge some court interpretations on those matters, including the scope of Article 2.1 of the Windsor Framework, both in the case of Dillon and Ors v the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in pursuing an appeal against the High Court ruling on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s application, JR295, which found that certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act were incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.

Bluntly, the bottom line is: when foreign nationals commit serious crimes in our country, we will do everything in our power to deport them. We will bring back measures in the near future on some of the issues that have been raised today to give greater support and clarification. But I cannot accept the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been very spirited. I listened very carefully, especially to the Minister, who has unfortunately not accepted Amendment 34. We stand by this amendment: there are far too many foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences and who will not be deported if we allow the law to remain as it is. My noble friend Lord Deben and others are absolutely right: this is of huge concern across the United Kingdom. The Government’s plans do not go far enough. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.

Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, we live in an increasingly interconnected world, where crime knows no borders. International co-operation should be promoting justice and we should be helping to try to keep the public safe. That is really important to do. Accordingly, the instrument I bring before your Lordships’ House today will enhance our extradition arrangements and bring compatibility between our domestic and international legal frameworks governing extradition co-operation. The order was welcomed in the House of Commons earlier this month, where all sides of the House were able to support it. I welcome the chance today to probe some issues, following the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

I start by explaining a bit more about what these changes mean. The order amends the designation under the Extradition Act of three states: Chile, Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. I will take each in turn, starting with Chile. Chile’s designation is required as it recently acceded to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, something that the UK has been a long-standing supporter of. In the light of this change, it is appropriate and necessary that Chile’s designation be amended from a Part 2, category B territory to a Part 2, category A territory. That change means, in effect, that Chilean extradition requests will no longer require the provision of prima facie evidence, streamlining co-operations to reflect the underlying international legal framework that is now in place.

It is worth reflecting that this designation is not simply a matter of administrative convenience. It is a recognition of Chile’s commitment to international legal standards and a reaffirmation of our own dedication to maintaining robust and principled extradition agreements. It will enhance the efficiency of judicial co-operation, reduce unnecessary delays and ensure justice can be pursued swiftly and fairly.

I turn to Hong Kong and its de-designation. As Members will be aware, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020. This move was taken in response to the imposition of national security legislation by the Chinese authorities—legislation which was and remains wholly incompatible with the principles underpinning our extradition framework and the rule of law. Since the suspension, there has been no formal treaty framework in place to underpin extradition co-operation with Hong Kong. The order before your Lordships’ House today formalises this reality, removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Act, thereby aligning its status with that of other non-treaty jurisdictions.

I want to be crystal clear about the impact of this legislation, because this goes to the nub of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has brought before the House today. For the avoidance of any doubt, it does not reinstate extradition co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong. It does not create any new powers for government. It does not change any powers of the UK courts to consider extradition requests.

I am aware, obviously, of concerns raised regarding the safety of pro-democracy activists and critics of the Chinese Government who sought refuge in the United Kingdom. I assure your Lordships that we take our responsibilities towards those potentially at risk of persecution extremely seriously, and that our courts remain independent and vigilant in upholding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. This de-designation is a necessary step to accurately reflect the international legal position in domestic law. It protects the integrity of our extradition process and safeguards the rights of those Hong Kongers in the UK who fled political repression. I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on that explanation. My point is that it does not change where we are.

Finally, I turn to Zimbabwe, which the order de-designates. Zimbabwe was originally designated as a Part 2, category B territory on the basis of its participation in the London scheme for extradition within the Commonwealth, which is a multilateral treaty arrangement that underpins co-operation among Commonwealth nations. However, as Members will know, Zimbabwe withdrew formally from the Commonwealth in 2003. As such, the legal foundation for its designation under the Act has since ceased to exist. De-designation now, therefore, is not a reflection of any change in our diplomatic position, but rather a necessary legal correction, given that the current designation is incompatible with the UK’s domestic legal framework and international obligations.

Zimbabwe’s continued designation, if I can be frank with the House, was an oversight which has spanned multiple Governments, and which we are today putting right with this order. More broadly, the issue highlights the potential for a country to remain listed under Part 2, despite the underlying treaty or arrangement no longer being in force. I therefore confirm to the House that measures have now been put in place to strengthen co-ordination between policy, legal and operational teams to ensure that designation status accurately reflects the relevant frameworks in a timely manner, which it did not in the case of Zimbabwe.

To conclude, extradition is a vital tool in our fight against cross-border crime. Offenders should not escape justice by crossing borders. This order ensures that our system remains principled, effective and fit for purpose. I look forward to listening to the noble Baroness, but at this time I commend the order to the House.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. While we on this side do not believe a regret amendment is necessary, I thank her for bringing to light the plight of Hong Kongers. As has already been mentioned, the case of Jimmy Lai ever serves as a reminder of how people’s freedoms continue to be curtailed.

The removal of Zimbabwe from the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 is certainly not controversial. It unfortunately left the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such has not been party to the London scheme for extradition in the Commonwealth since that date. As the Minister has already quite correctly mentioned, the fact that Zimbabwe has not since been de-designated represents nothing more than an oversight, and it is right that the Government are correcting that. Similarly, it is welcome that the Government are designating Chile in this order, following their accession to the 1957 extradition convention.

The final change—the change targeted in the Liberal Democrats’ regret amendment—is the removal of Hong Kong from Article 2 of the 2003 order. This reflects the fact that we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020 following the national security law and the crackdown on pro-democracy activists by the authoritarian communist regime in China. Since the treaty is suspended, there is currently no formal framework for extradition between the UK and Hong Kong, and that is right: we should not be under an obligation to extradite anyone to a state with the kind of repressive laws we now see in place in Hong Kong. The removal of the designation does not represent any change in our policy, therefore; it simply formalises the position that there is now no extradition treaty in force between the UK and Hong Kong. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the rights of Hong Kongers must be protected, but I do not believe this draft order will do anything to detriment them. They will not be at any more risk of extradition than before.

I have one question for the Minister. Give that Hong Kong will now be treated the same as all other non-treaty states under the Extradition Act, requests will be made and assessed on a case-by-case basis. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments in his opening remarks, but I ask again: can the Government absolutely assure the House that they will not co-operate with the authorities in Hong Kong regarding the extradition of Hong Kongers, so that we are never complicit in the subjugation of Hong Kongers by the Chinese Communist Party?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the very broad support that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given for the order. Essentially, the speakers today have agreed that the measures regarding Zimbabwe and Chile are necessary, right and proper; the only queries we have had relate to Hong Kong, so I will park Chile and Zimbabwe and concentrate precisely on Hong Kong in winding up.

I hope I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, a very clear assurance in my opening remarks, but, for the avoidance of doubt, this instrument does not place any new obligations on the UK Government to seek extradition from these countries or, indeed, to accept extradition from them, particularly in relation to Hong Kong. It also does not change any of the powers available to the UK courts to consider any extradition request on its individual merits; it does not impact on the power of UK judges to bar extradition; and, particularly in relation to Hong Kong, it does not revive the suspended treaty, and nor does it create any new powers. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, recognised, it formally recognises the suspension by removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Extradition Act 2003.

On the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I cannot guarantee that no extradition will ever take place, for the reasons we have said, but it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and will not be automatic. We remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting those who have sought refuge here; importantly, no individual will be extradited where there is a risk of persecution. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

The British national (overseas) route for Hong Kongers is a historic and moral commitment. Those with BNO status and their eligible family members can apply to come to the UK. Since that route has opened, close to 225,000 visas have been granted to Hong Kongers.

