Southport Inquiry: Prevent Programme

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 report, published on 13 April, what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Prevent programme, in particular its ability to prevent similar attacks.

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

This was a horrific attack and my thoughts remain with the families of victims. Since the attack in Southport, Ministers have taken steps to improve Prevent, including new guidance, training and assessment tools, a stronger approach to repeat referrals and new Channel interventions. We have also introduced the role of Prevent commissioner to provide independent oversight of Prevent’s effectiveness. We will respond in full to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

One lesson that we could take from the Southport tragedy is that the focus on terrorism and ideology by Prevent actually distracts the police, schools and social services from dealing with a group of young adults who have different needs. Does the Minister perhaps agree that it is time to stop arresting peaceful eco-protesters and start thinking more about the violent people who do not fit into the ideological category that Prevent deals with?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The second phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s investigation into the events at Southport includes examining the very issue the noble Baroness has mentioned: the wider, non-ideologically driven potential activity that leads to terrorist or violent behaviour. That second phase, and the terms of reference that we have given Sir Adrian, cover that point. In the Home Office we are also looking at those issues internally, through a separate working party that we have established to examine them. The noble Baroness will know my views on other forms of issues that she has raised; I will not repeat them now, for the sake of brevity.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, our thoughts are with the victims and their families, especially this week with the publication of the inquiry report, which will have brought back many sad memories. The inquiry report is very clear that, unlike with the safeguarding of children, there is a glaring hole in the joint sharing of information to ensure that all agencies are aware of the risks that a child poses to others in society. Yesterday my noble friend Lady Doocey pointed out that under the Crime and Policing Bill the police will need to consult only the youth offending team. Surely, as the report suggests, there must be one lead agency managing this information, but all the agencies involved—schools, social care, medical services—must have a duty to record and share information. Will the Government look at this as an absolute, urgent priority?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the Statement yesterday, I responded to the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to introduce amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill finishes its stages in Parliament this week or, potentially, next week or the week after. We have been very clear that we want to examine the recommendations in full, but we received these recommendations only at noon on Monday. I think it is fair that we give them consideration, but the noble Baroness’s point about data sharing and co-operation was a significant failure identified by Sir Adrian, and one we will respond to in full in the summer.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is no suggestion that people who are demonstrating should be arrested or harassed in any way, and that the only people who are being arrested or harassed are those acting illegally?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a tangential point to the issue in relation to Southport, but I assure my noble friend that both Houses of Parliament have passed legislation—in this case, banning Palestine Action. That is subject to a current court case. We have taken that decision on solid advice from security services, and nobody is stopping anybody protesting about Palestine, Israel or any other issue. Under clear proscription orders from the powers that the Government have, any terrorist-related item is banned. We made a judgment on Palestine Action that it is terrorist-related action. It is subject to court procedures at the moment, but I hope we can resolve them very shortly.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, while the Government are considering the Fulford report and what they should be doing next, will they have something and somebody in place to take decisions if this happens before they have completed their inquiries?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we have established a separate working group of officials. They are looking not just at the recommendations for advice for Ministers but at the type of individual and at the incident that occurred. They will test with police forces and others why and how that incident in Southport occurred. That working group is looking not at the ideological issues but at individuals who are obsessed with violence, which was the potential motivating factor of the Southport attack. We are very cognisant that, pending the recommendations being examined and reported back on, any individual at any time can undertake serious violent action motivated by their love and desire to be involved in such action.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, early intervention on those individuals who may be defined or identified as extremists is vital. Previously, as the Minister will be aware, we have had a Minister for Countering Extremism and a strategy. What work is being done in that regard to ensure that early identifiers on individuals can be put in place? Is the Extremism Analysis Unit, which was previously established in the Home Office, still active? Many of those who are coming under the influence of extremism are influenced online.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentions an important point: we are very cognisant of online radicalisation, and the Home Office is looking at what steps we can take to improve the take-down of difficult sites and to look at tracing back those sites. We are continually monitoring the whole issue of counterextremism and how that works, both through my colleague Ministers and through the security services. We will continue to monitor our support and Prevent mechanisms. Prevent has helped around 6,000 people not to go into extremist activity in the last nine years. It is a good programme but, as I have mentioned, we have tweaked it based on the experiences of what happened in Southport in the very early days of this Government.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in addition to the points that noble Lords around the House have made—about multi-agency co-operation and single-agency lead, and indeed the last comments about the internet, and about violent and misogynistic material in particular—will my noble friend also consider issues around the challenges of parenting a very troubled and potentially violent child, and around support and accountability? Will that be on the Government’s agenda as well?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the recommendations from Sir Adrian was on assessing the parents of the individual who is, I remind the House, now serving 52 years as a minimum sentence in prison for the assault. The failure of the parents to understand, establish and report the behaviour of the individual was a critical factor, so Sir Adrian has made a number of recommendations in that area. We received the recommendations on Monday; it is important to give them due consideration. We will report back to the House by the summer, but those are key areas where we need to look at what interventions can be made where there are difficult young people involved in activity that can escalate to the incident that happened in Southport.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we touched on a number of issues yesterday during the Government’s Statement on the dreadful events at Southport, including the Mental Health Act. This was of course expressly designed for the purpose of limiting the extent to which autistic people can be detained and treated. Given that one of the contributing factors to both Rudakubana’s behaviour and the authorities’ failure to intervene was his autism diagnosis, will the new national autism strategy now look to change this approach? Can the Minister outline when we can expect to see that strategy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the recommendations said the issue of autism was a potential contributing factor but not the sole contributing factor. As I mentioned on the Statement last night, it is anticipated that a revised autism strategy being produced by other parts of government will be done in relatively short order. I cannot give the noble Lord a timescale from the Dispatch Box because it is not my direct departmental responsibility, but I will look into that and report back to him by letter.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, there can be no excuse for violence, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is an epidemic of loneliness in this country at the moment? Sometimes, individuals who spend a lot of time in their rooms alone are somehow encouraged to engage in violent acts. Does he further agree that perhaps it is time for the Government to renew their strategy on loneliness so that we can make a real inroad into this epidemic?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think my noble friend will recognise that there are key issues and impacts from individuals living solitary lives, getting information and their contact with the outside world via the internet and, very often, the dark web. One of the issues that Sir Adrian has raised with us is what we do about radicalisation and information provided by the internet. We will look at that. The wider loneliness strategy is an important factor that my noble friend has mentioned. It is key that we look at the type of information that goes through the net and the type of exposure that individuals have, and particularly that we improve our take-down and blocking of information that goes beyond the pale and damages our society as a whole.

Knife Crime

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s new strategy in broad terms. It is the right direction of travel. There is much in Protecting Lives, Building Hope to support the focus on prevention, early intervention and joined-up local action. These are principles that the Liberal Democrats have long championed, and it is good to see them reflected in national policy.

Knife crime continues to harm too many lives and too many communities. Many areas still feel the effects of reduced youth services and local support. Rebuilding these networks must be central, and I am encouraged that the strategy recognises that. The principle behind the plan is sound. If delivered well it can do lasting good, but success depends on sustained funding. Prevention cannot be turned on and off with budget cycles. Youth work and early intervention succeed only when they are steady and trusted.

Resources should be directed where fear and harm are greatest. Knife crime shapes how young people move about their area, how safe they feel and where they go. A data-driven approach is sensible, provided that it is used carefully and does not erode trust or concentrate suspicion unfairly. Real neighbourhood policing, visible, consistent and rooted in local knowledge, remains the best safeguard against that.

Technology and crime mapping can help, but that is not the whole answer. Ours is already one of the most surveilled countries in the world and London alone is the most heavily monitored city in Europe. Knife crime, however, is a human problem requiring human connection. Innovation should complement proper front-line presence and strong community partnerships but never replace them, and we must guard against technology that subtly changes the nature of society or erodes rights and freedoms.

The strategy rightly points to the role of social media in glamorising violence, spreading fear and helping criminal networks to recruit and communicate. But we have reached the stage where policing online platforms requires more than new laws and rhetoric; it demands sustained, visible enforcement. The Online Safety Act provides for serious criminal penalties. What the public want to know now is how often these powers are used.

One area which needs clarity is the future of serious violence reduction orders, which allow stop and search of known offenders without suspicion. The Liberal Democrats have long had concerns about their proportionality and impact on public confidence. Can the Minister confirm whether they will continue and when Parliament will see the pilot evaluation? If they are not to be extended, we should understand why, and if future use is being considered, the evidence should be published in full.

This strategy contains many of the right elements. The challenge now is delivery and ensuring that those commitments lead to genuine, lasting change on the ground. The Liberal Democrats will support that ambition and work constructively to make it happen.

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

I am grateful for the broad support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the Government’s approach. This was a manifesto commitment to ensure that we tackle knife crime and halve it in the period of the action plan that we have brought forward today.

I just want to say to the House as an opener that the success to date in the last two years has also seen a reduction in knife crime as a whole. In the year before the start of this Parliament—2023-24—knife crime rose by 4% and by 4% in the year before that. Since the start of this Parliament, overall knife crime is down 8% and knife-related homicides and hospital admissions for assault with a sharp object are at their lowest level in a decade, dropping 27% and 11% respectively. Knife-enabled assaults are down by 9%, knife-enabled robberies are down by 10%, and more than 63,000 knives have been taken out of circulation, including in ninja sword surrender schemes that that we introduced following the ban on ninja swords last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned London. Since this Government were elected, knife crime in London has fallen by 7%. There were 15,981 offences in the last year of his Government, compared with 14,860 offences in the first year of this Government. So there is success but there is still individual challenge and individual responsibility is still required.

The knife crime action plan is a very substantial document and I recommend that noble Lords look at it in detail. It reflects a number of the concerns mentioned by both Front Benches, including the fact that we need to look at prevention, targeted hotspot work and supporting young people, particularly to avoid them getting involved in gangs. That is not just an aspiration from this Government. We will launch 50 Young Futures hubs by the end of this Parliament; the initial eight opened last week. We are putting an extra £66 million into the serious violence reduction programme. We are rolling out 50 Young Futures panels. We have provided £1.2 million for safety through school partnerships in 250 schools in knife crime hotspots, and have put £26 million into the knife crime concentrations fund.

It might interest the House to know that 27 police force areas make up 90% of the total knife crime in this country. It makes sense, therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, to try to focus resources on those hotspot areas. In this plan, we have now put £34 million into funding the county lines programme. We have put money into the pupil premium to look at funding violence-reduction programmes in those hotspot areas. We have put £15 million through the Ministry of Justice into interventions for children who are approaching the cusp of the criminal justice system but who should be moved away from it; and we are putting money into safer research and safer streets as a whole. As can be seen, this involves the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office: this is a cross-government strategy to try to ensure that we reduce knife crime by half, as in the plan before us.

The question of stop and search is important, and we need to use it proportionately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. It may surprise the House, and I hope will not horrify it, to know that 15,955 knives were recovered last year alone through stop and search. Without stop and search, those 15,955 knives would have been in people’s pockets, potentially being used to additionally attack, in either a robbery or an assault, or being used for defensive purposes leading to injury or death as a result of knife crime. We certainly need to look at the challenges of stop and search to make sure that it is fairly approached and done in a proper, effective way. I cannot, however, get away from the fact that almost 16,000 knives were found on people through both random stop and search and through intelligence-led policing, where we know that individuals may be knife carriers. Finding some 15,955 knives in one year is a deterrent, but it is also an important issue.

The question of sentencing is also important. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. He knows that tomorrow we will deal with those amendments. The Government have reflected on the concerns that he put, legitimately, on behalf of HMG Opposition. Tomorrow, there will be amendments that will move some way towards increasing the level of sentence as a whole. He will also know that the Government have a range of issues to do with prohibiting the purchase of knives online, stricter laws on age verification, checks on sale and delivery—all of which are in the Crime and Policing Bill, which I hope will receive favourable consideration for Royal Assent shortly. By autumn of this year, we will begin to put into practice the measures that have been legislated for in both Houses to help increase the restriction on knives as a whole.

On 16 December last year, we also launched a public consultation on a licensing scheme for those who sell knives or bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers. That follows recommendations made in the end-to-end review on online knife sales to introduce a registration scheme to ensure that we have a minimum standard and that we can monitor those issues. We also have a range of measures going forward on the police numbers issue that the noble Lord mentioned. One of the purposes of the Government’s action was to focus again on neighbourhood policing, local police in local hotspots, and we have put 3,100 additional police officers and police community support officers into neighbourhood roles in less than a year. We have a plan to bring forward 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of this Parliament.

That is the most important thing. Neighbourhood police officers know their flock, know the businesses and know the individuals in their community. They can gather intelligence, provide support to individuals, look at where gangs are operating and help co-ordinate interventions, along with the funding that we are providing in this plan. We will have a debate about police numbers, but the importance of having police in a neighbourhood is critical, and that is what the Government are trying to do with this proposal, in parallel to the action plan as a whole.

The House will know that this is an extremely difficult task. I will look at the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned, reflect on those and, if need be, respond to her by letter. This is an extremely thorough plan. It has new resource going to it to help meet its objectives, it is cross-government, it is paralleled with legislation currently before this House, and we will continue to work to improve neighbourhood policing over the course of this Parliament. Can we stop all knife crime? No, we cannot. Can we have an objective of achieving a halving of knife crime? Yes, we can. I pay tribute not just to Home Office officials but the police, community groups, campaigners and victims of knife crime who have helped formulate this plan. I hope that the House will give it its full support.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given a really scary figure of 16,000 knives having been confiscated—I take it that is what happened—as a result of stop and search. My noble friend may not have it available, but is there information on the ages of those who have been stopped? Is it just young men or have older men also been stopped? Does my noble friend have any information—he may need to research it, and I do not expect him to give me an answer right now—on what happened to those 16,000 persons who were found to be carrying a knife? It must have been in some form of illegal circumstances. What follow-through has been achieved out of this really scary figure of nearly 16,000 knives being confiscated following stop and search?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I gave that figure to the House because it is accurate and it shows the value of stop and search as a policing exercise for prevention. I do not have to hand the figures on age distribution but I can probably find those for my noble friend. If I can, I will write to him accordingly and place a copy of that letter in the House Library. I also do not have at my fingertips the criminal justice outcome information regarding the 16,000 individuals who have been found in possession of a knife, but, if it has been collated, I am sure that I can find it and give it to my noble friend. These are figures for last year. We know the stop and search outcomes: there are severe penalties for knife possession without a legitimate purpose. I will certainly examine the points my noble friend has made and, if I can, respond to him by letter.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this good and comprehensive plan. However, the important thing is that it is sustained and is not just a flash in the pan where, in a few years’ time, we start cutting away the funding and looking at other approaches. It has to be maintained. I turn to the point about youth work that the Minister made. Youth work must be an important part of the package. Young people need to be able to relate to people—I think the Minister used the expression “human contact”—wherever they gather, whether it is in the park, the street corner, et cetera. That is why detached youth work is so important. Will the detached youth workers be qualified, and how many detached youth workers are we talking about?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s broad support for the action plan. It is an ambitious target to halve knife crime within a decade, but it is one that we think is worth achieving. As I said in what I outlined to the House, there are measures about legislation, about policing and about stop and search, but there is also a great emphasis on prevention. The prevention estimates are predominantly dealt with by my colleagues in the Department for Education. We are trying to open the 50 young future hubs by the end of this Parliament. The initial eight opened last week; they have long-term funding and back-up for the course of this Parliament.

