Government Website: Registering a Death

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, on 3 April last year, from the Dispatch Box in this Chamber, my noble friend Lady Merron said:

“We are taking steps to reduce the time to register a death”.—[Official Report, 3/4/25; col. 361.]


Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what progress is being made?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said, nine days is the median. I confess to the House that death certificates are not my specialist subject, but I will do my best to investigate whether there are any delays and will write to my noble friend.

Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

Perhaps I may clarify, as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, that this matter was raised and the chairman, Sir Bernard Jenkin, told us that it was not for us to discuss whether the statutory instrument was correct. The job of that committee is to discuss whether the instrument is defective or duplicative, but not its general purpose. I take that to be the case.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Trees. I support the regulations. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for having tabled this amendment because it enables the House to consider matters we do not often have the chance to hear about or discuss, and they are important. It raises difficult and sensitive issues because, as the House knows only too well, it refers in great part to the use of animals in research.

I doubt whether there is a single Member in this House who positively wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided, and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, commend the Government for their current commitment to phase out this research and I, in turn, commend the noble Lord for being on the same trajectory when he was in government and for the support he has given. Reference has been made to the document published last year, the three Rs and so on.

For the time being animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research, and it helps ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. My noble friend Lord Winston referred to some of the benefits of this research. As I understand it, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only because of animal research, and who among us has not benefited from anaesthetics? The research is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. As has been said by several noble Lords, it is critical to responding to health emergencies, including a future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security. Scientific advances are being made by the life sciences community, but we must recognise that alternatives are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models. The UK must support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.

This brings me to the amendment. I do not have time to talk about some of the constitutional points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have some sympathy when I hear references to Henry VIII clauses and so on, but I do not think this is the subject of today’s debate. The problem, as I see it, is that certain parts of the life sciences sector are facing unacceptable and unsustainable pressure from the non-peaceful actions of campaigners, however understandable, that threaten the integrity of the sector. I have visited some of these research establishments and spoken to scientific researchers who have been assaulted and suffered intimidation, so I understand the point made by my noble friend and others. The systematic targeting of key strategic points in secondary and tertiary supply chains is having a serious effect, and the knock-on effects of disrupted research, hostile working environments and escalating security costs are already raising concerns in the life sciences sector about the future viability of research and development in the UK.

If this research were to leave the UK, so would investment, talent and our research infrastructure, which would permanently damage the UK’s sovereign capability to develop medicines and to respond to future health emergencies. It is against this background that I put it to your Lordships that there is a case for designating life sciences establishments as part of critical national infrastructure. Incidentally, in the context of the changing geopolitical world in which we now live, this House heard references not that long ago to the vital importance of undersea cables and space infrastructure. As has been pointed out, this research is also economically important to the UK: over 300,000 people are employed in the life sciences sector.

The right to peaceful protest should be protected. In my view, it is essential in a democracy. It is the non-peaceful systematic disrupting of supply chains by campaigners that could lead to an erosion of our national research, and the damage would be permanent. It would undermine the Government’s plans for growth in the life sciences sector, lead to adverse health outcomes for UK civilians, and leave the UK reliant on foreign assistance in future pandemic scenarios.

Finally, is this proposed legislation at odds with the Government’s alternative strategy? I do not think it is. It is important to realise that it is the same scientific community who use animal models who are the most heavily invested in driving alternatives forward. If the UK infrastructure supporting animal research collapses, that will collapse the same infrastructure that supports the development of alternatives. Not only does this pose a significant threat to public health outcomes, but it could damage the UK’s ambitions to be a leader in non-animal alternatives. For these reasons, I hope the House will think carefully about voting for this fatal amendment, however well-intentioned it may appear to some noble Lords to be.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I had planned to make a number of points in this debate, but I am pleased to see that they have all been made for me in far more elegant style than I could have attained myself. I will emphasise one point that has not had quite enough attention yet, and that is that this country is a world leader in animal welfare in the life sciences and in the development of products from the life sciences.