I hope that today’s debate and the comments I have made give reassurance. If I may, I will take away the detailed questions the noble Baroness has asked, but I hope that that is a general reassurance. I will also look at what we can do over and above this debate to ensure that we give notice of the impact of all three orders, so that that is widely known by those who may be impacted, and that some reassurance is given.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, very much for describing things so well. Notwithstanding all the assurances the Minister is giving, is there not still a danger that the People’s Republic of China can put pressure on the UK Government for extraditions, through trade diplomacy or elsewhere, and that we have no way of knowing or checking what the evidence is?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I have said, we are regularising the situation with the legislation before the House today. The position is that there can be case-by-case basis issues, but I have been very clear that the UK Government will act against persecution and that we recognise the rights of Hong Kongers, including in the United Kingdom, to enjoy and live a fruitful and free life without persecution.

I hope that that gives the noble Baroness assurance, but she will understand that, obviously, I cannot give a complete 100% assurance on all occasions, because there may be cases where extradition for both parties is the right thing to do. It is on a case-by-case basis, not an automatic decision, and it will be dealt with on a judicial basis as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has asked me again whether I will meet with her and with the noble Lord, Lord Alton—to whom I again send my best wishes for a speedy recovery—and I will happily do that and meet with a small representative group. If I personally cannot do it, I will make sure that another Minister in the department does so, because we have the immigration Bill, the Crime and Policing Bill and several others in November. If there is a need for a speedy meeting, we will arrange for a Minister in the Home Office to meet with the noble Baroness.

With those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her regret amendment and that the House will agree the order, which I believe is sensible and proportionate.

Asylum Seekers: MoD Housing

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, both military sites proposed to house asylum seekers have significant local consequences. Cameron barracks in Inverness is close to the city centre, and local communities there are rightly concerned about the lack of consultation with them about such a major proposal. Crowborough army training camp in East Sussex is used by a large number of cadet forces, who will now be deprived of its use. Of course, if the Government truly wanted to clear the asylum backlog and close more asylum hotels, they would ban asylum claims from migrants entering the country illegally and deport them. Can the Minister say why the Government would prefer to move asylum seekers to sensitive sites—which have just as large an impact on local communities—rather than take real action to solve the problem?

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his question. The local authorities in both areas were informed two weeks ago, and we are continuing to ensure that we discuss the arrangements to date with the police, the National Health Service and local councils in each area. The Government are trying to do what I hope the noble Lord wishes the Government to do, which is to put a deterrent in place. The individuals who will be going to these sites in a phased, operational way, over a period of time, will have arrived, been processed and been put into those sites pending asylum decisions being taken. That is a real deterrent to people: it is not about going to a hotel or into the community—they are going to a very firm site where action can be taken. It is our ambition to reduce the number of hotels, and we have reduced the number from 400 at its peak to 200 now. It is our ambition to stop the crossings that are leading to these pressures in the first place. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on both matters.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise simply to ask the Minister whether contracts will be issued for looking after these two sites, and whether the lessons learned from Napier and Wethersfield will be transferred to the actions that are now taking place in those two sites. It is all very well to simply emergency-open new sites, but not if they are going to be managed inappropriately. The substantial changes that were made in Wethersfield should be transferred, and that knowledge transferred onwards. Also, what is the timescale of those contracts? When are they due to start and end? I draw attention to my interest in the register in the RAMP organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have had around 1,000 learning points from discussions with a range of agencies over the use of previous sites. I know the noble Lord has visited, and that has been very helpful. Members of this House, and others, can visit and examine the conditions in the proposed new sites by arrangement with the Home Office. We are anticipating that the sites will start to be used from around the end of November, subject to discussions with local authorities et cetera. The plan is for around 12 months’ use. We are looking at phasing in entrance to the sites at around 30 people a day, to a maximum of 600 in Scotland and 300 in East Sussex. I hope that we will have robust management information in place to ensure that those learning points are put in place and are managed in a proper and effective way.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. The MoD training estate is oversubscribed; indeed, that is one of the biggest factors when it comes to trying to train the Army Reserve. While I commend to the Minister the announcement in the SDR that the reserve and cadets will be expanded, this will place even greater pressure on the MoD’s training estate. Crowborough training area is a vital estate used not just by cadets but by the reserve and the regular Army. I simply ask the Minister to be very careful about the selection of sites that we choose. It is not just about the accommodation; it is the second-order impact on the estate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valid and important point, and certainly one to reflect on. It is extremely important that we encourage and continue that training and support, as the noble Lord has identified. Government policy is designed to do that. He will note that my noble friend Lord Coaker, the Defence Minister, is on the Bench today. He is very much apprised of the issues raised, and we will work in close quarters to ensure that the objectives outlined by the noble Lord are achieved.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, what plans do the Government have for looking after the children who continue to come into this country? In the past they have been kept in completely unsatisfactory hotels, and many have vanished without trace.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that there will be no children in the two sites that are before the House in this Urgent Question today. She makes a valid point: a number of children have gone missing. We inherited that—it is not a political point; we just inherited that position. We are putting some urgency into trying to track down those children. We have put in place revised arrangements, particularly with the Kent local authority, to ensure that it is engaged very strongly in the initial arrival point. Children should not be damaged because, for whatever reason, their parents, guardians or relatives have arrived in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister and the Government to have the guts to stick to this plan to use the barracks in the short term, and not to be terrorised out of it by immigration pressure groups, one of which said yesterday that this would further traumatise people who have suffered enough. I stayed in the Cameron barracks and the Crowborough barracks in the late 1970s, and they were pretty okay then. I am sure they are much more luxurious now. I read that £1.3 million may be spent on refurbishing Cameron barracks in Inverness. Can I get the Minister’s assurance that if any money is spent, it will be used for essential fire and safety measures, and not in creating individual private bedrooms with en suite facilities? If barrack-room accommodation is good enough for our single male soldiers, it should be good enough for illegal asylum seekers as well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and hope he enjoyed his time at both barracks and found it convivial, as far as possible given the service it presumably had at that time. We are trying to ensure that this is a temporary measure. Ultimately, the purpose of all this is to ensure that we process people very quickly, eventually with off-site decision-making, and that we then disperse or remove those individuals when asylum decisions are taken. I will look into the £1.3 million that the noble Lord mentioned and give him a formal response by letter. Please rest assured that the purpose of this is to provide temporary accommodation to reduce hotel numbers, and ultimately to help us on the path to reduce them to zero.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister just acknowledged that speedy determination of asylum claims is essential to addressing this problem. You obviously need less accommodation if people can be moved on when they have no asylum claim, and moved to other countries speedily. That will have a greater deterrent effect on those who want to come here. What is the current backlog of asylum claims? What are the Government doing to ensure more speedy determination of those claims?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful that the noble Lord has put his finger on a point that the Government have also put their finger on. The current initial claim for decision-making on outstanding asylum decisions is around 91,000. In the last three months alone, the number of people awaiting that initial decision has fallen by 19,000, or 17%. That is because we have taken decisions to put extra staff into that area to speed up asylum applications, and we are looking at using that newfangled thing, AI, to try to improve speedy applications and understanding of those applications. It is absolutely right that we get those application numbers down. The number of people awaiting a decision is down by 24% over the period of the previous Government.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, when I was standing in the shoes of the Minister, answering questions about our plans to put asylum seekers in military accommodation, noble Lords will recall the waves of opprobrium received from the Labour Benches, and in particular the Labour Front Bench. I welcome the Government’s change of heart. There is nothing quite like the joy of a sinner who repenteth. As an officer cadet, I too stayed in Cameron barracks. It is largely barrack-room accommodation. The previous Government were the subject of litigation in relation to the use of Penally and Napier barracks. The courts found that the accommodation was unsuitable on human rights grounds because it was not individual accommodation. How do the Government propose to address that issue in relation to their new plans?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

When the noble Lord stood in my shoes there were 400 hotels being used, and there are now 200. There was also a higher backlog of asylum accommodation, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to, because he put his faith in a Rwanda scheme that removed nobody. When he was in my shoes, he failed miserably in dealing with an issue that his shoes put in place in the first place.