The noble Lord makes an interesting point on the question of detached youth work. I do not have statistics on that in front of me, and I would not wish to second-guess what they may be, but I shall examine that issue and talk to colleagues in the Department for Education, and if I have information that I can share with the noble Lord I shall do so in writing. The important point is that in this measure that we have here there are the youth future hubs, £66 million for the violence reduction units, and the 50 youth future panels. There is the money going into schools in the hotspot areas and the diversion of £26 million of resources to the 27 police forces in the areas where 90% of knife crime occurs. That is a way of trying to focus it down. It is very important that we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, which is to use intelligent information to determine where this is a problem and therefore look, with neighbourhood police, youth workers and youth hubs, at what interventions are required. That is not for me to second-guess, but it is the direction of travel, and I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. If I can give him the specific information, I shall do so.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I greatly admire the Minister and his approach to these subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised the issue of the 16,000 knives that had been taken. The dilemma that those responsible have to face is that, for some young people, they are set on a career of crime and they are dangerous people who need to be handled with the greatest severity. However, the House will also agree that many young people are terrified and, although they are by no means criminals, they carry a knife for protection. I would only say that trying to get that balance right is extraordinarily difficult, although we have all those preventive and youth support programmes. When my noble friend spoke at the beginning he talked of the importance of work and about keeping young people in school—anything to give young people gainful occupation and stop them slipping into the vicious cycle of knife crime. That is really important, but I for one do not think that every vulnerable young person who is picked up carrying a knife is necessarily a criminal.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness on that. As I said, as part of my general contribution, some of the work that the MoJ is doing and is for individuals who are on that cusp and who might well be getting involved in a gang and carrying a knife. There are resources in the knife crime action plan for the Ministry of Justice not to have a criminal justice outcome for those individuals but to try to find ways in which we can divert them and support them to choose a different lifestyle and break with that gang culture.

Interestingly, some 63,611 knives have been taken out of circulation since the general election through the surrender scheme; that includes weapons through the ninja sword surrender scheme, which had cross-party support, as well as the schemes for zombie knives and machetes, and knives seized by Border Force when they entered the country. We are trying to reduce the types of knife that can be carried or used for those offensive purposes. Every one of us will use a knife in our daily work or life; we have to look at what we do with the ninja knives that we have banned and with the import of the wrong type of knife and the measures that we have taken on registration. The noble Baroness makes a very important point that criminalising young people is not necessarily the best way in which to help them to have a lifetime free of criminal activity, which is key to the plan.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the strategy and specifically on the collaboration across government, which is fundamental to ensuring that this knife crime plan works, as I am sure it will. I draw attention to the big increase in school attendance that the DfE and Ministers there achieved in 2024-25. I know that they are building on that now—5 million extra days of school attendance in that single year, which must make a contribution. Can we encourage the DfE to focus specifically on the most persistent truants in the most dangerous hotspot areas? That would make a significant contribution to the strategy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The ambition of the Government through the Department for Education is to look at improving attendance at schools across the board. I have sat on a couple of Cabinet committees where that work has been shown to prove successful. That is a cross-government initiative to get children and young people into school. My noble friend makes a valuable point. I mentioned earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again, that the pupil premium funding led by the Department for Education is now available to fund particular challenges in state schools that have disadvantaged children and where school attendance is down and there are interventions to support pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs. The pupil premium grant is £3.2 billion this year, and there is significant evidence that, as my noble friend has mentioned, it is an effective way to reduce the risk of serious violence, including knife crime. That is a Department for Education-led approach but, as I have said, the knife crime plan is a prime ministerial objective. The Home Office is leading this, but all departments involved—the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care—are playing a role to meet some objectives to help that ambitious target of halving knife crime.

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

Will the Minister comment on the fact that it seems that some of these youngsters are putting in orders with companies that are not asking enough questions of the people who are buying these weapons—they are likely to be e-commerce companies. Is anybody looking at the record of some of these companies and the fact that they do not ask sufficient questions about some of the people who are purchasing these dangerous weapons?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an extremely valuable point. In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is before the House now but requires Royal Assent, which I hope will be completed in the next couple of weeks, we are putting measures in place requiring online sellers of knives to include age verification controls, checks at sale and also checks at delivery. There are penalties in the Bill for organisations that fail to meet those objectives. The Bill recognises that there are legitimate uses for knives but, at the same time, age verification, checks at sale and delivery are key; they are not in place now but, subject to Royal Assent, will be in place by autumn 2026, when we hope to have rolled out any legislation that is finally passed by this House and the House of Commons before Prorogation.

House adjourned at 6.33 pm.

Southport Inquiry

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the Statement made in the other place. Our thoughts remain with the families of Elsie Dot, Bebe and Alice, and with those still living with the physical and psychological scars of Southport.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the first phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s inquiry. Its findings are indeed unsparing but, tragically, not unsurprising. How often have we stood here after inquests and inquiries, hearing once again of the same systemic failures, poor information sharing and missed opportunities?

The report describes the state’s failure as belonging to everyone and therefore to no one. In the five years before the attack, the perpetrator came into contact with almost every arm of the state: mental health services, children’s social care, three schools, Lancashire Police and the Prevent programme, three times. No comprehensive risk assessment was ever made and each agency assumed someone else would take the lead. This was a failure not only to join up the dots but to share life-saving information. As Sir Adrian warns, that culture must end—because until it does, tragedies like this will happen again.

The Government now say that they will legislate to strengthen accountability between agencies. This is welcome, but it is hard to understand why they are overlooking an opportunity already before them in the Crime and Policing Bill—a Bill which, ironically, could help deliver exactly what the inquiry calls for. The Bill proposes youth diversion orders to support young people who pose a risk of serious violence or radicalisation—precisely the cohort at the centre of this inquiry. Properly framed, these orders could address the very gap Sir Adrian identifies.

When the police apply for an order, the court should be able to see all the relevant information, from schools, social care, health services and the police, to build a complete picture of the child’s needs and risks. However, as drafted in the Bill, that will not happen. The police will consult only the youth offending team. There will be no legal duty to involve schools, health professionals or social services, and no guarantee that the court will ever hear from them. Judges will not see the full picture that could mean the difference between prevention and disaster. That is why I tabled an amendment to introduce a clear multi-agency consultation duty, which would build exactly the structured accountability that Sir Adrian said is essential.

Had such a duty existed before the Southport attack, the perpetrator’s autism might not have been repeatedly misunderstood as an explanation for his behaviour. The police might have known more about the support available, and agencies might have felt obliged to share vital information. I made these points on Report, but the Government resisted the amendment, preferring to rely on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all, but we risk once again seeing fine words followed by inaction.

It is not too late. The Bill will return to this House tomorrow. I urge Ministers to look again, in the light of the inquiry’s finding, and to act swiftly to ensure that the law reflects what Sir Adrian has so clearly set out: lives depend on joined up responsibility and real accountability.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons yesterday. My thoughts and, I know, those of the whole House will be with the families of the three girls who were killed and with the victims who are still suffering the trauma of those events. The events in Southport on 29 July 2024 were completely shocking, and I welcome Sir Adrian Fulford’s report on his findings. I thank him and his team, who I have met on a number of occasions during the first stage of the inquiry. I say to the House as a whole that the Government will consider the recommendations in full, and we will respond to phase 1 of the report by the summer. I thank Sir Adrian again for his work.

Sir Adrian’s inquiry identified five main areas of failings, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, highlighted. Those failings are clear and are very strong criticisms, which we need to examine and address in the response to those recommendations. Sir Adrian indicated that there was a failure of organisation and ownership of risk with the perpetrator themselves. There was poor information management and sharing, there were excuses for the behaviour of the perpetrator due to the diagnosed autism spectrum disorder and there was a failure to oversee and intervene in the perpetrator’s online behaviours. The role of the perpetrator’s parents, as the noble Lord identified, was a major failure. As I said, we will consider those recommendations and formally respond to the inquiry in the summer.

I note and appreciate the comments and the pressure put on me by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but it is important that we get this right and consider the recommendations in full. The Crime and Policing Bill is coming back tomorrow. It will potentially, subject to its passage in the Commons, complete its passage by the end of the Session. I do not want to use that week to rush to a decision, which is why we have said that we will respond to the inquiry by the summer.

As the House will know, we have also established phase 2 of the inquiry, which will begin immediately. We have issued terms of reference for phase 2, which will look at whether multi-agency systems are fit to assess and address the risk posed by young people who are fascinated by extreme violence. I expect to receive the recommendations from Sir Adrian in due course. It is certainly important to look not just at the case of the individual—who, I remind the House, faces a 52-year minimum term sentence in prison for his horrific crimes—but at whether there are other systemic issues that need to be examined. The inquiry has made 67 recommendations in full, and we will respond to those. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to rush those responses today.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, also mentioned Prevent. Since the attack, we have already made improvements to the Prevent programme. This was the most likely framework that could have addressed the risk that the perpetrator posed. To strengthen Prevent, we have launched a new Prevent risk assessment tool, changed the approach to repeat referrals, looked at new guidance to individuals working with people under the Prevent framework and expanded the range of interventions available. We have also introduced the role of the Independent Prevent Commissioner, which was initially held by a colleague—a noble Lord in this House—but has now been approved on a permanent basis, with Tim Jacques being appointed as the Prevent commissioner.

The Government will examine those issues in detail and continue to learn, and will look at the responses to the recommendations in due course. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who holds that role at the moment. I welcome his contribution to date in helping us to improve the Prevent response.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the question of autism. That was identified by Fulford’s initial recommendations. The perpetrator was autistic and clearly this increased the risk he posed to people in the community. However, autism itself did not necessarily cause the events that happened on 29 July 2024. Risk needs to be assessed on an individual basis. In the case of the Southport perpetrator, autism spectrum disorder clearly added to the risk he posed. The inquiry found that too many professionals were willing to excuse his behaviour because of this. We will make sure that practitioners, particularly those working in Prevent, understand that a referral should not be dismissed and that action should be taken. This behaviour should not have been excused because of autism. The inquiry highlights serious concerns.

For the noble Lord’s information, independently of this inquiry, the Government are committed to developing a new autism strategy following recent House of Lords reports on the Autism Act 2009. Work is under way to develop a cross-government national autism strategy. The inquiry’s findings will be carefully considered as part of this proposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the parents. The inquiry examined the role of the perpetrator’s family and has been extremely critical of them. Sir Adrian makes clear findings on moral failings that should have been reported regarding the perpetrator’s behaviour, his collecting of weapons, and his approach to family life and the community around him. It is a matter ultimately for the police whether any criminal action is taken in relation to the parents. The parents are British citizens and have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, as does the perpetrator. There are certainly lessons to be learned from that and we will respond to the recommendations in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the question of race. In this case, that may be a factor, where people have not taken the action that they should have because of the individual’s race. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the action taken by the perpetrator, who is now serving 52 years in prison, could have been taken by anybody, regardless of race. I do not want to bring the issue of race into this, but I understand the point that the noble Lord has made—namely, that professionals need to ignore race when they look at the actions of an individual. That is the important point that has come out of this report.

Finally, the Government have already taken further action to ensure that we establish an internal working group to look at the recommendations that have been made. As I have said to the House, we will report back by the summer on those initial recommendations. Phase 2 has begun now and it has our full support. As the Minister sponsoring the inquiry, I will continue to meet Sir Adrian to ensure that he has the resource and support to achieve his final recommendations.

It is clear to the House that the individual concerned undertook appalling acts. Our thoughts remain with the families of the victims. It is our duty as the Government to look at where failures existed that contributed to this attack. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, but there are factors that contributed to the attack. With due respect to all Members of the House, we need to reflect on the recommendations. We will bring back government proposals in due course for phases 1 and 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an absolutely fair point. Again I put to the House that Sir Adrian’s recommendations are clear. There are five areas of failing. We are looking at those recommendations and will report on them in the summer. The second phase is looking at the wider picture. We will look at those recommendations in due course.

However, the Home Office is not complacent. We have established a violence fixation taskforce, which is looking at a range of issues in the Home Office: the recommendations, the Government’s response and the development of the very issue that the noble Lord mentions, which is identifying individuals at risk who are fascinated by violence, managing that risk and looking with other agencies at what we need to do, pending a formal response to the recommendations in due course.

It is very difficult sometimes if individuals appear from nowhere. We cannot necessarily legislate against that, but it is important that we review now what the priority approaches are to make sure that, if there are people in the system, we examine that very clearly and quickly. The Home Office taskforce is now being commissioned by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to establish some general examination of the very issues that the noble Lord mentions. I hope to report back to the House in due course.

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and Southport. In the immediate days after this unspeakable tragedy, additional resources were put into Southport in terms of policing and counselling for young people in the local community and local schools. The support provided by the local community after this tragedy was immense: the local authority, schools and the voluntary sector. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister what his plans are to ensure that this support is continued to a community in Southport that is still in mourning and in shock?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes the valid point that the whole community in Southport and in Merseyside, and the religious community in the area, came together to give support to the families. This happened two weeks after the general election. The local MP, Patrick Hurley, had just been elected. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has helped support the local community in Southport. The churches, the imams and the local Jewish community have all come together to give that support. The Government recognised the needs of Southport by putting additional resources into the local council and the local community and will continue to monitor that.

This is a major, traumatic event for the families and for the community as a whole. It is important that we do what we can to maintain community cohesion and support the local community. The Government stand ready to continue to give help and support where required, during both the second stage of these recommendations and the whole process of Southport healing and remembering the victims of this despicable crime.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I cannot imagine what it is like for the parents of those three little girls and the other injured children to hear the key word that was used in relation to the inquiry: that these events were “preventable”. That is the most chilling idea: they could have been stopped. The butcher behind the slaughter was hiding in plain sight—a known risk since 13—but, somehow, state bodies did nothing, zilch. So how will those state agencies that failed here be held to account? Will people be sacked? Surely, there must be some consequences. It cannot just be a vague, “Lessons must be learned”.

