Government Website: Registering a Death

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I offer my condolences to the noble Baroness on her loss. She has a point. I have discussed this with officials and we are looking at how we can improve the website and make some changes to it. That will be done, and I will write to the noble Baroness within a month, when it has been completed.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister seen the article in last week’s Times:

“Death certificates take twice as long after reforms choke system”,


with only one in six being delivered within a fortnight, adding to the costs for the funeral director and to the distress of relatives? What action are the Government taking to deal with that delay?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are two points here. The median figure that we have assessed for the issues that the noble Lord has raised is nine days. The published data does not break down the journey between the medical certificate of death and the registration of death. From the Home Office’s perspective, the registration process is more or less on target at the five-day period. Where there is a delay on occasions, it is between death occurring and the medical examiner’s certificate being issued. I will be drawing that issue to the attention of my noble friend Lady Merron, as it is a Department of Health matter. Again, the Government are committed to trying to resolve and improve performance on this.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Like him, I served on the Select Committee on fraud, ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes, that produced a very substantial document indeed. After we produced our report, the Government published a consultation document headed Preventing the Use of SIM Farms for Fraud. In December 2023, the Government published their response to that document. I want to quote briefly from three paragraphs of that response.

Referring to the responses they got, the Government said:

“A few responses noted that banning physical SIM farms alone is likely to result in displacement to eSIM farms”,


which is the point that has just been made. They went on:

“However they acknowledged that if eSIMs were included to the proposed ban, the Government’s definition of SIM farms should be adapted to ensure it excludes smartphones that can hold more than four eSIMs”.


The Government’s response to that section was:

“Responses noted that the definition could also include eSIMs and mobile apps. However, we did not receive sufficient evidence at consultation to include them in a proposed ban, due to their complexity and ongoing pace of development. This could be further addressed by the proposed powers to extend the ban to other forms of telecommunications equipment and articles used to perpetrate fraud”.


They referred to a further final paragraph headed “Government response”:

“The Government considers it important to ensure that the ban is flexible and can be used to rapidly prohibit other types of technology where these are identified in the future. Some such technologies are mentioned above, whilst others may emerge in future and the Government will continue to review fraud methodologies closely for changing patterns and new technologies being used, such as eSIM farms and others. However, the Government agrees with respondents that any powers to ban through secondary legislation ought to have clear parameters for their use”.


That was the last Administration, of course, and it would be helpful to know whether the Government agree with that line.

The question I want to ask the Minister is this. Referring to the clauses on SIM farms, Clause 114(4) says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section (other than this subsection)”.


Is that in effect giving the Secretary of State powers to introduce by secondary legislation something that the previous Government said should not be done by secondary legislation? I leave that question hanging in the air while the Government seek advice from the Bench to see what the answer is.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 358. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Young of Cookham. Because we are going to be discussing this and a later amendment on fraud, I declare my interest as a director of Santander UK.

It was a huge pleasure and privilege to chair the Lords inquiry into online and digital fraud, which reported in 2022, and I would like to think that we had some impact in raising the issues, which are of huge importance to the public. Fraud is one of the crimes that people are most likely to be victims of. I know the Minister knows that because he is the Anti-Fraud Minister in the department.

Noble Lords have already spoken about the importance of this amendment, the need for the law to be kept up to date as the technology develops, and the fact that allowing as much flexibility in legislation as possible to enable that to happen is important. The reason we talked about the “fraud chain” in the report is that, obviously, people encounter fraud in myriad ways. Fraudsters are, as we have heard, incredibly flexible, and entrepreneurial—for all the wrong reasons. Of course, telecoms—people’s smartphones or phones—is where many people will first encounter the fraudster, who will then try, as we heard in our evidence, to get them away from technology and strike up some kind of relationship which unfortunately ends in people often losing life-changing amounts of money.

I do not want to pre-empt the debate on Amendment 367, which I hope we will also reach today, but the question, perhaps now or for later, is whether the Minister is confident that the previous Government’s and this current Government’s ask of the telecoms industry is strong enough given the frequency with which the public encounter fraud via their telephones. I will ask the question now, but I am sure we will come back to it. We are all waiting for the forthcoming fraud strategy from the Government, which we understand is—I hope—close. Can the Minister give us a little precursor of whether that will impose tougher asks and potential penalties on the telecoms companies for the reasons that we have already heard?

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

We are very happy on these Benches to support this amendment. We all know the grim scale of fraud, now our most common crime. Authorised push payment scams are driven by online platforms, adverts on social media fuelling shopping and investment frauds, and hacked accounts enabling ticket scams. Yet, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, platforms such as Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, can still take six weeks to remove illegal content, allowing scammers to resurface again and again—so-called “life-boating”.

This amendment is designed to cut through that inertia. It would provide a clear statutory duty of care on tech and telecom firms to prevent scams at source, using their own AI and tools. It would also require them to share the financial burden with payment providers, which must already imburse many victims of authorised push payment fraud. That seems a fair step, given that the platforms host most of the scams and profit from the engagement that keeps users scrolling. Weak voluntary charters, non-binding Ofcom guidance and even the Online Safety Act’s proportionate measures have let these firms do the bare minimum—reacting to reports rather than proactively detecting fraud through verification, AI-driven scans and systematic audits. Big tech has unparalleled know-how—the AI, software and manpower to spot fraudster patterns and take them down. Banks cannot fight this alone and nor can the police. This amendment would compel these companies to protect their users, stopping scams upstream.

