Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, the order before us seeks to add ninja swords to the list of prohibited offensive weapons by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to include them. I will briefly set out the context for why the Government have brought the order forward. The Government have already taken robust action to introduce a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, which came into force last September. We are also strengthening enforcement and prevention as part of the Government’s safer streets mission, and there will be further new measures before the House of Lords very shortly in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently going through the House of Commons.

This legislation to ban ninja swords was a government manifesto commitment last July and responds to tireless campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed by a ninja sword in 2022. We are taking this action in honour of Ronan’s memory, but also in recognition of the remarkable courage and determination shown by his loved ones, led by his mother, Pooja Kanda, alongside her daughter, Nikita Kanda, and other family members. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their family. I cannot imagine what it is like to suffer such a terrible loss, yet, having suffered that loss, they have gone on to campaign for changes that will make our society safer. For that, they have my admiration and respect and, I hope, that of the whole Committee.

Although there have been relatively few fatal attacks involving ninja swords compared with other bladed weapons, there is no doubt that such swords can be lethal. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose, or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. Using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of that Act, the Government now add ninja swords, through this order, to the list of prohibited offensive weapons to which Section 141 applies.

These weapons—ninja swords—are defined as a sword with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. The length the Government have chosen is in order to exclude knives and tools used for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knife. To be within the scope of the ban, the article will also have the features specified in paragraph 1A, namely that the sword will have a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge and a blunt spine with either a tanto-style point or a reverse tanto-style point. These terms are further defined in detail in the legislation.

Although it is right that we take the strongest possible action to prevent violence and stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. We are confident that the definition of ninja swords does not include tools traditionally used in agriculture or other farming, gardening or outdoor activities. We have included in the legislation defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is one of historical importance; is owned for a permitted activity, such as sports or legitimate martial arts practice; or is made by hand. Antiques are already exempted from the scope of Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so the order before the Committee is very specific and tightly defined.

I have a couple of further points to make. Parts 3 and 4 of the order provide for a surrender and compensation scheme, through which owners of the weapons in scope of the order will be able to surrender them. The order has a territorial scope of England and Wales only, but I very much hope that the local devolved Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that ninja swords are prohibited across the United Kingdom. To that effect, Home Office officials are in discussion with the Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but, obviously, that is a matter for them.

To conclude, the risk of these dangerous swords being used for crime and violence is not one that we are prepared to tolerate. The manifesto commitment, endorsed last year in the July general election, commits the Government to halving knife crime in a decade as part of our wider safer streets mission. Banning ninja swords is an important step towards this and towards removing weapons from circulation. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we believe that this ban is proportionate and we support it. Sword-related deaths are rare but even one, such as the tragic loss of Ronan Kanda, is too many. I join the Minister in his admiration for the family and how they have behaved. However, for this ban to be truly effective, it must be robust and well implemented. I have a number of concerns; I would be grateful if the Minister could address them when he winds up.

First, if the people we most need to reach are not even aware of this ban or the surrender scheme, they are unlikely to have the desired impact. The Youth Endowment Fund says that this was a key failing of the previous scheme to ban zombie knives. Even some individuals working in this field were apparently unaware of the process. Clear and targeted communication is essential. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that those who are the hardest to reach, who may not be easily identified or contacted, are made aware of these changes?

Secondly, I have a real concern that people surrendering zombie knives were asked to provide their personal details. Youth workers believe that this prevented many people coming forward, in particular those possessing weapons illegally, who already distrust the police completely. Will people be asked to provide their personal details this time?

Can the Minister clarify why the ban is limited to blades of up to 24 inches? Although most ninja swords are between 14 and 24 inches, knife enthusiasts are already bragging online that blades longer than 24 inches will remain legal. Was this intended to protect legitimate uses? From what the Minister said in his introduction, I assume that it was. If so, does the legitimate use exemption not already provide adequate protection? Is the Minister confident that criminals will not simply switch to longer blades to evade the law, which they seem to suggest online they would or should do?

I also want to ask about the exemption for fantasy swords. After the zombie knife ban, the BBC found that retailers were still selling them by claiming that they were for cosplay and could not cause harm unless modified. Is the Minister confident that this exemption will not create a similar loophole?

Furthermore, the legislation is narrowly drawn. The Home Office itself acknowledges that it may simply shift demand to other types of swords. It is unclear whether most swords used in recent homicides would even be covered by these new rules. What mechanism will be in place to review the effectiveness of this ban after it comes into force?

Finally, this law will make a difference only if it is enforced. The Clayman review suggests that the police currently lack the training, expertise and resources to police this effectively. Can the Minister provide information on how enforcement will be strengthened and what steps are being taken to improve police capability?

I would be grateful if the Minister would address these issues when he winds up.

--- Later in debate ---

We support the intent behind the order. Its measures are appropriate and proportionate. Yet, if we are to reduce knife crime in a meaningful way, we must be more ambitious and seek early intervention. We owe that to the victims, to their families and to the many communities still living with the fear and trauma of serious violence.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments and broad support for the order. I will deal with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, first before I take the comments from both the opposition Front Benches. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the exemptions. As he said, the Government have worked hard to ensure that we target knives and materials that are used for criminal and dangerous purposes and not for business purposes, as historical artefacts or, indeed, for historical antique purposes. I welcome his comments on that.

The noble Lord will know that Ministers considered illustrated guidance on the type of knife that would be covered by the order. That will be a publicly available. He made an interesting point about how we give that to police officers in a form that is understandable by them. He mentioned the interesting concept of putting things on an app. We can always reflect on those things, but it is important that police officers know exactly what is in place and exactly what type of knife is covered by the order. I will take away his comments and examine them in detail.

I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the order. She asked a number of key questions. She asked how we deal with those who are hardest to reach. We have published guidance and made a public announcement in May that we are doing this. A number of bins will be placed in key locations across the United Kingdom for surrender of knives during the amnesty period, between 1 July and 1 August. We have also commissioned a mobile surrender van to go around certain key areas where we believe there has been a high prevalence of knife crime. However, she is right that we need to raise public awareness. It is already an offence to carry a knife in public, but there might be people who do not realise that and will not want to fall foul of the law.

The noble Baroness asked whether people surrendering knives would have to supply personal details. I assure her that nobody has to supply personal details if they surrender a knife. If they wish to have compensation for the knife that they are surrender then, self-evidently, we will need an address and bank details to process the compensation accordingly. If an individual wishes to turn up at a police station during the amnesty period and deposit the knife then they do not have to give their details should they not wish to, but, self-evidently, they do for compensation.

The definition of the knife that we have settled on—14 to 24 inches—is because that type of knife is most commonly used. There are larger knives, but crime with longer swords is extremely rare, and we have again tried to be proportionate in the legislation. We have determined that up to 24 inches is important, and the description of ninja swords in the legislation strikes the right balance between banning the type of ninja swords we have seen on the streets while protecting the interests that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned in his contribution.

The noble Baroness mentioned retailers trying to circumvent the law by describing their knife in a different way. Once the order comes into effect and ninja swords are banned, selling them will be an offence. We are providing defences for sale of those items, such as historical significance, being antiques, agricultural use or business use—even, dare I say it, use for theatrical performances and the production of films and television programmes—but there is a clear defence. We believe that the order provides details of the offence if an individual sells a ninja knife and tries to pass it off as something else, or defines it as not a ninja knife. It will then be up to the police to arrest and the CPS to determine whether to prosecute, for prosecutions to go forward, and for the courts to determine whether that defence was appropriate. I go back to the basic first principle: once ninja swords are banned, selling them will be an offence. I hope that reassures her.

The noble Baroness mentioned whether banning this type of weapon would transfer activity to other types of weapons. These are stark and terrible figures, but it may help to say that between April 2023 and April 2024, 262 people were killed as a result of the type of activity that we have been talking about. Kitchen knives were the bladed item that caused the highest number of homicides, with 109 people dying as a result of them. Only four people were killed with zombie knives in that year; 18 were killed with machetes, six with flick-knives, five with hunting knives, 48 with other knives, four with other sharp instruments, one with an axe, and 13 with Rambo-style military knives. A range of knives are already used. I will come on to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made in a moment, but we are trying to put some energy into the zombie knife ban following the very important campaign by Ronan’s family. Obviously, kitchen knives are domestic knives that are used for domestic purposes, and that is very difficult to address accordingly.

The other point that the noble Baroness made was around police training, expertise and resources. It is already an offence to carry a knife in public, and the police can enforce the legislation in this area. The order makes it an offence to possess a ninja sword in private. The police are not going to go knocking on every door in the United Kingdom saying, “Have you got a ninja sword?”, but if there is a police intervention into a property about another matter then possession of a ninja sword in that property might well be an example of where that offence is taken forward. It might well be that the police enter the property of an individual whom they believe might have been seen on a street carrying a sword, and then find the sword. However, this is about possession of a ninja sword in private, predominantly, because carrying that weapon in public is already an offence. I hope that helps the noble Baroness.

