Police Service

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to concerns expressed by the leaders of the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Police Federation of England and Wales that the police service is “in crisis”.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to giving the police the resourcing and staffing they need to tackle crime. As set out in the police funding settlement, overall funding for policing will total £19.6 billion in 2025-26, an increase of up to £1.2 billion compared to the 2024-25 settlement under the Government the noble Lord supported. The Government will also publish a White Paper on police reform later this year.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I come from a family of four generations of police officers. I am proud to refer to that, as a matter of interest. The Labour manifesto promised to lower all sorts of crime, and I wish them well in fulfilling that promise. But the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association, in their joint letter, say that the police service is in a state of “crisis”, that it is “broken” and that as officers are

“battling burnout and crushing stress, it becomes a national emergency”.

These are all direct quotes from their letter sent over the weekend. This is really rather terrifying, so my Question is about numbers. The Labour Government inherited a total of nearly 148,000 full-time-equivalent warranted police officers, which was the highest level reached in two decades. But since this Government took office, the numbers have started falling. So can the Minister give a commitment that, after today’s spending review, there will be more warranted police officers in eight years’ time—that is, warranted police officers, not support staff, important though those may be? Will those numbers have gone up in a year’s time, or will they have fallen further still?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. There are always challenges in the police service, but I do not recognise the word crisis, which has been put to us after nine months in office. A crisis is when 20,000 police officers were cut from the budget after 2010. A crisis is when a halving of PCSOs took place over the duration of the last Government. A crisis is when there were two-thirds cuts in special constables under the previous Government. A crisis is when the previous Government blocked the independent recommendations on pay. This Government have accepted the recommendations on pay and put in place 3,000 extra neighbourhood police this year. We will put in place 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. This year we have put in £1.2 billion extra over what the noble Lord’s Government supported last year. We have put in money, extra in real terms, and provided an increase in policing, through the comprehensive spending review a few moments ago, and we will ensure that we meet those needs. When we meet the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association, as we have done on several occasions since the election, we will have a positive dialogue—unlike what I believe happened in the previous 14 years. I welcome the noble Lord’s support, but let us look at the facts.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. I chaired an inquiry into the Police Federation of England and Wales, which was published in May this year and made 33 recommendations in respect of governance, campaigning and financing. Does the Minister agree that police officers, who do not have the right to take industrial action in defence of their terms and conditions, need and deserve a federation that is effective in representing their terms and conditions and that promotes understanding of the essential work that the police service does for us all?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who has done an excellent job in the report the Police Federation commissioned her to produce on its governance structure and future direction. I was pleased to meet my noble friend to discuss the recommendations of that report. I know that the Government are giving the Police Federation, because that is its responsibility, time to reflect on those recommendations and, I hope, to act upon them. I will certainly, as will my right honourable friend in the Commons, Diana Johnson, take a keen interest in how the Police Federation responds to those recommendations. My noble friend is right to say that the effectiveness of the Police Federation is an important part of the police family.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the efficiency of, for example, police regional counterterrorism units provides evidence that the 43 territorial police offices should be reformed, and that no more than 12 forces would be likely, by economies of scale, to provide greater efficiency and better service to the public? Is it not time to reform the police structure?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord tempts me to examine issues that are potentially being addressed as part of our discussions on the police reform White Paper, which will be produced shortly. The White Paper is looking at governance and efficiency and how best we can promote resources, so that the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, can be met during this Parliament. I cannot comment on those issues directly, but the noble Lord needs to reflect on the fact that in the police reform White Paper we will discuss a range of measures, of which governance and responsibilities will be one.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

The record number of recruits who joined the police under the Uplift programme, together with huge number of resignations, is putting real strain on experienced police, who are having to manage not just their own workload but the recruits. In the meantime, HMIC has reported that child sexual abuse cases are being dealt with by inexperienced officers, which is causing real problems and definitely contributing to 40% of cases not being managed properly and 40% of crimes still being unsolved. What are the Government going to do to persuade those really experienced officers to stay in the police force while it manages dealing with public safety under a less experienced police force?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is really important that we try to retain police officers in post. Of the people who left in the past 12 months, approximately one-third were those who had reached retirement age and were going anyway. The largest group—48% of those who left the force—were people who had been there under two years. So, contrary to public perception, we are finding that people are retiring—people do retire—but the difficulty is retaining those recruited into the police force.

