House of Lords

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 19 November 2025

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they are holding with the government of the United States of America on measures to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the first Oral Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who will be participating remotely.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK fully supports President Trump’s efforts to end Russia’s illegal war, and we remain in regular contact with the US at every level. Last week, G7 Foreign Ministers agreed on the need for an immediate ceasefire and that the current line of contact should be the starting point for negotiations. We continue to work with the US and international partners to ratchet up the pressure on Putin, to force him to engage in meaningful discussions that result in just and lasting peace.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, for over three years I have argued in the House for delaying Ukraine NATO membership, non-nuclear weapon status for barrier states stretching from Estonia to Georgia, a major powers treaty on Ukraine neutrality and the Russian ask, a deal on Donetsk and Luhansk. Why not think out of the box, face reality on the ground, join Trump’s meaningful attempts in promoting a Russian transition from quasi-autocracy to democracy and, in doing so, derail an opportunist, nomadic Russia’s links with an increasing assertive China, all in favour of promoting post-Putin Russia’s links to the West, which is where it belongs?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think the House is with the noble Lord on his plan. He has an idea for a settlement that he has long held close to his heart and put to this Chamber on several occasions. He knows that we disagree fundamentally with one another on this issue. We believe it is for the Ukrainians to decide when the conditions are right, whether they are prepared to negotiate and on what basis. That will remain this Government’s position.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I have been in the noble Baroness’s position several times over, answering that particular question from the noble Lord. Bearing in mind the tragedy that is Ukraine, one of the real tragedies we have seen in diplomacy is the declining influence of the United Nations to convene some kind of negotiation. In this regard, alongside the United States, Turkey has played an important role. It is a NATO partner, and today President Zelensky is visiting Ankara. What direct engagement have we had with President Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Sadly, the noble Lord is right in what he says about the United Nations. We are where we are. We believe the United Nations remains the single most important multilateral organisation we have, and we would be inventing it if it did not exist.

We cannot allow ourselves, because of the situation we face with the politics at the UN, to be paralysed by the truth that the noble Lord has just outlined. We are very close to all partners who are endeavouring to move this along and create some conditions and opportunities for important dialogue to take place. We speak closely with our friends and allies in Turkey and with all those others who are endeavouring, as we are, to support those who wish to see peace in Ukraine and an end to Russia’s illegal war.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government make clear that we support Ukraine and that we stand by the Budapest memorandum, which has been so flagrantly defiled by the Russians? In that context, will we first transfer Russian assets to support the defence of Ukraine, and will we recognise that that £30 billion will be necessary unless peace can be agreed? Peace can be agreed—and the Americans have to accept this—only on terms that the Ukrainians can accept; it cannot be imposed by a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is no peace without the agreement of the Ukrainians; that is absolutely clear. We support President Trump’s efforts towards peace. It is important that we support all those who are trying to bring this dreadful war to a conclusion. On the issue of Russian assets, we are doing everything we can to make sure that the money needed for Ukraine gets there and that Russia pays for the damage it has caused.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend join me in condemning the Russian attack this week on the Polish railway system? Is this not an example of how Putin may talk of peace but is doing the opposite in attacking one of our key allies, Poland?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I condemn the attack on the Polish railway. The attacks on Ukraine grow ever more deadly, and the attacks on Ukrainian energy supplies are particularly egregious as we approach the middle of winter. Putin’s actions belie the idea that he is genuinely seeking peace at the moment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I too could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because it is very clear that peace will never be achieved in Ukraine until Putin feels pressured to end the war. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will at least maintain the value in real terms of our military support to Ukraine next year?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are fully committed to maintaining our support to Ukraine militarily but also in all the other forms it takes.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for the emphasis she put on the United Nations? Does she recognise that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a fundamental breach of the United Nations charter agreed in 1945, and that the use of the Russian veto and some other vetoes on the Security Council to prevent it doing anything useful to bring an end to this war is, in political terms at any rate, an abuse of its position?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree with that. The politics of the UN are complex, as the noble Lord well knows, but it is clear to see at the moment that in regard to Ukraine the Security Council will not be the route through to a solution, which is why we have the coalition of the willing and other networks being established to try to get negotiations—notwithstanding what is happening at the UN—to make some progress and to bring about a conclusion to this deadly war.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the precedent that would be set by allowing Russia to keep any of its ill-gotten territorial gains would pose a far greater long-term threat to international peace and security than doing everything we can financially and militarily to support Ukraine to repel it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is absolutely right. Russia must not be rewarded for its actions here. That would send a bad signal to others around the world and would leave other states in the region incredibly vulnerable.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it would be very naive to believe that Putin’s only ambition is to occupy parts of Ukraine? He has much wider views about where he would like to occupy. It is most important that we make sure he does not succeed.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have many reasons to believe that, not least because that is what Putin himself has said. We also look at the behaviour of Russia in Georgia, Romania and Poland. There is plenty of evidence to support what my noble friend asserts.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, Ukraine cannot win a body-on-body attritional conflict with Russia. Putin knows this. The only way he is going to come to the negotiating table is if Ukraine can inflict sufficient damage on Russia elsewhere. The only way it is going to be able to do that is with the kinds of weapon systems it currently does not have, and the only way it is going to get those is through the agreement of the United States. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the prospect of the United States agreeing to this any time soon? If it does not, the next several months look pretty dire for Ukraine.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sure the noble and gallant Lord will know that the United States is shifting its position and is allowing Ukraine to purchase NATO weapons. We continue to talk to our friends and allies, especially in the United States, to make sure that Ukraine, as he says, has what it needs in order to defend itself.

Road Injuries and Deaths

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:16

Asked by

[Lord Lennie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the annual number of serious injuries and deaths on the roads.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the annual report on road casualties in 2024 was published on 25 September. Sadly, it detailed 1,602 fatalities and a total of 29,467 people killed or seriously injured. These are awful numbers, but, in the last decade, they have largely plateaued. We are committed to reducing them and making our roads safer than ever by publishing the first road safety strategy in over a decade.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that helpful Answer. This week sees the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. For me, this is a deeply personal issue. My brother Magnus died exactly a year ago today, having spent four months in Addenbrooke’s Hospital following a crash between a van and his motorbike. Bedfordshire Police attending the crash failed to collect evidence, failed to pursue the crash, failed to breathalyse the van driver involved in the crash and failed my brother’s immediate family in their ongoing search for the truth of the cause of this crash.

Magnus’s family are extremely grateful to Tim Blackwell, a trustee of DocBike, a growing national charity determined to reduce the number of accidents and victims of motorbike crashes, for supporting them in their fight for justice. Magnus became one of the 30,000 or so victims and the 1,800 or so deaths on the road last year that the Minister mentioned. If these numbers were victims of, say, knife crime, there would be a public outcry and appropriate action taken. So I ask the Minister what specific plans the Government have to significantly reduce these shocking figures?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am sure the first thing to say is that your Lordships’ House will join me in offering our condolences to my noble friend on the loss of his brother. The road safety strategy will be comprehensive, covering all road users. Measures being considered include improving enforcement, the better use of vehicle data and modern technology, targeted measures for vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists, who are 1% of traffic but, sadly, 21% of fatalities and 20% of casualties, and changes to motoring offences.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, clearly our thoughts are with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and his family, for the sad loss he outlined in his question. As we heard, over 1,600 people die and around 30,000 more are seriously injured on UK roads every year, but this is not inevitable and we should not accept it as inevitable. As the Government develop their new road safety strategy, will they be guided by the internationally recognised safe system principles, which are grounded in harm reduction?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that that international system is a good guide. We recently discussed it in this House during the passage of what is now the Bus Services Act. I can confirm that the Government intend to use that guidance, because it is internationally recognised and successful.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, our condolences go to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. In fact, as the Minister said, motorcycle users made up over 20% of all road deaths in 2024, and many of these take place on rural roads and away from junctions. Have the Government considered reducing fatal outcomes among motorcycle accidents by mandating emergency notification technology for motorcycles, similar to the automatic eCall system now mandatory in cars, and will that form part of the road safety strategy?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government will look at the use of all modern technology. There has not been a recent road safety strategy and, as the noble Lord sets out, technology has moved on a long way. So we will look at that, because, when an accident occurs, getting help to victims of the accident as soon as possible is obviously life-saving.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, please.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

And me next?

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I think we are distinguishable.

Is the Minister aware of the figures in Wales for the reduction in road accidents and road deaths following the reduction of the speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Although that has been controversial in some areas and needs to be adjusted, none the less, if people’s lives—children’s lives—can be saved by such a change, surely that can be studied more broadly, and should not the insurance companies be reducing the premium that road drivers pay for their insurance cover in circumstances where the number of accidents is reducing?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I saw recently some very revealing figures on the reduction of accidents in Wales as a consequence of the imposition of the 20 miles per hour speed limit, although there are other views about its blanket introduction; the Government’s view is that introducing lower speed limits where it is appropriate produces the best result. I do not know about the insurance companies in terms of imposing speed limits, but we know that insurance companies should take note of better drivers and, increasingly, technology enables those companies to know where, when and how people are driving.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords—

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

It is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I also express my condolences to the noble Lord.

The Minister will be aware that yesterday in Australia it was announced for the first time that the number of road deaths caused by taking drugs exceeded the number of deaths caused by drink-driving. Given that, since 2013, the number of deaths caused by taking illegal drugs has increased by 70%, it is a matter of time before we get to that position. Will the noble Lord commit to the same kind of campaign that was waged over a generation to reduce deaths by drinking, by ensuring that people who take drugs have a certainty of being caught?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I was not aware of the recent Australian statistic, but frankly the noble Lord makes a good point and I am not surprised. To address this increase in drug-driving casualties over the last decade, which is manifesting itself increasingly every year, the Government intend to use the THINK! campaign and is finalising a new drug-driving campaign to launch later this year.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the Question. The Minister was very sympathetic to my question about reducing the drink-drive limit last time. He did not go further than being sympathetic, but can he respond to the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, about random breath tests? Also, what is his reaction to the idea of “alcolocks”, because the majority of people found drinking and driving are repeat offenders?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who did indeed ask that question about drink-driving. We will consider these matters further. My noble friend dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill has a number of amendments to deal with. I am sure that we will deal with them then.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can anything be done about cycling on pavements?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Yes. It is a really bad thing to do. I will write to the noble and learned Baroness rather than riffle through these papers. Increasing the ability of local authorities to deal with what look like minor transgressions of behaviour but actually badly affect vulnerable people and their confidence and ability to move around. This Government are committed to doing something about it. I will write to her.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

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

We will have the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, then the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was not entirely comforted by the Minister’s answer on “alcolocks”. An alcolock is a breathalyser device that is linked to the ignition of a car, which means that somebody who has been drinking cannot start their car. This would massively reduce drink-drive casualties. Can he be a bit firmer on it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I can certainly be a bit clearer about it, because there are public service vehicles that are fitted with the same technology, for some very obvious reasons. It is right to consider all these measures in the round. That is why we are revising the road safety strategy.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand the agony and trauma of losing a much-loved child? A teenage driver, having passed his driving test six weeks earlier, killed his three passengers on the way home from school. If the Minister does understand, what is he going to do about these teenage drivers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I very much understand the tragedy that the noble Baroness describes, and indeed my ministerial colleagues have met some of the families of victims and of young drivers who have killed their friends and family. It is deeply distressing. The Government are committed to doing something about this. The current THINK! campaign is entirely addressed at young drivers, for this very obvious reason. People are very vulnerable when they start driving and do not have the experience. The Government recognise this and will consider it further in the road safety strategy review that I mentioned.

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:28

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to promote the hydrogen and fuel cell industry in the United Kingdom.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan sets out a clear plan to boost growth in the UK hydrogen industry, including: deployment certainty for future hydrogen allocation rounds; launching the first transport and storage allocation round in hydrogen to power our business model next year; exploring options to expand the clear industry bonus of hydrogen; delivering events connecting developers with suppliers; and a comprehensive public financial institution offering, including the £1 billion Great British Energy supply chain.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. I welcome the 27 projects that have been shortlisted under hydrogen allocation round 2. I hope that they are as successful as the 10 of the 11 projects in hydrogen allocation round 1 that now have contracts enabling them to move to the construction phase. Can the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to increase the levels of UK-made technology used in both hydrogen allocation round projects to ensure that they do not have to buy it in from abroad and that it can achieve its potential in terms of jobs in the UK and the UK economy?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. This is a very important sector that the Government are working on, and we want to see it improve. The Government highly value regular engagement with the industry. We will be meeting the industry next week, on 26 November, to work out how we can work together and what else we can do to make sure that this sector is a success. We intend to invest in the supply chain. In due course we will publish a hydrogen strategy policy. We should remember as well that, globally, by 2050, this industry could be worth $1 trillion. That is something I want to see the UK be part of.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is aware that ExxonMobil is planning to close its Mossmorran ethylene plant in Fife in the great footballing nation of Scotland. I could not resist. While that result will give the workers great cheer, I seriously ask the Minister: can he set out what specific support the Government are offering at the site and how quickly that help will be available?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I congratulate Scotland on qualifying for the World Cup, and there were some really good goals last night. It was really sad to hear that news about the plant at Mossmorran, which produces ethylene for export, employing 179 people. The Minister has spoken to the chair of the company and the unions, and the Government stand ready to provide support through the DWP rapid response service. The plant is 40 years old, has been loss-making for five years, and would take £1 billion of investment to turn around. This is a commercial decision by the company. The chair of ExxonMobil has confirmed to the Minister that he was not suggesting that the closure was due to a lack of action by the Government. The Government will do all we can to help those who are in difficulty.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is there not one more hydrogen potential that the Minister has not mentioned? In transporting electricity, or transporting hydrogen, the prospect can be raised of avoiding having to cover the whole country with thousands more electricity pylons, as NESO is currently predicting. I agree that that means lower costs for hydrogen, but better lower costs and transport than paying huge sums of money to owners of wind farms not to produce electricity at night at all.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, which raises a very important issue. It is fair to say that hydrogen cannot provide all the answers to issues around energy provision, but it can reach those hard-to-reach businesses such as steel and chemicals, for example. We need to set up a system in which we can do that. The Government are investing in that; we are spending tens of millions of pounds on doing just that. It is something that we want to see grow into the future. As I have said, by 2050 it will be a $1 trillion industry, and the UK has to be part of it.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Following on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, US and European industries have a very simple tax incentive and subsidy plan to encourage domestic production of clean hydrogen, and their industries are responding as a result. By contrast, we have quite a clever but complicated and opaque system, which means that we are not seeing the same level of UK hydrogen production or equipment. Do we have any plans to review our system to learn the lessons from best practice around the world?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are always open to reviewing what the Government do in all varieties of ways to do with tax. We will have to wait to see whether there is anything on that in the Budget next week. As I said, we are investing in the supply chain. We want to see energy produced in the most effective way. I think we will be in a position over the next couple of years, especially with the hydrogen strategy, which will be published in the next while, to show to the country and to the industry that we are taking this seriously. If anything needs to be reviewed, I am sure that we will be prepared to do that.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the 2021 Science and Technology Committee report made recommendations on hydrogen and fuel cells. One of the hydrogen recommendations was a strategy for the Government to produce hydrogen. I commend the Government on their commitment to produce 10 gigawatts of power through hydrogen, 50% through electrolytic hydrogen. Alongside that, the other recommendation was to develop combined heat and power fuel cells, both small-scale ones of several kilowatts and bigger cells of several megawatts, to go with electrolysed hydrogen. I wonder whether the Government have any strategy related to that.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

On fuel cells in general, we can say that the industry has funded R&D for zero-emission technologies and transport through a number of programmes, including the zero-emission HGV and infrastructure demonstrator programme. Nearly 300 zero-emission HGVs have been produced and there are 73 planned infrastructure locations, while battery electric HGVs are currently available for purchase, with over 35 models on the market. We are doing a lot in this area, but I will take into consideration what else the noble Lord has mentioned and write to him.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, we accept that the use of hydrogen is to help us to reduce our carbon footprint but recognise that there are a variety of different ways by which that hydrogen can be generated, some of which are environmentally damaging. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that the hydrogen used across UK industry is sourced sustainably and in ways that will reduce CO₂ emissions, not increase them?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. We are investing in trying to produce as much green hydrogen as we possibly can. It is a key area of hydrogen production, and we want to ensure that everything that we do is going to be carbon-neutral. Obviously, that is the kind of hydrogen that we want to produce.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Lib Dem Benches.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for saying that the Government will publish a strategy, I think he said, in due course and in a little while. May I push him to do that as soon as possible and remind him that the industry needs certainty in order to make the investments necessary?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for that question as well. Obviously, we will publish the strategy when we are ready to do so, and we want to press ahead with that. We want to make sure that the money we spend on investment takes the industry in the right direction. We are offering surety, first, by looking at the strategy and, secondly, by meeting the industry next week and by taking this issue seriously with all the investments that we are making at the moment.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, building on the Government’s recently published carbon budget growth delivery plan, what further measures are the Government currently taking to support the growth of domestic hydrogen supply chains to reduce the UK’s reliance on imports of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Obviously, homegrown hydrogen is the way forward. The Government are considering expanding the clean industry bonus to hydrogen and will consult on proposals and publish the hydrogen strategy in the future. The UK is well placed to develop a thriving hydrogen technology, with the £1 billion Great British Energy supply fund and the £5.8 billion National Wealth Fund. We want to establish the first hydrogen network by 2031 with £500 million of government support. We are doing everything we can to make sure that this industry flourishes.

Telegraph Media Group

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:39

Asked by

[Lord Fox]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of the withdrawal of the RedBird bid for ownership of the Telegraph Media Group.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State and I are acutely aware that the Telegraph and those who work there have been in limbo for too long. We are keen for this to be resolved as soon as possible in the public interest. The Secretary of State has now received a formal withdrawal of RedBird IMI’s request to progress the sale of the call option to RedBird Capital Partners. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot provide a running commentary or go into detail on this commercially sensitive live case. The Secretary of State will update Parliament when regulatory decisions are made.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. When the Government hastily tabled the statutory instrument that was specifically designed to allow RedBird to make its acquisition, it was crystal clear to many of us that the deal was wrong. Now the financial wreckage left behind by RedBird’s exit is very complex. For example, some reports suggest that Abu Dhabi-based International Media Investments could retain huge residual interest in the Telegraph and, depending on the final price of any sale, that could be well more than 15%. The Telegraph Media Group clearly needs a white knight acquirer, but to ensure the best interest does the Minister agree that none of the players involved in the deals to date should be driving the sale process? Does she also concede that, given DCMS’s failure to read the financial room, it too should stand aside in favour of the Cabinet Office or perhaps an external adviser experienced in dealing with these kinds of complex issues?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has adhered to the letter of the law and diligently carried out her quasi-judicial responsibilities. There is no basis to the suggestion that the decision should be made elsewhere. Securing a swift outcome in the public interest is a priority for her, and she will continue to act within the bounds of the regulatory framework as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Noble Lords wanted powerful legislation to prevent foreign states from owning a stake in our newspapers and rightly so. Now we must allow for resolution to be sought to secure stability for the Telegraph.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is 18 months since this House effectively forced RedBird IMI to sell the Telegraph. It is more than unacceptable that the Telegraph’s ownership remains unresolved. Can the Minister confirm that IMI, the Emirati fund, cannot transfer any debt on to the Telegraph that it incurred from paying an inflated £500 million for the business and that such a poison pill would breach all legal limits on foreign state investment funds as well as the law preventing foreign states from owning, controlling or influencing a British newspaper?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The parties have given public assurances that this is not how the deal has been structured, which the Secretary of State was pleased to see, and I hope gives reassurance to the noble Baroness. They stated:

“The structure of the transaction has always been that upon any sale, the security and guarantees granted by the Telegraph companies in respect of the Redbird IMI loan will be fully extinguished and discharged. Further, the Telegraph would not assume any debt owed by the Barclay family”.


On that basis, it is not my current understanding that the Telegraph would be responsible for the debt. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the reassurances she requires.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, has this uncertainty for the staff and for a great national newspaper not gone on long enough? Should the Secretary of State not use her powers to get the Competition and Markets Authority to put this on a block so that there is a proper option and normal order can be restored?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the potential approaches that might be taken at this stage, although I and the Secretary of State are keenly aware that the sale process has taken too long. We are clear about the negative impact of this uncertainty, not least on the Telegraph staff. For this reason, the Secretary of State will be moving this forward as a priority. However, the need for decisive action cannot overshadow the need for thorough and diligent consideration of the approach which will deliver the best outcome.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State thought about approaching the mutual world? It is highly successful in the United Kingdom at the moment, both in the financial dimension and across a whole spectrum of activity.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not privy to the Secretary of State’s thinking on this matter, but I will pass on the noble Lord’s suggestion.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Telegraph contributor and as the director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister assure the House that, in keeping with the principle that foreign states should not be able to exercise any influence over the editorial content of a British newspaper, foreign states should not be able to exercise any influence over the sale of a British newspaper either? To repeat the request of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, assuming that the Minister agrees with that principle, will she ask the Secretary of State to guarantee that RedBird IMI is not involved in the decision regarding to whom the Telegraph is sold?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I have said previously, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any live merger case. I agree with all noble Lords who have stated their support for the Telegraph, which is a world-renowned title, with a long and proud history that we want to see continue. The public interest intervention notice and pre-emptive action order on RedBird IMI’s proposed acquisition of the Telegraph both remain in place. As I have stated previously, the Secretary of State is keen to make sure that the matter is resolved, as she agrees, as I am sure do noble Lords from across the House, that the sale process is taking too long.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s understanding of the limbo in which this leaves the Telegraph’s journalists and readers. We all understand that there are commercial sensitivities and quasi-judicial processes that have to be respected here, but these add to the sense of frustration that is experienced by potential buyers, vendors, Parliament and the public alike. Do the Government have any plans, when this is finally resolved, to look again at the Enterprise Act regime that governs it, to ensure that we have protections in place for our media, but also so that we can send a clear signal that the UK is open to investment from potential businesses?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK is most certainly open for investment. It is probably premature for me to do a review of a sale that has not yet taken place, but I assure your Lordships’ House that any lessons that can be learned from what has happened over the past year or so will be.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the Minister said that it was premature to look into this unless and until the sale took place. Surely part of this sorry story—the “will she, won’t she?”—relates to the pre-sale process, and that is something that should be looked at just as much as what has happened after any hypothetical sale that may or may not occur.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a fair comment, and I will pass on his comments to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain some contradictions here? On the one hand, the Government are quite keen that a foreign Government should not own a UK newspaper, while being simultaneously content for foreign Governments, including dictatorships, to own UK water, energy, rail, ports, airports, oil, gas, hospitals, care homes, GP surgeries and more. Why this hypocrisy about foreign Governments that is just applicable to newspapers?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend is allowing me to explain why we want a pluralistic free press. It is fundamental to our democracy. I think that there is a difference between foreign investment in other parts of the UK economy, including utilities, and the free press that is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, and which we want to continue without foreign state interference.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are actively concerned about balance in the broadcast media. Are they also concerned about the maintenance of balance in the written media?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We would love to have a bit more balance in the written media. However, I am absolutely committed, as is the Secretary of State, to continuing to see the Telegraph remain as one of the key newspapers among a whole host of newspapers with centuries-old traditions.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, as no one else is seeking to ask a question, may I just return to this? The Minister seems to be suggesting in her answers that the Telegraph’s future remains in the destiny or hands of RedBird IMI, which has been found to be non-compliant with the law that Parliament has passed. Can I press the Minister again on the question that I asked? She suggested that they were not indicating that they would do something to transfer the debt, but surely the law prevents them from doing what has been reported and sounds so horrific in relation to this poison pill?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Unfortunately, I can only repeat the response that I gave previously. It is not my understanding that the Telegraph will be responsible for the debt. I will clarify to the noble Baroness in writing the extent to which that is because of the law or the extent to which it is because of the commitment, but we are absolutely clear that the Telegraph is not responsible for the debt.

Crime and Policing Bill

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

Northern Ireland legislative consent granted, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Constitution Committee, 33rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

15:51

Clause 28: Maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons

Amendment 57

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

57: Clause 28, page 32, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

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

My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement with the Scottish Government and relevant Northern Ireland departments since the Bill’s introduction, which is why we have tabled so many amendments today. That has happened since February.

In each case, we are bringing forward these amendments at the request of the devolved Governments. The amendments unavoidably cover a significant number of pages of the Marshalled List, but I assure noble Lords that, importantly, in general they do not import new policy into the Bill. The amendments all relate to the offensive weapons provisions in Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Bill. These will contribute to our safer streets mission to halve knife crime in a decade. I am pleased to report that, even now, in the latest crime survey, figures for the year to the end of June show a 5% reduction in knife-enabled offences. This is to be welcomed, but of course there is much more to do.

Clause 28 amends Sections 141 and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It increases the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons from six months to two years imprisonment. This includes the offence of manufacturing, selling, hiring, offering for hire, lending or possessing in private any prohibited offensive weapon as detailed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Also covered here is the offence of selling a knife or bladed article to anyone under the age of 18.

Amendments 57 to 70 to Clause 28 simply extend the increase of the maximum penalty for those offences to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Government. Existing legislation in England and Wales provides that anyone over 18 years of age found guilty of any of these offences will face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. We believe that the maximum penalty does not reflect the seriousness of these offences and should be increased in line with the current offence of unlawful marketing of knives, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. This will align the maximum penalties for the offences in relation to the sale of knives.

In Clauses 31 and 32 we are introducing a stricter two-step age-verification check for the sale and delivery of knives bought online. These provisions will require at the point of sale specific checks of a photographic identity document and a current photograph of the buyer, as well as photographic identity checks at the point of delivery, be it a residential address or a collection point. In addition, we are providing for a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife to someone other than the buyer if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company, so that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours. These are both welcome measures.

Amendments 71, 72 and 74 confirm that, under Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where a passport or driving licence is used as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, it is required to be a copy of a physical version. We are, however, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations—subject to affirmative procedure, so that this House and the Commons have the opportunity to debate them further—so that alternative means of age verification such as digital ID, including digital passports and digital driving licences, can be used. These amendments are required to ensure that the appropriate digital proofs can be used as evidence of identity in place of a physical document, and that the necessary safeguards can be attached to their use.

It is clear that many consumers already expect to be able to use digital forms of ID, rather than just the physical version, to prove to a seller they are aged 18 or over in order to purchase knives or crossbows. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 lays the foundation for trusted digital verification services that are already widely used across the economy. Digital versions of government-issued documents such as driving licences and veteran cards will become available soon. For both consumers who buy and businesses that sell knives or crossbows, it is also important to provide consistency with the existing position across different sectors where digital age verification is used or soon will be—for example, in the purchase of other age-restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco, or for gambling.

The other amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 extend the provisions made by these clauses for England and Wales to Scotland, and the additional clause makes provision for Northern Ireland. This is at the request of both devolved Governments.

I apologise for the length of the discussion on the amendments in this group. The amendments to Clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Crossbows Act 1987, which requires that crossbows, or parts of a crossbow, can only be sold or let on hire to someone aged 18 or over. Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the same stricter two-step age-verification checks for the sale and letting on hire of crossbows, or parts of crossbows bought or let on hire online, that have been introduced for the sale and delivery of knives bought online.

Government Amendments 124 to 189 extend the provisions in Clauses 33 to 35 to Scotland—again, at the request of the Scottish Government—and Amendments 190 to 192 insert new clauses that amend the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order to ensure that stricter age-verification checks for the sale, letting on hire and delivery of crossbows also apply to Northern Ireland. It is important that there is a cross-UK approach on these significant issues.

Finally, Clause 36 provides for the mandatory reporting of the bulk sale of knives. Clause 36 defines reportable sales as the purchase of six knives in a single transaction in England and Wales, or when made over two or more occasions in a 30-day period. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or up to two or more persons where these are to be delivered to the same residential address. As noble Lords probably know, there are exemptions for business sales and for sales of cutlery knives without a sharp point, safety razor blades, and pocketknives with a cutting edge that does not exceed 3 inches.

There will also be exemptions for qualifying sets of knives, such as kitchen knife blocks. These will be sets of at least three knives that are each of a different size or shape, no matter how many knives the set contains—we are all very familiar with that type of kitchen equipment. The purchase of multiple sets of knives, or the purchase of a single set alongside individual knives where these combinations lead to a total purchase of at least six knives, will also be reportable.

That is what is currently in the Bill. Amendments 193 to 209 extend these provisions to Scotland, and similar provisions are also being introduced for Northern Ireland, so, again, there is consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are various consequential and drafting amendments at the back of the Bill relating to the power to make consequential amendments. But, in essence, the policy positions in the Bill, through these Government amendments, are being replicated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It is a Home Office-approved document and is widely used. Maybe he said it and I missed it—we were going at quite a pace—but could he confirm that the physical proof of age card is still acceptable for these purposes?

We are expecting the mandatory conditions for digital proof of age to be published before Christmas, possibly. Is the noble Lord able to confirm that the Government are still on track to publish these changes so that sales of alcohol and other proof of age purposes can be done by a digital proof of age card as well as by a physical card?

16:00

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I can say yes to both those points. If I cannot, I shall revert to her shortly.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we support the intent behind this blizzard of government amendments. Of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and, in certain cases, Northern Ireland.