I welcome the support for the order by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He is absolutely right that it is proportionate and reasonable. He is also right that we need to look at the wider issue of knife crime as a whole in the community at large. He asked about the resources we have put in. Neighbourhood policing is a great investment by this Labour Government, who will put an extra £1 billion into policing as a whole this year. We anticipate increasing the number of neighbourhood police to 3,000 this year and, we hope, to 12,000 to 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. Neighbourhood police are, basically, community-based police officers who will be able to pick up intelligence, know their community, work closely with other individuals and, I hope, look at where there are pressures on knife crime to find collective solutions with other agencies, including youth support.

The Government are investing in youth hubs, which are one of our manifesto commitments. We have set up a coalition to tackle knife crime, on which we will work with a number of experts in this area, including youth organisations. In particular, the Young Futures programme is a key part of our mission to keep our streets safe. The noble Lord raises important issues. The Government have emerging and current plans to put additional investment into youth work. In particular, the knife-enabled robbery task force that we established will look at some of the root causes of knife crime. Ultimately, we have to tackle the long-term culture of younger people, in particular, carrying knives as a matter of course. Death sometimes arises through people carrying knives as a mechanism of defence, when all it ends up doing is causing attacks against themselves.

I hope, with those comments, that the Committee will be able to approve the order. It is a useful addition to the potential activities that government and police forces can undertake to prevent knife crime, and I commend it to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

Motion agreed.

National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

Motion agreed.

National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the Committee for allowing us to debate the four regulations relating to the foreign influence registration scheme as a single unit, but if noble Lords wish to discuss individual matters relating to them then we can do so. I know that, before I came to this House, noble Lords were instrumental in scrutinising and improving the foreign influence registration scheme during the passage of the National Security Act, and I am grateful for their consideration to date. There are four instruments to cover; I hope I can speak to them for possibly a little bit longer than I might normally have done just to outline where we are.

Noble Lords will know that, on 1 April, the Government announced the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS, as I will call it—which I can confirm will go live on 1 July 2025. The Government also announced recently that Russia would join Iran on the enhanced tier of the scheme. FIRS, as set out in Part 4 of the National Security Act 2023, will serve as a critical tool in our efforts to deter and disrupt hostile state activity. It will also enhance transparency around the influence exerted by foreign powers in our democratic process.

As noble Lords will know, the scheme is underpinned by three principal objectives. The first is transparency. The scheme will require individuals who undertake certain activities on behalf of foreign powers to declare them. Where such activities constitute political influence, the relevant details will be published on a public register, ensuring openness and accountability.

The second objective is deterrence. The scheme requires those engaged in malign activities for foreign powers either to cease such contact or to register it formally with the Government.

The final objective is disruption. Failure to disclose relevant associations with foreign powers is an offence. This will be enforced by law enforcement, which can take decisive action against those who seek to conceal foreign state involvement. I hope that that broad principle is welcomed by the Committee; I know that it is.

I turn to the four instruments before us. First, on Russia and Iran, the first two sets of regulations specify the entirety of the Iranian and Russian states on the enhanced tier of the scheme. This means, for Iran, the Supreme Leader; the whole of the Government, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran; and the judiciary of Iran. For Russia, this includes the President of Russia; Cabinet Ministers; government ministries; regional Governments; the judiciary; and the legislature.

As my colleague, Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, set out in a Statement to the House of Commons:

“The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, and media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression. It is also no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of the Iranian intelligence services targeting Jewish and Israeli people internationally”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 195.]


As noble Lords will know, Russia poses an acute threat to UK security. In recent years, its hostile acts have included the deadly nerve agent attack that we witnessed in Salisbury, espionage, arson, and cyberattacks, including the targeting of UK parliamentarians through spear phishing campaigns.

Specifying Russia and Iran on the enhanced tier will mean that anyone acting at their direction in the United Kingdom will face a choice: either they declare their activities to the UK Government or they risk five years’ imprisonment. That choice is down to them from the beginning of the scheme on 1 July. Both sets of regulations include a statutory five-year review period and a grace period for those who are in ongoing arrangements at the point of the scheme coming into force in order to allow them to register arrangements without there being a need to impact on legitimate activities.

We have also set a number of exemptions in the scheme. This set of regulations introduces four new exemptions to the scheme. These exemptions, which sit alongside those already set out in primary legislation, are designed to uphold the principle of proportionality. They reduce the burden of registering routine or already transparent activities while ensuring that the scheme remains focused on addressing genuine risks. For example, these regulations include an exemption from the political influence tier of the scheme for a foreign power investment fund; this is intended to cover sovereign wealth funds and certain public pension funds.

Then there are three exemptions from the enhanced tier. First, there is an exemption for funded study arrangements, such as scholarships awarded by foreign Governments. Secondly, there is an exemption for activities related to government administrative and technical services, such as those concerning nationality, immigration and tax-related services. Thirdly, there is an exemption for public bodies and arrangements to which they are party.

Each of these exemptions has been carefully and narrowly defined to prevent the creation of loopholes that could be exploited for malign purposes. For example, a student from Russia or Iran on a government-funded scholarship would be exempt only in relation to activities directly connected to their course of study. Any other activity undertaken on behalf of those states would still require registration.

The final set of regulations concerns the operation of the public register, and I will talk a little now about publication. In my view, that is central to delivering the scheme’s transparency objectives. The regulations set out the categories of information that will be published on the register. They are carefully limited to what is necessary to fulfil the scheme’s transparency aims, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for individual privacy. By default, registrations relating to political influence activities will appear on the public register. Where activities extend beyond political influence, they are registered on the enhanced tier and will not be published. It is important to emphasise that individuals and organisations that register under the scheme, and whose details appear on the public register, are acting responsibly and in support of transparency.

The regulations also set out the information that may not appear on the register where it has been demonstrated that publication would be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, or to the prevention of crime, a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings; where it would put an individual’s safety at risk; or where it could result in the disclosure of commercially sensitive information.

Lastly, the regulations also provide for information to remain on the public register for a period of 10 years following the conclusion of the relevant activity. This retention period is particularly important for identifying long-term trends and patterns in foreign influence.

There is legitimate activity, of course, and I want to be clear that the scheme does not seek to deter that legitimate activity. Registering with the scheme does not mean that an individual is doing anything wrong, nor that they must cease their activities. We are also taking steps to ensure that registration remains as straightforward and simple as possible, and that those affected by the scheme are aware of what they need to do to comply.

To conclude—I apologise for giving great detail on the four instruments before the Committee—self-evidently, the first duty of the Government is to keep our country safe; I know that view is shared across the Committee. That is why the Prime Minister placed national security at the heart of his plan for change. It is also why we are supporting the police and intelligence services to confront and combat the threats we face, including those from foreign states. The measures before us are among our decisive steps to bring into force the foreign influence registration scheme. I look forward to comments and questions from noble Lords, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Indeed—I think I will cover that point as I go along.

Although we support the intent and scope of these measures, scrutiny must not end there. These regulations are not purely technical instruments; they go to the heart of how the UK responds to evolving and increasingly sophisticated state threats. It is in that spirit that I raise three points.

First, the omission of China from the enhanced tier is quite simply a glaring absence. There is now consistent cross-party consensus, reflected in previous debates in both Houses and across the intelligence community, that China poses a systemic and strategic challenge to the United Kingdom. China has targeted Members of this Parliament, launched cyberattacks on UK institutions and engaged in covert activity on British soil. In 2021, it sanctioned two Members of this House and, in 2024, the Government publicly attributed malicious cyber campaigns against MPs and the Electoral Commission to the Chinese state. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a wider sustained pattern. Given this record, it is difficult to understand why China has not yet been put under the enhanced tier of this scheme.

The Government have stated that they do not comment on individual countries, and that designations are made on a case-by-case basis. However, this is not about speculation but about providing clarity and strategic coherence in our approach to national security. The public and Parliament are entitled to understand the rationale behind such decisions, particularly when the state in question has been repeatedly named by the intelligence community as a principal source of hostile activity. Indeed, the Home Office’s own professional guidance lists Russia, Iran and China as the foremost state-based threats. The director-general of MI5 has echoed this view, as has already been said this afternoon. So why the inconsistency? What message does it send, either to those carrying out covert activities or to our international partners, when a state widely recognised as a threat is excluded from a scheme specifically designed to counter exactly this kind of behaviour? I therefore urge the Government to reconsider this decision, or at the very least to provide a clearer public explanation of their current position.

On enforcement and oversight, effective implementation is vital and registration requirements must be communicated clearly. Guidance must be accessible, and enforcement must be proportionate and consistent across sectors and regions. Can the Minister confirm that the necessary resources are in place to support enforcement, and that compliance will be monitored in a structured and transparent manner? We note that Section 82 of the National Security Act 2023 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the scheme’s operation, which is welcome, but can the Minister confirm whether that report will include an assessment of the effectiveness of the current exemptions, and whether further exemptions or additional country designations are under active consideration?

Finally, although this scheme is a welcome development, we must acknowledge that it is only one part of a much broader challenge. Hostile states are adapting constantly. Disinformation, cyber interference, economic coercion and influence operations now span multiple domains. Responding effectively demands not just new legal frameworks but a whole of government approach, with sustained investment in resilience, cross-sectoral co-ordination and continued international alignment.