The Minister said that we should not bring race in to this. I do not think anyone did, except the state agencies that said action should not be taken because of the race of the individual. I am referring as well to the ongoing Nottingham inquiry—I am sure the Minister is following it—where Calocane also murdered three innocent people. Nobody wants to talk about race but, as Emma, the mother of Barnaby, one of the murdered people, said, “I don’t want to talk about race”, but mental health treatment was not given to him because it might be seen as being because he was Black. A bastardised anti-racism has not helped us here and will not help us hold people to account, either. We must be honest and frank. We are not bringing race into this; the institutions and state bodies did.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I was clear and I thought I made it clear to the House when I talked about the issue of race and said that the characteristics that led to the individual perpetrating this awful attack were mental health issues, obsession and a range of other issues that were identified in the report. There was an element of people using the issue of race to not necessarily follow through on some of the points that they could have done, but the race of the perpetrator is an issue that we need to be very careful about examining per se. There are obviously issues within that.

When we look at Adrian Fulford’s recommendations in due course, there are obviously failures around the management of the individual. We will look at those recommendations. On the individuals who have been criticised, I am sure there will be discussion with local authorities and others about how they improve that performance. But I say to the noble Baroness that we had this report yesterday at noon. It is important that we look at and assess the recommendations. I have given a commitment that we will report back by the end of the summer, and that is one thing that we will do. So, if she will allow me, I will not comment on the issues she has raised pending the examination of the inquiry in detail.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, after what happened in Southport, is it fair to say that the parameters within which Prevent operates are too narrowly drawn? What I mean by that is that the perpetrator’s obsession with violence was drawn to the attention of Prevent three times, but Prevent’s response was, “Well, because he doesn’t fall within these narrow parameters, there is basically nothing we can do”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for making the very important point that there are issues that we need to examine in relation to obsession with serious violence that may be outside the Prevent programme but need to be examined as part of the characteristics of somebody referred to Prevent. Part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s inquiry has very clear terms of reference to look at the issues of how individuals are being radicalised and how they are becoming obsessed with violence. Sometimes that violence obsession is not linked not to an ideology but to the whole principle of, “I want to be involved in violence”. That is a new element that we need to examine, and part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s report is designed to look at that very issue.

We have already reviewed the Prevent agenda and widened its scope. The Independent Prevent Commissioner has already produced a report for us on those issues, and we are going to continue to look at how we improve Prevent. I say to my noble friend that Prevent has been a significant intervention in almost 6,000 cases to date and has turned many people’s lives around. It has had cross-government support and support from all parties, and I want to continue to use it. But there are certainly lessons to be learned, which is what we will do in relation to our examination of these issues.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister say what advice he has given or is planning to give to the Secretary of State for Education about managing the risk that, sadly, some young people present to their peers and to adults? I ask this because I read the Southport report and all the shocking findings it lays out immediately after reading a recently published Ofsted document on its areas of research interest, where there is an explicit statement that it is aligned with the Department for Education’s areas of interest. They are overwhelmingly about how to include more children who face additional barriers and need extra support and how to support them better. There is not a single question in the whole of it that acknowledges the risk that sometimes exists for other children when high-risk children are included, yet there are, to touch on points that others have made, a number of questions that express concern about stereotyping. It feels as though some departments are still going headlong down the route of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to as a sort of bastardised anti-racism and failing to be honest, open and transparent in the interests of all children—who can no longer include, sadly, the children who were murdered at Southport, but should include all their successors.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. Self-evidently, there are lessons to be learned by the health service, education and other agencies of government and at a regional level from the failures that occurred that Sir Adrian has identified. As part of our task force examining the recommendations, we will certainly be involving other government departments and discussing with them how we can help them to improve their performance. There may be lessons to be learned, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to education. I expect that when we respond to the recommendations, that will be a cross-government response. It will not just be a Home Office response. It will include the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Department of Health. I will, if she will let me, reflect on the points that she has made and feed them into my colleagues in education. We will continue to look at that as a cross-government approach to the recommendations that Sir Adrian has made.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, this has been one of the most horrendous cases that we have witnessed. I believe that the public have lost confidence in so many authorities which should be looking after our children, and all of us, frankly. I recall the Victoria Climbié case and the many children over the years who were murdered and tortured, and there were always lessons to be learned. This is not pointed at just one Government by the way; it is just a fact of life. Latterly, we had the Manchester Arena bomber and all those children who were murdered, and we have had rape gangs, a situation that has gone on for the past 20 or 30 years. Here we are now in Southport. My view is that the public have lost confidence because nobody is ever held to account. This is not about just pointing a finger and wanting to see somebody in authority end up in court, but the cover-ups that have gone on in some of these awful circumstances, with nobody brought to account or feeling the full force of the law, cannot continue. Until this is dealt with in a far more open manner and those who are accountable feel the full force of the law, I do not think we are going to get any further forward, and there will be no lessons learned because we will probably be having this sort of conversation in another year or two’s time. I know that the noble Lord is a good Minister and very thorough and that all of us in this House want to resolve these awful issues. He has our full support, but we need to regain the confidence of the public.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to give confidence to the public, and the purpose of the inquiry that the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper launched was to ensure that we drew out some lessons. There will always be, in the cycle of any Government at any time, things thrown up that show failures. This inquiry has found that no single agency, or multi-agency arrangement, took ownership of the risk; that is unacceptable. There was poor information recording management and sharing of agencies and professions; that is unacceptable. The behaviour of the individual was excused based on his autism; that should not have happened. There was a failure to understand and intervene in online behaviours, both at home and at school, and his parents in particular had major failings in excusing his behaviour.

Can we make changes on those things? The recommendations that Sir Adrian has made are guidance for us. In answer to the earlier question of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, we are going to reflect on those in due course. A range of issues might come out of that, including how we hold individuals to account. The key thing, having had those recommendations at 12 noon yesterday, is that the Government have time to consider them properly, and to bring back a plan for both Houses of Parliament. As soon as those recommendations were received by Government, we brought them to this House, and the House of Commons, to share them in an open and public way, so that colleagues will know that we share those concerns. We have, I hope, the full support of the House to address them, and will do our best to ensure systemic failures are addressed and, if need be, individuals are held to account.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not usually call for bans, but I would like to call for a ban on the phrase “lessons must be learned”. That is what makes the public feel cynical. I have been here for a few years, and “lessons must be learned” has been said so often to me, but none has ever been learned, as far as I can see. Can we just stop saying that phrase, because everyone just rolls their eyes? That was a joke.

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

Excuse me, but it is not time for a joke. Statements should be about questions to the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me give the noble Baroness an answer. If she thinks that we are not going to take this issue seriously, bring forward a plan, respond to the recommendations and, yes, learn some lessons, then she is dealing with the wrong Minister in the wrong place. My job is to make sure that we respond to this in an effective and constructive way. I am trying to reach out to the whole House to say that there is, I hope, a unified approach to these recommendations. I will report back and, if lessons have to be learned—I will use that phrase again—the whole purpose of the Government’s actions will be to prevent this happening in the future as far as possible. That is what this Government are trying to do.

Child Poverty and Homelessness: Asylum and Settlement Policies

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for their child poverty and homelessness strategies of their proposed changes in asylum and settlement policies.

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

The Government will ensure that the needs of vulnerable people, including families with children, are fully considered as part of our asylum and settlement reforms. We remain committed to assessing all proposals carefully to create a system which is both fair and sustainable. Ministers are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of these changes, especially in relation to child poverty and homelessness.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the child poverty and homelessness strategies have been widely welcomed, but there is growing concern that the asylum and settlement policies will, as a recent Home Affairs Committee report warned, lead to more child poverty, thereby undermining these strategies. The Home Affairs Committee is clear that

“The Government will need to understand and mitigate any increase in child poverty”.


Will my noble friend therefore please undertake, first, to publish now an assessment of the impact of their policies on child poverty and homelessness, and secondly, to review and ease the “no recourse to public funds” rules, actual and proposed, so as to meet the child poverty strategy’s commitment to ensuring that vulnerable migrant children receive the support that they require, regardless of immigration status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that the aim of these measures is to reduce misuse of support, not to make people homeless or to increase child poverty, which it is a core mission of the Labour Government to eradicate. We will not deny support to those who genuinely need it and who have no way to support themselves. My noble friend will also know that we have consulted on these measures. We have had some 200,000 responses and we are currently assessing them. A full economic impact assessment and equality impact assessment of the regulations will be undertaken in due course, and we will look at the responses to the consultation to inform how we deal with these measures as we go forward.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, as a former director of the Jesuit Refugee Service, I am concerned that the changes to the duration of refugee protection may create a state of permanent vulnerability and instability for refugee households. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact of these changes on the mental health of refugees, and their implications for provision of services by the NHS and others?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness will know and will want to be assured that the whole purpose of these changes is to make both asylum and refugee status quicker in dealing with those outcomes. We have made some changes, and during the 30-month period of protection, if it is granted, refugees will continue to have the sanctuary their protection requires, and it will be renewed if they still require it. But the important thing is to assess claims quickly in order to make sure that we grant status quickly, so that people can earn a living and integrate into society.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, on the settlement policy, does my noble friend the Minister accept that extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years for care workers and other workers represents a breach of trust? They came here at our invitation and in good faith to care for our elderly and vulnerable people, and now they are being betrayed. Will the Government reconsider this policy and honour their original commitment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend knows, the earned settlement consultation ran for 12 weeks. It began on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026. We are now reviewing and analysing all the responses received. That analysis will help us inform the development of that earned settlement model. I value the contribution that many people who came to this country as care workers have made. We need a supply of care workers; we need people to do those jobs in our community, but I also encourage people in this country who are unemployed at the moment to take on that work. We are assessing the contributions; as I said, we have had more than 200,000 responses and it is fair that we assess them. I assure my noble friend that the Government will act in the interests of the care sector and of the people who are here in the long term, as part of our response.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, homelessness in London has increased by 63% over the last decade—a rise largely driven by an influx of illegal immigrants, who themselves have seen a fivefold rise in homelessness in just over four years. Does the Minister agree with His Majesty’s Opposition that the arrival of people with no means to support themselves will naturally lead to an increase in homelessness, and that the Government must go further than the past and current changes they are making to prevent all illegal channel crossings, which are contributing to this problem?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s contribution. I just say gently that, in the four years between 2021 and 2024, an additional 2.6 million people arrived and 101,000 claimed asylum. The scheme to assess that was very slow and almost non-existent towards the end. We have increased the speed of asylum claims to make sure that we remove people who do not have asylum claims and integrate those who do. We returned 58,539 people between 1 July 2024 and 31 January 2026, and we have halved the number of asylum hotels from the 400 under the noble Lord’s watch to the 200 that are operating today. We have saved considerable resource in doing so. This is a problem and a challenge, but I am not looking to implement the lessons of the previous Government in this Government.

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

My Lords, with huge respect to the Minister, how on earth is he going to analyse 200,000 responses? Surely that is analysis paralysis.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

No, it is not. We have had a consultation and we have 200,000 responses. We can look at those: AI is much used in the Home Office now to analyse what is happening. The key point is that the Government are trying to take action: we are trying to reduce the asylum backlog, reduce hotel use, stop small boat crossings and take action on all these important issues. There are certainly some areas of assessment and, going back to my noble friend’s original Question, we need to look at the impacts on child poverty and on families. But we need to take action to ensure that we regulate asylum and refugee status while we meet our international obligations and ensure that we are a civilised society, as we are now and will be in the future.

[Baroness Nargund (Lab)]

My Lords, the latest British Red Cross health equity report found that 73% of refugees and asylum seekers experience multiple layers of disadvantage compared to 20% of people supported by health and care systems. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the proposed changes on the health and well-being of children in asylum-seeking families?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend points to an extremely important issue. We will undertake a full economic and equality impact assessment of the proposals. We are using the responses from the consultation—going back to the noble Lord’s point—to look at what issues have been raised. We want to ensure that children in particular remain and have that support. Deprivation is a constant factor for unaccompanied children in particular; it is, in many ways, why people have tried to come to the United Kingdom. But I know that my noble friend also recognises that we need a regulated, efficient system that deals with people quickly, sorts out asylum claims, reduces the backlog, closes the costly hotels, stops the boats crossing the channel and, in doing so, allows for free and fair routes to be applied for so that those who are successful can join the economic community in this United Kingdom and earn a living.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the fair pay agreement in the social care sector, because we know that one of the best routes out of poverty for children is making sure that their parents have decent, well-paid work. Does my noble friend accept that insecurity of settlement status makes workers less confident and less able to enforce the rights they will get?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. She has campaigned for many years with the Trades Union Congress for rights at work. I have campaigned for rights at work, a minimum wage and good conditions for people in the care sector, and our Employment Rights Bill in this House and the House of Commons is to make sure people have decent rights at work. Nothing the Labour Government are going to do will undermine those rights, but we do need to get a grip on asylum and refugee status to ensure that we speedily process individuals and determine who has a right to stay and to have refugee or asylum status and that those who do not are removed. That is part of the process of the Government, who are trying to restore order in the very chaotic system we have inherited.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, I turn briefly to the proposal to offer financial incentives for voluntary returns. There are legitimate questions about whether such measures represent value for money and whether they risk sending the wrong signal. I would welcome further clarity from the Minister on how this policy will operate in practice. While we recognise and support the direction of these reforms, there remain significant questions about delivery and effectiveness. The Government must ensure that change is part of a broader, credible plan to restore control of our borders and rebuild public confidence. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Dubs for tabling their regret Motions. It is always a pleasure to discuss matters in the House, even at 10.32 pm. Important issues have been raised, and I will try to respond to them as best I can—even with my croaky voice, on which I hope the House will bear with me.

I will start by giving some context on why we are here. This Government were elected in July 2024, and they inherited a considerable series of challenges that they have been trying to address. After the election, there was a high backlog of asylum claims not being processed by the previous Government. There was a level of abuse that is higher than it is now. There was a high level of hotel use of some 400 hotels that were paid for by the Government of the day, costing the taxpayer a fortune. There was no real control over the level of migration and indeed those abuses. There was no safe and legal route defined to the extent that it is defined now. I start with that for the simple reason that that is the background on which the Government have tried to take some action. I welcome the support tonight from the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies, but that is the inheritance that we have had to try to deal with.

The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord German, says that the Government

“fails to provide a credible plan for bringing down the asylum backlog”.

Let me start with that. The Government have put in place around 1,000 extra staff—paid for by the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme—to improve the performance of the asylum system and the review of asylum backlogs.

There is a plan, because the Government have produced an immigration White Paper, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, indicated, was trailed by the Government. The Government have an immigration White Paper and have made statements on how we intend to deal with those issues. The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, talks about failing to bring down the asylum backlog. I will come to that in a moment. It refers to “closing asylum hotels”. I will come to that in a moment. Indeed, it refers to

“increasing the bureaucratic burden on the Home Office”.

Well, I will come to that in a moment.

My noble friend Lord Dubs’s Motion makes a valid point about the equality impact assessment, which I will come to in a moment.

