National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the officials of the House for the speedy turnaround of the amended Bill. It is a tribute to their dexterity that we have managed to turn this round much quicker than I expected, and our thanks go to them. I thank the officials in the Home Office and all the people behind the Bill who have given advice and support to Ministers on this crucial issue, including the security services and others. I particularly thank my private office, the Bill manager and the Bill team, and all the officials who are here.

I thank the Official Opposition for their courtesy, intensive scrutiny of the Bill and alternative suggestions. I say that to them genuinely, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and to other colleagues who have spoken, particularly in this case the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Alton, who have been very engaged with this Bill.

This Bill has been done for a purpose, which is to allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to have the necessary powers to consider how best to act after the determination of state threats. The Bill, as amended, will now return to the House of Commons where it will be further scrutinised, and where I am confident the amendments made in this House will be accepted. I hope that the Bill will then go for speedy consideration for Royal Assent. On Royal Assent, I assure the House that the Home Secretary will take urgent action to examine state threats and, if necessary, bring forward appropriate measures as soon as possible.

It has been a pleasure to take this Bill through the House over two days. There have been some tensions and discussions, but I hope that, at the end of the day, we are agreed as one that the Bill will be a useful tool for the Secretary of State to help protect this country and its citizens from state threats. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I reiterate the thanks of all of us to the Minister and his team, both in the House and in the Home Office, and his Bill team generally, for the enormous help that we have had and for engaging with us. From our point of view, we have achieved some significant improvements to the Bill. We believe that the purpose of Bill, of which the noble Lord spoke, has been achieved with great speed and, generally speaking, in good humour. We are therefore happy that the Bill do now pass.

Immigration and Asylum: Appeals

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of replacing immigration judges with adjudicators on the consistency of asylum appeal decisions; what qualifications, if any, adjudicators will be required to have; and what safeguards and accountability mechanisms will be put in place to ensure public confidence in the new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. In the Government’s Restoring Order and Control Command Paper, which was published on 17 November 2025, we announced systemic reforms to the appeals system. The Government have provided additional funding to the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber to increase capacity, and we remain grateful for the ongoing efforts by the tribunal to clear its backlog. However, its current backlog stands at 151,767, with appeals taking, on average, 61 weeks to resolve across all case types, as of March 2026. The Government will shortly bring forward legislation that will underpin the new independent immigration appeals authority. The new authority will be able to determine appeals in a way that provides justice to appellants, with suitably qualified adjudicators independent of the Executive. Further details of the independent immigration appeals authority will be set out in the near future, including the measures that will be put in place to ensure public confidence in the new authority, as the noble Lord requests.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. What steps will the Government take, through the recruitment and vetting process, to ensure that adjudicators are genuinely independent and impartial, and to guard against the new authority becoming dominated by individuals who have publicly campaigned in favour of open borders or who have otherwise taken partisan positions on immigration policy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the House that the backlog stands at over 151,000, but that that has not happened in just the last two years. It is the result of 14 years of individuals not being processed, dealt with or sorted by the noble Lord and his party. To answer his question, as of now, we will ensure that individuals are vetted, that there are strong safeguards in place to ensure high standards, and that those making decisions in the independent appeals authority will be entirely independent of the Executive. He will not have to wait too long because, tomorrow, on 30 June, we will publish a Bill setting out the matters that were trailed in the immigration White Paper in November. The noble Lord’s party will have the opportunity to test that Bill through both Houses of Parliament, and I assure him that that independence is critical and will be maintained.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, there is currently an issue with immigration tribunal judges that will be exacerbated, especially when it comes to public confidence, in that the tribunal judges, and no doubt the adjudicators, are not declaring their interests. We, as parliamentarians, have to declare our financial interests and memberships. It is high time that tribunal judges and adjudicators are made to list their financial interests and any controversial, or even uncontroversial, organisations that they have joined; this would fit within the judicial conduct guidance. At the moment, we do not know whether those judges should be recusing themselves and what interests they have, because they are not declared and they should be on a register, in the same way that ours are.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. If she will allow me, can I reflect on it? The issue is self-evidently important, but I cannot answer her question right now. I will make sure that the appropriate policy Ministers in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice examine those issues in detail.

However, I can tell the noble Baroness that we are doing this because the demand for adjudications is far outstripping what we can currently offer. We have around 26,000 additional funded places for sittings this year, so the backlog of over 151,000, which I mentioned earlier, is simply unsustainable. We have to take action on that. The backlog has not just appeared from nowhere; it has appeared through the inaction of the previous Government. We are committed to restoring it and that is what the Bill to be produced tomorrow will begin the process of doing.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, following the last question, I declare my interest: I am supported by the RAMP Project. Can the Minister tell us whether the adjudicators will need to possess specific legal qualifications or accreditation in asylum and human rights law? On the process of getting the adjudicators in place, how long will the training programme take?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are moving at quite a pace. The Bill that establishes the new authority will be published tomorrow and has to make its way through both Houses of Parliament. The principle behind it is that there will be a body that is fully independent of the Government and staffed by professional trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards, so that appellants are able to receive impartial and independent redress, as is required under our obligations. We intend still to meet our international obligations as part of this change, which I hope will give comfort to the noble Lord. He will have an opportunity to see the Bill when it is published tomorrow. At some point, this House will have the opportunity to examine it in detail. For the moment, I suggest that he waits for the Bill to be published.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House that there are lawyers on all sides of the House who have spoken on all kinds of immigration measures. Nobody impugns their ability to continue to give legal advice or, indeed, sometimes to sit in judicial office. I agree with my noble friend that there is a crucial need to deal with the backlog. Can he say a little more about the legal qualifications for the new independent adjudicators? That is more important than whether they were once a member of Amnesty International—which, by the way, is a good thing to be.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Bill will be published tomorrow and will establish the framework for the body and examine in detail the issues my noble friend has raised. My right honourable friend who is dealing with these matters is cognisant of the fact that the independent body will be responsible for monitoring qualifications and standards. I am happy to answer questions on that once the Bill has been published. I am not in the position today to be able to do that.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I accept that the Minister is a little frustrated, but this is what happens when you trail things in the media ahead of a Bill being published. He cannot expect people not to have questions. If he does not want questions in advance, he should not do the trailing. In the trailing in the media, it was said that the body the Government are looking to establish will be like the magistracy. The problem in this case is that people often come to asylum decisions with very clear views, either against people claiming asylum or very pro people claiming asylum. If the adjudicators are members of the public, how will the Government guard against them bringing those preconceived ideas to determining these important legal questions?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Lord, as a past Cabinet Minister, has never trailed anything, I trust that he will stand up now and tell me that that is the case. I rest my case. But he raises an important point. The key issue is that all members of the new independent immigration appeals authority will have the required training. Decision-making expertise to make determinations will be part of that process of skills and experience. The body will be established in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s Public Bodies Handbook. We are currently considering accountability and governance structures, including the body’s relationship with Parliament and with the Government. We will safeguard independent decision-making. I return to the trailing: the noble Lord has only 23 hours to wait for the publication of the Bill. I look forward to engaging with him on it in due course.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, picking up on the point about training, can the Minister tell us what support will be available and what training will be offered to the adjudicators around religious literacy? Decisions regarding people’s cases often hinge on claims of religious persecution and involve people who have deeply traumatic pasts. They must, therefore, be well-informed and accurate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an extremely important point. It is self-evident that we want the individuals who undertake this very serious role to have the required training and support to do it in an effective way. All members of the new independent immigration appeals authority will have the required decision-making expertise to make determinations on appeal cases through a comprehensive training programme and will possess a range of skills and experience. The organisation of that will be down to the new body. The Bill that we are producing tomorrow will establish that body, which is independent of government. The key point I bring the House back to is that we have a backlog of around 151,000. We currently have capacity for around 26,000 extra sittings that we have put in place. It is not possible to end the backlog without significant changes and that is the purpose of this policy.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I quite understand that the Minister cannot give us the details until the Bill is published tomorrow, but he will know that we currently have a body of independent impartial adjudicators who deal with immigration matters. Of course, I understand that we need more of them to deal with the backlog and the delay, but what I do not understand is why, in principle, the Government think that the current arrangements for the appointment of adjudicators are inadequate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I pay tribute to those who are doing this difficult and challenging job. We owe them a debt of support, and this is not critical of the way in which they have approached their role. But given the level of training and support required, and that the time that we can give to get additional judges is not sufficient to be able to meet the objective, we are looking at widening the pool and this is the start of that process. The establishment of the new body will put that revised process in place. We ran a targeted call for evidence from March to May this year and sought input from individuals. We have ensured that the judiciary has been kept fully informed of relevant developments and communications. I am hoping that once the Bill is produced and when it reaches this House—because it will be in the House of Commons first—the noble Lord can put some of those issues to the test.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, as my noble friend knows, in my advancing years I have become more understanding, particularly of those who find themselves, sadly, in opposition. The Front-Bencher opposite clearly got up early this morning to put in this PNQ so that he could have a go and attack the Government. Can my noble friend say what positive proposals the Opposition have put forward for reducing the huge backlog that they created?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I try to be fair when dealing with the Opposition—if possible. In the years up to the general election in 2024, they suppressed the number of activities taking place in this field, they reduced the number of appeals being brought forward, they took action which did not address the backlog, and every action they took created a further backlog, so the 151,000-plus backlog that we have now is entirely the responsibility of the previous Government, including, potentially, the next speaker, who was a Minister in the Home Office. I presume that when he stands up, his first question will be: how do I apologise for the backlog?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