In conclusion, we support these measures, which are necessary, appropriate and overdue, but they must be implemented in a manner that is robust, proportionate and responsive to the evolving nature of state threats—not just today but in the years ahead. We remain concerned about the exclusion of China from the enhanced tier. We urge the Government to keep this matter under close and continuous review, and to act with greater transparency about the strategic direction of our national security posture.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful both to the contributors to this short debate and for the broad support that has been given for the regulations before the Committee. I will try to answer each noble Lord in turn. There might be a bit of overlap, because some of the issues that have been raised do overlap, but I will try to cover the points raised by each noble Lord in turn.

I shall start with my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned cyber and cyberattacks. I assure him that the security services, the agencies, the Home Office and the UK Government are acutely aware of hostile states potentially undertaking attacks, and of criminal gangs doing the same. Significant work, which my noble friend would not expect me to talk about in public, is ongoing to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. I give him that assurance as a whole.

My noble friend asked in particular about the exemptions for students and the impact on small businesses or small organisations. I will take the latter first. The registration process is designed to be as simple as possible—this touches on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The Home Office anticipates that the process should take a maximum of 30 minutes. We are not expecting small businesses or micro-businesses to register in large numbers if they are in direct relationships with foreign powers, but—again, this goes to a point made by a number of noble Lords—there is comprehensive guidance online to support the registrant and their process, and to support individuals and larger organisations. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, self-evidently, but we are confident that that will be a relatively simple process from 1 July onwards. Again, I put out the hand of friendship to all noble Lords: if there is feedback downstream on how the scheme operates, from any perspective that is brought to their attention, we would welcome it.

My noble friend Lord Stansgate also asked for clarification on the education exemption. Where someone is in an arrangement with a foreign power and is completing a course in further study, they do not necessarily need to register activities, but it is reasonable to complete the course of education; to uphold the reputation of the provider; to meet the standards of conduct expected by the providers of financial assistance; and to notify any person of personal information. Again, I hope that that is helpful.

My noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned China. I may as well hit that point and discuss it at this time. I think that they all know the answer to the question they asked, but I will give it in the phraseology I have to use. Each country is considered on its merits and no decisions have been made. Countries are considered separately for specification and decisions are made on evidence.

On China more broadly, we have been clear as a Government that we are going to take a consistent, long-term, strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China. This means co-operating where we can, competing where we need to and challenging robustly where we must, including on areas of national security. However, each country is considered on its merits and no decisions have been made. The regulations before the Committee highlight two specific nations where we believe there is a significant threat—Russia and Iran—which is why we have brought them forward. I hope that helps my noble friend Lord Stansgate on his points.

I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Cryer continuing his long interest in issues related to Iran. I know that he has raised this in the Chamber on a number of occasions. He asked what happens if there is a failure to register. That will be a criminal offence in the event of an individual’s activities coming to light linked to a registered nation under the regulations before us today and will carry a potential penalty of five years’ imprisonment. That is not for me to judge. That is for the courts to judge and the police to prosecute, but that is certainly part of this issue today.

My noble friend mentioned in particular the impact on parliamentarians. There is no requirement for parliamentarians who are being lobbied to register with the scheme, and that allows the democratic process to continue. He commented on proscription and mentioned Hamas. Hamas is not specified. The regulations would cover anyone in a relationship with the IRGC in Iran but, as ever, for any organisation, at any time, the Government keep under review the question of proscription. At the moment, this is where we are, but we keep everything under review at all times accordingly. As my noble friend will know, the arrests on 17 May of three Iranian nationals who have been charged with offences under the National Security Act show that the Government are consistent. That matter will go before the courts and be determined by the judiciary in due course.

My noble friend also mentioned proxies. Although I have touched on this, I think it is important that I say that it is the person who is in a relationship with the foreign power who has to register. Therefore, those who are proxies are within the scheme, for example, companies acting under the direction of the Russians or the Iranians. If the proxy is not registered, then the person in the UK acting on their behalf could well be committing an offence. Again, it is our intention to ensure that we act in the interests of national security and of the United Kingdom as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of points. Again, I am grateful for his broad support and thank him for that support to date and in getting the legislation in this House in the past. He mentioned commercial interests and asked whether this is a high bar. Let me, I hope, reassure him that the Government’s intention is that it should be a high bar. UK companies providing services to bodies listed will have to register. The exemptions are carefully crafted to ensure that what is out of scope is as narrow as possible, while still fulfilling the scheme’s aim. We have put in place exemptions on sovereign wealth funds, which he talked about. The exemption for sovereign wealth funds is not about prioritising growth over national security as national security remains the first priority of Government, but about ensuring that the scheme remains proportionate. The link between a sovereign wealth fund and a foreign power is inherently transparent, so requiring them to register with the scheme would bring very limited benefits. I hope that answers his point.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. On one hand I can understand it, on the other hand, I just disagree with him, respectfully. Sovereign wealth funds are not just one thing that is obvious to see. Sovereign wealth funds can be extraordinarily broad in their scope, their legal complexity and their financial instruments, which can be spread across a number of different jurisdictions. That is why they are used by state entities. We seek to have good relationships with some, because we want them to invest in the UK, but others are used for the very reason of their complexities. I just do not understand the rationale of the Government to have a blanket exemption for any fund that is principally owned by a sovereign Government. That is notwithstanding the further dilution of the share capital that the Government are now proposing, from 25% to 100%. I do not understand the rationale for this.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Well, we may end up having an honest disagreement, and that is fair. That is what politics is about; sometimes we do not necessarily agree. The exemptions that the Government have brought forward today match the exemptions contained in the primary legislation. They include routine diplomatic activity, recognised news publishers and legal activities carried out by lawyers. These were the exemptions introduced through the regulations being debated today. They ensure, we think, that the scheme’s requirements remain proportionate to the threats that we face. We have been very public about those threats in this debate, in the House of Commons and in the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

On the subject of exceptions, in Regulation 6 of the statutory instrument on publication, for example, how is Parliament going to know the extent of the exemptions that have been granted? On the face of it, we will not know.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If my noble friend allows me a moment’s reflection on that detail, I will respond to him with a fuller, meaningful reply. I believe that we are going to be transparent in all of this. The whole purpose of these regulations is to provide transparency and ensure that we tackle national security and give proportionate responses. Colleagues and I will reflect on the point he has made and I will respond to him in detail if I can.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

This is our only opportunity to debate this in detail—by the way, I do not detract from the Minister’s intent at all. I have two questions. First, forgive my ignorance, but do the exemptions also apply—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have not quite finished my responses to the noble Lord yet.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Well, does he wish to do that now? I will then be able to ask him the question about it. Do the exemptions apply to the enhanced-tier activities too? The policy rationale in the Explanatory Memorandum cites academia and economic activity, and the Government are proposing to exempt those. My second point was that, if he wanted to write to the noble Viscount and myself in advance of us being asked to approve these in the Chamber, that would be of benefit.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am trying to explain to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that we have put exemptions in. I have explained in my opening speech what those exemptions are and have indicated that they are meant to be designed to be proportionate. If there are points that the noble Lord and my noble friend wish to press further, I will try to answer those today, but I have just indicated that I will reflect on those to see whether I can give further guidance prior to the end of this contribution. If we are not able to do that, then I will ensure that, before this is brought before the House on Monday or Tuesday next week—whichever day the final regulations are presented—we will have clarification on those points in the hands of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I am trying, as ever, to be helpful.

The noble Lord also asked the question about how accessible public registration will be. Information on only the political tier will be published. It will be accessible via an online register, which will be linked to the registration portal. It will be on GOV.UK, and there will be filters to support those searching.

Again, I say to the noble Lord that the purpose of that transparency, and the whole purpose of these regulations, is to ensure that the Government register concerns on areas of international security, look at where that registration and influence is and flush out that influence in terms of individuals who are currently operating potentially in a covert way but will, in future, have to register, with the details published online. If they are not registered and are subsequently found to be operating, they will have to face the force of the law in the courts on those issues.

The noble Lord also asked who decides and who polices the exemptions. That is a broad area of concern for him, I think. The exemptions have been set out in the regulations that we have laid. If an individual does not meet the exemption criteria, they must register their arrangement with Iran or Russia. If they do not register that arrangement, they will commit a criminal offence. There are existing measures to address risks associated with international students as a whole.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the exemptions applying to the enhanced tier, there will be an annual report that will set out the exemptions under regulation. There will be different exemptions according to each tier. When I look later today at Hansard—which is always helpful to Ministers—I will reflect on what has been said by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on that issue. If my response today has not met their concerns, I will ensure that they have a letter in their hand by Monday morning. I will hold myself to that over the weekend.

I think I have covered most of the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in our discussion today. Although I did not refer directly to him and the points that he raised, I think that I have covered elsewhere the issues that he raised on exemptions, China and so on. I hope that I have satisfied him.

In summary, I thank my noble friends Lord Cryer and Lord Stansgate and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions. I hope that they have clarity that the purpose of these regulations is to provide protections on national security for UK citizens from malign foreign influences of countries that are undertaking activity in the United Kingdom that is causing disruption to indigenous citizens of those countries who live here and to the United Kingdom as a whole. The purpose is to provide openness and transparency around the links between the Iranian regime or the Russian regime and individuals who are operating on their behalf. The regulations are an improvement on where we are now and give clarity. They provide exemptions, but we believe that those exemptions are proportionate. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

Motion agreed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open the debate on this important Bill and to welcome the interest shown by so many noble Lords in seeking to speak. This is a key Bill for the Government and for the United Kingdom as a whole. I will set out why this Government have brought forward the Bill for the benefit of noble Lords today.

