House of Lords

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 20 January 2026

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Introduction: Baroness Gill

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

14:38

Neena Gill, CBE, having been created Baroness Gill, of Jewellery Quarter in the City of Birmingham and of Southall in the London Borough of Ealing, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Smith of Basildon, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Baroness Davies of Devonport

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

14:44

Sharron Elizabeth Davies, MBE, having been created Baroness Davies of Devonport, of Bradford-on-Avon in the County of Wiltshire, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Baroness Grey-Thompson and Lord Young of Acton, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Railways: East Coast Main Line

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of capacity on the East Coast Main Line.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, the December 2025 timetable has provided more than 60,000 extra seats across the east coast main line each week, with faster services between London and Edinburgh and a third train per hour between London and Newcastle. Network Rail is leading development of a long-term strategy for the route, which will incorporate this Government’s plan for Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was announced last week, and the commitment to develop a business case for opportunities provided by the Leamside line.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. It is encouraging to hear the progress being made, just as it was to hear a reference to the Leamside line last night in the Statement on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Does my noble friend agree that the progress being made is made possible by the fact that Network Rail, LNER, Northern and TransPennine Rail are now publicly owned, and are able to work together and co-operate without the morass of contracts that have characterised a privatised railway with poor outcomes for passengers? In short, does the Minister agree that the experience of the east coast main line gives us a glimpse of what Great British Railways could—and I hope will—achieve in future?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, the short answer is yes, I do agree. The £4 billion public investment in the east coast main line infrastructure in trains had stalled. Although Network Rail writes the timetable, it lacked the authority to implement it. Requiring ministerial approval amounted to an excessive level of central control that GBR will remove. Encouragingly, public sector collaboration, free from contractual constraints, enables successful delivery. The result is a major uplift in services, supporting economic growth and increasing the availability of cheaper LNER tickets, thanks to more trains and seats.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, capacity on both the east and west coast main lines is stretched, which is why High Speed 2 will make such a difference when it opens. When will the Government publish the project reset, including the revised opening period and costs?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer, as I am sure she is probably aware, but we will communicate that as soon as we are able to.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I do not often find myself at odds with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I am on this. Indeed, yesterday I came up to London and my EMR train from Spalding to Peterborough was cancelled. I had to seek an earlier train, and then, on that Peterborough to King’s Cross line, there were no services between Lincoln and no services from York, because all trains were cancelled due to late working on engineering works on that line. I am afraid it is very disruptive, and if you have to come to London regularly each week, it is surprising how frequently the train service does not run to time or to capacity.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I set off yesterday from Leeds and I was given the warning that there might be delays because of the overrunning of engineering works. Actually, it did not affect my journey at all. Quite frankly, with the sort of engineering undertakings that are happening, I am amazed that overruns do not happen more often. There is an enormous amount of work to do on the railways. It is obviously very disappointing if you get delayed and if there are cancellations, but everything the Government are doing is working towards improving rail services for the travelling public in this country.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, it is very encouraging to hear what the noble Baroness is saying. Can she tell us when these planned engineering upgrades that she is talking about were given the go-ahead, and when they were given the sign-off? I think she will find it was some years ago, under the last Government.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It is my great pleasure to inform the House that the noble Lord and I have a very long and chequered history—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Specifically dedicated to improving rail services in this country—that is the sadness of my life over the last however long.

Of course, I understand exactly the point that the noble Lord is making, and it would be churlish of me to say that there have not been any improvements. But we have to have a step change. Too many people are suffering as a result of not having the connectivity we need. Given the noble Lord’s previous role at Transport for the North, he well knows how much investment in public services would mean to the economy and, most of all, to the people across the north of England.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, it is great to hear my noble friend’s tributes to the railway engineers, who keep the trains going at the same time that they are trying to build in many places new rail developments—which is a much harder job than building a new railway on a completely open tract of land. We may be very good, as we are, with those kinds of engineers. However, on the project for HS2 and similar proposals, particularly the line to Manchester, can my noble friend say whether the department has learned any lessons from the failed attempt to build a high-speed rail network? Virtually every other country in Europe is doing it, as are many in Asia, but we seem to lack the capacity. We really ought to be able to learn some lessons from this.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. I pay tribute to everyone who is working on the trans-Pennine upgrade. That project is phenomenal and demonstrates that we can deliver on time and on budget when all the key people pull together and work together. As my noble friend says, the performance that we have had in the past is simply unacceptable. Of course we need to look at that, learn lessons and make sure that we do not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise that, since the new timetable was introduced on the east coast main line, there has been no room to deal with delays such as those caused by broken rails, signal failures and points failures, none of which can be blamed on LNER as they are all the responsibility of Network Rail. Are lessons going to be learned about the introduction of this timetable, which took several years to bring about but reduced services from stations such as Berwick and Durham and left real problems coping with delays?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will make sure that we follow up the comments that the noble Lord has made. It was my responsibility to be heavily involved when the timetable changes were introduced in 2017, and I would say that, overall, this introduction has gone exceptionally well in comparison to what was experienced in the past. Of course, there will be difficulties, and I will endeavour to get answers to the question that the noble Lord asks.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it has turned out to be a livelier Question than I had expected. I am very grateful to the Minister for being here to answer these detailed questions about broken rails, particular services and so forth as she has today, and she has local knowledge as well, but will she or another government Minister still be here to answer those questions when Great British Railways comes legally into existence? She will agree, I am sure, that the Bill being considered in the other place removes Great British Railways almost entirely from parliamentary and ministerial scrutiny, with the only power left to the Secretary of State being to sack the chairman of the board. Is that really an acceptable way forward?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We have had many robust debates through the passage of different legislation in this House and I look forward to continuing to do so. Yes, in answer to the first question, we very much do intend to be here to see through the development of the legislation. Of course, it is going through the other place at the moment, and I look forward to the debates that we will have when it comes to our side.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that the welcome growth in passenger numbers on the east coast main line was mainly due to the introduction of Lumo, an open-access competitor?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It is very interesting that the east coast main line has three open-access operators. There are lessons to be learned from the experience that we have had. Clearly, they have brought an incredible amount. Some 20% of services on the east coast main line have open-access operators. We need to look and learn, and see what we can gain from it.