It would be extremely useful if the Minister could say whether the law in each of the home nations is the same. I assume that is the effect of all these different amendments—that the UK should be on exactly the same footing, however and wherever you commit that offence. Even though I understand that it was at the request, in the first instance, of the Scottish Government.

We very much support the way in which the amendments reflect the gravity of the kinds of violence that plague our communities from these offensive weapons and that the manufacture, supply and possession of these articles will be met with the full force of the law. We welcome not only the amendments but the original provisions of the Bill, but we need to think of not just penalties but prevention. I hope some of those provisions will make individuals accountable with the digital identity, which we also support.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like an answer to the question of whether the analogue identity provision will continue. Otherwise, that could lead to forms of digital exclusion, which I do not think that we or the Minister would welcome.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that digital passports or driving licences can be approved documents. There is a power by regulation to add other documents; at the moment, the PASS card is not added to that as a form of identification, but obviously it potentially can be in due course, if Governments decide to add that. That will again be subject to regulation. I apologise, but the noble Baroness asked me a question and I gave her the answer in good faith, but it is best that we clarify that point now.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties for the offence in Clause 28 in Scotland, and for extending the provision in Clauses 31, 32 and 35 to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I have no issue with the government amendments about the bulk sale of knives.

I do, however, take issue with government Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 110, 111, 129, 130, 141, 142, 170, 171, 185, 186, 187 and 188. These amend the Bill to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying further forms of identification that can be used for age-verification purposes relating to the online sale and the delivery of knives and crossbows. That might seem innocuous at first, but all it takes is to look at the explanatory statements to realise what these amendments are really about. The explanatory statement for Amendment 71 says that the amendment

“allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID)”.

That is the point.

What is happening here is that the Government are attempting perhaps to sneak in provisions permitting digital ID by the backdoor. I say that the Government are sneaking these in, because they have not only tabled amendments to change clauses already in the Bill but included the regulation-making power permitting digital ID in the drafting of the new clauses that extend provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland. On top of that, they have lumped these amendments together with all the others in this enormous group. I can only assume that the Government hoped that perhaps no one would notice their attempts to take the very first step towards legislating for mandatory digital ID. That is why we cannot support these amendments.

The Government will perhaps attempt to play this off as a small and practical change to allow Ministers to retain flexibility by allowing new age-verification processes, but that is a red herring. Digital ID is an affront to our rights, and the Government have repeatedly stated that it will not be mandatory, that it is no big deal and that it will simply make things easier. Yet here we are with the Government seeking to insert provisions for digital ID into the Crime and Policing Bill. They have not even enacted the policy, yet they are already trying to expand its purpose. Does this not tell us all we need to know? They say that it will not be mandatory, but how can we ever be sure of that?

We notified the Government of our opposition to these amendments in advance to let them know that we would not accept any amendments to this Bill, or for that matter any Bill, that enables digital ID. It is in that spirit that I tabled my Amendments 72A, 72B, 87A and 131A to remove provisions in the Bill that permit the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify other identity documents. My Amendments 75A, 75B, 75C, 76A, 76B, 76C, 190A, 190B, 191A and 191B amend the government amendments for that same purpose. If the Government accept these proposed changes to their amendments—that is, if they accept that there can be no power to specify digital ID for the purposes of these clauses—I have no further concerns with them. However, if they do not want to accept my changes to their amendments to remove the ability to specify digital ID for age-verification purposes here, then we will not be able to support them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has done it. We are in the 21st century; digital ID is becoming a commonplace issue. I understand that we are going to have steps to have age verification, such as acceptable digital ID, as the norm in future.

As I set out earlier, it is to allow different forms of digital ID to be used to verify purchasers’ identity information. When changes to the acceptable proofs of identity, digital or otherwise, are proposed, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would have been an opportunity for the noble Lord, and in both Houses, to oppose or question at that time, but I understand where he is coming from. I am of the view that as technology progresses, there will be different types of digital ID which might be acceptable. It is not an attempt by the Government to speed up or usurp the process; it is just future-proofing, because there may be digital ID on a range of issues.

As an example, I have a digital and a hard copy of my railcard. I show both at different times, depending on which one is easiest to get to. Digital ID is progressing, and it will continue to do so. There are potentially new digital documents, such as the recently announced digital ID card, coming downstream. As with any new legislation, that is still a matter for Parliament to consider, but if a Bill comes before the House—after the outcome of a consultation, it might be in the next few weeks—that is something we are trying to future-proof accordingly.

I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord is prepared to support all the amendments, but I guess that he will not—that is a reasonable position for him to take and one we must look at. To help him today, in a genuine spirit of trying to help, if the noble Lord remains unpersuaded, which I think he is—he confirms that he is—I will move only Amendments 57 to 70 and Amendments 193 to 209 to Clauses 28 and 29, respectively. I will not move Amendment 210A, which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland to that contained in Clause 36 and, in due course, the related consequential and drafting amendments to the Bill, so that we can look at these matters on Report and not have that debate and discussion today. At this stage, I will not move the amendments to Clauses 31 to 35 and the associated back-of-the-Bill consequential amendments. The Committee should rest assured that I will bring them back on Report, and if the noble Lord has his disagreements then, we will test the House. If the House votes one way, we accept it; if it votes the other way, we potentially test the House again. That is a matter for discussion and debate downstream.

There is nothing to fear from the proposals for someone having a digital ID and showing it when receiving a knife or weapon through the post. That is not something to be afraid of. We are in the 21st century—I am in the 21st century at least, let us put it that way. We will go from there.

I also assure the noble Lord that paper documents such as passports and driving licences will be acceptable as forms of ID, as well as potentially any digital versions of those in due course. I hope that satisfies his question.

I welcome, in a spirit of co-operation and consensus, the agreement from both Front Benches to the provisions for Northern Ireland and Scotland, so that in those areas there is a United Kingdom response from the three Administrations who deal with these matters in a devolved or non-devolved way. I commend the amendments I said I would move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance, whatever is prescribed by the Secretary of State, is an alternative form of identification—wholly convincing, but if we must come back on Report and debate this at length, so be it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a date at the moment, but I will reflect on that with colleagues and return to her, because there are a number of other departmental interests as well.

Amendment 57 agreed.

16:15

Amendments 58 to 70

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

58: Clause 28, page 32, line 8, leave out “level 5 on the standard scale” and insert “the statutory maximum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

59: Clause 28, page 32, line 14, at end insert—
“(da) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and provides for the penalties available.

60: Clause 28, page 32, line 20, at end insert—
“(ia) in paragraph (b) for “6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale” substitute “12 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment and maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

61: Clause 28, page 32, line 24, at end insert—
“(cb) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and provides for the penalties available.

62: Clause 28, page 32, line 28, after “conviction” insert “in England and Wales”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to penalties for a conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

63: Clause 28, page 32, line 30, at end insert—
“(aa) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment and maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

64: Clause 28, page 32, line 31, after “indictment” insert “in England and Wales”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to penalties for a conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

65: Clause 28, page 32, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and provides for the penalties available.

66: Clause 28, page 32, line 41, leave out “6” and insert “12”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

67: Clause 28, page 32, line 42, leave out “level 4 on the standard scale” and insert “the statutory maximum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

68: Clause 28, page 33, line 3, at end insert—
“(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, and provides for the penalties available.

69: Clause 28, page 33, line 6, at end insert—
“(ia) in paragraph (b) for “6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale” substitute “12 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment and maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1A) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

70: Clause 28, page 33, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1A) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, and provides for the penalties available.

Amendments 58 to 70 agreed.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 29 and 30 agreed.

Clause 31: Remote sales of knives etc

Amendments 71 to 74 not moved.

Clause 31 agreed.

Amendment 75 not moved.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

I cannot call Amendments 75A, 75B or 75C, as they are amendments to Amendment 75, which has not been moved.

Amendment 76 not moved.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

I cannot call Amendments 76A, 76B or 76C, as they are amendments to Amendment 76, which has not been moved.

Clause 32: Delivery of knives etc

Amendments 77 to 121 not moved.

Clause 32 agreed.

Amendment 122

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

122: After Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—
“Sale and delivery of knives: review(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 31 and 32 of this Act within two years of these sections coming into force.(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) the effect of sections 31 and 32 in preventing the online sale of knives to those under the age of 18,(b) whether safety design regulation would limit the availability of knives that may be used in violent offences, and(c) what mechanisms could be used to improve data collection by the police of bladed articles used in all knife-related crimes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of sections 31 and 32 in preventing the online sale of knives to under 18s, and requires the review to look at other measures that might limit the availability of knives that could be used in violent offences.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, while we welcome the effort to strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales, we must ensure that these new powers are effective, enforceable and subject to continuous review.

In moving Amendment 122, I also speak to Amendment 194. Both aim to enhance the long-term effectiveness and impact of this legislation. Amendment 122 would insert a new clause immediately after Clause 32. It would mandate that the Secretary of State conducts a review of the impact of Sections 31 and 32 of what will be the Act within two years of these provisions coming into force.

New powers addressing the remote sale of knives are crucial, yet legislative intervention alone is rarely sufficient to address a complex societal challenge such as knife crime. I recall some years ago running a project in the London Borough of Lambeth on precisely this issue, and it was extremely complex dealing with young people in this particular area. We must ensure that the mechanisms we are implementing, such as the requirement for physical ID on delivery and the provisions for age verification, and indeed those mentioned by the Minister, moving towards digital verification, are actually achieving the desired result and preventing the online sale of knives to under-18s. The review must go beyond merely confirming compliance. Crucially, it must also look at other measures that might limit the availability of knives that could be used in violent offences, such as the design of knives—for instance, by changing kitchen knives available online to rounded ends.

Home Office statistics indicate that two-thirds of the identified knives used to kill people in a single year are kitchen knives. We are very much on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with his Amendment 123. We must not stand still but use real-world evidence of what works in tackling and preventing violent crime. We need to continuously monitor and assess the effectiveness of the solutions we put in place. Amendment 194 relates to Clause 36:

“Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk”.


Clause 36 introduces the requirement for sellers to report bulk sales, an essential provision for tackling the grey market and ensuring accountability. However, for this provision to be an effective law enforcement tool, the information reported must be timely.

My amendment would require regulations made under Clause 36(1) to include a clear provision that any reportable sale must be notified to the specified person in real time or as soon as is reasonably practicable. Furthermore, to eliminate any ambiguity, the amendment would set a hard stop specifying that notification must occur, in any event, no later than the delivery of the bladed articles or the end of the day on which the seller became aware that the sale constituted a reportable sale. If we expect law enforcement agencies to use this reporting data to intervene and prevent crimes, giving them advance warning is paramount. A delay in reporting a suspicious bulk purchase renders the power largely reactive rather than preventive, and this amendment would simply ensure that the regulations implement the duty to report as soon as possible, turning bureaucratic compliance into actionable intelligence. I hope the Government will support Amendment 122 to ensure accountability and scrutiny over time and Amendment 194 to ensure that the immediate operational impact of the new bulk reporting duties is maximised. I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 123 says:

“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must launch a consultation”—


as a teacher, marking my own homework, I realise that the drafting is then wrong and it should say “on a ban on sharp-tipped knives”. In this, I associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am a teacher, and two years ago my school lost a student to knife crime. With respect to my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool, who is not in his place but who at Second Reading warned that there must not be too much law, I will use the analogy that amendments are like cars: everybody agrees that there are too many but nobody wants to give up their own. According to the ONS, last year 46% of homicides in the UK were with a sharp instrument, and 50% of those were with a kitchen knife. It was 52% the year before. Combat knives account for 6% and zombie knives 2%. Are we looking in the wrong direction here? Should we be looking within the home?

I am very grateful to Graham Farrell, professor of crime science at the University of Leeds, the Youth Endowment Fund and the Ben Kinsella Trust for their help. If anybody has not watched Idris Elba’s brilliantly thought-provoking film “Our Knife Crime Crisis”, I heartily recommend it. It is still available on BBC iPlayer.

Pointed-tipped knives are significantly more lethal than round-tipped knives, as shown by forensic studies on penetrative damage. A rounded knife will not penetrate clothing, let alone kill. Domestic settings are high-risk environments—especially for women—in which kitchen knives are readily available and often used in fatal attacks. Blade magazine disagrees. It says:

“The harsh truth is this: no amount of blunted blades, banned kitchen knives, or bureaucratic licensing schemes will stop individuals hell-bent on violence. You can’t legislate evil out of existence by targeting inanimate objects. England doesn’t have a knife problem—it has a people problem. A system problem. A failure-to-act-when-it-matters problem”.


But it is not the situation in which a perpetrator has planned their attack and carefully obtained or adapted a weapon to kill that this would prevent. It is the impulse homicide, particularly within a home environment, that we are trying to reduce here.

Situational crime prevention theory supports reducing crime opportunities by altering environments and tools, such as replacing lethal knives with safer ones. Rounded-tipped knives reduce temptation and harm, making impulsive violence less deadly without affecting culinary function. Small paring knives that do not penetrate far enough could be used in kitchens where a sharp point is really needed. Evidence also shows that crime rarely displaces to other weapons when access to one is restricted. Alternative weapons, such as scissors or screwdrivers, are less effective and less available and carry a lower status, thereby reducing their appeal. Dining knives are already rounded, showing a public tolerance for safer designs in everyday life. There are also policy parallels, with phase-outs such as incandescent light bulbs, diesel cars and the smoking ban.

The expected outcomes from this include a halving of knife-related homicides, reducing other knife crimes and preventing thousands of injuries. Can we please just have a consultation on this?

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to make observations about Amendments 122 and 123. I am not against a review or a consultation, but I make the point that these are not cost-free. Reviews and consultations take up a lot of time within departments and are expensive, and we need to keep that in mind when this House authorises them.

My point is very narrow and applies to both the review and the consultation. It is perfectly true that the sharp-bladed knife is a matter of very great concern to the public, and rightly so. It is important to keep in mind, however, that sharp-bladed knives also have legitimate purposes. My point is that when we authorise the review or consultation, we need to be sure that the scope of the review or consultation is sufficiently wide to address the balance between banning, or further banning, sharp-bladed knives and the impact on those who use them for proper purposes. In other words, the scope of the review or consultation must consider the issue of proportionality when we come to any further proposed changes. That is the only point that I want to make, but it goes to both the review and the consultation.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, once again, I find myself in the rather scary position of seeing some considerable merit in the suggestion of a Lib Dem Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I will also comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who also advocated for controls on knives.

There is merit in having a review, or otherwise, of the measures in the Bill. However, I would go further and say that we probably need a wide-ranging review of all the measures successive Governments have taken to try to crack down on knife crime as, despite all our efforts, we cannot manage to do it. I was the Home Office Minister who took through the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, followed up the next year by the Knives Act 1997. That was building on Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998.

16:30

I am certain I said then that these new powers would make a huge difference in reducing knife crime, and every Labour and Conservative Government since then have said the same thing as we constantly try to close this stable door, since the bad guys can move faster than we can. We had never heard of zombie knives 20 years ago and, apart from the horrendous murder of PC Blakelock at Broadwater Farm in 1985, machete attacks were rare, not ubiquitous as they are now.

In the Bill, we are trying to crack down on online sales, and I totally support that, but we need to have a good, hard look at how we can slow down and bend the curve on knife crime. I have some pretty tough amendments to follow in another group, relating to machetes, because we have to hit really hard those who attack in the streets using machetes or zombie knives. However, without a concerted effort by lawful authorities, we will not succeed in bending the curve.

When I recently bought a new paring knife, it was wrapped in tough, bulletproof plastic and required one of my trusty old Stanley knives to open it. The girl at the checkout summoned a supervisor before she would sell it to me. I had initially thought that it was because I looked under 18, but it was to check whether the girl had the authority to sell it. I must say to the noble Lord, I am amateur cook: try using a paring knife to cut a Savoy cabbage or a lettuce, or to strip chicken meat off the bone.

No matter what restrictions we impose, the bad guys will find ways around them. They will get their hands on kitchen knives, or seven or nine-inch blades. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is right that a round-ended, blunt-ended knife will not cut through clothing, but it will not cut through an avocado, either. We would be trying to impose unnecessary restrictions, as my noble friend said from the Front Bench. It is too excessive.

In the year ending March 2024, there were around 50,000 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police in England and Wales. Police operations and amnesties regularly remove thousands of knives from the streets. In 2006, an amnesty collected 90,000 knives and, a couple of years ago, 60,000 knives were collected from the streets of England and Wales. However, it is estimated that there are 400,000 kitchen knives in circulation. They would not be handed in in any amnesty if the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, went through—and I bet none of those 400,000 knives is like my paring knife.

This is no criticism whatever of the current Government, nor past ones I served in or supported; none of us has the answer to knife crime. Yes, we are tightening things up in the Bill, as we have done in every other Bill since I have been in Parliament over the last 40 years, but we still do not have the answer. Therefore, there might be some merit in some sort of review. We might not get the answers we want, but at least we might be asking the right questions.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will reply quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and also the noble Viscount. I am not against sharp-edged knives. I have a very good knife that cuts through a Savoy cabbage and does a great job with everything I need in the kitchen. It is just rounded at the edge, so I cannot stab my wife with it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the key finding of the Clayman review was the need for better police data recording on knife crime. Officers often fail to note the specific type of knife used, with further gaps around sales and marketing. Amendment 122 recognises that, without understanding the threat, it is difficult to counter it, so the evidence base must be improved.

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Clement-Jones, promote a policing approach to reduce opportunities for crime through better design of our buildings, known as designing out crime. I have spoken to a number of chief police officers who have tried this, with great effect. They are very happy about how this can happen and would really like to see it rolled out. This preventive approach aligns with the Liberal Democrat position and I hope the Government will give it serious attention.

We welcome the Government’s proposals on this part of the Bill, but laws work only if they are enforceable. Again, the Clayman review said that police currently lack the training, know-how and resources to police online knife sales effectively.

Can I ask the Minister about the policing of overseas suppliers, since this is where many of these lethal weapons originate? What plans are in place to monitor imports? The Clayman review found that there is often very poor co-ordination between Border Force and police and noted the difficulty in getting data from tech and communication companies based overseas. Can the Minister mention that when he winds up, please?

Clayman also suggested an import licensing scheme to ensure that a licence is required to bring knives into the UK. He proposed revisiting the tax levy on imported knives to ensure that potential weapons brought into the country are easier to track and identify. Do the Government intend to implement either of those recommendations?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches believe that this group contains sensible and prudent amendments. They require us to review the effectiveness of the Government’s measures and to consider carefully the potential implications of the new regulations around the sale of knives. They also seek to ensure that we have the necessary evidence base to improve legislation where needed. These, in our view, are good principles.

Amendment 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, contains both those elements. The first part of the amendment seeks a review within two years of the effectiveness of the measures in preventing the online sale of knives to persons under the age of 18. This would plainly be sensible. There is little point in legislating to prevent something if we find out that in fact that prohibition is not taking effect. We all want to stop the sale of knives to children, but we should want to do so in the most effective and proportionate manner. By reviewing the impact of the Bill, the Government would be able to make the necessary adjustments in response to the evidence. Having said that, we should listen carefully to the observations of my noble friend Lord Hailsham in this respect.

Another aspect of the question of efficacy is our obligation to the law-abiding public. It is right that we should attempt to ban children from purchasing knives. We are all aware of the severity of the knife crime epidemic and that part of the problem is the easy access to knives. But we should not pretend that the entire problem stems from their online availability. Of course, it is a factor, but children and young persons intent on committing knife crime will have plenty of other opportunities, if they are determined enough, to buy knives and to acquire them from other sources. They could use an older friend’s or family member’s identification, or indeed, they could ask them simply to make the purchase. They could steal a knife—given the current rates of shoplifting, I suspect this already happens—or they might simply go no further than their kitchen drawer and take one of the many easily accessible knives there.

By adding restrictions to online sale, the Government are merely stemming one route of access, but doing so adds an extra burden to the great majority of law-abiding citizens and retailers. As I have said, we understand why action is necessary, but, if we are to make it mandatory, we should ensure that it is genuinely effective in practice. Here, we should listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We must know, therefore, that we are not adding regulation for its own sake and that we are simultaneously taking other meaningful measures to address the wider issue. The Government should continue to explore this further.

Proposed subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c) in Amendment 122 address another aspect of the knife problem. While the first part reviews the effect of the Bill on the sale of knives, these subsections turn to the design and legality of the knives themselves.

If the knives which we make harder to purchase are not the ones being used in knife crime, our efforts will be in vain. Collecting data both on knives sold and, separately, on knives used in crimes, as Amendment 194 argues for, could offer a remedy for this. It would provide the Government with the necessary data to identify which types of weapons in particular lie at the root of the problem and to take action accordingly. This principle also underlies Amendment 123—I had already noted the typo, if I can put it that way, and have marked the noble Lord’s homework accordingly. But, taking it seriously, consulting on what knives are used in offending and on the measures to be required to curb their circulation must be sensible and proportionate, and it should complement the Government’s proposals.

This is a moderate group of amendments on a subject that clearly needs further review and refinement. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the Government’s position. At the same time, I think we need to hear carefully and take heed of what noble Lords have said in their words of caution on this topic.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for these amendments, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing his front-line experience of the tragedy in the school in which he currently works. I am also grateful for the comments of other noble Lords and I will try to respond to those in due course. I note the broad support from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for the amendments before the Committee today.

I want to start with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I accept that there have been numerous attempts by numerous Governments to take numerous courses of action to reduce knife crime and that this is another one. But I just say to him that it is still worth trying, and it is still worth examining how we can best reduce the level of knife crime. The measures in the Bill before the Committee today are an honest attempt by the Government to put further obstacles in the way of individuals who might use those knives for nefarious purposes. I simply say it is worth trying, and we are seeking to do that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained, Amendment 122 would require the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of Clauses 31 and 32 in preventing sales to under-18s within two years of those clauses coming into force. I agree in principle that we should have to keep under review the impact of those measures, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned: to look at what works and what has not worked.

The Government are providing £1.75 million of funding for a new national police co-ordination unit to tackle the online sale of knives, and the police will be responsible for enforcing this legislation. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about enforcement but it is for the police to understand the legislation’s effectiveness and what more can be done to tackle knife crime. I will return to the other points that she mentioned in due course.

It is standard practice—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that all measures in the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. This scrutiny will consider the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill; self-evidently, that includes Clauses 31 and 32. The noble Lord is asking for a two-year review; it will be undertaken within three to five years. I hope that reassures him that the measures will be reviewed in a timely and appropriate way—and, again, to learn the lessons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned that we need to examine.

Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would require the Government to consult on regulating the sale of sharp-tipped knives and provide a report to Parliament. The design of knives is also addressed in Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: bladed articles with pointed ends have legitimate uses. They are often needed for a wide range of purposes: they are used as tools in work, and for farming, fishing and cooking. The Government are keen to try to strike the right balance between allowing access to knives for legitimate reasons, which the noble Viscount ably outlined, and the need to protect the public from dangerous weapons.

If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Government are actively exploring options for how we can strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, including consulting on a licensing scheme for all knife sellers in the future. I hope that the noble Lord can accept that as I progress the discussion today.

Amendment 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require regulations relating to the reporting of remote sales of knives to ensure that such reporting takes place as soon as possible following a bulk sale. I am sympathetic to the overall aim of the amendment. Clause 36 provides for a duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. It makes it mandatory for online sellers to report bulk sales. It defines those bulk sales as purchases of six or more knives, two or more qualifying sets of knives or one qualifying set or five knives, in a single transaction or made over two or more occasions within a 30-day period. That is set out in Clause 36. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person or two or more persons where they are believed to be delivered to the same residential address.

16:45

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to make it a requirement to report those in real time or as soon as is reasonably practical. Clause 36 already provides that regulations will be made to specify how and when reports should be made and what the details of those reports should be—including the detail of regulation to allow future changes of reporting requirements through secondary legislation. We are working very closely with the police to ensure that the regulations set out appropriate information and that all reporting systems are ready as soon as possible. We continue to work with stakeholders, including the police, to develop those regulations to ensure that their reports are received within appropriate timescales.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the reports have to be of value to the police in preventing knife crime and therefore need to be received and actioned in a timely manner. There is little benefit if the reports are made days or weeks after the remote sale has taken place. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot commit today to the formula of the timelines of the report because we need to consult the police and others. The points that he has raised today are well made. I will take them into account when we examine those regulations again. I hope that the regulations and the comments that I have made today are helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned improved data collection. She is right that improved data collection was a recommendation of Commander Clayman in his end-to-end review of online knife sales. We have implemented the majority and most pressing of the review’s recommendations under Ronan’s law, which includes measures such as stricter rules for online sellers. We are also considering the other recommendations in the review. I will be able to return to those, I hope, at some point in the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also raised the valid question of what happens about knives imported from outside the United Kingdom. Products from overseas sellers will be subject to the same age checks on delivery if they are marked as containing a knife, as part of the verification checks that are in the legislation. I refer her to page 43 of the Bill. There she will see in new Section 42A, “Delivery of bladed articles sold by non-UK seller to premises: England and Wales”, a number of issues which will cover, I hope to her satisfaction, the issue of imported knives. If she can look at those at her leisure, there will be opportunities to test them again on Report if she feels unhappy about them.

These issues in relation to knives are extremely important. I say finally to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we are actively exploring options to strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, particularly in relation to the pointed ends of knives. That will form part of the discussions that we have. I say to both noble Lords that this is a work in progress. We will consult still further. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, before I come to the Minister’s very constructive response, I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been a very valuable debate, and we have had a huge degree of consensus on the way forward. I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had to say about there being no easy answers. I would say that he is lethal not just at the checkout but elsewhere in this House.

On a serious note, we have a common cause here to prevent knife crime in any way we possibly can. I very much appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, had to say with his experience as a headteacher. He quite rightly gave Idris Elba a namecheck, as he has done so much towards the cause of knife crime prevention. I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, had to say in caveating this kind of review. It could be as specific as the Minister has said, in looking in particular at design. He certainly indicated that in his response.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—and I very much appreciate the support from the Opposition Front Bench. As he says, it is legitimate to seek adjustments in response to the evidence; that is a very important point that was made. When he says that this is a moderate measure, I will take that; I think moderate is good in this context.

I come to what the Minister had to say. He said that the current provisions were an honest attempt to tackle these issues. I entirely take that, but I also took a lot of comfort from what he said about what the Government are doing to explore further preventive measures, including perhaps licensing schemes, or whatever. I very much hope that, between Committee and Report, we can discover a bit more about the shape of that. I also took comfort in what he had to say about the content of the regulations: that appropriate timescales would be included in those regulations.

On the basis of those two assurances—I think the Minister has responded—we can take some comfort in the fact that we are not only seeking answers but continuing to question whether we have all the answers.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sits down, can I correct a quick note of fact? It is very kind of him to promote me massively, but I am a simple design technology teacher. I have a very good headteacher way above me.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

Amendment 123 not moved.

Clause 32 agreed.

Clause 33: Remote sale and letting of crossbows

Amendments 124 to 131 not moved.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

I cannot call Amendment 131A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 131.

Amendments 132 and 133 not moved.

Clause 33 agreed.

Clause 34: Delivery of crossbows

Amendments 134 to 182 not moved.

Clause 34 agreed.

Clause 35: Sale and delivery of crossbows: supplementary provision

Amendments 183 to 189 not moved.

Clause 35 agreed.

Amendments 190 not moved.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

I cannot call Amendments 190A and 190B, as they are amendments to Amendment 190.

Amendment 191 not moved.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

I cannot call Amendments 191A and 191B, as they are amendments to Amendment 191.

Amendment 192 not moved.

Clause 36: Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales

Amendment 193

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

193: Clause 36, page 55, line 9, leave out “England and Wales”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

Amendment 193 agreed.

Amendment 194 not moved.

Amendments 195 to 209

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

195: Clause 36, page 55, line 26, leave out “England or Wales” and insert “the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.

196: Clause 36, page 55, line 29, leave out “England or Wales” and insert “the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.

197: Clause 36, page 55, line 33, leave out “England or Wales” and insert “the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.

198: Clause 36, page 55, line 34, leave out from “seller” to “at” in line 35 and insert “is not in the presence of the person (“the buyer”) to whom the bladed articles are sold”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.

199: Clause 36, page 55, line 37, leave out from “(5)” to “if” in line 38 and insert “the seller is not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.

200: Clause 36, page 55, line 39, leave out from “where” to end of line and insert “the seller is an individual, the seller or a person acting on the seller’s behalf”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.

201: Clause 36, page 55, line 40, leave out “B” and insert “the buyer”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.

202: Clause 36, page 56, line 1, leave out from “where” to end of line and insert “the seller is not an individual, a person acting on the seller’s behalf”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.

203: Clause 36, page 56, line 2, leave out “B” and insert “the buyer”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.

204: Clause 36, page 56, line 3, leave out from “if” to end of line 4 and insert “the buyer”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 36, page 55, line 34.

205: Clause 36, page 56, line 19, leave out from “liable” to end of line 20 and insert—
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for the new section 141D inserted by clause 36(1) to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales. It sets out the penalties for offences under the section committed in Scotland.

206: Clause 36, page 56, leave out line 23
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a reference to England and Wales that is no longer needed because new section 141D is to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales (see my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29).