We have a backlog of 151,000 cases. Will the Minister tell us whether it is the plan to transfer the backlog from the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber to the new independent authority that is being set up under the Bill? If it is not the proposal to transfer the backlog to the new authority, on the current rate of case resolution, the First-tier Tribunal will still be hearing cases into the 2040s.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has detailed knowledge of this matter because he was responsible for the policies that led to the backlog in the first place. The Bill tomorrow will establish a new body. We are looking at how we merge the new body. There will be a parallel operation for some considerable time, but the purpose of the Bill that will be published tomorrow is to establish a new framework to ensure that the backlog built up when he was a Minister is eradicated. That is the policy objective of the Government.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

If I may add to the questions on training, will the new people working have some training on genuine cases of modern slavery and human trafficking?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, self-evidently, it is important that individuals who make determinations about life-changing matters have the support to understand the reasons why those decisions have to be taken, and the mechanisms of training and support that are required to do that. The noble and learned Baroness raises important points about modern slavery and our international obligations. That is for the Government to determine. I am in the difficult position of not having the Bill until tomorrow, but within it the opportunity for the successor body to develop the types of policies that she has mentioned is one that I would wish to see and encourage.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 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 my pleasure to open the debate on what is a vital Bill. I will start with the importance of the Bill and what it will achieve. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to discuss the content, direction and purpose of the Bill with a number of noble Lords outside the Chamber, and I am happy to have further discussions between now and later stages next week if Members so wish.

State threats are overt or covert actions by foreign Governments that fall below armed conflict but go beyond legitimate diplomacy to harm UK interests. They present a persistent and evolving risk to the United Kingdom and our allies, manifesting across a wide spectrum of activity, including interference in democratic processes, acquisition of sensitive information, threats to public safety, and disruption of economic security. Noble Lords will know that certain states have both the intent and the capability to conduct such activity to advance their objectives. This activity is often opportunistic, adaptive, increasingly integrated across multiple domains, and combining physical, cyber, economic and information tools. The threats are both evolving and enduring, and our legislation must keep pace.

In December 2024, the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, in his capacity as the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, to conduct a review into the tools available in terrorism legislation and how they may be applied to the problem of state threats. I place on record, on behalf of this House, our thanks to Jonathan Hall KC for his work. He proposed that we should legislate to create a state threats power equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Noble Lords will be aware of those powers as we have, within the last year, designated a number of organisations under that Act. This Bill delivers on that proposal and will strengthen the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counterterrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats to the UK.

The Bill will create a new power for the Secretary of State, in this case the Home Secretary, to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, modelled on proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. It introduces new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies and will enable proxy organisations to be treated, in practice, like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf.

The Bill will strengthen the overall national security framework, so that the United Kingdom becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and those state-linked proxies. Individuals acting for a designated body will feel the full force of our national security legislation and the accompanying offences, some of which will carry a life sentence. Designation will send a clear public signal to designated bodies that those prepared to assist them in their malign behaviour will not be tolerated.

In developing this legislation, we have worked closely with the police and the security and intelligence agencies. It has been a year in gestation, and I know from Question Time, Statements and elsewhere that noble Lords feel that that has been too long, but this is vital legislation and it is important to get it right. The Bill gives our operational partners the powers they need, and it does so in a way that reflects the differences between state and non-state actors. Jonathan Hall himself has said of the Bill, “It does the job”.

The Bill has come to us today from the House of Commons, where I know there was debate regarding some of its provisions. I will, if I may, use this Second Reading opening speech to address why I think the Bill is the right thing to do, and to address some of the comments around the Bill as a whole. There was debate in the House of Commons regarding possible amendments to the Bill. I assure people across this House that such amendments are not necessary and that the Bill as drafted does the job required. If the Government are to exercise the powers in the Bill promptly, a swift but thoroughly scrutinised passage through this House will, I suggest, prove beneficial. I will provide noble Lords with reassurances today to enable that passage to take place.

I particularly want to address three points in the Bill as currently drafted. The first is the prohibited purpose test, which is applied to the support offence in Clause 2. The Bill makes it an offence to express support for a designated body, including by arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member of a designated body, when that support is for a prohibited purpose. Clause 2 goes on to define a prohibited purpose as a purpose that

“is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

We have had some comment on that from Members, both in discussions I have had and in the House of Commons. There have been suggestions that the prohibited purpose test should be removed from the Bill on the basis that no such test applies to the support offences in the Terrorism Act. I suggest that is to misunderstand the differences between state entities and terror organisations. While proscription under the Terrorism Act aims to ban the existence of an organisation, that cannot and must not be the case with this Bill. Even when a state entity presents a threat to the UK, there will still be cases in which there are legitimate reasons for engaging with that entity. Indeed, such engagement will often be in the UK’s interests as a whole, through British diplomats or NGOs doing vital work on conflict resolution or to deliver humanitarian aid. To remove the prohibited purpose test would be to criminalise such activity.

Secondly, there has also been some discussion that the Bill does not go far enough to criminalise individuals who provide assistance to designated bodies in relation to overseas activities. New Section 17B makes it an offence to provide such assistance when the activity undertaken is

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

Although there has been discussion on this both in the House of Commons and in formal discussions I have had, it will mean that an individual in the UK who assists a designated body in hostile activity towards an ally, with a recognisable adverse effect on the UK, would be committing a crime under the Bill.

The Bill does not extend the UK’s criminal jurisdiction over all other acts anywhere in the world, irrespective of whether they affect the UK. It is an important principle of international law that there are reasonable limits to that jurisdiction, but where activities are contrary to our interests, this offence will bite. It is in line with the equivalent offences in the National Security Act. If we were to go further, we would not only go beyond what our operational partners have asked for; we would also push the limits of international law. I suggest that the Bill has the balance right on this issue.

Thirdly, there has been some comment and discussion in Parliament, and outside, in relation to the debate on so-called self-directed acts—that is to say, acts that are inspired by state threat actors but not directed by them. I assure noble Lords that such acts are caught within the offences in the Bill. Specifically, the offence at new Section 17B of providing material assistance to a designated body requires that a person intends their actions to assist that body. They do not have to be tasked or directed by the body for which they are working for the offence to apply.

New Section 33B also introduces the designated body condition to the National Security Act. This means that when a person acts with the intention to benefit a designated body, they may also engage the offences under that Act. This includes offences such as obtaining or disclosing protected information and sabotage, which both carry life sentences. Again, this does not need any tasking from the designated body. I hope that addresses noble Lords’ concerns and removes any doubt in their minds.

There has been considerable discussion on specific bodies that might or might not be designated under this Bill. I noticed an amendment in the House of Commons to proscribe the IRGC directly, and I have experienced a lot of pressure about that in this House as well. There have been calls for the Government to commit to designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I hope I can explain to noble Lords that while this Bill is being discussed, I cannot give that commitment today. The powers in the Bill are vital; their exercise will have profound implications for the UK’s foreign policy and our national security. It is right that Parliament should set the legal framework for the use of those powers and will be asked to endorse their use through the affirmative procedure, as the Bill provides. It is also right that it should be for the Secretary of State, on the advice of expert evidence, and in some cases sensitive intelligence, to determine whether the use of these powers is necessary.

I will not today pre-empt decisions that have yet to be taken in relation to a law that has yet to be passed. But I give the House a cast-iron assurance that where the Secretary of State judges it necessary, she will use these powers, if they receive Royal Assent, and she will not hesitate to do so. I am confident that noble Lords will hold me to account on that point. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the sooner the powers within it can be used. The Bill remains a vehicle for the Home Secretary to determine whether a state threat designation is required on any body post Royal Assent.