Immigration has always been an important part of the United Kingdom’s story. But for it to be so, it must be controlled and managed so that the system is fair and works for people in this country as a whole. Proper enforcement of and respect for the rules are key to that. The Bill before us addresses a number of those areas, and the recently published White Paper runs parallel to the Bill and covers a number of other areas.

The Bill is predominantly about the issues of illegal and irregular migration, and I think it is clear to noble Lords and any observer that the current situation cannot go on. Criminal gangs have had six years to take over the English Channel unchecked and to set up and run criminal enterprises that exploit people at their most vulnerable. As a result, there is a massive strain on the already overstretched immigration and asylum system supports. It is in nobody’s interest to continue as we are. The Bill seeks to make real change.

The criminal gangs have no respect for the lives of those they traffic. Often 50 people or more are crammed into unseaworthy vessels, sometimes facing threats and intimidation when they raise concerns. As a result, we have seen individuals tragically die in the channel. Make no mistake: this is part of a broader criminal enterprise, which seeks to bring weapons, drugs and a wide array of items used to carry out criminal activity into our local communities, smuggled into the United Kingdom. The Government are absolutely committed to taking down the gangs that risk the lives of so many people in our communities.

This Government are taking the necessary actions to secure our borders, to bring the immigration and asylum system under control and to go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security. This legislation is part of that plan for change. The Government are determined to tackle irregular migration, to bring control back to our borders and to stop the appalling loss of life in the channel. It is also important that alongside this we have a properly functioning asylum and immigration system that delivers timely decisions for individuals and makes sure that those with no right to be here are removed.

The legislation before us will strengthen the UK’s border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect UK border security that sees the Government working more closely with our international partners up stream and in our near neighbourhood, enhancing operational activity nationally and internationally and ensuring that our law enforcement and operational teams have the powers and tools they need to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime activity.

What are the key measures in the Bill? First, the Bill places a new Border Security Commander and his role on a statutory footing and clearly explains the functions that will allow this role to be an enduring one that brings together the skills and expertise of a variety of agencies to tackle the issues faced, united behind a set of border security priorities.

Secondly, the Bill establishes landmark new offences, contained within the legislation, which will provide law enforcement agencies working across border security with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime. This should not be a surprise to noble Lords, because in the election almost a year ago the Labour Party stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce new counterterrorism-style powers that will give law enforcement the ability to tackle those involved in putting lives in danger and threatening UK border security. This Bill will deliver the new offences.

Among the new offences is one to ensure that action is taken against those who endanger others during sea crossings to the UK. These crossings are exceptionally dangerous, and I regret the loss of life we have seen even this year. The Government are determined to prevent such loss of life in the channel with these new powers.

The Bill will also create new powers to seize and search electronic devices where there is suspicion of involvement in organised immigration crime activity. This will build a better picture for law enforcement agencies investigating the activity of gangs. The Bill will ensure that data-sharing capabilities will be expanded to assist in developing the intelligence picture of organised immigration crime and other threats, make it easier for public agencies to share information and enhance the ability to act. For example, measures to allow the DVLA to share trailer data and for HMRC to share customs data will enhance the work of Border Force.

The Bill’s biometric provisions will provide greater flexibility when taking biometrics from individuals who are part of a UK evacuation. They will allow for the provision of biometrics at ports in Scotland, fixing the situation that has developed where law enforcement officials are needing to drive to a police station to carry out this task.

Measures in the Bill also focus on serious and organised crime and make it clear that it will be an offence to possess the articles named in the Bill, which we know are used in criminality and which harm communities. There is also an expansion of the serious crime prevention order regime, introducing new interim orders which will allow law enforcement to act immediately to tackle criminality where it occurs.

The Bill will strengthen the immigration and asylum systems as a whole. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to end the wasteful migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda and use that funding to set up our new Border Security Command, led by Martin Hewitt.

Let me be completely clear: the Government’s plans in the previous Parliament to deal with Rwanda were wholly unworkable. They were going to cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and would never have dealt with the sheer number of migrants we are seeing in the channel. Around £700 million has been spent to date, and it is time to close it down. Only four people left the United Kingdom under the Rwanda scheme, and they left voluntarily. The legislation before us, as a manifesto commitment, repeals the costly and unworkable measure introduced by the previous Government and introduces new provisions to start to address the real challenges faced, to tackle harm and to build a more efficient and robust asylum and immigration system.

Beyond the provisions that repeal the safety of Rwanda Act and huge swathes of the Illegal Migration Act, the Bill will equip the Immigration Services Commissioner with the tools they need to identify and tackle abuses within the immigration advice sector. Under the Bill, the Immigration Advice Authority will have new powers to fine or suspend those who provide poor-quality advice to those going through the immigration process, restoring trust in the system—I hope and believe—by tackling such poor practice.

In this extensive Bill, we are also introducing measures that aim to begin taking the action needed to ensure a properly functioning, effective immigration system. The Bill will introduce a new, 24-week statutory timeline for appeals as part of the Government’s work to tackle the enormous backlog of cases we have inherited. To assist cases to move through the system and to provide individuals with clarity on outcomes, cases where the individual is in asylum accommodation—at great taxpayer expense—and cases of non-detained foreign national offenders will be prioritised as far as practically possible.

The Bill also provides for greater protections against harm in our communities, supporting—as I know noble Lords will support—the removal of foreign national criminals and ensuring that sexual offences are treated with the seriousness they deserve. For example, those convicted of Schedule 3 offences will not benefit from refugee protections in the United Kingdom. We recognise the devastating impact that these offences have on victims and our communities, and we as a Government are determined that individuals who commit them cannot benefit from our protections.

Stronger conditions will be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal from the United Kingdom. These measures mean that those who do not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed due to obligations in law can have certain conditions placed upon them if they pose a threat to the public. This is another measure to try to keep our communities safer.

We are strengthening the detention powers available to the Home Office when an individual is subject to deportation on the basis that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. This measure removes ambiguity around when powers may be used.

Extending the right-to-work scheme to those who fall under other working relationships will crack down on those working illegally, many of whom are being exploited for cheap labour. It is an objective of the Government to try to drive down that cheap labour market, which is an underbelly in our communities at large.

Finally, changes to the EU settlement scheme, which will be welcomed by a number of noble Lords, will confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the beginning of this scheme; namely, to ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the United Kingdom.

The main priority of the Bill is to protect the UK’s border and to make changes to enable a properly functioning immigration and asylum system. We are ensuring that those with a genuine right to be here are properly supported, while those who have no legal right to remain in the UK do not abuse the system and undermine the protections that the UK has a long history of providing to those in need.

We have a responsibility to the British people, who rightly expect our borders to be secure and our laws to be enforced, and we have a moral duty to prevent further tragedies at the hands of criminal gangs. The plan before us is a clear, impactful plan for change. The Bill will restore order and trust to our immigration and asylum system, and provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to be able to tackle the people-smuggling gangs who exploit individuals and place them in perilous situations in the channel. This Government are committed to a fully functioning system, and we will debate migration as a whole in the White Paper in due course.

The Bill is about protecting those who need it, swiftly removing those with no right to be here and cracking down on criminal gangs. To date, since the Government were elected, the National Crime Agency has seized 600 boats and engines, taken down 18,000 social media accounts, ensured that 30,000 people have been returned since the election, including a 23% increase in enforced returns of foreign national offenders, and is taking action on illegal working visits and arrests, increased by 40% and 42% respectively. But the Government need more powers to improve their performance on illegal migration. The Bill before the House today gives those powers to the agencies to make that difference. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We commenced at 6.09 pm, and four hours and four minutes later we are coming to a conclusion. I sense, however, that this has been only an hors d’oeuvre for what will come in Committee as we consider this matter further.

We have had a thoughtful debate, and I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady in saying that language and tone are extremely important in how we approach these debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, mentioned, there are forces who will exploit these matters if we—both Houses of Parliament—do not deal with these issues effectively.

Before I turn to the Bill, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for his maiden speech. He was right that I shadowed him for a while in the House of Commons when he was the Minister. I did indeed go to Calais in 2014 and tried to put some points to both him and the then Home Secretary. While we had our disagreements, I do not think that we fell out over those issues. We had a civilised relationship, which I hope will continue. He gave a confident maiden speech today, and I particularly welcome his comments about the late Sir Roy Stone, who served in the Whips’ Office for all parties for many years.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about an orchestra. We have had some cohesion in the sense that there are some areas of agreement today: we have agreement that we need to look at the issues of prevention and that we need a deterrent, although we disagreed about what that deterrent should be. We have had some discussion about safe routes, and I will come to that in a moment. We have had agreement on the security command and the need for that co-ordination, and we have had agreement on international obligations being met. I want to assure my noble friend Lord Sahota and other noble Lords who raised this that we will maintain our international agreements and co-operation as currently set out in law. I will talk to each of those points in a moment.