The noble Lords who have spoken today—my noble friends Lady Royall, Lord Dubs, Lady Lister, Lady Andrews, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Davies of Brixton, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Ludford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have all challenged some of the points that are here today, and I will try and respond to those issues.

The Immigration Rules changes were laid on 5 March. They were trailed in the White Paper. Three statutory instruments were laid concurrently: the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations, the asylum regulations on failed asylum seekers and the Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations. Some of those were SIs, and the immigration changes set out in the new approach to refugee and humanitarian protection include a new core protection offer.

The position that we find ourselves in now is that there have been changes in some of the very areas that the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord German, is critical of. For example, there has been an asylum decision issue, where the number of people waiting for an asylum decision has fallen by 48% in the past year. That is positive, but it is not reflected in the Motion. We have returned 58,538 people in the past 12 months who had no right to remain, including foreign national offenders who should not have been here.

On the issue of asylum hotels, which he mentioned, there was a high of 400 asylum hotels in the summer of 2023. Today, there are fewer than 200 operating, and there will be announcements in the near future on how we can reduce that number still further. We have a commitment to close asylum hotels before the end of this Parliament. We also have, as laid out in the statements that have been made, plans to ensure that in that new reform we improve safe and legal routes, provide more structured and targeted support for refugees, speed up decisions through simpler appeals procedures and tackle exploitation through illegal working and visa abuse, which harm both vulnerable people and local communities. So, there is a plan.

I challenge the claim in the Motion of regret from the noble Lord, Lord German, that there is no plan. There is a plan to speed up asylum claims, provide targeted support and ensure that we meet our international obligations, ensure that we reduce hotel use and ensure that we do that in a fair and appropriate way.

The Home Secretary has set out—yes—the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in a generation. Yes, the Immigration Rules changes mark a major step towards a fundamental reset of the system. Yes, there is a new core protection offer for refugees. Yes, there are changes planned to ensure that new asylum claims made after 2 March will be for 30 months rather than for five years. It does not mean that those asylum claims are not going to be maintained if there is still a need for the asylum claim after 30 months, but it is important that we make those changes, because we have to improve the performance of the system. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we have to do that.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, the equality considerations are at the front and centre of our work. As required through the public sector equality duty, Home Office officials are currently considering wider equality impacts, and the impacts that asylum reforms will have on those with protected characteristics is no exception.

In our modern and complex world, we must recognise that changes are required; countries of origin can and do change, and refugee status should be reviewed accordingly to reflect that. I think that is fair.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the visa brake and Chevening. The Government have introduced a visa brake on student visa applications from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The reason they have done that is that those nationalities present some of the highest proportion of asylum claims to visas issued, and the number of claims is consistently high—again, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made. By introducing these temporary changes, the Government hope to reduce the strain on the asylum system and strengthen public confidence in the immigration system as a whole.

I must stress that these immigration changes are part of that wider programme of work. We are looking to work with local authorities for their support in delivering supported accommodation for asylum seekers. We are looking to maintain and develop further safe and legal routes, such as the Hong Kong British national route and the Homes for Ukraine route that are here today. On the suspension of family reunion, we are keeping that under review as a whole.

A lot of issues and concerns have been raised today by individual Members. I will go through Hansard tomorrow with a fine-toothed comb; we will pick out all the points that have been made by noble Lords; we will respond to those points, having consulted my colleague Ministers who have a direct responsibility for these areas in the Home Office; and I will make sure that those points are answered.

There will be opportunities to address other issues in legislation, undoubtedly post the potential King’s Speech —there will be other areas. However, the Government have to deal with the issue of getting asylum under control, meeting our international obligations, reducing hotel use, and trying to stop that pull factor which noble Lords have mentioned. This is a series of measures which the Home Secretary has brought forward and which I believe are an appropriate start on these issues.

I understand the concerns that have been raised; they were raised in the House of Commons also. The Government will continue to keep these matters under review, but I say to noble Lords today that the regret Motion does not address the issues that I believe the Government are trying to achieve. It does not give credit to the Government for the challenges they face and does not acknowledge the strong efforts that we are making to reduce some of the real challenges that are a cost in our system. We are trying to reduce asylum backlogs and reduce hotel use, and we are trying to look at where there is abuse, to make sure that we still meet our international obligations but at the same time ensure that we have a tighter system to restrict that abuse. I know there are concerns and sensitivities, and I will look at the points made in the debate today, but I ask the noble Lord not to press his regret Motion. I say to my noble friend Lord Dubs as well that the equality issues are central to what the Government are trying to examine in the processes that we are looking at. We will keep those equality issues under review, and I am open to challenge in this Chamber about how the system is developing in due course.

I hope noble Lords will bear with me because my throat and the winter pressures are catching up on me, but I will look at those points and respond accordingly. I thank the noble Lord for his contributions today.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for his remarks—not that I agree with them, as your Lordships would expect, but to persevere through a croaky voice is not easy at the best of times. All I can say to him is that the Chief Whip has arrived; I think he has something special in his cupboard which he can help the Minister out with at the end, and if he does not, I ask him to please let me know because we can make that very public.

Seriously, however, at this point in the evening, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate; everyone has spoken with passion and with conviction, and most people have also spoken with great concern. If this were to be a scoreboard for a football match or whatever, the score would be 13-3. I say to the Minister, “Be aware of who your friends are in this matter”, because it seems that the alliance between the Labour Government and the Conservative Party and what lies beyond them is somewhat frightening for those of us who believe in a more humane society.

One of the things that has come out of this debate, from all my colleagues and everyone else who has spoken, is that somewhere we have got the narrative wrong about what migration is about. Your Lordships must remember that the OECD says of the United Kingdom that properly managed migration is a benefit to our economy. If that is the case, we need to say something positive about the people who are with us and doing things with us. The concern that I generally pick up is that we are not respectful enough or giving enough sense of humanity about the society in which we want to live.

Nitrous Oxide

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

The use of nitrous oxide among those aged 16 to 24 in England and Wales decreased from an estimated 194,000 users in the year ending March 2024 to 80,000 users in the following year. That is the lowest since records began in 2013. The Government provide information to the public on the risks of using nitrous oxide, including on the drug information website Talk to FRANK. The risks of using nitrous oxide are severe.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. As he knows, it is illegal for anybody under 18 to purchase nitrous oxide, but there is a growing trend in our cities and towns where drug pushers buy dozens and dozens of cannisters of nitrous oxide and fill balloons with them to market and sell to young people. The cannisters are then dumped in parklands, grass spaces and back alleys, which is dangerous to the environment and particularly to young children. Do the Government have a strategy for dealing with this problem?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a very real problem. The noble Lord will know that the legislation to ensure that we put nitrous oxide on the controlled list, passed in 2023, has reduced the level of usage as a whole. I am also pleased to report that in the year September 2024 to September 2025, there were 242 convictions for the supply of nitrous oxide, with 234 sentences to date and some still outstanding for sentence. The Government’s strategy is to make sure we clamp down on this; it is not acceptable, and the legislation should be enforced. It is also very important that we have education for young people, particularly in schools.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, there are limited legitimate uses for nitrous oxide, yet the lawful supply of these cannisters has created an unlawful, harmful supply down stream. Will the Minister today commit to a review to establish the volume of nitrous oxide being sold and whether the benefits of the legitimate trade in fact outweigh the social cost of the unlawful trade that follows from it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord has mentioned, there are a number of legitimate uses for nitrous oxide: medical, dental and veterinary uses, food sector uses in cafés and for amateur bakers, as a fuel additive for motor racing and for academic research. The legislation passed under his Government has tried to get the balance right between legitimate and illegitimate use. As I said a moment ago to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the number of convictions for illegal use and supply has increased significantly. That is an area the police are focused on. We keep all matters under review, but the legislation was passed only some three years ago and I think it is right that we let it take its course.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very welcome that the rates of illegal use have gone down and convictions have gone up. But, following on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there can be a tension between young people seeking help or wanting to report a crime and a fear of prosecution when doing so? Can he ensure that there are ways to overcome that tension—perhaps through confidential helplines or specially designated teachers, police officers or social workers—ensuring that people can come forward for help or to report issues without fearing that they might be prosecuted?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a very real tension that my noble friend mentions. It is important, particularly in a school or youth club context, that young people who see the use of nitrous oxide have an opportunity to talk to a teacher, parent or youth worker, both to understand the consequences of that use and to find mechanisms to help other young people stop using that product. We keep strongly under review a whole range of mechanisms. Both the Department for Education in England and the Department of Health look at information and support to young people to help meet the very objective that my noble friend has mentioned.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, as the use of nitrous oxide involves the substance hitting the opioid receptors, as with heroin and other drugs, will the Government undertake education of young people in schools, for whom the addictive potential of all these substances is much higher than in the older population? Sometimes substances such as nitrous oxide are used by dealers as an inroad to begin to create an addiction and then to get people on to much more harmful substances after that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness strikes at the heart of this. The use of nitrous oxide is currently illegal under legislation passed by the previous Government. There have been convictions, but there needs to be both education and support to young people—particularly about the dangers, because nitrous oxide can lead to death at first use. It is also important that its addictive nature is put into education, lesson plans and other supportive material for parents, as well as for young people. It is something that we will certainly keep under review to meet the objectives that the noble Baroness has mentioned.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the White Paper on policing recognises the need for a strong national forensic service, but the issue will be how it keeps up with the huge number of drugs that are appearing on our streets—almost, it seems, on a daily basis. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the service has the staff, the technology and, crucially, the speed of testing required to support effective enforcement and to keep people safe?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness mentions the forensic service. It is really important that we keep that up to date. As she mentioned, under the policing White Paper we are having a review of how that is undertaken. It is extremely important, not just in this context but in the context of much more illegal drugs. Going back to the question from the noble Lord on the Front Bench, there are legal uses for nitrous oxide. The legislation is framed in such a way that those legal uses can be undertaken, but, at the same time, supply for improper use is controlled by legislation. The noble Baroness’s points about how we test and monitor that are extremely important.

Golders Green Ambulance Attack

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the antisemitic arson attack on ambulances in Golders Green, and what steps they are taking to protect Jewish communities from similar attacks in the future.

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

My Lords, the police are in the early stages of their investigation. They have arrested two British nationals, who are now on bail, and the police are looking at possible motivation. I cannot speculate further at this time. The Government have supported the Jewish community with record levels of security funding, police support, and clear action to root out antisemitism wherever it appears.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

I thank the Minister, but as we celebrate Passover next week, the ancient festival of freedom, it is shocking that the Jewish community needs help to enjoy that freedom in 2026. Over the past weeks, I have stood in this place and spoken of the Golders Green ambulance attack, antisemitism on campus, 20 failed IRGC plots, proscribing the IRGC, West Midlands police lies, BBC antisemitism, proscribing the IRGC again, hate marches, and the deadly terrorist attack in Manchester. I am not sure whether noble Lords have noticed a pattern. The Jewish community is being intimidated and terrorised at home, here in the UK. I ask the Minister just one question: can he name any other community that is obliged to have professional guards and enhanced security systems to protect all its places of worship, all its schools and all its communal buildings?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that I think the attacks he has listed are vile crimes. Some are still under investigation, but they are vile crimes and there is absolutely no place in this United Kingdom for antisemitism. There is a range of other communities which regularly face attack, but I share his concern that the Jewish community is being singled out. In this Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, we will take a stand against antisemitism, we will not tolerate it, and we will take steps both to protect the Jewish community and ultimately to drive out the causes of those attacks in the first place.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I must first declare an interest in that Hatzola, which runs the ambulances, came to my home when my wife broke her leg, and it came to my home when I fell down and was unconscious, and took me to hospital. It is a Jewish organisation but it does not help only Jews. I have been in Golders Green, the area we are talking about, when a woman fell down in the middle of the street, and Hatzola came to deal with it. There was a man lying prone on the pavement, of who knows what religion, and Hatzola came to help him. This is a charitable organisation. I ask the Minister this question with great reluctance, because I have always said we must not conflate the things that happen in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza with what happens in the UK, but is there not a similarity between these attacks on the ambulances in Golders Green and the Hamas attacks on the peaceful settlements of kibbutzim in southern Israel? Is there not a playbook here, where Jews in Israel and the UK are being targeted? Can the Minister ask the police authorities whether Hamas is active in the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First of all, I share the noble Lord’s concern about the attack and about the damage that was done. In response to that damage, the Government have replaced those four ambulances that were burned and will help support that organisation in future to rebuild the types of services that the noble Lord referred to so that we can have a continuum of support in that way. I hope the House will recognise that I cannot comment on the motivation of the attack. Two individuals have been arrested and they are on bail. We do not know what their motivation was, but I say to the noble Lord that antisemitism, whether in Israel or in the United Kingdom, is a vile action. It needs to be attacked and shown up for what it is, and the Government, both at home and abroad, as my noble friend Lady Chapman mentioned earlier, will take action to ensure that we drive it out. We can of course attack the State of Israel and its policies but antisemitism is an entirely different thing, and I share the noble Lord’s concern on that matter.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question, but first I must commend the actions of my former colleagues in tackling this terrible incident—this vile attack on the Jewish community in London—because they faced great danger and difficulty in doing so; having spoken to them, I am sure of that. My question is focused on, and builds on, the question from the right reverend Prelate: what is the Home Office doing in combination with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in interfaith work? My experience in these matters is that after events escalated in the Middle East, in the London Fire Brigade and in the Metropolitan Police we saw an extraordinary rise in physical attacks on both the Jewish and Muslim communities, almost in parallel. Our view as professionals in the security and safety space was that more work needed to be done to generate co-operation and mutual understanding and to counter some of the vile politics, antisemitism and Islamophobia that we were seeing played out in the most awful way in physical attacks on the streets. What are we doing in the interfaith space to support local community groups, which very often do great work but not always with the resources they need?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to praise the emergency services that responded to the event, because they do not know what they are walking into at the time of an attack. The Government are very keen to support, and are doing a lot of good work through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with the Home Office and others, to encourage, that genuine interfaith co-operation, so that faiths understand and support each other and the division between Jew, Christian and Muslim is not one that is reflected by the community at large, and so that they put resilience in place to help give support after incidents such as this across community bases.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition I too express my absolute horror at the antisemitic arson attack in Golders Green, which was an abhorrent attack on community ambulances provided by a peaceful volunteer-led service. Unfortunately, this is what happens when we have slogans such as “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea” aired so publicly on our streets. In light of this, what action will the Government take to choke off the rising tide of antisemitism, particularly arising from Islamist extremism? Will the Government perhaps now act to outlaw and proscribe the IRGC, which we asked for in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have taken very strong action and recently published Protecting What Matters. That will include, for example, specialist disruption units to detect, expose and counter extremist influence across the UK. We are looking at giving state threats designation powers, which is another form of proscription, in relation to a range of bodies. We are also increasing efforts to stop hate preachers and extremists both entering the UK and using platforms outside the UK to influence activity as a whole. The noble Lord knows that we keep the IRGC proscription under review, but that also does not mean that we do not take sanctions against the Iranian regime and very strong measures generally. But the review is ongoing, and we will never trail any proscription that we finally undertake.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the Minister’s assessment that this was a vile attack on the Jewish community. As a Christian, I stand in solidarity with that Jewish community today. Does the Minister agree with me that the growth of extremism and indeed the continued glorification and normalisation of terrorism in our society lead to attacks such as these, particularly with the impressionable young people who listen to these chants all the time and are influenced by them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We should never glorify terrorism. I know that we have had debate on this in the Crime and Policing Bill, and we are still reflecting on points that the noble Baroness has mentioned. It is important that the Government and every individual citizen make a stand against antisemitism and extremism. We will do that, and I hope that I will have the support of the House in trying to devise policies to put that into practice.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, we know from our security services that they have so far foiled at least 20 Iranian-backed, potentially lethal plots against the Jewish community on British soil in recent years. On Monday, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia claimed responsibility online for the attack on the Hatzola ambulances, the veracity of which I know is under investigation. Can my noble friend the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the extent, nature and severity of the Iranian threat against the British Jewish community?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We recognise that the Iranian state is a malign influence, and we have taken steps to sanction individuals and prevent them entering the United Kingdom, and, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we keep the issue of proscription under review at all times. We have also given £28 million to the Jewish community to help protect synagogues and schools, and we will keep that under review. In addition, as my noble friend mentioned, the security services are active, day in, day out, in order to take intelligence-led action against potential plots against the Jewish community, and indeed in other areas of our society. This is an existential threat and the Government will take action when it is needed. However, we keep the issue of proscription under review as to whether that is an effective way of supporting our security services in achieving the objectives that we all want, which are that people from the Jewish community—to go back to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Polak—have a right to enjoy their religion and their community and to live safely in the United Kingdom like anybody else.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, I would like to make a short statement on the position regarding the legislative consent Motion on this Bill. While the majority of the provisions in the Bill apply to England and Wales only, certain provisions apply also to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions relate to a mix of excepted, reserved and devolved or transferred matters, and as such engage the legislative consent process in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, 24 March, the Scottish Parliament approved a legislative consent Motion in respect of the Bill put forward and supported by the Scottish Government. The Northern Ireland Assembly approved three legislative consent Motions on 23 June, 2 February and 16 March. However, on 10 March the Welsh Senedd debated a legislative consent Motion put forward and supported by the Welsh Government, but the Motion was not supported by the Senedd. This is regrettable, given the measures in the Bill that engage the legislative consent process include a range of offences, such as assault on a retail worker, mobile phone theft, sexual exploitation and others. I cannot for the life of me understand why Plaid Cymru, Reform, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members opposed the consent Motion in the Welsh Senedd—but they did, and they will have to be accountable for that.

