Extremism Review

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we must, of course, remain resolute in protecting our democratic values and the security of our nation. As the horrific attack in Southport has shown, the evolving nature of threats requires us to remain vigilant. However, I urge caution against diluting the focus of counterterrorism efforts. Islamists and far-right extremism remain the most pressing dangers; shifting attention to behaviours devoid of clear ideological intent risks overstretching our already pressured security services. Will the Minister commit to retaining the changes to non-crime hate incidents made by the last Government? Does he agree that the police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality? To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech.

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

This Answer arises because of the leak of a document. I just want to place on record what was said in the Answer by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Security. The leaked documents were not current or new government policy.

With regard to the incidents of hate crime that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned, I say to him again that if he thinks back, I am sure he will remember that this Government have said, on a number of occasions to date, that there was a review of non-recordable hate crime incidents where we have now asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at those incidents to try to ensure that we reduce the use of non-crime hate incidents and focus on what should be the case in relation to the original intention of non-crime hate incidents.

The noble Lord also mentioned the focus of the Answer and policy as being extremism in relation to Islamist extremism and extreme right-wing neo-Nazi extremism. I can assure him that that is the case. That is the Government’s main focus. However, we have asked the interim Prevent commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to review where we are with Prevent legislation in the light of the incident—terrible that it was—in Southport. There is also a request on the table for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to look at whether terrorism legislation needs to be reviewed in the light of not just the recent incident but others as a whole.

I reassure the noble Lord that any changes in policy brought forward by the Government will be presented in this House in a way in which they can be understood, debated and accepted by both Houses of Parliament.

I reiterate that this was a leaked document. We do not normally comment on leaks, except in this case to say that it is not government policy.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is very pleasing to hear the Minister’s answers. Clearly, the review, even though it was a leak, was not coming up with the right answers; the Home Secretary has made a similar point. One of the key issues to getting this right is proper, early and deep engagement of the communities which will be affected across the length of the country. What will the Government do to ensure that communities are deeply engaged right from the outset of any review or strategies that are required, and that they feel ownership of these, rather than that they were forced upon them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, makes a very important point. Rather like policing generally, it is important that any aspect of legislation or policy relating to prevention of terrorism, or understanding and taking action on extremism, has the support of the community for which it is designed and which it serves. Embedded in what we do will be discussion and consultation on the way forward.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary determined that we needed to have a quick sprint on terrorism legislation. The leaked document was part of that sprint but was not government policy. The examinations of both Prevent and terrorism legislation are ongoing. At the moment, the Government’s commitment is that the two main focuses of our policy have to be extreme Islamist action and extreme neo-Nazi right-wing action.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as director of Policy Exchange, and I had the pleasure of publishing this document which cast an important light on government policy. I welcome the Minister’s reaffirmation of Islamism and far-right extremism as the highest priorities.

In respect of the definition of extremism, both the Minister’s colleagues, Mr Norris at the MHCLG and Mr Jarvis at the Home Office, have given apparently contradictory statements—first on 21 January and, secondly, Mr Jarvis on 28 January—on the disapplication of the previous Government’s definition of extremism, which Mr Norris said would be disapplied. Mr Jarvis, in an Answer to a Written Question yesterday, stated that there were no plans to change the previous Government’s definition of extremism policy. Can the Minister please shed some light on the matter?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Of course I can. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that the next time a leak finds its way to him, he puts it in an envelope and posts it back to the Home Office? That would be extremely helpful. I put that on the record for any noble Lord who receives in the post a document marked “Private: not yet government policy”; it is good to send it back to us.

There are no plans to change the definition of extremism, which was set out by the previous Government in March 2024. It sets down three points, which are: negating or destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; undermining, overturning or replacing UK systems of liberal parliamentary democracy; or intentionally creating a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in either of the first two points. That is the definition of extremism. It has not changed, and was not going to be changed. The leaked document did not include a change and it is not government policy. I will buy the noble Lord some envelopes for the future.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that Ministers have a perfect right to reject documents that are placed before them, wherever they come from, and that this is not a matter for journalistic surprise? Does he agree that we should do nothing to dilute the considerable effectiveness of counterterrorism policing, which involves a number of authorities and public bodies? Does he also agree that Parliament and even the media should await patiently the two reports by experts in the field, to which he referred earlier, and confirm that we will then enjoy informed debate rather than wild comment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I agree with all three points that he has mentioned. The key point is that Governments consider a range of advice. I give a commitment from this Dispatch Box, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would from the House of Commons, that when any change or development of policy is made it will be reported to this House and to the House of Commons. That is the right and proper thing to do. As for speculation on leaked documents and advice given to Ministers: Ministers decide. They receive advice, commission potential papers and deliberate on them. The two reviews we have established are designed to create debate and bring forward suggestions that Ministers will ultimately decide on. I thank the noble Lord for his comments, with which I agree, and welcome his support.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee. In your Lordships’ House next week, we will begin Committee on the very important Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Would the Minister agree that this is a time when we have to be absolutely clear what we mean by terrorism, so that we in this House can give that Bill the clear, in-depth scrutiny it requires?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree, and I look forward to spending potentially several days debating that Bill with noble Lords. It is important that we have a definition of terrorism. It is currently set down in legislation. The Government have asked again for a review of that as part of the review the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, but there are no outcomes to it yet. Until it brings any outcomes, that is the definition of terrorism in place for this legislation.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the work that the department is doing, could the Minister look at the intersection of extremist ideology, whether that is Islamist or far right, with other important issues, such as misogyny and examples of mental health issues? Will they also look at what technology companies are doing? If you have a fragile mind and are being fed a diet of awful, grotesque violence and extreme pornography, that will contribute to these problems as well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend mentions other sources of issues that may lead people to extremist or terrorist behaviour. The Government are cognisant of that and will not ignore that approach. However, the two main threats are from Islamist terrorism or extreme right-wing neo-Nazi terrorism, so that is where the focus of government action is. We will still examine incidents on a case-by-case basis when they arise.

On the reviews that are being undertaken, we have to learn lessons from issues such as Southport. If there are issues that need to be updated when Prevent and the terrorist legislation are reviewed then so be it. How we deal with materials placed on the net and the responsibility of tech companies for that material is one of the issues that may need to be updated in due course. Self-evidently, individuals are being radicalised in a range of ways, including in the ways my noble friend has mentioned, from Islamist, neo-Nazi and other material they have seen on the net. There is a need to ensure that we examine that new framework, which was not in existence the last time I was in the Home Office 14 years ago, but which is in place now. Therefore, the Government’s response needs to be cognisant of that. We will take all of those points into account and report to this House in due course, when appropriate.

Syrian Asylum Applications

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to process the outstanding asylum applications of Syrians in the UK.

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

Following the fall of the Assad regime, the Home Office has withdrawn the country policy and information notes guidance for Syria and temporarily paused interviews and decisions on Syrian asylum claims. This was and remains a necessary step which several other European countries have also taken. The pause is under constant review. When there is a clear basis on which to make decisions, we will resume.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will understand that, for asylum seekers and refugees, uncertainty exacerbates the problems that they have in any event. Will the Home Office consider processing claims that are not based on persecution from the Assad regime? Can the Minister give the House any information on whether the pause applies to Syrians applying for settlement, having been here for five years, and with their initial leave expiring?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the latter question, everything is paused at the moment for the simple reason that we do not yet understand what has happened in Syria on a permanent basis or know how stable Syria is as a whole. For those who have applied and for those who have had their leave to remain agreed, those issues are paused. As for the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, although there is a strong case to say that those who came here prior to the fall of the Assad regime were fleeing the Assad regime, we still have to examine all the circumstances pending the resolution of what happened in Syria prior to Christmas.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that, on the collapse of the Soviet Union, we, in concert with others, introduced a Know-How Fund to try to improve governance and the economy within the former Soviet Union. Is there not a case, in concert with the European Union and other interested countries, most notably in the Middle East, to contemplate introducing a Know-How Fund for Syria? That might reduce the flow of migrants in the future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount tempts me into areas which are not my direct responsibility, but I take his point that stability in Syria and its reconstruction are extremely important international global objectives to ensure that the region remains safe and stable, stemming the flow of refugees and asylum seekers to the United Kingdom. I will refer his comments to the appropriate Minister, but I share his objective for stability in the region, and whatever the UK Government can do to achieve that is something that we should consider.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, I was somewhat surprised to read that one in five of the children who entered care in this country in 2023-24 were unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Will the Minister tell the House what special arrangements are made for these children who are particularly vulnerable?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. He makes a valid point. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, including those from Syria, will continue to be supported by local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and by health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, where appropriate, in line with the statutory duties of those authorities. We are trying to ensure that, if unaccompanied children are here now, that level of safeguarding is in place, for the reasons that I know the noble Lord is committed to and which previous safeguarding measures have somewhat failed.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, granting asylum is a very precious thing, and this country’s reputation with regard to that is something about which we ought to be very proud. Will the Minister comment on the basis of granting asylum? Are the Government still committed, as I believe is right, to the two main principles of the 1951 refugee convention, and are they implementing them strictly and properly in the granting of asylum applications?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord yes, and I hope so. I can only be as open and fair to him as that. For the simple reason that we know what has happened in Syria, there is an assessment to be made of whether individuals wish to return to Syria or to seek asylum, and for those individuals who may seek asylum, what their status is. It is a very complex, moving situation. Therefore, in the Syrian context, the Government, along with their European partners and others, have to have a pause. I will take the points that he has made, and I hope I have answered them to his satisfaction.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