207: Clause 36, page 57, line 4, at end insert—
“(17) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

208: Clause 36, page 57, line 8, after “bulk” insert “as it has effect in relation to”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

209: Clause 36, page 57, line 8, at end insert—
“(b) in section 66(2) (guidance by Scottish Ministers) after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) section 141D of that Act as it has effect in relation to Scotland,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

Amendments 195 to 209 agreed.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 210 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 210A

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

210A: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland(1) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 54A insert—“54B Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk(1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in an order made by the Department of Justice, report to the person specified in the order any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles.(2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in paragraph (4), sells—(a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles;(b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles;(c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set.(3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others.(4) The ways are—(a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in the United Kingdom, or(b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days—(i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in the United Kingdom, or(ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in the United Kingdom.(5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller is not in the presence of the person (“the buyer”) to whom the bladed articles are sold at the time of the sale.(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5) the seller is not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale if—(a) where the seller is an individual, the seller or a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time;(b) where the seller is not an individual, a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time.(7) A sale is not reportable if the buyer—(a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and(b) is—(i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or(ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006.(8) A person who fails to comply with paragraph (1) commits an offence.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this Article if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(11) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(12) In this section—(a) “bladed article” means an article to which Article 54 applies, other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food;(b) “residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes).(13) An order made by the Department of Justice under paragraph (1) may in particular include requirements about—(a) how reports are to be made,(b) when reports to be made, and(c) the information reports must include.(14) The Department of Justice may by order amend—(a) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(a);(b) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(b);(c) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(c);(d) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(c);(e) the period specified in paragraph (4)(b).”.(3) In Article 57 (rules and orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) in that paragraph for “or 54(3)(c)” substitute “, 54(3)(c) or 54B(1)”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“(2) An order may not be made under Article 54B(14) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”(4) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(3) (guidance by Department of Justice) after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) Article 54B of that Order (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 36.

Amendment 210A agreed.

Amendment 211

Moved by

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

211: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Defence of historical importanceAfter section 141(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offensive weapons), insert—“(7B) It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of that person relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1), or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),to show that the weapon in question is one of historical importance.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies a similar historical importance defence to that introduced by item (sa) (Zombie Style Knives and Machetes) and item (u) (Ninja Swords) of Section 141 CJA 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. If the owner of a historic weapon can satisfy defence 7A (Ownership in private), then there is no good reason preventing them passing the item on to the next custodian in a similar manner to an item which is antique (100 years).

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 211, 212, 213 and 214 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support in these amendments.

This area is about producing consistency and fairness. I would not like anyone to be confused about thinking that I wanted to be more liberal—not Liberal Democrat, but liberal—about knife crime. It is about producing consistency for people who possess knives with innocent intent. Generally speaking, I welcome the update of the penalties associated with offensive weapons under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in line with more modern regulation. I suggest that, as well as reviewing the penalties, it is appropriate for us now to review the defences as set out in my Amendments 211 to 214.

The last two pieces of legislation on zombie knives and ninja swords have included a range of defences, such as historical importance, being a blunt weapon or skilled handmade items, in addition to existing global defences of religious ceremony, Crown and visiting forces, antique theatrical and media productions, museums—when the public have access—and ownership for educational purposes. In the new legislation, items such as zombie-style knives, machetes and ninja swords have the defence of historical importance, which applies to sale, gift, loan and importation. In my view, there is no good reason for that not to apply as a defence in a consistent global manner to the other 20 items in that schedule.

For example, if the family of a World War II veteran or a collector can prove that the item they own in private is historically important, it allows them to own it legally, so there is no good reason to prevent them passing it on to the next custodian. The defence relates to the nature of the item, not the person who owns it. We should feel confident that, in doing this, it will follow what happened in 2018, when many thousands of historical weapons from the trenches of World War I dropped out of the scope of the legislation because they became antiques. That was not accompanied by a surge in crime involving these knives. Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime; they are far too expensive for that, and, with the public interest in the end of World War I, the only surge seen was a rise not in crime but in the auction prices they realised because they became antiques and were, therefore, more valuable.

17:00

My Amendment 212 is about the removal of the prohibition of straight truncheons. My Amendment 213 would exclude agricultural tools from the curved bladed sword definition. I also think that we should review the items in sub-paragraphs 1(q) and 1(r) of the Schedule to the 1988 Act: straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheons and curved swords. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was intended to prohibit weapons of a more serious nature. As one or two of us will know, the bobbies’ truncheon of “Heartbeat”, which we carried at the beginning of our careers, hardly passed the test of being a very dangerous weapon.

In fact, I think that, in all the time I had mine, I never used it. I threatened one or two people with it but I never hit anybody. It broke a few windows. It was not a particularly effective weapon, even at the time. In fact, they are similar to everyday objects such as baseball bats, which are often longer and can be more dangerous. In the 20 years since they were included in the Schedule, many thousands have been sold in auctions and antique venues, with no apparent appearance of them on the street. Many hundreds have even been presented by police forces to retiring officers, of which there may be at least two in this Chamber. Some notable presentations have been to Members of this House and to Queen Elizabeth II.

Batons with side handles, martial arts weapons known as tonfa and friction-lock truncheons will remain prohibited, but the law on straight truncheons does not appear to have been actively enforced for many decades. It follows that the removal of the straight truncheon from the restrictions of Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 presents no additional risk to society; we should consider providing an exemption. Someone carrying a straight-edged truncheon in public as an offensive weapon—or, indeed, a baseball bat, or even a branch pruned from a tree—could still be charged with an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which says that, as some of us remember, anything that is made, intended or adapted to cause injury to a person can be an offensive weapon. It may be made, such as a dagger, or intended, which is whatever you pick up in your hand; something can be made from a stick that has been sharpened, for example.

My Amendment 213 follows the inappropriate seizure on occasions by the police of sickles from garden sheds as being curved-blade swords, which I suggest was never the intention of the law. I believe that this item requires an exemption from the traditional tools grouping because it is used in agricultural work, conservation and, of course, gardening.

In Amendment 214, although I fully appreciate that defences for flick-knives are difficult to consider, we should all be very careful before we change anything there because they continue to be a problem. Six deaths were associated with flick-knives in the year commencing April 2023. The purpose of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 was to target the cheap, foreign flick-knives of the “Teddy boy” era. Not all of the defences in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act are appropriate to copy, but there are three sections that, over the past 65 years, have a proven track record of not giving rise to crime and have been treated with a common-sense, Lord Nelson-type approach by enforcement officers.

The first concerns an exemption for Crown forces, visiting forces and visiting emergency services. Some museums, such as the Metropolitan Police’s Crime Museum, hold flick-knives. However, the public are not allowed access, so such museums do not have an exemption to hold those knives; you might think that that is ironic, but it does make their possession illegal. That museum holds old flick-knives from notorious historic criminals, but the lack of access to the public means that they cannot afford themselves the defence that is available in law.

ROWA Clause 1(7) does not apply to them. Some of our NATO allies and our Ukrainian friends, who we train in this country, issue gravity and flick-knives for paratroopers and airmen for use in self-rescue during parachuting mishaps. They are also used in Poland, Germany and the USA, and appear in the NATO stock-numbering store system, which allows any member of the UK Armed Forces to draw them. An overseas air person on joint exercise in the UK would be at risk of being picked up and prosecuted should they have them in public or even be in possession of them.

Secondly, there is the question of the film industry, which in this country contributed about £5.6 billion to our economy in 2024. By and large, film directors want their close-up shots to be authentic in terms of the look, sound and heft of real weapons. Clearly, these must be used in secure conditions, but we allow heavy machine guns, assault rifles and similar items to be used in films made in this country under conditions of strict control. There are licensed armourers who supply such weapons for dramatic performances and films. It does not seem to me that people who are trusted with such weapons should not be trusted with weapons prohibited under ROWA. They have appeared in half a dozen Bond movies over the decades, and to remove one from the script of the next film in the franchise would seem a little odd. I cannot see that by allowing an exemption for film and performance we are doing anything more dangerous than we allow for other weapons. This is a direction in which we should feel comfortable moving.

Thirdly, the same applies to antique weapons. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 included a revision to the flick-knife definition, which had inadvertently included 18th-century and 19th-century flintlock and percussion firearms with spring-operated bayonets. These items are exempt from firearms legislation and have not been involved in acts of violence for a couple of centuries now. They should not be prohibited merely because they also have the flick-knife mechanism blade. They are not very practical street weapons of the modern era.

Many of our parents—at least in this House—were heavily involved in the Second World War. There are many items used in that war that were issued to members of the Special Forces or captured from German troops that are very properly considered collectible now. They are part of our national history, but they are not so unique that the British museums would want to end up with large collections of them. Perhaps we ought to allow these items, as we allow other weapons, to be part of collections. We allow old swords and other very dangerous weapons to be collected, so why not the weapons that we are now prohibiting under ROWA, as long as they are antiques?

I think 1945 is a convenient time to end the definition of antique, especially for the purpose of this Act. This is mostly because steel became contaminated with radioactive elements shortly thereafter, following the aerial atomic-bomb test in Japan, and in other parts of the world where tests were carried out, as well as when bombs were dropped as a weapon of war. We can distinguish old steel from new post 1945. Designs also changed a good deal after the war, and there was a long period when some countries did not produce; 1945, therefore, is a convenient cut-off point. We can tell what is pre-1945 and what is later. That is also where this intense period of history ends, when the world was at war and weapons were so prevalent. It might be sensible to allow us all to possess the memories or mementoes from the last world war and to prohibit weapons produced after it. Apart from anything else, in previous times these antique weapons have gone for a considerable price and have been viewed by enforcement officers as extremely low risk of being the cause of crime.

Those are my amendments. I turn at the end to the issue of delivering pointed items and weapons by post. One of the indirect consequences of some of the legislation passed with good intent over the past few years is that more and more restrictions have been placed on the delivery—quite properly—of these items by post, usually by courier. This means that the courier on delivery has to do far more; this Act expects more in proving age and authenticating that whoever made the order is the same person to whom the delivery is made.

This means that the courier has to spend longer there and, consequently, the couriers involved are not wanting to carry this type of weapon. Probably as important is that they do not want to carry pointed items. We are now down to only two courier companies being prepared to do this. While I am not suggesting this is an item for legislation, it might be something we collectively need to consider. If the industry that produces cookery knives cannot easily have those items delivered, that would have a significant effect, and it clearly is an unintended consequence of well-motivated legislation. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will just say a word about Amendment 213. I shall come back more fully to a discussion of the principles in the fifth group of amendments, but there is a danger that a range of agricultural and gardening tools will be caught. I have in mind, for example, machetes, bill-hooks and hand scythes—all of which will be found in various parts of my house. I think it is a very good thing that we should make the exemption clear.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the points made and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, supported by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. We are in the territory of unintended consequences. The Committee needs to take a pragmatic approach. Where there are lacunae and mishaps in complex swathes of legislation, with many successive Acts on knives and similar offensive weapons, we need to take the opportunity to correct those. I certainly support the derogation for agricultural, gardening or conservation purposes, and for weapons of historical importance, collectables and so forth. These seem to be very pragmatic measures, which I support.

I am not knowledgeable on the subject of truncheons. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, even with his experience did not use his. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, at Second Reading saying that he made “liberal use” of it in an arrest with the result of blood “being spattered” onto his uniform. I guess experience varies, but I support the noble Lord’s efforts today.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, I also support the amendments put forward by my friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe. I will address the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for a short period. He was a Minister, as was one other person in this Committee, when I was a senior police officer. I do not remember the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, once instigating or taking through legislation that did not have an effect. That is a fact.

The other thing I am going to disclose—I was going to keep it secret, but I know I can trust all of you and that you are all positively vetted—is that when the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, left he was given a helmet, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. She was also an extremely effective Minister in my time. The noble Lord was offered a truncheon, but he decided that his shepherd’s stick was far more effective than a truncheon, so we did not give it to him. As a matter of record, I used my truncheon once. I was chasing someone down Tottenham Court Road. I hit him three times and it had absolutely no effect. From then on, I never used it. However, on the flying squad, when we were going to violent robberies where we had intelligence that weapons were being used, we used pickaxe handles. They are far more effective.

This is a move in the right direction. I think the noble Lord described it as a practical approach. We need a common-sense approach to things such as straight truncheons and all the other issues that have been raised this afternoon. It has been a great debate as far as I am concerned, but we will make a difference. Following the approach of my dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his historical delivery in terms of what he delivered with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the time they were Ministers, we will make a difference.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, far be it from me to disagree with two former commissioners; that would be extremely inadvisable. We have heard the word “liberal” used twice in this debate, which shows that interpretations can vary.

In this House, we learn something new every day. I had no idea that we can trace pre-1945 steel in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, described. I thank him for his clear and expert introduction to his amendments, which seek to refine the definitions and provide necessary defences within the existing offensive weapons legislation.

His amendments that seek exemption for agricultural tools and historical and cultural items seem entirely sensible to us on these Benches. They would protect legitimate interests in the film, theatre and television industries, as well as non-public museums, and seek to prevent the law from becoming obsolete or unnecessarily broad. We are entirely comfortable with ensuring that while we crack down on those who equip themselves for violence, we do not punish collectors, farmers or those engaged in artistic production. To us, these are common sense amendments that safeguard the legitimate possession and use of articles that could otherwise be caught by broad definitions, and we support them.

17:15

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing forward this thoughtful group of amendments relating to the controls on offensive weapons. Each of these amendments raise practical questions about the application of current laws that relate to offensive weapons and seek to ensure that legislation designed to protect the public does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate, historically important or professionally supervised activities.

Amendment 211 proposes a defence where a weapon is of genuine historical importance. The reasoning behind this amendment is eminently sensible and aligns the treatment of such items with existing defences relating to antiques and curated collections. This is a meaningful distinction between dangerous modern weapons intended for misuse and historical artifacts preserved for cultural or heritage purposes. There is an important question here on proportionality and the scope of reasonable excuse. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether existing provisions fully address the concerns raised.

Amendments 212 and 213 relate to the traditional straight police truncheon and agricultural tools. I can tell the Committee that in my 32 years as a police officer, I did not use my truncheon on anybody, but it is very useful for silencing alarms in business premises in the middle of the night when you cannot get the keyholder out of bed. Here too, we recognise the practical issues that these amendments seek to resolve. It is not a controversial belief that items with legitimate ceremonial, historical or agricultural uses should not inadvertently fall within criminal restrictions where there is no evidence of misuse. The examples provided in support of these proposals make clear that the law must operate with fairness and precision, and I hope the Government consider them with due regard.

Amendment 214 addresses a wide range of potential exemptions for visiting forces, emergency services, theatrical and film productions, museums and antiques. These are complex areas with operational realities that deserve serious thought. The amendment raises legitimate questions about how the law accommodates professional and historical circumstances without undermining public safety. I look forward to hearing the Government’s thoughts on, and response to, this amendment.

These amendments rightly probe the intersection of criminal law with the heritage and cultural sectors. These are sectors that must be protected. We cannot allow well-meaning legislation unintentionally to criminalise legitimate historical and cultural activities. We look forward to the Minister’s response and assurances that these matters will receive the careful consideration that they merit.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I stand to ask for guidance from the Dispatch Box. When I was doing my national service in the Royal Navy in March 1957—I can date it precisely—I became a midshipman. With that ranking, I was awarded a midshipman’s dirk, which I still hold today. I cannot find that dirk falling under any of the exceptions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Do I therefore have to table a special amendment to make it lawful for me to continue to hold my midshipman’s dirk?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Before the Minister replies, I will briefly respond to the very kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. To continue the love-in, I say that he was not only an excellent commissioner but a superb chief constable. He was a hands-on bobby as chief constable.

One night, he decided to go out in a squad car in plain clothes. He was sitting in the back, and a call came in for the officers about an incident around the corner. The officers said, “You just sit there, sir, we’ll go and have a look at it”. No sooner had the officers disappeared than the back door of the car was wrenched open, and a Geordie stuck his head in and said, “It’s okay, mate, you can scarper now—the rozzers have gone”. The noble Lord did not scarper.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Maybe this should be called the “afternoon of the long knives”.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for explaining the intention behind them.

We can see the merit in Amendments 211, 212 and 214, but making changes like this would first require thorough consultation with the police and officers. Obviously, we are very privileged to have the testimony and experience of—I am not sure whether “brace” is the right collective noun for two former commissioners—the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarked on how you learn something new every day: indeed, I had no idea that truncheons have so many uses or non-uses. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, opposite for explaining the ingenious uses that he put his truncheon to from time to time.

While I am referring to comments from noble Lords, I say to my noble friend Lord Hacking that his issue depends on the question, “How long is your dirk?” I am not sure whether that is something I would want to say at any point in time, let alone at the Dispatch Box, but there we are.

More seriously, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the rest of the Committee that the Government will consider further the issues raised in the discussion that we have had on this group of amendments. In doing so, we will ensure that any changes to the existing defences and exemptions are made after thorough consideration of the impacts. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they all deserve serious thought and thorough consultation. Although I am not suggesting for a minute that anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested otherwise, we must place the safety of the public in a paramount position. As such, I cannot undertake to bring forward any proposals in time for later stages of the Bill. However, I stress that, in any event, it would be possible to give effect to the sort of proposals that the amendments intend through existing regulation-making powers. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, therefore, would need to be debated in and approved by both the House of Lords and the other place.

Amendment 213, on items used for agriculture, gardening or similar purposes, was tabled by noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and discussed by the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Goschen. We believe the legislation is clear that it targets curved swords, and, if that is contested, it is ultimately for the courts to decide. We will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that police officers have access to appropriate guidance. I am sympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and other noble Lords, and the proposed amendments require further consideration and consultation.

Regarding Amendment 214—indeed, all the amendments—I stress that it is at the discretion of the police, the CPS and ultimately the courts to decide to take action against those holding weapons or items on the Schedule’s list for legitimate historical reasons, or indeed those using them for legitimate cultural sets of reasons. It is at the discretion of the police and the courts in taking a case forward. But I equally stress that we have existing powers to change the relevant law through secondary legislation. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister for both the tone and the content of his response. I agree with him entirely that the main purpose is to keep people safe, and I would never want to do anything to compromise that in any way. One reason for the amendments is that sometimes, the discretion of the police and the prosecution services that he urged has not always been exercised in a way that businesses and collectors have felt is appropriate. This has probably left them to manage that risk themselves. They are not trying to break the law, but they sometimes feel they are at risk of doing so. With all that said, I am reassured by the fact that the Government may be able to consider secondary legislation appropriate. That may be the best way to deal with this. I of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 211 withdrawn.

Amendments 212 to 214 not moved.

Amendment 214A

Moved by

[Lord Brady of Altrincham]

214A: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Definition of firearms(1) Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 (interpretation) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), omit paragraph (d).(3) In subsection (4), in the definition of “shot gun”, omit “and any accessory to a shot gun designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the gun”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deregulates sound moderators, muzzle breaks and flash hiders, as recommended by the Government in ‘Firearms licensing: proposal to remove sound moderators from firearms licensing controls - government response’, published June 2025. This change will help to alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments without any increase in risk or danger to the public.

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to move my Amendment 214A. I declare an interest as honorary president of the British Shooting Sports Council. Amendment 214A would amend the Firearms Act 1968 to reduce the administrative burden on the police, and it would do so with no risk whatever to public safety. It would remove the current requirement to apply to the police for a specific variation on a firearms certificate in order to purchase a sound moderator, a muzzle brake or a flash hider.

I hope to be brief because I believe this amendment to be so utterly uncontroversial. Indeed, I stand here seeking to be of assistance to Ministers because, in June, this Government published Firearms Licensing: Proposal to Remove Sound Moderators from Firearms Licensing Controls—Government Response, in which they recommended exactly the course of action set out in Amendment 214A. They have since indicated their intention to implement the recommendation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

This amendment is in scope for this Bill, it would help to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on police forces, and the Government want to do it. So I hope that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will commit to incorporating this measure at a later point in our deliberations on this Bill. It is clearly a benefit in reducing the drain on police resources. It is a benefit to those who engage in shooting sports and to the industry. As the Government themselves have accepted, it poses no threat whatever to public safety, simply removing what, in the instance of a sound moderator, is essentially an inert tube from a requirement to be licensed as though it were a firearm. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Brady’s amendment for exactly the three or four reasons he articulated. First, it is consistent with the Government’s response in June this year. Secondly, silencers themselves do not constitute a public risk. Thirdly, we are advised that this is a Bill that could permit the amendment. Fourthly, the licensing requirement imposes administrative burdens that we could do well without. These are all very good reasons for accepting the amendment. I declare an interest: I possess a silencer.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. I was pleased to add my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Brady. It is a common-sense amendment that is very much in line with the Bill in reducing police bureaucracy without doing anything to harm public safety. The Government have already consulted on this. They have made their views clear—I am pleased to be on their side on an issue—and I hope that the Bill gives the opportunity not to stall any longer or to wait for more parliamentary time, but to go ahead. If we can get this through in a short time, it shows that, overall, there is broad support for this measure. I hope that the Government will accept it and move on.

17:30

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the education of townies such as myself continues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, for his Amendments 214A and 438, which aim to deregulate sound moderators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders. It had not occurred to me that they would be caught by the legislation, so this measure, explicitly designed to alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments without increasing risk or danger to the public, seems eminently sensible. Police resources are already stretched, and we are demanding an increased focus on neighbourhood visibility—we have talked about this during the passage of the Bill—so we support sensible deregulation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy without compromising public safety. We support these amendments.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a group of relatively straightforward and common-sense amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. It tends to carry out the Government’s own consultation results in a careful and measured way.

Amendment 214A, moved by my noble friend Lord Brady, is a simple procedural measure that implements the Government’s own recommendations. As my noble friend set out, this amendment would not impact, let alone endanger, the public. Sound moderators are inert objects that contain no moving parts. They do not enhance the ability of a firearm, nor is there significant evidence of them being used in crime. The Government have themselves concluded that removing regulation of them will not pose any risk to public safety. I understand the original logic of including them in many firearms regulations, but, in practice, it means that police firearms officers must now obtain a certificate. It is an administrative burden that is not necessary.

Amendment 438 acts much in the same vein. It would require a review of the administrative burdens that noise and flash accessories place upon the police. The Government’s own previous consultation on the latter demonstrated that there is scope here for reform; to expand that to cover other accessories seems a very logical step.

We should aim to remove bureaucratic and administrative hurdles wherever they appear. This is particularly the case for the police, as our forces are under strain. This measure is evidently a small reform among many that should be made and is based on the right principle.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, for setting out the case for his Amendments 214A and 438. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who attached their names to Amendment 214A. As the noble Lord, Lord Brady, has explained, the aim is to deregulate the devices known as sound moderators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I too must out myself as a townie. As with the previous group, it has been a bit of an education finding out about these items and their uses. They are currently subject to control as they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm set out in Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968. This means that firearms licence holders with a legitimate need for these items are required to apply to the police to include them on their existing firearms licence, and this is obviously at a cost to both the police and the licence holder.

As many noble Lords have noted—indeed, every noble Lord who spoke—removing these items from the legal definition of a firearm would alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments. Because these are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts, they do not of themselves create a risk to public safety, as the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and others have said. The Government have already set out our intention to remove these items from the legal definition of a firearm, and I am therefore sympathetic to the intent behind these amendments.

However, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a commitment at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to bring forward the necessary legislative changes to the Firearms Act in this Bill. If he would agree to withdraw his amendment, I will undertake to update the noble Lord ahead of Report. I will say no more.

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive response and grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I feel almost ashamed to be moving an amendment that is so widely supported and has no opposition on either side of the House. I reassure the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I am a bit of a townie as well, but there is hope for all of us—we can learn. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to a further conversation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 214A withdrawn.

Amendment 214B

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

214B: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Knives on educational premisesIn section 139A(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offence of having article with blade or point (or offensive weapon) on educational premises), omit paragraphs (b) to (d).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the only justification for anyone to have a knife at school would be for “use at work” and that would apply to teachers only. It would remove any other defence for having a knife on educational premises.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to my other amendments in this group. Amendment 214B is rather small; the others propose three large new clauses which I hope to sell to the Government.

On Amendment 214B, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence to have an offensive weapon on any school premises, with the exception that

“it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to prove that he had the article or weapon in question with him … for use at work … for educational purposes … for religious reasons, or … as part of any national costume”.

My amendment suggests deleting

“for educational purposes … for religious reasons, or … as part of any national costume”.

I see no justification whatever to permit schoolchildren to have knives. What is their educational purpose? Perhaps it is to learn that they have sharp edges.

The religious exemption, I understand, is for the Sikh men and women who are under a religious obligation to wear a knife called a kirpan when they are old enough to understand its meaning. There is no specific age for that, and I stress that it is a religious artefact and is not worn as a weapon. I also stress that Sikhs using the kirpan as a weapon are extremely rare and the only documented case that I can find was of a man drawing it in self-defence when he was attacked, and he was rightly exonerated for it.

Nevertheless, we are awash with knife crime in schools. I think it sends completely the wrong signal that some young men and girls can attend school carrying or wearing a knife. It gives all the ignorant others a chance to say, “If they can carry one, why can’t I?” I stress again that Sikhs do not have a track record of using their kirpans as offensive weapons. I also say that, in my view, no religious belief can trump public safety, no matter what the religion.

Similarly, the exception for national costume must also go, as far as schoolchildren are concerned. In full dress uniform, which I wore very exceptionally, I had a sword on my left side and a dirk on my right—one drew them with contrary arms, so you were fully armed on both sides. We of course also had a sgian-dubh down our hose—our sock, for English speakers. In a civilian kilt, I would also have that black knife—the translation of sgian-dubh—down my right hose. It is a black knife not because of the colour but because it was sneaky and underhanded and you could stab your opponent with a hidden weapon he did not know about—although every single person in Scotland knew you were carrying a secret, hidden weapon down your sock. I am not sure how my dirk differed from the dirk of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and I am not sure what purpose his was supposed to be put to as a midshipman: we had better not go there. But I say that there is no justification whatever for permitting any schoolchildren to wear a sgian-dubh or any other knife as part of a national costume. Those exemptions should be rescinded.

Turning now to my principal amendments in this group, and they are related, I think the new clauses I have suggested here are terribly important. Amendment 214 lists some of the categories of offensive weapons that are so dangerous and so evil that they should have separate mention from all other offensive weapons in legislation. Amendment 214D suggests measures to stop their manufacture or importation, with some tough penalties for breaches, and the new clause proposed in Amendment 215 would create tough penalties for possession, carrying and use. The first thing the Minister and other noble Lords will say, quite rightly, is that we do not need a special category for these weapons, since they are all caught already in various laws on offensive weapons. That is entirely correct, but I shall argue that we now have such an epidemic of the use of these appalling weapons, especially machetes, that we need exemplary action to crack down on them.

The first known machete attack in this country was the barbaric murder of PC Blakelock in Broadwater Farm in 1985, where reports say that he was on the ground, curled up in a ball, screaming in agony as a machete and knife-wielding mob hacked him to death with 43 vicious wounds. No one has ever been convicted of that crime. The next big machete attack was in Wolverhampton in 1996, but it is in the last 10 years that machete attacks have really taken off. On Monday, two days ago, an 18 year-old was sentenced to 24 years for the machete murder of a man in Leeds. Also last Monday, a man was sentenced in Croydon for the murder of a 16 year-old with a machete. In Woolwich in October, two teenagers were sentenced for the machete murder of another 15 year-old kid. In September, two youths were sentenced to life imprisonment for the machete murder of a 14 year-old on a London bus. In Lincolnshire, two men were sentenced for the manslaughter with a machete of another man. In October, we all saw videos of a group of men fighting in the street with machetes, and two weeks ago similar videos were shown of a gang outside a Starbucks in east London, fighting with machetes. This did not look like the United Kingdom but downtown Kinshasa, where I see they are almost re-enacting another Rwanda massacre.

I say this carefully. Who is doing nearly all the machete killings? Why, black youths. Who are nearly all the victims who are dying? Again, black youths. This is not the time or the place to go into it, but we seem to have imported an African attitude to the use of machetes, either through some of the people coming into this country or British-born youths adopting a machete culture. Leaving aside the individual historic cases I mentioned, the generality is that police figures recently released from police forces in England and Wales following an FoI show that machetes are used in almost 700 cases every month. That is a machete attack almost every hour on average, but the true total is even higher, as the nation’s largest force, the Metropolitan Police, failed to provide statistics, saying it would take too long for staff to compile them. I am certain that the two noble Lords the former commissioners who are with us here today would have found the time to compile those statistics, especially if I had asked for them. Six other police forces failed to respond. A survey of police forces found that machetes were involved in 1,335 crime incidents in two months at the end of last year.

I have focused on heavily on machetes, since they are the new preferred weapon of choice for gangs and individuals wanting to terrorise and kill those they see as their opponents. Why take a seven-inch knife or a nine-inch carving knife from the kitchen drawer when you can get a 21-inch machete and have a much more offensive weapon? I used to have a machete myself, a handle and a blade about 21 inches long, which I would sharpen to an absolute razor’s edge. I used it for clearing brambles and brush in an overgrown orchard I had. It was a superb implement which could slash through anything. The mind boggles to think of that used on any human being.