I believe the Bill should pass. We are in discussion with the Welsh Government and the Wales Office about the way forward, and we will set out the Government’s position when the Bill is next considered by the House of Commons after the Recess. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

1: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Taking down intimate image content(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to take down—(a) content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 20A(2)), and(b) any other content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content,as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—(a) the content is not intimate image content, or(b) the person making the report is not—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”(3) After section 20 (duty about content reporting) insert—“20A Reporting of intimate image content(1) The duty in section 20(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—(a) declares that content present on the service is intimate image content,(b) declares that the report is made by—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,(c) provides sufficient information about the content for the provider to identify it,(d) provides contact details for the person making the report, and(e) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are to be met.”(4) In section 21 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 20A(2)), and(b) are about the content to which the report relates.”(5) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert— “(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that individuals are no longer able to encounter—(a) search content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 31A(2)), and(b) any other search content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content,as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—(a) the search content is not intimate image content, or(b) the person making the report is not—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”(6) After section 31 (duty about content reporting) insert—“31A Reporting of intimate image content(1) The duty in section 31(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—(a) declares that search content is intimate image content,(b) declares that the report is made by—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,(c) provides sufficient information about the search content for the provider to identify it,(d) provides contact details for the person making the report, and(e) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are to be met.”(7) In section 32 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 31A(2)), and(b) are about the search content to which the report relates.”(8) In section 59 (meaning of “illegal content” etc) after subsection (10) insert—“(10A) “Intimate image content” means content that amounts to an offence under section 66B(1), (2) or (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing intimate image of a person without consent).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause amends the Online Safety Act 2023 to impose new duties about removing content which is reported to providers as intimate image content.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 1, 14 and 18 deliver on the Government’s commitment to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. They seek to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content, and any content which is

“the same, or substantially the same”,

is removed within 48 hours.

In moving these amendments, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, in both raising and being a tireless campaigner on this issue in your Lordships’ House.

We all know that non-consensual intimate image abuse is utterly vile, and the Government are very clear that we will not allow the proliferation of demeaning and degrading images online. I believe that the House is united in recognising the profound and lasting harm that this form of abuse inflicts on victims, and we share a common determination to ensure that victims receive meaningful protection. The Government are committed to delivering a strong, clear, enforceable response across the online safety regime. I am very grateful for the constructive engagement that has been crucial in shaping this amendment, both by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lady Levitt.

The Online Safety Act already places robust duties on services to minimise illegal content, including intimate image offences, and provides effective reporting and complaints mechanisms for users. However, given the particular and often acute impact of intimate image abuse, the Government have now committed to going further to set out specific expectations of how platforms must respond when this content is reported.

That brings me to Amendment 1, which delivers on the commitment that we have made to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. Amendment 1 seeks to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content and any content which is the same or substantially the same is removed within 48 hours.

This builds on the work already undertaken to strengthen the Online Safety Act. The House has already agreed amendments that make requesting or making intimate images and sharing or threatening to share them primary offences under the Online Safety Act. This amendment will impose additional duties on all regulated services and will require platforms to prioritise, detect, mitigate and remove this illegal content more quickly and systematically.

Amendment 1 goes further and delivers on the commitment of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the end of February to put social media companies on notice to take down any non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours. The Government’s amendment will introduce a clear, enforceable, statutory duty requiring platforms to have systems and processes in place to remove reported information as soon as possible and within 48 hours.

The duty is designed to work with the Online Safety Act’s systems and processes framework, ensuring that Ofcom can enforce it effectively at scale and deliver for victims of intimate image abuse. This also means that the amendment will be subject to the full suite of enforcement powers at Ofcom’s disposal.

I want to tell the House that Ofcom is to consult on additional safety measures to support the removal of re-uploads, including work on a hash-matching regime, which would require relevant services to adopt technology to detect and prevent re-uploads of non-consensual intimate images. Together, the statutory take-down duty and the hash-matching measures will create a joined-up system that delivers a stronger and more sustainable protection for victims than a stand-alone 48-hour rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Bertin, and the Minister, for their amendments. As my noble friend Lady Bertin said, her amendments were agreed as a package on Report and should have been moved then. We supported them at that time, and understand that the Government will accept them today.

While it is welcome that the Government have brought their Amendments 1 and 14, as they promised on Report, I join my noble friend Lady Owen in expressing concern about the drafting and the fact that the Government do not seem to know where they are going with this. The Prime Minister announced on 19 February that the 48-hour take-down for non-consensual intimate images would be government policy, but it is very clear that the Government do not actually know how they will implement the policy. My noble friend has explained why she believes that the Government’s amendment is defective. I hope that the Government will listen to her and accept the amendments. If they do not, we will support my noble friend in the Division Lobbies.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Baroness, Lady Owen, for tabling her amendments and initiating this discussion. I feel like someone who has brought a birthday cake to a party, only to have someone else blow the candles out. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, I have tried my best to bring forward proposals that meet the objectives the Government themselves have set, as well as those of the noble Baroness.

Taken together, Amendments 2 to 13 would amend government Amendment 1 by introducing fixed penalties, public performance reporting and new escalation routes to Ofcom. I note the support for these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower; my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I also note the short, sharp intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I very much welcomed.

On the proposal to require services to publish average take-down times, I say to the noble Baroness and others that I recognise the desire for both transparency and public accountability. Ofcom already has the power to request information of this nature, which would also apply to the Government’s amendment. However, publicly benchmarking speed in this way risks hardwiring the wrong incentive into the system. This duty is not intended to be a race to remove any reported content at all costs, including where reports are mistaken, malicious or vexatious. Parliament is asking providers to act quickly and responsibly, which necessarily includes occasionally verifying that reports are valid.

A single, public average-time metric could encourage the unintended removal of lawful content, undermine procedural safeguards and, critically, ultimately undermine confidence in the regime among the very victims this Government wish to stand with the noble Baroness in support of. Ofcom has strong powers to require detailed performance data where there are concerns about systemic compliance. Regulator-led scrutiny is a more effective, credible and proportionate means of accountability that ensures a regime that best delivers for its victims.

Amendments 3 and 9 would require providers to take all reasonable steps to identify duplicates or substantially similar content. I share that objective on behalf of the Government. Providers are already required to take proportionate steps to seek out this illegal content under wider illegal content duties.

On the proposal of specific fines, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned that it is important that there are financial consequences for any illegal action. I say to them and to the noble Baroness that, as they know, the Online Safety Act already equips Ofcom with very strong enforcement powers. Ofcom can already issue a heavy fine of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue in the event of contravention of regulations that Ofcom is empowered to monitor, and these fines can even be augmented with daily fines on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is not necessary to introduce an additional fixed-rate fine mechanism on the face of the Bill, given that a 10% fine on qualifying worldwide revenue is a significant and effective potential punishment from Ofcom, which has those enforcement powers.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

Can the Minister say what an individual woman should do if her content is not removed within 48 hours? Is the Minister suggesting that, without a mechanism to contact Ofcom, she waits for Ofcom to recognise that a website has failed in its duty, and therefore for the Secretary of State to mandate long and bureaucratic business disruption measures, and for Ofcom to seek 10% of the business’s worldwide revenue—and all the while her intimate image is left online?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The purpose of the regulation is to provide a disincentive to putting content up in the first place. If anybody who places that content on any online platform knows that Ofcom has the power to levy a 10% fine on worldwide revenue, there will be that disincentive. The purpose of that power is to deter people from breaking the law. Coupled with the powers in government Amendment 1, it will provide strong reassurance to anybody who has had illegal content put online by any particular organisation or individual.

There may be an honest disagreement between the noble Baroness and me on this, but I want to prevent any illegal content being put up in the first place. I would argue that a 10% fine of any worldwide revenue for the platform that hosts that content is a significant contribution. It would mean, ultimately, that Ofcom has the power to cause significant damage to any organisation that puts up that illegal content. I accept and understand the concerns that have been raised; I just hope that the noble Baroness can also understand that the Government are trying to support the very victims she speaks about.

We appreciate the intention behind enabling individuals also to report non-compliance. They can raise that concern through Ofcom’s reporting portal, and such reports can signal potential systemic issues and can be used for wider investigations, as I have just mentioned. I also recognise the urgency with which victims rightly expect this content to be removed—the very point the noble Baroness has just made. I consider that a systems and processes approach remains the most effective way to secure consistent compliance and deliver protection at scale.

On the amendment the noble Baroness has brought forward that would require providers to display reporting notices and routes, the 2023 Act already requires platforms to have clear, accessible reporting routes that allow users to easily make intimate image reports. Again, Ofcom is best placed to specify details about this in its code of practice. Turning to proposals for good faith declarations, the government amendment requires reporting individuals to state that the content is intimate image content and that they are the subject of that content or are acting on the subject’s behalf. Additionally, the Secretary of State has regulation-making powers to specify further requirements if needed. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. I hope the House can recognise that the Government have moved significantly on this issue, but we will hear the noble Baroness’s response in due course.

Amendments 15 to 17, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, are accepted by the Government. They were, as she has said, tidying-up amendments agreed by the House on Report but sadly missed. As such, the Government will not oppose the amendments and will actively support them. This is, however, without prejudice to any further consideration of the substantive amendments carried on Report. We will set out the Government’s position on these and other amendments passed on Report when the Bill returns to your Lordships’ House after the Easter Recess, once it has been considered by the House of Commons.

I have tried to be constructive in my response on behalf of the whole of the Government—from the Prime Minister to the different departments that have contributed to this. I hope they were helpful engagements. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her amendments, and I hope that, having heard what has been said—it is, perhaps, with little hope—she will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords I thank the Minister for his response. I feel that, on this point, we have not reached an agreement. While 10% of an internet service’s worldwide revenue is great, a more agile system where no woman and no victim is left behind is much better. With that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

14: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content)—(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;(b) in subsection (5)—(i) the words from “each paragraph” to the end become paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of that paragraph insert“, and(b) subsection (3A).”;(c) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”.(3) In section 23(5) (record-keeping and review duties) for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(4) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content)—(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;(b) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”. (5) In section 34(5) (record-keeping and review duties), for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(6) In section 59(14) (meaning of “illegal content” etc) for “and “priority illegal content”” substitute “, “priority illegal content” and “intimate image content””.(7) In section 71(2)(a)(i) (duty not to take down content except in accordance with terms of service: exceptions) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(8) In section 136(5) (confirmation decisions: proactive technology)—(a) in paragraph (a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(b) in paragraph (c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(9) In section 237 (index of defined terms) at the appropriate place insert—
(10) In Schedule 4 (codes of practice)—(a) in paragraph 9(1) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(b) in paragraph 9(3) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(c) in paragraph 13(3)(a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(d) in paragraph 13(3)(c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023 which are consequential on those made by my new clause (Taking down intimate image content).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

18: Clause 263, page 325, line 38, at end insert—
“(ma) sections (Taking down intimate image content) and (Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses to have UK extent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

20: Schedule 2, page 341, line 24, leave out “extension” and insert “closure”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment (and my other amendment to Schedule 2) corrects an amendment to section 78 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to refer to a closure notice instead of an extension notice.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships’ House for the contributions that have been made on the Bill. We have spent over 88 hours in Committee, we have had a full day’s Second Reading and 44 hours on Report, and we have spent an hour on the Bill now—all of which is good, rigorous scrutiny, and a considerable amount of it. The Bill leaves the House with a few extra pages and some extra government policy based on manifesto commitments. In doing so, it will better support the delivery of the Government’s safer streets mission to halve knife crime and see a reduction in violence against women and girls within a decade.

I am pleased, overall, with the contributions and the degree of cross-party agreement there has been across the House. We will continue to reflect on a number of the amendments that were made, contrary to my advice, and the debates we have had to date. When the Bill returns to the House after the Easter Recess, we will examine what else will be done in relation to the view of the Commons, the Government and this House.