Youth Unemployment

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rising level of youth unemployment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, since May 2022, unemployment of young people has been rising. There are now almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. Young people face challenges such as lower skills, lack of work experience and a rise in reported health issues. In response, the Government are investing an additional £1.5 billion over the next three years through the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy to help young people earn and learn. In addition, an independent review led by Alan Milburn will focus on the causes of youth unemployment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Indeed, and this very morning the ONS announced that youth unemployment has risen yet again. Our national living wage is now approaching that of France, which has a staggering youth unemployment rate of 20%. Even the Resolution Foundation agrees that when the national living wage went up for 18 to 20 year-olds, unemployment went up as a direct result. Have the Government done any risk assessments to see at what point a higher national living wage, especially for 18 to 20 year-olds, affects employment and increases unemployment?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, and as was the case under the previous Government and from the time that the Low Pay Commission was set up, we explicitly asked the commission to consider the implications on employment of recommendations around increases in the living wage. We will continue to do that so that we can both make progress on getting young people back into work and ensure that they are fairly rewarded when they are there.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Government’s youth guarantee scheme is well intentioned, but would it not be more effective if it applied to those 18 to 21 year-olds who have been out of work and education for six months rather than 18 months—by which time many will have lost hope and confidence, and may have, in effect, checked out? I know from my experience as an employer that the earlier that you hire the young, both skilled and unskilled, the greater the chance of success. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is talking about the Government’s job guarantee, which will come in after 18 months with a guaranteed job for all those on universal credit. However, it is not the case that there is no action under the youth guarantee before that. The new youth guarantee gateway will ensure that if, after 13 weeks, a young person is not earning or learning then they will have a meeting followed by four weeks of intensive support. During this period, they will receive tailored guidance and be offered up to six options, which could be work, work experience, sector-based work academy programmes, apprenticeships, training or learning. There will be 300,000 more opportunities funded by this Government to support young people long before they get to that 18-month point. However, that point is a guaranteed jobs backstop.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but what assessment has been made of the impact of poor mental health on young people’s ability to enter work? How joined up is the Department for Work and Pensions with the NHS—if it is joined up at all?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There are certainly larger numbers of young people who, by virtue of mental health issues, are not in the labour market. That is why we have asked Alan Milburn to focus on this issue, why the Secretary of State for Health has initiated a review into the growing numbers of young people experiencing mental health problems, and why the Department for Education will ensure that there is a mental health professional to support every single school. That is joined-up government.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the youth guarantee scheme could represent a step change in dealing with profound issues around youth unemployment? Does the scheme include a gender analysis to make sure that young girls get those opportunities, alongside young boys or young men and women?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. We will certainly ensure that we properly evaluate the youth guarantee trailblazers that are currently in place in eight areas, and the much- expanded national youth guarantee that we are now funding, and consider the sorts of impacts that my noble friend has identified.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, some of the best job opportunities are with some of our outstanding engineering companies throughout the United Kingdom, but some schools, colleges and universities do not allow companies involved in defence contracts to attend job fairs. What advice would the Minister give to schools and universities about the appropriateness of defence companies attending job fairs?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My advice would be that the defence industry is an enormously important part of this country’s engineering base. It is one of the eight areas identified in this Government’s industrial strategy and our young people should be encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities that there are in that industry.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will agree that this transition from school to employment is a critical stage in the life of every young person. Could she assure the House that all steps have been taken to ensure that the link between services for children and adult services is reinforced so that children do not find themselves fallen off a cliff at the end of school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an enormously important point. It is sometimes at the point that young people finish school that they are lost to education or employment. That is why we will also put greater responsibilities on to schools to ensure the destinations of their pupils. We will deliver an automatic guarantee and automatic enrolment for young people into a college, and we will improve the risk of NEET indicators to identify earlier those young people who might end up not earning or learning.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, given that the poorest families in this country cannot afford for their children to do endless training courses, what work is being done to make sure these lead to full-time, proper employment that pays those families who are sending their young people to endless government training courses?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The training courses that will be provided as part of the youth guarantee will not be charged for, and neither will the improved training that we will provide post-16 or apprenticeships, where young people will be earning at the same time as they are learning. If the noble Lord is making a point about the cost of living pressures on young people then I wholly accept that, but our responsibility is to ensure that those young people, through the new, free opportunities provided by the youth guarantee, are set off on a life that will enable them to build a good and high income for themselves and their families.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this initiative and thank the Minister for her responses. Is she aware that opportunities for young people with disabilities are very fractious at the moment? Will the Government ensure that people with all different disabilities, including autism, have the opportunity to benefit from this scheme with the kind of support that is promised?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. As I said in my Answer, it is one of the reasons why young people find it difficult to get into either further training or the workplace. We will certainly ensure, as we are doing through additional support for employers in apprenticeships, that where a young person has a disability, that support will be available to them and to the employer offering them the opportunity to work.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the work that the Government are doing to improve the situation for young people, but businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Act, the Government’s minimum wage rules and spiralling business rates are the direct causes of young people being kept out of the labour market. We can solve this problem only by enabling business to create jobs. How are His Majesty’s Government going to get employers to employ people when the risk environment that has been created is just so high, and what are they going to do to change this problem?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is obviously the case that we need to support employers to take on young people who have been unemployed for a long period, which is why we will fully fund the job opportunities for young people who have been on universal credit for 18 months. But if it were the case that only the actions of this Government had been responsible for youth unemployment then we would not have seen the figures rising since May 2022 and we would not be seeing the same problem around the world. What is important is that this Government are taking action, including providing the financial support, to ensure that young people get back into work. I am glad that the noble Baroness supports those efforts.