If protesters succeed in their aims, they will not stop animal research; they will export it overseas. The countries to which they will export it may indeed be able to match our research excellence, but they could not, I suspect, match our commitment to animal welfare. For this reason particularly, but for a great many other reasons noble Lords have raised, I oppose the amendment.

National Police Service

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The national police force aims to look at what regional organised crime units do on procurement and how we buy things for police services, on IT, on forensics—which I know is of interest to my noble friend Lord Stansgate—and on how we deal with strategy across the board. It will make a difference to improving crime outcomes.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My noble friend Lord Stansgate can go ahead.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I draw my noble friend’s attention to the appalling state of forensic science in this country, ever since the abolition of the Forensic Science Service a decade ago. Is he aware that the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I have been a member, is about to produce a report about the rebuilding of forensic science? Can my noble friend and the Government take advantage of the opportunity of this White Paper, which I support, to make real progress, save the forensic science service in this country and rebuild it on a national basis in a way that has not proved possible so far?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

When I was last Police Minister, in 2009-10, I rejected the proposal to privatise forensic science services, and I am pleased I did so. The Conservative Government then privatised forensic sciences and they have not been at the level of service that I would wish to see in the future. In the strategic plan we have now, we intend to bring forensic sciences under the remit of the national police service. We will look at the organisation of that and how it works, but I am of the view that forensic science is key to fighting crime, it needs to be dealt with nationally and it needs to be under strong policing and political management from the centre.

Crime and Policing Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is slightly premature. Technically, we are debating Amendment 369ZA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is entitled to reply.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Yes, my Lords, procedurally I have to be the tail-end Charlie here and seek leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, was able to get in and do a summing up of his amendment.

As soon as I saw Amendment 369, I thought, “This is too extreme; it is unbalanced, and I’ve got to rebalance it”. But I could not rebalance it by tweaking it, so I adopted the maximalist approach of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and that approach, which I agree is also slightly unbalanced, managed to provoke an important debate on the balance of rights and the right to protest. Of course, it provoked the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but if one is to be beaten up in this House, there is no one better to beat me up than the noble Baroness, because she does it with a smile on her face. I know that, deep down, she does not mean it.

I was delighted to be defended by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He was right: we already have all the law we need here—we do not need a new statute. I was interested in one of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made, which I have seen too. Protests have changed. She said that they have become more violent and toxic and that she was screamed at by nasty protesters. That is not very good. I like what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said: that disruption does not often work but persuasion does. He said that disruption is a mechanism for change, but people have rights as well, and that the criminal law is not the place to put in a new law on rights.

I am also grateful for the wise contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Walney. You cannot ignore the public’s views on the disruption protesters cause, and if the protesters go too far, the public will take their own action and will rebel. I mentioned seeing motorists getting out of their cars and dragging protesters off the roads. The noble Lord also mentioned the damage to the economy, and I agree with him on that.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Goodman, who gave an excellent exposition of the balance of rights and duties. I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. I agree with him and welcome his view that the amendments are not essential.

Finally, I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that I profoundly disagree with his amendment and what he said, but he had a very powerful and persuasive case, and I congratulate him on the way he set it out.

In his usual courteous way, the Minister took all our points of view into account, and he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we already have all the rights we need and do not need a new law. So with that, and at this wonderful hour of the night, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

It is now appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to tell the Committee whether he wishes to withdraw Amendment 369.

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

I apologise for intervening too early, and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

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

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. I am in favour of the foreign influence registration scheme and I well remember when the Act went through the House in 2023. I support the transparency that my noble friend the Minister talked about, and I hope that this works. I echo what my noble friend said towards the end of his remarks, which is that registration in itself does not mean that someone is doing something wrong, but it will be part and parcel of what we hope will be a successful series of measures in support of the Act.