The debate also covered a range of issues to do with the role of students, employment, family reunion, net migration, exit and entry, regulation, integration, pressure on homes, the value of migration and statistics, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned and are important. I say to noble Lords—and that includes the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Jackson, Lord Green, Lord Blunkett, Lord Goodman, Lord Macdonald, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord McInnes, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Sahota, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor, Lady Brinton and Lady May—that those issues are at the heart of the immigration White Paper, which does not form part of the Bill but is a good background to the issues that have been raised and will form part of the Government’s ongoing strategy to develop an approach to migration issues. While they are important, I do not want to ignore them, but I do not want to focus on them today because today’s focus is about the question of this legislation and what we do about the predominantly illegal migration—irregular migration—that is taking place.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who kicked off this debate, how we have got to where we are today. The issues with hotel accommodation, asylum use and levels of small boat incursion did not happen since 4 July last year; they are long-term systemic issues over which his Government presided. Collectively, we have to look at solutions.

There have been many views on the Bill and its provisions put forward today by Members of this House. The Government are trying to put some measures in place to deal with those key issues. The first of those—and this goes to the heart of a number of points that were made, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—is on the question of deterrence.

We have taken a decision to repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act. That was welcomed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan of Partick, Lady Brinton, Lady Lister, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. But there is a clear difference of opinions on the Rwanda Act between the noble Lords and the current Government, and that is that we need a deterrent. The deterrent is about capturing boats, looking at assets and putting measures in place to disrupt those gangs, but it is not the Rwanda scheme as determined by the previous Government. That already spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to send back only four people who went voluntarily.

During the period after that Bill became law to when this Government determined that it would be repealed, 84,000 people still crossed the channel. That was not a deterrent for those individuals at that stage. So we need a deterrent, and the deterrent we need is the type of arrests that the noble Lord asked me to look at and which we have made already: arrests among a Syrian organised crime group linked to 750 migrants from the UK and Europe since 4 July; the arrest of a Turkish national suspected of being a supplier of small boats; the conviction of two men from Wales who ran a smuggling gang; the arrest of six men in Belgium; NCA support for German law enforcement operations with 13 arrests across Germany and France; and the NCA establishing, with authorities in Libya and Kurdistan—a region of Iraq—how we actually tackle smuggling at that upstream level. Those are deterrents, and we need a deterrent. I and the Government do not believe that the Rwanda scheme was effective.

The question of what we do in place of that is very important. The Bill establishes Border Security Command. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, rightly asked, “What are the key performance indicators on that?” For us, they are a reduction in the number of migrant crossings, an increase in prosecutions and a disruption of the gangs, and we will discuss that as the Bill goes forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, my noble friend Lord McInnes and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, raised that issue. The commander in place will provide strategic cross-system leadership, is already engaging with nations in the European Union about what we need to do together, and has already worked with the NCA, the Home Secretary and others to establish both the Iraq scheme that we put in place and new co-operations with the imaginatively named Calais group to look at how we can reduce the number of crossings at that level.

There are indicators that need to be put in place, and we will be judged on those indicators and on those manifesto commitments. But our work with the French already has prevented 9,000 crossings this year. Germany, through the work of the Border Security Commander, is looking to change its laws so that it can prosecute people upstream on supply. We have secured the landmark agreement with Iraq and have set up the new border command with £150 million-worth of support. Yes, there need to be indicators, as the noble Viscount mentioned, but I believe that is an important issue that we have undertaken.

Just to help the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as well as the actions that we have taken to date, we scrapped the “Bibby Stockholm”, which she mentioned; we have taken a range of actions to do with current accommodation; we are committed to reduce the level of asylum hotels; and we are committed to use the resource from the scheme that we have scrapped in Rwanda to speed up the processing of asylum claims in order to determine who has a genuine asylum claim according to our international obligations, who does not, and then to remove them. Part of the importance of the Bill is to put that framework in place.

A number of noble Members raised the question of safe and legal routes, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick. The UK has a strong history of providing protection through our safe and legal routes, and we want to continue to welcome refugees and people in need. As Members will know, we already have bespoke routes to sanctuary, such as the Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong schemes, and in relation to Sudan we have already accepted 300 nationals to be resettled through our schemes as of September 2024.

The safe and legal routes are there. Do we need to review them and look at how we meet our international obligations? Yes, we do. Again, I refer to the immigration White Paper before us. On the safe and legal route option—my noble friend Lord Dubs discussed his family reunion option—there are safe and legal routes that we can look at, but I am sure I will discuss with my noble friend, as I have done already, his concerns during upcoming stages, and I will give consideration as to how we can improve understanding, knowledge and action in those areas.

Noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the wider work with the EU: my noble friend Lord Dubs mentioned that particularly, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Bilimoria. It is extremely important, and one of the things that the Government will not do is stand back from Europe. We will not revisit the Brexit debate—we cannot do that—but we can look at how we can improve co-operation on key issues. That means law enforcement but also a whole range of things. We have extra support with Europol, and we had the EU-UK summit on 19 May, where a new wide-ranging package of measures that address all elements of the global challenge was discussed.

Again, deterrence is also about understanding the problem; the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned very clearly how we understand that problem. One of the things we need to do is to work with our European partners—not our European Union partners any more but still our European partners—to assess and examine the challenge of irregular migration upstream. That is one thing that we are trying to do collectively to improve that European work.

Turning to the question from my noble friend Lord Dubs, we have done a lot of work with France on organised international crime, because it is a shared problem in which all nations have a role to play. It is really important that we have, through Border Security Command, operational activity at a local level with the nations that border us. The results of that have seen 600 boats and engines already taken down, 30,000 returns since the election—a 12% increase over the previous period—a 23% increase in enforced returns and an increase in foreign national offender removals. Those are important issues. They are in the Bill, but they are also areas that we need to look at as part of the immigration White Paper as a whole.

Let me turn to modern slavery, because I understand and note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and others. The sole modern slavery provision in the Bill would allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public grounds. The Home Office has committed to working with partners to agree priorities on long-term reform as part of the national referral mechanism. I understand what the noble Baroness said, but I will look at that issue, because I do not want to see watering down of modern slavery provisions. I supported the Bill, now an Act, that she took through as Home Secretary some 10 years ago, and I want to make sure that we deal with that. But the purpose of the modern slavery provision that we are looking at is dealing with foreign national offenders who are involved in modern slavery. I heard what she said today. We will look at that, and there is an opportunity to examine those issues as we progress the Bill.

The noble Lords, Lord McInnes and Lord Swire, mentioned third-country processing. That is not the Rwanda scheme. Examinations are ongoing with partners across Europe. Scoping work has shown that it is a model that could meet our international obligations and reduce the burden of illegal migration on UK shores. We will work closely with international partners to look at the global migration crisis as a whole.

I will end with a couple of other issues that have been mentioned. The EU settlement scheme was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The clause on EU citizens’ rights is designed to confirm as a matter of UK law what the UK has sought to do in practice since the UK settlement scheme was established. Again, I have heard what she said. I hope that when we look at that in detail, we can take on board those issues and debate them in full, but I hope we can give her some satisfaction on those issues as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also raised a number of key points. Again, I will reflect on those, as I hope she knows I will.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark mentioned the detention pilot. I give him an assurance that the department is going to keep under review the feasibility of the alternatives to the detention pilot, taking into account effectiveness and cost-efficiency, as part of our plans to transform the asylum and return system. Again, I will refer to him in due course on those issues. Our international obligations are extremely important. The Bill does not include them, but there is an opportunity within the discussion on the Bill to outline still further what we are doing on those issues.

We have had a wide-ranging debate on migration and immigration issues today. Much of that is outside the scope of this Bill. I understand why it been linked to the Bill, but it is outside its scope. The Bill is designed to focus predominantly on illegal migration. In doing so, we have established Border Security Command, which we are giving the power to track and confiscate mobile phones. We are looking at how to deal with downstream suppliers and doing what we said we would do in our manifesto, which is to disrupt and spoil the gangs that are operating this evil cross-channel trade. That is what the Bill will do, and I defy anyone in this House to say any that of the measures in the Bill to take action against those criminal gangs should not be undertaken.

We will have an honest debate about the deterrence issue and about the repeal of the Rwanda Bill. We believe that we have alternatives to that, but the measures in this Bill are worthy of support. How we look at integration, employment and students, how we encourage family reunion, how we build a society in which people are respected but also integrated and how we value the people who have come to this country over many years and through many generations are issues in the White Paper, which will be debated.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive and helpful summing-up of the debate. He will understand that the current discussions around reforming the ECHR are germane to this Bill and wider immigration issues. There are nine countries doing that. This Government have not availed themselves of the opportunity to take part. If he cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining why that is the case?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are aware that a letter has been circulated by countries, which is perfectly legitimate. They are countries within the European Union; we are outside the European Union now. We will look at the provisions of Article 8 and how we can interpret them but maintaining—very importantly for those Members who have raised these issues—our integral role as a member and supporter of the ECHR. That is a critical part of our international obligations, but it does not mean that we cannot look at interpretations and examine how we implement those regulations in a UK context. We will do that. I will certainly give the noble Lord a fuller reply in a letter, but I hope that reassures him that we will look at those issues.