Parental Leave and Pay Review

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:10

Asked by

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to conclude the parental leave and pay review, launched in July 2025.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the parental leave and pay review launched on 1 July 2025, and we expect it to run for a period of 18 months. The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings in which the Government will outline next steps for taking any reform forward to implementation.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does she accept that the case for change is urgent? Most forms of parental leave are unpaid or pitifully low paid: £187 a week equates to less than half the national minimum wage, and many mums and dads and partners simply cannot afford to take the pay cut necessary to spend time with their babies and children. The benefits are clear: there is compelling evidence that if, for example, paternity leave were increased to six weeks at 90% of pay, that would improve economic participation and growth and, of course, narrow the gender pay gap. Will my noble friend agree to consider urgently bringing the conclusions of the review forward so that young families can get the start in life they deserve?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the advocacy not only of my noble friend but of her former employer, the TUC. The Government have met with many stakeholders and had many encouragements to act in lots of different directions. My noble friend is absolutely right that the system needs reform. We know that it does not work for everybody at the moment. Having a child is a joyous occasion, but it is a challenge for many parents. We need to get this right. The Government opened a call for evidence, and we had almost 1,500 responses. We need to consider those carefully and find a way forward that provides a proper balance for employers, employees and the Exchequer. We will get this right.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the call for evidence, which closed in August. I appreciate that there were around 1,300 responses, but it has been five months since then, with not a word of an update from the Government. Could we get an update from the Minister now on progress in that last five months and a clear timetable for what the Government will spend the next 12 months doing?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, we are doing a number of different things. We are engaging in detail with stakeholders. We have already held 12 round tables, and we have engaged with business groups, academics and parent groups, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TUC, The Dad Shift, Mumsnet, and Maternity Action—lots of them. We are working through this with many academics, gathering all the evidence, finding out what we can do and looking at international comparisons. We are simply not doing nothing for the moment. We have already made a significant number of differences. The Government have introduced a range of things, such as neonatal care leave and pay, and we are looking at paternity leave and unpaid parental leave as day one rights, and at new leave for bereaved parents. There are a number of steps happening now, and we will look at whether there are things that can be introduced, and when, but we do have to get this right.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for all the things that are happening, but can she confirm whether this urgent review—the word “urgent” was used—will look specifically at low-paid and self-employed parents, who are often excluded from adequate support? I did not hear the Minister mention them at all.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point. I am pleased to say to him that, yes, the review is considering specifically whether the current support available meets the needs of self-employed parents. That is explicitly referred to in the review’s terms of reference. He is right that, currently, self-employed mothers can get maternity allowance but self-employed fathers are not eligible for support. There are some challenges. The bigger challenge is that the scheme goes back to the late 1800s, and a lot of aspects of modern families and the modern workplace are not necessarily reflected in its structure. We are looking at all of that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend has described all the action being taken already on this issue, which was a very important part of our debate on the Employment Rights Bill. We heard some compelling arguments then about the importance of making progress on this issue. In light of all the meetings my noble friend has described, is she prepared to convene a meeting of Peers on a cross-party basis to update us and make sure that the voices around the Chamber are also heard appropriately?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that and pay tribute to all the wonderful work she did on the Employment Rights Bill. The whole country has good reason to be grateful to her. I am sure she still bears the occasional scar, which she may polish occasionally. That is a great idea; we would be happy to have a meeting. I want to manage expectations. We are going to listen to all the evidence and a wide range of voices, but it would be helpful for those voices to come from inside this House as well as outside. I would be very pleased to do that.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, it is anticipated that there will be a chilling factor, with businesses thinking twice about hiring mothers-to-be and fathers-to-be if there are parental rights from day one. Is there not a danger that businesses will find ways of pre-emptively rejecting candidates whom they believe will be in a position to take parental leave immediately or soon after taking up their new roles?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, leave from day one is about the ability to give notice. For statutory maternity and paternity pay, there is already a significant period of qualification of working for the employer. If the noble Viscount is seriously suggesting that businesses would reject all potential mothers and fathers, that is going to leave them with quite a small pool to choose from when they are selecting. The reality is that many businesses already recognise that there are genuine benefits to be had in enabling people to be productive. If people are worrying about what is happening at home, then they are not able to do that. However, we have to get the balance right, so the review will carefully weigh up the benefits for families against the impact on employers and the Exchequer before Ministers decide on any reforms. On that point he is absolutely right.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in order for us to plan our workflow over the next couple of years, can the Minister let us know how many other consultations are still under way and how many more reviews will be conducted before the Employment Rights Bill is enacted?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government will consult with employers and those who are going to be affected to make sure that the implementation of the decisions Parliament has already made is done appropriately. I make no apologies for that, and the House should welcome it.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the evidence needed. When Quebec introduced five weeks of paid paternity leave 20 years ago, not only did it increase the take-up and length of leave taken by dads, but it increased mothers’ labour-market participation by around 7%. Does the Minister accept that, based on the information available to us today and for the last 20 years, six weeks of paid paternity leave is the single biggest policy the Government could implement to close the motherhood pay penalty? There is a good growth case for introducing it and we do not need another 12-month review to reach those conclusions.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Despite discouragement from behind me, I am going to be gentle about this. The noble Baroness makes the important point that there is a lot out there to be learned. We are looking at the international evidence. In Great Britain we tend to be more generous with leave than, for example, other OECD nations, but we do not match up on pay. As part of the review, we have been looking at international comparisons to see what happens, recognising that there are of course differences in labour markets and tax regimes. We must be aware of the impact on our particular context. Certainly, I am hearing a lot of clear voices calling for fathers to have more paternity leave. One of the things we need to be aware of is that when shared parental leave was previously introduced, take-up was very low indeed. We need to make sure the system works well, rather than just diving into making changes.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me that there is no future for Britain unless it gets out this situation of low skills, low pay, poverty wages and poor conditions, with some of the worst employment and pay rates in Europe?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has been listening to my colleague and noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern. This Government are committed to driving up skills as a way of driving out the growth in unemployment in this country. We must invest in the skills that are out there, making sure our young people get skills, that people have the chance to re-skill, and that we give employers the skills they need. Through our industrial strategy, we are looking at some of the key growth areas, making sure we understand what will drive them, what they need in future staff, and how we invest in them. Better-skilled jobs are good for the economy and good for families. That is the way forward.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, when we dealt with the Employment Rights Bill, just before Royal Assent there was a draft implementation plan, which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. We were promised that the Government would publish a new, revised implementation plan on or around Royal Assent, but we are still waiting. When is it going to come?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no idea. I will find out what is happening and, if there is anything out there, I am happy to write to the noble Lord with it. However, I tell him this: we had lots of long battles in this House over the Employment Rights Bill but it is now an Act, and it is surely now time for all of us to make sure that we engage well, listen to employers and take the time to get this right for the benefit of staff and employers everywhere, and of the country.