The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point about needing to ensure that we use that experience seriously to bear down on crime. What I want is to retain individuals who are recruited—it is a costly exercise, recruiting people who then leave after two years—but we also want to manage expectations. Again, trailing the police reform White Paper, those issues are part of the Government’s potential future plans once the White Paper is produced.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The latest Home Office police workforce statistics report includes data on officer age profiles, and it shows an ageing workforce in which 47% of officers are aged between 41 and 55. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to stop the haemorrhaging of officers we are seeing on his watch, and what exactly is the department doing to recruit young police officers? I understand that the numbers are now down to 122,000 nationally.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It worries me when the noble Lord says that people are ageing when they are 55—it strikes a cold blow to my heart—but the point he makes is extremely important. We need to ensure that we recruit police officers, and the Government are committed to recruiting an additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers during this Parliament—3,000 this year. We have put in £1.2 billion of investment this year. As I just said to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches, we need to retain those we recruit, because 72% of the people who leave are leaving within three years and 48% are leaving within two years. That is not a good prospect. We need to retain those people and improve recruitment procedures to do that, but we also need to up the numbers, which the Government are trying to do. We need to ensure that we make effective use of resources, which is what the White Paper will be about. I look forward to the noble Lord’s help and support in achieving those objectives.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. While it is understandable that the political focus is on warranted officers, is there not a danger that this will result in them being employed in back-office roles that could be done cheaper and more effectively by non-warranted officers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. A tremendous amount of the work done in the back-office can be done by police support staff and others, who play a very important role and are part of the police family response to crime. There has been a problem whereby police officers are doing many roles that could be done behind the scenes. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, also mentioned, the police White Paper will look at how we can maximise efficiency and the bang for our buck that we get from the investment we are putting in, as well as ensuring that we have frontline policing through neighbourhood policing, effective regional policing and improved back-office efficiencies in both procurement and staff delivery.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 27 March and 1 April be approved.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.

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

My Lords, I beg to move, I hope en bloc, the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise but I wish to make two very quick points with regard to these measures that we debated last week in Grand Committee. I gave the Government Whips’ Office notice of this.

The first is that these measures relate to the foreign influence registration scheme, which is a significant legislative tool to seek to prevent countries conducting political interference within the UK. There is cross-party support for these and we passed them with the National Security Act. What gives me concern are the exemptions to the scheme that the Government have introduced in one of these measures. We know that many countries seek to influence the UK through education arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds. We debated this during the passage of the National Security Bill, when I raised these specific issues, including the use of sovereign wealth funds.

We also know, through warnings from the director-general of MI5, that they are used on an “epic scale” by China. It is the Government’s choice—at their own discretion—not to put China on the enhanced tier of this scheme. The exemption measure introduced by the Government will mean that education and sovereign wealth funds are exempted almost in their entirety from the scheme. I am not seeking to divide the House, because the Conservative Front Bench has supported these exemptions. It will be for it to explain why, but I believe this is an error.

My second quick point is that the Minister, in his characteristic way, listened to the debate and undertook to write to me and others who raised concerns, in advance of today. He honoured that commitment; we received the letter yesterday. I thank him—no doubt he was working on Sunday—and his officials for the comprehensive letter supplied with the annexe of explanations. I remain unsatisfied with the Government’s explanations. But the Minister acts with great respect to this House, and sincerity, and I thank him for honouring his commitment to reply to me.

In his letter, he said that as it is a new scheme it will be “under review” and there will be an annual report. I say sincerely to the Minister that I believe the Government are making an error with these exemptions. I respect the Minister and the explanations he has given, and I look forward to further opportunities to raise these concerns as the scheme is implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the notice the noble Lord gave to my colleagues in the Government Whips’ Office that he was going to raise these matters.