We have had some discussion in Parliament around the speed on this. The Government are committed to a fast track on the Bill. That commitment reflects the urgent need to close a legislative gap. It also reflects the interest in this House and in our society in ensuring that government has the powers to deal with those state entities that threaten our national security. It was in response to a series of heinous antisemitic arson attacks in north London that the Prime Minister committed to bringing the Bill forward within weeks. We put it in the gracious Speech in May and brought it forward in both Houses at the earliest opportunity. I want to see it passed by both Houses at the earliest opportunity, so that we can get on with examining the requirements of using these powers as appropriate.

In our manifesto, we committed to take the approach used to deal with terrorism and to adapt it to deal with state-based security threats. The Bill does just that and fulfils a manifesto commitment. Ultimately, at stake is the purpose we are all sent here to advance, the most important thing we can do as a Government and a Parliament: to ensure the security of our nation and all who live in it.

I pay tribute to the men and women of our police and security services. Their work could not matter more, particularly at this dangerous time. As well as thanking them, we must support them to tackle the threats we face in a dangerous and uncertain world. To give that support, we need to equip them with the new and necessary powers in this legislation.

There is a wealth of experience across this House. I look forward to the further scrutiny that noble Lords will provide both today and next week, if the Bill is read a second time. We have a strong list of speakers today who will provide that fruitful debate. I suggest to the House that the urgency of our national security demands that the Bill be passed, giving the Home Secretary the powers to make assessments and use these powers at the earliest opportunity, where those threats exist. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the 24 noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I am particularly grateful, if I may say so, for the contributions from the Front Benches of HM loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Doocey, who gave broad support to the Bill but raised important questions—as did other noble Lords—which I will seek to respond to during the course of this debate.

I pay tribute also to Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who contributed to this House right up to very recently. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, were welcome.

I start by reminding the House that this legislation was a manifesto commitment. According to Members today, it is long overdue or has been rushed. I am trying my best to find a happy medium that says that a manifesto commitment was put in place and the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall KC to produce a report three or four months after the commitment in the manifesto was ratified by the electorate. We commissioned that report. The report was produced to this Government in May or June last year. We have had time to consider that report. Colleagues in the House will know that last year’s parliamentary Session was very busy and crammed, and we wanted to bring legislation forward at the first opportunity. At the first opportunity, in the gracious Speech, we brought forward this legislation, and we have brought it forward now to give a framework—again I say to the House—for the Home Secretary to be able to act on that framework in very short order if Royal Assent is achieved. So, whether it is rushed or long overdue, I hope the House will have patience that we are trying to do the right thing to deal with severe threats.

I noted particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said we had to stay ahead of the threats. I accept that in full. We had my noble friend Lord Beamish speaking from the ISC perspective. My noble friends Lady Gill and Lady Dacres of Lewisham, the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who speaks with great experience, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Enfield and Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, all pointed to the important fact that the director-general of MI5 has said to the Government, the House and the public that state threats have increased by 35%. So we need to take action, we understand we need to take action and we need to do it in a way that maintains the cohesion of the community, as the noble Baroness has said.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that his personal experience is one that should not be acceptable to society as a whole. His grandchildren should not fear walking to school or face barriers that my grandchildren do not face just because, although we were both born in the same city, we have different cultural and religious backgrounds. His grandchildren should not face threats for those reasons. The impacts on individuals should be in our minds in all that we do to progress this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us of the freedoms for which our grandparents and great-grandparents fought; they are important in all that we do.

A number of major issues have been raised; I will try to deal with each in turn. They include the IRGC, self-evidently, as well as issues with other nations; the preparatory act issue; the prohibited purpose issue; uniforms and insignia; the humanitarian issue, which a lot of noble Lords have spoken to in detail; the issue of a review; and a series of other issues that I will try to touch on if time allows.

The House has tempted me to talk about individual nations: China, Russia and, indeed, Iran. I will explain to the House again that the Bill is a framework through which the Home Secretary can take action, on advice, via the affirmative resolution procedure—to go to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—for designation of any particular body.

The IRGC has been mentioned, in particular, by the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Beamish, Lord Barrow, Lord Walney and Lord Alton of Liverpool, as well as by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey, Lady Neville-Jones, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Verma. I understand those concerns. That is why we have put sanctions on the IRGC and taken a range of measures against IRGC members already. However, the powers under this Bill are a framework for the Home Secretary to look at the significant implications that this will have for national security and for foreign policy. Parliament should set a framework about how these powers are used.

I say to all those who have raised the IRGC in particular that the Government understand that absolutely but, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, the framework will be for the Home Secretary to determine how and when this power is used. Again, I come back to the point that there will be an affirmative instrument in the event of any designation being proposed, but I will not comment on the IRGC in particular. As I have explained privately to both Front-Benchers, the hybridity of this Bill, with the IRGC included, would damage early on its capability to take these matters forward. I hope that we can look at the power in the Bill without, at the moment, looking at how it will be used.

The second issue, which was raised by the Opposition Front Bench in particular and which I understand, was about the preparatory conduct offence. I argue that this additional offence is not needed. Preparatory conduct is an offence in the existing National Security Act under Section 18, and that offence applies to specific offences, including spying, espionage, entering a prohibited place for a prejudicial purpose and sabotage. It also covers acts of violence, serious risk and issues impacting on members of the public in the UK. I argue that such an offence is not needed in this Bill. We may end up having a debate in Committee on that but I just want to say that to the noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the prohibited purpose test in his opening remarks. It had been suggested that this test, which applies to the support offence in new Section 17A, is unnecessary and should be removed. I reiterate that doing so would criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid activity. The inclusion of this test reflects that there will be occasions—even though we might not like it—where UK persons need to have legitimate dealings with a state entity. That will be so whether it is a British diplomat or an NGO delivering humanitarian aid. To remove that would, in my view, be very difficult and challenging. Again, we may revisit that in Committee, but I hope that we can accept those arguments for the moment.

There has also been a question about overseas activity. It was suggested the Bill does not go far enough in the support offence as it applies to overseas activity. It is claimed that the offence should reapply to assisting a designated body in any activity overseas. Again, we can reflect on this in the next few days, but I suggest that such an amendment would be unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, touched on this. I will come back to his point in a moment, but new Section 17B, to be introduced by Clause 2, will make it an offence to “assist a designated body” in its overseas activity where those activities are

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

To give a concrete example, a UK person assisting a designated body in its efforts to disrupt the military supply chain of an ally would commit an offence, because the ally is still an ally; that is the key necessary test. Similarly, the Bill already deals with those who are inspired by state actors to commit self-directed acts. That is because the offences at new Sections 17A and 17B do not require there to be any direction or tasking from a designated body, only an intention to support that body.

The fourth issue that has been raised is the important issue of criminalising the wearing of uniforms and insignia. We asked Jonathan Hall KC to review this area of legislation. His report, which was independently produced, made it clear why it was necessary to take a different approach for state bodies. It would impact on legitimate engagement with a designated state body, which would need to continue, for example, on diplomatic channels. Like it or not, that is the reality of the world at large. We have instead crafted the support offence to ensure that it would capture conduct that was calculated to advance the harmful activities of the designated body. This would include the use of insignia and publication of images to support the designated body where the person wears, displays or publishes for a purpose that is prejudicial to the UK—again, that key legal test.

In touching on that area, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, about passport seizure. We are committed to legislating on that. We are going to do it; we are just not going to do it in this Bill, which is a specifically designed piece of legislation to give powers to the Home Secretary. We will have further national security legislation later in his Parliament.

A number of noble Lords mentioned humanitarian aid. I will focus on that in detail as it is an important issue. In particular, the noble Lords, Lord Barrow, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised these issues. I assure noble Lords that we have crafted the Bill to ensure that legitimate activities, such as diplomacy and activities that support basic human needs, are not caught within the offences. The key test here is that support for a designated body or overseas activities by the body must be

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

Our officials have already talked with a number of NGOs. Ministers will meet with the Red Cross very shortly to listen to its concerns and we are satisfied that the tests in the Bill properly protect legitimate humanitarian assistance. The noble Baronesses, Lady Helic, Lady D’Souza, Lady Northover and Lady Tyler of Enfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, all raised this issue.

I will try to help the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by covering Pepper v Hart. Receipt of information by an aid worker would not be criminalised by this Bill. “Information” in the Bill does not mean any information, as is clear from the preceding words. It has to possess an inherent value that enriches the recipient. I am happy to make a Pepper v Hart statement that new Section 17C does not apply. Likewise, I am happy to confirm that new Sections 17A and 17B will not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid, as that is not contrary to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, there is a legal backstop on this, in that the security decisions on those prosecutions are ultimately taken by the Attorney-General in these areas.