Maternal Mortality

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:20

Asked by

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take in response to the finding in the MBRRACE-UK report Maternal mortality 2022–2024, published on 8 January, that the maternal death rate in pregnancy rose by 20 per cent between 2009–11 and 2022–24.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, MBRRACE’s report highlights the need to improve maternity safety, to which this Government are fully committed. We have commissioned an independent investigation that will present recommendations in the spring, while the National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State, will transform these into a deliverable national action plan to drive change. In the meantime, we are taking various actions, including piloting Martha’s rule and expanding the maternal medicine networks.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. She will know that the Conservatives promised to halve maternity mortality by 2025. Instead, as the report shows, it has risen substantially, with stark disparities for older women and those from BME and disadvantaged backgrounds. Between 2021 and 2023, over 600 women died either during or shortly after pregnancy—a tragedy compounded by the fact that, in the majority of cases, this was from a preventable complication of the pregnancy itself. I know the Government are taking certain actions, to which she referred. Those are welcome, but they are not being applied consistently in every area. More importantly, trusts are not required to inform NHS England of the plans they are making. In short, I say to my noble friend that there seems to be a lack of robust oversight. How will the Government ensure that the standards and new procedures that they want to implement will be implemented effectively by every trust and in relation to every pregnant woman?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to use the word “tragedy” in respect of maternal deaths, particularly those from preventable causes. She is also correct that, sadly, most aspects of the maternal safety ambition that was set under the previous Government are very unlikely to be achieved. We have to make sure that, for any future target, the system can deliver. As one example, the maternal care bundle sets clear standards across all services for implementation by NHS providers and commissioners, and is focused very much on the main causes of maternal death and harm, as my noble friend asks for.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, the Government have launched a maternity inquiry, but we have already had lots of maternity inquiries and reports from the charity sector, such as the Muslim Women’s Network— I declare my interest as its CEO—Five X More and Birthrights, all with similar findings and recommendations. Instead of having more inquiries, why do the Government not just get on with it and implement actions? What do they expect to find that they do not already know? Can the Minister share how she is implementing existing recommendations?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand what the noble Baroness is saying and her frustration, which I am sure many of us share. The purpose of the investigation by my noble friend Lady Amos is to pull together all the learning and all the inquiries. She has, for example, given a real voice to those affected, speaking to 170 affected family members. Those voices are what has been missing, and that cannot go on. We are determined to draw a line under where we have unfortunately been and to move forward, while taking direct actions, including, for example, a national programme to support struggling trusts to make improvements.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, recent Health Service Journal investigative journalism has found that the Chief Midwifery Officer wrote to trusts last year identifying gross failures in home births safety, yet the Government have chosen to keep this information private while women are pushed into unsupported births. Is it acceptable for NHS England to hide this evidence of systematic safety risk from the public when the home birth services of 14 trust have effectively ceased to exist, despite the legal duty to provide them?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am not fully up to speed with the article that the noble Lord raises, but I undertake to look at it and get back to him, because this is a very important matter.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, many NHS trusts are facing deficits in midwives. There is not a sufficient workforce. What are the Government doing to tackle this issue? New parents, and new mothers during their birth, are not being supported, and there are significant problems as a direct result of this.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Midwives are absolutely crucial, and I pay tribute to them and to the wider maternity team. As of October 2025, there has been an increase of some 3.6%—that is 878 more midwives—compared to October 2024. Importantly, we are seeing the introduction of a range of initiatives to improve retention in the maternity workforce, including in midwifery. That will include mentoring and giving better advice and support on pensions and flexible retirement options, because we are keen to retain the long years of service that many midwives and other staff have.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, touching partly on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, data from MBRRACE-UK shows that black women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth than white women. Do the department and NHS England have any evidence on the reasons for these disparities that the Minister can share with the House? Will she tell noble Lords how NHS England and the department intend to tackle these disparities?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am glad to say that my noble friend Lady Amos will be very much focusing on this area. I referred earlier to the maternal care bundle, which focuses on the five main causes of maternal death and harm, as well as on setting up best practice. A number of the risk factors are particularly associated with groups who live in areas of greater disadvantage, those who have pre-existing conditions and, as the noble Lord rightly says, sadly, black women, who are three times more likely to die—something that is totally unacceptable in any day and age, but certainly now. We cannot allow this to go on. That is why we have picked up a key recommendation from the Black Maternal Health inquiry for mechanisms for surveillance of severe maternal morbidity. The first data are expected in the summer.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, a confidential inquiry into maternal deaths is a good indicator of the quality of maternity services. The fact that the rate has gone up from 9 per 100,000 in my time to 12.8 now suggests that there is a failure of maternity services. To use an example, 155 women who had a history of psychiatric problems—mental health problems—died within a year of delivering a baby. That compares to the total number of 611 maternal deaths. It is a significant number, and yet the specialist perinatal maternity health services that are supposed to look after women with a mental health history have failed. It should be a duty on ICBs to produce a plan, so that women with a mental health history are looked after and have a care plan during pregnancy.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is absolutely crucial. I welcome that, as of June last year, maternal mental health services are available in all parts of England. We also now have 153 operational mother and baby unit beds providing in-patient care to women experiencing severe mental health difficulties during and before pregnancy. In addition, mental health services are available for women who have pre-existing mental health needs, as well as for those who experience challenges because of their pregnancy or labour. The GP check-up six to eight weeks after birth is absolutely crucial.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, something is happening. In the last decade or so, I have been watching the extraordinary increase in the number of healthy young mothers having C-sections. Why is this phenomenon—if I might call it that, though that is probably the wrong word to use—happening? Is this something that is part of the inquiry? Are people trying to understand whether it is because those in the midwifery world are afraid that natural births lead to more deaths?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This may be something that my noble friend Lady Amos looks at. She is very much focused on maternity services, which will include mortality and looking at the range of options. The noble Baroness will understand that there is an important balance to be struck between the voice and choice of patients, which we respect, and safety, which must be paramount.

Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:32

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

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crown Estate (Wales) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

15:33

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Wigley]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I thank Members on both sides of the Chamber who participated in our earlier debates, and I particularly thank all 22 county councils in Wales, which have each formally resolved to support the objectives of the Bill. Indeed, the Welsh Government have also called for the Crown Estate to be devolved in Wales. If the House allows the Bill to progress, I hope that there will be MPs in the other place who find time to take it forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the Bill getting this far. When the Minister replies, can he say whether this sets a useful precedent in relation to the Crown Estate’s assets in England, including the Duchy of Cornwall assets in England? Do the Government have any plans to bring a similar Bill to allow the transfer of those assets in England to the Government of the day?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Government’s position on this matter has been made clear during earlier stages of both this Bill and the recent Crown Estate Act, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill. As this House has heard previously, the Government do not support the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as we believe the way it currently operates provides the best outcomes for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. The addition of two new Crown Estate commissioners with special responsibility for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively is a positive step and will ensure that the Crown Estate board continues to work in the best interests of Wales. In answer to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we have no such plans that he asks about.

While I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill, the Government’s position is clear that we do not support devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. Therefore, I must express reservations on behalf of the Government on this Bill.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for contributing and making the points that they have. I believe that these principles could well apply further afield in due course, though perhaps not immediately. I noted well the points made by the Minister; I only hope that the opportunity will now be given for colleagues from Wales in the House of Commons to make their voices heard from all sides of the House, and perhaps the Government could then think further about it on that basis.

15:36

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

15:36

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 19 January.

“Colleagues will have heard what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said on this matter in recent days. I will not add further comments on the specifics in responding to this Urgent Question. When there are further comments to be made, I am sure they will be made in the usual way.

At the Budget, the Government announced a comprehensive set of reforms to business rates. We have created a new, sustainable system with permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Business rates are, in line with the usual timelines, revalued every three years, and new valuations that were set in train by the previous Government come into effect in April.

It was right to support businesses during Covid, but the previous Government went into the election with plans to scrap the temporary support entirely in 2025. If they had won re-election, they would have removed that support overnight last April. If the Opposition had intended to extend the relief, why did they not say so and why was that not included in their forecast or projections?

We on this side of the House have chosen a different path: we extended the support at a lower rate in 2025-26 and are slowly unwinding it over the coming three years, with the help of £4.3 billion of transitional support. I think all Members can agree that it would not be sustainable for a £1.7 billion annual temporary Covid tax relief to remain fully in place at the end of the decade. At the same time, our reforms to rebalance the underlying design of the business rates system towards high-street businesses will be implemented in April.

The new, lower tax rates will be introduced for 750,000 RHL businesses, funded by a higher rate on the most valuable properties, including for the online giants. That is worth almost £1 billion and means that smaller high-street businesses will have a tax rate that is 25% lower than businesses with the largest properties. That is being supported by a significant support package, as I said, worth £4.3 billion over the next three years. As a result, over half of ratepayers will see their bills flat or falling next year, and around a third of properties pay no business rates at all, as they receive 100% small business rate relief.

I look forward to supplementary questions from the shadow Chancellor, the right honourable Member for Central Devon, Sir Mel Stride, and other Members, and I look forward to seeing whether the shadow Chancellor can keep a straight face, given that he knows his Government never did enough for our high streets: 7,000 pubs closed over the 14 years the Conservatives were in power; shops were shuttered on high streets up and down the country; the council services that keep our high streets clean and vibrant were cut to the bone; investment was down; and the public suffered from the longest squeeze on living standards on record. That is the legacy for our communities—one that we are turning around”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have more bad news this morning from the ONS on job numbers in hospitality. That makes it even more important that we receive clear answers to the following questions. Why did the Government not get the new rating arrangements right first time in the Budget, when we now know that they already had the relevant information on pubs from the Valuation Office Agency? Following briefing to the FT last week, not only pubs but also restaurants and hotels do not know where they stand from 1 April. This is agony for them. When will the Government make a clear statement of their intentions?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, and as I have said before, the previous revaluation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant that rateable values were much lower. That means that some businesses, including retail, hospitality and leisure venues, are now seeing an increase as a result of this valuation. At the Budget we therefore announced three elements of support at a total cost of £4.3 billion. We implemented transitional relief; we have capped the increase for any business whose value has increased so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief; and we have expanded the supporting small businesses scheme.

But, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says—and as I have acknowledged in your Lordships’ House before—the revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them. That is why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs. Noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said on this in recent days. I will not add to that now or comment on speculation. When there are further comments to be made, I am sure I will be back here to discuss them with noble Lords.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, given that grass-roots music venues and recording studios do not qualify for RHL relief because of the way “visiting members of the public” is defined, will Ministers commit to reviewing or amending the eligibility criterion so that businesses integral to the creative economy are not excluded?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely hear what the noble Lord says, and I understand the points he is making. As I said, noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and Chancellor have said in recent days. I will not add to that now, but when there are further comments to be made, I am sure I will be able to discuss them with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, when we are talking about business rates, are any of the many thousands of Turkish barbers, as they are so called, vape shops and nail bars—which are all cash only and which have infected our villages, towns and cities—paying any business rates? Are any of them paying tax? We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs. They are getting away for free. The whole thing seems to be for free, and they are laughing at us. Meanwhile, our pubs and our hospitality as a whole are on a knife-edge of existence. How is that fair?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done. She is absolutely right to talk about the importance of the hospitality industry, and we completely recognise that. It plays an incredibly important role in the UK economy, employing more than 2 million people. It is vital to the life of high streets across the UK, and we will do what we can to support it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will repeat the adage I used formerly: measure twice, cut once. Does the Minister understand that there is real urgency to get response and relief now within the hospitality industry and for pubs, as they face uncertainty? Many, believing that the blows had ended, went ahead and hired or invested and are now unsure whether they are economically viable. Has the Minister looked at the impact of this uncertainty, particularly on the independents, which I understand are disproportionately affected?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I understand and agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness says. It is important that we are able to create certainty for those businesses, but we did spend £4.3 billion at the time of the Budget in support of exactly the businesses she described. We are implementing transitional relief to cap the amount that bills increase for businesses that would otherwise have seen big increases. For any business whose values increase so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief, we are capping that increase, and we have expanded the supporting small businesses scheme. As I say, that is at a total cost of £4.3 billion, so we absolutely recognise the issues facing those businesses. The revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them, which is exactly why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the retail and hospitality industries are often where youngsters who find it difficult to get into the workplace get their first foothold. Understandably, there have to be increases in the overheads that these organisations are paying, but can the Minister look at ways in which these organisations might be helped to bring some of those people who really need their first job into the employment market?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the important role that those businesses play in giving young people their first jobs, and I agree with her. We are taking significant measures to help the UK hospitality sector, which employs more than 2 million people and is vital to high streets across the UK. Based on recommendations from the licensing taskforce, we published a new National Licensing Policy Framework for the hospitality sector at the time of the Budget. We are exploring planning reforms to help pubs and hospitality to expand, and the hospitality support fund has helped pubs in rural areas to diversify, ensuring that they can continue in their role as vital community hubs.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, on pub companies, there is no doubt that the tenants are facing major problems in the UK, but does the Minister agree with me that, although those pubs are struggling, brewers and pub companies are making record profits? Is it not time they passed that on to the pubs themselves?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is correct to say that pubs have been struggling in this economy for a long time. In the previous 14 years under the last Government, 7,000 pubs closed in the UK, so this is a long-standing issue. On his wider question, I am more than happy to look into that.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, as the former chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association, I am only too conscious of the problems that the hospitality industry has faced over a large number of years. I listened to the Minister’s answers from the Peers’ Gallery in the Commons yesterday, and the unwillingness to give any indication to the industry as to when decisions will be given to it, whichever fields may be covered, means that it is totally unable to plan. The Minister’s answer today yet again gave no indication of whether there will be a response soon, at some time in the next few weeks or before the next financial year starts.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think I heard a question at the end there. As I have said, we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, given my noble friend’s question, and given the importance of hospitality for employment—and the reference in a previous question to the number of young people who are unemployed—why is hospitality not included in the Government’s industrial strategy?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That is an excellent question. Of course, we have separate strategies for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. With the industrial strategy, we are trying to do something different from what that strategy is doing. Just because a sector is not in the industrial strategy, that does not mean we do not value that sector extremely highly and do all we can for it.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, there are many charity shops in the high streets across this country. They receive 80% mandatory relief and often up to 100% discretionary. Many of these charities are actually multimillion-pound businesses. Notwithstanding the pressures on the high street and the pressures on small businesses, obviously, with these forthcoming increases, does the Minister agree that perhaps it is about time that we looked into this issue to make sure that those on the high street are paying a fair rate for their business rates?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not disagree with what the noble Baroness says. It is very important to say that we are fundamentally reforming the business rates system by introducing permanently lower business tax rates for more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, funded by a higher rate on the most valuable properties. I think that is absolutely the right thing to do.

Crime and Policing Bill

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Committee (11th Day)

Northern Ireland legislative consent granted, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought.

Relevant documents: 33rd and 41st Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 11th Report from the Constitution Committee and 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

15:46

Amendment 411

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

411: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Stop and searchIn section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (powers to stop and search in anticipation of, or after, violence)— (a) in paragraph (a) omit “serious”, and(b) in paragraph (aa)(i) omit “serious”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would lower the threshold for stop and search to “violence” rather than “serious violence”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 411 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. The amendment was championed by my honourable friend Matt Vickers in Committee in the other place.

The amendment alters the statutory threshold for the exercise of the powers under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That section permits a police officer of at least the rank of inspector to authorise stop and search powers within a defined locality for a period of 24 hours. Where such an authorisation has been given, a police officer may stop any member of the public to search them for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments without suspicion of the commission of an offence—so, essentially, it allows for a temporary adjustment to standard stop and search powers.

The current test that must be met is for the officer of sufficient rank to reasonably believe that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area. Our amendment would lower the threshold so that the police would be able to use Section 60 powers where there is a reasonable likelihood of violence, not serious violence. The fundamental principle behind this amendment is that the police should be able to act where there is a threat of violence—any form of violence—without being required to weigh the seriousness of that violence. This would remove the more subjective element of the test.

We know that stop and search powers are highly effective in combating crime and preventing violent offences. In the year ending March 2025, there were a total of 528,582 stops and searches conducted by officers in England and Wales. This represented a slight decrease of 1.4% from the previous year. Of those, 5,572 were conducted under Section 60 powers, which actually represented an increase of 5.4%. This is welcome; I am pleased to see the police making good use of their powers. But, given that there were 1.1 million incidents of violence with or without injury recorded by the police in the year ending June 2025, that the figure that the ONS has given shows no statistically significant change compared with the previous year, and that there were still 51,527 knife offences, there is more work that needs to be done. Lowering the threshold for the use of Section 60 is another tool that the Government could utilise in their efforts to crack down on the use of offensive weapons and the incidence of violence. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench. At this juncture, I also thank the Committee for its forbearance when I was not able to move my previous amendment on mobile phone theft. I put on record my warmest thanks to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for moving it so eloquently on that occasion.

This is an issue about the difference between “serious violence” and “violence”, but the wider context is the fact that the UK has a knife crime problem. In London, the number of incidents up to June 2025 was 15,639, which was an increase of nearly 72% from the data recorded in 2015-16. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the number of stop and search encounters peaked at the end of the last Labour Government and dramatically decreased under the two previous Governments. Between 2003 and 2011, stop and search numbers increased, peaking at 1.2 million, but by 2018 this had fallen by 77%. The number of arrests resulting from stop and search encounters had fallen from 120,000 to 48,000.

The fact is that there is significant evidence that stop and search does demonstrably have an impact on the incidence of knife crime, and therefore reduces crime. In a study released in 2025, the two criminologists Alexis Piquero and Lawrence Sherman analysed data between 2008 and 2023, and found that stop and search encounters were successful in reducing deaths and injuries related to weapons. The conclusion of the study was that

“increased stop and search encounters can significantly reduce knife-related injuries and homicides in public places”.

Evidence from a number of bodies and think tanks, including Policy Exchange, suggests that, while there may be a range of causal factors, a link between rates of knife crime and rates of stop and search exists. As the rate of stop and search decreases, the amount of knife crime increases. As stop and search rises, the amount of knife crime falls. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Sir Stephen Watson, said last year:

“If you don’t back your officers to do stop and search, they will stop doing stop and search. And if you stop doing stop and search, you’ll see street robberies going up”.