For the benefit of the House, of the five instruments before the House, four relate to Iran and Russia and one relates to the ban on ninja swords. They were moved en bloc. The ninja sword ban, I hope, has broad agreement across the House. The four instruments the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has mentioned, relate to Iran and Russia. If I may defend myself, I gave an explanation in the Committee. I took the noble Lord’s interventions and gave a further explanation in the Committee. I agreed to write to him and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—I am grateful he acknowledged that I did that over the weekend—to clarify still further the reasons the Government have taken the view they have.

For the benefit of the House, the sovereign wealth fund political tier exemption has been targeted to ensure that it does not provide a loophole for foreign powers to channel their political influence and evade the scheme. The vast majority of work done by sovereign wealth funds would already fall out of the political influence tier. The exemption will apply only where the fund is being directed by its home state to carry out political influencing relating to its investment. It is very tightly drawn.

In relation to the funding study arrangements, the exemption ensures that the scheme does not unnecessarily deter international students from studying in the UK. We want—the Liberal Democrats particularly want—international students to come and study in the United Kingdom. We have discussed this very clearly with student bodies and university institutions. We do not consider it necessary to apply the FIRS to international students whose activities are related purely to their course of study. However, for example—this is the point I made in Committee—if the international student was being directed by the Russians or Iranians to carry out wider duties over and above their studies, they would be liable to register. Someone who comes to study is studying. Someone who comes to study but is actually working for the Iranians or Russians has to register. If it becomes known afterwards that they have not registered, they will be liable for a five-year prison sentence. I understand the points the noble Lord has made, and I hope I have satisfied him.

The noble Lord mentioned two other points that I want to touch on. First, we keep this under review at all times. The scheme operates from 1 July onwards, and there will be an annual report. Ministers are going to ensure that the scheme meets its objectives, because our objective is to stop Russian and Iranian influence. The noble Lord mentioned China. We keep all regimes other than Russia and Iran, which are specified in the regulations, under review; if they cross a threshold that the Government have concerns about then action will be taken. We have brought forward these measures because the Russians and the Iranian state are a severe threat to this nation and to individuals residing in this nation, both UK individuals and nationals from foreign states who are in this country. The first scheme is designed to put measures in place—we would not be putting them in place if we believed there are loopholes through which those two countries could slip.

I hope that I have answered those points today, as I thought I had done over several hours in the Grand Committee on Thursday. I commend these instruments to the House.

Motions agreed.

Public Order Act 1986: Section 5

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and outline my interests as declared in the register.

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

The Government have no plans to review Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 but remain committed to ensuring that all public order legislation protects both public safety and, importantly, individual freedoms.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that freedom of religion or belief in the UK was hard won over many centuries. Citizens need to be able to peacefully criticise the tenets of someone’s faith or beliefs and institutions. Regrettably, recently the Crown Prosecution Service purported to charge an offence under the Public Order Act of

“intent to cause against religious institution of Islam, harassment alarm or distress”.

That is entirely wrong in law, as well as poor grammar. It raised emotions on an already delicate situation and had, of course, to be amended. While respecting the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service from both Parliament and government, will the Minister outline what review is being undertaken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate legal and religious knowledge and that senior leaders approve charges in cases such as this—I am assuming they did not approve that charge—to ensure that that does not happen again?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are absolutely committed to free speech and to ensuring that we are an open, diverse country where freedom of speech is valued and freedom of religion is maintained. If the noble Baroness is referring to a particular case that I am aware of in relation to the burning of the Koran recently, I take the view that the law should apply no matter what the religion or faith that is potentially impinged upon. The offence there was not because burning the Koran was illegal. The actions of the individual were seen by the Crown Prosecution Service, following police investigation, to be harassment and abusive action. In that case, the police investigated and collected evidence and put it to the CPS. The CPS looked at that evidence and the case was put before a court, where the individual was found guilty. The individual concerned is now appealing. I cannot say any more about that case. However, whatever we do, it is important that the law is applied equally, fairly and across all religions.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, if such a review were to take place, would the Minister and the Government reaffirm that exercising the freedom to stand silently praying in a public place is not an act of hostility and should therefore not be considered a criminal office within the United Kingdom?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The act of standing and making a protest is a fair and open act. It will not be covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. If the noble Lord is referring, as he may be—and if he is not, I apologise—to the question of abortion clinics and abortion legislation, the Government have passed legislation on this matter. Silent protest is allowed, but not within a limit set by law. That is fair and appropriate for people who wish to protest, as well as for people who wish to access a service that this House and the House of Commons have passed as being legal.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Given reports that recent protests have been largely peaceful, how will the Government ensure that the new powers to restrict protests near places of worship are not used to criminalise lawful dissent or acts deemed to be merely offensive? What guidance will be provided to police so they avoid subjective or arbitrary enforcement and to ensure that these powers are applied proportionately and transparently, to maintain public trust?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness again raises measures that will come before this House in very short order in the Crime and Policing Bill. We are planning to introduce a new measure that gives protection to synagogues, mosques, churches and other places of worship from—and this is the key point—