I will look at Hansard in detail. I have sat through every minute of the debate today and heard every contribution in full. I look forward to the debates we will have on specific amendments and specific clauses. However, I look to this House to give support to the Government’s proposals to tackle criminal gangs who are exploiting people and bringing people to this country in an illegal way, even if those people have legitimate asylum claims. This is being done by criminal gangs for illegal profit. We need international co-operation to tackle the downstream issues and to tackle the gangs at source.

I commend this Bill to the House today in order to continue that progress and to ensure that we have a full debate in Committee on its contents and the suggestions that will undoubtedly come forward from all sides of the House.

Bill read a second time.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 40, Schedule 1, Clauses 41 to 53, Schedule 2, Clauses 54 to 63 Title.

Motion agreed.

Pensioners: Shoplifting

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the reported increase in shoplifting by pensioners.

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

My Lords, all shop theft is unacceptable, and we are taking action to drive down retail crime. However, there is no official data to give an accurate assessment of the age of those who commit shop theft. Today—as we speak—the Home Office is once again hosting the Retail Crime Forum, which brings together representatives from the retail sector, security providers and law enforcement agencies.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, poverty is a major cause of shoplifting. The full state pension of £11,973 is less than 50% of the minimum wage and is received by less than 30% of pensioners. Despite benefits, 2 million pensioners live in poverty, and over 100,000 a year die in fuel poverty. The loss of the winter fuel payment, unchecked profiteering and frozen income tax allowances will only worsen matters. The Minister has the power to reduce pensioner poverty by aligning the state pension with the living wage. When will he do that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The survey that has generated this Question was undertaken by one security firm, which found that only 5% of “pensioners” were undertaking shop theft. It defined “pensioners” as people aged over 50. It was complete, false nonsense, so before we go any further, let us just kill right now the argument that pensioners are a particular focus for shop theft. They are not. It is criminal organised gangs and that is where the Government are focused.

My noble friend mentioned a range of issues to do with challenges that pensioners face. We are protecting the poorest pensioners through the winter fuel allowance, ensuring that we can maintain the triple lock, and supporting pensioners generally. Even with all those measures, it is not acceptable for anybody to walk into a shop and steal something off the shelf, because that is a criminal act and it ensures costs go up for everybody else, including pensioners who obey the law. It is not acceptable, and I hope that we can focus in the Crime and Policing Bill on how we tackle shop theft as a whole.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I note that the Minister is about to have a meeting with a group of people dealing with this issue. Can he assure me that the trade union movement will be involved in that? I spent some time working for the Co-op many years ago. It is very frightening when people walk into a shop where you are employed and steal—that is what it is—the merchandise. Can I have an assurance that the trade union movement will be included in his consultation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and have been since 1979. I am fully in contact with the members of that union, who do a great job in supporting shop staff and shop presence. What staff should not face is attacks from individuals when they uphold the law on cigarette sales, alcohol sales or other sales. In fact, I moved an amendment some years ago to ensure that protection was in place. It was defeated by the then Conservative Government. I am very proud to say that I shall be moving the same Motion in the Crime and Policing Bill and that it will be passed by my colleagues.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, retailers often choose not to involve police when pensioners are caught shoplifting. Will the Minister discuss this issue with the College of Policing to ensure there is a consistent and fair approach to all offenders; balancing compassion for those who are in genuine hardship with the need for deterrence and public confidence in the justice system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Under the last Government, the National Police Chiefs’ Council produced a retail crime action plan, which is now around two years old. It includes a range of measures on how we can reduce shop theft across the board, but also looking at specific sectors. We have backed that up with a £7 million fund this year to support action on shop theft in town centres in particular.

I accept that there are a range of reasons why individuals undertake shop theft. Some are in criminal gangs, some are fuelling addiction problems, and some, as my noble friend mentioned, do so for reasons to do with poverty. We need to address all those issues but, ultimately, we should have no tolerance of shop theft as a whole, because it costs society, costs us as individuals, and is a crime that is seen as being victimless when it certainly is not. By all means, let us look at the individual circumstances, but our advice to police forces is to focus on this as a serious issue, for growth in the economy and for the impact on our society as a whole.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I question my noble friend the Minister’s statement that the poorest pensioners have been protected through the winter fuel abolition. The poorest pensioners are the 700,000 entitled to pension credit who do not claim it, and they are not getting the winter fuel payment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that Ministers in the DWP and the Treasury are very cognisant of the need to ensure we have an uptake by people who need and qualify for the winter fuel payment who currently do not have it. My understanding is that the DWP has written to all those pensioners. There have been some difficult decisions; let us not get away from that. I lost my winter fuel payment. Should I, as a Minister of the Crown, have that additional payment? No. Should millionaires have that additional payment? No. But the Government are determined to support poorer members of the community and poorer pensioners. That is what we are trying to do.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it is imperative that those working in shops, and retail workers in general, are protected in the face of significant levels of aggressive behaviour and violence in so-called kamikaze shoplifting raids. I know that the Government plan to bring in a new specific offence of assaulting retail workers. However, new laws like that work only when the police are there to enforce them. Can the Minister confirm that the number of new police officers entering the front line will be sufficient to help tackle the crime of shoplifting in general?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I shall say two things to the noble Lord, and I hope he can support the Government on this. We have put in an extra £1 billion of funding into policing this year, over and above what was in last year. We are funding 3,000 extra neighbourhood police officers this year. The plan is to fund 13,000 neighbourhood police officers over the course of this Parliament. I was Police Minister in 2010. In 2011, 20,000 police officers were lost, and that has had a big impact on capacity over that time. I say to the noble Lord that people who undertake violence and ram raids are criminal organised gangs and the police need to focus on that, but neighbourhood policing can also help in improving relationships and highlighting the fact that shop theft, be it one cup of coffee, a jar of coffee or a ram raid full of alcohol, meat and expensive products, is taken seriously by the police.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I think the Government’s plan is a good one; there is nothing wrong with the plan. What has happened over the years is that we used to get reports of shoplifting only when they caught the offender, so the police went, and we had a very good detection rate because the offender was presented. What has happened over time is that CCTV and other devices have captured shoplifters who have left the premises. The determinant is whether the police attend. If they attend, they have a good chance of catching them there or using the evidence that is available. Particularly for shop workers, where violence has been used, somebody follows up. I think that what has happened over time is that there has not been the follow-up. That needs to happen. If it happened to be a pensioner who was the offender, they might actually catch them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree strongly with the noble Lord that it is extremely important that all offences are registered. That is a responsibility on shops as well as on the police force and on us as a community as a whole. We need to know the level and scale of the problem. I am pleased to report that there has been an increase in the number of arrests and prosecutions for shop theft over the past six months, and that is a direction of travel that I hope we can continue, because it is important that we address criminal gangs. However, if individuals are stealing because of alcohol or drug misuse or because of not being able to afford to live, those are other issues that we need to register, address and work with the rest of society to resolve.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a lot of public concern about the policy, which it seems that the previous Government were complicit in, that there would be an arbitrary threshold in terms of shoplifting before proceedings would take place. Can my noble friend confirm that that is totally against current government policy and that we will encourage police forces to prosecute in all such cases?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In 2014, the then Government introduced a £200 threshold, which meant that police forces were, in effect, told to disregard shop theft below £200. I was the shadow Police Minister in 2014, and I opposed that measure. I am pleased to say that in the Crime and Policing Bill that will be coming before this House very shortly that £200 threshold will be scrapped. It might have taken 11 years to get to that position, but it is 11 years that have changed because there was an election victory on 4 July last year.

Immigration System

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, immigration—this is not about asylum, which is a separate matter—involves a sort of contract between the immigrant and the host country. Each has a part to play, and each should be positive.

We used to talk more than we seem to now, often in the context of the benefits of overseas students in our universities, about the contribution to soft power played by welcoming people to our country, as well as what immigrants—who included my grandparents—contributed to the UK. I am glad that this was acknowledged by the Home Secretary in the Statement, though I am not convinced that the White Paper entirely reflects that, but I have to say I am shocked by some of the language used by the Prime Minister. Both words and tone are important.

I did not follow the logic of the White Paper. Supporting growth, housing and other construction and hospitality and tourism, for instance, require skills that are not at the highest level and work that can be hard but not skilled. Employers who recruit from overseas would not recognise this as the easy option, given the paperwork involved, and certainly not cheap, with high visa fees and the skills charge. Can the Minister tell us how much is expected to be raised by the increase in that charge and invested in training?

I do not accept that carers are unskilled; rather, their skills are not ones that we have traditionally valued. Better payment—the Minister will be aware of the Liberal Democrat policy of a higher minimum wage for carers—and our respect are due. Although the White Paper acknowledges that, the conclusion that overseas recruitment should end is perverse and damaging to carers and to clients. There is abuse by some employers in this and other sectors, but the response reads too much like victim blaming. Can the Minister tell us the timeframes for the fair pay agreements mentioned? I would also be interested in how the Government respond to concern that more and more pensioners will be exhausting their savings on care.

I look forward to migrant workers being given more control over who they work for, reducing opportunities for exploitation. We hope to explore that through amendments to the forthcoming borders Bill, as well as issues around family reunion, about which we have significant concerns. What consultation will there be regarding changes to family migration? What does proper integration support—to use the terminology—look like? Can the Minister clarify at what point in the immigration process, as distinct from citizenship, English language will be tested?