Let us put that to one side. He has asked a perfectly legitimate question. We want to ensure that we are not subject to legal challenge, and it is important we do that. That decision, ultimately, is not for us to determine. We want to make sure that we provide accommodation that is of an acceptable standard, but a standard that, as I have mentioned to the House, is temporary. This is so that we can end both asylum accommodation and, in the long term, this type of accommodation. In doing so, we can stop small boat crossings happening in the first place.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

The definitions which are listed in Amendment 2 are too precise. The role is much more one of strategic co-ordination than what I might call waving the rod to make things happen. These amendments introduce constraints, potentially compromising the flexibility that is required to appoint the best person to lead the strategic co-ordination efforts aimed at tackling border security threats and cracking down on illegal entry.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments to allow us to have this discussion again on the Border Security Commander. Let me lay to rest one allegation straight away. This is not a gimmick. This is a serious piece of government policy to put in place a co-ordinating Border Security Command designed to co-ordinate activity across the board, including relations with our security services.

In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Harper and Lord Swire, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, to date it has secured £150 million of funding; has improved the number of Border Security Command officers to 227; has brought together world leaders from over 40 countries to mobilise the international fight on immigration crime; has disrupted criminal networks; has improved intelligence and strategic coherence; has led an international effort on an anti-smuggling action plan; has signed a proposal with Germany and the Calais Group in France; has launched a new sanctions regime focused on organised crime; and has supported the development of the plans that are being put into the Bill for the Home Secretary.

To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on the functions of the commander, Clause 3(4)(b) states that the commander must

“obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to issue the document”.

There is obviously some discussion with the Secretary of State. Ministers set their priority. If the Secretary of State does not agree with the proposed plans, potentially that consent will be a matter of discussion and arrangement. The key point is that there is an official appointed by the UK Government to co-ordinate those important Border Force control issues on border security, to tackle organised immigration crime and to end the facilitation of dangerous small boat crossings.

Yes, it is a difficult task. As the noble Lord, Lord German, has said, it has been inherited from the previous Government. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, asked why we did not employ people to tackle the backlog. Well, let me inform him that we are: we have put about 1,000 extra staff into doing what he has suggested the House does today. The allegation that I want to nail down is that this is a gimmick. It is not a gimmick. It is a serious piece of work that requires an important role in government to secure that work.

Amendments 1 and 2 relate to the Border Security Commander and seek to remove the requirement that the Border Security Commander is a civil servant. With due respect to noble Lords, there is a slight misunderstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, argued that we should potentially be drawing on somebody from a wider background. The current Border Security Commander was a senior police officer in the Metropolitan Police and, if this Bill is passed, he will be a member of the Civil Service. The Bill does not require that the post of Border Security Commander be reserved for existing civil servants. Indeed, the current officeholder was recruited externally.

Ultimately, given that the role sits within the Home Office and given that the commander leads a directorate in the department, the commander is a civil servant by that position: it does not mean that they have to be a civil servant by recruitment. There is no requirement that any future recruitment exercise would not seek to identify the most suitable candidate, irrespective of background. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 2 seeks to specify the prior experience required to be eligible to be appointed as Border Security Commander. It is important that we have the best talent. There are no limitations on that talent. In the event of a vacancy arising—at the moment, there is no vacancy—the Government have been clear that the Border Security Commander is responsible for requiring step change in the UK’s approach to border security, providing a long-term vision, bringing together those individuals, providing leadership and maintaining the integrity of our border and immigration systems, domestically and internationally. That role is reflected in the Bill. The Bill puts the commander on a statutory footing and gives that legal back-up. It has been crafted to ensure that we have the best possible candidate for the role.

The noble Lord, Lord Swire—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I have a very short question. I have listened very carefully and the Minister has been very clear about the nature of the role. What powers will the Border Security Commander have when this Bill becomes law that they do not already have by virtue of being a civil servant reporting to the Home Secretary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I think the noble Lord misunderstands the focus of the Bill. The Bill is giving statutory footing to what is now happening. There is a Border Security Commander in post. That Border Security Commander has the roles that we have outlined here, but this puts the post on a statutory footing.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can the Minister just set out clearly what difference that makes in the real world to dealing with any of these problems? Otherwise, it is just a piece of window dressing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me just say to the noble Lord that I have been through a list of things that the Border Security Commander is doing now—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Without legislation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Without legislation, but the statutory footing is there to put that position on a statutory footing and to put in place the statutory requirements to produce an annual report, to have the consent of the Home Secretary and to have some accountability to this House. The noble Lord can press the Minister as much as he wishes. I have set out the concrete things that this Border Security Commander has done in the 15 or 16 months that we have been in office and since we appointed Martin Hewitt to the post. It is a good record. These things would not have been done without his activity. The French agreement, the German agreement and the work in Iraq have been done because the Home Secretary enabled them. This was done without statutory backing, but it will be stronger with that statutory backing on the issues of the report, et cetera, to allow the Border Security Commander to do those things. I hope the noble Lord welcomes that but, if he does not, he can vote accordingly, as I always say. Vote accordingly and we will see what happens with those issues. But, ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Swire, made an important point about Jo Rowland. I place on record my thanks to Jo for the work that she has done. She has left not through the factual issues that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, mentioned, of failure, but through personal choice to pursue another job outside the Civil Service. That happens all the time with individuals. She has chosen to do that. The Home Office thanks her for her contribution during her time as a civil servant. She was not a civil servant before she came to the Home Office: she worked in the private sector. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and we should not let it lie that she has left because of any failure in that position.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I am reflecting on the Minister’s remarks in answer to my noble friend Lord Harper’s earlier point. If the current situation is that the border commander is operating anyway, without the statutory footing, under whose authority is he currently acting?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

He is acting under the authority of the Home Secretary. If the noble Lord looks at the Bill, he will see that the statutory functions that it provides set out the terms of appointment and designation, as well as the functions, reporting mechanisms and responsibilities of the commander in relation to things such as the intelligence services—which, just for the record, are themselves employing world-class capabilities. Those capabilities, and the people behind them and their operations, are necessarily secret. However, I can confirm that, where it is appropriate, the agencies will be supporting the Border Security Commander in their work, and that they will be subject to the same authorisations that exist currently within a robust oversight regime. There is a whole range of things going on. The Bill is a focus to put them on a statutory basis. I do not think that the amendments, helpful though they are to tease out this discussion, are necessary for us to achieve our objective.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The Minister just said something that I do not think is in the Bill. He talked about the security services. In Clause 3(3), on the functions of the commander, the Bill says:

“A partner authority must have regard to the strategic priority document in exercising its functions”.


Later, in Clause 3(6), the Bill specifically says that the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ are “not partner authorities”, so they are not obligated to follow the strategic priorities set out by the Border Security Commander. That is correct, because they should be following the strategic priorities set out by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary respectively. I am not sure that what he said about their working together is quite right.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

By his own admission, the noble Lord did not attend Committee. It is the pity that he did not, because he could have raised some of these questions then. If he chooses to raise them now, on Report, I will give him the same answer. The Border Security Commander is working closely with the security services, and they have authorisation directly from the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. Quite evidently, when they—or in this case he—are drawing up a plan to examine what needs to be done to solve the common issue of reducing small boat crossings, bringing criminals to justice and helping to speed up the asylum removals that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, referred to, then they are going to discuss and work with the security services. I am straying into a Committee-type session, which the noble Lord did not attend. I would rather stick to Report, which the noble Lord has attended. I think I have answered the questions that he has put before the House.