How are the Government ensuring that those granted asylum are effectively integrated into British society? In respect of applicants, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that thorough security checks are conducted before asylum applications are approved, particularly given concerns about individuals potentially exploiting the system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In the context of Syria, there is a pause, as I have already said to the House. In the event of individuals applying from Syria after any lifting of the pause, rigorous checks will be undertaken. One of the areas of refusal could well be if there are criminal tendencies among individuals who are applying for asylum. Those rigorous tests are in place. The noble Lord raises integration. It is important that we have integration and that people respect our cultural differences, because a lack of integration leads to potential conflict, and neither he nor I wish to see that. At the moment, in relation to this Question, for the 5,500 or so Syrian refugees who have currently applied for asylum, that decision will have to wait; no further applications will be processed, although they can be accepted, until we review that pause.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Syria has a turbulent past, and no one can see but darkly the future of Syria. If the promises of the new regime are honoured over a period of time, surely it will be very difficult for many to find a plausible case for asylum.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is not for me to determine or judge whether an individual wishes to apply for asylum from their country of origin to the United Kingdom or any other country. Our job is to assess such claims against the criteria that we have about persecution and the need for refugee status to be granted. There may be individuals who, in a future Syria, feel that they need to seek asylum from that regime— I do not know. That would be for those individuals to determine and apply, and for this Government to adjudicate accordingly.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Government of Syria are a proscribed terrorist organisation under British law. The Minister suggested, if I heard him correctly, that the pause will be in place until there is clarity about a permanent, stable Government of Syria, which may not be for a considerable time. Given that we have already seen instances of the persecution of women in Syria in certain geographical regions, I hope that the Home Office is not making a decision now that Syria is a permanently safe country.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I assure the noble Lord that people can still apply for asylum from Syria; what they cannot do is have a decision. There is nothing to stop people applying, but they cannot have a decision. That is because we need to review the situation in Syria, partly for the reasons the noble Lord has mentioned and partly because we need to look at the long-term situation in Syria. There may be individuals who currently have applications and who wish to return, and there is a mechanism for them to apply for support from the UK Government to cease their applications and return. There may be other individuals who wish to leave Syria for a range of reasons. This is not a unilateral action by the UK Government; it is one that is supported by Austria, Belgium, France and other European countries, and the pause has the support of the United Nations Refugee Agency. It is a serious assessment of the situation, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with us until we can resolve that.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, if I may, I will build on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding asylum-seeking children. Of course there is protection, but I really want to better understand the number of children who have gone missing from our institutions and what the Government are putting in place to safeguard them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not wish to, and am not trying to, make a political point, but when we came in on 4 July last year we discovered that there were approximately 90 unaccompanied children still missing. One of the first priorities of the Government is to try to find out what has happened to those 90 children who we were told, on 4 July, had gone missing. We are trying to track down those unaccompanied children. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, we are trying to beef up the arrangements to ensure that local authorities and health trusts, and indeed the Government, know about unaccompanied children, be they from Syria, in the context of this Question, or not, so that the safeguarding process can be put in place.

Southport Attack

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to discuss the Statement on the Southport attacks that was made in the House of Commons last week.

It is hard to find the words to describe the truly awful brutality that resulted in the violent and shocking deaths of Alice, Bebe and Elsie last summer in Southport: three little girls who set off to enjoy the innocent pleasure of dancing—something which so many children enjoy—only never to return. My heart goes out to their families and friends left behind, as well as to the many left physically, emotionally and mentally scarred after the barbaric events of that day.

From these Benches, we welcome the announcement of the inquiry. A public inquiry is necessary because the Government have a duty to the families to learn the lessons from what happened. An extremely violent young man was identified, by many different people and organisations, yet he was still able to carry out these abhorrent attacks.

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements exist to enable the police and other relevant agencies such as youth offending teams and social services to manage the risk presented by violent offenders, but many are underresourced and lack experienced or qualified participants. Can the Minister say whether the inquiry will aim to establish whether the risks presented by such cases are best managed through MAPPA teams? What are the Government doing to ensure that MAPPA teams are properly staffed and resourced?

Last September, the Committee on Statutory Inquiries of your Lordships’ House published its findings. Paragraph 46 of that report says:

“Ministers should keep in mind the option of holding a non-statutory inquiry (given its relative agility) and then converting it if witnesses fail to cooperate. Ministers should also consider selecting non-judge chairs or appointing a panel. Ministers should meet and consult victims and survivors’ groups before publishing the terms of reference”.


I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is in line with the approach that the Government intend to take on the public inquiry.

The announcement last week of the introduction of greater checks on age before buying knives online is to be welcomed. As the Home Secretary said last week, it is truly shocking that Axel Rudakubana was easily able to buy knives on Amazon when he was only 17. However, can the Minister clarify what is the current situation for buying knives online from an outlet based outside of the UK? Can he confirm whether it is the intention to introduce age verification for the import of knives to this country?

A great deal has been written and said about the effectiveness of Prevent and the definition of terrorism since the Prime Minister’s and Home Secretary’s Statements last week. It is welcome that there is to be another review of Prevent. I believe the Prime Minister’s Statement raised some important questions. Is a lone attacker—unfortunately, usually a young man—who is obsessed with terrorism and previous terrorist attacks but who is not ideologically driven or working within a recognised terrorist organisation, a terrorist? It is important to consider what would be the consequences of changing Prevent’s engagement in such cases.

Does the Minister agree with Neil Basu, the Met’s former head of counterterror policing, when he said last week that a “Prevent for non-terrorists” is now necessary and will require a “big bill” if we want to be safe? Will the Home Office carry out an assessment of the risks of diverting counterterrorism officers from their core task if the definition is expanded to include extremely violent, physiologically disturbed people who are clearly a danger to society but not necessarily a threat to the state?

The brutal murders in Southport raise questions about dangerous individuals and the internet, as Rachel Reeves acknowledged yesterday and as is made clear by the Home Secretary’s letter to the many tech companies appealing for a change in their attitudes. There have always been dangerous and violent individuals who pose a risk to society, but society now faces an additional threat from individuals who have easy access to radical, violent and extremist views on the internet, which can provide an incentive for attacks and sometimes an utterly misguided sense of identity and justification. Do the Government intend to take further measures to remove such dangerous content and to work with search engines such as Google to divert searches to more positive content, with signposting to organisations that can help such individuals?

The misinformation spread on social media after the attacks last summer in Southport, including from Elon Musk, was truly sickening and shocking. It did absolutely nothing to help the victims and survivors, and had much more to do with identity politics and a right-wing agenda. These are not simple matters with quick-fix solutions. We should be wary of knee-jerk reactions which result in bad legislation. However, the victims’ families deserve to know that we will ask the difficult questions and try to find workable solutions, and, most importantly, learn from the mistakes.

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

My Lords, in addressing the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, our first thoughts have to be with the victims of this horrendous incident: Elsie, Bebe and Alice. Our thoughts are also with the people who were attacked, their parents and the brave people who ran to the defence of those young children, both those at the playgroup event and, later, the security forces, the police, the fire services and others. All of them showed that this horrendous crime will remain with us for years to come.

I will try to answer in detail the points from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So the House is aware, the Home Secretary’s announcement last week ensured that we will have an independent public inquiry which will look not just at what happened in Southport but at the issue of rising youth violence and extremism. It will look at the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to the Online Safety Act and the importance of taking action to remove content. Members will wish to know that, on 17 March, illegal content removal comes into effect. We have written to online providers to ask them to speed up their response, as is their statutory responsibility, prior to that date.

We will undertake a learning review of the organisation of Prevent generally, which has now been in operation for well over 20 years. The situation within the terrorist community and the areas that Prevent relates to have changed in that time and we need to make sure that it is up to speed. We have appointed the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as independent commissioner of Prevent and to review this case on a temporary basis.

We will look at knife sales in the police and crime Bill which will come before this House shortly. I will reflect on the points that the noble Baroness raised in relation to overseas sales, as well as the verification of sales that have been brought to the door.

We must remember that the individual who committed these crimes faces a life sentence, given down last week, with a 52-year minimum sentence. The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned about the whole-life sentence are tempered by the fact that the UK Government have signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which means that we cannot currently give a whole-life sentence to somebody under the age of 18.

The House should not be confused by this regarding our commitment to the victims of this crime, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, spoke of. We will give them full support. That is why, taking on board the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, we will take some time to appoint the chair of the inquiry and to consult with the coroner and the victims’ families, and to look at the terms of reference for the inquiry. All the points made from both Front Benches are important to be considered by the public inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned integration. That is key to the assessment of Prevent and to how we tackle those issues generally. I remind him that the perpetrator of this crime was a British-born, British citizen. There are multilayered complexities in the issues that led to the appalling incident in Southport.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness made points about the review of legislation generally. We have asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to see whether we are up to speed at the moment. That again will be a considered process, but one which I hope will add value to the work that we need to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned a range of issues regarding multi-agency teams and their determinations. These are all extremely important. I assure her that we will be examining all this in relation to the response as a whole.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that, for those of us who were Ministers in the first few weeks of office, this was a tremendous challenge. We have to look in slow time at how we best respond to this challenge. We have looked at the incidents that have been referred to and at the sentencing that has now happened in relation to Southport, but we have also had a review of the consequences, post-Southport, of the disorder that took place in the light of that event. As Ministers, it is important for us to get to the stage of looking at what we can do to help prevent incidents like the one that happened in Southport occurring in the future.

I hope that, as a start, the points that my right honourable friend mentioned in the Statement last week and in this updated Statement, post-sentencing, give this House the assurance that this Government will be looking at how Prevent is operating, the incidents surrounding this crime and why the multi-agency support mechanisms did not identify interventions earlier, the Online Safety Act and how we can improve those issues, and at all this as a whole, to ensure that if there are things that we can do in the future to prevent this type of atrocity, we will do them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and for the work that he has done in this field. He will know that 33 of the 34 recommendations from the Shawcross report have already been fully implemented. We have one outstanding recommendation. We have already launched new statutory guidance and new training for front-line professionals, including on Islamist extremism. We are overhauling our decision to take in non-Prevent referrals that enter the system. We have launched pilots to tackle online radicalisation, to support those that do not meet the Prevent thresholds. We have recruited, as I mentioned in my initial comments, the first independent Prevent commissioner.

Everything will be kept under review, but I hope that the Shawcross recommendations that are implemented will make a difference. Self-evidently, failings have happened and, therefore, we need to review those failings independently of ministerial action and, in doing that, bring forward—sadly—further recommendations to tighten and improve the system.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee showed in its 2022 report, Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism, the toxic nature of how online extremism is affecting young minds. I accept what the Minister said, that there rightly has to be a threshold for something to be deemed terrorism, but does he agree that the real gap is that, for those individuals who are affected by these images and propaganda online, there is nothing currently in the mental health services that they are referred to for dealing with that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important issue. This is an important part of the process that we need to review now: if individuals are being radicalised in their bedrooms in whatever way—right-wing, Islamist or just for the purposes of enjoying killing—we need to try to find a mechanism to remove the content that is leading to that radicalisation. Equally, if people come into contact with social services, the police or other agencies—as indeed the perpetrator did in this case—that needs to be sensitively picked up and support, whether mental health, directional or another form, needs to be given to help change that behaviour. That is the purpose of Prevent and of the regime that both Governments have had in place over a long period of time. Self-evidently, in this case, it failed. The purpose of our public inquiry is to look at why it failed and at the interventions that happened, why they did not work and why they were not picked up and developed further. We need to ensure that, from whatever background violent behaviour is being directed, we take action to mitigate against it.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I accept what the Minister is saying but, on this Holocaust Memorial Day, the Times reports the findings of a Channel 4 survey which found that 52% of young people aged 13-27 said that they thought

“the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections”,

while 47% agreed that,

“the entire way our society is organised must be radically changed through revolution”.

Not only did the internet apparently incentivise or motivate the Stockport murderer, it is producing wider, very worrying, attitudes. What will the Government do to counter these dangerous ideas; for example, by supporting the production of positive content?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have to do two things. First, we have to look at where there is material online that breaches criminal thresholds and then work with the hosts of that material to take it down. That is what the Government are trying to do with the Online Safety Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the DSIT Secretary, Peter Kyle, will be looking in the longer term at that type of illegal material which fosters, for example, ideas of using ricin, promoting potential attacks or encouraging violent behaviour. That has to cross a criminal threshold.