We hope that the Government’s fraud strategy follows the example of this amendment and goes even further with a failure to prevent fraud offence, backed by strong fines and tougher binding Ofcom standards. Meanwhile, Amendment 367 would provide some timely backbone, giving tech and telecom firms a real incentive to act swiftly before yet more victims lose potentially everything.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I want to add a brief footnote to the speech that he made in support. In an earlier debate, the Minister was very complimentary about the work of the fraud committee on which we both served, and he can convert that praise into action by accepting one of the recommendations which we made in our report.

It is worth quoting the relevant sections of the report that led up to that recommendation. On page 162, paragraph 57 states:

“However, banks are the last link in the fraud chain and cannot be expected to foot the fraud bill alone”.


Then we come on to our recommendation:

“To incentivise companies to act on fraud and more accurately reflect the balance of responsibility for fraud, the Government must establish a mechanism by which fraud-enabling sectors—in addition to the outgoing and recipient PSP—are required to contribute to the costs of reimbursement in cases where their platforms and services helped to facilitate the fraud”.


That is a very clear recommendation. We came to that conclusion after taking evidence from, for example, TSB and academics. They all made the point that there was absolutely no incentive on the part of the telecommunications companies to do anything, because their business case rested on generating revenue and they faced no penalties. That was our recommendation.

Refugee Accommodation: Move-on Period

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion; I will certainly examine it. It is important that society as a whole embraces individuals who have come to this country fleeing persecution, hunger, war and destitution.

For those who are not across the detail of this proposal, it is about individuals who have been granted asylum and who are being helped to move on from that into the community to begin their new life with approved asylum status. We are trying to ensure that we evaluate that pilot, monitor it successfully and give due regard to those who are already under the 56-day period, but to look at what tweaks we can make, because there are immense pressures in the system on hotels and the whole House wants us to resolve that as a matter of urgency.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office has reported that in some cases, when the 56 days expire, asylum seekers are simply refusing to leave the hotel. What are the consequences for them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. For individuals who have been granted asylum, under the pilot we have extended the period from 28 days to 56 days to ensure that transition takes place. We are now tweaking that for certain categories of individual applicants back to 28 days. In a sense, the noble Lord hits a very important point: the asylum claim has been approved, and the period—be it 28 or 56 days—is there for that transition. At the end of that period, the Government have fulfilled their responsibilities in the asylum claim approval and the hand-on period. Therefore, we need to ensure that individuals then begin their new life under their own steam.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for tabling Amendments 78 and 79, to which I have added my name in support. My comments will be brief. I add my voice to those of other noble Lords in the Chamber in appreciation of the debates that we have heard today on the detail of the Bill, which in many ways indicate the interrelatedness of the issues before us, and about what it is to live well together to enable the flourishing of every person throughout their whole lives.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her engagement with me over several months on the matter of kinship care, and I acknowledge the Government’s evolving view on how best to ensure consistent and sustainable support for kinship carers. I appreciate that the Minister is open to further conversations, and I look forward to them.

Part of the challenge is providing a clear, agreed and workable definition of kinship care, and there is more work to be done on this, recognising that Amendment 79 sets out in some way to go about this task. It is about finding the right balance to achieve what is needed in supporting kinship carers and is not so open as to be unworkable in law and unrealistic in affordability. That, to me, is a challenge—it is around the parameters of what kinship care is—but I do not think that it is unresolvable.

However, the longer we take to get to this point, the more lives are being impacted. Kinship carers are overrepresented in the health, education and social care sectors, so the withdrawal from this labour market has an obvious impact on wider society. The north-east region, which I serve, has the highest rates of children in kinship care. The impact of this in real terms, given multiple and systemic factors of inequality, is immense.

Amendment 78 would grant kinship carers the right to take statutory paid leave, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, akin to the entitlements of adoptive parents. It would allow them to spend a period of protected time with the children entering their care as they settle into their new arrangements. Further, it would enable caregivers to remain in employment while they adjust to their new responsibilities and continue contributing to the economic growth that this Government strive for.

I again thank the Minister for her willingness to meet me and engage with these amendments. I urge her to carefully consider the difference these amendments would make to the lives of kinship carers, to those growing up in their loving care and to wider society.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who makes a strong case for more support for kinship carers. I added my name to Amendments 135 and 144 to demonstrate cross-party support for a squarer deal for carers.

Before I add a brief word to what has already been said about carers, I add a quick word about Amendment 77, on foster care. A long time ago, my wife and I were registered foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth. We did short-term fostering, typically when a mother went into hospital to have a child and somebody needed to look after her existing child or children. It is not quite clear from the wording of Amendment 77 how short-term foster parents might qualify if the amendment became law.

If the definition in Amendment 78 was used—namely, that the fostering of a child had to last a year—then short-term foster parents would not qualify, even though they might have been providing short-term fostering for up to a year with a series of different children. Short-term fostering can last from two days to two years. On the other hand, should a two-day short-term fostering spell qualify for leave on its own? Probably not—so, we need a bit of clarity on entitlement if this is to go further.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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