Turning to Amendment 26, if we return to the position we were in in 2016—which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and noble Lord, Lord German, would have wished we maintained—we would still be a member of Europol. On a personal note, when I was a Member of the House of Commons, in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 I argued that we retain the capability of Europol and CIS as part of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement. That did not happen. But it is important that we ensure, post-Brexit agreement, that we have as close co-operation as possible with Europol on information gathering and criminal justice delivery capabilities—which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned. That is important. As we said in Committee, we have a strong existing relationship with Europol. We have around 20 permanent members of staff who work at the multi-agency liaison bureau at the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. The noble Lord asked whether we should have some Europol people here. We currently do not. That is a matter for discussion. Where we are now may be a matter for regret. I voted to remain, but we are where we are. Europol remains an independent organisation. It is accountable to the members of the European Union, and it produces its report to the European Union.

I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Lord who supports her, that the proposed new clause in her amendment would require reporting on all aspects of our co-operation with Europol. Ministers, including me, will regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement co-operation, including with Europol. We publish annual minutes of UK-EU specialised committees that monitor and review our trade agreements, including with Europol.

I am mindful that Europol is not a UK body. It answers to the European Commission and its member states, so bilateral co-operation may sometimes be something that we cannot publicly report on. It is not for us to report on some of the issues with Europol, because that is what Europol does. As the noble Baroness mentioned, once upon a time, in days gone by, we did have a British senior official leading Europol. That has changed; we are in a different world now. I assure her that the focus remains on disrupting organised crime, protecting vulnerable people, securing our borders and working in co-operation with Europol to achieve those objectives. To go back to the role of the Border Security Commander, one of his key roles is to oil the machinery of that operation, and work with colleagues who are directly operationally responsible, to make sure that we engender co-operation at a European level.

I therefore respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that Amendments 1 and 2 are not necessary, and I ask him not to press them. Amendment 26, from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is asking for things that we do not need to do, because we in this House are, in a sense, accountable for that relationship. I cannot report on all matters, but I get the spirit of what she is trying to say. On behalf of the UK Government, I want to have the closest co-operation possible with Europol and the European agencies, because we have a joint interest in tackling the criminal gangs and stopping individuals being exploited in those crossings.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but useful debate. I thank all those who have participated.

I will say a few words on Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. In addition to the noble Baroness’s comments, I would say that we should be co-ordinating with our European allies on tackling the border crisis in any case. We need to stem the flow of illegal migration through Europe and across the channel, and to disrupt the criminal gangs that operate the smuggling network. However, we should be careful not to see this as some form of silver bullet. The problem cannot be solved simply by striking agreements with other European countries. We know the limited impact that the Government’s so-called “one in, one out” deal has had.

There is so much more that the Government could and should be doing to tackle the fully blown crisis at our border. They need to eliminate the pull factors and implement an effective deterrent. We had hoped the Government would take a long, hard look at their current policy, implement a serious and credible deterrent to prevent people crossing the channel in small boats, and present us with a commander with authority, rather than a commander with nothing to command. Evidently, that is not the case. We will watch very carefully and scrutinise the role of the commander. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

4: Clause 13, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) A person (“P”) commits an offence if—(a) P is concerned in the supplying of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article to another person, and(b) at any time when P is concerned in that act, P knows that the relevant article is to be used by any person in connection with an offence under section 24 or 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would expand the offence in clause 13 to cover being concerned in the supplying of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article for use in immigration crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 7, and I shall speak to it in a moment. First, I shall speak to Amendments 10 and 11 in my name. I hope, for all the difficulties about some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord German, has raised in relation to shaving, it is an attempt by the Government to meet the objectives of the noble Baroness’s original amendment in Committee as well as the report on the Bill from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which raised this as a matter of some importance.

I reflected on it after Committee and asked officials to draw up amendments, and amendments have been drawn up that allow essential items such as soap, tooth- paste and sanitary products to be used. Amendment 11 is there because there are things such as razor blades, or things such as a glass container that could be broken and be available as a weapon, and things such as aerosol cans that can be sprayed in people’s faces, which have to be exempted.

I confess that the question of shaving is one that might be worthy of further reflection and discussion, but we are where we are. This is not a pejorative statement, but some people who arrive will have beards; the ones who do not can wash with soap, use toothpaste and do all those things. Potentially, at some point, they can shave in a more controlled circumstance at a later date. Let us just reflect on that. It is an interesting point for debate but, ultimately, we have tried to settle on a reasonable compromise to meet the objectives of the Committee’s pressure on the Government and the Joint Committee report. I commend Amendments 10 and 11 to the House as they stand.

I have more difficulty with the noble Baroness’s Amendments 7 and 12. I appreciate that the intent of Amendment 12 is to safeguard legitimate legal professionals. I stress that the clause already provides a “reasonable excuse” defence, as she knows. The amendment, by explicitly referencing Section 12(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007, on the very points that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Davies—narrows that defence rather than strengthening it.

Clause 16 is designed to target those who collect sensitive information for the purpose of facilitating immigration crime. It is not in any way, shape or form aimed at those who want to provide bona fide legal advice who are acting within the law. The offences will be intelligence-led and focused on organised criminal activity, not on those providing lawful counsel. For legal advisers to fall into scope of this clause, they would have to be, for example, gathering or providing information or advice to clients on how to make a clandestine crossing to the UK. That is not what legal advice is supposed to be in this circumstance. For once, I find myself in compadre with the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Harper, on that point, and I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press that amendment.

Amendment 7, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to exclude from liability those who handle articles likely to be used in immigration crime, if the intended user is themselves or a member of their immediate family. If I wanted to help to support somebody, I might well claim that I am a member of the immediate family and have an immediate family member supplying me with information—and there might well be organised criminal gangs which exploit family ties by pressure or other means to ensure that they mask that facilitation.

Clause 14 already requires that the article is “likely to be used in the course of immigration crime”. This threshold ensures that only those knowingly contributing to criminal activity are captured. I reassure the noble Baroness that I have been clear throughout the Bill’s progress that this House has a reasonable excuse on the face of the Bill, which is non exhaustive. Given the intention of this offence, and while respecting that the decision to prosecute is made entirely independently of government, I would expect that it would not generally be an operational or public interest matter to pursue people handling items in genuine pursuit of asylum or on behalf of family members. The CPS or any other legal entity that wishes to examine this matter would look at the intent behind the clause. The reasonable defence we have in Clause 14 is one I would refer the noble Baroness to and would hope to have her support on.

The law must remain clear and enforceable. The current drafting provides flexibility and discretion without compromising the clause’s intent. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will both withdraw Amendment 7 and not move Amendment 12 when it is reached. I commend Amendments 10 and 11 to the House as meeting the objectives the House ordered me to look at—in a nice, friendly way—in Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to go over points that have already been made and which were made in Committee at greater length. However, I think it notable that work done by lawyers cannot, in the Government’s mind, be explicitly referred to. Perhaps I am particularly influenced by the work the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is doing on the rule of law, or maybe not.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, said that a lawyer should not set out—I am paraphrasing—to support a criminal activity by his client. I do not think things are that black and white. Everyone is entitled to a defence. With items such as the documents and information referred to in Clause 16, the client is entitled to have the reason for having those argued, or to argue whether they fall within Clause 16(1). It is a case of blame the lawyers again—“let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is a point of considerable principle to me that the rule of law should be upheld, and that includes citizens being entitled to be supported by lawyers. However, I beg leave to withdraw—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

8: Clause 14, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) A person (“P”) commits an offence if, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2B), P is concerned in—(a) the receipt of, or the arranging to receive, a relevant article from another person, or(b) the removal or disposal of a relevant article for the benefit of another person.(2B) Those circumstances are where, at any time when P is concerned in an act as mentioned in subsection (2A), P knows that the relevant article has been, is being, or is to be used by P or any other person in connection with an offence under section 24 or 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would expand the offence in clause 14 to cover being concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

10: Clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(ca) any thing or substance designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or personal hygiene,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt products designed for use for the purposes of personal cleanliness or hygiene from the offences in clauses 13 and 14.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