There is also a wider point about promoting a decent society and the values of tolerance, understanding, respecting differences and allowing people to live their lives with tolerance. My parents’ generation saw great loss fighting fascism in the Second World War—members of my family died. I grew up in the knowledge that my family and their generation had fought fascism in the Second World War. The Holocaust memorial services today remind us of where fascist ideology leads. We need, in my view, to gain an open, tolerant society. That is the second half of what I hope all of us can do to make sure that we respect and celebrate our differences.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Does the Minister agree with me that, leaving aside our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it would be unwise of us to use an incident as extreme and horrifying as this as a ground for changing the law to enable a judge to impose a whole-life sentence on an individual aged under 18? The problem is that if the law is changed, it is changed generally, applying over a wide range of cases. It would not capture, without a very difficult definition, a case as extreme as this. It would be wiser to leave the matter as it is and of course go along with what the convention tells us.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord speaks wise words. He will also note that Justice Goose indicated in his sentencing that it was likely to be a whole-life term, even though he could give only a 52-year sentence. The perpetrator will not be considered for any form of parole, at any stage, until he is 70; he is currently 18. That is a severe sentence, for which I am grateful for the work of Justice Goose and the judiciary in dealing with this difficult case in a sensitive way.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the Statement’s points on contempt of court, will the Minister comment on the CPS’s refusal to release full background details about Rudakubana, even after his guilty plea? This led the Crime Reporters Association to note

“a worrying pattern whereby forces wanting to provide information to the press have been instructed to stay silent”.

I raise this because I want to know what the Minister thinks about the information vacuum that followed the incident. Yes, some bad-faith players stirred the pot, but most of the people who were speculating and asking questions about, say, terrorism were parents who were just sickened by the carnage of those little girls, and I think felt resentful, frankly, at being called out as either far-right or somehow the problem themselves. Can we have more openness and information, not less?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have tried to be as open as possible at every stage of this process, which is why we made Statements to the House of Commons when the incident occurred, on sentencing and now. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government have a duty also to make sure that information does not prejudice a trial and/or a sentencing result, even after a guilty plea.

If information that the Government held, or were party to, or had already prepared to begin to promote ideas that we are acting on now, had been put into the public domain at a time when the Government either became aware of that information or acted upon it, we may have had a situation whereby a trial would not have been a fair and open trial; a conviction may not have happened in the way it has happened; and, even after the guilty plea, which the Government were not expecting on that day, we may have had the sentence subject to potential appeals because of anything the Government had said.

Certainly, the Government’s role is to now have an inquiry, for all the reasons I have mentioned, and to look at all the issues that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have raised today. But the Government also have a responsibility to make sure that members of the judiciary fulfil their job appropriately.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

Further to the answer that the Minister has just given, Jonathan Hall, the Government’s independent reviewer of counterterror legislation, said, in the aftermath of these heartbreaking killings, that

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’”.

He continued:

“Quite often, there’s a fair amount … that can be put into the public domain”,


and that

“just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days”.

I appreciate, as the Minister says, that the position is very difficult, and one does not want to prejudice a trial. But will he reflect on what the independent adviser said, and did he agree with it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has put his question. We have now charged the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to examine the lessons from this case. He is responsible for the comments he has made. But he will present a report, which this Government will publish and present to both Houses in due course, on the issues that he thinks are relevant; we will respond, and that is the right and proper way to do it. I am not about to make policy now at the Dispatch Box, nor is my right honourable friend, on issues which demand and need reflection, and I hope the noble Lord understands the reasons I have responded in that way.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House, as I missed the opening statement from the Minister. I recognise the difficulties that he faced. Although, obviously, as the previous speaker said, a fair amount can be put into the public domain and, equally obviously, everyone wants as much as possible, nothing would have been more disastrous than if Ministers had put information into the public domain that put the trial in jeopardy and this man got off completely. May I say to the Minister in solace that whatever criticism he and the Government have had for the actions they have taken or not taken, it is as nothing to the criticism that he and his colleagues would have received if they had put that trial in jeopardy and this murderer had gone scot free?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend has faced decisions such as those that we have faced in these past few months, and he knows the difficulty of dealing with incidents such as the one that happened in Southport in the summer of last year. I understand and take his point, and I am grateful for his support. I hope the House will understand that the Government not commenting on certain issues is not about them trying to cover up or be secretive or not divulge information; it is about ensuring that that information is divulged at a time when it is most effective to secure convictions of individuals such as the one responsible for an atrocious act that took three lives.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I have two quick questions for the Minister. First, obviously, the state has failed with horrific consequences here. The Minister mentioned a review. Can he set out what the timeline is? How fast can it be done? How thorough will it be? Will the Government undertake to accept any recommendations or changes that are suggested? Secondly, there have been a few comments about the rights of a child, which are obviously important, but there are also the rights of the victims to consider. If there are, sadly, future incidents such as this, and if the Government go ahead and lower the voting age to 16, does that then mean—and this is not a political point—that a 16 year-old is considered to be an adult, or is a 16 year-old who is able to vote still a child?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On that latter point, the Government’s legal binding for this potential area of policy is signing up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are determined by the convention that is signed, so that any change in the voting age would not impact on the convention unilaterally by the United Kingdom as a whole.

The noble Lord mentioned the inquiry. I hope he understands that this relates partly to the speed of the events of last week, with a guilty plea and the sentencing on Thursday. With the sentencing having taken place, we want to establish the inquiry that my right honourable friend has mentioned, but we want to take time for three reasons and in three areas. We want to take time to consult the families to ensure that they understand what is happening and that they are brought onboard, because the victims are not just the children who died but their relatives. We have a coroner’s inquest, which is ongoing, and we need to consult the coroner on these matters. We have to ensure that the chair has the right skills for this inquiry, and that is not going to be a quick, easy fix. Therefore, much as I would like to give the noble Lord an easy answer on the timescale, I say to him that I will bring back to this House at some point, in a Written Statement or on the Floor of the House, the details of that inquiry, but as yet we are working through those things. We want to make sure that we get it right. We want the families not only to feel ownership of the inquiry but to understand its objectives and terms of reference, to have contributed to them and to have confidence in the chair that we ultimately select.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I pay tribute to the victims of child sexual exploitation who, for too long, have been treated as miscreants themselves, including by police and social workers, thus repeating their victimisation. Their bravery in continuing their fight over many years of not being listened to is quite extraordinary.

My first question is about them. What support and recompense will the Government provide for these victims? While it is good that the Government have accepted all the IICSA recommendations, the Statement says that the Government will lay out a timetable for taking forward these recommendations before Easter. A timetable is welcome, but does the Minister actually have any idea of timescales for the possible start and finish for the discussion, consultation and implementation of these recommendations? I ask this with experience of speaking on many of the other inquiries and recommendations, and know how easily things can get bogged down in paperwork, to put it politely.

The Home Secretary said that there will be

“new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions”.

However, I cannot get the answer to my question of why the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which incorporates an enormous amount of legislation to support victims, has not yet been commenced, other than for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The HMICFRS inspection on police and law enforcement bodies’ response to group-based child sexual exploitation in England and Wales, published in December 2023, made nine recommendations. Can the Minister say how many have now been fully implemented by government? It is not clear whether the previous Government had accepted them in full, let alone implemented them. I realise that three have not quite reached the deadline by which that should have been done—only one of those goes beyond March this year—but that leaves six where the deadline has now passed. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I would be grateful if he could write to me.

It is encouraging that the Government want to do a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation, but can he say what “rapid” means, not least as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has other roles to fulfil? Will her taking up this role slow down the other important work that she is doing?

It is also encouraging that the Government will start collecting better data and evidence. One of the problems here is that a lot of the evidence has never been collected. Can the Minister say whether they will review the various local inquiries—Oldham, Rotherham, Telford and other towns? I have raised this with him before, and I got a positive response, but it would be useful if the Government could lay out all the various inquiries that have happened so that it is possible for their information to be included; otherwise, we may miss some important things.

It is good news that Tom Crowther KC has been appointed to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries. The Statement mentions the drawing up of a duty of candour. We on these Benches have stood alongside Labour when it has raised this is the past. Can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea about when this might be published? There is clearly an urgent need for it.

I end by expressing my disappointment at the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He talked about the national emergency, but his Government did not accept all the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, it is not clear whether they have implemented the recommendations from HMI, and, more importantly, his Government did nothing to start to implement those that his party now says should have been implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for both Front-Bench contributions. I say at the outset that I am disappointed by the tone of the first few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He seems to imply that this problem occurs only in authorities that have Labour control. If he thinks that is the case, he is sadly misguided. When he reads back what he has said today, I think the tone of his contribution is one that he will think about, reflect upon and regret.

I am trying to look at a programme of activity to ensure that we stop the vile crime of child abuse, that we respond to the reports that have been published already, and that we put a detailed programme in place to affect change. I am disappointed by the way that the noble Lord has approached this. If he wants to politicise things, let us politicise the Alexis Jay report, rightly commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was in the House of Commons. It took seven years to achieve its objectives and produce recommendations, which were given to the previous Government in May 2023. By 4 July 2024, not one single action in the recommendations had been started, never mind completed. So if the noble Lord wants to politicise this matter, I will certainly politicise it, but I appeal to all Members of this House to focus on the real issue: child abuse and prevention of that child abuse.

That is why I will focus on the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can tell her that there will be a clear timetable. There will be a clear programme of activity. We have said that, unlike the previous Government, we will respond to all 20 IICSA recommendations by Easter of this year. We have already put in place three recommendations announced recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Those three steps include: mandatory reporting, which we debated in depth on Friday; making grooming an aggravated factor, which I know the noble Baroness will welcome; and introducing police performance frameworks, which again I know the noble Baroness will welcome.

The noble Baroness asked about the Victims and Prisoners Act. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the Justice Minister, and we are working on that; we will bring forward proposals to implement that in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about deadlines, the Casey report and our response. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been commissioned to do a short report for three months to take us up to April. She does not commence the longer-term work on other departments’ activities until April this year. The three-month audit is about looking at the issues, which are important in all local authorities, of the ethnicity of people who are committing child abuse, what preparation is available and what support is on hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about all inquiries. She knows that I have given a commitment before that we need to look at the lessons from all inquiries, but I say to all Members of this House that we have laid out a clear timetable for implementing the IICSA recommendations; we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to improve the understanding of the scale and nature; we have extended the remit of the IICSA report to look at other areas now; we have given support to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at further action that could be taken on historic child sex abuse reviews; we have put finance in of £5 million, not just with Tom Crowther but with others, to look at local inquiries; we have put an undercover online help and support line in place; we have included the three mandatory duties; and we will be taking measures on the Online Safety Act, which will come into effect next year, to make sure that we tackle child sexual abuse, which very often is now on the dark web and online.