I also do not want to create a blanket exemption that could be easily exploited by state actors. That is an important issue. I have a genuine concern that exemptions could potentially create a relatively simple loophole for hostile actors to exploit, but I reassure all those who have spoken on this issue that it is not the intention of the Bill to criminalise the provision of legitimate humanitarian aid, and that is not the effect of the offences as drafted. This was clearly set out by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other House last week, and we will of course look at this in detail.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

The Minister has referred a number of times to humanitarian aid and to diplomacy. Of course diplomats have a special defence or exemption of their own, but he has not said anything about those engaged in the prevention or resolution of conflict. I wonder if he would like to associate them with the statements he has made about humanitarian aid.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am happy to do that, but I want to give clarity on these matters. If the noble Lord will allow me, given that that has been raised separately, I will write to him with an assurance on that and share that with both Opposition Front Benches so that they are aware of that. I want to give absolute legal clarity, as the noble Lord would expect, on these matters.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

When is the Minister intending to meet the Red Cross?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Life and diaries are fluid, but it will be before Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill next week. So it will not be after that. It will be before that. As we speak, representations and diaries are being co-ordinated. I will leave it at that.

The sixth vital point, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Tyler of Enfield, and the noble Lords, Lord Barrow and Lord Carlile, is the issue of whether there will be a review. That is a valid and significant point but, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the National Security Act 2023 already gives the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation the right to oversight and mandates them to carry out an annual review of the operations of the provisions of the Bill. I hope that is sufficient to head off at the pass an amendment on this issue, not because an amendment would be right or wrong or unnecessary but because the Bill is already covered by the National Security Act on those particular points.

The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, mentioned in passing the question whether the offence of assisting a designated body would not capture non-UK nationals. I say to him that a non-UK national planning an attack in the UK from overseas would be materially assisting activities taking place in the UK. It is the activities of the designated body, such as an attack in the UK, that determine whether assistance is captured. The Bill also introduces the designated body condition, which allows the existing National Security Act offences to apply to activity linked to designated bodies, not just to foreign states.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, continues, correctly, to chew at my ankles about the issue of transnational repression. I would argue that the Bill will make it easier to achieve prosecutions where there is a designated body, such as a proxy organisation, involved in transnational repression. We will continue, as I said yesterday in our Statement, to try to tackle transnational repression in a number of ways.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to chew at the noble Minister’s ankles again. I want to ask him specifically whether he will continue the discussions that the Security Minister’s office has been having about the United Front Work Department that acts on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, which would not be covered by the terms of the Bill. Although I agree that he would not want to put actors on the face of the Bill, the generic issues that it involves should be there. Perhaps he could also take the opportunity of confirming whether he will circulate the reply that he has sent to me on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Members who have spoken in today’s debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. I will make sure that the reply I gave to the noble Lord in recent times is sent out, because this is moving at a fast pace and we are trying to get the matter sorted. I will do that for the noble Lord, and I will refer the points that he has made to the Security Minister.

My noble friend Lady Dacres rightly mentioned the question of diaspora. The power is actor agnostic and applies equally to all individuals in the UK, so we are not targeting any particular diaspora. It targets conduct that is carried out for a purpose prejudicial to the UK’s safety.

The question of—I use this phrase guardedly—“useful idiots” was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and echoed by my noble friend Lady Gill. The new offences concern various thresholds for criminals to be caught. For example, criminals can be caught by the offence of assisting a designated body where they ought to know that their conduct is materially existing a designated body. However, it is also important to put on the record for the noble Baroness that criminals do not need to know that a group has been designated for offences to be committed. I hope that deals with the issue of “useful idiots”—I call them terrorists, but “useful idiots” is also a reasonable phrase that we can attribute to them.

My noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, mentioned the issue of how cryptocurrency used by designated bodies or individuals can be held more accountable. The Government have already committed to tackling all forms of economic crime, including the misuse of crypto assets. All UK crypto asset firms are now required to register with the Financial Conduct Authority to comply with money-laundering legislation. We have also strengthened law enforcement through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and we are now going to go further with the introduction of further measures, including the Financial Conduct Authority delivering a new crypto asset regulatory regime, UK crypto asset firms being required to conduct due diligence and the financial services Bill 2026 introducing targeted powers to allow more crypto asset recovery powers.

I am trying to cover all the points that noble Lords have mentioned in the time available, and I hope I have done so, but I will read Hansard and, if there are further points, I will respond to them. What I want to do, and this is the key point, is get the Bill through to Royal Assent so the Home Secretary can determine how she uses its powers to deal with the issues that have been raised on the Floor of the House today. That is an important measure. I want to ensure that, between now and next Tuesday, we deal with those points and get a consensus to pass the Bill, make it an Act, get it to His Majesty the King to give Royal Assent and then, as a matter of some urgency, determine how we tackle the many threats that are facing this country at the moment.

I thank noble Lords for their engagement and the expertise that they have brought to this debate today. Ultimately, I commend the Bill for Second Reading, and I hope that the House will support it tonight.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, I apologise for the confusion—it is one of those days.

First, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, to her new role. I wish her every success in holding the Government to account and raising those issues. I hope that she enjoys the new role and does it as successfully as possible. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her report and for her continued interest and comments on this.

The central point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has raised is around the ethnicity and nationality of grooming gang offenders. She is right that we have not yet got a reliable picture, because the underlying data has been incomplete and inconsistent. That is why the former Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, has written to all chief constables setting clear expectation that suspect ethnicity data must be recorded. But the noble Baroness is right that we need to do more, and that is why we will legislate to mandate collection as soon as possible. The police reform White Paper that we published in January said that we would set out our intention to create a framework to mandate data, and this will be taken forward through the upcoming police reform Bill. I cannot give an introduction date for the police reform Bill, but when it comes—it has been announced for this Session of Parliament—that will be done as part of the Bill’s proposals.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, drew attention to the fact that victims may have had convictions for underage prostitution quashed yet they still remain criminalised for offences such as drug possession, which have been forced on them by their abusers. Will the Minister commit to broadening the Government’s approach to quashing convictions so that survivors are no longer haunted by criminal records that are a direct product of the despicable abuse and exploitation they have already suffered?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has a very strong point. It is horrific that the law has historically treated children, including victims of grooming, as capable of being child prostitutes when they were and are sexually exploited children. We have already legislated to introduce a disregard scheme for those who were cautioned or convicted of on-street prostitution offences as children, and we have also invested £100 million to tackle child sexual abuse. The independent Criminal Cases Review Commission recently referred its first grooming gang case to the courts. That is an important step, and obviously we will keep all these matters under review.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, many of those convicted under the provisions of the grooming gangs were actually taxi drivers, and yet they are a category of people who have to pass all sorts of checks before they are able to pick up—particularly vulnerable young women. How did they escape those checks and how were they allowed to perpetrate these crimes over such a long period?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important point. I do not know the answer to why that was the case specifically, but it is an important point that people who are providing licensed taxi services are sufficiently vetted and have that level of scrutiny to ensure that they are appropriate people to undertake those roles. We have established, as the noble Baroness knows, the grooming gang inquiry under our noble friend Lady Longfield. That is currently working its way through its work and objectives, and I have no doubt that the type of issue that the noble Baroness has raised will be examined as part of that inquiry.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised a very important question to do with the quashing of convictions, and I am delighted and very proud that the Government are dealing with the quashing of convictions for prostitution. However, there are other offences which, in the view of many people, need to be quashed, because they are having a blighting effect on the future lives of these young people. I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell me that the Government are going to look at wider quashing of offences.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important issue that has been raised. I can give my noble friend the assurance that we will keep that matter under review. We have taken initial action in response to the initial inquiry, and we will continue to look at it in future.