13: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Online advertising of unlawful immigration services(1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person creates, or causes the creation of, material whose purpose is, or effect will be, to promote an unlawful immigration service, and(b) the person knows or has reason to suspect—(i) that the material will be published on an internet service, and(ii) that the material has that purpose or will have that effect.(2) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person publishes material on an internet service or causes the publication of material on such a service,(b) the purpose of the material is, or the effect of the material will be, to promote an unlawful immigration service, and(c) the person knows or has reason to suspect—(i) that they are publishing the material or (as the case may be) that they are causing its publication, and(ii) that the material has that purpose or will have that effect.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person’s action was for the purposes of—(a) carrying out, or facilitating the carrying out of, work as a journalist, or(b) the publication of academic research.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(5) In this section “material” means anything which consists of or includes—(a) text or moving or still images, or(b) speech or music.(6) In this section—(a) “unlawful immigration service” means a service whose purpose is to facilitate the commission of—(i) an offence under any of the Immigration Acts,(ii) a breach of immigration law (other than such an offence), or(iii) an offence under section 4, 5 or 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 in relation to an identity document within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 7(1) of that Act,whether by providing goods or services, or both, or anything else;(b) “immigration law” has the meaning given by section 25(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.(7) In this section “publish” means make available to the public at large or any section of the public, whether or not in return for payment or any other form of consideration.(8) In this section “internet service” means a service that is made available by means of—(a) the internet, or (b) a combination of the internet and an electronic communications service (as defined by section 32(2) of the Communications Act 2003).(9) This section is subject to section (Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause creates offences relating to the creation and publication of material promoting unlawful immigration services.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is important to outline to noble Lords the policy objective underpinning this measure, which is essentially to give us a further measure to tackle the facilitation of organised immigration crime online and to ensure that law enforcement agencies have appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online market, including social media.

Online platforms are exploited at scale to promote unlawful immigration services such as small boat crossings and the provision of fraudulent travel documents, and they allow organised crime groups to generate significant profits at the expense of vulnerable migrants. Approximately 80% of migrants arriving via small boats who have been debriefed by Home Office officials have stated that they used social media at a point in their irregular migration journey to either locate or communicate with an organised crime group or its agent. It is therefore essential that we take steps to put pressure on this by providing legislative back-up to the objective of reducing migrant crossings facilitated by social media.

Amendment 13 introduces an offence that criminalises the creation or publication, or indeed causing the creation or publication, of material whose purpose is or has the effect of promoting an unlawful immigration service. Such material will be considered criminal where the person knows or suspects that the material will be published on the internet, or that it has the purpose or will have the effect of promoting unlawful immigration services. There is a clear difference, if we look at the matters before the House today, between legitimate immigration and advice services, and those which offer unlawful services that facilitate breaches in the law of this land and risk our border security. Only online material that clearly has the purpose and intended effect of promoting unlawful immigration is in the scope of this offence, and I think it right that it should be. Exploitation of the online environment is something that organised crime groups are very familiar with and use to promote their services. I think it is widely known and discussed in the public domain, and this Government intend to do something about it.

The amendment will provide law enforcement with another offence to prosecute this type of online activity and will enable easier intervention compared to existing legislation. Under this offence, online material will not need to be linked to a specific instance or attempt of unlawful immigration, as is the case with existing legislation such as Section 5 of the Immigration Act 1971. Specifically criminalising the promotion of unlawful immigration services may lead to better prosecution outcomes, potentially including additional counts on indictment and longer sentences for facilitation of organised immigration crime. I think the whole House will welcome that.

Facilitation tactics have evolved, and it is right that we evolve in response. This complements illegal content duties for online companies under the Online Safety Act—which had its genesis under the previous Government, with opposition support, and the passage of which was completed by this Government—by explicitly criminalising the act of creating or publishing this type of content. Our determination to disrupt organised crime groups is clear, and that is why we are looking at this offence on Report today.

There are intermediate liability protections in place for online platforms, including social media, under Amendment 15, to emphasise that the focus is on those who are creating and publishing the content. Platforms will remain subject to existing duties relating to the management of illegal content, including that relating to organised immigration crime.

Online facilitation or organisation of immigration crime has no borders and therefore the majority of related online material identified is assessed—sadly—as posted overseas. It is therefore important that, through Amendment 18, the offence has extraterritorial effect and can be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world, or by a person of any nationality. That is an important safeguard; again, it will take some work, but it is important that we put that down as an appropriate tool for those who operate from abroad. When we have those arrangements, we can in some cases extradite individuals to face justice in the United Kingdom if we have the relevant agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support what the Minister said and this group of amendments. I have a couple of questions, but he set out clearly for your Lordships’ House the scope of the use of online tools by organised crime groups to facilitate these offences.

I think that the Minister touched on the gaps in the law around having to be specific about certain offences. It would be helpful—either when he sums up, or perhaps he could write to us—to give us one piece of data on the interviewing of those who committed offences in scope. It would be useful to know about the existing scale of the use of this type of material, or the extent to which it facilitates immigration crime. I do not know whether it is that easy to set it out, but I am keen to understand, when these offences become law, the potential reduction in the crime committed as a result of it. He may be able to help us now.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said in my introductory remarks, from debriefing, around 80% of people say they had an initial contact, inquiry or facilitation via social media. In essence, that means that potentially 80% of initial migrant crossings are generated through contact via social media. As with any crime, it is difficult to say what the target for reducing that would be, but the point is that it is not currently an offence. If this legislation is passed, it will be, and that gives us scope, in co-operation with partners, to go upstream. If those individuals are abroad, as the amendments later in the group suggest, then in countries where we have extradition agreements, and if we can find the individuals, we can bring them to justice.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I did listen and—he should not worry—I am not trying to pretend that he thinks that therefore we can reduce offences by 80% overnight. It would just be helpful to have a sense of what impact this might have. I also welcome the extraterritoriality clauses, because he is right that it means that we can use extradition offences, but we can also use some of the other tools that we have at our disposal once we can demonstrate that there are offences.

My specific question picks up Amendment 14. I agree with the Minister that there should be defences, or carve-outs, for internet service providers that are carrying out their lawful activities. I want to probe him specifically on subsection (1)(b)(ii) of the new clause inserted by the amendment, which states:

“An internet service provider does not commit an offence … if the provider does not … select the recipient of the transmission”.


I want to probe this a bit. If the algorithms or techniques used by service providers or social media to push messages at people are set up so they push some of these unlawful messages, is that activity—because they are in effect selecting the recipient of those messages—potentially an offence? By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, if their algorithms are pushing messages that facilitate crime at people, then, arguably, they probably should be falling foul of this, because we want them to then take steps to make sure that their algorithms are not pushing these messages at people. I just wanted to test the extent to which they would be liable.

I have a final comment. The noble Lord is right to distinguish between those creating this material that is facilitating offences, but what liability is there if those providing those internet services are involved in this activity? The offences at the moment include imprisonment, which can be used on people but not on corporate bodies. There are also fines involved in this.

One of the debates we had on what became the Online Safety Act, which the noble Lord mentioned, is that, to get these offences to bite on large global corporations with turnovers and profits of many billions of pounds, there must be quite draconian financial penalties to get them to sit up and take notice. There was a big debate about that when the Government of which I was a Member, and the subsequent Government, were passing the Online Safety Act and the subsequent legislation.

I therefore want to understand this: if there were social media or internet service providers who were helping this, or not taking steps to mitigate this, what offences would they potentially be guilty of? Does the Minister think the potential sanctions are sufficient that those organisations, particularly those based overseas and not easily reachable by our legislative tools, would be sufficiently able to be reached by them?

Just so the House is not in any doubt, I say that I strongly support this range of amendments to create these offences. It is quite clear that, in all the coverage you see of all the people coming into the United Kingdom illegally, they all have phones and electronic communication devices: it is a key part of how these crimes are committed. I strongly support the law being strengthened to deal with it and the Minister has my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have tabled a raft of amendments criminalising the online advertisement of unlawful immigration services. We know that this is a major source of business for the trafficking gangs and, as such, if the advertising methods can be targeted and disrupted then this should go some way to removing a key part of the business model.