I offer the noble Lord the hand of friendship and ask him not to politicise this in the way that he has and to look at the positives that have been done.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Have a statutory inquiry.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

A statutory inquiry, for which the noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position, would mean a further five or six years before recommendations took place. Clear action was set down by Alexis Jay in the IICSA inquiry.

Believe it or not, we have been working on this from last July to January this year. We have announced measures now because parties have commented, often based on false information, about what has not been happening. Things have been happening. Those who have served or worked in government know that Governments do not just announce things at one day’s notice. A lot of work has been put into this between July and January to achieve those objectives—and in fact we have put an awful lot more work into this than the previous Government did over the 19 months when those recommendations were there.

So my hand of friendship goes to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He should work with the Government, with Members of the Liberal Democrats, with this House and with the House of Commons to do something now, in the next few months, to help to reduce the dreadful activities of child abuse online, in person and elsewhere. If we do that, we can make a real difference in the near future rather than waiting for some mythical inquiry and trying to pin the fact that we cannot do that on the Government because of political shenanigans. We are not doing that because we want urgent action on this issue. I commend my right honourable friend’s Statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness has committed a large part of her professional life to tackling this issue, and I take very much to heart her support for the Government’s stance on a statutory national inquiry. We are not doing that for the reasons I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Davies: in essence, we would waste time looking at a problem in respect of which we already have 20 recommendations from IICSA, and other recommendations from earlier reports, which is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has accepted all the Home Office recommendations for implementation now. The remaining recommendations for other parts of government will be brought forward prior to Easter. We have given a clear timetable. I will be held to account by this House, as will my right honourable friend by the House of Commons. We are here to deliver on the recommendations. I say to the House again that the recommendations were delivered in May 2023. On 4 July, when this Government came into office, not one single inch had been moved towards those recommendations. That is this Government’s focus. By all means let us have a political debate about it, but I am more interested in taking action which will help prevent there being future victims.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the focus on the victims, which is critical; sometimes we forget about the victims when we debate points of process. At the end of the Statement, the noble Lord’s right honourable friend referred to undercover online networks and the need to engage on that, because we know that what happens online, unfortunately, quickly moves into reality. Reducing the number of online pathways that accelerate harm should be a priority as well. There are plenty of priorities, I accept that, but surely this has to be one. Will the Minister commit to working with experts in this field—including the former head of CEOP, Jim Gamble, who he will be familiar with and who did some excellent work with the former Government—to really take on this issue? It concerns me that it becomes a reality when it starts online.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, knows that I have great respect for Jim Gamble and his work. She will also know that addressing the movement to online presence, the dark web, fake images, AI, and the future development of child abuse in that sphere is extremely important for the Government. That is why two things are happening as a result of my right honourable friend’s Statement. The first is action on the Online Safety Act to try to look at how we tighten up laws on the use of child images and child abuse images online. Secondly, we are recruiting a large number of additional online undercover police officers. I do not need to talk to the House in great detail about that, but the purpose of those officers is to capture people who are committing criminal activity online and bring them to justice in order to stop them exploiting young people and children, and to stop young people and children being exploited through providing images that those people will seek to use. They are both extremely important areas that the Government are focused on.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I had the duty to give evidence to IICSA in my time as a Minister, and then served on the Select Committee that looked at statutory inquiries. We came up with a recommendation that was in line with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about enacting recommendations. We heard evidence, though, that, in addition to its recommendations, a really important part of IICSA was the Truth Project. Of some 7,000 victims who took part, about 6,000 were within that project, which was nowhere near being a core participant. Can the Minister outline how reviews of local inquiries will not lose sight of the fact that victims really valued that process, which was very cathartic and not part of the judicial process of the inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for those comments. I think she will know that the Government want to put victims at the heart of the response to the recommendations. We debated mandatory reporting on Friday in this House, and it was clear that victims carry the pain of their victimhood through into adult life and beyond. It scars individuals. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned the many victims who do not reach adulthood because they self-harm and commit suicide. We need to address how we involve the experience of victims to ensure we do not create future victims. I see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in her place. The inquiry she established had a number of recommendations on how we can help support victims, and we will look at those between now and Easter. It takes time, but we will look at how we can respond to those recommendations in the best way, so as not to lose the knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, process is clearly very important in relation to statutory inquiries and to giving the recommendations some kind of parliamentary scrutiny and holding them to account. On Friday, the Minister identified that the Home Office was responsible for “four” of the 20 recommendations. Which member of the Cabinet will be responsible for leading on this inquiry and its recommendations? Will the Minister take it from me that there would be a lot of delight—widely across the House, I suspect—if he were to take responsibility among Ministers in this House for leading on reporting back progress on this inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister takes a keen interest in the progress of these reports, and he will monitor and hold to account Ministers in government on that delivery. But the very fact that I am standing here today, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was standing in the House of Commons, shows that we are responding on behalf of the Government to the IICSA response. That is where the lead and responsibility lie: with the Home Office. But we do not have the direct implementation of a number of recommendations, which require the engagement of the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and other departments. We have set out the timetable to meet those 17 other recommendations; we have accepted the four, and we are already implementing some. Very shortly, other legislation will be published by the Home Office that will give effect to the recommendations we have accepted. It is our job to see that through and to do so, I hope—putting out the hand of friendship—with the support of the Opposition Front Bench.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking this robust approach in order to make a real difference and change for our children’s lives—the victims will carry that pain through childhood and beyond. The introduction of any duty to report child sexual abuse and exploitation must be accompanied by funding for services and training to support practitioners working with children across the country. Essential services like the NSPCC Childline and the Shore service play a vital role in supporting children who have suffered child sexual abuse and exploitation. How will the Government ensure that these services will be able to continue their valuable work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for mandatory reporting. She participated in the debate on Friday and will know that I said from this Dispatch Box that this is an urgent issue for this Government. We will bring forward proposals on mandatory reporting in very short order. She raises the issue of funding. Any implementation of any recommendations requires a consistent government approach and a review of how we are funding those approaches to those issues. I cannot give her a detailed answer now, but, as part of the review on what we do with the 17 other recommendations, we will put meat on those bones so that she and others in this House can see what resources the Government are putting into this area.

The noble Baroness raises the issue of the very important support of the voluntary agencies. It is important that, politically—I mean that in a non-party-political way—we give support to Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations, which are doing great work in both highlighting this terrible abuse and very much supporting development work on the ground. This is helping the Government’s case to reduce the amount of child abuse as a whole. So I cannot give that answer now, but I will return to this in due course.

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to victims and survivors in this regard, recognising that the failure to respond perpetuates and prolongs their suffering, and recognising—as noble Lords will all know—that the Church of England is facing significant challenges in putting its own house in order in that regard. I want to ask, therefore, a wider question on faith communities, all of which provide places of gathering and moral and social influence, and all of which strive to make those places as safe as possible. What conversations are continuing with leaders of faith communities to support them in that vital work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the right reverend Prelate’s contribution. I think I can say to him that the Church has had difficulties, which he has acknowledged, and those difficulties might well have been resolved had some of the measures in the IICSA report been in place at the time. For example, had mandatory reporting been in place seven or eight years ago, it is very possible that some of the concerns that have arisen in the last few weeks and months in relation to the reporting of sex abuse in the Church might have been resolved.

I reach out to the right reverend Prelate, as I reach out to teachers, social workers and others who have a place of responsibility for the safeguarding of children, to say that the measures in the IICSA report, following the helpful inquiry led by Alexis Jay, are in areas where I hope we can work in co-operation with any authority, be it the Church, teachers or others, to see whether they impact upon the areas where the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues have had concerns.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has the whole House with him when he agrees that we must do very much better in preventing the sexual abuse of children. That is the challenge. We actually know how to do it and we could do it very much better. Much on my mind is the list of local authorities, published yesterday and again today, that are on the verge of bankruptcy. That means that services are being withdrawn at the very time when we want services to be outward-looking and more engaged, especially in preventing children being abused in this way.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has experience far beyond any that I could bring to this House, so I am grateful for his contribution today. He raises an extremely important point. We have established a fund—it is of only £5 million, but it is available to all local authorities to draw on to establish the work that needs to be done. That was in the initial announcement from my right honourable friend in the House of Commons last week and will be kept under review for the future. We have given the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a remit to look at the existing areas of concern within local authorities. No doubt she will come back with an audit and further recommendations for the Government to consider.

I recognise that the noble Lord has concerns about long-term funding for key services that are about interventions. I can say to him only that we are going to keep all that under review. I know I will have his support, and that of others with great experience, in implementing the IICSA recommendations and when we bring back proposals on the other recommendations, in what might be only 10 weeks’ time.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, although I am speaking in a personal capacity today. About a week ago, when the Minister and I engaged on a similar but different Statement, I asked him two questions and he said he would need to go away and think about them. One was about data. I do not know whether he has seen the reports, based on freedom of information requests, about backsliding. I very much welcome the emphasis on ethnicity data collection and demographics, as the Statement says. Has he seen the statistics? I will give him only three examples. In Hampshire, in the past five years, 58% of offenders sentenced for all sexual offences involving children were recorded as having an unknown ethnicity. In West Mercia, it was 55%, and in Leicestershire, it was 52%. If the police are already not recording identity for fear of being accused of either racism or Islamophobia, what are the Government going to do, before we get the full gamut of actions under the Jay report, to ensure that the current requirements are met?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness had a conversation with me, both in this Chamber and outside. She will know that there are occasions when Ministers can absorb views but cannot necessarily give definitive answers, because policy is developed outside of just the discussions in this House and in government as a whole. I hope she will welcome that one of the policy initiatives in the second Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was the collection of data—the very point she raised with me before we made that announcement. I could not give her assurances then because we had not made the announcement; now we have. That data will be collected by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. If it shows matters that need to be addressed, they will be addressed, to try to reduce this curse.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the culture of denial and cover-up that has led to this scandal has over recent years often happened by attacking people’s tone. Can the Minister comment on the row in Wales, where, last week, the Presiding Officer of the Senedd denied that Wales had a grooming gangs problem and accused Darren Millar, who raised it, of being overly graphic and using the wrong tone when describing one girl’s ordeal, leading to that victim saying that she feels her experience was downplayed? Surely tone is not the problem at all—though the Minister started off by saying that it was. Can the Minister explain how five local inquiries can deal with ongoing problems in at least 50 towns in the UK and why witnesses cannot be compelled to attend? It feels inadequate, and that is what many victims are saying.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am responsible for many things in this department but I am not responsible for the comments of the Senedd Presiding Officer or any spat that they may have had with the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales in the Senedd. That is a matter for them. I can say that tone is important. I have tried to have an inclusive tone in this House in response to the recommendations. I put down my disappointment at the initial comments and tone of the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition, which, in my view, tried to politicise what should be a contribution from all parties and none in this House to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report.