I could not have done this Bill without the unstinting help of my noble friends Lady Levitt and Lord Katz, and I am grateful to them. Scrutiny is a great thing—I have done it myself when in opposition. It is important to test the Government and to put forward alternative ideas. Despite our agreements on some issues and our disagreements on others, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst, from the Opposition Front Bench, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this and other debates.

Given that we sat late on a number of occasions, I put on record on behalf of the whole House our thanks to the doorkeepers and staff of the House. There were a few days when I did not know what time I was going home—and neither did they. It is important that we recognise their contribution to our parliamentary scrutiny. I must place on record my thanks to the Home Office team and the Ministry of Justice Bill team, to the policy officials from the Department for Transport, Defra, the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Ministry of Defence and DSIT, and to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, No. 10 Downing Street and our private offices—all of whom have contributed and all of whom I and my fellow Ministers have spoken on behalf of in this Chamber.

This has been the largest justice Bill in a generation, and my goodness, does it not feel like it? It provides a number of measures for the Government on key issues to help prevent harms, to bring offenders to justice and to secure our community in a much safer way. There will be more parliamentary encounters to come after the recess but, in the meantime, I hope that we will help build safer streets, safer communities and a safer Britain. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an incredibly long time coming. This Bill has endured 15 days in Committee and six days on Report in your Lordships’ House. It has been a mammoth of a task, but throughout the Bill’s passage, I am pleased to say that we have executed our duties in this House as diligently as ever.

To address the regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel set out our concerns about the lack of scrutiny of the abortion clause both in Committee and on Report. Our view remains the same: that such a significant change of abortion law should not have been rushed through Parliament, tacked on to a completely unrelated Bill. However, the House has now decided the matter and, as always, we respect that.

I said at Second Reading and again in Committee that I do not believe that a 500-page Crime and Policing Bill is going to bring down crime rates. We have an enormous amount of criminal law. The problem is that much of it is not effectively enforced.

Having said that, there are elements of this Bill that we are happy to see being sent to the other place. The Minister knows the parts of the Bill that I support; indeed, there have been several occasions on which he and I have been on the same page. There are some very good amendments that we passed on Report. I am pleased that the House supported my amendments to allow the police to seize vehicles using fly-tipping offences and to endorse the driving licences of fly-tippers with three penalty points. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats and a number of non-affiliated and Cross-Bench noble Lords for supporting my amendment to increase the maximum sentence for the possession of a bladed article with intent to commit violence from four to 10 years and to force the Government to review the proscription of the IRGC. It is excellent that my noble friends Lord Young of Acton, Lady Buscombe, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Bertin had the support of the House for their amendments as well.

I must, however, express my regret at a number of provisions that have ended up in the Bill. Clause 49, which makes low-value shoplifting triable either way, makes absolutely no sense to me. Clause 251, which gives foreign courts greater powers over the extradition of British citizens, is also undesirable. It is highly regrettable that the Government have inserted Clause 144, on aggravated offences. That clause is completely unnecessary, given Section 66 of the Sentencing Code and the raft of aggravated offences and hate crime legislation that already exists. It will only cause more problems for the police and is not going to contribute to the end of identity politics and a move towards greater social cohesion. When the inevitable happens and more people are arrested for speech offences, let it be known that the Conservatives warned the Government and tried to vote that down.

I am also deeply concerned that the Government’s amendment to grant themselves the mother of all Henry VIII powers passed. The Division was held outrageously late, which is not appropriate given the wide-ranging constitutional implications. Ministers will now be able to amend the entire Online Safety Act 2023 as they wish, and parliamentarians will have no say. This is not the way to regulate for AI chatbots. We should all be deeply troubled by this.

To end on a more positive note, I thank the Minister, genuinely, for engaging with me and with my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst throughout the passage of the Bill. I am also very grateful to his officials and the Bill team for keeping us up to date with the government amendments. I thank all those in the Government Whips’ Office and in our Whips’ Office for their help, in particular Jamie Tucker in the Opposition Whips’ Office for shouldering most of the heavy lifting on this. And I thank the Lib Dem Front Bench for their co-operation on the Bill.

I sincerely hope that the Government will do some serious thinking over the Recess and take on board the suggestions from noble Lords in this place. When we come back to this Bill for consideration of the Commons amendments, I hope the Minister will be in a conciliatory mood.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, we are almost there. I want to respond to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. She had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Biggar and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, on that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned the Labour Party. There are Members on my side of the House who voted on both sides of the abortion debate. It is not a party-political issue. It was a free vote on this issue, certainly from the Government’s perspective and, I think, that of all parties. I reiterate that the Government were entirely neutral on the proposal that was put in Committee and later on Report that now forms Clauses 246 and 247. It is an entirely neutral government position.

I note the comments of the three noble Lords who spoke in support of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I also note those of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I echo what they said in an entirely neutral way. We have to respect the fact that the House of Commons passed that proposal quite considerably and that after many hours of debate this House came to the same conclusion. The Government remain neutral, but that is the position.

We are now looking at the implications of that. The Government have always said that should Parliament pass any abortion amendments, they will ensure the safe and effective implementation of those provisions. This includes any costs associated with the implementation of this provision and this Bill. There are existing processes in the spending review and in future spending reviews to identify funding and around implementation. The Government remain neutral, but I have to say to all Members of the House that both Houses have spoken and that is the position that we find ourselves in today.

Whatever noble Lords’ personal views on the provisions in Part 16, we should not set aside the other parts of the Bill. There are a number of areas of agreement between all sides of the House. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that three amendments were accepted by the Government on Report. We will look at some of the amendments that this House passed and their implications when the Bill returns to the House of Commons after the Recess.

At the end of the day, I am proud of this Bill. I am proud of its position to protect children from sexual abuse. I am proud of the action we have taken on online harm. I am proud of the action on preventing violence against women and girls. I am proud of the action on young men and knife crime. I am particularly proud of the long campaign that my union raised on shop workers and assaults. I am proud of the issues on communities and anti-social behaviour. I am proud of this Bill, and for that reason I commend that this Bill do now pass. With due respect—I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, today, and I understand where she is coming from—I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment. If she does, I am proud of this Bill as it stands. I am neutral on the issue of abortion on behalf of the Government, but I ask this House to pass the Bill.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and for speaking to me earlier today. He talked about the cost implications of the Bill, and there are many, but I am not sure that anybody knows what the cost implications of Clause 246 might be. Be that as it may, my amendment to the Motion was to draw to the attention of the House the fact that things need to be done to let people carry out the jobs for which they are responsible and to help women in this most desperate situation. I do not intend to move the amendment to a vote. I thank those who spoke. We deliberately decided that we would not ask a lot of people to speak and that we would ask people not to speak so as not to delay the House in its other deliberations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. We accept the Minister’s amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.

I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. However, we believe that they are somewhat misguided. Youth diversion orders, whatever one may think of them, will be implemented as a means of dealing with some of the most serious offences committed by people of the age of criminal responsibility. We should not be making concessions to people who have committed or intend to commit terrorism offences. We believe that engaging in these acts forfeits any right to the conditions of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 409H as a primary consideration.

Similarly, regarding Amendment 409J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I entirely understand and acknowledge the issue she is trying to grapple with. Our position, however, is simple: court proceedings should be carried out in the language of the land. That said, the Government do offer translation services, and I ask the Minister to set out measures that are already in place to ensure that offenders understand orders that are made by the courts.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, youth diversion orders must be underpinned by the principle of proportionality. Amendment 417A would ensure that they are being used in this expected manner. We particularly support the intention behind Amendment 409G—that youth diversion orders will be a serious step to take, and that ensuring that multi-agency evidence backs up the decision to issue an order is therefore incredibly important. Similarly, the sharing of data on terrorists and terrorism networks is becoming an increasingly urgent need. Any step that improves the efficiency of the sourcing and sharing of information between authorities is welcome, so we also support this amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Jones, for their amendments on youth diversion orders. Amendment 409G, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would require the courts to be provided with details of previous interventions, both considered and imposed, and set out consultation undertaken with other agencies. Amendment 409H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would amend Clause 185, which deals with measures which may be imposed by a youth diversion order. Amendment 409J, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would require a youth diversion order to be issued to the respondents in simple terms to ensure that they understand what is being asked of them.

I understand the sentiment behind these amendments, but I hope I can explain why the Government cannot accept them. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we have had a lot of debate on this Bill and will undoubtedly continue to do so during ping-pong. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments; we are doing our best. If noble Lords wish, we can have votes very speedily tonight—if people put their arguments succinctly and the Government respond succinctly, as I will try to do.

On the amendments to date, the Home Office is drafting statutory guidance which will, I hope, help with the points raised by the noble Baronesses. That will be by the negative procedure. It will be produced as soon as possible and will include further details on the circumstances for youth diversion orders. On Amendments 409G and 409H, the legislation already makes it clear that courts must consider the youth diversion order necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from the risk of terrorism or serious harm. Clause 185 clarifies that this test applies to each individual measure imposed by the order. As part of that, courts must also consider proportionality, which is key.

On the second part of Amendment 409H, and regarding the really important points the noble Baronesses have made, Clause 185 already ensures that there are safeguards for an individual’s work or educational commitments and avoids duplication with requirements imposed by other orders. There are similar safeguards in other civil orders. I will address the point made by the noble Lord on translation services later in the debate, or in writing. On Amendment 409J, I recognise the importance of ensuring that the respondent understands the detail of the order imposed upon them. That is vital, and is a consideration for youth offending teams already.

Amendment 417A would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on youth diversion orders. The provisions in this Bill already expand the statutory remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to include youth diversion orders. In practice, this will mean that youth diversion orders will be considered as part of the annual reports of the independent reviewer. I hope this helps the House. In addition, the Home Office does provide an annual report to Parliament on the use and oversight of disruptive counterterrorism powers. I give a commitment that I will review whether we should include reporting on youth diversion orders as part of this.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the government amendments. They are technical amendments to clarify the relevant court in Clause 186, which deals with notification requirements, and in Clause 193, which deals with applications to vary a youth diversion order.

Taken together, Amendments 413 and 414 update the route of appeal for both an applicant and a respondent of a youth diversion order. Current drafting includes a route for further appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales. To align the appeal routes with other similar civil orders, this amendment removes the route to the Court of Appeal. This allows established appeal routes to be applied. The applicant or defendant will be able to appeal a youth diversion order made in a magistrates’ court to the High Court by way of case stated or to the Crown Court, with an onward appeal, allowed by way of case stated to the High Court. I hope that these technical amendments will help to clarify the purpose of the Government’s proposals.

I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, will withdraw her amendment. If she wishes to press it, I advise my noble friends to vote against it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response because the current duty to consult requires the police to speak only to the youth offending team, not to social services, health, education and others who know the child. The whole point of my speech was to say that in order for these very powerful orders to be made, it is absolutely critical that everything is taken into account. That cannot happen if not all the agencies are consulted.

The lessons from Southport include years of escalating warnings that were missed. No one agency had the full picture, and I believe that without this amendment that will happen again. I am disappointed because the Bill is the quickest and simplest way to require proper multi-agency consultation as a basic safeguard before such orders are made, which is absolutely essential. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

410: Clause 186, page 238, line 40, leave out “which made the order” and insert “to which the application under section 183 was made”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the relevant court for determining the police area is the one to which the application for a youth diversion order was made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

411: Clause 193, page 242, line 25, leave out “a youth court made the youth diversion order” and insert “the respondent was under the age of 18 when the application under section 183 was made”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which court an application for variation should be made to.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

413: Clause 194, page 243, line 25, leave out subsections (3) and (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision made by the Crown Court on an appeal under clause 194(1). The effect is that there will be an appeal by way of case stated to the High Court under section 28 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

415: Clause 196, page 245, line 29, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is superseded by the new subsection inserted by my amendment to clause 196, page 245, line 34.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. As I said in Committee, I firmly support her in seeking to amend the emulation requirement in the Terrorism Act 2006. We will of course have a more wide-ranging debate on terrorism in the next group, so I will reserve my wider comments for then.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for returning to the issue of the glorification of terrorism, our exchange of letters and her movement and reflections on what we said in Committee. I note the support from the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Empey, Lord Weir, Lord Marks, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, Lord Polak, from the Conservative Back Benches, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, and Lord Elliott. I will come back to comments made by other noble Lords as I progress.

Let me say straight away that I have not been a victim of terrorism, but I know people who have been. I have met victims of terrorism not only in the context of Northern Ireland when I had the honour of serving there but in this job, from a range of backgrounds. I know that discussion of all these issues, including in this debate, causes great pain for those victims. However, I hope can explain why, even with the changes that have been made by the noble Baroness, I cannot accept the amendment in its current form.

Let me first express and reiterate the purpose of the encouragement offence. It was introduced after the 7/7 attacks and is designed to act as a precursor offence to reduce the risk of people being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism. The offence applies equally to statements made online or offline. It also applies even where an individual is reckless about the impact of their statement—that goes some way to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

Encouragement includes any statements that glorify acts of terrorism. To be clear, “acts of terrorism” in this context includes any action taken for the purposes of terrorism, whether or not it was taken by a proscribed organisation. Today, we have talked about the IRA—which, at one stage, was heavily proscribed—and about Palestine Action and other organisations in relation to the current conflicts and activities in Palestine and Israel. “Glorification” is defined in the 2006 Act—which was passed by a previous Government in which I served—as including any “praise or celebration”.

I recognise that Amendment 418 is a modified version of the noble Baroness’s proposal made in Committee. Specifically, the amendment would retain the historical safeguard that I pointed out to her and that is necessary to limit the offence, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, indicated today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having taken into account our concerns. However, the amendment would still disapply this to statements that indirectly encouraged acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations.

The offence was carefully drafted at the time of its introduction to ensure that statements that are automatically captured by the offence have to meet both the requirement that the statement glorifies an act of terrorism and the historical safeguard. Amendment 418 attempts to split up these two requirements, when it was always intended that these requirements would work together. I remind the House that the encouragement offence has been recently reviewed by Jonathan Hall KC, the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, at the Government’s request and in light of the 7 October attacks, which a number of noble Lords referred to. In that review, he strongly advised against removing this historical safeguard.

In addition, the offence is very clear that statements that glorify acts of terrorism in such a way as to encourage others to carry out these acts would include acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. As a result, it is not necessary to spell this out any more clearly in legislation. As with the noble Baroness’s previous amendment tabled in Committee, it is also worth highlighting—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—that there are other offences that may be relevant to her concern too. In particular, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation. The noble Lords, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Elliott, made points about prosecutions, which have very often been undertaken under that legislation. The offence in this Bill is designed to address the harm that comes from the legitimisation of terrorist organisations, which the noble Baroness has spoken about.