The Government’s impact assessment on this new policy acknowledges that

“it is expected that there will be a small number of arrests under this offence, as the majority of activity is assessed to take place overseas”

The key to the success here will, therefore, lie in enforcement and international compliance, so what steps have the Government taken to push other countries to take action and remove online posts and sites that publish this sort of material? How are they supporting the National Crime Agency to go further with its investigations and campaigns? I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can try to reflect on the serious questions posed about the implications of the legislation proposed before the House today on Report. I will try to answer as best I can, but I hope that the broad thrust of what we are trying to achieve, which is to make life harder for criminals to use social media to recruit migrants to cross the channel on dangerous journeys, is accepted by the House as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned a number of points that we would like to reflect on before giving him a definitive answer. He supports the broad purpose of the legislation, but I will make sure that we write to him to cover some of those points.

The noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, raised legitimate issues—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench—about the difference that the offence will make, its impact and how we deal with people to ensure that it is put in place overseas. The noble Viscount said that if it helps one person, it would be a good thing to do. That remains true. We hope it will disrupt significantly more than that. We have not put a figure on that, but the principle is that it is an additional tool for police and enforcement agencies to take criminal action where other areas are potentially not currently open.

The enforcement of that means that, for countries with which we have extradition agreements, if we identify someone and they are arrested, they can be brought back to the UK for justice. Alternatively, an individual who is resident in the UK could be arrested once our intelligence services and others—including the National Crime Agency—track them down. Alternately, they could be individuals of a foreign nationality who are behind some of these websites or social media channels and visit the UK, and who might accordingly find themselves arrested in the UK for those crimes. So we have a range of extra tools.

With due respect to the noble Viscount, I cannot quantify that in a way that says we will reduce it by 10% or arrest 50 people on the back of that. What we can do is to put another tool in place to help disrupt those criminals. This goes to the point that the noble Lord Davies of Gower mentioned. The Home Office is working closely with the National Crime Agency and other law enforcement partners to ensure that they focus their funding on some of the new tools that they need to use in order to help crack down on this type of crime.

I know from talking to the National Crime Agency—without putting in the public domain confidences that would help criminals—that it is looking at how we can support more officers while also using smarter intelligence gathering and utilising different skills in officers to focus on this emerging market for immigration and migration crimes. All those things are important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a number of points about Amendment 14. I draw her attention to the opening line of the proposed new clause in that amendment:

“Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers”.


The key point I want to put to the noble Baroness is about “unlawful immigration services”. She asked whether people would be hit by this proposed new clause in the event of them writing about their experiences. No, they would not, because they are not advertising unlawful immigration services. The purpose of this provision is to focus specifically on the criminals who are organising immigration crime. It will not be used in isolation; it will be part of the measures both inside and outside of the Bill, and we are looking to criminalise the critical component of the people-smuggling gangs’ business model.

The noble Baroness also pointed to a number of parts in the legislation. She asked whether Section 2 automatic, intermediate or transient and whether Section 14(3) is automatic, immediate or temporary? I can say to her only that I have described the policy objective that we have set, and the wording we have is the wording that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has brought forward to help us achieve that policy objective.

I will reflect on what she said—if there are areas of interest, I will write to her—but I hope that she can look at the bigger picture, which is that is not about criminalising people who do not deserve to be criminalised. It is about criminalising people who are using social media platforms, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or X—whatever you want to call it these days—to promote their business and to encourage people to undertake illegal crossings. I go back to the initial point in my opening speech: 80% of individuals debriefed by us who have crossed said that their initial contact was via social media. That is the key point that Clause 14 intends to grasp, so I commend it, as well as Clause 13, to the House.

[Lord German (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, is it possible, whether by letter or verbally, to know whether this clause will affect the biggest online platform—the one which is doing all the damage that this refers to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This is the guarantee that I give all noble Lords. It is right that I am questioned on these matters. It is right that we poke around and look at the detail in the woods—the big picture that I have established. But, ultimately, this is legislation. I have given the assurances that I can. I will look at the comments from all noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who have spoken in this debate. If there are point on which they are not satisfied, I will write to them in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned internet service providers and a number of the bigger players, such as Facebook, TikTok and Telegram. The clause expressly provides intermediate liability protections for internet services such as social media companies, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence. It will be the individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online who are targeted. I will look again at the noble Lord’s comments in the cold light of day. If I need to write to reassure him, or to provide clarification, or because he has suggested items that we should look at further on another occasion, it will be important to do so.

I hope that, with the assurances that I have given and the case I have made, the House can agree to the new clauses before us today.

Amendment 13 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

14: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) to internet service providers(1) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if— (a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services) by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, material whose purpose was, or effect would be, to promote an unlawful immigration service, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, such material, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) Section (Online advertising of unlawful immigration services)(5) and (6) applies for the purposes of this section.(7) In this section—“internet service provider” means a provider of—(a) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(b) a service that provides access to the internet;“user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision about the liability of internet service providers under my first new clause to be inserted after clause 16.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

16: Clause 17, page 10, line 33, after “13(1)” insert “or (1A)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 13 at page 7, line 12.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

23: Clause 32, page 26, line 38, leave out “the data protection legislation or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a specific data protection legislation override which has become redundant as a result of the enactment of the general data protection legislation override by section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Amendments 23, 24 and 25 in my name amend the text of Clause 32, which relates to general provision about disclosure with respect to Clauses 27 to 31, and the specific application of the data protection legislation in the Data Protection Act 2018.

I hope that noble Lords will recollect that it was but a few months ago when we considered the Bill that went on to become the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Section 106 of that Act came into force on 20 August 2025. From that date, provisions in Acts that require or authorise the processing of personal data are automatically read as being subject to data protection law.

In practice, this makes express reference to data protection legislation unnecessary in statutes subsequently enacted in Parliament. That means that, in effect, the protections afforded by the Data Protection Act 2018 continue to apply to these clauses, which relate to the disclosure and sharing of HMRC’s customs and the DVLA’s trailer registration information.

It is not necessary or good lawmaking to duplicate these protections by placing unnecessary words on the statute book. These three amendments ensure that we are tying up and tidying up the issue. Amendment 23, and the two consequential Amendments 24 and 25, are technical in nature.

I want to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has to say on Amendment 62, which he will address very shortly, but, while I am speaking—potentially to save the House time—I will reiterate my previous reassurances to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, that using personal data for legitimate purposes such as immigration control is already permitted under data protection law. It would therefore be not only disproportionate but unnecessary to disapply data protection rules in a blanket fashion for certain groups that include some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including victims of trafficking. I will listen to what the noble Lord says, but I gave reassurances in Committee and now is an opportunity to repeat them. Obviously, the noble Lord will speak to his amendment and, if he wishes to discuss it further, we can, but I ultimately hope that he will not move it.

[Lord German (LD)]

Just before the noble Lord speaks to Amendment 62, I want to say that these Benches support the Minister.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister use the phrases “vulnerable group” and “blanket fashion”. I think I have quoted him more or less correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to alter the Data Protection Act by creating the possibility of the Secretary of State making an immigration exception decision. The noble Lord would take out of the list of circumstances to which the Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard all the rights and freedoms of the data subject, including the subject’s convention rights, and the UK’s obligations under the refugee and trafficking conventions. We are not on the same page.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and, again, think we are on the same page on this point. As I have indicated already, the key thing about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is that it would disapply data protection rules in, as I was quoted, a blanket fashion for certain groups that include some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as the victims of trafficking. Therefore, it is too wide, and I ask him not to move it.

However, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the changes in these technical amendments to the legislation, which needs updating since it began its passage in the House of Commons some time ago. I beg to move Amendment 23.