The noble Baroness mentioned the five authorities we have looked at. Those are the five where there have been reports to date. We are doing what I have been asked to do by Members of this House, which is to see whether all recommendations have been implemented to date. I have been asked by Members to look at ethnicity and other issues around who is undertaking this, which is why we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a Member of this House, to do a very quick deep-dive audit of what is happening. We are trying to address that. On top of that, we are still trying to get to the key point: what do we do about the 17 recommendations that the previous Government did nothing about? That is what I am trying to focus on today. I will take any contribution from any part of this House to set a tone to deliver on those recommendations.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, to what extent are these failings the result of victims of child exploitation and abuse not being believed? With the case of Jimmy Savile, for example, we saw that victims were not believed by the police. There is a lot of emphasis on the ethnicity of the perpetrators, but would the Minister agree that there is not enough emphasis on the police not believing victims because of their background, age and lack of education?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That very point, which was well made, is why, on Friday, the Government accepted the principle of mandatory reporting and will bring forward legislation shortly. Mandatory reporting means that, if a member of the Church, a teacher, a social worker, or somebody in a position of authority has a report made to them by anybody, be it a perpetrator or a child, about a suspicion of child sexual abuse, that has to be referred to the appropriate authority. Therefore, the police will have a greater impetus to investigate such reports than perhaps some forces or officers have undertaken in the past. It is not now just about the belief of a child; it is about the belief of a report being made by an individual in a position of authority to say that this needs to be investigated. That does not imply guilt or innocence, but it does imply clarity of investigation.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. We have had a number of Questions on it, but it is worthy of a debate in this short time we have. I will try to answer the points that noble Lords mentioned in their contributions.

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who asked whether we have a plan to look at blue Monday five years hence. I hope it will help him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, if I mention some points very briefly, which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord, at least in part.

First, we have to speed up asylum claims, because they are taking too long to be determined. As my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, we have a proud record of accepting asylum claims, but we have to adjudicate them. The longer we take to adjudicate them, the longer people need to be in hotels and dispersed accommodation. So the first task the Government have to undertake is to ensure that we complete and assess asylum claims as quickly as possible. To do that, we have put in an extra 1,000 staff, deployed from different parts of the department, in part from the savings from the Rwanda scheme which was scrapped.

Secondly, we need to speedily remove those who do not have a claim for asylum. Since 4 July, the Government have taken 16,000-plus people who have failed the asylum system from hotels and returned them to a place of safety—a country that they have been deemed able to return to.

Thirdly, and this is the nub of the discussions we have had so far, we need to look at how we close hotels, because they are a costly way of operating asylum accommodation. We have already closed the “Bibby Stockholm” and scrapped the use of Scampton in Lincolnshire, and we have plans to reduce the number of hotels over the course of this Parliament. It will take time, but by March this year we will have nine fewer hotels than we inherited in July last year. The noble Lord will expect me to say this, but I find it strange that under his jurisdiction and his Government, the number of hotels went from zero in 2015 to a peak of 400 in 2023 and is now just settling at the 260-270 mark. There is a record that we have to pick up on and work with, which I am trying to do in a constructive and positive way.

To answer some of the points mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Green, we have put in place the new Border Security Command—which will require legal back-up in a Bill later this year—with Martin Hewitt as its head. That is designed to try to take some of the pressure not off asylum accommodation, which is legitimate, but the illegal entry to the UK by criminal gangs organising for people to make dangerous crossings to potentially seek asylum, who in some cases have no basis for asylum but still come across in illegal gangs. The Border Security Command will be part of the plan to try to overturn that.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about what we are doing with our international partners, and we have some international policy objectives. We do not have a phobia about talking to Germans, Italians or the French. We have a Calais Group in place to look at the issues there. Our Border Force control is looking at what is happening in Germany, working with Germany upstream to reduce the pressures there and to ensure that people claim asylum legitimately in their first port of call, rather than coming to the United Kingdom.

We have scrapped the Rwanda scheme, which was a disincentive and a waste of money. We have put that money into the areas I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, such as speeding up asylum claims, finding places to reduce the use of hotels and commissioning good, dispersed accommodation. I take the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, that we want to get people through the system as quickly as possible, so they are determined to be legitimately here and able to work, or not legitimately here, and a way is found to deport them. That process needs to have integrity and speed.

There are issues arising from and discussions about the levels of migration, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Green. The Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which is a Liberal Democrat-inspired Bill, not a Government Bill, has legitimate objectives at its core, which I accept and understand. A big migration White Paper is due shortly; it will look at the very pressures that have been talked about in this House by my noble friend Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, and at how we deal with integration and the potential shortfall in skills. It will consider how we deal with asylum issues generally, all the questions that are dealt with in the family reunion Bill, and how we create a wider 5-year plan—going back to the noble Lord, Lord Patten—to ensure that we can deal with those issues over that period. Those are all key issues.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and others who have mentioned it, I say that the hotel costs which are the focus of this debate are simply eyewatering and not a good use of taxpayers’ money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, they are not even a good way of ensuring the safety and security of the people in those hotels, particularly women fleeing persecution. The costs were £8 million per day under the previous Government. They have dropped to £6 million per day following the work we have done to reduce them. It will take time but, I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, it is part of the plan to get that figure right down and, over a period, end the use of hotels, but we have to deal with the demand issues first. These include legitimate asylum claims, which my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned; we should be place of sanctuary, somewhere that accepts people who are fleeing persecution, and do so in a proper and effective way without hotels.

We have to be cognisant of the fact that we still have to deal with the continued demand, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We need to focus on reducing the pressure on the system from those who are seeking to come here illegally.

We have increased dispersed accommodation by 8% in the past few months of this Government’s tenure—the first time that we have been in office to do so. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had already been spent on large sites at Scampton and Bexhill, and the “Bibby Stockholm”, by the previous Government, and we have tried to row back on that. We have reviewed asylum spend, and it is important that we look at the bigger picture. In 2023-24, when the noble Lord’s party was in office, the Home Office spent £4.7 billion on asylum support, the vast majority on hotels. We are continuing to explore how we can save taxpayers’ money, and we are on track to save £4 billion over the next two years. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that it is part of the plan to reduce the amount of money spent on asylum accommodation by speeding up the claims, scrapping accommodation such as the “Bibby Stockholm” and ensuring that the Rwanda policy is changed, so that we can use that resource to clear the backlog of asylum decisions.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for securing this debate. This Government inherited an asylum system under exceptional strain. When we came into office, there were tens of thousands of cases at a complete standstill, and a growing a backlog. In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, asylum seekers were therefore living in limbo, accommodated in hotels which not only cost exorbitant sums but are profoundly detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield highlighted that there is real pressure on hotels from collections of individuals, which has led to forces that are not conducive to integration, security and acceptance. The focus has been on hotels rather than on dispersed accommodation, where people go about their daily lives in a dispersed way.

For all those reasons, the Government are actively working towards a more sustainable and cost-effective solution to accommodate asylum seekers away from hotels. I have to be honest with the House: it will take time. It is a challenge, and it cannot be done straightaway, but the Government’s objective is very clear. In the manifesto, we said that we would end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation and, at a date to be determined, that we will do. I will be accountable to this House, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be to the House of Commons, in ensuring that we do that in future. The resource that is being eaten up by asylum hotels is the very same that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, can be used elsewhere for more positive activity. I will look at the detail of what she mentioned and drop her a note.

I will check on my noble friend Lady Lister’s lost letter. I thought I had sent it, but maybe it got lost in the system over Christmas and the new year. We will find out where it has gone, and if it does not have a stamp on it yet, it will have one shortly. She may even find that I use the new method of email, as a matter of some speed, to get the correspondence to her in short order. I will look at that as a matter of urgency and get back to her.

I hope that today’s debate has been useful. There are challenges. On all sides of the House, we accept that we have the challenges of wider migration, hotel accommodation and its cost, making a plan and illegal migration into this country. In the short time that I have had, I hope I have set out the Government’s prospectus. With that, I hope that the House can hold me to account in due course on the delivery of that proposal.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the Minister sits down—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have sat down. The time has gone, I think.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

There is some time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have time. As I have known the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for such a long time and worked with him in such a constructive way, and even though the clock is flashing, I will take his intervention.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the Minister sits down—again—could he respond to my point about the 1951 refugee convention. He talked about demand. This is part of the legal framework and our international obligations, which I think need revision, with our partners across the rest of the world who were party to it in the first place. If he cannot give me a response now, he can write to me—or email me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will uphold our international obligations. We have an international obligation, under international law, to accept and assess refugees. That does not decry the fact that we have to look at, with our European and United Nations partners and others, how we reduce the pressures that lead to refugee status in the first place. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Lord said and look at Hansard in due course, but this Government will keep to their international obligations.

I am grateful for the debate and do not wish to test the patience of the House. Having had my 12 minutes, I commend the debate and hope that I have been able, at least in part, to answer some of the important questions raised.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, child sexual abuse is a despicable crime. This Government are committed to taking action to keep children safe online, in our communities and around the world. In line with our commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, this Government will also work to improve the response to, and outcomes of, child sexual abuse for women, children and girls.

In that spirit I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward the Bill. Through her, I also thank a range of voluntary organisations including Mandate Now and Barnardo’s, which were mentioned, for their support for the Bill and the proposals brought forward today.

Timing is all. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will know that I can give notice that the Government are reflecting very seriously on these matters. I stress again that this Government are firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse, whether it happens online or in the community. That is why we want to take swift action on delivering against the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, about which I will talk in a moment.

I want to start with the really important points mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Some 3.1 million adults have been subjected to child sexual abuse, according to the figures she brought forward today. The consequences of that were ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in relation to the impact on people not just at the time but throughout their lives.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned resistance to reporting, which is extremely important as well. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, showed how in sport, in the health service and in healthcare, child abuse is prevalent and needs to be tackled. This mandating of reporting will have a great impact on our ability to reduce that.

My noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned that he has done a good trawl of what has happened since 4 July last year. I hope to reassure him by saying that not all that happens in government is public at any particular point in time. A great deal of work had been done by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and by the Minister, Jess Phillips, up to the time when external forces—as I shall call them—put out comments around this issue over the Christmas and new year period. My noble friend will note that yesterday, through my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Government set out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final IICSA report. We will report to both Houses of Parliament before Easter, including on the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her contribution.