We may need to test the opinion of the House, but I know why the noble Baroness has brought the amendment forward. I know why noble Lords—particularly those with fresh memories of activities in Northern Ireland, including those who saw activities that still offend many people in Northern Ireland—support the amendment. I know why the noble Lord, Lord Polak, supports the amendment. However, I say to all of them that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has reviewed it and believes the offence is currently fit for purpose. There are many other mechanisms—including those that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed to—that will lead to prosecutions for these issues. There is also a significant effort to ensure that the Government support activities to turn people away from terrorism—through the Prevent scheme, education and a range of other mechanisms—so that people are not politicised towards terrorism through activities undertaken.

With those reasons in mind, while I recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns and understand why she brought them forward, I hope that the reassurances I have given mean that she will not press the amendment to a Division. I await her response.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for the way in which he has communicated with me throughout on this issue of the glorification of terrorism. I also thank, as I said before, the Bill office for the way in which it has engaged with me.

I thank all noble Lords for their engagement on this issue. This has been a very good debate. On the other parts of the Terrorism Act that are there, I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had to say on Section 12. The unfortunate thing is that we see very few prosecutions in relation to it. This is why, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we cannot ignore what is going on around the glorification of terrorism in the widest possible terms in the United Kingdom. With that in mind, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very large and wide-ranging group of amendments, all relating to varying aspects of the law on terrorism and the proscription of terrorist groups. Given the amount that we need to get through today, I will be as brief as possible.

I have tabled Amendments 422C and 467AAA. The new clause proposed by Amendment 422C would require the Secretary of State to

“review whether any organisations related to the Iranian government should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000”

within one month of Royal Assent. It would also require the Government to publish the results of that review and give reasons for the decision. Amendment 467AAA would simply ensure that the proposed new clause came into effect on the day that the Bill passed.

I acknowledge at the outset that this amendment is perhaps a round-about way of confronting a very simple but incredibly serious issue. I am, of course, concerned about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps specifically. Unfortunately, I was advised that an amendment to primary legislation that inserted the name of an organisation into Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 would be hybridising, so I have not done so.

I am in the fortunate position where I am almost certain that I know exactly what the Minister is going to say in response to this amendment: that the Government keep proscription under review at all times and, as such, my amendment is not necessary. But the fact is that the decision the Government have taken not to proscribe the IRGC is not satisfactory.

I am also sure that the Minister will try to attack me by saying that the previous Government did not proscribe the IRGC either. I am fully aware of that fact. But it is blatantly clear now to everyone that the situation is radically different from the situation even last year. We now have the Iranian regime erratically attacking most of the Middle East, blockading the Strait of Hormuz and allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in the United States. So I do not think it unreasonable for this to be the point at which we finally proscribe the IRGC. I know that there are a lot of people in this country who would support that.

On my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendments, I am sympathetic to what he is attempting to achieve. The ruling of the High Court in the case of R (on the application of Huda Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department found the proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful on two of the four grounds before the court. One of those grounds was compatibility with the ECHR. The ruling on the second ground—that the Home Secretary was acting contrary to her own policy—was also contentious.

The court said at paragraph 74 of the judgment that the Home Secretary is required by the Home Office’s policy on proscription to balance the “benefits” and “costs” of proscription. Drawing the courts into what is in essence a political judgment such as this risks a very dangerous precedent, and my noble friend is therefore making an important point.

I also point out to those who might criticise my noble friend’s Amendment 421 that there are still protections against arbitrary proscriptions even if the role of the courts is curtailed. Both Houses of Parliament have to agree to an order under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act, and, under Section 4, an appeal can be made to the Home Secretary to deproscribe an organisation. If that appeal is rejected, an appeal can then be made to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which—and this is important—per Section 5(3) of the Act must apply the same principles as the court would in a judicial review. Therefore, there are safeguards against arbitrary proscription and, as such, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is entirely correct to question the role of the courts here.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group—there are quite of lot of them—and the topics that have been raised.

To begin, I reiterate the critical importance of our counterterrorism framework, including proscription, in protecting the public; that is what this is about. I say in response to a number of comments by noble Lords that yes, we always keep the framework under review. As was mentioned in the debate, some organisations have been deproscribed as a result of government examination, and we are held to critical independent oversight, provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

Let me address each of the amendments in turn. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Amendment 420 aims to limit proscription orders to a single organisation per order, ensuring that each group is debated and voted on separately. That has had support today from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. I understand my noble friend’s intention. I just say again to them—and to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger —that Palestine Action was proscribed, along with the other two organisations, according to exactly the same test under the Act that allows proscription to take place. The exact same test was applied to each of those organisations.

In July, those orders were put together in one vote for the purpose of the effective use of parliamentary time. We had a big debate in both the Commons and this Chamber, and there was no underhand purpose in doing that. As I said to the Committee at the time, multiple organisations have routinely been proscribed at the same time, according to the circumstances of the time. That is my “We’ve always done it this way” defence, but we have in fact always done things this way, under every political party in government to date.

There will be instances in future when it is again necessary for organisations to be packaged together for a proscription debate. I understand the purpose of the point made by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have discussed this matter with my colleagues who deal with these matters in the House of Commons. I want to reflect on it, but I ask my noble friend to allow us the time to do so, because I do not believe that such legislation should tie the hands of the Government in how they approach proscription. Let us reflect on these sensible points in order to allow a single debate and independent votes. I will leave it at that for the moment.

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

I have one question for the Minister. The statutory test that is said to have been applied in the House of Commons is the statutory test of proscription. If Members differed on the result of the statutory test in respect of the three different organisations, they were not given any opportunity to distinguish between them. That is the position, is it not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that. As I have said, the “We’ve always done it this way” test has been put to me. I am saying to my noble friend that there are valid points that potentially need examination, but I do not believe that legislating to tie the Government’s hands on this issue is the way forward. I say to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that there is a discussion to be had about how future proscriptions are brought forward, and we intend to reflect on those points.

Amendment 422DA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, aims to prevent any challenges in court on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, summed up the Government’s objection, and I support what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, re-emphasised those points, and I do not wish to add to what he said. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, might expect me to say, I cannot comment on an existing, live, legal examination of the Government’s reasons for that proscription. Irrespective of that, the amendment in the noble Lord’s name would remove all avenues of challenge, including those currently available under the Act. I do not believe that the Home Secretary should have unrivalled powers, even though, in this case, there is an ongoing court case, so I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 422 aims to ensure that individuals can be arrested and convicted for active conduct before a group is deproscribed. Again, the position is clear: even after a group is deproscribed, individuals can be arrested and convicted for conduct that occurred while the group was proscribed. There is no automatic remedy for criminal convictions if an organisation is deproscribed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their approach to such an important debate, in particular those who made a special effort to be succinct with the long night ahead. I remind noble Lords that my amendment on one organisation per order is not about Palestine Action; it is about procedure and constitutional safeguards for the future.

I am very grateful for the way in which my noble friend the Minister responded differently from the response in Committee. I am hugely encouraged by what he said. He has very graciously offered to go back to his colleagues in the Home Office and think again on this. I feel that I have to respond in kind by encouraging him to do just that, as he has so graciously offered. I so believe in the power of our argument on Amendment 420 that, when he has those discussions, I believe he will feel able to come back with a government amendment following Report. If he is not able to do so, having had those discussions, we will see what might be done at Third Reading.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I was clear: I will not be bringing an amendment back at Third Reading, nor can I support the amendment that she brought forward today. I recognise the issue that she has raised and we will examine and discuss that with colleagues in relation to future proscription orders before any House of Parliament.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

There we go: I was too optimistic, perhaps. None the less, I believe that my noble friend sees the power of the argument or he would not have said what he has said. There are plenty of ways in which the Home Office might consider doing one organisation per order in the future. In any event, in light of the time, and given that I do not have the support of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition or of the Government—I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for their support—I will not try the House’s patience with a vote that I cannot win this evening. I will keep nudging my noble friend the Minister and beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, both the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the Government are trying to solve the same problem, but with different solutions. I have to say that I find both solutions wanting. I feel that the position I see solidifying in the House is that we must accept either the Government’s amendment or the noble Baroness’s amendment, that something must be done and that this is binary, and I am not sure that I can accept that. I commend the aims of the noble Baroness’s campaign and I hope that we can find some common ground, but I have a number of questions about her amendments.

The approach that the noble Baroness has taken in her Amendments 422D and 433 is to create criminal offences for a person to create or even supply an AI chatbot that produces a selection of prohibited content. That would place criminal penalties on individuals who are involved in the creation of such a chatbot. The Online Safety Act applies civil penalties when companies violate the regulations: the companies are fined by Ofcom if they allow prohibited content to be published on their platform. These amendments would apply criminal sanctions punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, but who is liable for these criminal penalties? Is it the software engineer who developed the chatbot? Is it the employee who presses the “publish” button that brings the AI online? Is it the senior management team who oversaw it, or the investors who commissioned it? Is it the CEO of the whole company? It is not clear to me, and it would be useful if the noble Baroness could clear that up.

The offence of supplying such a chatbot might also be problematic. If an AI chatbot app is listed on the App Store, and the AI could in some way be used by a person in the manner described, should Apple be criminally liable for that? Similarly, I have a few concerns about the risk assessment that the amendment would require AI providers to undertake. For example, proposed new subsection (5)(e) would require that a provider

“assesses the risks to equality of treatment of individuals”.

I question whether it is the Government’s role to mandate the target audience of a business product. It is worrying enough to believe that it is meritocratic to mandate quotas within organisations, but it is quite another stance to say that the very reason for a business’s existence, its output, should be directed by legislation.

As I have made clear, we do not oppose the noble Baroness’s objective of addressing the harms of AI with this amendment, but simply saying that there is a problem and that doing anything is better than doing nothing, irrespective of the problems with that something, is not a proper way to legislate. It is a recipe, I suggest, for bad law. However, I understand that the noble Baroness is trying to make the Government take action. It is up to the Government to come to Parliament with a sufficient solution. The Minister may try to say that the Government do have a sufficient solution in government Amendment 429B, but that would be wholly incorrect. I am quite shocked that the Minister has even considered bringing this amendment to the House, and I can only imagine what he might have said about it if he were standing where I am now.

Amendment 429B grants the Secretary of State sweeping Henry VIII powers to amend the entire Online Safety Act for the purpose of mitigating harms presented by AI-generated content. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would be delighted to hear me say that this is an egregious attempt by an overreaching Government to exploit a serious issue to centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is almost unprecedented to grant a Minister the ability to amend an entire Act of Parliament. With this amendment, the Government are doing away with every bit of lip service they have paid to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny or their democratic mandate. The amendment would give not only this Government, who have made it clear that they are very happy running a centralised state with digital IDs, but every future Government the ability to amend online regulations and curtail the freedoms of providers. Indeed, a future Reform Government might go in the opposite direction and remove all regulations on AI. The noble Lord should reflect on that, too.

I ask the Minister to imagine that the glove was on the other hand: that he was standing at this Dispatch Box and I was the Minister proposing to give my Government these powers. There is no way that he would support such sweeping powers to amend an Act of Parliament by ministerial fiat. This is the Henry VIII power to end all Henry VIII powers. It cannot be allowed to make its way into the Bill and, when it is called, I will take pleasure in opposing it in the Lobbies.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall start by saying something that needs saying. The Government believe in protecting the public, especially children, from online content, which is why we have tabled the amendments on illegal online content today.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will speak to each in turn.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, moved Amendment 385 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s winter of action that took place over the Christmas period, between the beginning of December and the end of January. That complemented a summer campaign that focused particularly on the issues that the noble Lord mentioned, namely anti-social behaviour and mobile phone theft. As the noble Lord mentioned in his introductory comments, the actions that we took over that 12-month period resulted in a 12% fall in mobile phone theft in London. That is still not good enough; it needs to fall further. It is a horrendous crime that is damaging to tourism and to the individual, but there has been a fall in the first year of this Government due to the hotspot action that we took. The winter and summer action campaigns took place in 650 town centres across the country, and were supported by additional resources from local police forces to deal with this issue. We know that we will see more analyst data in the coming months as to the impact of that action.

My point echoes some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. The Government’s road safety strategy was published on 7 January and sets out commitments to increase robust enforcement of road traffic laws to protect road users. It is under the auspices of the Department for Transport and indicates an important role for the police to play in taking action against the type of behaviour that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is concerned about.

As I stated in Committee, the police have a suite of powers under existent legislation to tackle street crime facilitated by bicycles and scooters and, as the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have mentioned, to address the use of face coverings intended to conceal identity. I encourage the police to make full use of those powers, especially in the crime hotspots that we have identified. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for example, permits the police to require individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas, so the police could designate a particular areas, such as a high street, where they believe crime is likely to take place. In those areas, the police have the powers under that legislation to remove face coverings.

There is a range of reasons for wearing a face covering that I am not going to pray in aid. Those were made very strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. They focused on weather, ill health, fumes, and the added protein of insects going into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. These are all valid reasons. They are not ones I pray in aid strongly today, because the legislation is there.

This includes Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, referred to. It provides for anybody driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle to stop if directed to do so by a constable. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 permits police to seize motor vehicles that are being used in an anti-social manner. Furthermore, Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits police to seize motor vehicles. That includes, in this case, e-scooters being driven without an appropriate licence or insurance. I encourage the police to use those powers. Public space protection orders can also be used. Therefore, there are reasonable powers on the statute book that can be used to meet the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment.

I turn to Amendment 386, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I said in Committee that I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment, and it is supported by the Police Federation. I want to see police officers doing their vital job. As I mentioned, we recently published the road safety strategy. The consultation on that strategy includes proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences and specific proposals on the existing offence of failing to stop and report following a collision. It also seeks views on related measures around compliance when drivers are stopped by the police—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The Department for Transport is considering the results of that consultation and aims to respond when it closes on 11 May. I encourage noble Lords to refer this debate to that consultation.

I have great sympathy with the amendment. I want to ensure that police officers have the necessary tools to enforce our road traffic laws and make our roads safe, but I ask the noble Lord to wait for the outcome of the consultation. Following the consultation, there will be areas that we could potentially take forward at some point when legislative time allows.

I turn next to Amendment 387A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I say straightaway that she raises an important point. Not all the businesses that she mentioned are criminal outlets, but there are a number of businesses that are potentially involved in criminality. The new high streets task force is looking at whether the current data sharing between agencies supporting enforcement teams is appropriate as we want to maximise our response.

In the summer, the Government will publish a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy that will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including better sharing and exploitation of financial information. Further, the Home Office has a cross-government high streets illegality task force that is developing strategic long-term policy to respond to money laundering and associated illegality in UK high streets, including forms of economic crime that the noble Baroness mentioned, as well as tax evasion, illegal working, systematic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit, and issues to do with HMRC and trading standards.