The other particularly dangerous weapons I list in this new clause are zombie knives, obviously, and cleavers. Why cleavers? Do we have butchers on the rampage? Well, no, but the scum who murdered drummer Lee Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks used a standard meat cleaver. That is why I say in proposed new subsection (3) that the Secretary of State must be able to add new particularly dangerous weapons if the fad suddenly changes. For example, in rural farming supply shops, noble Lords will find an implement called a bill-hook. It is rather like a shorter version of a machete, but with a curved, pointed end. It is used for hedge laying, but it is not beyond the wit of thugs to buy these if we clamp down so much on machetes or other things that they cannot get them. There is no recorded incidence of a cutlass being used, but they are very similar to machetes and the bad guys will switch to them if we clamp down on everything else.

Finally, in this proposed new clause, I suggest that the Secretary of State be given a rather unusual power—which I do not think we do anywhere else in regulations—to put pictures or photos in the regulations. Look how many words it takes to define a zombie knife. Let us make it simpler by publishing representations of them as well.

I do not need to spend long on Amendment 214D, which provides for the offence of selling, manufacturing and importing of these particularly dangerous weapons. I have already made the case why they are evil, and I suggest that anyone convicted of an offence under this new clause should get up to 10 years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. I am not tying the judges’ hands; I can assure the Minister of total discretion to sentence up to 10 years. It must also apply to the directors and officers of a company, who should not be allowed to hide behind limited company status.

17:45

Finally, my last proposed new clause, in Amendment 214E, is a key provision, but I can be relatively brief. I have outlined some recent horrific killings with machetes and the dramatic increase in their use, leading some commentators to say that London is awash with machete attacks. Looking at the numbers, the convictions and the photos we have seen, I, unfortunately, do not think anyone can say that that is an exaggeration.

When we get a new criminal phenomenon, the only way to stop it is to hit it hard with exemplary action. I have identified the weapons which need special treatment, and I have suggested a range of high penalties for importers, manufacturers and sellers. Now we need very tough penalties for the users. I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in his place, because he can, I hope, confirm the veracity of what I am about to say.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Glasgow was awash with violent knife crime—actually, cutthroat razors. There was a sick joke in which a razor blade-carrying thug would say to someone, “Can your mother sew? Well, stitch that,” as he slashed the other person’s throat with the razor. This was known as the “Glasgow kiss”. So, what did Scotland do? After the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which made it an offence to carry a knife in a public place, the Scottish judges got together and implemented a policy of stern sentencing to deter knife crime. A judge from the High Court of Justiciary—the Scottish equivalent of the Crown Court—Lord John Carmont was particularly known for his severe sentences, with “copping a Carmont” becoming a term for receiving a harsh penalty from him. In one instance in 1954, he sentenced eight men to a combined total of 52 years in prison for each carrying a cutthroat razor. It worked: the Scottish action killed off the epidemic of knife crime or razor crime in Scotland. I dearly hope that our judges in England will adopt this same strategy and policy, but that may be a false hope.

Therefore, in this proposed new clause, I suggest up to 10 years for anyone aged over 18 found in a public place with any of these particularly dangerous offensive weapons. There is no excuse for them, and we can assume that, if someone is carrying one of these in the street—a machete, a zombie knife or any of these things—then their purpose is for criminal intent. For 14 to 18 year-olds, I suggest up to five years in an appropriate young person’s detention centre. That may sound harsh for juveniles, but let us not look at under-18 year-olds through rose-tinted spectacles. They are now the main users of machetes, and we have to deal firmly with them too. There is no excuse to have a zombie knife anywhere in the world.

Naturally, I have built in defences for machetes used for horticultural purposes, cleavers used for meat butchery or cooking, and cutlasses used for historical purposes or as part of a museum. I appreciate, and I am very grateful, to my noble friend Lord Hailsham for tipping me off that the drafting here is not perfect and I have failed to cover legitimate uses. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say, and I hope he may work with me to improve the drafting. I have, of course, put in powers for the Secretary of State to amend the defences and issue guidance.

I make no apology for setting out in detail my new clauses since the issues I address are of crucial importance in trying a more radical approach to halt the horrific increase in machete murders and attacks.

I am almost finished, noble Lords will be delighted to hear. I conclude by acknowledging that these weapons are already covered as offensive weapons in current legislation. However, machete attacks are rising out of control. We must stop them to prevent dozens more young men from being murdered and hundreds injured. It will no longer work to just use the current laws on knives; we need to single out these weapons as especially dangerous and take exceptional punitive action to stop them, stop the attacks and stop all our youths being murdered.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend was gracious enough to make a reference to me, in the sense that he suggested that I have some concerns about his drafting. Indeed, I do. I shall take the liberty of expressing them, and I shall also deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about his dirk, which I will come to in a moment.

Machetes are my particular concern, but so, too, are cleavers, defined in this amendment. We need to understand that both have legitimate purposes. The fact is clearly recognised in the exemptions contained in proposed new subsection (6) in Amendment 214E, where the fact that they have legitimate purposes is fully recognised.

I have a number of machetes. I have used them all my life and I still do. They are essential for clearing brambles and thorns when you cannot get at them with a strimmer or another mechanical instrument. I have not actually got a cleaver, but I know that people interested in cooking—not me—use them. Butchers certainly use them, as do gamekeepers and gillies when preparing carcasses from animals shot on the estate. Let us face it: these things have legitimate use. It is in that context that we must come to the detail with which we have been provided.

Proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 214D states that any person marketing or selling, et cetera, any of these instruments is committing an offence. That means that any hardware store in my former constituency which happened to be selling a machete would be committing an absolute offence. That is a very bizarre proposition. It means that any decent catering shop that sells cleavers is committing an absolute offence.

In proposed new subsection (2) these are absolute offences—no mens rea whatever. Then in proposed new subsection (3), anybody guilty of any of those offences faces imprisonment for up to 10 years. Proposed new subsection (4), the most bizarre of all, states that the police or the National Crime Agency can come into a private house to see whether there are any machetes or cleavers in it. That is all very bizarre stuff.

We then come to an even more interesting set of propositions in Amendment 214E.

“Any person over the age of 18”,


that is me,

“in possession of … a machete … in a public place is guilty of an offence”.

I have brambles and thorns in the adjoining fields to which I have to get access to cut—armed with my machete—by going along the footpath, which happens to be a public way, or by crossing the street, which happens to be a public way. In doing so I would be committing an absolute offence. That, I regret to say, is absurd.

I notice in proposed new subsection (3) that the police can come into my house to find these offensive weapons which I have had all my life. That is absurd. Proposed new subsection (4) states:

“It is assumed that the possession or carrying of”,


these things,

“is for the purposes of unlawful violence”.

When I am going along the footpath or crossing the street to cut down some brambles or thorns, it is to be presumed that I am intending some act of unlawful violence. Is that really sensible?

Proposed new subsection (5) on zombie knives is acceptable. However, proposed new subsection (6) deals with the “Hacking” point, if I may so call it. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, possesses a dirk. I do not know how long the dirk is, but I can imagine that it is of a length to make it a sword. If this amendment is accepted by your Lordships, should the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, go for a stroll on Whitehall carrying his dirk, he will be committing an absolute offence, and it will be assumed that he is intending some violence to third parties. Let us assume it is a sword. What happens if he stores it at home? Is it displayed for historical purposes? I rather doubt that; I do not suppose it is hanging on the wall to be shown to the public. Is it worn by uniformed personnel, as part of their uniform? Well, I am looking forward to seeing the noble Lord in his uniform, but I fancy that the answer to that is also no.

The truth is in a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in an earlier debate. If you go to any country house like mine, my friends’ or my neighbours’, they are stuffed full of these things, like swords from previous campaigns, that their great-great-grandfather carried at Waterloo, or that their great-grandfather carried at the Boer war, or whatever. These are not displayed for historical purposes; they are family possessions, and it is an absurdity to say that the police can come into my house and take these things. Oh no, no, no—this will not do at all.

The truth is that if somebody wishes to walk down Whitehall waving a machete, I am not surprised that the police get upset, but if they come to Lincolnshire—Kettlethorpe in particular—and find me crossing the street to cut down brambles and thorns with a machete I have owned for 50 years, I shall be passing annoyed. My noble friend’s purpose may be splendid, but his drafting is defective.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, there have been two things which were splendid. First of all were the intentions behind the proposals of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and secondly, the content and tone of the speech of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Blencathra is essentially saying that there needs to be greater attention paid by the public authorities—I include legislators as a public authority for this purpose—to the increase in the incidence of machete and cleaver crime, and that we need to make sure there is less of it. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said, there is some deficiency here. I think he was making what we used to call a pleading point, but let us leave it there.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

It was more than a pleading point.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

There we are. Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, I suggest that the answer to this is a sentencing question. My noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out that, in some of the particularly nasty cases he referred to, very lengthy sentences were awarded for the people who committed these crimes with these particular weapons. As I said at Second Reading, I have a horror of legislating to create new offences which are already offences. It is already an offence to do something criminal with one of these weapons, no matter what it is called. Although I entirely understand my noble friend’s motives, the better way is to consider whether the sentencers have sufficient powers to deal very seriously with these very serious crimes. By the sound of it, they already do, but the Government may want to look to see whether the criminal courts should be given greater powers of sentencing when dealing with crimes committed with these particular weapons.

I come back to my points. I understand my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s motives; I equally understand my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s enthusiasm for the points he has made. But, essentially, we are here dealing with a matter of sensible sentencing for particularly vicious crimes. If we concentrated on that, we would not clutter up the already over-lengthy legislation with yet more provisions.

18:00

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned my name, perhaps I should just say that his recollection of what happened in Glasgow is indeed correct. Lord Carmont was dealing with convicted criminals. These were people who had been convicted of crimes, from assaults to severe injury, and were using a perfectly familiar weapon: an open razor, which people commonly used. The example that the noble Lord gave makes exactly the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, made: it was dealt with by sentencing, not by legislation.

In those days, there was no Sentencing Council, and a judge was free, more or less, to choose his own sentence. Lord Carmont chose very severe sentences, which were quite out of the usual range. The shock that caused had a real effect in reducing that particular crime. It was not the end of knife crime, I am afraid, although that was suppressed later by other measures, but it was a very effective use of a sentencing power in the days when judges were not constrained by a Sentencing Council, other rules and so on. They were able to select a really severe sentence when it suited the situation. The noble Lord’s recollection is perfectly correct, but I think it makes the point that it is better to deal with this by sentencing.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I associate myself with all the sentiments that have been shared this afternoon on this matter. I think we all know what we want to try and stop with the Bill: zombie knives. There is no excuse or legitimate use at all for a zombie knife. But it is incredibly difficult to define, and legislation has attempted to do so. The points raised by my noble friend Lord Hailsham are absolutely right: we do not want to criminalise the use of everyday items or the ownership of swords. They may not be for historical purposes, but they may be of sentimental value, family heirlooms or collector’s items and may have any number of associated uses. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has put his finger on an absolute scourge which we, as parliamentarians and in co-operation with the police, really have to deal with using every tool that we have. But I also share the concern that there will be many unintended consequences if my noble friend’s amendments, as currently drafted, were included in the Bill.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak about Amendment 214B on knives in schools. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that we on these Benches take a different view. We strongly believe that criminalising children is just not the way forward. Last year, an authoritative joint police and Ofsted report warned that serious youth violence has spread its tentacles further than many adults realise and that 11 year-olds now carry knives for protection, so there is no doubt that there is a major problem. However, the same report does not call for more punitive sanctions to deter young people from offending. Instead, it recommends a preventative, public health approach, focused on early intervention, safeguarding and partnership working. It warned that, without better co-ordination and sustained investment in prevention, efforts to tackle youth violence will fall short and the cycle of harm will continue. These warnings must be heeded.

Yet, budget pressures mean police forces are cutting safer school programmes. The Met, for example, is moving 371 officers out of schools due to funding shortfalls. Prevention has to be taken seriously and resourced properly. Public health funding per capita has fallen by 28% since 2015. That results in reactive rather than preventative policing, and nowhere is this more important than with children and knife crime.

I agree that there is no justification for a child to bring a knife into school, but we cannot support the approach of Amendment 214B. Instead, we should concentrate on the success of interventions such as Operation Divan, which involves a single, voluntary face-to-face meeting between a young person at risk and a police officer or a youth justice worker. This prioritises prevention, education and safeguarding. Early results show a 60% reduction in knife and weapon offences at a cost of only £30 to £65 per person.

I turn briefly to the noble Lord’s remaining amendments and the proposal for a special category of particularly dangerous weapons. As the noble Lord recognises, these weapons are already prohibited. In our view, creating another category risks unnecessary overlap without adding any real benefit.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of interesting amendments regarding knife crime. As we have already heard, my noble friend comes to this debate with the experience of some time in the Home Office—a real experience at the sharp end. Although the rates of knife crime have fallen a little over recent years, any victim of a crime, particularly one caused by knives, is a victim too many. Just recently, we heard of the terrible incident on fireworks night a year or so ago and the trial, which finished in the Old Bailey earlier this autumn; 16 year-olds were involved, and one of them died, and it all happened very quickly. So, knives are a real problem. The Government pledged in their manifesto to halve knife crime by 2030. If they wish to make good on that premise, it is imperative that they really do something to reduce it.

My noble friend’s amendments are a welcome practical measure in that direction but are subject to a number of reservations. I begin with schools. Amendment 214B introduces an important clarification to the law in respect of defences for carrying a knife in school premises. It makes plain that the only justification for someone having a knife at school can be in relation to educational services. It is also right that, in turn, this justification should apply only to teachers or those holding a position of authority. There is no plausible reason why a student should come on to the school premises carrying a knife. We welcome the amendment as an important step to ensure that both pupils and teachers are safe from knives at school, and we hope that the Government look at this and consider the amendment seriously.

We also thank my noble friend for his Amendments 214C to 214E. As we have heard, these seek to create a special category of particularly dangerous weapons: machetes, zombie knives, cleavers, swords and cutlasses. The merit is in identifying particular weapons by name. That will strike a chord with the public and with those who might otherwise carry them. They will know that, if they carry one of these weapons, just having it in their possession risks a very heavy prison sentence. Just having existing powers of sentencing does not, it seems, carry that resonance with those who most need to hear it, so we have got to do something.

Given the substantial increase in the use of machetes in recent years—we heard from my noble friend about the increase in their use in particular—something has to be done which identifies them, singles them out and curbs their circulation and use. In 2024, there were 18 machete homicides, an increase from 14 in 2023. Amendments 214D and 214E similarly ensure that manufacturing, selling, ownership and possession of these dangerous weapons will be regarded as a specific new offence.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham was right to point out that the drafting causes problems, and there are people, in the countryside in particular, who may have a legitimate use for machetes. But we are not in the jungle of Belize; we are in the United Kingdom. Sickles and scythes can be used, of course, but if there is going to be a use for something such as a machete, there should be specific clarity to make sure that we do not allow it to be put forward as a specious defence.

To call these amendments bizarre would, in my submission, go too far. If we take this matter seriously, as we all should, we will know full well that this really is an important mischief which has to be addressed, named and called out. My noble friend has raised an important issue, and the Government, if they are serious about cutting knife crime—and not just knife crime but the use of these appalling tools and weapons—must work to bridge the drafting gap so that the sorts of things which we have seen and heard about in the last few years are heavily reduced and people can walk and live in safety, particularly in our big cities.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I confess that despite preparing for the debate on these amendments, I did not expect to venture into Glasgow razor crime in the 1950s, the use of Waterloo swords or, indeed, the brambles of Lincolnshire, but this has been an enjoyable debate on a very serious subject and I welcome the contributions from across the Committee today.

Amendment 214B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asks whether existing defences to possession of a bladed article—that is, a knife—should be removed in educational establishments. I am of the view that the defences listed under Section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are appropriate and in line with similar defences that already exist for the offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place.

The defence for educational purposes, for example, which Amendment 214B seeks to remove, would cover instances where both the teacher and the student may need to use a knife in the classroom or for educational purposes on the premises, such as in craftmanship or cookery lessons, or others. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made common cause with the view that there is a need for certain uses of knives in schools under strictly controlled circumstances.

The issue of prevention, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, is important, and I endorse the idea that we need to look at how we prevent the use of knives. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that in Amendment 214B his withdrawal of those definitions would cause some difficulties in educational matters.

The religious reasons defence takes into account the need sometimes to carry a knife for religious reasons. The noble Lord and others have mentioned the position of individuals of the Sikh faith. The Government are not aware of any cases where this or any other existing defence has been abused in educational establishments by members of that faith.

Again, it is appropriate to put on record that educational establishments can introduce their own rules and regulations, and, of course, if someone brings a knife into an educational establishment or uses a knife already in the establishment to cause harm, even if they have a defence such as for work purposes, they will have a committed a serious criminal offence under existing legislation.

18:15

That brings me to the other amendments the noble Lord has tabled. Amendments 214C to 214E seek to create a separate category of particularly dangerous weapons that would attract tougher penalties. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and indeed to the author of those amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that the Government have taken strong action in this area in the past 12 months. I have taken through measures on behalf of the Home Office—the Government have done so across the board, in the House of Commons and in this Chamber—that have implemented a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, which came into effect in September 2024, and we banned ninja swords in August this year. So there is a real measure of examining and differentiating, dare I say, the legitimate uses of certain types of offensive weapon—going to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—and banning them through legislation passed with support from the Opposition in this House and in the House of Commons.

Furthermore, new restrictions in relation to bladed articles and offensive weapons require consultation, for all the reasons that have been mentioned in the discussion today. Getting the descriptions of knives and weapons right for legislation requires consultation. I greatly enjoyed the contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on his legitimate use of certain weapons that would fall under the remit of the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

And the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Indeed. On reflection, I think I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that his dirk is a dagger and therefore does not fall within the remit of the legislation proposed—I think that information was considered by my noble friend Lord Katz but it was not able to be deployed at the time. However, we can return to that at some point.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am greatly relieved.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord is relieved about that.

The serious point here is that getting the defences and exemptions under which weapons may be legal to own, import or sell under certain limited circumstances right also requires consultation—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, acknowledged that. In the absence of such consultation, I suggest that the Bill is not the right place to legislate on a specific category of knives and weapons, and we risk not taking account of some important matters if we have not consulted first.

In any event, it would be possible to give effect to these proposals for further restrictions through existing regulation-making powers provided for since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so, again, they would be subject to debate in and approval by both Houses of Parliament.

We have debated the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2 which introduce new measures to provide the police with the power to require social media marketplaces and search services to take down online illegal content. I understand the honest, genuine motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in tabling these amendments, but just a casual listen to the debate today shows that there are a number of issues that we need to consider, and I believe that the existing powers that we have, the actions that we have taken and the measures under the Bill will be sufficient. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, some mildly in support of my amendments and others liking the concept but pointing out the serious drafting flaws in them. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham; he is right that the drafting is flawed. Any future amendments I make would need to include “legitimate and lawful use”. He pointed out that he would need to go on to the high street or to another public place to use his machete. I would have to do the same myself, with a buddleia overgrowing the road. If I had a machete, I would have to go on to the pavement to use it. Instead, I have an electric trimmer, which my wife can use. There are legitimate flaws in my drafting.

I suspect that many of my noble friends from a hereditary background have houses stuffed full of dangerous, sharp weapons—from pikes to swords—as well as armour and all the other accoutrements acquired over centuries in this great and noble land of ours, where tremendous battles have been fought to secure our freedoms since 1066. Of course they are not for public display; I accept that this too is an error in my drafting. They are there because they are owned by the family, who should not be penalised for having them.

My concept is right. There is a problem here, and I hope that if we come back to some elements of this amendment on Report, my noble friend Lord Hailsham will help me in the drafting. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that a dirk is not included in my definition. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier hit the nail on the head: tough sentences are required, though that may not require some of the amendments that I have suggested. I am so grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for pointing out that with the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it was tough sentences that cracked down in Scotland. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he said that there was then full judicial discretion. We did not have the Sentencing Council, which to me ties the hands of our judges—judges who should have full discretion to sentence as they see fit.

In some of those cases in the last few months which I quoted, people got a minimum term of 24 years or 30 years for an appalling murder, but hundreds of others who attacked people who did not die received much lesser sentences. Machete attacks have now become endemic. It is the weapon of choice for bad guys, for youths who want to commit crimes or terrorise their opponents in other gangs. We need unique and specialised exemplary action.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not calling for children to be criminalised. I referred to three instances, and I was wrong in suggesting removing educational uses. But I can see no justification for maintaining a religious exception and a national dress exception allowing kids to bring such knives to school. The Government are wrong to stick to that.

Introducing this has been worth while. I do not mind that my noble friend Lord Hailsham called some of it “bizarre”. What is happening on the streets of London and elsewhere in England today is bizarre. If, 20 years ago, we had said that we would see these gangs fighting on the streets outside Starbucks with machetes, we would have said, “Don’t be fanciful; it’s barking mad; it’s never going to happen”. It is happening day in, day out on our streets. It is not only bizarre; it is obscene and dangerous. Therefore, we need to take special action, exemplary action, to deal with this problem. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 214B.

Amendment 214B withdrawn.

Amendments 214C to 214E not moved.

Clause 37: Assault of retail worker

Amendment 214F

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

214F: Clause 37, page 57, line 17, at end insert—
“(c) is employed by the occupier or owner of the retail premises in delivering goods directly to a consumer from the premises.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 214F and 214G, in my name, as we move away from the regulation of weapons to retail crime and shoplifting. I will try to be brief.

In my 15 or so years as an executive at Tesco and as vice-chair of the British Retail Consortium, I spent many hours investigating and studying shoplifting and what could be done to reduce it. We used staff training, the latest waves of technology and generous business investment to combat it. I was always very worried by the wider social impact, as stolen goods were sold on to fuel drug habits and innocent shop workers were sometimes hurt in the process of trying to stop it. The truth is that these risks and their devastating effect on individuals have become much greater as society has changed and become more divided and less moral, and hence violent crime has become more of a day-to-day occurrence. As with so much else, the long Covid lockdown has made things worse, and the police have prioritised other things.

However, this Bill is full of amendments requiring the police to do more. That will put yet further pressure on the police contribution to tackling neighbourhood crimes such as shoplifting and assaults on retail workers, which frighten retail workers, especially in the smallest shops, and lead, sadly, to more shop closures on the high street. For some years I strongly supported USDAW’s campaign for a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. As the Minister knows, I am delighted that the Bill puts that into law. It is a good day for the Minister, given his USDAW links, and for the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, smiling over there, who represented USDAW so intelligently when I was at Tesco.

However, the Bill as drafted does not quite do the trick as it does not cover retail delivery drivers, who have also been the subject of growing aggression. This is a particular problem if the driver has to ask for ID because a juvenile under 18 is taking delivery—a flashpoint, according to a recent British Retail Consortium survey—or if there is a disagreement about what is being paid for and delivered. Last week, Tesco even announced that it was piloting giving body cameras to delivery drivers. Another point of significance is that such drivers are already covered by parallel legislation in Scotland. That is not always a recommendation, but given the national character of much of retail, I hope the Minister will agree that this alignment makes sense and accept my Amendments 214 F and 214 G. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief this time. My Amendment 214FA seeks to add hospitality venues. This is an important clause which has my full support; I simply want clarification that cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars are included in the definition of retail premises.

In UK law, “retail premises” typically refers to premises where goods are sold directly to consumers for personal use. This includes shops, supermarkets and other establishments where tangible products are offered for sale. Hospitality venues such as cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars primarily provide services: the preparation and serving of food and drink for consumption on the premises. While these venues may sell some items to take away, their main business activity is the provision of hospitality services rather than retailing goods.

UK planning law differentiates between retail and hospitality venues through the use of “use classes”, which categorise buildings and their permitted activities. Class E—commercial, business and service—includes shops, restaurants, cafés, financial services and other commercial uses. While both retail shops and hospitality venues are covered under class E, they are distinct subcategories within this class. Class E(a) refers to shops selling goods, while class E(b) refers to the

“sale of food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption is mostly undertaken on the premises”,

which covers cafés, pubs and restaurants. Therefore, while cafés and restaurants fall under the same broad planning class as retail shops, they are not regarded as retail outlets in the strict sense, but rather as hospitality or food service venues.

Legislation relating to employment, health and safety, licensing and business rates may further distinguish between retail and hospitality businesses. For example, food hygiene regulations specifically address food service establishments, while retail regulations focus on the sale of goods. Under UK law, cafés and restaurants are not generally regarded as retail outlets; they are classified as hospitality venues or food service establishments. The key distinction lies in the primary activity. Selling goods is retail whereas providing food and drink services is hospitality. From what I understand, the core hospitality operations—serving meals and drinks, and providing accommodation—are not generally covered under the definition of a retail outlet. If I am wrong and Clause 37 includes cafés, bars and restaurants, then I am content that there is no problem. However, if it does not, we have a gaping hole in the law and my amendment is essential to plug it. If I am right that those are not covered, I hope the Minister will bring forward a little amendment to ensure that those workers get the same protection as workers in retail shops.

18:30

[Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to this debate. In fact, some months ago, I introduced a debate on retail crime. I think it is fair to say that there was support across the House—why would there not be? The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made the point that, to some extent, this was never an adversarial debate between employers and the trade union. It is a good example of where we come together for a common cause.

In historical terms, I should say that, in 2003, USDAW, which has been referred to, introduced its Freedom From Fear campaign. It sounds very dramatic, but it was born out of necessity. Too many retail workers were being verbally and physically abused. In some ways it had become normalised. It was an acknowledgement that, on too many occasions, people working in retail were abused. This campaign has run since 2003 and has resulted in this stand-alone offence being accepted.

I congratulate the Minister, not just because he had the enlightened view to become a member of USDAW, which I should acknowledge, but because of his commitment to retail workers and to understanding the implications of being verbally and physically abused. We often see the retail store as an environment that, quite rightly, encourages people to come in, and the vast majority of the public do so. In truth, however, over the years, the trend of coming into a store and believing that you can abuse somebody has become normalised. It is not condoned by employers, and certainly not by the trade unions, but the £200 threshold, to some extent, gave licence. Even some of the perpetrators would say, “Don’t worry, if it’s less than £200 there’ll be no action taken”.

Retail workers, of whom there are just under 3 million, do an exceptional job; reference was made to the pandemic. Abuse can never be a part of the job. It is a fundamental right to be able to go to work safe and come home safe. That is why I congratulate the Government and the Minister on their commitment to this matter. I could read out lots of statistics about the effects of retail crime; I will not do so. However, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the USDAW campaign, to retail crime and to its impact. Everyone has stores within their area. If you talk to shopworkers, you will see that this is very much an evidence-based campaign.

When I talk about statistics, I am not talking about thefts from a store; I am talking about the fact that behind every statistic, there is an individual. Some of those individuals who were physically abused never went back to the workplace. Having been abused two or three times, they did not have the confidence to return. That is a shame. Maybe it reflects the way society has gone, as we have referred to.

I welcome this stand-alone offence, and I do not want to detract from it. It is 22 years, at least, in the making. A lot of effort has gone in. I am proud of the fact that this Government have understood it and have done it, although I have to say to the Minister that the question of where the Act will stop has been referred to in respect of this offence. I am proud that this offence has been accepted, because it matters. I say to my noble friend the Minister that USDAW wants me to send a big thanks for the effort that has gone in to achieve this outcome.

However, I want to make a request of the Minister; I hope that he will consider it favourably. I would like to meet him to consider some of the implications of the further reach of retail offences. I would like that meeting to be with my general secretary, Joanne Thomas, and maybe people from the Home Office. I make that request on a without prejudice basis, but it would give me the opportunity to express some further considerations and concerns that have been raised in this House.

I will leave it at that but express my support for the work that has been done on this Bill. Hopefully, when this Bill takes effect with the stand-alone offence, USDAW members will feel now that it has been accepted.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord. This is slightly extraneous to the amendment but, wearing his USDAW hat, will he please campaign against automatic tills, which we helpless disabled people find absolutely appalling? Will he commend shops such as Booths in the north of England, which has absolutely refused to have automatic tills and insist on having tellers at every one? It is a wonderful way to shop.

[Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)]

We can have a conversation about that at some stage. I thank the noble Lord.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, if I may, I will come back to the topic of this group. I too have an amendment in this group, Amendment 351. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, and indeed my noble friends. I endorse a lot of what they have said and argued.

As I said at Second Reading, I have huge sympathy for those in public-facing jobs who have been subject to abuse and violent threats at work. Aside from such threats being unacceptable, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, understand the fear that they generate. Anyone at work on the receiving end of such a threat should at least be confident that the police will respond swiftly when they are in danger, or when an actual crime starts to be committed.

My instincts have always been to support Clauses 37 and 38, as I said at Second Reading. However, I find myself somewhat conflicted. Several noble Lords argued at Second Reading that existing provisions on assault are an adequate protection in law and that a special law for assault against retail workers was not needed. I thought these arguments were somewhat convincing. Having said that, to be absolutely clear, I have no desire to remove Clauses 37 or 38 from the Bill. I will continue before everybody thinks that I am going to do something radical, which will cause all sorts of upset.

The amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Blencathra to extend the protection to delivery drivers and some hospitality workers in some establishments highlight that, having started down the path of singling out just the retail sector, it is difficult to draw a clear boundary line. The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, has already said that he now wants to push it yet further.

As we know, the aggravated crime of assault against public-facing workers, which we added to the crime and courts Bill, included all industries and sectors. That was not focused only on the retail industry. I worry that the aggravated offence of assault, which covers everybody in public-facing work, together with this new offence of assault on retail workers, will create a somewhat confusing picture for people who are employed in public-facing roles but are not in the retail sector. I think here of people working in public transport, or in banks or post offices; there are all sorts of different categories.

This potentially confusing picture brings me back to my underlying concerns. First, we cannot afford to lose good people who are doing a good job, whether that is in shops, on public transport, or in banks or post offices, as I said. We think of the recent horrific incident on LNER the other Saturday and the railway worker who was heroic in intervening. We are very conscious now that a lot of people are in places of work where they are subject to real threats and abuse.

So I ask the Minister: what work have he and the department done to satisfy himself that any perception of two-tier protection for people in different public-facing roles will not have a detrimental effect on employees who may fear they are no longer as covered as some other people in other public-facing roles? If there has been any work on that, that would be helpful to know and understand.

Secondly, and in my view just as importantly, if not more so, noble Lords who were in the Chamber at Second Reading may have heard me argue then that one of the things that I feel are needed is for workers who are in charge of public spaces or places, whether they be commercial or public sector spaces, to be encouraged to be more active in upholding common standards of conduct that we should all have a right to expect of each other in public, the breakdown of which is adding to people’s despair. The sorts of things I am talking about here are litter dropping, feet on seats, watching videos or listening to music on phones without headphones, and queue jumping. That is the kind of activity that comes before we get to actual offences that sometimes are happening now, such as fare dodging, smoking or drinking alcohol on public transport where they are not meant to be, or even defecating in public. We need workers to have delegated authority, from their employer or their union, and from all of us in leadership positions, and have confidence that, along with them, we will do the same in upholding these important standards in public places. We need a collective effort to tackle what I see as a broken windows type of activity. If we keep allowing this kind of activity to be ignored, we are allowing the risk of escalated bad behaviour to continue, which could then lead to actual serious crimes.

While the various trade bodies are coming at this from their perspectives with a desire to protect their staff, and rightly so, we need to look at this through a much wider lens and see the bigger picture. As a consequence of that, it might be that the price we need to pay is expanding what some believe is an unnecessary new crime in the Bill, to include other workers and to match the terms of the aggravated offence in the Crime and Courts Bill.

As I say, this was a probing amendment—this is not me trying to introduce a new law—but I would like it if the Minister agreed to meet me, perhaps with my noble friend Lord Davies, to talk about this some more. I genuinely think there are potential unintended consequences to this that we need at least to be alive to. We should consider what more is needed to ensure that everyone who is in a public-facing role feels sufficiently protected, but also, if we are to tackle the behaviour that is leading some to feel that they can do things with impunity, and that then gives them the courage and confidence to go on to commit more serious offences, we need to be thinking about this in a very different and more innovative way.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with many of the points made. First, we welcome the new protections introduced by Clauses 37 and 38. As legislators, we cannot stand by while so many people turn up to work every day expecting to face potentially terrifying abuse, threats and physical violence. This was brought home to me recently when a friend of mine went into our local Boots the chemist earlier this week in order to buy some headache tablets, only to find that practically every shelf in the shop was completely empty. When she spoke to the staff, they said, “Oh, it happens on a daily basis”, and they are so terrified that they just stand by and do nothing, because they are petrified that if they do anything or say anything they could be knifed. That is not in an area that is known for, to use the noble Baroness’s expression, “baddies”. It is in an area of London that is very safe. So that is really worrying.

18:45

Many of these shop workers are female and most of them are earning less than the minimum wage, ethnically diverse and working late at night and early in the morning. It must be terrifying going into work and thinking that at any stage people can just come in and clear your shelves and there is nothing you can do about it. The new offence sends out the right signal that something should be done, and we fully support it.

I understand the concerns raised and I share many of them. The proposals tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would ensure that delivery drivers received the same protection as their colleagues in the physical store, and this can only be right. We on these Benches have repeatedly urged the Government to follow the Scottish example on this and to extend the meaning of “retail worker” to cover delivery drivers, because they deserve equal protection and should not be left exposed.

Amendment 351 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, concerns extending that protection to other front-line workers. She made a powerful case for us to be careful that there are not unintended consequences from making sure that retail workers are protected and not protecting other workers who are also in customer-facing roles. I know that some workers in other sectors are concerned that creating this new offence may send the wrong message, potentially leaving those outside retail who engage directly with the public on a daily basis feeling less protected.

Have the Government carried out an assessment of the potential impact on the criminal justice system—which, as we know, is working at 98% of capacity at the moment—if a similar offence were extended to all public-facing workers, including those employed on public transport? The British Transport Police, as we all know, do a vital job preventing abuse across the transport network and protecting staff and customers alike, and the Government must ensure that they have the resources and staff required to meet that challenge.

In closing, I say that I do not disagree with anything that noble Lords have said, but we must be particularly careful that we do not just choose some people to protect while unintentionally giving the impression that we do not really care about others.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward Amendments 214F and 214G, which address a gap in the protections afforded to retail workers under Clause 37. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.

The amendments seek to ensure that delivery drivers who are employed as part of the retail and distribution process are fully included in the scope of the proposed offences against retail workers, and that delivery vehicles themselves are recognised as an extension of the retail premises. We understand and support the underlying principle behind these proposals. Delivery drivers in many cases are the face and point of contact between businesses and consumers and they often work alone, sometimes at unsociable hours and in circumstances where they may be exposed to heightened vulnerability and increasing levels of aggression and abuse.

The safety of delivery drivers should not depend on whether they are standing behind a shop counter or stepping out of a branded van. The rise of home delivery as a core component of modern retail means that this work is an integral part of the sector, and it is only right that the law reflects that reality. It is regrettable to read that certain major supermarkets have rolled out bodycams for their delivery drivers in an effort to protect them. I therefore hope the Government will consider carefully how these protections might sensibly be extended to those whose job it is to ensure that goods reach the customer.

Turning to Amendment 351 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I fully understand the principle and intent behind this amendment. It raises significant questions about whether the current scope of legal protection is sufficiently broad. The question of whether other public-facing workers, such as in transport, hospitality or civic buildings, face similar risks is one worth raising and discussing. Many of those workers play a crucial role in maintaining order, ensuring safety and supporting essential public functions in spaces accessible to the public.

I similarly thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 214FA. This would include premises used by the hospitality industry for the supply of food or drink as part of the definition of retail premises for the purposes of this offence. This is also an important question to pose to the Government, and I hope they consider it with care.

The issues raised by this group of amendments deserve serious consideration. They invite the Government to reflect on whether extra provisions are needed to protect certain public-facing roles and, if so, which roles specifically need to be highlighted. The question that needs to be answered in response to all the amendments in this group is why only retail workers should be afforded a special criminal offence. Does the A&E receptionist not face the threat of violence and intimidation too? What about the bar staff at a nightclub? A wide range of people are at higher risk of assault during the course of their work. If we are to create a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, it would make sense to expand this. I hope that the Government will give this careful thought and return the clarity in how they intend to address the concerns expressed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their amendments. I should note—if not declare an interest—that I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 46 years now. That is a long time. I think it is worth noting that I have an interest in this matter. Indeed, I spent many years trying to raise this very issue when a Member of Parliament and outside Parliament before coming to this House.

I should also say at the outset that I am meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to discuss this matter, and am very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as well. I had a request from my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton to meet him and the USDAW general secretary, Joanne Thomas. I am also happy to do that between now and Report; it may not be immediately.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I would be very happy to join a group meeting rather than the Minister having to have several meetings with each of us. If there were to be third parties involved in a meeting, such as USDAW, I wonder whether he would also consider including the Institute of Customer Service. It is in a unique position—and I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Customer Service—as it looks at this across the board, and the letter it organised included signatories from a range of different industries.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will reflect on that. It is a helpful suggestion, if colleagues are happy to have a joint meeting. I would also like to involve the Policing Minister, who has an interest in this matter as a whole.

I want to place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton. They have campaigned very strongly as representatives of the supermarkets, in this case Tesco, and the workforce. My noble friend has campaigned for many years on this issue. Freedom from Fear is a campaign that Paddy Lillis, the previous general secretary, Joanne Thomas, the current general secretary, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, the general secretary before Paddy Lillis, worked on for a long time. It has been brought to them by members of the union as an important issue. It is worth putting that on record, and we can examine how we organise the discussion and consultation in due course.

Assault on anyone, including delivery drivers and transport staff, is wholly unacceptable. Everyone should be protected from assault. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, common assault has a maximum sentence of six months in prison and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers serious violence, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm.

I come back to the reason why I have campaigned on this issue for many years. Retail workers have been at the forefront of upholding much of the legislation. They uphold legislation on solvent abuse sales, tobacco sales, knife sales, drink sales and a range of other issues. They are also very much the first port of call on shop theft and the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. USDAW figures show that 10% of staff have reported a physical attack on them in the last year alone; that seems to me to be a very strong reason why the Government have brought forward this amendment. There is a wealth of evidence to back the position that there is a significant problem specific to retail workers because of the nature of that work.

Clauses 37 and 38 provide for the bespoke offence of assaulting a retail worker. They also place a duty on the courts when sentencing an offender to make a criminal behaviour order; shop theft may often be linked to drug and alcohol abuse issues as a whole. Our definition of a retail worker is intentionally narrow, given the vital need to provide legal clarity and ensure there is no ambiguity for courts in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker when impacted by their job.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the hospitality sector. This sector is specifically excluded, but if he looks at the definition of retail premises in Clause 37(3), he can see that it would be open to a judge to determine what might be included. For example, cafes might have stalls inside the shop, so that could be potentially defined as a retail premise as well. There is no specific offence, and I would not wish to extend it to the hospitality sector, but a judge could potentially interpret some aspects of hospitality being within the retail sector under Clause 37(3).

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I think the Minister’s remarks make quite a telling case. In particular, I was struck by the point that retail workers, because of the things they sell—cigarettes and tobacco—are more on the front line than people serving chicken nuggets, or whatever. I accept that there is a very good point that the retail sector needs to be guarded specifically, possibly differently from the hospitality sector. I shall look carefully at what he said.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles and therefore including them could potentially cause an issue with definition and therefore with the courts using the legislation. Again, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have put that case. I am happy to meet them, and we can examine and discuss and hear what they have to say outside the Committee.

With regard to public-facing workers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, also mentioned, the previous Government—again to their credit—introduced a statutory aggravating factor for assault against any public-facing worker via Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I am advised that that would include, for example, train staff, and the aggravating factor would apply in assault cases when an offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty, or providing a service to the public. There may be areas of definition, but I hope that the issue that the noble Baroness has raised ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence and will send a clear message that violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker will not be tolerated.

19:00

I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the general offence. She asked whether assessments had been made regarding the impact of the offences. The offences in Clause 37 of the Bill have cross-government support, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on any other aspect of the criminal justice system. We have not made a formal, published assessment of the extension of those potential offences. I visited a major supermarket last week and asked about the number of delivery drivers who had had incidences of this. They could not supply that information, so there is no expansion of assessment of the general problem in that field.

I understand the additional pressure for delivery drivers. I hope that I have clarified the points on public-facing and hospitality workers. I am grateful for the support across the House and I want to grab the opportunity of a long-standing campaign—from the people who are at the front face of retail violence—for this offence to be implemented. I am proud to stand here today and speak to that offence in Clause 37. I hope that we can settle on it, and have discussions with other colleagues around other matters outside the Committee today. I hope that, on the back of today’s discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will withdraw her amendment. The other amendments could not as yet be pushed. Between now and Report, we will have an opportunity for discussion, with the groupings that I will try to pull together with the help of my officials. I welcome, however, this long-standing campaign from USDAW, and the fact that the Freedom From Fear campaign has been successful. I hope, on that positive note, that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friend Lord Davies for their support for my amendment. I thank the Minister for agreeing to further discussions, and to a meeting, although I have to say that I am slightly disappointed by his initial remarks. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, and my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lady Stowell, for the probing and constructive questions that they have put forward on this important part of the Bill. I emphasise again the everyday risk to retail staff and retail drivers who were, of course, so heroic during Covid. Without them, we would all have starved.

I hope the Minister will understand that I drafted a very narrow amendment advisedly; I reduced what was originally proposed by the experts from the retail industry. It very much confines the opportunity to retail, and to drivers from retailers. I am very happy to look at the wording and I can see that we need to keep it narrow. I have resisted a number of representations from other sectors in putting forward this amendment, because it is so important that we look at the evidence base, which seems to be stronger in respect of violence, both towards retail workers and drivers. I look forward to our further discissions; I may bring this issue back at Report. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 214F withdrawn.

Amendment 214FA not moved.

Amendment 214G not moved.

Clause 37 agreed.

Clause 38 agreed.

Clause 39: Theft from shop triable either way irrespective of value of goods

Debate on whether Clause 39 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled this notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 39 stand part of the Bill, to correct what has become serious misinformation. By way of background, Clause 39 repeals Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. That section was inserted into the 1980 Act by Section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 provides that where a person is charged with a shoplifting offence where the value of the stolen goods is under £200, the offence is triable only summarily. Accordingly, low-value shoplifting cases will only be heard before magistrates’ courts and will not go before the Crown Court. This alteration has become the subject of significant misinformation, largely perpetuated by the party in government. In the 2024 election manifesto, it claimed that this had created

“effective immunity for some shoplifting”

and the Government’s policy paper in the Bill, published on GOV.UK, calls it “perceived immunity”. This, of course, is absolutely false. There is no immunity in any form for any shoplifting offences. Allowing an offence to be tried only in a magistrates’ court does not give anyone immunity.

The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for sentencing a person guilty of theft from a shop state that the starting point for low-value shoplifting, with little additional harm to the victim, is a “high-level community order”, with the maximum being a 12-week custodial sentence. For low-value shoplifting, with significant additional harm to the victim, the starting point is 12 weeks’ custody and the maximum is 26 weeks’ custody. It is clear, then, that magistrates’ courts can impose community orders and terms of imprisonment on offenders found guilty of low-value shoplifting. If the Government believe that is immunity, they clearly need to have a serious rethink. I therefore ask the Minister why the Government are making this change, since there is absolutely not immunity for low-value shoplifting. What can they possibly hope that this will achieve?

The reality is that Clause 39 is purely performative. Worse than that, it is performative politics with negative ramifications. Where an offence is triable either way, it is up to the magistrates’ court and the defendant to decide which court finally hears the case. If the magistrates’ court deems itself to have sufficient powers to try the case, a defendant is able to elect the court that their case will be heard by. Are we seriously saying that we will be permitting a person charged with stealing £50-worth of chocolate to be hauled in front of a Crown Court judge and jury? In such a scenario, the most likely sentence would be a community order for a few months’ imprisonment: that sentence would likely be the same whether the case was tried in a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.

Why enable the possibility for a person charged with low-value shoplifting to elect to go to a Crown Court, simply for them to be handed the same sentence they could have been given in the magistrates’ court? There are around 73,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard by the Crown Courts. Many people are waiting years for their case to be heard. The last thing we need now is for more minor offences to be sent to the Crown Courts, adding to their already sizable backlog. This is not a solution to shoplifting. It is simply another way for a defendant to string out their proceedings. Permitting low-value shoplifting to be tried only summarily does not give shoplifters immunity but will serve only to clog up our already stretched Crown Courts.

What does create an effective immunity for shoplifting is the Government’s Sentencing Bill. Noble Lords will know that the Bill creates the presumption that a custodial sentence of less than 12 months be suspended. Even if a person is given a custodial sentence for low-value shoplifting, they will not serve any time in prison. If that does not give would-be shoplifters more incentive to steal, I do not know what does. Clause 39 is pointless and performative, and would be damaging to the swift passage of justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the intention of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, to oppose Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. I have listened with care to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but we firmly believe that the inclusion of this clause is necessary. There is one thing that we can all agree on: shop theft has risen at any alarming rate in recent years. It is a blight on our society; it causes loss and distress to retailers and it undermines the safety of retail spaces.

This Government are committed to restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, and to protecting businesses from escalating losses. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics are stark. Shoplifting almost doubled over the past five years, increasing to 530,643 cases in 2025. While multiple factors have contributed to rising retail crime, one persistent issue is the perception in many quarters that low-value theft has no real consequences, and some regard it as having been, in effect, decriminalised.

The noble Lord is right that Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act converted theft of goods worth £200 or less from shops to being tried summarily. I completely understand that the argument of the previous Government was that this would increase efficiency by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low-value theft and keeping the cases in the magistrates’ court, but it has not worked. Instead, it is not that there is immunity, but there is a perception that those committing theft of goods worth £200 or less will escape any punishment. My noble friend Lord Hannett referred to this in relation to the previous group of amendments.

Clause 39 will rectify this, and it really matters. Evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that only 36% of retail crime is even reported. Many retailers choose not to do so; they think it is a waste of time, because they believe that the police will not do anything. The underreporting masks the true scale of the problem and leaves businesses vulnerable.

We must act decisively to support retailers facing this growing challenge, and Clause 39 does exactly that. It closes a critical gap by sending a clear and unequivocal message: theft of any value is a serious criminal act and will be treated seriously. By removing the financial threshold for so-called low-value shop theft, we are sending a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that this crime is not going to be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. We are also making it clear to the retailers that we take this crime seriously, and they should feel encouraged to report it.

I acknowledge the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that by making shop theft triable either way there is scope for some cases to end up in the Crown Court. However, there are two reasons why the noble Lord does not need to worry about this. The first is that Sir Brian Leveson highlighted in his independent review that the risk is mitigated by the existing sentencing guidelines, which provide a clear and structured framework to ensure that the penalties remain proportionate. This means that, in practice, the vast majority of such cases fall well within magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers, meaning that they are highly unlikely to be committed to the Crown Court, for either trial or sentence. We anticipate that the effect on the backlog will be negligible. Secondly, as far as defendants electing trial in the Crown Court is concerned, they already have the ability to do this in relation to the so-called summary only offence. In practice, elections occur only in marginal numbers. There is no evidence to suggest that Clause 39 will change this.

I urge the noble Lord to join us in sending this very clear message—we entirely accept it was always the intention of the previous Government not to decriminalise this—to make it clear to everybody what a serious offence this is. I hope that he is willing to withdraw his opposition to Clause 39 standing part.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am, however, very disappointed by her continued defence of Clause 39. It is absolutely clear that the changes made by the previous Government do not create effective immunity for low-value shoplifting. All shoplifting offences are able to be tried in a magistrates’ court, where the court can impose a custodial sentence if necessary. Drink-driving offences are tried summarily only. I do not see the Government proposing to make that offence triable either way.

The fundamental point is that this change will not help anyone. It will not deter shoplifters. I hardly think a potential shoplifter will suddenly decide to stop because he might be tried in a Crown Court as opposed to a magistrates’ court. It will simply increase the Crown Court backlog without any benefit. This is a matter that I am sure we will return to on Report.

Clause 39 agreed.

Amendment 215

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

215: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after “subsection (10)” insert “and sections 208A”.(3) After that section insert—“208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—(a) a curfew requirement;(b) an exclusion requirement;(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.(5) In this section—“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.(7) Where—(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied, notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).”.(4) After section 292 insert—“292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—(a) a curfew requirement;(b) an exclusion requirement;(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.(7) Where—(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 215 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie speaks to a growing and deeply felt concern shared by communities and retailers across the country—that the persistent and habitual shoplifter is too often left to reoffend, with little intervention, limited consequences and insufficient support to break the cycle of offending. There has been a 13% increase in shoplifting offences in the year ending June 2025.

19:15

Shoplifting is not a victimless crime. It affects small family businesses and major retailers alike. It drives up costs, erodes public confidence and contributes to the sense of disorder on our high streets. The British Retail Consortium estimates millions of pounds in losses each year, with many retailers reporting that the same individuals commit offence after offence. Yet, as things stand, even repeat offenders may receive community disposals that lack the structure, monitoring or restrictions necessary either to protect the public or to encourage rehabilitation.

This amendment seeks not to remove judicial discretion—indeed, I shall return to that point in a moment—but to ensure that, where an adult offender has already been sentenced twice for shoplifting, a third or subsequent conviction resulting in a community order or a suspended sentence order should, as a norm, carry a meaningful and enforceable requirement. The new clause we propose would therefore require courts, save in exceptional circumstances, to impose at least one of three measures: a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement, or electronic whereabouts monitoring. Each of these is already well established within the Sentencing Code. This amendment does not invent new powers but would ensure that they are applied where they are most needed.

Persistent offending demands a persistent response. A curfew can provide stability and reduce opportunities for offending. An exclusion order can prevent an offender returning to the very location where they have repeatedly caused harm. Electronic monitoring can give both authorities and the community greater reassurance that restrictions are being observed. Crucially, judicial discretion is preserved. If there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender that make such a requirement inappropriate, the court may depart from the presumption. Likewise, where electronic monitoring cannot lawfully or practically be imposed, the requirement falls away. The amendment is therefore both firm and flexible. It sets a clear expectation without creating an inflexible straitjacket.

This amendment also carefully defines adult shoplifting and ensures consistency across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It contains proper safeguards; for example, by providing for cases in which previous convictions were later quashed and ensuring that appeals remain possible in such circumstances. What we propose is modest, proportionate and targeted. It will help retailers, support communities and provide offenders with structure—often the very thing that is lacking in the lives of those who fall into serial offending.

The Government’s rhetoric must be met with practical measures. This amendment offers one such measure. It would not overload the courts. It would simply ensure that, where an offender has persistently exploited the leniency of the system, the system responds with firmness, clarity and consequence. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment. It would strengthen public protection, reinforce judicial tools already at the court’s disposal and send a clear message that persistent shop theft will not be tolerated. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 216 in my name. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response to the proposal from my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for tougher community treatment of repeat offenders. As it is focused on the community and on suspended sentence orders, it seems to fit in very well with the spirit of the Sentencing Bill, which we will no doubt be debating on a number of further days.

As the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, has already acknowledged, and as the recent Crime Survey shows, shoplifting has risen very significantly in recent years, especially since Covid. Indeed, we heard on the “Today” programme this morning that the average number of days it takes to deal with shoplifting cases has increased by 80% in the last decade.

My own experience has taught me something else: the biggest problem with shoplifting is not so much the law as the patchy and sometimes non-existent nature of police enforcement in relation to shoplifting and associated misdemeanours. The general acceptance that thefts worth less than £200—the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, was the first to mention that minimum—do not matter to the authorities is a particular bugbear of mine and of others who care about decency and limiting neighbourhood crime and its distressing effects.

That issue lies behind my Amendment 216, which would reverse that deplorable trend. My amendment would require the College of Policing to issue a code of practice to ensure that police forces also investigate shoplifting where the value of goods is less than £200. Letting people walk into shops, steal things and get away scot free eats at the heart of a civilised society, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, explained earlier. You only need to visit San Francisco in recent years to see the awful effects on its once golden streets. However, there is hope there: a Democratic mayor is at last seeing good sense. I hope the Government will follow that lead and consider my amendment this evening.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s Amendment 215, I have great sympathy for its suggestions. Electronic monitoring can certainly play a useful role, although there is mixed evidence of its ability to reduce reoffending. However, there are multiple challenges in implementation, including inconsistent use by probation services, delays in procuring new GPS tags and gaps in responding promptly to breaches. However, my main problem is that, from a policing perspective, I worry there is no slack available in police time to monitor curfews, exclusion orders or electronic tagging. I fear it may be counterproductive to give the police yet more work when they are having great difficulty coping with what they already have.

I have a similar reservation about Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. In principle, I would support a code of practice to improve enforcement. However, in the absence of more police resources, the danger is that this would only exacerbate the current situation, where chief constables are faced with having to rob Peter to pay Paul in other areas of policing, and victims of other crimes would likely suffer as a consequence.

I would stress prevention over cure. I draw the Committee’s and the Minister’s attention to a West Midlands Police programme that diverts repeat low-level shoplifters into services like drug rehabilitation. Since its pilot in 2018, it has been credited with saving local businesses an estimated £2.3 million through reduced shoplifting. Surely this is something we ought at least to investigate.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for tabling Amendments 215 and 216 respectively. I have great respect for both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness’s background means that she knows more than most about the corrosive experience of shoplifting and the effect it can have on those working in the retail industry. The noble Lord’s distinguished career as a police officer gives him great authority to speak about the challenges to police forces and their obligations to society that they should be fulfilling. I reassure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we are all on the same side on this. This is one of these situations where I am very keen to work with Members from all sides of your Lordships’ Committee to ensure that we deal with this social and economic menace efficiently and effectively.

On Amendment 215, I will repeat what I said a few moments ago: this Government take repeat and prolific offending extremely seriously. However, sentencing in individual cases must be a matter for our independent judiciary, and it must take into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the statutory purposes of sentencing. Your Lordships will, of course, be aware that the courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders.

As some of your Lordships may be aware, until relatively recently I was a judge in the Crown Court, and I sentenced my fair share of shoplifters. There was a complete spectrum of those offenders, from the destitute, homeless young mother stealing nappies for her baby at one end to the shameless, organised shoplifting gangs who terrify and terrorise shop workers. As the sentencing judge, there was a toolbox of disposals of increasing seriousness available to me, so that I could match the appropriate sentence to the offender on a case-by-case basis. These included discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences with requirements and custodial sentences where appropriate.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with the sentencing guidelines making it clear that, when determining the sentence, sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions and the time elapsed since the previous conviction. But that repeats what is, in fact, common sense and what every sentencer knows. From my own experience, I can tell the Committee that the more frequently a defendant appears before the court, having gone out and done exactly the same thing that he or she had just been sentenced for, the more exasperated the judge becomes, who then starts imposing tougher and tougher sentences.

Despite the popular caricatures, judges do live in the real world. While sentencing a shoplifter to prison as a standard proposition will seem harsh, it can and does happen if the court concludes that there is no other way of stopping them. Importantly, this Government will introduce a whole range of options that will ramp up the community and suspended sentence powers for judges. In other words, the toolbox is getting fancier and more extensive.

As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said, sentencers are already able to impose a robust range of electronic monitoring requirements on anyone serving their sentence in the community. Where the court imposes curfews, exclusion zones and/or an alcohol ban, offenders must be electronically monitored, subject to individual suitability. I note the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about the effect on police resources. However, quite a lot of the monitoring is done by the Probation Service. As the noble Baroness is probably aware, the Government are putting a lot of additional resources back into the Probation Service to enable it to do this.

Soon judges will be able to add driving bans and bans on offenders attending pubs, bars, clubs and desirable social activities like sports and concerts, as well as some tough new geographical restriction zones, to the existing tools.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I love that the Minister said that judges will be able to do that. Will she use the new powers, which I think the Attorney-General is taking, to overrule the Sentencing Council if it tries to dilute those powers?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

This is probably not the moment for me to embark on that one. This, of course, is simply about agreeing with the Sentencing Council’s guidelines in individual cases, not overriding them. I am confident that agreement will be reached, but, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, perhaps that is one I will deal with another day.

We are also about to expand the intensive supervision courts to deal with the root causes of these crimes by making repeat offenders come back in front of the same judge on regular occasions to see how they are doing. That is what is going to be available to judges.

Let us look at the other side of the coin for a moment. Many shoplifters have complicated backgrounds and complex needs, and sometimes electronic monitoring may not be an appropriate requirement to add to an offender’s sentence, even if this is their third or more offence. Many prolific offenders are homeless and lead chaotic lives. Even getting them to turn up to court on time can be a significant challenge. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement in some of these cases would be setting the defendant up to fail instead of helping to improve the outcome for the perpetrators and victims of crime and the public at large. It is all entirely case specific, and the judge is the right person to make that decision.

I am proud of our judiciary, which is working hard under very difficult circumstances at the moment, and I am asking noble Lords to trust our magnificent judges, because they do understand the problems that repeat shoplifting can cause and they understand the powers available to them to sentence individual offenders appropriately. This measure would put unnecessary constraints on them and make an already difficult job harder. I can also assure noble Lords that we are continuing to work with cross-government partners and police forces to consider new ways of targeting and tackling persistent and prolific offenders.

19:30

Turning now to Amendment 216, we absolutely share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to see the police take more, and more effective, action against shoplifters, but I am going to give three reasons why the Government do not feel that this amendment is needed. First, the College of Policing has already published guidance on tackling retail crime. That said, we appreciate the need to ensure that this guidance is up to date, and I know that Home Office Ministers will continue to work with the police to make sure that that happens. Secondly, training for police on tackling retail crime already exists. This was produced by the Police Crime Prevention Academy, with funding from the Home Office. In addition, the Government are providing £100,000 of funding in this financial year for the National Police Chiefs’ Council to give further training to police and retailers on prevention tactics.

Thirdly, tackling retail crime requires a partnership approach between policing and business. The previous Minister for Crime and Policing launched the Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy, which was jointly developed by the police and the industry with the aim of providing a collaborative and evidence-based approach to preventing retail crime. This Government want to go further and faster, which is why the Home Secretary announced a “winter of action”. This winter, police forces across England and Wales will again form partnerships with local businesses and authorities to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season.