“intimidating levels of disruption caused by protest activity”.

That is across the board, whatever the religion, whatever the faith. If somebody is undertaking intimidating levels of disruption, and that protest is an intimidatory, harassing protest, action will be taken. This House will have an opportunity to debate where that line is drawn when the Bill comes before the House. It is certainly a measure that I hope Members of the House recognise as being important; it is important that we protect religious organisations from disruption and harassment while, at the same time, ensuring that everybody has the right to protest.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, as always, for putting equal treatment at the heart of human rights. However, regardless of individual cases that we get hot under the collar about—we pick and choose which ones to get upset about—is it not time to have another look at not just the operation of Section 5 of the 1986 Act but its framing? I suggest that most noble Lords would agree that threatening and harassing conduct should be criminal, but broader, lower-level conduct “likely” to cause “alarm or distress”? Some people are a little bit too easily alarmed and distressed. It is not about just religious freedom; it is about freedom of expression as well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. The Government keep all legislation under review at all times. The very fact that this discussion is taking place on this question means that we have looked at the legislation today and looked at the applicability of certain matters. There is a balance to be made. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 has stood the test of 39 years to date, through a range of protests, a range of measures and a range of Governments. It has stood the test of time.

We keep it under review, but the important principle behind it is that Section 5 of the Public Order Act gives a clear definition of harassment and intimidation. Protest crosses the criminal threshold where it goes into harassment and intimidation. That is why the prosecution was taken in the case to which I believe the noble Baroness referred, and why, in other cases, prosecutions have not been taken.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is vital, of course, that, despite social trends, the law remains consistent and is applied in a way that is fair and even. Concerns about political correctness and what is socially acceptable should not determine how a statute such as Section 5 is applied. Recent protests have seen the law applied unevenly in the opinion of some, and clearly threatening antisemitic slogans have been permitted without question. I therefore ask the Minister what discussions he has had with police forces about the thresholds for using Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Can he guarantee that, following these discussions, the police will be under no doubt as to what is and is not permissible under this threshold?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What I can give the noble Lord is an assurance that the police will treat all members of the community on an equal basis before the law. Where actions have been taken by any protester—be they antisemitic, anti-Islamic, anti-Christian or anti any faith—if they cross the threshold of potential investigation/prosecution/conviction, that will be taken forward on an equal basis by the police. We keep these matters under discussion all the time. There is in my view no such thing as two-tier policing. The police do a job effectively and they will take action when matters are brought to their attention.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, I declare my interest. Together with the National Secular Society, we paid for the defence of the individual referred to and we will jointly be paying for his appeal. At 2 am on Saturday, the individual in question was woken by police officers at his safe house to inform him that the Metropolitan Police were investigating a plot to kill him. Will the Minister join me in urging the police to do their utmost to protect the individual in question? We do not want a repeat of what happened in Sweden last January, when an Iraqi refugee who had repeatedly burned copies of the Koran was murdered.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Let me put it this way. If a potential offence—which threats to kill are—is made, the police have a duty to investigate and, if the offence proves to have validity, to take action, to prepare a case, to go to the CPS and to take potential conviction action where the court will determine whether the allegation the noble Lord has made is correct. The individual concerned is appealing. I cannot comment on the appeal; Members of this House would not expect me to comment on either the conviction to date or the potential appeal. I say to the noble Lord that, if offences are potentially being committed, it is the duty of the police to investigate and take action. I will leave it—if he will let me, in a freedom of speech way—at that.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