There is to be a new temporary shortage occupation list, including jobs critical to the industrial strategy, which the Minister may say addresses my earlier point, and to an extent perhaps it does. Does temporary mean a temporary list or temporary for the worker? Is it the list that will apply for asylum seekers when they are allowed to work, which should be much sooner than currently while waiting for a decision?

Indefinite leave to remain will “take account” of the applicant’s contribution. How is that to be measured? Five years is apparently not enough. Is it a matter of salary? How much discretion will there be? What data will the Home Office publish in the interests of transparency?

I return to some of the rhetoric. One gentleman has emailed me about how difficult it is for him and his partner—who he tells me arrived in the UK legally, paid visa fees, paid the NHS surcharge and has no recourse to public funds—to read that she is regarded as causing “incalculable damage”. Regardless of the detail, he says,

“it makes us feel unwelcome in the UK”.

These policies affect UK citizens too.

The White Paper refers to many further policies to come. There is a lot to follow up, with a lot of people uncertain, anxious and feeling threatened about their future, and many having thought that their future was clear. I hope there is a lot of consultation to come before policy is set in stone.

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

I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their contributions, and I will try to answer them. I hope I do not surprise the noble Lord by saying that I am not going to go over the previous Government’s record; I will let that speak for itself. We can all make judgments on that. Government is a difficult place, but there are decisions that the previous Government took in all their forms from 2010 that we disagreed with, though there were things that we supported too, and we are where we are now.

We are trying to put a framework around some key decisions that the UK has to take in relation to the points before us in the White Paper. The key principles in the White Paper are that we need to reduce net migration substantially. We are potentially looking the number of visas issued to fall by up to 100,000 a year by the end of this Parliament as a result of the changes.

We need to link immigration to the UK skills strategy. We need to ensure that we create fair, effective and strictly enforced rules, and that includes what I would term good labour values to ensure that we do not have exploitative workforce practices, we do not have foreign-national criminals who continue to commit crime in our country and we do not have people working undercover because of their illegal entry to the UK. They are good values to ensure that we support work and the workforce as a whole.

It is also a good value that we extend the hand of friendship to those who have lived here, come here and worked here, but also we need to support integration and community cohesion. We need to ensure particularly that we empower Parliament to give a clear definition of family life and that the Immigration Rules are clear for all.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has mentioned three particular areas, which I will try to respond to. First, should we place a cap on migration and put that figure in there for the Government to be held to? We have taken the decision that we are not going to put a figure on that cap, but we are going to try to keep reviewing all the time the impact of the policies in this White Paper with the objective of reducing net migration over a period of time. Caps have proved a challenge in the past as an area where Governments have failed to hit targets so, while we can debate it and argue about it, that is the decision that we have taken.

Secondly, should we disapply legislation such as the ECHR and other legislation? The Government will abide by our international obligations. We do not intend to withdraw from those obligations, but we will look at, and will consult on, how we apply those obligations in a UK context. There may be room for us to look at that in detail, but there is no indication whatever that we are going to withdraw from those, nor would we wish to, because those are our international obligations and they should be met.

The noble Lord mentioned the visa changes. There will be consultations. A number of the measures in the White Paper will require legislation in this House, either at SI level, at rules level or in primary legislation, and there will be an opportunity for consultation, discussion and contributions from both Houses of Parliament accordingly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, began by talking about the contribution of people who are immigrants to this country. I put on record how much I value those people who have come to this country to make their lives and to contribute. There are a range of services, public and private, where the contribution of people who have come to this country is central to public service, economic growth and business as a whole, and we need to recognise that.

However, we still need to have a system whereby we put some boundaries around migration and around supporting the development of UK society and its needs. There are 9 million people currently economically inactive in this country. What is the skills programme for those individuals? Can we get those people to do some of the work currently being done by people being brought into the country? That is an important issue.

I value very much the contribution of students and universities. We are not stopping students coming to the country, and we are not stopping universities having individuals come to the country. What we are doing is saying, “When you’ve finished your university course, we’re going to review the amount of time you can stay here before you need to make further applications along the lines of the immigration regime that we are putting in place in those areas”.

I know for a fact that we can probably count the number of Presidents, Prime Ministers and business leaders who have been to universities in this country and who value that experience and look back on this country as being the first step on their long road to success. That is important; we are not stopping that. We are simply putting in place an 18-month period after graduation which says that you have to then start look at reapplying, as opposed to being automatically able to stay.

The skills agenda is really important. As I have mentioned, there are a lot of unskilled people who can be brought into the market. Adult social care is important. We will be bringing forward rules to this House about changes in that sphere. However, it is important because a lot of people have abused the adult social care route and we are trying to put some rigour and order into it.

The noble Baroness mentioned exploitation. I am pleased to see the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady May. It is important that modern slavery issues, which the noble Baroness, Lady May, championed in the other House in government both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, are put into measures that ensure we strengthen that route to avoid exploitation. We need to examine the issues of people coming here illegally, working illegally and being exploited by domestic employment orders, because that undercuts people who are doing legitimate work and legitimate businesses. That is a key issue for the Government.

We will be consulting on the measures the noble Baroness outlined and we will certainly examine in full any representations made. But the Government have to set out a direction of travel. One of the key things we have to do is set out a direction of travel and put some order into the system. Not everybody is going to agree with the direction of travel or the order we put in. But it is important that we have stronger control of our borders and stronger employment and training opportunities for all, that we still attract high level of talent and that we are still open for students to come and for businesses to invest. However, there has to be a framework around that, and the White Paper intends to provide that framework.

Finally, those who have indefinite leave to remain can currently apply for naturalisation after five years, but we have a 10-year proposed ceiling in the White Paper. We are going to look at transition arrangements and make sure we try to give opportunities for further consultation on points to do with naturalisation that we know are important to this House, the House of Commons and, most of all, to people who are here already. That will be subject to further consultation at an appropriate time.

I hope I have answered the questions the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised, and I await further questions.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about modern slavery. One way to bring down net migration is to ensure there is no abuse in the visa system. The White Paper touches on this, particularly in relation to student visas. A key way to ensure there is no abuse is to move away from a strict points-based system and give greater discretion to immigration officers. Are the Government doing that? If not, why not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government want to try to operate a points-based system, but also to put some more rigour into the student post-graduation approach and to look at the fees around coming to the United Kingdom in the first place. The White Paper includes a shortening of the period after graduation. It includes a points-based system examining what skills are required. It gives a commission to the Migration Advisory Committee to look at what the skills shortages are. At the same, we are putting £625 million into skills and training in England to try to raise levels of skills so that graduates—with due respect to graduates—do graduate-level jobs and do not do jobs that can currently be filled by upskilling those who are currently economically inactive in the United Kingdom.

[The Lord Bishop of Lichfield]

My Lords, the White Paper rightly recognises the role that successful integration plays in enabling people to realise their full potential and increasing community cohesion. It particularly highlights the importance of language learning. Yet this, though important, is not the sole factor that influences the extent to which someone is successfully integrated in society. Successful integration is multifaceted. It requires, for example, the provision of adequate housing, employment opportunities, social networks and the ability to navigate services. A more holistic approach to integration is needed—one that extends beyond the development of language skills. What consideration are the Government giving to introducing more expansive measures to facilitate successful integration?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. Integration is about communities reaching out and understanding each other’s differences, but looking at the areas they share and making sure that the pressures on any area of migration do not destabilise the community that those people who have come to this country are part of. That means that we need to make assessments of housing and public services, as well as employment. That is key to the details of the White Paper as a whole.

There will be further examination of the structural needs the right reverend Prelate has outlined and the need for, in our view, better performance on English language for people who are here. By better performance on English language, I am not downplaying the native language of anybody who comes here, but the ability to converse with fellow citizens is critical to integration. That is why we are putting emphasis on that in the White Paper. The points the right reverend Prelate mentioned are also equally important.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the measured tone my noble friend used in answering the question a few minutes ago. However, there are things about the White Paper which cause concern. Do we still have to include students in our net immigration figures? I know we have debated this before, but it seems that, if we could exclude students, the figures would be a bit more honest. I welcome the emphasis on the English language, but I am concerned about the way in which we have used expressions to describe what is going on. Integration in our local communities is surely helped if we have moderate language—the Minister himself used moderate language—to describe the whole immigration situation. In the last few days things have been said which, frankly, have not helped with the process of integration.

May I make two further quick comments? First, I am concerned about social care. I understand the arguments, but it may well be that our social care system, which is already in a state of collapse, will collapse even further. We need some sensitivity on that issue. Finally, on Article 8 and asylum seekers, I hope the Minister can give us more assurance on how this will work. It is mentioned in the White Paper and I hope he will give us further assurance that there will be no inadvertent knock-on from the White Paper into our policy on asylum seekers and refugees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I have said—I hope I can say this again for the benefit of the House—students contribute to the cultural, economic and soft power of the United Kingdom. We have welcomed students and we will continue to welcome students. But we also have to look at the impact of students on the migration system. At the moment, many students stay in the United Kingdom beyond graduation. What we are trying to do in the White Paper is reduce the time they can automatically stay on and put in place a number of caveats so people will then have to go through the normal migration system and being a student is not seen as a back-door way of coming to the United Kingdom in the longer term. That is a reasonable proposal, which does not stop our soft power or investment in universities but looks at what students do in the long term.