I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy and the depth of her reply, but I am not quite sure how we solve the £200 problem. The points she made about enforcement are very good ones, but the difficulty is this belief that if you steal something worth less than £200, nothing will happen to you; thus my parallel with San Francisco. What are we going to do about that?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The first thing we want to do is Clause 39, which, of course, was opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But in addition, this is about making it clear to everybody that it really does matter, and driving it through to the police that there should be no immunities—that there are no levels below to which this should not apply.

For all these reasons, I do believe these amendments are not required, but I would be very happy to discuss the matters further with both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I encourage them to speak with me if they feel there are matters that I have not fully taken into account. But, for now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her kind offer.

The amendment of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe focuses on enforcement. If the police do not investigate theft, if they do not take measures to deter and prevent shoplifting, no amount of legislation will change that. Creating a code of practice for low-value shoplifting could be a step in the right direction. Together with my Amendment 215—and I am grateful, I think, for the implied support of the Liberal Democrats—these measures target enforcement and punishment. This is in stark contrast to what the Government are proposing in Clause 39. The effective immunity for shoplifters comes from the inability of the police to catch those who shoplift. It is an issue of enforcement and investigation, which in turn all comes back to police funding and officer numbers—a point made by the noble Baroness Lady Doocey. Better enforcement is what will drive down shoplifting offence rates, not putting those cases before Crown Court judges. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 215 withdrawn.

Amendment 216 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.14 pm.

Gaza and Sudan

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:35

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 18 November.

“I want to update the House on two of the world’s gravest conflicts—in Gaza and in Sudan—following recent resolutions in the UN and discussions at the G7, and on the action that the UK Government are taking to pursue peace.

First, I turn to Gaza. After two years of the most horrendous suffering, the ceasefire agreement led by President Trump with the support of Qatar, Egypt and Türkiye has been in place for six weeks. Twenty hostages are now home with their loved ones, and the remains of 25 more have been returned so their families can grieve. More aid trucks are entering Gaza. But the ceasefire is highly fragile, and there is still a long journey ahead to implement the commitments made at Sharm el-Sheikh and to get to a lasting peace.

Last night, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2803. The UK voted for this important resolution, which authorises the establishment of an international stabilisation force for Gaza, and transitional arrangements including the board of peace and a Palestinian committee. It underscores the essential need for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, and points the way to a path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. Crucially, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority, and Arab and Muslim partners in the region and beyond. The resolution is a critical staging post that sustains the unity around President Trump’s 20-point plan.

Momentum must now be maintained. It is essential that an international stabilisation force and trained Palestinian police can be deployed quickly to support the ceasefire and to avoid a vacuum being left that Hamas can exploit. We will also need the urgent formation of a Palestinian committee alongside the board of peace. As we made clear at the UN last night, these transitional arrangements must be implemented in accordance with international law, and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination. They should strengthen the unity of Gaza and the West Bank, and empower Palestinian institutions to enable a reformed Palestinian Authority to resume governance in Gaza, because Palestine must be run by Palestinians.

The work to implement the first phase of the ceasefire agreement must continue. That means work so that Hamas releases the bodies of the remaining three hostages taken in the terrorist attack on 7 October, so that their families can properly grieve. We urgently need a major increase in humanitarian aid, because aid into Gaza is still a trickle rather than a flood. Two weeks ago, I visited warehouses in Jordan holding UK aid for Gaza, including one run by the World Food Programme with enough wheat to feed 700,000 people for a month; yet it still sits there because the Jordanian route into Gaza is still closed. People there told me that there were 30 more warehouses nearby, with food, shelter kits, tents and medical supplies—less than 100 miles from Gaza but still not getting in.

I welcome the very recent improvements in aid flows, and that one more border crossing, Zikim, is now partially open. But it is not nearly enough. We need all land crossings open—including the Rafah border with Egypt—with longer and consistent hours, and urgent work is needed immediately in all parts of Gaza to rebuild basic public services and to provide shelter as winter draws in. Medical staff must be allowed to enter and leave Gaza freely, and international non-governmental organisations need certainty that they can continue to operate. I spoke to the King of Jordan and to doctors in Amman about a maternity and neonatal field hospital unit that stands ready to be moved into Gaza—but, again, they cannot yet get it in. The Israeli Government can and must remove the restrictions and uncertainty now.

As well as working with the US and others, we are drawing on distinct UK strengths to support a lasting peace. We are providing expertise on weapons decommissioning and ceasefire monitoring, based on the Northern Ireland experience. We are supporting action on demining and unexploded ordnance, including with £4 million of new UK funding for the United Nations Mine Action Service, and we are funding to surge in experts, including from British organisations such as the HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group, whose impressive work I recently saw at first hand. On civil-military co-ordination, we have UK deployments into a dedicated US-led hub for Gaza stabilisation efforts.

Beyond Gaza, stability in the West Bank is essential to any sustainable peace, and I am concerned that the PA faces an economic crisis induced by Israeli restrictions that are strangling the Palestinian economy. The Netanyahu Government should be extending, not threatening to end, the arrangements between Israeli and Palestinian banks—arrangements that are crucial to the everyday economy for Palestinians. This is crucial for stability, which is in Israel’s interests too.

The pace of illegal settlement building continues. We have seen further appalling incidents of settler violence during the olive harvest. While I welcome Israeli President Herzog’s expression of concern, the response of the Israeli authorities is still completely insufficient—practically and legally. Tackling settlement expansion and settler violence is vital to protecting a two-state solution, in line with the UK’s historic decision to recognise the State of Palestine.

Let me turn now to Sudan, where the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century is still unfolding, right now. The UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, who has just visited the area, has described it as

‘the epicentre of suffering in the world’

and he is right. Over 30 million people need life-saving aid. Twelve million have been forced from their homes. Famine is spreading. Cholera and preventable disease are rampant. In El Fasher, following advances by the Rapid Support Forces, there are horrifying scenes of atrocities, with mass executions, starvation, and the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war—horrors so appalling they can be seen from space.

As the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has put it, El Fasher is a crime scene. Satellite pictures show discolouration of sand consistent with pools of blood, multiple clusters of objects consistent with piles of human bodies, and the apparent burning of bodies and operations to dispose of bodies in mass graves. Further horrors will yet unfold unless greater action is taken.

A year ago, Britain tabled a resolution at the UN Security Council demanding humanitarian access and civilian protection, but it was shamefully vetoed by Russia. Six months ago, at our London Sudan Conference, the UK brought together international partners and secured £800 million in funding, but the situation continues to deteriorate, including with North Kordofan now under threat and fighting moving to El Obeid.

We need a complete step change in efforts to alleviate the suffering and bring about peace. That means more aid to those in need. The UK has committed over £125 million this year alone, delivering life-saving support to over 650,000 people—treating children with severe malnutrition, providing water and medicine, and supporting survivors of rape—but the challenge is still access.

The RSF still refuses safe passage to aid organisations around El Fasher. The Sudanese Armed Forces are bringing in new restrictions that stand to hinder aid. Both sides must allow unhindered passage for humanitarian workers, supplies and trapped civilians. We are urgently pressing for a three-month humanitarian truce to open routes for life-saving supplies, but aid will not resolve a conflict wilfully driven by the warring parties, so we desperately need a lasting ceasefire underpinned by a serious political process.

At the Manama dialogue conference in Bahrain two weeks ago, I called for the same intense international efforts to address the crisis in Sudan as we have seen around Gaza. At Niagara last week, I joined our G7 partners in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, for the unimpeded access of humanitarian aid, and for external actors to contribute to the restoration of peace and security. We are engaging intensively with the Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States—which have now together called for an immediate humanitarian truce, and an end to external support and arms that are fuelling conflict. I strongly support Secretary Rubio’s latest comments regarding the need to end the weapons and support that the RSF is getting from outside Sudan.

Last Friday, the UK called a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which a UK-drafted resolution was passed, securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events. We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan.

The UK will play its full part to ensure that it is the Sudanese people, not any warring party, that determines Sudan’s future. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause untold harm to civilians; they radiate instability, undermine the security of neighbouring states, and lead migrants to embark on dangerous journeys. We are striving to meet those urgent humanitarian needs, and striving to secure not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of lasting peace. From Gaza to Sudan that can only be done through international co-operation, and through countries coming together for peace. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to respond to the Government’s Statement in the other place on two of the most serious conflicts in the world today. Given that these are two distinct issues, I will address the situation in Gaza first and then move on to the conflict in Sudan.

The Government have been right to praise President Trump for his success in securing peace in Gaza. When the announcement that a peace deal had been reached was made, many were surprised. After two years of conflict, peace seemed a long way off. President Trump’s determination to secure peace was game-changing, and he deserves credit for this huge achievement.

We also welcome the UN Security Council’s decision to pass a US resolution in support of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza. As the US ambassador, Mike Waltz, said, this is

“another significant step towards a stable Gaza”.

It is a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to do. The UN resolution included a mandate for the International Stabilization Force. On the UK’s role with the International Stabilization Force, the Foreign Secretary said in the other place:

“We do not expect the UK to contribute troops”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/25; col. 636.]


Can the Minister please explain why the Foreign Secretary was not able to rule that out completely? What are the circumstances in which we would provide troops to play a role in the force?

The Foreign Secretary also confirmed that the UK is providing military and civilian deployment into the Civil-Military Coordination Center, which is US-led. This is an important contribution, and it is right that we play a full role in securing the peace. Can the Minister confirm what steps her department is taking to ensure that all Britons involved in these efforts are provided with the right advice to keep them safe? What contingencies has the Foreign Office put in place to support Britons working in the region, should the ceasefire fail?

Finally, we have been concerned for many months by the imbalance in the Government’s approach to Israel and Gaza respectively. Hamas must fully disarm: that is essential to the peace. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Hamas will have no role in running Palestine?

Ministers will be aware that Germany has lifted its partial arms embargo on Israel in light of the ceasefire. Can the Minister update the House on the UK’s decision to suspend certain arms export licences? Have the Government commissioned new legal advice in light of the ceasefire? If not, when will Ministers do so? Can the Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with our allies to ensure that we remain focused on the return of the final three deceased hostages, so their families may grieve properly? I know I speak for the whole House when I say: may their memory be a blessing.

I turn to Sudan. The appalling atrocities that are being perpetrated in that conflict must be brought to an end. We have consistently called for the United Kingdom to spearhead efforts to secure a ceasefire, and the United Kingdom should play a strong role in sanctioning all those who are responsible for those atrocities. I understand that officials have been instructed to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan. Can the Minister confirm when these sanctions will be implemented? As she is only too aware, we must move really quickly on all these items relating to Sudan.

On aid, given the extent of the physical obstacles to aid and the impassable routes, we know that His Majesty’s Government are looking into aid delivered by air. Time, once again, is the essential factor here. When will aid start being delivered directly to those who need it via air routes?

There have been concerning reports about British-made military equipment being used by forces involved in the conflict. Can the Minister please confirm what steps her department has taken to investigate these reports? When will those investigations be concluded and what action are the Government considering in light of these concerning reports? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I agree with the noble Earl: we thank the Government for bringing the Statement to Parliament and for this opportunity to ask questions of the Minister. Having asked for a Statement at every single opportunity since I became leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, I note that this is the first one on Sudan since July—but it is welcome.

With regard to Gaza, we now have Resolution 2803 and, while it is positive that it is supported by the Palestinian Authority and the Arab states, it is worth noting that Palestinian statehood is not recognised as a right within it but is conditional. There is also a lack of reference to the continuing occupation.

The task ahead will be to move at pace with implementation and to begin peacebuilding. Peace remains an ambition, but the cessation of violence is an essential component. A credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood is now the agreed focus, and this is welcome. The most recent statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the right-wing elements of his Government, however, could not have been more clear: they believe that there should never be a two-state solution. How are His Majesty’s Government responding to this contradictory situation?

The UK can, as I have called for previously, provide an essential and practical service in the way forward, built on our expertise and experience in re-establishing education services, health services, law and order, and trusted judicial processes. Unless Hamas is disarmed, there will continue to be gangsterism and the threat will remain for Israeli civilians. The victims will also be Palestinian civilians. On the West Bank, I note even the Israeli President signalling his view this week of settler violence as “shocking” and crossing a “red line”. But a red line having been crossed, we would expect to see action, not impunity. I hope that the Government will continue their work on adding pressure to try to reduce the violence in the West Bank, which is now at unprecedented levels.

I have said previously that the task of reducing violence in the West Bank, the commencement of state building, and the work to clear rubble are a monumental task. It is 20 times the scale of the destruction of the Blitz in London in a quarter of the geographical footprint. But even this barely comprehensible destruction does not get close to matching the continuing horror in Sudan, a country that the House knows I have visited very frequently and that I love. In my ongoing work to support civilians, their bravery and resistance are a constant inspiration to me, but the urgency and scale of the atrocities need a comparable urgent and direct set of actions now.

In El Fasher in North Darfur, the latest credible estimates are that the total death toll in Gaza has happened in three weeks. It was signalled but not prevented, even though protection of civilian tools had been authorised by the Security Council and were available. The Minister will recall that before the Summer Recess I asked specifically what preventive actions were being taken. In the House, we discussed and even questioned the value of resolutions if they cannot be implemented. But this is the worst ethnic and genocidal atrocity since the mid-1990s, when the world was stained with Rwanda and vowed, “Never again”. It is happening now and it is about to get worse imminently unless action is taken.

It is now apparent that, as a result of a failure to prevent and the continuation of the supply of equipment and munitions to the RSF, it feels emboldened to commit further atrocities in El Obeid and Tawila. I say, with respect to our Government and other Governments around the world, that condemnation without action is not acceptable. As United Nations Security Council penholder, we have a global responsibility to secure co-ordination and then implementation of the protection of civilians.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact report on Sudan made depressing reading—I know that the Minister will have studied it closely. From my experience, it is accurate. It is depressing to read that policy decisions have been made as a result of budget reductions, not through policy choices themselves. It is not only depressing but an outrage. The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons that there needed to be action, and I agree with her. But she did not say what, so can the Minister for Africa state what actions are now being proposed by the UK to prevent the atrocities that could be happening in weeks?

The Minister stated that funds were raised in the London conference last year, and the new additional funds from the UK are welcome, but that London conference raised only a third of what was needed for the humanitarian emergency last year. We know the consequences of the lack of a Sudan-wide UN arms embargo, no designated safe places for education and health, no kinetic action to prevent intelligence gathering and drone attacks on civilians, and no no-fly zones—all these are emboldening the RSF, and the SAF and its NCP backers are preventing humanitarian aid from going into the areas.

I hope the UK can now steer a regional co-ordination mechanism for humanitarian assistance. I hope the Minister can appeal to the Prime Minister so that he makes it a priority for this country on the global stage to ensure that there is a cessation of violence, that there is a prevention of atrocities, and that we can signal the work on the future of Sudan being for the civilians of Sudan, not the warring parties, which currently feel as if they have impunity.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, and I agree with much of what has been said. The noble Earl started by talking about the ceasefire in Gaza. We very much welcome this and will do everything we can to support the path to peace. As both noble Lords said, this is an early stage in the process and there is a very long way to go. It is unlikely to be smooth and without disruption along the way, and we need to be ready for that and to have the determination to do whatever it takes to see this through.

I was asked about the ISF and UK troops. It is not our intention that there should be UK troops. The Foreign Secretary said very clearly that that is not what we expect to happen, and there are many reasons for that. I was also asked about Hamas, which is an important question. It has long been the position of this Government and our predecessor Governments—and it will continue to be the position—that we consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. We therefore think that Hamas should have no role in the future of leadership in Palestine in any guise at all.

I am going to Brussels tomorrow to meet Mr Mustafa to talk about how the Palestinian Authority takes that role in the future, and to make sure that it is properly equipped and has the capability to do that. We are not ready today, but it is important that the international community, as appropriate, comes together and provides that support. We have been doing that and we need to increase those efforts at the moment. Accepting the board of peace and all the other structures within the 20-point plan that we still need to work through, it is difficult to see how, in the longer term, you can have a Government of Palestine without the Palestinian Authority.

Clearly, we keep the issue of arms sales under review. We are mindful of the decisions that our partners and allies make. We are at an early stage in the process and I would not rule out a change, but, at the moment, we need to monitor things and see how they progress. The return of hostages is absolutely vital. Those families have been through far too much and, tragic though it is, the bodies of their loved ones must be returned; we will continue to make the case for that to happen as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the plan as well, and our position is that this is the best chance we have of achieving peace at the moment. I know that there is some scepticism, and it is not difficult to find things that are missing and elements that it would be good to see, but we are in a position where this is the plan that we have. It is the plan that we must all work as hard as we possibly can to make work. Where there are things that we can add to it, and things that would help and ways in which we can support it, that is what we must do.

The noble Lord asks what we will do when the Government of Israel does not want, perhaps, to do some of the things that we would like them to do in relation to the plan. We need to have dialogue and discussion and take those issues as they come. We need to start from a position that, before this plan was agreed—very close to the moment when this plan was agreed—many of us were starting to lose most of our hope in relation to this. Yet the plan happened and the ceasefire happened. So we must proceed with a clear eye, but with the best intentions.

What are we doing to support the Palestinian Authority? We are doing a great deal, including the work with Michael Barber, who many noble Lords will be familiar with. We continue to work with those in the Palestinian Authority and we have a very good relationship with them. I have met them many times, as has Minister Falconer and many others, and we will continue to do that.

It has been a dreadful season for settler violence. It is the olive harvest season, and it has been some of the worst periods in terms of the volume and nature of violence that we have seen. I have met families in Palestine who have been forced to move many times, and their stories are devastating. We have used our sanctions regime to address this and we will continue to use that and other mechanisms, as the noble Lord would expect, to try to improve the situation of those living in Palestine.

The noble Lord asked me about sanctions on Sudan. Yes, we use some sanctions in relation to Sudan. Noble Lords have heard me say many times that we do not comment on future designations. But that does not mean it is a waste of time to raise it in this House. It is important that, where noble Lords feel that they would like to see more action, they use these opportunities to encourage the Government and make that clear, because that affects our calculation and our thinking. It is important that we know that that is the view of parliamentarians.

The issue of aid to Sudan was raised. There is an issue with the amount of aid, but really it is an issue of access. That is the problem. The restrictions that are placed on agencies, the registration requirements, the payments that are needed, the safety and the blocking of access are incredibly frustrating. I was asked about air drops. There are real problems with air drops and they are an absolute last resort. We do not know who the aid is going to. People have died when we dropped aid in this way in the past, and it is an incredibly expensive way of getting aid to a population we could reach easily over land, if only the warring parties would allow that to happen. We continue to argue, alongside Tom Fletcher and others—Tom Fletcher has been in Darfur this week and I am sure that this is one of the cases he will have been making—for the necessity of both sides, whatever else they cannot agree on, and there is plenty, to come to a position where they can allow access for humanitarian workers to operate safely.

We have looked into the issue of British-made equipment, and we are incredibly concerned about any evidence of anything happening of that nature. As the noble Lord will know, we take pride in the robustness of our systems, and we take incredibly seriously any issues there may be with diversion. These have been investigated. The items included in the reports were items that were sold many years ago. They were not bullets or guns or anything like that; it was something to do with a car engine. Nevertheless, those things should not end up in Sudan. We continue to monitor this very closely, because we do not want anything that has come out of this country to be used to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities that we are seeing in Sudan. We will keep that closely monitored and we will, of course, investigate any evidence immediately.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about the ICAI report. It was a very good report. I read it; it was a thoughtful, well-rounded piece of work. The policy choices on Sudan referred to in the report are not things that have happened recently, or even under this Government. The policy choices that we are making in relation to Sudan have not been related to budget, because we have not reduced our budget for Sudan. We have protected it, for reasons that noble Lords do not need me to explain. We will also make sure that we consider the money that is used to support the fast-growing numbers of people living on the borders of Sudan, in Chad, Egypt and South Sudan, who are being displaced as a result of this hideous conflict.

The noble Lord asked what we were doing. He made a point about Statements only taking us so far and not having an impact on the ground; I have a lot of time for that opinion. We held a session of the Human Rights Council last week. The position on Sudan was agreed unanimously, which was encouraging. It is good. I was talking to a Minister from Chad to thank the Government of Chad for what they are doing. His view is very clear: the war is political, it needs to stop, and we can do all we want with refugees and aid but, until those warring parties stop and put down their arms, we will continue to face this hideous situation.

The fact that we were able to pass something unanimously in Geneva serves to bring attention and focus to this conflict, because we will need all our partners and allies to bring their attention to Sudan, in the way that they did, in the end, with Gaza. We will need international pressure and an international response to make progress on bringing about peace in Sudan—so they do serve a purpose.

I was also asked about impunity. We have the fact-finding mission that we support. We are supporting the ICC and local agencies to make sure that we have evidence and that we can seek those prosecutions which will be necessary very soon, I hope, to bring those responsible to justice.

19:59

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests. In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary talked about the Manama dialogue in Bahrain. I was there, and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary for publicly calling for intense efforts to address the crisis in Sudan. She did it there, and that was the right place for her to do it. In the other place, Andrew Mitchell asked the Foreign Secretary to call Africa Union members to encourage them to encourage the US to take this awful slaughter as seriously as they have done with Gaza. Can the Minister tell us whether that is happening?

It is, of course, good news that that Resolution 2803 has been passed. I have returned from Germany today and, as my noble friend Lord Courtown quite rightly said, they have lifted the suspension on arms exports to Israel. The Minister said it is early, but they have done it. I therefore asking the Minister whether she will be recommending the same action. Also, will she now say to the Royal College of Defence Studies: enough of this banning of Israelis? At the time, it said that the reason it was banning Israelis was because

“the Israeli Government’s decision to further escalate its military operation in Gaza is wrong”.

That was on 15 September. The ceasefire took effect in October and we are now in November, so I hope that the Minister will call for that.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It would be a very good thing to get to a point where the process is embedded and the confidence is there to enable us to do that. I very much look forward to the day when these measures can be lifted, that is when we will know that there is stability in the process and confidence being built on both sides to enable us to do that.

On the African Union, yes, we do talk to its members. They attended the conference that we held, and I think that they would like to be able to do more. This is not a straightforward situation, and it is important that we stand alongside the African Union. There is something about African solutions to African problems. I would say that the situation in Sudan is a lot more than an African problem, and we need to be working very closely alongside them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend the Minister quite rightly recognised that Sudan is not just an African problem, as it were, and I am delighted by all that she says about what our Government are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly says that more aid will be needed, and indeed it will. I understand that access is the issue at the moment, but I urge the Government to ensure that there is more aid in due course, especially when it comes to the 3.5 million children who are malnourished. I wonder what we can do, perhaps working with civil society—maybe it is too early in Sudan—to give hope to the young people of that country. I am really glad that the Government are working with the surrounding countries where the refugees will be fleeing to, and I just wonder what we can do to build that up. In Gaza, for example, we gave young people hope by enabling some of them to come to this country on scholarships to go to university. Is there anything similar that we could do for students in Sudan?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Those are really important questions. We will continue to protect our aid to Sudan. We have supported 2.5 million people, we are the third largest donor internationally ,and we take our responsibilities to continue that support very seriously.

On the point about civil society and local organisations, in many areas in Sudan, that is your only option. We are doing okay at that, but we need to do a lot more and to get better at it. We need to encourage international NGOs, the United Nations and others who work there to work in a similar way. It is more efficient, as you build capacity while you are doing the humanitarian work. These organisations right now can reach people who are just really hard to support in other ways.

On the issue of students, I have met students from Sudan and some women who had just completed their courses. They are incredibly frustrated: they are well educated, articulate and have an awful lot to give; they want professions and careers in Sudan and their ambition is to be able to work to reconstruct their country and rebuild their society. It is right that we do everything we can to enable them to realise that ambition.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as has been said, this is the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, with half a million children already dead from starvation, 10 million more starving and millions more internally displaced or leaving the country as refugees. Tragically, the number starving actually is more than Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza, Mali and South Sudan put together. We have seen appalling bloodshed in El Fasher over the last few weeks, and it looks like Tawila could be next. There are 650,000 desperate civilians. Given our role at the UN, what more can the Government do to protect civilians, to enable the negotiation of a ceasefire and to get the desperately needed aid that we have just heard about into the country?

I do not want to end on a discordant note, but this Statement is, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis said, long overdue. I just wonder, after the last three years, and the almost daily—obsessive, if I may say so—debates that we have had on Israel and Gaza, which has been discussed in Parliament more than any other issue, including the economy, the NHS, crime or education, why is it that we sit here in an almost empty Chamber? Why are there are no protests outside every day or marches taking over the streets of London every week? Why does the Minister think that, when it comes to the desperate plight of people in Africa, there is an apparent comparative lack of concern in Parliament and among the public? What could explain this?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is no doubt that this is the worst humanitarian crisis of our time by a considerable measure. The number of deaths, the atrocities that are being committed, the lack of control and the normalisation of violence, particularly sexual violence, in this conflict are beyond anything that we have witnessed this century. What more can we do? We need to rally the international community to get more focus on this conflict. That, in the end, is how people will be brought to the negotiating table. We need to do everything that we can within the legal structures that we have and our work on the ground to ensure that testimonies are taken and evidence is gathered so there is accountability and an end to impunity. We need to continue to provide the practical support—both directly and through our partners on the ground—to provide the food, medicine and education that are needed by people who are in such desperate need.

Why has this taken so long to reach the attention of the country and internationally? There are many theories around this—I think the noble Lord, my friend, has his own. You can point to the lack of journalists in the area, or to the fact that Africa generally receives far too little attention. The noble Earl opposite says that there is desensitisation, and I have no doubt that that is part of it too. It is our job, however, to put all those things to one side and make sure that this conflict, and the suffering that it has brought about, receives the attention that it needs. If we do not, this will carry on for year after year. The only way that this will be resolved is with the international community—including but not only the African Union—stepping up, shining a light on it, coming together and resolving to conclude it.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, I join those welcoming the commitment made in the Statement of £125 million of British taxpayer funding to Sudan and welcome the “life-saving support”, as it says, to over 650,000 people. Is the Minister aware of the comments made today by Jean-Martin Bauer of the World Food Programme, when he said:

“We have two confirmed famines in 2025—the first time this century—things have never been this bad”?


Yet the World Food Programme, which is providing life-saving food aid to 110 million people, is facing a 40% cut in its funding. Does the Minister agree that it would be unconscionable for the UK to cut its contribution to the World Food Programme while it is dealing with this unprecedented humanitarian emergency? If so, will she give that assurance to the House this evening?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will continue to fund the World Food Programme, because it is often the agency that can best get supplies mobilised at speed and at scale in these situations. The situation in Sudan is very difficult, even for the UN, because of the restrictions that are put in place and the inability to move supplies around in the way that we need to. We work with other agencies as well—the International Rescue Committee and others—because we need to be able to work with a range of partners because of the very challenging and dangerous circumstances in which we find ourselves having to operate. Unlike some others, we are absolutely committed to working with the World Food Programme, UNICEF, UNHCR and all the UN agencies, and particularly closely through Tom Fletcher, the co-ordinator, because we recognise and respect the fact that the UN is often—not always, but often—the best partner in such circumstances.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Purvis in his frustration about how long it has taken to have a Statement on Sudan. In particular, I have concerns around the credible evidence of atrocities that are highly possible in El Obeid and Tawila. What specific actions are His Majesty’s Government taking to prevent this? I particularly welcome the final section of the Statement, which says that a resolution was passed

“securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events”

in El Fasher and across Sudan, and further states:

“We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan”.


We need to get those individuals in to investigate and collate that evidence, because with every day that passes, the likelihood increases that those people, whether they be civilians or people in regular or irregular armies, may well get away with it.

On the same issue, will His Majesty’s Government have the same determination to hold those people to account who have committed war crimes in Palestine, be it in Gaza or in the West Bank, particularly given the settler violence that we have had? What clear message will they send to those individuals who are going around burning dairies and other livelihoods?

Finally, we have seen pictures of aid stacked up in places such as Jordan and the flooding that has happened in Gaza. What actions will His Majesty’s Government take to ensure that those tents, which are needed right now, are provided, as well as access to baby food and other essentials? I have talked about sanitary products for women in the past. Can we please ensure that they reach the people in Gaza urgently?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have been to those warehouses, so I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about. It is very frustrating when we see aid and equipment that is desperately needed being unable to get to the people who need it. But access is improving; it could still get better. We have conversations about dual-use items and all those issues regularly, but things are slowly getting better. The noble Lord asked whether we treat violations of international humanitarian law differently in different places. No, these things are universal, and that is the approach that this Government will always take. On what we are doing about the atrocities and accountability in Sudan, that is an important question. We are working urgently to press the parties to agree an immediate three-month truce, as a beginning, to enable that aid to get in, but also to enable people’s accounts of what has happened, because it is important, as he says—and I think it is what he wants—that the individuals responsible find themselves in the International Criminal Court, which is where they belong.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I know that it is unusual to contribute a second time, but I have raised El Obeid and Tawila, as has my noble friend. I would be grateful for some specific reference to actions on what may be imminent atrocities carried out there. We know that the RSF has declared a truce and is using that, cynically and politically, to gather data and intelligence on its next victims. We also know that the NCP has said that anything that Burhan or SAF are saying will also not be implemented. What actions are we now taking to prevent what could well be imminent atrocities?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct to remind us of this. I think everybody watched what happened in El Fasher, could see it starting and could tell what was going to happen. We have the same fear in the pit of our stomachs now about Tawila and other places too. We have to work alongside the Quad process that the US is leading, and there are other processes too. The UK supports all of them and is working as closely as it can. We have organisations that are speaking to both sides, including with armed groups on the ground. It is a case of using every possible lever to make the case that people will be held to account. The world is now watching in horror at what has been happening, and we must choose every method that we can to try to prevent any further atrocities occurring. We are all sickened to our core at what is happening and what we fear may be about to take place.