What is the view of the Government about incidents logged by the police which do not in fact create crimes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are in discussion with the police, the College of Policing and the Chief Constables’ Council on the very issue the noble and learned Baroness raises. That has come out of a number of cases since the general election which have been brought to our attention, where we believe the police should be taking action to investigate crimes. But they should also be proportionate in what they do in relation to the way in which that crime is brought to their attention and make a decision on that. I have been clear at this Dispatch Box on several occasions that the police need to examine the approach to those non-crime hate incidents very clearly. I believe the police will be doing so and issuing guidance in due course.

Electric Cycles: Illegal Use on Roads

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage police forces across England and Wales to seize electric cycles being used illegally on roads.

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

My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government will amend Section 59 of the Police Reform Act to allow the police to seize any vehicle, including e-scooters, which are used in an antisocial manner, without having to first give a warning to the offender. The Government are also consulting on proposals to allow police more swiftly to dispose of seized vehicles. These actions, I believe, will send a clear message that anti-social use of any vehicle will not be tolerated.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I commend the new Government for taking some steps, but I do not think they have taken enough. Sergeant Ford, who sits here today, has a small team of 10 in the City of London Police—the smallest force in the country—who are actually doing something about cyclists who are ignoring the law, particularly on e-bikes. He and the courts class e-bikes that do not conform to the regulations as motor vehicles. Those who drive them on our roads without insurance get six points on their licence. When are the Government going to get a grip on this? Every day, we see cycles and e-bikes travelling at 30 or 40 mph on our streets, putting our pedestrians at risk, and it seems that our forces are doing nothing about it. I challenge the Government to do more.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I commend the City of London Police for its actions. The force covers a small geographical area, but it seized 325 e-cycles in 2024, which is a good thing. The noble Lord mentioned legislation; we have tabled several new offences to the Crime and Policing Bill, on causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling. Those four new offences—if passed by this House and the House of Commons—will ensure that there are further measures in place that the police can enforce. There is no point in passing legislation if the police do not enforce it. I know, from my view of London every day, that there are people cycling dangerously and cycling in a way that will potentially cause injury. This legislation and the power to seize bikes will send a clear signal that we will not tolerate this.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the greatest hazards among users of e-bikes comes from delivery drivers who have disengaged the speed limiter? They are fairly easy to recognise. Should the police not be focusing on them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is absolutely right: delivery drivers are a potential area of hazard. This legislation will apply to them, but it is also incumbent on those companies that employ delivery drivers to take action in the event of individuals being found to have breached the legislation, who have perhaps secured points on their licence and will, in future, perhaps be subject to this legislation.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, given the challenges with identifying illegally modified e-bikes, and given the success of the mobile rolling road test benches used in the Netherlands that enable police quickly and accurately to determine whether e-bikes exceed legal power or speeds, will the Government consider looking at what is being done in the Netherlands and deciding whether that might be appropriate to use here? I think the Government will find that the success in the Netherlands is something that we really ought to replicate here.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I will certainly look at the position in the Netherlands and see what we can take from that. The measures that I mentioned will be before this House in very short order, when there will be an opportunity to examine and further debate them. It is also important to say that the police take very seriously the question of offenders on e-cycles that are modified and looked on as motorcycles. When appropriate, if they wish to, the police may even pursue an illegally modified e-cycle and employ tactical options to bring the vehicle to a stop. This is unacceptable anti-social behaviour, and the Government are taking it seriously and have put new legislation forward. For the very reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, we want to ensure that the police up their performance in tackling this by making arrests and seizing bikes where they cross the threshold of illegality.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, the steps that the Government have announced are very welcome, but will they do more to hold to account the corporate interest, which is employing some of the delivery drivers that, quite rightly, have been named as a problem here, and call them in and make it clear that the low-paid workers who are riding a lot of these illegal, uninsurable vehicles are not the only ones who should be held to account here? Those big tech companies should be told that, unless they make it clear that illegal bikes cannot be used to deliver our groceries and takeaways, they too will be held to account.