I will raise a few items in the order in which they are laid before us, which is not quite the order in which my noble friend took us through them. The first relates to the exemptions for certain foreign power investment funds and so on. I understand—my noble friend made this point—that the exemptions are designed to ensure proportionality by reducing the amount of routine activity required. I am all in favour of increasing the transparency of foreign-power influence over UK democracy.

I refer to Regulation 3 which exempts financial arrangements to provide financial support to students in FE and HE. It says and uses the phrase

“where foreign powers give directions to the student or to the education provider”.

I hope my noble friend will not mind if I ask exactly what that phrase means.

The National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025 are very important. I do not know how big a website we will end up with. Regulation 3 provides a whole series of exemptions. They seem to add up to quite a lot and made me wonder whether we might end up with so much of the information being exempt that it might not yield very much. What is the procedure for the Secretary of State to exercise one or more of these exemptions under Regulation 3 of that SI?

On the regulations on Iran, I entirely understand—and this goes with the regulations on Russia—why Parts 1 and 2 cover the areas of official and government organisations and so on. In relation to the impact on businesses, charities and smaller micro-businesses, which the Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges will be the case, there are figures given about how long it will take to register—it is only £9.67 and so on. The draft impact assessment states that:

“Registrations are likely to be completed by an employee in a Human Resources or legal compliance department”.


Forgive me, but it seems that many micro-businesses do not have human resources or legal service operatives, so can my noble friend tell us whether that might prove to be a problem?

On the last regulations, those in relation to Russia, the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Without this instrument, it would only be necessary for people acting at the direction of Russia to conduct political influence activity in the UK to register with FIRS”.


That would not be enough. What in these regulations might be helpful in relation to the daily cyberattacks conducted on the UK? We have reason to believe that they emanate from hostile actors that might be based in Russia or acting on behalf of a hostile state.

Finally, this is not in any of the regulations in this group, but I noticed the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has asked—and I ask now—why, at the moment, has China not been the subject of this SI process? Can the Minister give some idea of the Government’s thinking at the moment about whether China might in future, and, if so, when, come within the purview of the operation of the Act that we are discussing and the regulations that seek to give it effect?

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for bringing these SIs to the Grand Committee. Like my noble friend, I shall speak briefly about one or two points, in my case, specifically about Iran and the provisions that apply to Iran and, more specifically, about the effectiveness of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has developed a notorious reputation over the past 30 or 40 years. It came along with the revolution in 1979 and has established itself as an arm of the Iranian state since then.

I particularly want to talk about Iran for one reason: Iran is probably the only significant world power that is effectively run by clerical fascists. I cannot think of a parallel country. It is a state that uses proxies all over the world. We all know about Hamas and Hezbollah, but there are other proxies, and this has been covered extensively in the mainstream press. The IRGC uses criminal gangs to further its aims in this country and other countries across Europe and the world.

I have two questions for the Minister. Can he confirm that anybody who does not register a relationship with the Iranian state, who fails to register an interest or a connection, will be committing a criminal act and be subject to criminal prosecution? Does that also apply to anybody who has a clear relationship with an IRGC or Iranian state proxy, for instance Hezbollah or Hamas?

Would that also apply to others? For instance, there have been parliamentarians in the past—I hope that there are none now, but there probably are—who have accepted money from PressTV. They will have to register that in the normal way, but do they also have to register it under the provisions of the statutory instruments that we are talking about today?

--- Later in debate ---

We are not trying to put on unnecessary burdens that are difficult and damaging. All exemptions have been carefully crafted by the Government to ensure that we do not provide a loophole for state actors to evade the scheme—that is not our intention. If we have made an assessment that Russia and Iran are threats to the United Kingdom’s national security—which is why we are putting in place these regulations based on the primary legislation—then we are not going to be putting in place loopholes so they can get around those. We are putting in place a scheme that is proportionate and effective.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The FIRS we announced yesterday includes the leadership of Russia, political parties that support the leadership of Russia and a number of other state apparatuses, including the security services in Russia. We have and we will, in due course, present to this House and the House of Commons a statutory instrument that sets out in detail the applicability of the FIRS. I hope that my noble friend can wait for that to see the detail of the specific organisations and individuals named under it.