I take the point that my noble friend made about language, which is important. It is really important that we focus on what the Government are trying to do. The five key principles that I have set out are the direction of travel. We want to see better integration. I am pleased that my noble friend mentioned that language is important to that, but integration is also, to go back to the point made by the right reverend Prelate, about churches and other faiths talking to each other. It is about neighbourhoods being mixed neighbourhoods, and about understanding and respecting differences in our culture. At the same time—and this is where the Government are coming from—it is about trying to put a framework around all that to ensure that there is some level of management and control over how immigration is used and how our skills base is raised. I hope that that reassures my noble friend. I shall look at all the points that he has mentioned and continue to have a dialogue with him, because I know that it is a matter of some importance to him.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I should like to declare an interest as president of Migration Watch UK. Indeed, I have spent 24 years on this subject, but I promise to be extremely brief today.

Much of what the Minister said has addressed the issues that we now face. What this discussion has not faced is the sheer scale of the problems that have emerged in recent years. We had net migration of nearly 1 million in one year, and 700,000 in the subsequent year. These are immense changes, and I welcome the remarks that the Prime Minister made that show some understanding of public opinion on this, which is now becoming very strong.

I make just one point to the Minister, which is that he is going to need a target. I understand very much the breadth of what he has covered and his reluctance to set a target, because it makes life very difficult in future years, but if he wants to persuade the public that he is serious about this, he had better have a target and get very close to it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have made a judgment, and in the White Paper we are trying to make a judgment about a number of issues. There is legal migration and the issues of who comes, how they come and under what circumstances. We are trying to put a framework around that, which also tries to raise the level of skills of English and British-based citizens who are currently economically inactive to try to meet some of our skills shortage. We are trying to put a target around the impact of universities, both on soft power issues and on longer-term investment in skills and what people do in graduate-level jobs afterwards.

We are trying to look at a range of issues around integration and community coherence, which I think resonates with what the noble Lord has said. But I do not think that setting a target would be a good thing. For us, it is the wrong issue; we are trying to ensure that we put a framework in place to manage those pressures, and to look at what the UK economy needs, at how we build those skills and at how we build integration. Outside of that legal migration route, there is the real challenge, which I know the noble Lord is also concerned about, of illegal migration. A whole range of measures will come before this House very shortly, on 2 June, in the immigration and borders Bill around what we need to do to stop illegal migration and put it to one side.

There are immense challenges, but I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses can not only look at the White Paper and be critical of it in parts but look at it in terms of how we are trying to develop a framework and contribute positively to it, rather than look at what is not in it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, two years ago, during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I raised the issue that Home Office assessors were muddling up the Hong Kong BNO passport holders with being asylum seekers. I am very grateful to the then Government for correcting that and ensuring that guidance was issued. Yesterday’s White Paper, in simplifying the routes to citizenship, appears to have put the BNO passport holders back in the same group again, as if they were economic migrants and asylum seekers. Given that the status of BNO passports is completely different from that of asylum seekers, will the Minister agree to meet me, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and Hong Kong Watch as a matter of urgency?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I shall certainly meet the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Dare I say I have had some correspondence over the past 24 hours on this matter. We will reflect on it and, without any commitment, I shall certainly listen to the noble Baroness’s representations.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK’s world-class creative industries require a globally diverse workforce. Will the Minister give the industry and the general public the reassurance that the qualifications required under any future visa regime will take into account the specific nature of the creative industries—because you do not need a degree to be a great dancer or a great violinist? I declare my interest as a member of the boards of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and the Ballet Rambert.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I take on board what my noble friend said. I am very interested in culture as a whole—you do not need a degree to be a great footballer either. I understand that, but again, we are looking at these issues and trying to put some framework around it. I have heard what my noble friend said. Again, this will form part of an opportunity to consult on how this develops in due course, but he has made a point that is worthy of examination.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, the White Paper is about controlling immigration. Will the Government have the ability to control the number of visas in each category, and will they exercise that control—and, if not, why not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The answer is yes.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, there is an acute shortage in the social care sector. Will the Minister recognise that the policies in the White Paper will actually make that shortage even worse? We hear some talk about making the social care sector more attractive. Can he give us any kind of indication of when changes will take place to make the wages in social care attractive enough to bring people away from the retail sector, and to provide it with a proper career structure and the proper dignity and respect that it ought to have?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will make changes to the Immigration Rules relating to the social care sector during the course of this year, but we are also putting in place a transitional period. There is a need to ensure that we try to meet any shortfall in social care requirements from within the existing UK workforce—that is the objective of government policy. I am happy to discuss with my colleagues and the social care sector how we improve recruitment and other issues, and we will do that through other government departments. The key thing is that we cannot rely completely on overseas labour to fill the UK social care sector.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement and the White Paper both refer to illegal and irregular migration, which is better than what we have heard recently—lumping them both into illegal. Can the Minister confirm that it is legal to enter a country to seek asylum—although, obviously, if it is refused then the person must leave? Can he also clarify the Government’s understanding of the difference between illegal and irregular migration?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness again presses me on that issue, which is absolutely her right. We are trying to ensure that people who have an asylum claim or seek refugee status can have that claim assessed within the United Kingdom or with our partners in the European Union. We are having great discussions as well with the French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans about irregular and illegal migration.

There is a real difference. If somebody claims asylum, that needs to be considered and processed—and, if processed, that needs to be given, if approved. If it is not approved, that person needs to be removed. That is a reasonable and fair thing for Governments to do. Irregular migration, as the noble Baroness will know, is also an issue that the Government will examine, because a whole range of people are seeking refugee status or other things—and there are people trying to enter illegally across the channel. We are having to try to address all those issues.

The Government are putting more rigour into that formal border control at the channel to stop small boats, and we are putting those measures in the Bill that will be before the House very shortly. We are also trying to speed up asylum claims so that they are processed much more quickly to remove people from hotels. At the same time, we are trying to make sure that we continue to meet our international obligations. No one has said that that is easy, but I hope that the White Paper gives some new direction and routes to how we can do it more effectively.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

When the Minister comes to report to the House in a couple of years’ time, what will success for this package of measures look like? With the present policies, the current projection from the ONS is that we will have net migration annually of 340,000 going forward. What number will we hear from the Minister when he says, “We have already pulled it off; this has been really worth while”? If he is not prepared to say that number—and I strongly suspect that he is not—why should anybody in the country, in red-wall, blue-wall or any other seats, believe that this is not just another attempt to kick the can down the road?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord tries very well and very effectively to tempt me to talk about a cap or a figure that we are putting on success. Success for me is that we have a properly ordered, understood, managed system where people who wish to come to this country to work can understand clearly what the rules are; that we have rules that encourage the development of UK-based skills; that we have rules that do not deter people from enjoying the benefits of UK university education but at the same time put some strictures on when and how they should be employed afterwards or leave; and that we begin to tackle the issue of illegal migration in a fair and effective way, but allow people to seek asylum and have that asylum processed. That way, in three years’ time, I will stand here and be able to say to the noble Lord that, while he may not like the framework, there is a clear framework in place that tries to determine how we control our borders rather than just using rhetoric to try to control our borders.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday the Joint Committee on Human Rights began its legislative scrutiny of the borders Bill. Among the issues raised is, inevitably, Article 8, which the noble Lord has referred to. Given that this is not about directives from the European court but about differences of opinion between lower and upper-tier tribunals within the United Kingdom, we would all welcome greater clarity about what the Government’s interpretation of Article 8 duties actually is. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree that, as part of his consultations, he and his department will engage with the Joint Committee and also clarify for us what will be laid before Parliament that is not in the Bill and what is in the White Paper that will affect our considerations when the Bill comes forward? Do those things not need to be woven together?

May I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said? I declare an interest as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. The Minister will have seen the letters and emails sent to him, not least from myself and the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, deeply concerned about the reports of the backdating to 2020 of the situation of BNO holders in this country. No one could have integrated better. I salute what the previous Government did about the position of people escaping the tyranny of the Hong Kong dictatorship imposed by the CCP. I hope that the present Government will honour the commitments that were given to the BNO holders who arrived in this country legitimately and legally and will not in any way renege on the promises that were made.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can again reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to operate the resettlement and community sponsorship schemes, such as Homes for Ukraine and the Hong Kong BNO scheme. We will set out how we do that later on. I will agree to meet, as I have said with the Minister, to hear those concerns, but we will set those things out in due course.

On the Article 8 provisions, we want to try to ensure that it is the Home Office that, according to rules agreed by Parliament, determines how we deal with the European Convention on Human Rights while maintaining our membership of it. Therefore, rather than each individual case being subject to a fresh interpretation of Article 8, we will try and set down some general guidance on that as a whole, which I hope helps the noble Lord with his question.

I add one final thing, which is an important thing for our office. Mya Eastwood, who has been my principal private secretary since 4 July, is leaving tomorrow. I just want to pay my tribute to her, because a lot of work that goes on front of House is supported by officials back of House. Mya has done an excellent job, and I want to put that on the record today before I sit down.

Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025 (Version 2)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Code of Practice and Regulations laid before the House on 20 and 31 March be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 12 May.