Four of the recommendations in the IICSA report were specifically for my department, the Home Office. Yesterday, again, we gave a commitment that we have been working on these issues—having been a Minister, my noble friend Lord Rooker knows what these things are like—not just in the past 10 days but for many months. We have accepted the four recommendations specifically for the Home Office, which include mandatory reporting—the subject of today’s Bill—and disclosure and barring. Work is under way to deliver those commitments in a legislative form, which will come before the House shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned gangs. I want to respond to him on that issue. In the Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—I suspect it might be repeated in this House shortly, if the Opposition so wish—there were clear commitments to take forward work on gangs and grooming, including funding and inquiries. It also included the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, taking forward further examination of data issues, which have been mentioned in today’s debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—I pay tribute to the work that she has done—shared with me an amendment that she brought forward some 10 years ago. It shows great foresight, as I would expect from someone born in the same part of Liverpool as I was. She brought forward a checklist. Again, we will bring forward our proposals in due course; she can then check her list against the proposals from the Government. The international work informed the work of IICSA, which she mentioned. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the intention of this legislation, and his points are worthy of consideration in relation to this Bill.

I fully appreciate the work that has gone into the Bill. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on her tireless efforts in bringing this duty forward, which I fully appreciate. As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to delivering the inquiry’s recommendations on mandatory reporting. I hope we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and that we must apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up this type of abuse.

I pay tribute to the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, both previously and today, in raising the importance of public awareness of individuals’ ability to bring forward recommendations and undertake mandatory reporting provisions. The Minister for Safeguarding, my friend Jess Phillips, is committed to working closely with survivor and expert groups on bringing forward legislation, and will continue to do so. I hope we can draw on the noble and learned Baroness’s expertise in that final commitment. I give her the commitment that I have just given to my noble friend Lord Rooker. She asked, “When?”, and I say to her, “Very soon. Watch out in the next few weeks. When it comes, recognise that the work has been ongoing and was happening prior to any contributions from individuals who talk about this, with not much knowledge, from places outside the United Kingdom”.

The 20 recommendations made by the inquiry’s final report were referenced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton, Lady Nicholson and Lady Berridge. They will be taken forward and reported to both Houses by Easter this year.

My noble friend Lady Blower made some extremely important points about training, support and back-up for the people who will deal with this issue. This requires some long-term work. I know that Members of this House are impatient and want things to happen but I also know that they want things to be done correctly, with this Government addressing these issues in a way that makes intervention effective. So I say to my noble friend—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who mentioned funding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who discussed how we can enact these things—that there will be an impact assessment with the legislation that we bring forward. Therefore, there will be a delivery mechanism and delivery plan behind the legislation that we bring forward.

In developing their recommendation on mandatory reporting, the Government will consider very strongly all the issues that have been brought forward in this House today. The 20 recommendations are complex and require long-term work but, again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that there will be a clear timetable for progress against the inquiry’s recommendations by Easter. I hope that is helpful.

I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that we are happy and content to work with the Church in looking at its experiences, about which she spoke openly and honestly today. We want in particular to look at how mandatory reporting can be undertaken in the context of the Church, where, as with Members of Parliament and others, confidences are often expressed and comments made. It is not just in teaching and other capacities that this is undertaken: the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned family and parental support, which is an interesting area in terms of how we look at these issues in a realistic way.

I want to touch on the issue of false allegations, which has been a seam through these discussions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley, Lady Berridge and Lady Featherstone, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, all mentioned false allegations. Although they are thankfully rare, the experience of our former colleague Lord Brittan and others have shown that they have a devastating effect on the accused individual, as well as harming how we approach genuine victims and survivors. I will be very clear with the House today: when the Government bring forward a duty of mandatory reporting, sharing information with the appropriate agencies will be part of it. However, it will be for the agencies to determine guilt or innocence accordingly, and it will be for the agencies to take forward appropriate action to support and safeguard the child involved.

The contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has made today is timely, important and on the button in relation to the absolute requirement of Parliament to help safeguard children in the future. As she knows, her Bill will progress and potentially go into Committee at some point in the future. It will have its discussions in this House and potentially progress to the House of Commons at some point. However, I give her this clear assurance, and I hope she accepts it as such: this Government will introduce measures that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, and others can test. They will be introduced in legislation shortly, and we hope will be put on the statute book, and they will meet the obligations of the IICSA recommendations in their potential impact and the desire of this House to ensure that we safeguard and protect children.

Those measures will be introduced soon. Whatever happens to the Private Member’s Bill, I hope that the House, whatever its views and considerations on the clauses brought forward in the Government’s wider legislation, gives the government Bill a fair wind to ensure that we protect children. The one clear message from the House today has been that we want action to ensure that mandatory reporting takes place. I give your Lordships the assurance from the Dispatch Box that action will happen.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Clause 1 put forward by my noble friends on this side of the House.

First, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth that seeks to replace “must” with “may” in Clause 1. This amendment is a vital adjustment to ensure that we uphold the principles of good governance, maintain flexibility in policy-making and safeguard our national interests. First and foremost, this amendment reflects the importance of retaining the Government’s discretion in managing immigration policy. Whichever Government are in power, immigration is an ongoing and rapidly changing issue to which the Secretary of State at the time must respond with pace. The word “must” imposes a rigid timeline and an obligation on the Secretary of State to act within six months, regardless of the evolving circumstances. Replacing it with “may” will preserve the Government’s ability to assess, prioritise and implement policies based on the prevailing domestic and international context. This flexibility is especially important in a world that is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable.

Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the six-month timeline for laying changes to the Immigration Rules with a more appropriate one-month period. This amendment is about ensuring that Parliament retains proper oversight of a Bill about which we have serious concerns. Reducing the timeline to one month ensures that any changes to the Immigration Rules under the Bill are brought back to Parliament swiftly for scrutiny. It would prevent the Government from allowing extended periods of uncertainty to shield decisions that could fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. The amendment highlights a critical point that, while we respect the intention behind the Bill, we oppose it because it fails to address the complexities of immigration policy.

Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the 21-day implementation period with a more measured three-month period. This amendment reflects our belief that significant changes to our Immigration Rules, such as those concerning refugee family reunion, must not be rushed through without proper consideration of their implications for the UK’s immigration system, resources and public confidence. The original provision for 21 days is, frankly, far too short a period for such substantial changes to be introduced and implemented. We believe that it risks creating undue pressure on our immigration authorities and undermining the orderly processes that we have worked hard to maintain. Extending this period to three months would therefore provide the necessary time for proper evaluation, preparation and control. Family reunions must be managed in a way that ensures that we are not inadvertently incentivising illegal migration or creating vulnerabilities in our immigration system.

Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to amend Clause 1 by extending the period for implementing changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion from 21 days to one year. This amendment is both prudent and necessary, as it would ensure that any changes were introduced with the care, preparation and thoroughness that they deserve. The practical implications of significant policy changes must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the very outcomes that we seek to achieve. This amendment would provide the Government with the time required to conduct a comprehensive and detailed review of the potential impacts of these changes, including their effects on public services, local communities and the integration of refugees. A rushed implementation within just 21 days would fail to account for the complex and interconnected challenges of housing, healthcare, education and social cohesion that arise from any significant adjustment to our Immigration Rules.

Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, seeks to introduce critical safeguards ensuring that any changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion are made responsibly with due consideration for their impact on local communities, public services and our broader immigration system. This amendment strikes to the heart of the practical realities of governing. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that our policies are sustainable and do not place undue strain on local communities or public services. By requiring the Secretary of State to assess the projected impact on local support services, housing and integration arrangements, the amendment would introduce a much-needed layer of accountability, which acknowledges that housing, schools, healthcare and community resources are not infinite and that we must carefully manage the arrival of new residents to ensure that they are properly supported. Overburdening the systems not only will undermine the successful integration of refugees but could erode public confidence in our immigration policies.

Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to introduce a new level of transparency and accountability to the Bill by requiring detailed information on costs, capacity and prioritisation in housing before implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. This amendment is both practical and prudent, ensuring that any changes introduced under the Bill are grounded in a full understanding of their financial and social implications. It reflects core Conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, public accountability and fairness, ensuring that we balance our humanitarian commitments with the needs of our communities and the sustainability of our public services.

Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to reduce the age threshold from 25 to 21 concerning the eligibility of siblings for family reunion. This amendment is a vital correction to a clause that, as currently drafted, risks broadening the scope of family reunion far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. By lowering the age threshold, we can better align this provision with the principles of fairness, practicality and public confidence in our immigration system. The age of 25 is unnecessarily high and creates significant challenges for the effective management of family reunion cases. An individual in their mid-20s is, by any reasonable standard, an adult capable of independence. Extending family reunion rights to siblings up to the age of 25 dilutes the focus of the Bill.

The proposed age of 21 strikes a more appropriate balance. It avoids creating a system that is overly broad and difficult to administer. This amendment would ensure that family reunion remains a process based on need, not convenience. Moreover, the broader implications of maintaining the 25 year-old threshold must not be ignored. Such an expansive definition risks placing additional strain on already overstretched resources, including housing, social services and immigration officials. It could undermine the public’s trust in our ability to manage migration in a controlled and responsible manner—a trust that is critical to maintaining support for genuine humanitarian efforts. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and to reject a Bill that, in its current form, risks eroding the principles on which our immigration system is built.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require a medical health assessment for each applicant under Clause 1 before their application for family reunion status is approved. This amendment is a practical and necessary addition to the Bill. It would ensure that the process for granting family reunion status is not only compassionate but thorough, responsible and mindful of the broader implications for public health and welfare. First and foremost, the amendment would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system. By implementing a medical health assessment, we would establish a robust framework that considers the physical and physiological fitness of applicants while addressing potential public health concerns. This is particularly important to ensure that we meet our obligations to applicants and the communities that welcome them. The amendment also aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability. It would ensure that decisions regarding family reunion are made with full knowledge of any health factors that may affect an individual’s ability to integrate and thrive in the United Kingdom. It would prevent rushed or uninformed approvals that could create challenges down the line for both applicants and public services.

I commend my noble friend for proposing this amendment, which demonstrates a commitment to compassion balanced with prudence. I urge the Committee to support this sensible and measured addition to the Bill to ensure that our family reunion policies remain fair, humane and effective.

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

Well, we have had some fun with the Bill and the amendments. I start by reiterating what I said on 18 October when I responded to the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of the Government. For ease, I refer noble Lords to cols. 371-74. It is worth taking that as a starting point because the amendments and their impact on the Bill are relevant. I said very clearly at that stage:

“I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 371.]


That is the principle of the Bill. At the same time, I said:

“Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 373.]


On 18 October, I found myself supporting the Bill and the principle of it in part, but not its extensions without further consideration. I now find myself addressing amendments which are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—let us be generous—somewhat contradictory in parts. There is no coherence from the Conservative Back Benches or Front Bench in relation to all those points, and different places and policy principles are put onboard.

I find myself looking at all the amendments and thinking that these are not designed to help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are probably not designed to help the Government come to sensible suggestions on these points, and they are certainly not designed to help those who might face persecution or refugee status and need those supports. Can I support the amendments? No, I cannot. Can I support the noble Baroness’s Bill in its current form? No, I cannot. I find myself in the very strange position of being the Government of the day and coming to a sensible position, perhaps; Members will judge that in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give way in a moment. Let us see whether the noble Baroness wishes to accept any of their amendments.