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. There is a corporate responsibility for people who are employed to deliver. If a vehicle, as in a delivery car or van, was undertaking persistent behaviour of an antisocial nature, I am sure the company would take action, and companies should be looking to do the same with cycles and e-bikes. I hope my noble friend will accept that the measures before the House shortly are an initial, very strong signal on criminal action on potential death and injury from cycling and on the seizure of bikes by the police. At the moment, the seizure of bikes can be undertaken by the police, but they have to give a warning. Under the legislation before us now, no warning will be given: a bike will be seized if the police officer wishes to seize it. We will take action and dispose of that bike or crush it within short order.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it is currently illegal to use a bicycle or an e-bike on a pavement. It is putting vulnerable people, such as people in wheelchairs and young children in prams, at risk. I welcome the provisions that the Minister is including in the Crime and Policing Bill, and I think it encompasses a lot of the provisions in my Private Member’s Bill. If the police are not enforcing the current law, what possible hope do we have that they will enforce any future law?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the work that the noble Baroness has done on this matter. The Private Members’ Bills that she has brought forward have been very instrumental in raising this issue. It is self-evidently an issue: in the course of the day, none of us will drive or walk around and not see somebody committing an offence that should be taken to court and dealt with. The police have many calls on their time, and they have to be there to see the potential offence and catch the individual at that time. I am very hopeful that the 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers that this Government are putting in place will be able to help support that enforcement and that action. I remind the noble Baroness that those are 13,000 officers that were not there over the previous 14 years.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, leading on from the Minister’s answer, this is a serious matter, which needs to be addressed by government. I wager that every noble Lord has seen some sort of illegality related to electric cycles, such as speeding violations or people riding them on pavements, and by cyclists, such as running red lights and failing to stop at zebra crossings. In light of this, can I ask the Minister whether the current legal framework around e-cycles and e-scooters is well understood by the public and, indeed, the police? If not, what steps are being taken to address it? Does he consider that sufficient attention is being given by the police to this issue? If not, what is his department doing to remedy it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is important that cyclists particularly understand and know the legislation that appertains to their responsibility in using a bike or e-bike. Going back to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, 324 offences were undertaken and arrests were made in the City of London; over 1,000 were undertaken in the remainder of the Metropolitan Police area, and there were many more across the country at large. For those offences, individuals need to know that, if you go through a traffic light, ride on a pavement or crash into somebody, there is a consequence for you if you are seen by a police officer and brought to account. The new offences will mean that the dangerous behaviour that the noble Lord has mentioned of potential injury or potential death by going across a zebra crossing or going through a red light will face a significant punishment of custodial terms. People—drivers, pedestrians and, dare I say it, cyclists—need to understand that.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, electric cycles that meet the specific regulations are allowed to be used on public roads. There are numerous parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, where electric scooters are banned on public roads. Despite this, they are often ridden openly and recklessly in these locations. What can the Minister and his ministerial colleagues do to persuade local police forces throughout the kingdom to use the powers given to them to confiscate electric scooters that are used contrary to the law?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The law is there for individuals to adhere to, and it is for the police, in the event of people not adhering to it, to collect evidence and put it to the Crown Prosecution Service, which can put it to the courts to issue penalties. We are trying to improve the level of the penalties and improve the ability of police to take action speedily rather than having to give warnings first. There are different arrangements in place in other parts of the United Kingdom, because some of the aspects we are bringing forward are devolved to England only or are matters for England and Wales through the police force. It is a serious issue, which I know every elected Member in the House of Commons and every Member in this House, takes extremely seriously, because we can see the visible impact of those offences on a daily basis. The commitment I am giving to the House is that, if the House passes the legislation, there will be additional measures and powers which will, I hope, impact upon the public awareness, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned, and on criminal justice outcomes.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

Motion agreed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

Motion agreed.