Referring back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I may say that the Department for Transport will legislate to address the important issues raised in the report, tackling the inconsistent standards of taxi and private hire vehicles. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 includes the provision to set those national standards. I apologise for not giving her that answer immediately—it is not my direct brief—but I hope that helps the House.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, in 2011 or 2012, I asked a Question on behalf of Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—about child sexual exploitation and how children were encouraged by their abusers to delete the evidence on their mobile phones that could lead to prosecution and that the children were not believed by the authorities. What provisions are in place today to collect such evidence that could prosecute evil perpetrators of child sexual abuse?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The point the noble Baroness has made is extremely important. In the 14 or 15 years since she asked that Question, the police’s ability to collect information and to analyse data in a way that can lead to prosecution has significantly improved. There is a range of mechanisms now where deleted data can be recovered. If there is an evidential trail, that can be looked at. I have just taken note of a range of government reviews about how we can manage and use particularly AI to improve the analysis of information, so that the manual element is still there at the end but there is a great deal of consideration of how we can collect that information and analyse it in a much better way. So I hope that, since she asked that Question, the situation has improved.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, this yet another inquiry is long overdue; I think we all accept that, but we understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, is committed to ensuring that it works as well as it can. Does the Minister agree that it is incredibly important, for social cohesion and for public confidence in our justice system, that the first public servants who were involved over that very long period a long time ago will be called to give evidence and to provide statements? Does she have the statutory powers to do that in the way that the inquiry is currently framed?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The terms of reference for the inquiry are set out and the scope of the inquiry has been developed, and included in that are legal obligations to protect relevant information that was used by responsible individuals at the time. The conduct of the inquiry, with due respect, is a matter for my noble friend Lady Longfield to establish. It is not for Government to set out the terms of the inquiry. I have every confidence that she will address the issues that matter to this House. Self-evidently, the noble Baroness has raised an important issue to ensure that those who participated in issues that cause failings have an opportunity to explain and are held to account.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of the most vulnerable young people are those who are in care. Too often, we see young people put in care homes many hundreds of miles away from where their kinship relationships are, making them even more vulnerable. Will the Minster say what can be done to stop the practice of young people being moved to the poorest parts of the country, to the cheapest care homes, where they are made the most vulnerable of all?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important point. It is not directly within my gift to be able to answer that question, but I will make inquiries with my colleagues in the Department for Education for the right reverend Prelate. Whether people are moved to a poor area or a wealthy area, the issue of child sexual abuse is unacceptable, and the purpose of government policy is to ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place, that criminal sanctions are there to be used, that the preventative measures that we have talked about today already are developed, and that the lessons from the inquiry conducted by my noble friend Lady Longfield are implemented as a matter of urgency. I will reflect on what he said, but the important point is that child sexual abuse is unacceptable wherever it comes from.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the sentencing of Peter Wai and Bill Yuen for assisting a foreign intelligence service, what plans they have to (1) protect Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom from transnational repression; and (2) to review the status, privileges and immunities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Question. I assure her that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This trial has shown that anyone working to assist a foreign state to undermine our security will face the full force of the law. The Foreign Secretary has also made it clear to the Chinese Government and directly to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office that this activity is unacceptable and clearly counterproductive to our relationship.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but given that one of those convicted under the National Security Act for spying on pro-democracy activists was an immigration officer and special constable, himself sentenced to 10 years, can my noble friend assure me that his Government will take greater steps to ensure that no such agents are working under such a guise? Can he also assure me that the Government are taking all possible action to protect Hong Kong citizens living in the UK, especially those with a bounty on their head, from harassment or even worse from the Chinese Government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend indicated, the two individuals concerned received significant prison sentences of eight years and 10 years for their offences. Immediately following the arrest, officials in the Home Office took steps to bolster protections across Home Office systems. This has included further strengthening access management and monitoring of systems, expanding the use of enhanced integrity checks and reviewing conflicts of interest policies. In addition, the Prime Minister set out to the House in April that Sir Adrian Fulford will undertake a review of national security vetting, which will report in due course.

My noble friend asked about Hong Kongers generally and transnational repression. The Government take the safety of individuals who may be at risk from transnational repression extremely seriously. We have recently updated GOV.UK guidance on transnational repression for individuals, and counterterrorism policing in particular has rolled out training across all UK police forces, including upskilling of 999 call handlers to improve front-line identification and response.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I welcome what the Minister just said about the updating of some of the guidelines but will he return to the report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights published exactly 10 months ago, which called for the highest enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to apply to the Chinese Communist Party regime, along with Russia and Iran, but also raised concerns about people such as Chloe Cheung, a young woman from Hong Kong who has a 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty on her head? Surely, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, this is a relic from the past and it is high time that this spy hub was simply closed down.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has raised the foreign influence registration scheme. That was introduced less than a year ago. As he knows, we have designated initial nations accordingly. It is still a relatively new tool. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under close review at all times. The noble Lord would not expect me to announce any further reviews to this House at this time, but we will announce any changes to Parliament in the usual way. It is not acceptable for individuals to have bounties placed on their heads, and the Government, as I said, take the safety of individuals who may be at risk extremely seriously, and there is always support when there are threats tailored to specific circumstances, such as those that the noble Lord mentions.

The noble Lord has looked at the Hong Kong trade office. The purpose of that office is to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region. It is a legitimate activity, which may continue. However, as has been shown in this case, where people conduct state threat activity we will hold them to account. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May and explained that the behaviour was unacceptable, and we will continue to take action when required.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. However, these convictions do not come in isolation; they follow a series of recent incidents involving alleged Chinese state-linked activity in the UK, including espionage prosecutions and reports of surveillance directed at dissidents and members of the Hong Kong community. At what point do the Government conclude that these incidents represent not isolated events but a systematic challenge to the United Kingdom’s national security, requiring perhaps a more robust response than has so far been forthcoming?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Lord, we will take action, where required, against the Chinese authorities. We assess that China poses a significant threat in a number of areas, from cyber attacks to foreign interference, espionage targeting our democratic institutions and transnational repression, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. We are also alive to the fact that there are common areas of interest with the Chinese Government on the international stage. China still presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s current third-largest trading partner. It is not inconsistent to challenge at the same time as examining where British interests lie as a whole.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, Peter Wai was a UK Border Force officer and a special constable, but it has also been reported that he was a director of a private security company. A third defendant, Matthew Trickett, who died before the trial, was an immigration officer and a director of a different security company. It seems to me that it is a conflict of interest to be both an immigration officer and running a private security company. Can the Minister explain what is now going on to make sure that we do not have these conflicts of interest in our important Border Force employees?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has mentioned an important point. The former Security Minister, my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis—who held the post until he was appointed Defence Secretary a couple of weeks ago—commissioned Home Office officials to undertake a thorough examination of whether there is a case for further regulation of the sector under the Private Security Industry Act. Those working in private investigation do important work, but their specialist skill sets make them attractive targets for foreign states to exploit.

As I mentioned, we have bolstered our robust security vetting regime, which will protect assets and information as a top priority for government, and we have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to undertake a review of the vetting issues. I await his recommendations; it is important we have consideration of those things. I say again that eight- and 10-year sentences show that the National Security Act is working and that there are significant penalties for those who dare cross the legitimate line of their employment.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reveals the other side of the coin in relation to a resident of Hong Kong who is a United Kingdom citizen, who has been “convicted” under the Chinese national security legislation—namely, Jimmy Lai? When was the last time that either the Minister’s department, or, if more relevant, the Foreign Office, let the Chinese ambassador in London or the Chinese Government in Beijing know that his improper incarceration is offensive and will have some bearing on the status of the Hong Kong trade office here in London?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the question. As I mentioned in my initial replies, to my knowledge, the Foreign Secretary last had contact with the Chinese authorities through the embassy on 8 May, when she made significant representations. It is the role of the Foreign Secretary to make representations in relation to prisoners elsewhere. I will go back to the Foreign Office to inquire whether there has been further contact since 8 May, but that is my understanding of the last contact.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, while I am not aware that there was any religious element to the incidents referred to, we know that many Hong Kongers have come to this country seeking religious freedom and, indeed, many thousands have joined our churches. Can the Minister give reassurance to those people that the freedom of religion and belief will be honoured here?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly will give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that freedom of religion and expression is essential in the United Kingdom. Residents of this country should know that, whatever nationality they have, the Government take the safety of individuals extremely seriously; that we will not tolerate transnational repression; that we will use legislation to take action where it has surfaced; that the prison sentences, in this case for espionage, of eight and 10 years are significant; and that we keep all matters, such as the foreign influence registration scheme and all the other measures we have, under continuous review.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talks about things that are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, but the Chinese Communist Party is using the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office as a tool for its repressive activities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to it as a relic of a time when it was a valid trade and economic office. The two front men have recently been caught, but there is a whole apparatus behind them. Why is the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office still being allowed to exist as a smokescreen for those repressive activities?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office exists to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region, and that is a legitimate activity. If there are allegations of criminality, or where there is proven criminality, the Government will take action, as has been the case with the two individuals who are now serving time in prison for their crimes. I can only reiterate that we take this matter seriously. The Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May. She explained quite clearly that that behaviour is unacceptable. We will continue to monitor it and, if need be, take action.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I raised the issue of the new proposed Japanese super-embassy—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

—sorry, the Chinese super-embassy—on 29 January 2025 and articulated the very serious concerns that a number of us had about the efficacy of the decision to let that go ahead. The Minister will know that since then, there are still very considerable concerns about the impact of the embassy with respect to financial infrastructure near the City of London. Despite that, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, allowed it. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House whether his view is that the Government will now resile from contesting the judicial review brought by the Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association and scrap the decision to build the new super-embassy, which is a threat to our national security?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The security services were involved throughout in the advice given to independent authorities on the development of the embassy. The Secretary of State has taken his decision. The decision stands, but we are confident that the merger of embassies into one super-embassy and the advice we have taken from the security services mitigate against the threats that the noble Lord is concerned about.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