I think the Government are in broadly the right place. We understand the pressures. We have a good set of rules in place. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, before he intervenes, that we are committed to publishing a migration White Paper very shortly that will look at a range of other issues debated in this House and in the House of Commons that government policy considers. The impact of asylum and refugee status, although not migration, is still an important issue because additional individuals coming in on family reunion is a form of migration. All these matters have to be considered. As I said at Second Reading and say again now, these are matters the Government need to reflect upon in slower time. But I will certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to say.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am worried about his reputation as a bruiser from the other place because he sounds dangerously consensual and collaborative this afternoon, which is always worrying coming from him. The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes and has not alighted on the challenge thrown down by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth concerning the overall generic numbers—the universal numbers—that are likely to come as a result of the Bill as unamended. Surely that is something the Government will take an interest in, if he makes a judgment on, for instance, the provision of public services in future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way.

Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading.

The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters.

I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Schwab and Westheimer Trust, which supports young asylum seekers in education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his compliments about persistence. The compliments should be directed at previous Home Office Ministers, who waived the Bill’s predecessors through to the Commons in a very similar form and did not seek to obstruct them. I applaud the Minister’s elegant negotiation of a tightrope. As he says, there can be further opportunities for discussion, and of course sending the Bill to the Commons gives those opportunities.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I certainly had not intended a discourtesy. There was not a vacuum as regards the numbers; it was my inability immediately to find the briefing we received from the Red Cross, Safe Passage and the Refugee Council, which was sent to those who had their names down to speak at Second Reading. Had I realised that he wanted to pursue that point, I would of course have handed on my copy of the briefing. That briefing included a number of other issues.

I will make a few general points that are relevant to all the amendments in this group. The Bill is to put into statutory form provisions for family reunion that are currently in the rules, because statute is more stable than rules. We are adding siblings, for reasons that we will come to, and provide for children to sponsor family members, including parents, whom they cannot currently sponsor. The cost of supporting unaccompanied children is obviously high. My view is that reuniting families would lead to savings: parents would support their children.

We want to see more safe and legal routes. Currently, those routes are quite limited. The provisions we are proposing would create a safe and legal route, subject to a visa. Applications for visas are much easier to control, oversee and assess than people arriving on our shores in an irregular fashion. Of course, children—particularly those who are alone—are in a particular position. That is why we have had a lot of support from outside the House, with many mentions of the best interests of the child. Vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation has already been mentioned.

The incompatibility of some of the amendments with many of the current rules has been mentioned. The current position is that the Secretary of State can extend or restrict eligibility through changes to the rules, so the factual position remains the same. Amendment 19 is slightly tighter than the current position, in that it suggests criteria.

I will have to keep my remarks shorter than I would like, and I hope noble Lords will understand the slightly telegraphic nature of some of what I have to say. First, making the Bill not permissive denies the whole Bill. I thought the “may” and “must” point was linked with the proviso in Amendment 5, which I had assumed was the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, shows concern for services integration, which was not much of a focus for the previous Government. It is hugely important, and I encourage him to keep on urging both investment and support for the organisations involved, and to pursue the recommendations of the Woolf commission. But the conditions he sets out do not apply to grants of family reunion now.

We on these Benches are no great fans of the IMA; I hope that we will see the current Government get rid of it. The previous Government of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, consulted on a cap under the IMA, but did not include family reunion in the proposals for that cap. They listed routes to be subject to the cap and referred to other safe and legal routes.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in moving asylum seekers from accommodation in hotels.

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

The Government are committed to reducing hotel use through reform of the asylum system, including streamlining asylum processing and establishing the Border Security Command to tackle people-smuggling gangs at source. In the year ending September 2024, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, down 36% from September 2023.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that reply. Labour’s manifesto said that it would

“end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds”.

That must be right, as hotels are an expensive and inappropriate solution, but it will be a challenge for the Government as, since July, there are 5,000 more asylum seekers in hotels than there were and all the 35,000 the Minister has just mentioned are likely to get leave to remain. Responsibility currently rests with the Home Office, but do we not need a much more joined-up approach with local government if we are to reduce dependency on hotels, not least because a hotel costs £145 a day per person, whereas so-called dispersed accommodation costs less than 1/10th of that, at £14 a day? Should we not transfer responsibility for asylum seekers in hotels from the Home Office to local authorities, together with the funds, saving public money and enabling those in the hotels to be more integrated with local services when they leave them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is a fair gentleman and I understand the challenge we face with hotel accommodation. He will know that, although hotel numbers are stable now, the Government have a manifesto commitment and in March we will close a further nine hotels. He raises local authorities. Around 252 local authorities had dispersed accommodation in January 2024 and 176 did in April 2022. We have increased the number of local authorities that have it. He is right that we need to discuss and consult with them, but ultimately the integrity of the asylum system depends on the Home Office having oversight of it. We want to progress the matters he has raised in a sensible and efficient way, but we have to retain responsibility.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Young, raises a good point. He talks about the challenge. Will the Minister remind us who gave the present Government that challenge? Who created it for us? Did the noble Lord and many of his colleagues make these positive and helpful suggestions over the last 14 years?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend gives me the opportunity to say that in 2015 no hotels were housing asylum seekers. That figure rose to 400 at its peak just over a year ago. It has now dropped considerably. For the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, the failure to control borders and sea crossings led to these daily costs to the taxpayer and legitimate asylum seekers using that asylum accommodation. That is a failure of political management and we are determined to address it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may well recall the response he gave me when we discussed the proposal for allowing asylum seekers to work, thereby not only reducing the need for accommodation but dramatically reducing the budget. He said that it was a policy idea. Given that, what consideration have the Government and his department given to reducing the demand for accommodation through allowing people to work? If they have not already done so, when will they?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I recall answering that it was a policy submission that we would reflect on. The important point for the Government is to do three things: first, speed up agreement on asylum claims to ensure that people with genuine asylum claims have a right to live here, and, presumably, will subsequently wish to work here; secondly, put in place Border Force control to stop illegal migration and gangmasters subverting the asylum system; and, thirdly, ensure that we reduce the asylum accommodation that we have, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young—cost and efficiency—and look at dispersed accommodation in the meantime. I will keep the policy suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord German, on the table as part of the contributions to discussions on how we achieve those three objectives.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that a few months ago University College London and ECPAT issued a report on the position of asylum-seeking children in these hotels. They found that dozens of children had been kidnapped by criminal gangs from hotels run by the Home Office; 440 children had gone missing, 144 had not been found and 118 were still unaccounted for. Is the noble Lord engaging with ECPAT and University College London about their report and can he update us on the figures—and, if not, can he write to us? Is he aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is engaging with the Home Office on this issue? I know him well enough to know that he will take a personal interest, but I hope he will commit today to doing so.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will update the noble Lord in due course. As a rough estimate from memory, around 90 children are still unaccounted for. The importance of safeguarding in asylum accommodation is critical. It is ultimately the responsibility of the local authority where those children are placed. However, I take on board his suggestions and concerns; I will look into them and write to him. It is key to ensure that the safeguarding of unaccompanied children and accompanied children who are at risk is paramount.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, whether it is a local authority or the Home Office, there is the difficulty for families who are moved around too much that the children lose their education and friends. It is very dislocating and destabilising. Can we have some continuity and awareness of that difficulty?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is vital, as my noble friend says, that we ensure continuity. The key point is that we get people out of asylum hotels and into dispersed accommodation as quickly as possible and, ultimately, speed up the asylum system so that people have a decision on whether they can stay or have to leave. If they can stay, that stability is there and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned, they can contribute to work and potentially help fill some of the labour shortages this country faces.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in the 2024 Labour Party manifesto there was an announcement that new measures to clear the asylum backlog would be taken, through caseworkers, returns and the enforcement unit. It also pledged to hire 1,000 new staff for this unit. What progress has been made on this and how many staff have been hired?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the House that there were no hotels in 2015 and 400 when the noble Lord was in office. We are recruiting those 1,000 staff and have improved the return rate, the assessment rate and the efficiency rate. Although I do not have the numbers in this brief, I have them in another brief; I will send them to him and put them in the Library, and he will see improvements over when he had tenure over this job.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, what would be the downside of allowing asylum seekers to work? Why is this idea just still sitting on the table rather than being urgently agreed?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful and I realise that this is a live discussion point. The downside of asylum seekers working is that sometimes asylum claims are not upheld or found to be fraudulent and sometimes people have to be returned. Sometimes, therefore, asylum seekers could be put in positions whereby they are undertaking work they have no legal right to do. I understand that is a difficult issue, but the Government are committed to trying to resolve it by processing asylum claims as speedily as possible so that people can be legitimised or, in the case of non-legitimisation, returned to a place of safety elsewhere.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the Government are trying to get all parties to collaborate on social care, when the policies emerge, and given the difficulties we have across the board with immigration and the suggestions that we need some new policy approaches, should we not attempt to bring all the parties together to try to get some movement and commonality to deal with the whole range of topics that face us, which none of us have been successful in addressing properly so far?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have an immigration White Paper due to be published shortly and I hope that all parties and Members can contribute to the discussion around that.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, is it not correct that the people of this country are concerned ultimately with having people removed who are shown to be illegally here? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when I was the Minister and the Conservative Party was in Government, we concentrated considerable resources on doing just that. I think the people of this country were very happy with that approach.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the current Government have removed in excess of 16,000 people who have no right to live in this country since we came to office in July last year, and we will continue to do that, but the key to removing people is the speed of assessment, which, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, requires individuals employed to assess, test and determine. That is what this Government are focusing on: removals, speeding up assessment, and in the meantime, to go back to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Young, trying to find a way to save the taxpayer money on the costs associated with that temporary period when no determination has been made.

Immigration: Human Rights

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to give greater priority to those with well-founded human rights claims in the immigration system.