The issue is the difference between “serious violence” and “violence” within that context. My simple point to the Committee is that, if we want to take weapons off the street and prevent incidents of knife crime and other crime, we have to increase stop and search. Therefore, you have to give warranted officers the legal underpinning and the authority to make the appropriate decisions for stop and search. In 2023, there were 5,014 occasions when a police officer found a weapon or firearm when looking for a different prohibited item. In 3,221 of those cases, they were looking for drugs. This is a case of effective policing and not just getting lucky. So, if they could stop for “violence”, they might find weapons that could have led to a more serious situation. If not, there is a potential for people to just walk away.

On that basis, it is wise for the Government to consider this amendment, because it allows flexibility in operational policing. Fundamentally, it will prevent crime and may even in the long run prevent serious injury or death. Therefore, I invite Ministers and the Committee to give this amendment their strong support.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 411, because it brings clarity and accountability to the exceptional power in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This is not a call to strengthen police powers; it is a call to describe them accurately, so the public understand their narrow scope and the safeguards that constrain them.

Section 60 is triggered only when

“a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes”

one of a small number of factors: that incidents of violence may take place in a locality; that a weapon used in a recent incident is being carried locally; or that people are carrying weapons without good reason; and that there has already been an incident of serious violence. The statute requires the authorisation to be for

“any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours”.

These are tight operational limits.

Changing the definition from “serious violence” to “violence” keeps all the safeguards that make this power exceptional rather than just routine: the inspector-level threshold; the written and recorded authorisation; the geographic and temporal limits; the ability to seize weapons; and the requirement to provide records to those stopped. Those are not peripheral details; they are the legal guardrails that protect civil liberties while enabling targeted public safety action.

I simply ask: where is the dividing line between violence and serious violence? If someone gets stabbed multiple times and it is life-threatening, we would all agree that is serious violence, but what about the person who gets stabbed once and suffers a non-life-threatening cut? Is that merely violence and so does not count? That is why we have to change this definition to any violence, no matter how serious it may be called. This is not a wide-ranging opening of the stop and search powers applying everywhere for all time. Using “violence” in operational documents with an explicit cross-reference to the Section 60 triggers reduces confusion with broader strategic programmes labelled “serious violence”. It prevents the normalisation of suspicionless searches and makes it easier for Parliament, oversight bodies and the public to scrutinise each authorisation against the statutory test.

This amendment is modest, practical and proportionate. It highlights the statutory safeguards and does not remove any of them, but it gives the police a sensible power to save lives and prevent injury where they think that there may be more violence. I urge the Committee and the Minister to support Amendment 411.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the wording as it is in the Bill. The word “serious” is quite important. Stop and search, particularly in the London area, has been abused. You are supposed to stop somebody because of “reasonable” grounds to suspect, but as somebody who was stopped and searched six times, and every time I did not have anything they thought I would have, I see it as a sort of overpolicing.

It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is not here, because when he became the chief police officer in this place, he realised that some of this was not working and was antagonising communities, not delivering the result that was expected. The Bill is worded in terms of “serious”; the amendment tries to lower the threshold. As the intention of the Bill is to stop serious crime, “serious” to me is quite important. I do not support the amendment and would like to retain the wording in the Bill.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and share some of his concerns about this amendment. Before I share those concerns, I ask the noble Lords opposite to explain the relationship and potential contradictions between this amendment and their amendment in the next group on digital identity. It is a shame that these amendments do not sit in a single group, because it would have been easier to expose the thinking behind and relationship between them. That amendment, prohibiting the police requiring someone to show a digital identity document in the event that they are stopped and searched, could have been drafted by my former colleagues at Liberty. This amendment, on diluting protections against arbitrary stop and search, would certainly not have been drafted by my former colleagues at Liberty, so noble Lords opposite seem to be pointing in two different directions when it comes to the relationship between the citizen and the state on the street.

16:00

I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for setting out his amendment. He spoke about the large number of stop and searches with some precision, but he did not go on to set out the number of those searches that resulted in an arrest, charge or conviction. That is the kind of correlation we need to examine if he wants to justify suspicionless stop and search in particular as a useful tool for preventing very serious crimes. I would be interested in any information that noble Lords have about how many of these searches, particularly suspicionless searches, lead to, for example, a criminal charge. That is the kind of ratio the Committee ought to examine.

Like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, I am concerned about suspicionless stop and search. It is quite a blunt instrument. I am not saying that it does not have a place in the statute book. An obvious example is that when guests come to this Palace, they routinely go through a form of suspicionless stop and search by walking through airport-style security gates and having any bags searched. There is no room for concern or feelings of injustice there, because it is a high-security environment, everybody understands the risk to the Palace and those within it, and everybody is treated in the same way, so there is not this concern about arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. When, for example, under the Terrorism Act, or indeed under other statutes, a place of particular risk and sensitivity is identified in that way, you can see the beginnings of some justification for suspicionless stop and search. However, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, when he spoke in support of the amendment, he was almost justifying routine suspicionless stop and search. Why not just have it everywhere in England and Wales if it is so effective? The answer is that, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said, if you make it too readily available and have too low a threshold, suspicionless stop and search at large will lead to arbitrary and discriminatory results and to a feeling of distrust between some communities—young black men in particular, but not exclusively—and the police.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

As usual, the noble Baroness is making a cogent and persuasive case, but I do not think she concedes that we are not talking about suspicionless searches; we are talking about an expectation that violence will happen—there will be a violent incident rather than a seriously violent incident.

I just leave her with the figures: in London, from 2021, there were 311,352 stop and searches, and they had fallen to 135,739 in 2024. At the same time, there was an 86% rise in knife crime. The argument that those of us on this side are making is that there has to be a balance. None of us wants racially profiled overpolicing, but at the same time, we have to find a reason why when we reduce stop and searches, there is an inevitable increase in knife crime.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I hear the noble Lord, but with respect, this provision relates to suspicionless stop and search. That is a term we use to describe a stop and search power that does not require reasonable suspicion that the person who is about to be stopped and searched is a criminal, is equipped or whatever it is.