When it came to recent so-called spyware lawsuits, various Governments tried to claim state immunity. Can the Minister just update the House on the Government’s view on this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If proof is given and the state is taking action, the Government will consider what action we will take against that state. We have a number of potential tools at our disposal. The FIRS is one tool, which we can always examine and keep under review. The state threats Bill will be before the House tomorrow. When that is passed in due course, we will consider what action we can take. Our security services advise Ministers on every occasion about what the threats are and what action we can take. As has been proved in this case, the National Security Act provides a vehicle to take action against individuals who have committed offences. The two individuals are spending eight and 10 years in prison as a result of that action. We will not take any action that undermines the security of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I have not yet heard an answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on conflict of interest. Is it acceptable for a Crown servant—an immigration officer, a Border Force employee—to be a director of a private security firm? If not, will it now be stopped?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord has put that question. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we are keeping all matters under review. We have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to look at vetting. Let us wait for the responses to that review. They are very important points. We will reflect on them at all times, but I have set out to the House what I can today in response to my noble friend’s Private Notice Question.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In our report on transnational repression, published some 10 months ago, one of the recommendations was that those perceiving themselves to be the victims of transnational repression should have access to a dedicated reporting mechanism. The Government indicated that they were favourable to that, but we have not heard any further on what progress has been made. Perhaps the Minister could update the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have had a number of requests on that matter. We have considered carefully, in conjunction with counterterrorism police, how best to encourage reporting and ensure that reports are received and treated seriously. The existing functions have been found by the counterterrorism police to be effective and efficient. We are looking at how we can improve the training and support of call handlers and particularly trained officers dealing with crime reporting on a 24/7 basis. Translators and language support are embedded within the existing reporting mechanisms. We will keep things under review but, in essence, we are meeting the objectives of the review that the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Alton of Liverpool, requested.

Transnational Marriage Abandonment

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK.

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

The Government monitor data on applications under the transnational marriage abandonment route and publish quarterly data on GOV.UK under the “Settlement VDA” section. The latest data shows 82 applications in 2024 and 69 in 2025. Transnational marriage abuse behaviours are covered by a number of existing offences. As part of our work to tackle violence against women and girls, we are working with policing partners so that perpetrators are pursued and victims are protected.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, transnational marriage abandonment has devastating consequences. It separates mothers from their children—a form of gender-based abuse. Australia has made it illegal, so perpetrators who abandon their wives and children abroad are charged with exit trafficking. Will the Government bring in similar legislation? At present, perpetrators are not held accountable, and it has been going on for decades. My father abandoned me, my mother and my brother abroad, and it took us years to get back. It is still going on, so please can the Minister give this serious thought?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s personal experience and her commitment to resolve these matters. The Government are keeping all matters under review, but, in essence, we are looking at prevention through existing legislation. In January 2024—this would have helped the noble Baroness in her circumstances—we expanded the victim of domestic abuse category to include transnational marriage so that individuals can apply to the United Kingdom, without a fee, and get these matters treated quickly. As I said in my Answer, a large number of people have taken this route: there have been some 203 applications since 31 January, and we encourage others to do so.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, women and children who are repatriated often rely mainly on charities. What support do British embassies give, and will they help with repatriation to lift the burden on charities?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an important matter. Without repeating myself, let me say that we have waived the fees that would be expected in normal applications for victims of transnational abuse. That is a big commitment. Obviously, there are other costs, and the individual or charities can potentially cover them, but the Government’s contribution is to say that, if you are a victim of transnational abuse, you will not have to pay the expected fee that would normally need to be paid for consideration, which is around £3,200. That is a significant government contribution.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, in recent months, I came across a very strange case in my community. A couple who had lived here for about three or four years had a child, and they were working and paying their taxes and so on. They then went on holiday to India and took their child with them. On their way back, they were told at the airport that they could enter the country, but their child could not, so they had to take their child back to India and leave them with their parents before coming back. Is that government policy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I would be grateful if my noble friend would write to me with the specifics of that case. I cannot comment on the reasons why any particular entry was refused at that time. Self-evidently, the Government want to see families reunited, and I am not aware of the circumstances of that case. That is not transnational abuse in the way in which the noble Baroness raised it, which is a deliberate act of malicious behaviour. This may be an issue that I will have to investigate, and I am happy to do so.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, just two nights ago in Parliament, there was a two and a half-hour session organised by one of the all-party parliamentary groups at which a number of women and girls gave evidence. Evidence that was given by Professor Javaid Rehman and Professor Mariz Tadros is germane to my noble friend’s Question, and I hope that the Minister might be willing to meet both those reputable academics to talk about some of these associated issues as part of the review that he has said is under way.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always happy to meet when possible external bodies via Members of this House, and I will ensure that is arranged accordingly.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, a recurring feature of these cases is that the victim’s passport is taken by the perpetrator before or during travel, leaving them unable to return to the UK independently. Improperly obtaining another person’s passport is already a criminal offence under Section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. Can the Minister say how many prosecutions have been brought for that offence in the context of transnational marriage abandonment cases and whether the Government will issue clearer guidance to the CPS on charging this offence in such circumstances?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the main causes of transnational abuse is where the passport is taken from the person so they cannot travel. We have tried through the new visa route to ensure that issue can be addressed locally so that travel can happen—free of the fees, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness a moment ago.

One problem we have—and I encountered it in preparing for this Question—is that some offences, for example of passport theft, will not be broken down in relation to the number of individuals who have had their passport stolen in the context that the noble Lord mentioned. We need to examine that as an issue. I cannot give him figures now, and I suspect I will not be able to do so in writing for that reason, but he raises an important point, and we need to get the whole picture of how transnational abuse works.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can I raise with the Minister another group of very disadvantaged women: those who come from overseas to marry somebody in this country? They go through a religious marriage, very often a nikah, but they never have their marriage registered. The husband then abandons them, and they have no right to remain in this country. That seems to me an issue which the Government ought to consider.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, in the context of transnational abuse, passport theft, abandonment abroad or abandonment in this country are issues where we have those potential difficulties. We are trying to ensure that we treat the individuals—almost always women and children—as victims and not as people who need to be tested by the state as to their validity to stay. That is why the transnational visa route we introduced in January 2024, which was not there before, is an important measure to help support those individuals.

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 May be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.

Motion agreed.

State of Extremism Report

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to identify individuals, groups, organisations, businesses or bodies in the annual State of Extremism report they committed to publishing in Protecting What Matters, published on 9 March.

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

The Answer to the noble Lord is yes. Where necessary and proportionate, the report will include examples of those propagating extremism and where they have been disrupted.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

That is an extremely welcome Answer. Does the Minister not agree that the antisemitism emergency is being driven not only by hostile states but by hostile non-state actors such as Hezbollah and Hamas and their agents here? Is it therefore not essential, as he says, that the report names them to ensure that they have no access to public money, government platforms and—this is extremely important—engagement with public services such as the police? Is it not vital that they be isolated and shunned?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is vital that those spreading extremism are tackled in every form by the state and by other parties. The Home Office will publish, as the noble Lord knows, the landmark state of extremism report by the end of this calendar year. We are delivering a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and want to make sure that we have the tools, capabilities and partnerships to match the scale of that threat. The report itself will cover not just government action but the available support and powers on disruption, particularly relating to case studies.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have recently learned about and am deeply concerned by the Prevent programme, which has a voluntary participation clause. Can the Minister explain the criteria being used to identify young Muslim people, in particular, who are deemed fit to be “trained”? How are the Government ensuring that young Muslim people are not targeted and profiled, and that this practice is not forced down their and their families’ throats, as happened with young Black people during the stop and search period, which was a shameful time for many families and particularly for institutions?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The purpose of government policy and of Prevent is not to colour all Muslims as being related to extremist activity. The purpose of Prevent is to help identify those individuals who are vulnerable and at risk. That identification is done by social workers, support workers, police and other agencies. If an individual is vulnerable, the idea of Prevent is to help them have defences against that vulnerability so that they do not get drawn into extremism. The Muslim community as a whole should have nothing to fear from that process.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. The issue of how to tackle extremism while preserving the right to freedom of expression falls squarely within the terms of reference of the review carried out at the request of the Home Secretary by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which examined hate crime and public order legislation. Can the Minister tell us what has become of that review, and when it is likely to be placed in the Library so we can all read it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The review has been received by the Home Secretary. We are examining its contents, and we intend to publish it before the Summer Recess.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the proposals outlined in Protecting What Matters, namely, to tackle the abuse of charitable status for the purpose of promoting violence and hatred. However, phrases in the extremism definition such as creating a “permissive environment” for the destruction of “fundamental rights” are quite vague. If applied without further elaboration this could, as the charitable sector has warned, have the effect of chilling lawful advocacy, campaigning and community involvement. What progress is being made in producing and consulting on these proposals? Will the Government ensure that the thresholds are clear and understandable when they emerge, so that we all know where we are?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the quotes mentioned by the noble Lord, I bow to his significant experience in managing these issues and I will certainly look at his comments. On the commitments set out in the proposals, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is looking at strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist and terrorist exploitation in the charitable sector. There will be consultation and development of further powers on persistent misconduct, while ensuring that the power to close a charity exists and that the focus is on extremism rather than any other issue.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, given the recent incidents in Southampton and Belfast—in which individuals who appeared to belong to either the Black or the Asian community were particularly targeted for no reason other than what they looked like—does the Minister agree that social cohesion must now be a national priority if we are to tackle extremism in all its forms?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. I condemn the incident in Belfast—an individual has now been charged, but I cannot comment further—and the actions that were taken in Southampton. People have the right to protest, but they must do so in a way that does not damage businesses, the community or police officers who are trying to protect the public at large. On 9 March the Government published a social cohesion action plan, Protecting What Matters, which sets out a number of points on our efforts to build social cohesion. We accept that we must do that, in order to ensure that everybody in our society has the right to live their lives and conduct their business free from political violence and extremist intervention.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Protecting What Matters document says that