In the summer of last year, I had the great honour of attending a raid in Birkenhead, in Merseyside. HMRC, the National Crime Agency, Merseyside Police and trading standards raided a premises that was allegedly—I use that word because I am not sure whether the matter has come to court yet—defrauding HMRC, selling illegal goods and purporting to be a legitimate business when it was not. That raid was perfectly reasonable, so action is currently being taken.

I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who supported a similar level of action, that the Government are trying to design a number of actions to drive out illegal businesses in a range of ways. As the noble Baroness said, they undercut legitimate businesses, reduce government tax revenue and illegally employ people. That is not good or acceptable, and we need to take action. The question is whether the noble Baroness’s amendment to increase the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and closure orders from three months to 12 months, would assist in that process.

In Clause 3, we are, as the noble Baroness knows, increasing the duration of closure notices from 48 to 72 hours. That gives the police and others time to investigate initially. If her proposal was taken, does she think that having more empty premises on the high street or in a village for 12 or six months is good for the high street as a whole? I am not sure that it is. We do need to drive out illegality, and I accept that there is illegality going on, but I hope I have pointed out the challenges we have. The increase to 72 hours in the Bill will help address operational challenges and give agencies more time to progress an application for a closure order and to protect any victims and the community in the interim while a closure order is sought.

The closure power itself, as the noble Baroness will accept, is a very powerful tool and routinely used in a housing context to protect the most vulnerable. I argue that the extension to 72 hours in Clause 3 is sufficient to provide respite to victims and to the community from anti-social behaviour. Closure orders are intended to provide short-term relief, which is why we are increasing their duration only by a further 24 hours. I say to the noble Baroness that, while a closure notice cannot prohibit access to anyone who habitually lives on the premises, a closure order can. Closure orders are intended as temporary, targeted measures, not long-term sanctions, but I accept that there is a real issue that needs to be addressed and I hope it can be with the measures I have outlined. What the Government are doing now, on a cross-government basis with HMRC, the Home Office, the police, the National Crime Agency and trading standards locally, is trying to root out where that illegality takes place, and further action will be taken in due course.

I hope that, with those reassurances, despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his indication that he is not going to press his and I hope that the assurances I have given and the favourable view I have of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, will allow us to complete a proper consultation on that point and that he will not press his amendment, either.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate, and thank in particular my noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, with his interesting intervention in the debate. I reassure my noble friend Lord Hailsham that these are permissive, discretionary powers, not blanket ban powers, and they are targeted at a particular subset of criminals. There is clearly a quantum difference between people passing through a locale who are dressed to cycle on the public highway and those who are flooding the zone on e-bikes, dressed in black, with helmets and face coverings, with a rucksack, who may wish to rob a shop or assault someone by snatching their mobile telephone. With all due respect to my noble friend, I think his concern is misplaced, but I fully respect the arguments he made.

I also thank the Minister. We have had a lot of debate on this issue, and I am partially reassured by the measures that the Government have brought forward that are currently in train. I hope that we can return to this issue, not least the breaking of the mobile phone theft model that organised crime is engaged in. In the meantime, as I indicated, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling these amendments, which, as we have heard, raise questions around how the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit victims. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for stepping into the breach today to speak to these amendments in my noble friend’s absence.

My noble friend Lord Banner has tenaciously pursued this matter for many months. The intention behind his amendments is clear: to ensure that, where criminal assets are confiscated, the courts have flexibility to direct those funds towards compensation for victims or towards wider public interest purposes linked to the harm caused. In Committee, I spoke sympathetically on these amendments. I shall not seek to repeat the points I made then but other noble Lords explored how these proposals would interact with the existing confiscation and forfeiture regimes under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those are complex frameworks, and any changes to them must be carefully considered, but these amendments make an important point about ensuring that justice is not only punitive but restorative. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for moving this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Goudie for speaking in support of the noble Baroness.

As the noble Baroness and my noble friend know, I arranged a meeting for the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to discuss these matters with Redress. Both attended, as did other Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I set out then, as I did in Committee, the rationale for the Government’s position in relation to these amendments. I should say to my noble friend Lady Goudie that, although today I will restate the Government’s position, which is not to accept the amendments, we always keep these matters under review and will continue to do so.

The compensation of victims is an extremely serious issue and something that we take seriously. Last time out, in Committee, I laid out the UK’s various mechanisms for victim compensation; I will not repeat those now, in the interests of time. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, raises this issue in the context of Russia’s war with Ukraine. I appreciate the continued support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the approach that has been tabled today, but, if I may, I shall speak to this amendment in the context of where the noble Lord, Lord Banner, was, I think, coming from. I acknowledge the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, has spoken to me on many occasions about the need for wider community compensation, rather than just for individuals, in the context of the war in Ukraine. I affirm this Government’s support for Ukraine. Indeed, the UK is already one of Ukraine’s largest supporters and donors, providing significant financial aid alongside working with international partners to support Ukraine as much as possible. The UK has already committed £21.8 billion, of which £13 billion is for military support, £5.3 billion is for non-military support and £3.5 billion is for UKEF cover; there is also an ongoing commitment to provide £3 billion annually either for as long as it takes or until 2030-31. We are also supporting, along with the G7, loans backing profits belonging to Russian sovereign assets in the EU, as well as the interest on those assets being put towards Ukrainian interests.

Therefore, there are a number of issues on which we are fully supportive and where we are using resources to meet the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. However, I say to him and to those who have spoken in favour of the amendment today that, given the limited number of cases to which these amendments would apply, they would create only a minimal impact on the people of Ukraine. I suggest that it would be better for us, in the initial stages, to focus our efforts on the larger international mechanisms for compensation, in line with our international partners, which provide far greater funds. I have pointed in particular not just to the UK’s direct taxation commitment but to the G7’s $50 billion ERA loan, which is backed by interest generated from Russian sovereign assets in the EU and the UK.

I understand the noble Baroness’s support on this issue. I particularly understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, around this matter, as well as his desire to help and support our friends in Ukraine; I completely share that desire. However, following the rationale that I have laid out, I suggest that this would be best done through the current mechanisms of government, not through these amendments. I will keep all matters under review but I feel that these amendments would distract the UK—and, indeed, our partners—from the core principle of supporting Ukraine, particularly in this time of great need. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to withdraw Amendment 387C.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister as always for his response and for the support that the Government are providing, particularly in Ukraine after the Russian aggression. I still feel, however, that the definitions within the Bill of “victim” and “loss” are too narrow and indirect victims are clearly not eligible. We all know that there are many tragic indirect victims of war crimes. It is very likely that there will be more sanctions to come and that there will be further need for victim compensation. At present, there are 2,500 Russia-targeted sanctions. The Government still retain most of the proceeds of these.

Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister has said about keeping this under review. Given the fact that I do not think these amendments have been properly addressed by me—although they have by the Member opposite and by the Opposition Front Bench—I will not press them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 387C.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

388: Schedule 18, page 420, line 9, at end insert—
“51A In section 161E(5) (making an income reduction order) (as inserted by section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2026), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) section 15A (where court sentences before confiscation proceedings).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds, to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill, an amendment of a provision inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sater for tabling this amendment on a hugely important issue. I can be relatively brief because she gave ample reasons for the amendment. When criminal records are disclosed, they should be done so regularly and proportionately across all cases. She gave many compelling reasons for the amendment and, as she said, it is modest. It does not ask much of the Secretary of State. I agree absolutely with my noble friend that this system would simply benefit from an updated review. For all those reasons, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her amendment, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Perhaps I should explain why I am responding to it instead of my noble friend Lady Levitt, who has had considerable engagement with the noble Baroness and other Members of the House on this matter. The amendment relates to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, so I am responding to it. In principle, there are a number of areas where there is crossover between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. I noted the support from the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Brinton, for the general principles of the amendment.

The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to strike a balance between supporting ex-offenders to put their past behind them and ensuring that we keep people safe. The regime plays a crucial role in helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions, particularly, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for roles in health, social care and education. It also aims to avoid the disclosure of old and trivial offending so that people can make fresh starts and get on with their lives. We all know that employment and a fresh start are critical to preventing reoffending. The significance of employment—along with housing, family support and optimism for the future —for reducing reoffending should never be underestimated.

We keep the regime regularly under review as a matter of course, so that it remains fit for purpose and responds to concerns as they arise. I recognise the value of stepping back and carrying out a more strategic assessment, which the amendment would do.

I know that noble Lords know this, but the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, gave a commitment on 2 December, in response to the Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I, that the Government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is clear and proportionate, particularly—given the discussions we have had and reflecting what my noble friend Lady Levitt had said—in relation to childhood offences. My department—the Home Office—and the Ministry of Justice are working together to look at the next steps.

We intend to publish a consultation that is, in a sense, the review that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, asks for, setting out proposals for specific reforms on disclosure of childhood criminal records. Currently, the plan is to have that consultation published by the end of the year. If we can do it earlier, we will. There is a lot of work to do but I want to get it done as quickly as possible and I know that my noble friend Lady Levitt will want to do the same. I can certainly give the assurance that we will have that consultation out by the end of the year, and that will, I think, provide the strategic review that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks.

I believe that it is right to prioritise consideration of how the regime affects those who offend as children. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Levitt and the work that has been done on engagement to date, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for the external pressure she has put on us on these matters but, in the light of those reassurances, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I thank the Minister and am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Bailey all spoke very positively and passionately about the amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely positive response and look forward to hearing more about the consultation at the end of the year. Speed is of the essence and we would like to see it as soon as possible. We have heard, from me and others, about lots of anomalies in other situations involving criminal records that we think we should deal with, but I thank the Minister again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, sits down, I wish to say that this is not a rigid timeline for anything other than a review to look at the timeline. I accept that a complicated case may need to run, but even in a complicated case, somebody should say, “Okay, this is complicated—we need more time”. In many instances, 12 months would be the point where somebody said, “We need to wrap up and move on”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for initiating his Amendment 391. I know that it is motivated by the desire to support police officers in the difficult role they perform. He and I share that motivation. I say to him, however, that the amendment as drafted would have the effect of curtailing existing powers that the Independent Office for Police Conduct can use to reinvestigate or reopen a case that it has previously closed. The amendment also seeks, more generally, to prevent the reopening of investigations into complaints against the police from the public, again if such complaints have resulted in criminal proceedings which have not resulted in a conviction.

I take very straightforwardly the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who made the point that I was going to make: we know of no recent cases where the Independent Office for Police Conduct has reopened a closed case. However, it is in the public interest that cases of alleged police misconduct can, if need be, be reopened in the light of substantive new evidence or evidence that the original investigation was flawed. As has been said by the three noble Members who have spoken, not all criminal proceedings against serving police officers involve line-of-duty incidents. Some may involve serious corruption or sexual violence by police perpetrators, and there may be compelling public interest arguments for reopening such cases.

The powers of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to reinvestigate a case are already limited by existing law, which requires the IOPC to have compelling reasons to reopen a case. This is a legal threshold and is already a high bar. Disciplinary proceedings involve different evidential tests, as was mentioned by those who contributed, and the lower threshold for finding misconduct or gross misconduct is the balance of probabilities. They also serve a different purpose from a criminal trial. We rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers, so a blanket presumption that no police officer who has been acquitted in the criminal courts should face disciplinary proceedings would, in the Government’s view, be quite wrong—I think that reflects the points of view put by the noble Viscount, the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness. That is a compelling argument which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will reflect on if he seeks to push the amendment, which I hope, in due course, he will not.

Amendment 392, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to improve the timeliness of police complaints and misconduct investigations by creating a new system of legal adjudicators with the power to overrule both chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct by closing down investigations where they determine that there is no good or sufficient reason for any delay. As we have previously debated, unnecessary delays in these investigations are not in anyone’s best interests. I know the impact they will have on public confidence and on the welfare of the police officers involved. However, while it is right to strive for improvements in timeliness, this amendment risks adding another layer of bureaucracy, thereby adding cost and delay and not removing it.

The Government are committed to supporting chief constables to remove those who are not fit for purpose, but the amendment has the potential not only to overrule the responsibilities of chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but to create some perverse outcomes. The Government’s recent police reform White Paper already confirms our commitment to an independent, end-to-end review of the police conduct system, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would support. It will include looking at timeliness and how this can be improved. Again, further process will be brought back following the police White Paper proposals.

Amendment 393A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would require that, where a police officer uses force based on an honestly held but mistaken belief, that belief can justify the use of force only if the mistake was objectively reasonable. In effect, as she knows, it seeks to codify the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of police officer W80, which found that the civil standard applied to this test. As the House will know, police officers carry out important and demanding roles. The Government are determined to ensure that both the public and the police are able to feel confident in the police accountability system. That is why we commissioned a review—again, the noble Baroness referred to this—from Timothy Godwin, a former senior police officer, and Sir Adrian Fulford. They carried out a rapid, independent review into police accountability.

The findings of that review were published in October 2025—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to this—and it recommended that the Government change the legal test for the use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test. The Government, again, have accepted this recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes via secondary legislation. Our intention is that these changes will come into force later this year, in the spring of 2026.

While I understand the noble Baroness’s concept, I cannot support it, because we have put in place the independent commissioners to examine the matter thoroughly and they heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their recommendation was clear: the current approach has created confusion, inconsistency and, I accept, a very bad effect on police morale, particularly among firearms officers. I hope the changes we are making will bring clarity to the system. I reassure the House that it will still be the case that any force used must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, after her comments—it may not—and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

Finally in this group, I will speak briefly to government Amendments 395 and 397. These are technical amendments to ensure that specialist police force barred and advisory lists are consistently applied across police forces. The provisions in Clauses 173 to 181 and Schedule 21 are part of a broader effort to raise standards and conduct within law enforcement. They also include the closure of a legislative loophole. These technical amendments have been tabled to ensure that we have alignment in the treatment of civilian employees within the police service.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I hope not just that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but that on reflection he is able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and therefore not push his amendment to a vote. But, as ever, that is entirely a matter for him.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his valid points and for injecting his valuable experience into this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that it is wrong to draw a comparison between policing and the medical profession. Policing is uniquely different.

This has been a thoughtful discussion about how we maintain robust police accountability while ensuring fairness to the officers who serve the public. The case of Martyn Blake has brought this issue into the public consciousness. Whatever view one takes of the circumstances of that tragic incident, the fact remains that the case was heard in open court before a jury and the officer was acquitted, yet the prospect of further investigation has remained. For many officers watching that case unfold, the concern is not about accountability; it is about whether there is ever a point at which a matter can truly be regarded as concluded.

As my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington pointed out, there is much current discussion about police morale and those young-in-service officers leaving the police service. The proposal in my amendment is fair to officers. It is clear for the system and maintains the integrity of the oversight framework. It is highly unfortunate and extremely disappointing that the Minister has not been able to at least meet me half way and make the commitment that I sought. On that basis, I beg to test the opinion of the House.