Crime and Policing Bill

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

20:18

Amendment 216A

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

216A: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Retail crime: deterrent action by shopkeepers(1) Where shopkeepers or retail outlets of any kind have obtained video or photographic evidence of theft of goods from their shop or store and the alleged thief has not been caught at the time, then they may—(a) a. circulate that photographic evidence to—(i) any other retailers they consider appropriate,(ii) their Head Offices or security control centres,(iii) any organisations engaged by them in deterring shop theft or arresting thieves, and(iv) any trade body or publication which is relevant to their business;(b) publish the photographs prominently in their stores or shops;(c) publish the videos and or photographs on social media.(2) Where shopkeepers or retail outlets of any kind have obtained video or photographic evidence of theft of goods from their shop or store and the alleged thief has not been caught at the time then they must—(a) retain securely the original or hard copy of the evidence which must be time and date stamped;(b) ensure that the evidence is not edited in any way;(c) send a digital copy of the evidence to the appropriate police force as soon as reasonably practical, but they may collate that and any other occurrences and send them as a bundle;(d) supply information about the nature and value of the goods they believe were stolen;(e) store any other evidence relating to the alleged theft including any eye witness accounts.(3) When the police receive any evidence or information under subsection (2)(c) and (d) they must undertake the following steps—(a) log and record all the evidence they received;(b) do a facial check on the Police National Database;(c) do a check on the passport and immigration databases;(d) check the photos, videos and reports received against any other reports to see if there is a pattern or repeat thieving.(4) When it seems to the police that—(a) there are other similar examples of the person stealing from shops,(b) there is a pattern of offending,(c) the alleged thief is acting in concert with others, and(d) there is evidence that that shop or retail outlet is regularly targeted,the police must initiate a full investigation with an objective of arresting the thief or thieves and bringing them to trial.(5) Where a person accused of being a shop thief has had information published under subsection (1) and it is later proven that the person was innocent or a photograph of the wrong person was published, then that person is entitled to compensation by the shop or retail outlet which published it.(6) The compensation under subsection (5) is £300 per day for each day that the information was wrongly published.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any of the provisions of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
There has been a rise in theft from shops and complaints from store owners that the police are not doing enough to stop it. These provisions aim to deter shop thieves and make it easier for the police to take action because the shop owners will have provided sufficiently reliable video and other evidence to justify full investigations and prosecutions.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 216A, I shall speak to my Amendments 216B and 216C. These are three large proposed new clauses, and I assure the Committee that I will not be speaking to any other groups of amendments tonight.

Why have I tabled these when there are already laws on shoplifting? I am doing it because theft from shops is now completely out of control, and we need new laws, powers and penalties. The first thing which has to change is the terminology. I disagree with my noble friends and the Minister in the last discussion calling it “shoplifting”, since this diminishes the enormity of the criminal rackets now operating. It sounds rather like the legitimate “grab and go” takeaway food we see in shops, although I assume people are supposed to pay for it before they go. This is not shoplifting; it is shop theft, with some organised on a massive scale as conspiracy to steal.

My amendments address the concerns of the British Retail Consortium following its annual survey published in January this year. It showed that losses from customer theft reached a record £2.2 billion in 2023-24 and that we have record crime levels, despite retailers spending £1.8 billion on prevention. That is a total cost of £4 billion. Retailers want the police to take retail crime more seriously, improve response times, use technology and data sharing to target prolific and organised offenders, and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

Key actions retailers advocate for include improved police attendance. Retailers want police to prioritise attending incidents, especially when an offender has been detained by staff, violence has been used or key evidence such as forensics need immediate attention and collection.

Retailers want effective investigations. They ask for all reasonable lines of inquiry to be pursued, including collecting and using CCTV footage, eyewitness statements and forensic evidence to identify and prosecute offenders.

Retailers want the targeting of prolific offenders. They want a proactive approach to identify and focus resources on the small number of repeat offenders responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. This includes using criminal behaviour orders and, for serious cases, electronic monitoring.

Retailers want better data sharing and intelligence. Businesses are keen to share data and intelligence through partnerships and platforms, such as Project Pegasus and the Disc system, to help police forces build a national picture of organised crime groups and link up crimes for unknown offenders across different locations.

Retailers want easier and consistent reporting, with a streamlined, consistent and easy way to report all incidents, as underreporting due to complex systems and a perceived lack of police response is a major issue.

Retailers also want visible deterrence. They support “hot spot patrolling” and high-visibility policing in high-crime locations to deter potential thieves and provide reassurance to staff and customers.

Retailers want tougher sentencing and legal measures. The industry advocates for a robust judicial response, including the introduction of specific laws such as a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker—which I am pleased to see we are going to have—to signal that these crimes are unacceptable and will not go unpunished.

Finally, retailers want collaboration. Overall, shops want stronger collaboration between the police, the criminal justice system and businesses to address the root causes of offending and ensure that staff are supported in providing evidence and attending court. 

I am arrogant enough to say that my proposed new clauses address all these concerns and are related. The first would give shopkeepers and retail outlets the powers to deter shop thieves. The second would give powers to arrest and detain them. The third would tackle organised shop theft as conspiracy.

Let me explain my proposed new clause described in Amendment 216A. The Information Commissioner’s Office has suggested that it is inappropriate to publish photos of known thieves because it may infringe their data protection rights. What nonsense—it is a great deterrent, and my subsections (5) and (6) would provide for compensation if a shop makes a mistake and publishes the wrong photograph. Retailers such as M&S, Boots, Morrisons and Greggs are now contributing data, including photos and CCTV footage, of repeat offenders to a national database which is shared with the police and used internally by security staff—for example, on “Banned” boards in staff-only areas—to prevent entry. That is a compliant method which seeks to get round, or comply with, the Information Commissioner’s guidance.

The other thing shops must do—and I suggest they will do—is make it easy for the police to prosecute. The police will naturally not respond to a phone call that says that some anonymous bloke stole from a shop and made a getaway and they do not know who it is; I would not respond to that myself. However, if the shops keep all photographic and video evidence—although it will be digital these days—timed and dated and of court evidential quality, with statements from the observers, then the police will think it worth while to investigate; at least, they will have no reason not to do so. Following on from that, my proposed new clause says that, if the retailers have done all these things and have good evidence which has a good chance of catching and convicting thieves, then the police must take investigative action along the lines in my subsections (3) and (4). I submit that these measures will lead not only to more just convictions but also to deterrence.

My proposed new clause described in Amendment 216B moves on from deterrence to detention. Retail outlets must have the power to arrest and detain suspects under proper controls, but very few now do so because they are afraid of the consequences of getting it wrong. Even when they get it right, criminals will sue for wrongful arrest or excessive force, no matter how untrue that is. My proposed new clause sets out powers for shops to arrest and detain shop thieves, but with very strict conditions as set out in subsection (2). I will not go through all of them, but they are tough conditions on shops and security guards which guarantee that evidence is retained, and the rights of the suspect are properly guaranteed, just the same as if he or she had been arrested and detained by the most woke police force in the country.

The security staff must be properly trained, use minimal necessary force and wear cameras all the time to capture the action. When a suspect is detained in a secure room, it must be covered by cameras at all times and they must be told why they have been arrested. There must be no intimate body searches and there must be female security staff for female suspects, et cetera. It is of prime importance that the police must be called as soon as possible.

When the shop has complied with all those requirements, the police must then respond and do their duty. If the shop has done a gold-plated job of collecting the evidence and handling the suspect properly, then the police must take their responsibility seriously and there would be no question of releasing the suspect on the spot. Of course, they can release or charge them when they have reviewed the evidence at the police station and interviewed the suspect.

Noble Lords may point out that this regime may be perfect for the big retailers and big shops but will not work for the corner shops and smaller retailers. I accept that, but it is highly likely that individuals who steal from small shops will also steal from large multiples, as the type of store selected often depends on the specific motivation and perceived opportunity of the thief rather than a strict adherence to only one type. Ultimately, shop-thieves tend to be generalists in terms of store format, seeking out environments with low security and high opportunity. Large multiples often have more security resources, such as CCTV and security guards, but their sheer size and high footfall can also make them easier targets in certain areas. Small shops may have less sophisticated security, making them a target for burglars or opportunistic thieves, but owners often know their “regulars”, which can act as a deterrent for some. We have got to remove the fear of shops and staff doing their own arrests, and that means professionalising their arresting and detention regime and then empowering them.

A few weeks ago, I was in the large Boots down at Cardinal Place in Victoria when I saw a guy in a hoodie come in. He went to a cosmetics shelf, opened a carrier bag and was scooping the shelf contents into it. He then started to go out. I started shouting, “Stop that guy. He is thieving. Stop him! Stop him!” and I charged after him in my chair. He began to run, so I powered up to warp speed but lost him when he went down into the Underground. I went back into Boots, sought out the one and only person on duty and said, “Call the manager. Look at the video tapes”. The response was that there was nothing they could do and there was no point in interfering, as it was just one of those things.

That is not good enough and we are all paying the price through the increased cost of goods to cover theft losses. I might even go so far as to say that Sycamore Partners, the private equity firm that owns Boots, has possibly decided that it can make more profit from letting people steal things than employing enough staff to stop them stealing in the first place. I only surmise; I do not know that for a fact.

Some 10 minutes later, when I was in M&S, an American woman rushed up to me and said she had chased the man who had stolen my shopping, but she had lost him in the Underground. I explained that it was not my shopping but thanked a United States tourist for trying to do what no Brit in the area had tried to.

I am no Mr Jenrick, waging a one-man fight against criminals in London, but a few months ago I was in a small retail outlet in a large supermarket, only a few hundred yards from here, where I saw a man stuffing his jacket pockets full of things, a few yards away from a security guard. I shouted to the guard that someone was thieving. The guy gave me a mouthful of abuse and then walked past the guard, giving him two fingers.

20:30

I asked the guard what he was playing at, and he said they were trained not to intervene and that he just had to let them get away with it. Why should the innocent public pay for useless dodos who are told by the shops just to ignore shop thieves? My proposed new clause would make a difference, giving them the security to arrest and detain, provided they complied with all my provisions to do it properly and legitimately.

Finally, I turn to conspiracy to steal, and to steal a lot. We are talking here about organised crime gangs. Bicester Village Outlet was and still is a favourite target for organised criminal theft gangs. Thames Valley Police has had some success, but it is a constant battle.

I congratulate the Home Office on increasing funding for Operation Opal, which has had considerable success in tackling organised crime in shops. It is no surprise that the majority are eastern European-run gangs, bringing in women illegally as prostitutes and filling the van on the way back home with high-value stolen goods.

Opal has identified 23 highly organised gangs with over 200 professional and violent criminals operating. One Romanian thief called Dima was caught with £60,000 worth of goods stolen from Boots. Perhaps he was the guy I chased—but I think not, this was down in Pontypridd. He got four years as an individual thief. However, he was part of an organised gang. My proposed new clause would have permitted a sentence of up to 10 years where five or more persons were acting in concert or conspiracy.

We cannot wipe out organised and massive crime gangs thieving from our shops with the current law on shoplifting and shoplifting penalties, when we have real, massive shop theft. Big crime deserves big sentences.

In conclusion, I know that the Government want to do more to tackle shop crime, and I am pleased at the steps they are taking, and the steps the previous Government took, to tackle shop crime and violence against shop workers. I support all of that, but we need to go further. Shop theft is absolutely massive, and it is way out of control. That is not the fault of the Government. Only exemplary measures, as in my proposed new clauses, have a hope of slowing it down and possibly reducing it. I beg to move.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House very long. I speak as somebody who for most of their adult life was a retailer, until the good people of the Uxbridge constituency sent me into the other place—but I continued to be a retailer, behind the counter and also having to deal with putative shoplifters.

I fully support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is putting forward. He put it very well: “shoplifting” makes it sound not so important; “shop theft” is important and has to be tackled. The measures to support retail staff are very welcome. Shop theft is very frightening for staff, who are very often younger people or women. When they see people stealing, they often do not know what to do. If they knew they had some back-up, it would be of great reassurance. With that, I will sit down and hear what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, put forward a number of alternative approaches to reduce shoplifting. However, they fail to address practical realities and risk creating more issues than they resolve.

The proposal in Amendment 216A would allow shopkeepers to circulate photographic evidence of suspects, including on social media. This raises significant questions about privacy and misidentification. If the accused turns out to be innocent, the shop must pay compensation, but this is fundamentally unworkable and could cause serious harm to innocent people, damaging reputations in ways that money cannot fix.

The noble Lord himself said that this is likely to be able to be worked only in large stores rather than small shops, but the shops most affected by theft are small businesses run by one or two people. Shopkeepers in my area are busy enough running their shops without spending hours reviewing camera footage, creating digital copies and ensuring timestamps.

Clarifying the arrest powers of security staff, as proposed in Amendment 216B, may seem helpful, but increasing their authority to arrest and detain risks misuse and legal challenge. Security staff do not have the same training or accountability as police officers, increasing the chance of wrongful or disproportionate arrest. Video evidence and procedural protections are helpful but not adequate substitutes for professional policing standards.

Finally, Amendment 216C proposes a new offence of conspiracy to commit theft. The noble Lord is right to point to the growing involvement of organised crime. The police have said that international criminals are targeting UK shops in what a Co-op boss describes as “organised looting”. However, I disagree with the noble Lord in respect to the solution he proposes. It seems likely to disproportionately target those committing relatively minor thefts, potentially imposing severe sentences on them of up to 10 years, while doing little to address those orchestrating and controlling those criminal activities.

Shoplifting is undoubtedly out of control, and a new direction is desperately needed. The Liberal Democrats believe the current epidemic is the result of years of ineffective police resourcing, which has left local forces overstretched, underresourced and unable to focus on solving crimes such as shoplifting—I stress the words “unable to” rather than “unwilling to”. We want to see a return to genuine neighbourhood policing, with more police visibility and a staffed police counter in every community. That is why I have tabled Amendments 429 and 430 later on in the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the intention behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is absolutely right to refer to it as theft. It is theft, under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. He is right that there is no such offence as shoplifting.

We have all heard the same stories from businesses, large and small: prolific offenders walking out with hundreds of pounds of stock in broad daylight; staff frightened or, in many cases, not allowed to intervene; police too stretched to attend; and, time and again, the same individuals returning to commit offence after offence because they believe, with some justification, that nothing will happen to them.

My noble friend’s first amendment in this group deals with the ability to share clear evidence of theft with those who need to see it. At present, retailers might be reluctant or legally uncertain about whether they can circulate images of offenders, even to neighbouring stores, to their own head office or to crime reduction bodies. Yet, these are precisely the channels that allow patterns of offending to be identified and prolific offenders to be caught.

The amendments set out a lawful, proportionate system. Images can be shared where a theft has occurred, provided the originals are preserved, time-stamped, unedited and sent to the police. This ensures the integrity of evidence and prevents misuse. Importantly, it provides a remedy and compensation if a photograph of the wrong individual is mistakenly published. My only concern here is that being required to pay £300 per day in compensation might deter the shop owner from circulating the evidence.

I am particularly supportive of Amendment 216B. We know that a number of retailers have told their staff to not intervene when they see a person shoplifting. This has led to numerous instances of brazen theft, whereby people walk into a shop, grab armfuls of products and walk out in full sight of security guards and staff. Such scenes make a mockery of law and order. The amendment permits the lawful detention of suspected thieves by trained security staff. Shopkeepers should not have to look on helplessly while brazen thieves simply walk out of the store. What my noble friend proposes is eminently sensible: properly trained staff equipped with body-worn cameras, using only minimum force, operating under strict rules and with constant video recording. This is not a free-for-all; it is the opposite. It is a controlled, transparent, safeguarded process that both protects the rights of suspects and gives retailers the ability to intervene proportionately when theft is happening before their eyes.

The amendment also places obligations on the police when they are called. They must attend promptly, take custody of the suspect, secure the evidence and make decisions based on a full review, not a hurried assessment at the store door. This is entirely right. Retail staff are repeatedly told to detain no one because the police will not come. The amendment would send the opposite message. When retailers correctly do their part, the police must do theirs.

Finally, Amendment 216C addresses a growing and deeply troubling phenomenon, whereby organised gangs loot shops, raid entire streets or retail parks and steal thousands of pounds-worth of goods. These are not opportunists; they are organised criminals. Yet, the system too often charges them with individual, low-value thefts rather than with conspiracy or organised crime offences. The amendment establishes that, where there is reliable evidence of at least 10 thefts involving two or more individuals, a full investigation with conspiracy charges must be instigated where appropriate. The sentencing framework my noble friend proposes is proportionate and targeted: higher penalties for organised groups of five or more and the automatic confiscation of vehicles or property used in the crime. These are necessary deterrents: the current penalties are not.

Taken together, these amendments represent a robust but balanced response to an urgent and worsening problem. They support shopkeepers, empower security staff and assist the police with the collection of evidence.

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

My Lords, I begin by, in part, sharing the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I agree with him. It is not shoplifting; it is shop theft. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on that same point. When I began my working career 45 years ago after university with the Co-op on a management training course, we called it “leakage”. I found that term offensive then, and I find it offensive now. It is shop theft. So I agree with him that there needs to be an effort made by the Government to tackle this issue.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the Home Office is working with police representatives through the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make it easier for retailers to report crime. The current Policing Minister and the previous Policing Minister are now both supporting a Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy launched by the chief constables and industry. We had a summer of action on shop theft, which involved visible policing on the streets and targeting hotspot areas.

This winter, the Home Secretary plans for police forces across England and Wales to partner with local businesses, local councils and police and crime commissioners to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season. There are plans to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground, from neighbourhood policing through to special constables and PCSOs. The measures in Clause 39, which we debated earlier, try to raise the level of importance of shop theft. As a Government, we recognise that we want to take action on that.

Where I disagree with the noble Lord is on some of these proposals. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who, again, has great experience of the retail world, I take the issue of shop theft extremely seriously. Probably like him, I am one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who have apprehended a shoplifter and reported them to the police, along with the manager of the shop, and I have been present at the shop theft interview as part of my duties. It was shop theft then and it is shop theft now, and it should not be tolerated, whatever the level of that shop theft.

On the measures the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, brings forward, such as Amendment 216A, which seeks to enable deterrent actions by shopkeepers through the use of video or photographic evidence, it is important that we have evidence such as that supplied by CCTV. Widespread introduction and publication, which is one of the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment, would meet the objectives of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. However, it would potentially impinge on the rights of individuals, who may or may not be guilty, and could well incite vigilante action and undermine the fundamental presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. I have no objection to CCTV, but the noble Lord needs to be careful with that, which is the reason why I cannot support the amendment.

Before I move on to the noble Lord’s other amendments, let me say that I appreciated his support for Operation Opal. Retailers are able to refer cases of organised retail crime to Operation Opal, and the national police acquisitive crime intelligence unit then investigates. It is unnecessary to specify that in the legislation because it is an operational issue, but again, it shows the importance we place on the issue of shop theft.

20:45

The noble Lord’s Amendment 216B relates to the powers of shop security staff to arrest and detain persons suspected of shop theft under Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That already allows any person, including a security guard, to make a citizen’s arrest of anyone they have reasonable grounds to suspect has committed or is in the process of committing an indictable offence. The power of arrest is subject to certain necessary criteria but essentially, that power of arrest, in addition to Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, allows also for reasonable force in the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting a lawful arrest.

We have put in place the Security Industry Authority, which is the regulator for the private security industry. It is setting training standards for licence-linked qualifications and as part of that training, security guards learn physical intervention skills, how to perform a citizen’s arrest, the law on use of force, and how to de-escalate areas of conflict. Individual businesses can and do determine their own policy on the arrest of shoplifters by licensed security guards, in compliance with UK law, but it is a valuable area of work, and giving security guards wider powers of arrest would create potential difficulties. It would require even more specialist training and oversight of the use of detention powers. As described in the amendment, it would entail significant training requirements and a significant cost to business, and it would open up issues of public accountability for the exercise of coercive powers.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I did not think my amendment was creating considerable extra powers of arrest for the security guards, but it seems that the current power largely mirrors a lot of things that I put in this amendment. My question then is, why are so many shops scared to use it? I appreciate that the retail unit or outlet has to determine whether they let the security guards arrest people, but there is certainly a fear among many security guards in this respect, and many shops say, “We can’t let you arrest people”. We must, somehow or other empower, them to do so.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is a genuine fear about what the response would be, and I understand that. The days when I—and potentially the noble Lord, Lord Randall—stopped a shop theft in a retail premises were a long time ago. The climate was different, and now there is the carrying of knives and the threat of violence. That might be a fear, and it is up to individual shops to determine their own policy. Clause 37, which deals with attacks on retail workers and will apply to a whole range of retail staff, adds an extra protection. It will be up to individual shops, but it is important that those two measures are seen as coterminous. Protection of retail staff in the event of shop theft and assault is a further measure to support action on shop theft. However, it is ultimately for individual stores to determine their policy.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of multiple thefts and planning for thefts. I find it objectionable to see criminal gangs organising mass hits on shops, but that is already a factor that aggravates the seriousness of the theft offence. If, therefore, there is evidence that multiple parties were involved in a theft, each of those parties could and should be charged with theft, as well as conspiracy to commit theft. The amendment would require the police to consider charging with conspiracy to commit theft if there is evidence that two more people are involved. I know that the noble Lord knows I am going to say this, but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on relevant charges, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. I do not want to put on statute what charges the police or CPS should bring, but again, the potential is there should they wish to do so.

I will touch briefly on the sentencing aspects of the amendment. At present the maximum penalty for theft is seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit theft or robbery has the same maximum penalty as the base offence. The effect of this amendment, therefore, would be to create a form of conspiracy to commit theft offence that would potentially have, if fewer than five people were acting together, a lower maximum penalty than theft or conspiracy to commit theft have now.

As we discussed previously, the amendment also introduces minimum sentences. I made it plain in our debates on Monday that minimum sentences are rare in law. Parliament has set them in statute only exceptionally. They are not appropriate in this instance. Sentencing guidelines for theft, which courts are required to follow unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so, already highlight when considering the culpability of an offender factors such as involvement of others through “coercion, intimidation or exploitation”. The issue of

“sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning”

is also relevant. The other aggravating factors that the court must consider include taking account of previous convictions.

Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, for my reasons and those that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned. However, I do not want him to leave the Committee tonight thinking that this Government are not committed to tackling shop theft. We are, through the measures that we have taken and are encouraging police to take, through the measures in this Bill to change the definition of shop theft in Clause 39 and in providing protection for retail workers in Clause 37.

Shop theft is shop theft. It costs all of us resource on our bills. It costs businesses resource. It is money which should be invested in the local economy rather than going into the pockets of people who opportunistically, individually, for whatever reason—from poverty to organised criminal gangs, from drug abuse to alcohol abuse—commit shop theft in many of our stores. I want to make sure that we do all we can to reduce it and to provide deterrents to it. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, including my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and, for his full support for my amendments, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that if someone is stealing from their shop, shopkeepers do not have time to go through the video cameras to get the evidence. If a shopkeeper has someone stealing from their shop and cannot be bothered to look at the TV cameras to see the evidence for it, he cannot complain about shop theft. If he has the evidence, for goodness’ sake, he should use it. I do not think that the noble Baroness read my amendments on all the protections that I have built in for those who do want to arrest criminals. The Minister set out in his excellent speech all the powers of citizen’s arrest that a security guard or a shopkeeper can have, but the noble Baroness said that no one should have the power to arrest except a policeman who is properly trained. That is rather bizarre, to use a word that was used earlier about my amendments.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

The noble Lord is misinterpreting what I said. I did not say that it was not possible to look at CCTV coverage. I said that if you are a small shopkeeper and the shop is being run by one or two people, you are not going to sit there and do everything that the noble Lord has suggested in that amendment—date stamp things, take photographs, make sure that everything is absolutely hunky-dory, that it is handed over in a file. That is just pie in the sky. It will not work. If the noble Lord is going to quote me, can he please quote me correctly?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I said in my speech that I understood that small shops would have difficulty with this, but also that the people who steal from small shops in the main also steal from the big shops. If one can prevent them from stealing from the big shops and arrest them there, we will also bear down on the theft from the smaller shops. Of course, smaller shops have a more difficult problem, but it will not be solved by just putting more policemen on the beat.

Of course, the police have to prioritise. In London, in particular, they have to put terrorists at the top of the list, along with rape, murder and serious violence, so shop theft will inevitably be lower down. I was familiar with the Oxford Street experiment a few years ago; I do not know whether it is ongoing. There, the shops discovered that if one shop—say, Debenhams or Selfridges—phoned up and complained, it was no good. If they co-operated among themselves, they could get enough evidence together to justify the Met then coming along and grabbing some people who were working in a concerted effort to steal from their shops. They also discovered that, if they gave the police a gift-wrapped package of good evidential material, then the police would take it seriously. That is the key message here. It is bogus to suggest that just having more police will deal with this problem.

I liked what the Minister said. I have no criticism whatever of the Government on this. We are on the same side. I liked his strong words that this is not shoplifting, it is theft. I also liked his saying that we must make it easier for the shops to report crime, and that is what I have been suggesting. He did not support publication of photographs; I understand his nervousness there. However, I hope he does support the co-operation between shops and others to share all the photographs they have internally between their own security staff and the shops, and possibly any police liaison units, so that they can develop a full picture of what is going on. That makes it easier as the guys move from one shop on Oxford Street to somewhere else; they can move in and grab them in the act.

I am sorry that I suggested lower penalties. I am not sure that I am getting soft in my old age; I did not intend to lower penalties at all. Of course, even with the maximum the Minister has suggested, this will still be halved when the person is sent to prison. All penalties are halved. Again, I take the view that there is no harm having minimum sentences for this.

As I say, I am grateful for the words of the Minister. We cannot stop here. I am not sure that we can come back to this on Report, but we have constantly to bear down on shop theft. It is completely out of control. It has been getting out of control for many years. All Governments keep nibbling away at it, but we are not managing to crack down on it. I hope that, over the next few years, we will look at all aspects of trying to deal with this. If some of the ideas in my proposed three new clauses were considered workable, I would have no qualms with the Government grabbing them and implementing further measures. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 216A withdrawn.

Amendments 216B and 216C not moved.

Clause 40: Child criminal exploitation

Amendment 217

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

217: Clause 40, page 59, line 27, after “over” insert “who is in a part of the United Kingdom (“the relevant part” of the United Kingdom)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “the relevant part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41 as the part of the United Kingdom in which the person aged 18 or over engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence in Clauses 40 and 41 are intended to provide legal certainty and further tighten the grip of the law against those who seek to draw children into criminality.

At the request of the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice, the child criminal exploitation offence was extended UK-wide in the other place. As the offence is committed where an adult intentionally takes action to cause a child to commit criminal conduct, it is now necessary to provide further clarification about where the child’s conduct must be criminal. This is owing to the fact that the criminal law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a child’s conduct that is criminal in one may not be criminalised in another.

Perpetrators who exploit children for criminal purposes do not care about the UK’s internal borders, so it is right that we ensure that this new offence prevents them from taking advantage of them. Government Amendments 217, 220, 221 and 223 to 230 ensure that it does not matter whether the intended conduct of the child is criminal in the part of the UK where the adult is acting to exploit them or the part of the UK where they intend the child to act. If it is criminal in either one, the perpetrator can be prosecuted. If it is not criminal in either one, the offence is not committed.

Amendment 231 puts beyond doubt that a perpetrator commits the child criminal exploitation offence where the child they have exploited is under the age of criminal responsibility. Even though a child under 10 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or under 12 in Scotland, cannot technically commit an offence or be prosecuted for it, they can still be exploited, and it is right that this offence says so clearly and explicitly on the face of the Bill.

Amendments 487, 493 and 510 make consequential amendments to the general provisions at the back of the Bill. Together, these amendments demonstrate the Government’s unwavering commitment to leave no space for perpetrators who target children for criminal purposes to expose loopholes or to escape to.

There are a series of other amendments in this group; the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have Amendments 218, 219, 222 and 222A. I want to listen to what noble Lords say and will respond to any comments on those amendments at the end of my comments. I beg to move.

21:00

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, as the Minister has explained, are about child criminal exploitation. This is something that, quite honestly, when I started my career, we did not think of—it is something that I think we all became aware of in the last decade, particularly during Covid. I declare my interest as having worked with Action for Children and its previous iteration, National Children’s Home, for many years—most of my life, really. I was in its governance for 10 years and have been a long-term ambassador ever since.