“we must be clear that we are a society built on shared values”.

Do the Government accept that Britain is about far more than just shared values? Social cohesion relies upon a shared sense of belonging and a common culture. This requires those who move to Britain to integrate into our society and live according to British cultural practices. What further action will the Government take to ensure that cultural integration is one of the foremost aims of their strategy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I happen to believe that some of the cultural differences are things we should be celebrating. I value living in a culturally diverse community, and I aim for a society where we can all live our own lives, live our own religions and enjoy our cultures, but have a shared ownership of being within the United Kingdom state. That is our objective—one that I hope the whole House shares.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend will recognise that an increasing number of the subjects of interest, in both the right-wing space and the Islamic space, being investigated by the security services are individuals under the age of 16. What more can be done to tackle the radicalisation of individuals, which is mainly done online?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point, and it is extremely important that we challenge the poison of online extremism that sometimes occurs. Existing legislation, particularly the Online Safety Act, empowers Ofcom to order the taking down of material that is damaging or extremist, and significant fines can be levied. However, we need to further examine how the online space is used to radicalise people, particularly those who, very often in their own bedrooms, are looking at such material, being sucked into an extremist pit—be it the right, Islamic extremism, or any other form of extremism—and groomed, in a sense, to undertake further activities. This is an extremely important issue that is difficult to challenge, but it is one the Government need to address.

[Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, when she talks about the importance of extremism criteria. How can we ensure objectivity and avoid politicisation of the term? In this House and the other House, we have seen the political winds propagating the false notion of two-tier policing, which is really divisive. Equally, in this House and the other House, we have heard politicians calling for more Black stop and search, when we are already disproportionately targeted. So criteria are important, and I urge the Minister to ensure objectivity in, and not the politicisation of, the process.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government do not accept the principle of two-tier policing: policing should be done according to the circumstances that a police officer faces. This is not about two-tier policing. We have embedded across government the 2024 definition of extremism and engagement principles to ensure a consistent understanding of extremism, and we are updating the 2024 engagement principles to ensure that public bodies understand that issue in a proper and effective way.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I will give the Minister a case study that he has previously referred to. In university campuses, student union committees get elected on a platform of antisemitism, Holocaust denial and insisting on the sacking of a Jewish professor of economics. Does the Minister agree that, while antisemitism has no place in universities, it is alive and kicking in universities? What can be done to hold universities to account?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Through the Department for Education and Home Office activity, we have given significant support to universities to help root out antisemitism in particular and extremism in general. The noble Lord raises a really important issue, and as some of this is not within my direct gift, I will drop him a note, but the point he makes is absolutely valid.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Proscription

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cryer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards drafting a bill creating the legal framework for the proscription of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

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

The National Security (State Threats) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 9 June. This legislation will create a new power for the Secretary of State to designate bodies engaged in foreign power threat activity equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Designation will disrupt and deter the hostile activities of these bodies and those working with them, through new criminal offences.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government are bringing forward legislation, but it is not before time. We have seen IRGC proxies and operatives attacking British Jews and Jewish institutions. We have just seen two such proxies prosecuted and convicted for an almost fatal attack on an Iranian journalist. Is it not time to get this welcome new legislation through every stage of its parliamentary procedures sharpish, and then ban this bunch of homicidal maniacs?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that in the King’s gracious Speech we said we wanted to get this matter on the statute book as quickly as possible. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and this noble House with regard to that, but we want to get this done so that the power is there for the Secretary of State to make judgments on any state threat that we face and to take action which, if agreed by both Houses, will potentially result in sentences of 14 years’ imprisonment for anybody convicted.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly welcome the legislation that is proposed, plus the Minister’s own personal commitment to this, because the use of these proxies, behind which countries such as Iran are obviously hiding, is doing untold harm. It is not just the IRGC but the Iranian-linked Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, which claims credit and responsibility for some of the recent antisemitic attacks. Will it also be included in the legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The legislation gives the Secretary of State a power, and then how the Secretary of State uses that power will be for the Secretary of State to consider on the basis of the threats that are presented. The Government condemn antisemitism and are very much aware of the Iranian state threat. In fact, we have already sanctioned some 550 individuals from Iran and organisations, including the IRGC in its entirety. We take the threats from Iran extremely seriously, and we will continue to monitor that. But I hope that this power will be given speedy passage; then we can assess how best to use it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches support this legislation and, when it comes to us in the next few weeks, we will ensure that there is a very constructive process. The IRGC and similar groups operate under proxies, as we have heard, but there is also enormous state capture of commercial organisations both within their countries and in the wider areas—especially in the Gulf. Can the Minister assure us that under the powers this legislation will allow, any organisation with a commercial link through complex legal, financial and trade routes that ends up in any part of the United Kingdom economy will be captured? Can he assure us that we will not only proscribe this organisation but starve it of funds if they are from the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the legislation and for its fast track. We are getting ahead of ourselves. I am in the hands of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to end up with a legislation product that may or may not be amended. I hope that it will be passed speedily. I assure the noble Lord that the Government take this matter seriously and will make all the assessments that he has mentioned in relation to any power that the Government are given by the legislation that is passed. If this legislation can be fast-tracked, we will be able to make any assessments that we wish to make as soon as practicable after it is passed. As I say, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, now that the Government have published the National Security (State Threats) Bill, I can confirm to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill can progress swiftly. I do have a few concerns, however, with the drafting of the Bill. One is that, unlike the Terrorism Act 2000, the Bill does not criminalise membership of a designated group. Can the Minister explain why?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have had a detailed letter from the noble Lord raising a number of points that I will respond to. I am hoping to see him before the Bill comes to this House, for a private discussion on some of those matters. We have acted upon recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, whom we asked to review this legislation. The Bill before Parliament is what he has assessed is a workable piece of legislation.

On including issues such as a membership offence, Jonathan Hall has judged that that is not workable because of international law considerations. We will have to debate that detail, but I hope that ultimately we can settle on a Bill that gives the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—the power to act against any state threat in a way that we are not able to do now. The House has pressed me about this on many occasions. We have not been able to do it because of the failings in the legislation to date. To deal with those challenges, this Bill will make that difference. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the role that the Minister has played in ensuring that this legislation is brought forward. I remind him of the debate that we had in in your Lordships’ House on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, Transnational Repression in the UK. We took evidence from Iranians who had been left bleeding on the street after being attacked by members of the IRGC, and BBC Persian journalists who were targeted in the way that the noble lord, Lord Cryer, described.