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

Any foreign national in the United Kingdom can make an asylum or human rights claim should they be unable to return to their country of origin. The UK has a proud history of protecting vulnerable people. All claims are decided on individual merits. Protection status is granted to those in need.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that clear Answer. Does he further agree with me that rather than demonising refugees while simultaneously increasing economic migration, including to very low-skilled employment, as the last Government did, His Majesty’s Government should prioritise those in genuine need of humanitarian protection or family reunification, including via safe legal routes to the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. She will know that we are proposing an immigration White Paper shortly, which will look at some of the issues she has mentioned. She will also know that the Government are extremely keen to ensure that we crack down on illegal migration and on those individuals who are brought to this country to undercut the working conditions, pay and other benefits of individuals who are here with asylum and refugee status, and who are approved and working, and also the population of the United Kingdom as a whole. She makes a very important point.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in hearing claims, one of the biggest problems in the past has been the number of claims that go to appeal, therefore making the system much lengthier than it needs to be. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, when an asylum case is heard, they get it right the first time rather than having to go further on in an appeal? I draw attention to my interests; I am supported by the RAMP project.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. It is not the Government’s intention to drag out the appeals procedure, or indeed the claims procedure. We have been trying since July to speed up the consideration of asylum claims. We have put additional staff in to do that. We want to get the decisions right first time, obviously, and that is an important part of the Government’s proposals to reduce both the asylum backlog and the dependency on hotels, which reached record levels under the previous Government.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in developing the helpful answer he just gave, can the Minister tell us what is the backlog of the outstanding number of cases? How long does it take to clear them on average? Rather than expecting people to subsist on around £7 a day, should we not look again at the opportunity to work while those claims are being considered?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The total number of asylum claims waiting for an initial decision has fallen by 22%, from 125,173 at the end of September 2023 to 97,170 at the end of September last year. That figure of 97,170 cases, which relate to approximately 133,000 people waiting for an initial decision, is down 22% on the previous year but is 13% higher than in the previous quarter. We are trying to get the number down for the very reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German: that a large number of those cases will potentially go to appeal. That number includes individuals in hotels. The problem is that the previous Government put a moratorium on dealing with those issues. We are now trying to clear that backlog and give people a decision. Whether it is to stay or go, a decision is needed.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can the Minister reassure the House that any increased prioritisation of human rights claims will be accompanied by rigorous checks to ensure that individuals who pose a risk to national security are not admitted under such provisions? Furthermore, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that prioritising certain asylum claims does not place undue strain on local communities, public services or housing availability?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government want to secure a decision on asylum claims. In doing that, we also want to ensure that the security of the United Kingdom is paramount. Therefore, security checks will take place. It might be of interest to the noble Lord to know that 16,400 people have been removed from the United Kingdom since July of last year. That figure is up by 24% over the previous quarter, when he had stewardship of this office in his Government. We will ensure that, as he says, we look at the issues that successful asylum claimants and refugees experience in relation to work and employment. As my noble friend mentioned, it is important that, when those individuals are successful, they can get into work and contribute to some of the jobs required to be filled by people in this country today.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, there are likely to be more refugees because of climate change—people who are fleeing drought and floods. Do this Government see that, as a massive consumer still driving climate change, we have a duty to those refugees, as well as to refugees from war zones?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that climate change is a potential driver. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has mentioned this on a number of occasions as well, and we agree that those issues drive asylum and refugee claims. She might be interested to know that the highest numbers of people claiming asylum last year were from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. However, I accept her point; we need to address the wider climate change issue in relation to those who claim asylum or refugee status in this country

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been waiting 14 years to say to a Home Office Minister, “I like his answers”. The Minister mentioned a forthcoming White Paper on asylum and refugees. Can he use his influence to ensure that the rights of children who are asylum seekers to join their families here will be high up on the list?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am really pleased that the noble Lord likes the answers—we have been waiting 14 years to give them, and it is a great pleasure to be here. We are progressing on the matter of child migrants; there are specific issues that we will look at on that. The number of unaccompanied child migrants is currently approximately 4,000, which is still too high. We need to look at the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. I hope that I will be able to give him some satisfactory answers in the future.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, about eight years ago, we had a crisis in Syria. Some 3,000 unaccompanied children were refused admission into the UK, even though some of us had worked hard to try to get them homes. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any information whatever about what happened to those kids? We would all be happy to know that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for that question. He will know from previous discussions and debates on the issue of unaccompanied children that we have identified that around 90 children have gone missing. It is the priority of the Government to find out where they are. The prime responsibility for their safeguarding initially fell on Kent County Council. It is an important issue and one we need to address. As part of future considerations, we will continue to do that.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

When looking at refugees, could the Minister include victims of modern slavery with positive decisions and those who are victims of forced marriage? I declare an interest in the register.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely important point. Victims of modern slavery should be central to any policy determination. This Government will support the efforts of the previous Government and the previous Home Secretary—who is now a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead—who introduced what is now the Modern Slavery Act. We will ensure that those rights are upheld and that victims of modern slavery have that aspect of their lives taken into consideration when their asylum or refugee status is considered.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the increasing threats to journalists in different parts of the world, are the Government contemplating action to give effect to the recommendation of the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the UK was a founding member, that an emergency visa scheme should be introduced for journalists and other defenders of human rights at serious risk of harm?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, makes. As I said, the Government will prioritise and look at the most urgent cases first. If there are urgent reasons why a journalist’s case needs to be examined over and above anybody else’s, they will be considered. The issue of priority is there for the Government to consider.

Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: Recommendations

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I start by paying tribute to the 7,000-plus victims and survivors who shared their experiences and helped shape the work and focus of the inquiry. Since taking office in July, this Government have worked to deliver an ambitious programme of activity, responding to the inquiry and on child sexual abuse more broadly. As the Home Secretary announced to the House of Commons on Monday, this includes delivering a new mandatory reporting duty in the upcoming crime and policing Bill.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I hosted over 400 child abuse survivors in this building, and I spent 30 days representing many at the inquiry, IICSA. I share their impatience with how quickly the 20 recommendations are being implemented. On recommendations 9 and 10, on DBS checks, does the Minister agree with me that Parliament should take a lead and that every parliamentarian should be required to have a DBS check, in line with those recommendations? On recommendation 19, on having a single redress system, does he share my anguish and anger that my friend Terry Lodge, who was given a public apology seven years ago—he was imprisoned and enslaved as a 10 year-old and forced to spend his teenage years not at school but working in a foundry—has still received not a penny of compensation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation deserve access to appropriate support and routes to compensation. As he mentioned, the inquiry’s report gives indications of recommendations to that effect. The experience of his former constituent highlights the need for that to be a matter of urgency, and we are working at pace in government to ensure that we identify how best we can deliver against the inquiry’s recommendations.

My noble friend mentioned DBS checks, which are one of the recommendations that we are still working through and looking at. Some of those issues in relation to this House will be for the parliamentary authorities. More generally, the report was commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, as Home Secretary in 2015. It came through in October 2022 as a major report and it was responded to by the Government in May 2023, but no progress has taken place until July this year, and we are now starting to exercise some energy in response to those recommendations. We will bring forward recommendation responses in due course.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the law of the land should apply equally to everybody, irrespective of their background, colour or whatever else? Secondly, does he agree that it must be child-centred and that the welfare of each child is of paramount importance? That is the law of the land, and we need to make sure that it is implemented everywhere, for every child.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings tremendous experience to this area, and I share exactly his sentiment and intention. Child abuse is a vile crime. We have to take criminal action against individuals who commit it, but we also need to ensure that we support the victims of such crimes. The noble Lord makes an extremely important point that, whatever the gender, sex, colour or race of any perpetrator, they should be held to account by government and the criminal justice agencies, and pay penalties. Their victims should be supported by the forces encompassed by this House and the House of Commons.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking Professor Jay for her tireless work in leading the independent inquiry into these abhorrent crimes. Inquiries are extremely informative and benefit society as a whole. Taking this into account, can the Minister explain why his Government are refusing so vehemently an independent inquiry specifically on the topic of child sexual exploitation? Does he agree with me that victims are the most important group of people in any criminal investigation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly answer the noble Lord on those points. First and foremost, the report that was managed by Alexis Jay, and set up by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in 2015, has produced a large number of recommendations to government, which were published in 2022. The then Government, of which he was a supporter, responded to those recommendations in May 2023 and took no real action between May 2023 and when we took office in July at the general election.

We intend to take forward those recommendations, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on Monday three specific measures: first, a mandatory reporting recommendation, as in the report; secondly, a report to ensure that we have an aggravated offence for people involved in grooming; thirdly, that we will take action on child sexual abuse online. Those are three important issues. A further inquiry would not necessarily add anything to what Alexis Jay has done. There are independent local inquiries, which we have supported and allowed to continue, and that is fine. But what we are really interested in is putting in place the action on the recommendations made to date, which is what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said she would do and what the focus of this Government is going to be.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, one of the IICSA recommendations was on providing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing where a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or deceived into sexual activity—by two or more people. Does the Minister agree with the last Conservative Government’s response that this was unnecessary, or with the current Conservative spokespeople, who seem to have changed their minds?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. To be honest, what the previous Government and their current Front Bench say on those matters is for them. What this Government are about is implementing action. On the issue of an aggravated offence, on Monday this week, in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend said that there would be an aggravated offence for people who were involved in grooming, child sex and organising child sex gangs. That will be brought forward in the police and crime Bill later in this Session. It will do the job—and whatever the current Opposition do is a matter for them.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, recent events have rightly turned the spotlight on the Church of England’s record around safeguarding. Those of us on these Benches are highly committed to listening to survivors and bringing about the further institutional and cultural changes that need to be made, beyond the enormous progress that has been made over the past 10 years. What assurance can the Minister give that the police will act on information that they receive, which, it is alleged, was not the case in 2013, when the horrendous crimes of John Smyth were correctly reported to them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. Let me put it this way: one thing that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has committed to this week is to make sure that we have a mandatory reporting requirement for individuals who have child abuse reported to them, and indeed for perpetrators who report themselves to an authority. That will then have to be mandatorily reported to the police and to law enforcement authorities. Self-evidently, if there is a mandatory reporting of that incident, it will be a major failure of any police force not to investigate, and potentially take further action, reporting to the CPS, if they substantiate the allegations that have been reported mandatorily by an individual. The history of this is complex, but I hope that the recommendations made can be implemented. That is one of the early things that we want to do, which is why we are getting on with it, rather than having further inquiries that will delay matters to safeguard children.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, with IICSA, as with every other major public inquiry, there is no structure in place to monitor the formal response to recommendations. That is true for Grenfell, IICSA, infected blood—all of them. Would the Government consider maintaining a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by all public inquiries, together with the Government’s response, as recommended by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the Select Committee of which I was a member?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness; she makes a sound point. I will reflect on wider public inquiries, as it is a cross-government response, but I can say to her from the Dispatch Box that we have started to respond to the recommendations from IICSA on Monday and will continue to respond. That will be for public record, public examination and public accountability of Ministers on the issues that we agree to address.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very complicated situation. I understand the position of the previous Government—the current Opposition—but there is something that worries me, and it is a spectre that we need to understand and deal with. Can the Minister comment on what his view might be if the leader of the Reform party follows through on his commitment yesterday to raise private funds to hold a private public inquiry into this matter, which could be funded from overseas?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect, I appreciate the noble Lord’s question but the leader of Reform can do what he wishes. We are the Government, and we are trying to take sensible approaches and to get cross-party support for those sensible approaches. He is welcome to contribute to that. There is a real issue of safeguarding children, and those who seek to make political capital out of that are not, in my view, people who have a serious approach to life.