Action for Children has worked with a number of children who have been criminally exploited. Some of them we would talk to when they had been picked up during Covid, for example, and exploited by being made to carry drugs and move them around the country. The threat that they and their families are frequently under is unbelievable and harmful to them, their future and family cohesion. Even where I lived in County Durham, where the police used to say we were among the safest in the country at one stage, the grandson of some friends of mine, who was bored and had been left just playing on his computer, went into the small town and met up with his mates, but they were spotted and the exploiters got them involved in drugs. The result was massive mental health problems and lots of suicide attempts. The family have worked and are still working to try to bring some reality back to their lives, make them safe and enable them to continue to grow, learn and develop. I cannot tell your Lordships how excruciating the life of the family has been. I know this is an important issue, and I am relieved that the Government are looking at it and seeking to address it in the Bill.

It is important that the Government are introducing a new criminal offence of criminally exploiting a child, along with other measures, to deal with those perpetrators. That is a positive move that has my full support. However, Action for Children thinks that there needs to be a means of protecting the child victim, whatever happens to the perpetrator—because sometimes it is difficult to find and catch the perpetrator. One of my later amendments deals with introducing another measure to protect the child even more, but I shall deal with the amendments in this group first.

Amendment 218 simply tries to be clearer about what is involved in the exploitation of children in these circumstances. I just want to make sure that all of us recognise that this is something that police forces are only just now coming to terms with handling. In the past, they have not had to think of the child as both a perpetrator and a victim. How do they do something totally outside their normal activity? Instead of simply treating the child as a perpetrator of a crime, they can now recognise that that crime has come about because of the manner of the exploitation of the child. Because this is new, and because police forces and others in the criminal justice system have not dealt with this sort of thing for very long and are really not sure how to handle it, we thought that it would be useful for Parliament to discuss it and consider putting more detail about what has happened to the child in the Bill. That is what this amendment is, and I would be interested to know what others and the Minister think. Being more specific, I recognise there are problems with that in any legislation, but I also think that, because this is so new in many senses in the criminal law, we really need to be a bit more forthright in how we describe what can happen.

Amendment 219 really relates to the fact that, as the Bill stands, a child would need to be coerced into criminal actions, but very often the actions of the child may not in themselves, if you just saw the instance, be criminal. For example, they may have been asked to carry money—but actually that is exploiting them and leading them into danger, which will have subsequent consequences. Again, it is very difficult to work out how you handle people. This is simply about trying to make sure that even if the act, such as holding or carrying money, is not in itself illegal, it is none the less part of the exploitation that makes the life of the child virtually impossible because of the threats around whether they carry the money and whether the offender gets the consequences of the child carrying the money in the way they want. That then becomes very serious for the child, even if the act itself was not illegal. This amendment will make it clear that an action that supports or facilitates criminal activity, while not being a crime itself, should none the less be taken into account. I think that would be helpful to the police, prosecutors and the courts as well.

Amendment 222 is just about how we determine that a child is 18 or not. There is a lot of debate on that in a series of areas of work at the moment, many of which my noble friend on the Front Bench will be pleased he does not have to deal with. Well, I suppose he does have to yes, in the Home Office. There is a big debate around migrants: how do we actually know how old the child is?

This amendment has been tabled because we are concerned that there would be a defence in the Bill that the perpetrator thought the child looked 18. We must think about that, because we need to know that children are children until they are 18 and that young people are still exploitable. We have to take account of this and say, “That is wrong, and you cannot do it”. Simply saying “I thought they were 18” is not a good enough excuse. I know so many young people who are leaving care at around that age. Criminals may believe that it is okay to exploit them, because yesterday was their 18th birthday, and they are now out of the foster care or children’s home that they had been in. That happens, and it is unacceptable not to think about it, at least, when we are looking at this provision. We need to understand what this order is about, and what we can do to make sure that we more effectively protect children than we have been able to do in the past.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 222 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, which she has so ably explained. All the amendments in this group seem to be a good idea. I also acknowledge the help of the Children’s Commissioner and the children’s coalition.

This is a very simple amendment: there is a concern that the offence of child-criminal exploitation, as written in the Bill, gives the perpetrator a defence if he or she reasonably believes that the child is over 18. We understand that this is a common part of legislation around other forms of abuse and exploitation; we believe that it will hinder the prosecution of perpetrators. During the Jay review into child criminal exploitation, many witnesses pointed to the role of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation. However, the Jay review found that perceptions of children’s complicity in their exploitation meant that some groups of children, and black boys in particular, were not receiving an adequate safeguarding response. We strongly recommend that this part of Clause 40 is removed. It is a small piece of text that would have a profound effect on young victims.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was happy to put my name to Amendments 218, 219 and 222. The Minister mentioned that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has Amendment 222A. She apologises for not being here this evening, but said that she thought that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, were so much better than her own, that she would not move them anyway—so that deals with that.

I am a governor of Coram, and used to be a trustee there. Coram is very involved in some of the activities that we are talking about. The Jay review is like a gut punch to the stomach. I had heard of it; I had not actually read it, but did so last night, and did not have a particularly undisturbed night’s sleep. What it contains is pretty horrifying.

21:15

I think Charles Dickens and Charles Booth would recognise the same forms of criminality and the same ability of some adults to use childhood as a training ground for extending their criminal activities in a way that is unconscionable but, when done efficiently, I suspect is highly profitable. The fact that it has a potentially lifelong effect on the children who are being drawn into this is, for the perpetrators, completely and utterly irrelevant.

Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, some of us were able to attend a meeting in your Lordships’ House organised by Action for Children, and Professor Jay herself was there. It is perhaps important for the Government and Minister to understand that, in the case of the amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, has spoken to and which we will talk about in future groups, Professor Jay herself has said how important she thinks they are. They deal with parts of the review that she went into in detail. From her point of view, while she and I think all of us are extremely pleased and grateful for the Government taking on board so much of what Professor Jay was trying to illustrate needed to be done, there are some tidying-up bits around the edge, and it is felt by those who have the most knowledge of this form of criminality that it will be extremely important to try to make this legislation as effective and watertight as it can be. For those reasons, I fully support those amendments.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, which strengthen and clarify key issues. Amendment 218 from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, would define how children are affected by child criminal exploitation. This should help police and reduce the chances of inconsistent decisions. It is necessary because, as seen with other crimes where the police or CPS have latitude to define such matters, it often works to the detriment of the child or young person.

Amendment 219 is equally helpful. It would make provision for the occasion when a child has committed something that may not be illegal, but which might lead them into future criminal behaviour. The way that child criminal exploitation works is often very similar to grooming. Without support and education, a child or young person may end up in trouble.

Amendment 222 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, clarifies that a perpetrator of child criminal exploitation does not have to believe that the child or young person was under 18. This makes sense as Clause 40 currently provides an easy get-out for perpetrators to say, “But I thought they were 18”. The Joe Dix Foundation welcomes this new stand-alone offence but has also called for a national register for all perpetrators who are convicted of child criminal exploitation. Can I ask the Minister whether this is something the Government might consider?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The group largely seeks to clarify the Bill as it stands and that is important when we are addressing child exploitation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the amendments tabled in his name. I know we may not always see eye to eye at the Dispatch Box, but I can wholly support the principle behind his amendments in this group.

It may seem like semantics to clarify that offences may differ in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an important point. We must ensure that the legislation allows crimes to be prosecuted only where they are crimes. His Amendments 217 and 220, and the many consequential amendments, aim to ensure that this is the case. Similarly, his Amendments 487 and 493 extend the devolutionary power to make regulations for the area of child criminal exploitation. It is right that this is consistent. Those who create the laws should have the legislative right to make provisions within their remit.

We also broadly support the principles behind the other amendments in this group, which aim to give more protections to children. Amendments 218 and 219, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek further to define what constitutes child criminal exploitation and extend the provisions to actions that may support criminal activity while not being criminal themselves.

Amendments 222 and 222A aim to narrow the scope of reasonable excuses that offenders can give when claiming to believe that the child was over the age of 18. The sentiment behind these amendments is a noble one. Whether the adult believed they were a child is largely inconsequential to the exploited child. Therefore, if the adult is not to be prosecuted, the court must be absolutely certain that they did not believe the child was under 18. That being said, I am slightly wary of completely disapplying reasonable excuse as a defence. It would take away the opportunity of defence in the very rare cases where the adult had a genuine and proven reason to believe the child was an adult. As I say, this is very rare, and it is still criminal exploitation, but we must still account for it.

Overall, this group is sensible, procedural and necessary; I therefore offer my support to the Minister’s intentions.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top for their amendments, and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for putting his name to them and for his supportive comments.

Before I lose the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about a national register, I will just say that the Police National Computer and the child criminal exploitation prevention orders can impose notification requirements on persons subject to orders requiring them to inform the local police of their name and address. I had that on my phone before I peered at my notes, and I did not want to lose that point.

I will start by welcoming Clause 40. It is a positive, forward-looking clause that will help support the reduction of child exploitation. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled, and I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the amendments I have tabled.

Amendment 218, tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would require that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to have been committed, the perpetrator had used

“threats, physical force, intimidation, persuasion or any other means”

against the child. In doing so, my noble friend seeks to illustrate the ways in which children can be criminally exploited. However, I put it to her that, in specifying the required means by which an adult gets a child to commit criminal conduct, the way in which the amendment is phased risks narrowing the application of the offence, because the prosecution would have to additionally prove those means of exploitation took place. Currently, the child criminal exploitation offence does not require proof that the child was subjected to threats, physical force, intimidation or any other harmful ways in which the child’s compliance was obtained by their exploiter. This is because, as a Government, we are very clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, so the offence could be committed regardless of whether and how the child was compelled to engage in the intended criminal activity.

Although my noble friend’s amendment includes the words “any other means”, which mitigates against any narrowing of the scope of the offence, I do not consider it necessary to include an illustrative, non-exhaustive list in this way. It would cause courts potentially to wonder about its purpose as a legal test and may have the unintended consequence of limiting the circumstances in which the child exploitation offence may be made out. I want my noble friend to think about that. I suggest to her that the prosecution wants to get the best case, and, by accepting her amendment, we might end up narrowing the potential success of legislating against this offence.

My noble friend also tabled Amendment 219, which would more specifically capture adults who intend to cause a child

“to engage in actions that support or facilitate”

crime. My noble friend indicated in her speech that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the offence of child exploitation also includes causing a child to commit an action which, while not itself illegal, can lead to future criminal behaviour. We have looked at this amendment in some detail, but I consider the objective is already met by subsection (1)(a)(iii) of the clause, which captures where the adult does something to the child now to facilitate or make it easier to cause the child to commit a criminal act in the future—the noble Baroness can find this on page 59 of the Bill as currently drafted. I hope she will look at that and reflect on it as part of these discussions, before any further discussion takes place on Report.

Furthermore, actions that support or facilitate crime may already amount to an offence, such as the offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Where an adult intentionally causes a child to commit an offence, the child criminal exploitation offence may be committed.

I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in support of his Amendment 222. This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, it must be proved that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim is aged 18 or over. My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned the issue of migrants—we are currently examining facial recognition issues in relation to migrants, and we had a discussion about that in the other Bill that I am taking through the House at this moment on immigration very recently. But she makes a very important point. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that all adults who target children to draw them into crime can be caught by this offence, but that is precisely why the reasonable belief test is important—to ensure that perpetrators who deliberately and intentionally target children to commit crime are correctly identified and prosecuted. If there was no requirement to prove a lack of reasonable belief that the alleged victim was a child, it would risk criminalising people as exploiters of children who genuinely did not intend or contemplate involving a minor in criminality.

We must remember that the child criminal exploitation offence requires no proof of harmful behaviours against the child, such as coercion, force or threats. This goes back to the first point that I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s first amendment. It is committed simply when an adult engages in any contact or conduct towards or in respect of a child intending to cause them to commit a crime. The exploitative nature of this offence is the imbalance of power, which is exercised by an adult in deliberately and purposely seeking to involve a child in crime. Where that is not a factor in a case, as demonstrated by what they believed about the child’s age, there are other more appropriate offences that might be charged. For example, where a person encourages or assists someone to commit an offence regardless of their age, there is already an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

Again, I welcome the discussion that we have had this evening, I welcome the contribution of Action for Children, and I welcome the discussion that we have had from the Children’s Commissioner for England, who called for this amendment due to concerns that perpetrators will seek to take advantage of considerations around the reasonable belief of age to undermine the credibility of victims and potentially escape prosecution. I welcome those contributions to the debate. I want to give them, with my colleagues in the Home Office, serious consideration. However, I make the point to the noble Lord that at the moment we do not consider reasonable belief of age to be a loophole, as is suggested—and in support of that I make a number of points.

First, there is a test of reasonable belief that does not necessarily require that the defendants have specific knowledge about the victim’s age, which would be a higher burden. Secondly, a perpetrator’s claim as to their belief alone will not be enough to escape prosecution, as prosecutors can and, I hope, would establish either that they did not believe the victim was 18 or, even if they did, that that belief was not reasonable. Thirdly, it only applies to children aged 13 to 17, not the most vulnerable children aged under 13. Finally, it follows established precedent in other offences, where the core offending relates to an adult’s conduct towards a child—for example, to child sexual exploitation offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on Amendment 222A—she is not here today. It is commendable that someone has looked at other amendments and decided not to move their own; it is a very un-egotistical way of approaching this business.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Cross-Bench.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, says “Cross-Bench”. I will take that as a bonus point for the Cross Benches. It is a noble approach to take towards the amendment. So I will not deliberate on those points as I would potentially have done, but I ask the noble Lord simply to pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness for her self-awareness on that issue, which is commendable.

I hope that, with those comments, my noble friend and other noble Lords will not press their amendments, will reflect on what I have said and, if need be, will consider this outside the Committee. I commend the amendments in my name to the Committee.

Amendment 217 agreed.

21:30

Amendments 218 and 219 not moved.

Amendments 220 and 221

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

220: Clause 40, page 59, line 31, leave out from second “the” to end of line 33 and insert “relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part, or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (ii) so that it covers the child doing anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.

221: Clause 40, page 59, line 35, leave out from “the” to end of line 37 and insert “relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part, and”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (iii) so that it covers facilitating the causing of the child to do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.

Amendments 220 and 221 agreed.

Amendments 222 and 222A not moved.

Amendments 223 and 224

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

223: Clause 40, page 60, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (1)(a) “offence” means an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in subsection (1)(a), references to an offence are to an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.

224: Clause 40, page 60, line 8, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) a reference to a “part” of the United Kingdom is to—(i) England and Wales,(ii) Scotland, or(iii) Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the definition of “offence” (in consequence of my amendment of this clause at page 60, line 3) and defines “part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41.

Amendments 223 and 224 agreed.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed.

Clause 41: Proving an offence under section 40

Amendments 225 to 231

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

225: Clause 41, page 60, line 40, after “the” insert “relevant part of the”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.

226: Clause 41, page 61, line 1, leave out “any part of the United Kingdom” and insert “that part”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.

227: Clause 41, page 61, line 2, leave out “any part of the United Kingdom” and insert “that part”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.

228: Clause 41, page 61, line 7, leave out from “the” to end of line 8 and insert “relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 35.

229: Clause 41, page 61, line 11, leave out “any” and insert “that”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 35.

230: Clause 41, page 61, line 13, leave out from “which” to “amount” in line 14 and insert “would, or which would if done in a part of the United Kingdom,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is partly a drafting change, and partly consequential on my amendments of Clause 40 at page 59, lines 31 and 35.

231: Clause 41, page 61, line 26, at end insert—
“(7) In this section—(a) a reference to a child doing an act which would amount to the commission of an offence includes the child doing an act which would amount to the commission of the offence if the child were aged 10 or over (or, in Scotland, were aged 12 or over);(b) a reference to a child doing an act which, if done in a part of the United Kingdom, would amount to the commission of an offence includes the child doing an act which would amount to the commission of the offence if (in addition to it being done in that part of the United Kingdom) the child were aged 10 or over (or, in Scotland, were aged 12 or over).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that an adult may commit an offence under clause 40 (child criminal exploitation) in respect of a child who is under the age of criminal responsibility.

Amendments 225 to 231 agreed.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 232

Moved by

[Lord Hampton]

232: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Meaning of exploitation: modern slavery(1) Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (meaning of exploitation) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) Something is done to or in respect of the person which involves the commission of an offence under section 40 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (child criminal exploitation).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to ensure criminally exploited children continue to be identified under the modern slavery framework.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 232 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I admit that I am using an old amendment list, so some other people might also have added their names, and I apologise if I have missed them.

My proposed new clause amends Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to explicitly include child criminal exploitation within the definition of “exploitation”, aligning it with new provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clause 40 of the Bill creates a new offence of child criminal exploitation. The offence rightly focuses on the prosecution of perpetrators. It is vital that we do not lose sight of the child victims of criminal exploitation. We must ensure that there is a consistent definition that can be used to identify children formally, so that every child gets the support they need to escape this abuse.

This amendment is also essential to close a serious legal gap that leaves criminally exploited children at risk of prosecution rather than protection. Without corresponding changes to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, legal protections remain inconsistent and inadequate. Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which provides a statutory defence for victims of exploitation, does not currently cover criminal exploitation explicitly. This leads to inconsistent application across the criminal justice system. Evidence from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and ECPAT UK shows that police and prosecutors frequently struggle to apply the existing statutory defence to children exploited into criminal activity.

Children often continue to be treated as perpetrators rather than victims, despite clear indicators of exploitation for criminality. In 2024 alone, over 2,891 children were referred to the national referral mechanism as potential child victims of criminal exploitation. Yet many of these children still end up in courtrooms, not safeguarding systems. Young people exploited for criminality are particularly vulnerable to being prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. This undermines the UK’s obligations under international law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which requires states to facilitate the non-prosecution of trafficked children for offences committed as a result of the exploitation.

Including child criminal exploitation within the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act is essential to ensure that children are formally recognised as victims under the UK’s framework for identification, allowing them to access the full range of protections and entitlements under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, including specialist support.

We have the opportunity to fix this now by ensuring that legal definitions and protections are harmonised. Without this amendment, we risk embedding a two-tier system which recognises exploitation in theory but fails to protect child victims in practice. Clear, consistent legislation will empower professionals to intervene earlier, prevent inappropriate prosecutions and ensure that exploited children receive the safeguarding support they need. This is a targeted, evidence-led amendment that strengthens the Bill and ensures that our legal framework reflects both the reality of child exploitation and our responsibility to protect those at most at risk. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, Amendments 232A and 262A are in my name. I have also signed Amendment 232, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has given an excellent explanation of his amendment, so I will just say that I agree with him.

Both my amendments provide a defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who are coerced into committing offences. Both amendments have a simple purpose: to ensure that victims of exploitation are not treated as criminals for acts they were compelled to commit. The amendments are supported by academics and charities such as the Children’s Society.

The Bill, as it comes before the House, creates two new offences in Clause 56: child criminal exploitation and cuckooing. These are important steps. They recognise forms of exploitation that front-line workers, police officers and charities have been grappling with for years. However, the Bill currently does only half the job. It recognises the exploitation, but not the victim. Unlike the long-established offences of modern slavery and human trafficking, these new offences do not come with a bespoke defence for victims who commit unlawful acts as a direct result of their exploitation. Unless a victim can prove duress—a notoriously high bar—their only option is to argue that what happened to them also amounted to slavery, servitude, forced labour or trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act. That is a legal contortion, and it is simply impossible for many victims.

It leads to outcomes that I do not believe this House would wish to endorse. For example, a child forced by older criminals to store drugs or weapons, a young person threatened into carrying out low-level offending under fear of violence, or someone whose home has been taken over by a gang who is then compelled to assist in their criminal activities would all be vulnerable to finding themselves before a court, even though their exploiters are the ones truly at fault.

We have been here before. When Parliament passed the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, we accepted, rightly, that victims sometimes commit offences because they see no realistic alternative. Section 45 of that Act created a defence for those victims, carefully limited, and subject to important exclusions. It has not opened any floodgates. It has provided protection only where the courts are satisfied that the offence was the direct consequence of the exploitation, and that a reasonable person in the same situation and with the same relevant characteristics would have acted in the same way.

These amendments have the aim of applying the same principle to the new offences that we are creating today. The amendment on child criminal exploitation mirrors the structure of Section 45. It would not excuse all behaviour and would not allow serious offences listed in Schedule 4. It would apply only where the prosecution cannot disprove that the child acted because they were compelled to do so, that the compulsion arose directly from their exploitation and that a reasonable child of the same age, sex and vulnerabilities would have seen no realistic alternative. In other words, this is a defence grounded in both common sense and compassion.

The same is true of the amendment concerning victims of cuckooing. Anyone familiar with this phenomenon—and many police forces now are—knows that victims have often been threatened, groomed, manipulated or assaulted. They may be obliged to let their home be used for criminal activity, and they may then be forced to play a role within that activity. The amendment would make clear that, where the compulsion arises directly from the cuckooing, those victims should not be criminalised for acts they were compelled to perform.

These defences would not apply in most cases. They would apply only when the court is satisfied that the offending was the direct result of the exploiter’s conduct, not incidental. They offer a fair and proportionate safeguard. They would also prevent the injustice, indeed the absurdity, of Parliament recognising exploitation on the one hand, while punishing its victims on the other. When vulnerable children or exploited adults are used as tools by criminal networks, the criminal justice system should not compound their suffering by treating them as willing participants. These amendments would complete the logic of the Bill and would ensure that the law protects those who need protection most. I hope that the Minister will look at these amendments and see the validity of what I have explained.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I should start by declaring my interest in the register as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which probably these days should have changed its name to the Modern Slavery Foundation, because that is in fact what we are really dealing with. It was the late, great Lord Field of Birkenhead who first came up with the expression “modern slavery” and I think it is something we should have as a tribute to the late noble Lord, who was a fantastic Member of this and the other House.

I welcome the Government’s intention to address criminal exploitation through the child criminal exploitation offence and cuckooing offence and commend them for doing so; it is very important. However, the offences will not apply to the exploitation of vulnerable young adults over the age of 18 or with issues of cognitive impairment, as far as I can see. I am not a lawyer, as I explained in the last group; I have more skills on marking things down in a sale—and thank goodness we did not have Black Friday in my day.

This is a probing amendment. I believe—I have the figure here—that, in 2024, 774 young adults aged 18 to 24 were referred to the national referral mechanism for criminal exploitation, including alongside other forms of modern slavery, and that 65% of all victims referred were in that age group. As far as I can see, they are not covered and perhaps they should be. What I do not understand—I am very willing to be lectured and taught on this—is what happens if this criminal child exploitation has started for somebody at, say, the age of 15 and a half but does not come to light until they are 18 or 19, which could easily happen. Will they be treated in a different way? As I mentioned very briefly, there are obviously young adults who have cognitive impairment and who in effect—I am sure that this is not the correct expression—have the mental age of a child.

I fully support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones also put her name to my amendment. I fully support them and I think that this should go into the Modern Slavery Act, for all the reasons that have been given. I would, however, like some clarification on what can be done about those young adults and where the law we are creating is going to put them.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for introducing this group. These amendments speak to deeply serious issues concerning child criminal exploitation and the protection and coercion of vulnerable people who are manipulated into criminality. The stories behind these legislative questions are tragic and demand considered and compassionate policy-making.

Amendment 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would ensure that children criminally exploited under Clause 40 continue to be identified within the modern slavery framework. The intention behind this amendment is clearly to safeguard exploited young people who are groomed and coerced into offending, and we on these Benches recognise the importance of ensuring that systems designed to protect victims do not inadvertently overlook those most in need of support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to this amendment.

21:45

Similarly, Amendments 232A and 262A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seek to provide a statutory defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who are compelled into committing offences. We support the principle that the law should distinguish between those who willingly commit crimes and those who do so under coercion or fear. These amendments raise legitimate questions about how the proposed law will operate in practice and whether vulnerable individuals are adequately protected. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing these issues before the Committee and again we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections.

Amendment 263 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, probes whether the Modern Slavery Act definition of exploitation should explicitly incorporate defences relating to child criminal exploitation and cuckooing. That proposal has clear merit in principle. We understand the concerns that the law must evolve to meet new forms of organised criminality. We hope that the Government will give this careful and serious consideration.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but very important debate on the issues of child criminal exploitation and the interface with our modern slavery law. It is a vital issue on which I think all of us across the Committee wish to ensure we are taking coherent action.

Amendments 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263 from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, seek to include child exploitation within the meaning of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Amendment 263 also seeks to add cuckooing and broader adult criminal exploitation to the meaning of exploitation under Section 3.

Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the securing of services by use of threats, force or deception, and the use of children and vulnerable people to provide services and benefits. Such services and benefits may include criminal activity. Therefore, criminal exploitation is already captured by the broad terms of the existing modern slavery legislation. This is as good a point as any to pick up a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in moving his amendment about alignment with our international law obligations. I say to him that the Government are satisfied that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 adequately protects victims of modern slavery in line with our international law obligations. Exploited victims, including of child criminal exploitation, may benefit from the statutory defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

I understand the noble Lord’s intentions in expanding the meaning of exploitation; that is, to ensure that victims of criminal exploitation are not prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. The statutory defence in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, to which I just referred, is there to protect slavery and trafficking victims. Where a victim of criminal exploitation meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, they may have access to the statutory defence, as they do now.

Similarly, Amendments 232 and 262A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seek to provide a stand-alone defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who have committed offences as a result of their exploitation. Again, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to protect victims of exploitation from prosecution, but we consider the Section 45 defence already provides the necessary protection. Furthermore, when victims of child criminal exploitation or cuckooing are aged under 18, these amendments would require evidence of compulsion, whereas the Section 45 defence does not require evidence that a child has been compelled to commit an offence, only that they have done so as a direct consequence of their exploitation. These amendments may therefore—I accept completely inadvertently—provide a more limited defence for victims of child criminal exploitation than is clearly the intention.

Beyond a statutory defence, whether to charge a person is an operational decision for police and prosecutors, who must consider the facts on a case-by-case basis. They will apply operational discretion and consider whether potential existing defences in the common law, such as duress, are relevant, or whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

In speaking to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised the issue of why we are limiting the list of victims to children aged under 18 and talked about vulnerable adults and those with cognitive impairment, or those who pass the threshold into adulthood over the course of their exploitation. Let me try to address those points. The offence is aimed at stopping adults from exploiting children, and we consider this is justified because children require special treatment and protections from harm. Vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The cuckooing offence would also seek to recognise the harm caused by the takeover of a person’s home for criminal purposes. This is often the home of a vulnerable person, such as an individual living with substance addiction or physical or mental disabilities. Cuckooing is a particularly insidious and harmful form of adult exploitation, which not only causes harm to the victim but often facilitates violence and exploitative forms of drug dealing, and drives anti-social behaviour in communities. I hope that gives the noble Lord some comfort.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

I apologise for not being clear on this. If, for example, there were two members of a family and they were victims of this offence, and one was 17 and one was 19, would there be discrimination in how they were dealt with?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Like the noble Lord, I am not a lawyer and I do not have his fantastic experience in the retail sector as an alternative. But to be clear, as I understand it, we have to draw a line somewhere, so there would be a differentiation in what protection was available under which bits of the Modern Slavery Act, or the new offences, depending on whether they were 17 or 19. We are trying to make it clear that we consider that there are alternative protections for those over the age of 18. In child criminal exploitation, we draw the line of childhood as being under 18 in these cases, and the focus of that is usually children well under the age of 18. The point is taken that at any discrete boundary there will be some cliff-edge consequences, but we consider that vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The whole point of the cuckooing offence is that it is about taking over a person’s home for criminal purposes, and often that could be a vulnerable person, most probably a vulnerable adult, whether through existing mental health issues, substance addiction, or whatever. I hope that has clarified the matter to an extent at least.

It is probably worth stressing before I conclude that, in trying to give the offences we are introducing in the Bill as great a utility as possible, there will be guidance for prosecutors stating that, where a suspect is a potential victim of modern slavery, in so far as is possible, a charging decision should not be made until a trafficking decision has been taken. This protects potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being charged and prosecuted until it has been determined whether they are a victim.

We are working with criminal justice partners, as outlined in the modern slavery action plan, to develop a national framework for the investigation of modern slavery. This will include guidance for front-line officers on the Section 45 defence to support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against victims.

It is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the Section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance which will accompany the new offence. In so far as we are able, we will try to give a good framework, through guidance, as to the order in which decisions around charging should be taken, to avoid some of the consequences we have been discussing in the debate on this group of amendments.

As I said at the start of my remarks, we are all coming at this from the right place, with the right motivation. I welcome the fact that everyone who has spoken has welcomed the Government’s intention to create the new offences around child criminal exploitation and cuckooing; these are gaps we need to fill in the statute book. However, these amendments are not necessary, and nor are they the right approach. We want to avoid the unintended consequences they might well bring. Therefore, I hope, in light of this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, in my introduction I failed to acknowledge the help of the Children’s Society in their facts.

I, too, thank noble Lords who took part in this very important and fairly short debate. I trust the Minister, but the legal issues he was talking about were way over my head, so I might go and look at Hansard, get a bit of advice and maybe come back to this on Report. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 232 withdrawn.

Amendment 232A not moved.

House resumed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with a reason.

House adjourned at 9.56 pm.