Can the Minister ensure that the recommendations in that report are acted upon? Will he also look at what more can be done to hold to account those who have been executing Iranians in Iran at an unprecedented rate—some 2,159 in the last 12 months, 52% based on the death sentence issued by the revolutionary courts? Of course, in our minds is the young woman, Mahsa Amini, who was arrested and died in police custody because she offended the dress code.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support as well. I know he has a long-standing interest in this matter and has put pressure on the Government accordingly, which I welcome. We are trying to put in place a framework for legislation where we can act on any potential state threat. The type of incident that he has mentioned are ones that we will reflect upon. The Bill itself, unless amended by both Houses, means that there must be a UK connection of some sort for any designation to take place. Those are matters that we will discuss. I do not want us to get ahead of ourselves. I want this Bill to be an Act so that the Secretary of State can legally act to take action against any actor who is providing a state threat against this United Kingdom and its citizens.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He and I are the only two people here who are proscribed by the IRGC. I too put on record my thanks to the Minister. We have pushed hard and will continue to push hard. This needs to be done. As I said yesterday in this Chamber, it is not just the IRGC and its activities but what is going on in the charity world here. I hope that the legislation will be able to look at that too, because it is a serious matter. Money is being raised here in this country—British taxpayers’ money—which is going towards helping the IRGC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He will know that we have already introduced a comprehensive set of measures against Iran, including the sanctioning of the IRGC in its entirety and of 550 Iranian individuals and organisations. Those sanctions mean a whole range of things, such as travel bans. That is already in place.

Importantly, we have also put the whole of Iran under the foreign influence registration scheme. If an individual is working for the Iranian Government and being paid by them but has not declared it, they face potentially a five-year sentence if found and convicted. A range of measures are in place but, if passed by both Houses, this power will give the Secretary of State an additional power to take action against any state threat that the Secretary of State deems to be a threat to the United Kingdom. Let us get this Bill passed first. We will consider and assess all potential state threats, but I will not comment on the detail until I bring the measures forward.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the virtue of the Bill is the flexibility that it gives the Secretary of State, allowing him or her—depending who is there—to take action swiftly on the basis of security advice. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Cryer that it is now time. I hope that both Houses support the Minister, because he has been very active in this. I understand why it has taken so long. There is a balance of risk. Once you have proscribed an organisation, it is much more difficult to get information to counter that organisation. However, on any measure, the balance is now weighed heavily on one side for proscribing the organisations that have been mentioned and giving the Secretary of State the power to step in swiftly to act against anyone who is a threat to this nation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who has great experience in these matters. When this Government came to power in July 2024, we recognised—this is not a political point—that there were challenges in the legislation that needed to be addressed. We commissioned Jonathan Hall KC to do a thorough review of that legislation. He has reported back and we have accepted those recommendations.

This legislation, which I have been trailing to the House in discussions when pressed on this matter, has now been produced. It was introduced on 9 June. It will be considered in both Houses of Parliament. We hope that it will be done quickly. I cannot comment on how the legislation will be used, but the power is there for the Secretary of State to take considerations, if required, on any state threat. Once this power is passed, the United Kingdom will be a safer place, because we will be able to take stronger action against those who seek to do us evil.

Refugee Move-on Period Pilot Evaluation Report

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield.

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

My Lords, the Home Office commissioned an evaluation of the 56-day move-on period, which has now been completed, following the pilot concluded earlier this year. The final report, by happy coincidence, was published on 10 June and is available to read online.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the coincidental publication today of the evaluation. The conclusion of the report states that the

“extension of the move on period … to 56 days, improved refugee experience and operational planning”.

The first recommendation is to

“extend the move on period and consider an even longer move on period for single adults”.

Can the Minister say whether we can expect the Government to implement this recommendation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government began with a 28-day period when we inherited office in 2024. Following a pilot and an evaluation, we determined that the optimum period is 42 days. We have put in additional support, and we always keep these matters under review. The Government have given 14 extra days to the move-on period compared with the previous Government, and I think that should be welcomed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, as this is an immigration-related Question, I take the opportunity to say that I am sure the whole House agrees with me in wishing Mr Stephen Ogilvie, the person who suffered the knife attack in Belfast the other day, well in recovery, as he suffered very severe injuries. We also hope that demonstrations, if people wish to have them, are peaceful.

Can the Minister, who has laboured in the vineyard for the past two years on immigration issues, not accept that we have not, as a country, got control of immigration? Even with the reduction in net immigration in the year to March, we still have 16,000 people a week coming into this country. That is not satisfactory. Even if there are 56 days, 42 days or whatever is recommended in the report, which I obviously have not yet read, the numbers are just too much, and we cannot go on ignoring the realities. We see what is happening and the reaction on the ground.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, the incident in Belfast a couple of nights ago was truly horrific, and an individual has now been charged with offences. It is right that he go before the court and that I do not comment on those issues. It is also important, from the Home Office’s perspective, that we work closely with partners, including the police and local safeguarding bodies, to ensure that public protection remains strong. As the noble Lord will know, Northern Ireland has devolved policing; they will examine this issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is there today.

The noble Lord raises a number of issues about immigration. Asylum claims in Northern Ireland are down 7% year on year. The Government have a very strong White Paper and a forthcoming Bill to look at the potential for managing immigration. We have reduced the number of hotels in use from over 400 in 2024 to around 160 now. We will continue to make sure that our borders are secure. It is best that I let the incident in Belfast be seen and determined in the courts, and in due course we will reflect with the Northern Ireland Executive on any lessons learned.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Minister will know that contractors acting for the Home Office—Clearsprings and Serco—are bidding for private rented accommodation as asylum seekers move out of hotels. Local authorities are also looking for private rented accommodation as they move families with children in temporary accommodation into the private rented sector. This is resulting in a local bidding war between two publicly funded authorities, driving up the price of private rented accommodation, which is already suffering from the consequences of the Renters’ Rights Act. Should there not be some memorandum of understanding or concordat to prevent what is happening on the ground in local authority areas?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very sound point. We are trying to consult with local authorities and work with them closely. We have put in place some 59 local authority support areas, where we have placed asylum move-on liaison officers to work with the local authorities to look at what the asylum move-on is and what the pressures are locally. That is an innovation, following on from the previous Government—the 59 officers were not there previously. The noble Lord makes a sensible point. We do not want a bidding war but ultimately, we have to provide accommodation, and in a positive and constructive way.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

I have seen the evaluation of the pilot that was published today. Has the Minister evaluated the impact of giving asylum seekers the right to work, which might make it more likely that they can resolve their own housing situations once they are granted refugee status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There has been lot of discussion around the right to work, and we have taken the view that it is not a route we want to go down at the moment. Ultimately, through the whole of this scheme, I want to speed up the asylum process and get people’s decisions made quickly, so that individuals can know whether or not they have a long-term future in the United Kingdom. The right to work should be at the end of that process, not during it. We need to complete the process as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I cautiously welcomed the increase to 42 days, though those on the ground warn that the 56-day period, which was piloted, is needed to ensure that refugees can move on from Home Office support successfully. If the 42-day period is to work, in order to avoid the confusion reported in the evaluation, it is essential that new refugees receive all the necessary documentation to access accommodation and so on before the clock starts ticking on the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister commit to making sure that it happens, please?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is the intention. Throughout this process, we are trying to ensure that asylum claims are dealt with speedily—as quickly as possible. The points my noble friend has mentioned are relevant, and this goes back to what I said to the noble Lord earlier. We have put asylum move-on liaison officers in place in 59 local authorities across the United Kingdom, and they are working alongside Migrant Help to support individuals who will be leaving asylum accommodation, and to ensure a successful transition. It is in the interests of all parties to ensure that people make the transition and move through the housing procedure as soon and as efficiently as possible.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government talk up, of course, the number of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers they have returned, but the Minister knows that the number of enforced returns—those people the Home Office forcibly deports—was only 9,700, a small number in the grand scheme and scale of the problem. Given the significant number of people who are living in Britain illegally, what actions are the Government taking this year to ramp up deportation of those who have no right to be here?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord and his Government had jurisdiction over these matters for 14 years. The number of asylum seekers rose; the processing fell; the number of hotels increased; the number of deportations fell; and the number of criminal justice activities increased. So I say to the noble Lord quite clearly: the position now is better than it was when he left office. There are more deportations than before; there are more hotel closures; there are fewer asylum applications, and they are being dealt with more speedily. I will defend that record in front of this House and in front of him on every day of the week.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Reverting to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, if the person granted asylum has only 42 days to navigate housing, employment and the markets, and to get himself a bank account and registered for universal credit, we need to help him by giving him all the documentation he will need from the start. Eighteen months ago, the Minister told us during a debate on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that digital status existed from the moment asylum was granted. Can it not be communicated at that moment—straight away, day zero —with all the other necessary documentation, including the national insurance number?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly look into the points the noble Lord has mentioned. Most e-visas are accessible within minutes of a grant; in a small number of cases, they will take up to three days, as set out on GOV.UK. We hope to ensure that we speed things up, get the proper documentation and allow people that transitional period when the asylum position is determined. We also need to ensure that the 42 days, as has been said generally, provides for a smooth transition to whatever happens next to the individual.