Amendment 23 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

24: Clause 32, page 26, line 39, leave out from “legislation” to end of line 40
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my first amendment to clause 32.

Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on child poverty of the application of the no recourse to public funds policy to migrant families with children and the implications of this for the forthcoming child poverty strategy.

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

The Government are committed to tackling child poverty, and the Child Poverty Taskforce will publish its 10-year strategy to drive sustainable change later this year. The Home Office has agreed that children whose families have no recourse to public funds will be included in the scope of the Government’s child poverty strategy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s response is most welcome. Because of this rule, hundreds of thousands of children, including some British children, are at a disproportionate risk of poverty, especially deep poverty, to the detriment of their mental health and development. The former Work and Pensions Committee, under Sir Stephen Timms, stated that the deprivation they suffer

“should not be allowed to dominate any childhood”.

Does my noble friend therefore accept that an inclusive and effective child poverty strategy must embrace concrete measures to help this group, including through child benefit and childcare support and by limiting the number of children subject to the no-recourse rule?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that I gave her a very strong answer in my first Answer, which I hope met the objectives that she has set. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. Poverty scars the lives and life chances of all our children, whatever background they are from. Currently, the no recourse to public funds referral that children can access allows access to free school meals, funding for school support and development, early years entitlement, support for children with special educational needs and local authority grants. It is quite right that, in all those circumstances, that drive is there to ensure that we tackle the challenge of poverty in the United Kingdom today as a whole. My noble friend will know that the review is due shortly. When that review is published, there will be further information on how to approach this issue.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the cohort of refugee children in this country who are in child poverty is large, and the Government propose to extend the time at which people can gain indefinite leave to remain in this country from five years to 10 years, so there is an implication for that cohort who will be held in that position for much longer than they were expecting. Can the Minister indicate whether the health and mental health of these children will be paramount in the strategy which is about to be produced and that it will ensure that there are responses to that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have one simple answer to the noble Lord: yes. It is vital that all children have the best start in life, and children should not be impacted by the position of their parents. They deserve the opportunity to thrive in life. The child poverty strategy will deal with how we meet those challenges over a 10-year period.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s responses to the various questions are very welcome. I understand that the Department of Health launched a consultation last year to explore whether the families we are speaking about would be eligible for the Healthy Start scheme. I presume that the results of that consultation will be included in the new child poverty strategy. Can my noble friend confirm that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I find myself in the difficult position that I am not able to give details of the new child poverty strategy because it is not published as yet; it will be published very shortly. The points that my noble friend raised will undoubtedly be considered, but I cannot give her an answer from the Dispatch Box because that would pre-empt an announcement the Government intend to make in very short order.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the no recourse to public funds policy is a vital protection for the sustainability of the welfare system and ensures that those who come to Britain do so to contribute to society and not to become a burden. A migrant family should not come to this country if they cannot afford to support themselves, although there are existing exceptions for those granted asylum who would otherwise be destitute. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will not loosen the rules or drop the policy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are arguments around how we control the number of individuals, families and migrant children who come to the United Kingdom. That is an argument that we are having now to look at how we can tighten the rules to stop the flow of people who are coming here through illegal channels. But we still have a responsibility to ensure that a child of five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years old does not suffer because of the trafficking—in many instances—poverty or war that has driven them to come to the United Kingdom in the first place, even sometimes by illegal means. The purpose of the strategy is to ensure we protect and develop those children so we do not create a whole set of different outcasts in the future. It is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result.

Non-crime Hate Incidents

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House that I chair Big Brother Watch.

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

The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the final recommendations of this review shortly and to working with police forces to ensure they have the clarity they need to focus on keeping our communities safe while protecting the fundamental right to free speech.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. The non-crime hate incident regime is being prolifically exploited by malicious individuals targeting people who merely disagree with them. The police are required to believe the complainant, contrary to the presumption of innocence. The target of the complaint may never know that a hate incident has been logged and that their future applications for sensitive jobs and visas may fail as a result. Now the police are saying that they will no longer investigate such incidents but that they will continue to be recorded. Does the Minister agree that we must stop secretly recording as fact what is often no more than scurrilous allegation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I say to the noble Lord that there is a review. My right honourable friend the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, commissioned that review in December 2024 because, self-evidently, the non-crime hate incidents regime was not working effectively. Noble Lords who were in the House for the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who chairs the College of Policing, examining that issue and saying that he would bring that review forward. There are a range of things that we need to do in the review. We should not lose sight of the fact that valuable information is gained by people reporting non-crime hate incidents, but equally we should not use it to pursue events which are fruitless when police should be focusing on real crimes.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. To follow up on the noble Lord’s question, as I understand it, the Metropolitan Police is no longer going to investigate non-prime hate incidents, although it will continue to record them. That appears to be the direction of travel, so other police forces, at least in England and Wales, will take a similar position. However, if NCHIs continue to be recorded, can the Minister assure the House that they will not be disclosable in enhanced DBS checks when people apply for jobs as, let us say, teachers or carers? Given that these uninvestigated reports of involvement in non-crimes are going to be recorded, it seems indefensible that they should stop people getting jobs.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I genuinely do not wish to pre-empt the review being undertaken now. The review by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing will come forward shortly and I expect the interim findings to be published in very short order, but the point that the noble Lord made is a valid one. The Metropolitan Police has said that it will not pursue non-crime hate incidents any more but will still record information because it gives valuable information about potential disability crime, racial crime and crimes against transgender people and others. It is important that we get the balance right, and one reason why my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary ordered that review was to make sure that we do not waste police resources or take the actions that the noble Lord mentioned.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, rather than waiting for the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing review, is it not time that Parliament made a decision on this issue? The danger is that we have got to this position because those two bodies have allowed it to develop. Surely the time has come, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, pointed out, for the police not to be investigating non-crimes, interviewing people who have not committed crimes and recording data on people who have not committed crime, with all the bureaucracy and timewasting that go with it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who brings great experience to this area. Parliament has had a view on this matter—it passed the codification of non-crime hate incidents in legislation in 2023 under the Government that I was not party to, not a supporter of and not a member of. That is why the police have the responsibilities that they currently have. The important point for the noble Lord is that this Government came in in July 2024, realised there were some challenges in the system, had representations from across this House and the House of Commons, and ordered a review. That review is being undertaken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It commenced in January; it will be finished very shortly, and there will be an interim response. Then we can decide whether we wish to take any action on those recommendations as they affect individual police officers and in terms of whether there are any policy implications for the Government.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, the review is extremely welcome, and I welcome my noble friend’s remarks in relation to it. Would it also be helpful, on these kinds of issues, if politicians in both Houses of this place avoided making comments referring to people’s race, in particular the recent comments about advertisements on television?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we condemn the comments that were made about adverts on television. We are a multicultural society. It is quite right and proper that individuals from all parts of our society appear on television, because they are both consumers and producers of goods and contributors to society, so I have no problem in supporting my noble friend on that point. The key question on non-crime hate incidents, and this is where we stand, is the extent to which we use that intelligence reporting mechanism to gather intelligence about potential trends in difficult areas—maybe down to the micro level of a ward—versus the extent to which we take further action on those issues in a criminal context. That is what the review that the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, a member of the Conservative Party and chair of the College of Policing, is undertaking with the National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at. I am expecting a report in extremely short order.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is very welcome that the Metropolitan Police finally took the decision to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. They have clearly wasted officers’ time and had a chilling effect on free speech. Will the Government now follow through and support the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill from my noble friend Lord Young of Acton to abolish them in their entirety? Surely this is the way forward.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The short answer is no. The longer answer is we will wait for the review to see what action we will take. Again, I remind the noble Lord that the reason we are in this position in the first place is legislation that codified non-crime hate incidents passed by his Government.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that care should be taken not to conflate crimes with non-crime hate incidents, and that this is particularly important in media reporting?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very sensible point. Ultimately, the bottom line is that the Government believe that we should focus on real crime as a priority. That is why we are putting in 13,000 new police officers, police community support officers and special constables over the next few years, and it is why we have asked for the review of non-crime hate incidents. But in reviewing those issues, we should not lose sight of the importance of intelligence-led information-gathering, as the Metropolitan Police has said.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Minister talks about—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I feel as though I am about to be issued with a non-crime hate incident.