In informing him of that, I also pay tribute to him and his work with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is done behind the scenes and appears only when reports such as the Russia report are published. I know, from spending four and a half years on that committee, that there is a tremendous amount of work going on under the surface all the time to both challenge the security services, Government Ministers and agencies on their performance on security and to make the sorts of recommendations that appeared in the Russia report to date.

I am pleased that my noble friend supports the Government’s position not to seek the publication of the unredacted report. For the reasons he has mentioned, this is about national security, and it is also about themes: The themes of the Russia report were that the Russian state was seeking to undermine UK democracy and be a malevolent actor and, as we have seen in Salisbury and in Ukraine since the Russia report, it is not a player on the international stage that abides by the rules. In producing that report, we have to withhold some aspects. It is welcome that my noble friend supports the Government’s approach to that issue.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I broadly welcome it, and I think there is a broad, cross-party consensus on the national security requirements.

When I hear my noble friend talk about threats from Iran and Russia, as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy I can tell him that we looked in great detail at the nature of some of these threats—for example, in regard to ransomware—and produced a report on it.

The question I wanted to ask my noble friend relates to the political tier. I quote from the Statement:

“For the first time, Members of this House will now be able to check whether anyone who seeks to influence them is doing so at the direction of a foreign power”.


I wanted to raise the issue of all-party parliamentary groups, because one of the concerns that has been expressed over the years is that they could be a vehicle for unwanted influences—certainly financially—buying their way in and influencing the way all-party groups operate.

I am the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which is the Parliament’s oldest all-parliamentary party group. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that this scheme will enable it to be absolutely clear that no all-party parliamentary group that operates in this House—or in Parliament generally—is in any way open to the type of foreign influence that this Statement is designed to prevent and that as a result Parliament can have confidence that all-party parliamentary groups will be protected under this scheme to some extent by the work being undertaken, and that when FIRS goes live, we will have this confidence open to view.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his work in this field and for his question. Where the scheme will be of best benefit is that it will allow greater transparency around individuals who may be influenced, in this case by Russia or, as in the previous announcement, by Iran. That gives confidence to parliamentarians particularly. Any individual who is engaged with or supporting an all-party group, in whatever shape and form they do that, will have had to make a declaration about foreign influence before they participate in any activity as a whole. After 1 July, that will be a public matter of record. If they do not declare it and are subsequently found to have such influence, they will be subject to severe penalty, tested by the police, the CPS and the court, and ultimately subject to penalties of potential long terms of imprisonment of up to five years. I hope that will bring a transparency and confidence to all-party groups in the event of individuals believing that such groups are somehow influenced or fronted by organisations which are seeking to do malevolent damage to the UK. It gives transparency and flushes that out. If anybody tries to do that in a secretive way and is found to be doing so, they will face a severe penalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I apologise if I slightly overlooked part of the noble Lord’s question. The Government have not made a judgment on any ISC comment or recommendations. However, we are continually keeping under review every nation in relation to a potential FIRS. We have announced Iran. Yesterday, we announced Russia. All other potential designations are kept under constant review. On China, as I have said in the House before, we co-operate where we can, we challenge where we need to and we ensure that we maintain our national security interests. We will keep that under review, but I cannot give the noble Lord a running commentary on potential FIRS designations. They are not a matter for today, which is about Russia and recommitting to the FIRS declaration on Iran.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, if the House will forgive me for a quick follow-up question, the Minister referred to sector guidance. Will he issue sector guidance relating to Parliament itself?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

Relevant documents: 2nd, 4th and 6th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

My Lords, in the unlikely event of a Division, the Committee will be adjourned for 10 minutes. Much more likely is that some Members may have been adversely affected by Storm Bert and may not be able to join us for this session.

Clause 1: Product regulations

Amendment 11

Moved by