The noble Lord the Minister talked about the importance of not speaking out ahead of the review yet stated that the police were collecting and recording valuable information. Can I challenge that? How does the Minister know that the information is valuable, as it is based on perceived, subjective versions of what is hateful, not illegal? That information could well be used to the detriment of people receiving references for jobs later on. Will the Minister clarify that, regardless, that information should not be used to stop anybody gaining employment, because it is based on subjective rather than objective criteria?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Again, I fall back on the central point, which is that we have commissioned a review, the results of which we are expecting shortly. It will explore a range of issues, including how non-crime hate incidents impact on police resources, responsibilities, intelligence gathering and the issues she mentioned about individual responsibility or records. Having commissioned a review as a Minister, it is best that I wait for that review’s outcomes. We will report back to the House on what measures we need to take as a result.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, when updating the other place on the progress of a national inquiry on child grooming gangs on 2 September, the Minister for Safeguarding said:

“Most importantly, the chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors, as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 162.]


But four months on from the announcement of this inquiry, there are no terms of reference and no chair, while four of the victims have resigned from the victims and survivors’ panel. How do the Government seriously still believe that this inquiry will have the confidence of the victims, when all evidence points to the contrary?

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. First, I say to him that when the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Covid inquiry were established, it took seven months to put a chair in place. We are currently at the very late stages of determining who the chair for this inquiry should be. It is very important, as he has said, that the inquiry, its chair and its terms of reference have the confidence of victims and survivors. I am sorry that a number of victims and survivors have walked away from the process; they will be welcomed back, should they wish to return.

We are working closely with the charity, NWG Network, to ensure that a range of victims put their views to this purpose; they are doing that currently. I believe that we will be in a position shortly to establish the inquiry, with the terms of reference to ensure that we do what we said we were going to do on the tin: to meet the objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set of a national inquiry, focusing on grooming gangs and on the ethnicity issue. I hope that we will have full support from the noble Lord and his colleagues in doing those important tasks.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, public trust in statutory inquiries is already fragile, and it is weakened by concerns about independence, delay and failure to act on recommendations. Take, for example, the Jay inquiry: it took seven years and reported in October 2022, but only a tiny percentage of its recommendations have so far been implemented.

This inquiry must be led by victims and survivors; their involvement is essential to its integrity and to uncovering the truth. The inquiry must go where the evidence takes it. If there is any suggestion that there were racial and religious dimensions of abuse, and if these are found to be true, then they must not be minimised. Can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that these issues will be addressed directly and say what steps will be taken to ensure that this inquiry’s recommendations, unlike those of so many before, are fully implemented?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I refer her to the Statement that the Home Secretary made in response to the issues that arose out of yesterday’s Urgent Question in the House of Commons. The Home Secretary said today that the inquiry will

“explicitly examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders”,

as well examine offenders who have been part of grooming gangs and who are not from a particular ethnic minority; the examination of those issues is also paramount.

The noble Baroness will know that we have set a time limit on the inquiry. We want the inquiry to report speedily, because the important thing is to get recommendations. As the Minister in the Home Office responsible for inquiries, I am very clear that we need to get the inquiry’s results, get the recommendations out and, very importantly, see them through as a matter of some urgency.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government are in the late stages of choosing a chair. If the reports are to be believed—that the two preferred candidates have walked away from the inquiry—it means the Government may yet have some time to go. The position of being in such an inquiry without a chair or a timeline is one I understand only too well. The thing we did was to go back to the beginning and to the victims and survivors to really understand what their concerns were. That was the only way that we could move forward. Will the Government perhaps look again at how they are engaging with victims and survivors given that a lot of them are coming out to say that they have lost trust in the process? In those circumstances, it is very difficult to just say “business as usual”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. The confidence of victims and survivors is central to the effectiveness, quality and outputs of this inquiry. As I mentioned in response to the earlier question from her noble friend on the Front Bench, the Government have engaged NWG, a very respectable charity, to engage with victims and survivors on their behalf, and to give a sounding board to the issues that we are involved in. I regret that people have walked away from that process, but there are many others involved in it, and I want to ensure that they reflect strongly both on the appointment of the chair, on the terms of reference and, ultimately, on the recommendations of the inquiry, which is the most important aspect of this business.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one reason why the survivors resigned was that there were very different accounts from them and the Minister for Safeguarding. Indeed, the Minister for Safeguarding implied that anyone who was saying different was using misinformation, in effect, accusing those survivors of lying.

In fact, the account from Home Secretary was very different from that of the Minister for Safeguarding. I think we can safely say that this is not being handled well. It is not like other inquiries. The Minister might want to reassure us that the inquiry’s terms of reference will be absolutely watertight, that it will not be frightened of saying that the rape grooming gangs were predominantly Pakistani Muslim, and that those things will be faced head on. At the moment, there is not enough reassurance that that is happening. The Home Secretary reassured me; I am not sure that the Minister for Safeguarding did.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me first defend the Minister for Safeguarding. I know nobody else in the House of Commons who has committed so much time, energy and passion to ensuring that these issues are addressed. She is paramount in her ambition to secure some outcomes on safeguarding women and girls and on violence against women and girls. As I have said to other noble Lords and noble Baronesses today, the Home Secretary has been clear that the terms of reference will be determined and that the focus will be on grooming gangs and on ethnicity and background. That also means that we need to look at grooming gangs in the round, but there is a real focus on the ethnicity and background of a number of grooming gangs that have operated, which have caused distress and have led to this inquiry in the first place.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, when I was Secretary of State, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to look at Rochdale. I know the kind of pressure that is placed on a politician when you take that kind of decision, so I am much more sympathetic to the Government. I do not think that this should be political. We are going to uncover some very unpleasant truths about how the establishment in this country looked the other way, so can I ask the Minister to give lots of consideration to the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that this should not be judge led? The nature of a public inquiry, led by a judge, will be overly daunting. We need the confidence of the victims, the confidence of the community and the confidence of the country.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support in this area. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that we should try to move away from the judge-led model for this inquiry. That is what we have been trying to do. The very difficult issues that we have been discussing with victims and survivors—of who should be the chair and how the chair should be appointed—are one reason why there has been the delay to date and the very reason that the noble Baroness mentioned. As I said, the Covid inquiry and the Infected Blood Inquiry took seven months to get to a chair. It has been around three and a half to four months since the inquiry was announced. I hope we can make the appointment shortly, along the lines that the noble Lord mentioned.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, the Church of England has in recent years been forced to face up to our own, significant failures in the areas of safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. We were far too slow to realise the devastating impact of safeguarding when it goes wrong, and we are even now struggling to put in place appropriate ways of ensuring accountability and of being led by survivors. Can the Minister therefore tell me what the Government are doing to support all faith communities in addressing safeguarding, to go beyond simply the requirements of the Charity Commission and to show that no group is above the law when it comes to safeguarding?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

No group is above the law, and this inquiry has been established for the purposes of examining the challenges that arose in certain communities with regard to child sexual abuse and grooming gangs. I hope the right reverend Prelate will recognise that, for example, in the Crime and Policing Bill—which had its Second Reading last Thursday—there are significant measures to improve safeguarding and reporting measures and to meet the outcome of the Alexis Jay report to government, ensuring that we put in place a range of measures to protect victims, wherever they come from, whether from a faith community or not. I hope the right reverend Prelate can work with the Government during the passage of that Bill to give early implementation to strong safeguarding measures to protect children and ensure that we do not have future victims of these terrible incidents.