The power in Section 60, therefore, is a suspicionless stop and search power, which is why it needs to be circumscribed and why there have to be certain conditions met before an area can be designated, because the normal law of the land, as noble Lords will recognise, is that anywhere in the land a constable can stop and search an individual whom they reasonably suspect of carrying a knife or being otherwise involved in criminality.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

Section 60 in and of itself is a special circumstance, so whether it is suspicionless needs to be looked at in that context, and I would just like to offer the noble Baroness this context. There is no such thing as non-serious violence. Let us be very clear, when we are talking about the impact of knife carrying in particular, that any knife that has ended up in the body of a person has been shown to multiple members of the community and been used to create terror before that tragedy has happened. The idea that a stop and search is only potent when it leads to an arrest or a charge is simply incorrect. Having been a youth worker for over 35 years, I have worked with some of the most gang-involved people in the entire country, and they will tell you that they will be armed because they do not believe they are going to be stopped. Every time you do a stop and search, it sends a ripple, particularly to those who need to hear the ripple, that it could happen, so it lowers their propensity to go armed. Just because it does not lead to a charge, that does not mean it has not been effective.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but I return to my central point, which is, as he pointed out in his intervention, that the normal law of the land is for stop and search on reasonable suspicion that the individual in question is a cause for concern: “I have reasonable suspicion that that person may be carrying a knife, et cetera, or otherwise involved in criminality”. These are special powers given to a relatively junior police officer; this is not a chief constable, let alone a magistrate or a judge. It allows a police officer to change the law of the land for a time-limited period for that area, to change what the stop and search regime is in that area. It is quite right that a power of that kind be tightly circumscribed because of the problems that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, spoke about and because citizens do have rights to go about their business without fear of arbitrary stop and search.

This brings me back to my question about the relationship between Amendment 411, which is in this group on its own, and Amendment 415, which noble Lords opposite have in a separate group, and the apparent dichotomy between them. Amendment 415 says that, where there is a stop and search, an officer should not be allowed to require the presentation of digital ID; it does not even say “compulsory digital ID”. So if, as I think the Government now propose, digital ID becomes available to people to partake of, if they want, as a more convenient method of ID, we are going to have circumstances where noble Lords opposite will have more routine stop and search, but when a stop and search happens, an officer would not be able to ask the person searched to identify themselves if all they have with them is digital ID. That seems like a contradiction to me. I, for one, have always been very concerned and opposed to compulsory single identifiers, not least for the reason that they will lead to routine stop and search with people required to identify themselves to the police when they have done nothing wrong. I should be very interested if noble Lords opposite could square the relationship between this amendment and the one that follows.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, there is now considerable evidence about how stop and search powers are used in practice, their impact and long-term consequences, not least in building trust, which is so vital for effective community policing. Stop and search powers, especially under Section 60—suspicionless powers —already fall disproportionately on marginalised communities, particularly black and minority ethnic young men. Lowering the threshold from “serious violence” to “violence” can only increase the frequency and breadth of those powers and with it the disproportionality. This is not an abstract civil liberties concern but goes directly to trust and confidence.

It is also just 18 months since the Home Office accepted the findings of a police inspectorate report that identified serious shortcomings in the use of Section 60 powers, including low arrest and seizure rates for weapons, inadequate training and failures to adhere to statutory duties, such as PACE Code A or voluntary frameworks such as College of Policing APP guidance.

From a Liberal Democrat perspective, the test for expanding intrusive powers is a simple one. Is there a clear and compelling operational case, supported by evidence, that the existing powers are inadequate and that widening them will improve outcomes without unacceptable collateral damage to rights and community relations? We do not believe that the case has been made here. What is on offer is a lower legal bar for the most intrusive stop and search powers we have, imposed on communities that already experience it acutely, with no serious account taken of the long-term impact on policing by consent. On that basis, we cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting short debate, and I thank my noble friends—

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

I am grateful that we are trying to make some progress—it is really good news—and I look forward to even more progress as we carry on today, but if the noble Lord will allow me, I will respond to the debate first.

The noble Lord has made some points that I accept, and he had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. However, I hope I can persuade him that the amendment is not necessary, for the reasons that I will outline in a moment.

Stop and search remains a vital tool in our efforts to reduce knife crime and protect communities. The Government fully support its use, but, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said, it has to be done in a fair and effective manner. We want officers to have confidence in exercising those powers, but also for the community to have confidence as well.

The amendment concerns Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which, as was outlined, allows senior officers to authorise searches for offensive weapons without reasonable suspicion for a limited time in a defined area where serious violence has occurred or is anticipated. The powers are purposely tightly framed and tightly targeted. Section 60 is intended for exceptional circumstances where serious violence is anticipated or has occurred. As this is a power to search for offensive weapons such as knives, “serious violence” remains the appropriate threshold. It would not be appropriate, in my view, to reduce that threshold in response to what might be minor scuffles, which is what the noble Lord’s amendment would in practice achieve.

There is no legal evidence that the threshold is an undue barrier to use this power. In 2008-09, under the same rules, police conducted over 150,000 Section 60 searches, while last year there were 5,288, which is a significant drop. That shows that the law has not changed in that period of time, but the issue is really one of proportionality, targeting and police practice. That is the best way forward, which helps give confidence when it is needed but also gives confidence to communities at large; the noble Lord’s amendment would widen the scope considerably. I have to say to the noble Lord that that does not mean that we are not interested in tackling knife crime.

The noble Lord, Lord Bailey—he has gone now; no, he is back, so I will let him resume his place—made a number of points about what we need to do on knife crime. I say to him and to other noble Lords who have raised issues today that the use of smarter policing through hotspot patrols, the strong partnership with communities, and prevention initiatives such as Young Futures panels are all ways in which we can help prevent knife crime without necessarily scaling down the amount of stop and search that happens and making it more available. We can already see that those approaches we have taken have worked: knife homicides are down 20%; overall, knife crime has fallen for the first time in four years; and hospital admissions for knife crime have dropped by 10%. That progress suggests that changes to existing stop and search Section 60 powers would not necessarily make progress on knife crime.

16:15

Let me give an important example which I hope will help the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. Knife-enabled robbery is highly geographically concentrated; 70% of such offending happens within seven police force areas. The Government have established a six-month knife-enabled robbery task force, which has brought together chief constables and PCCs in those areas. Collectively, in the past year these forces have turned a 14% increase in offence levels from the outset of the task force into a 10% reduction compared with the baseline in June 2024. All seven forces involved are now seeing reductions, including a 30% reduction in knife crime in the West Midlands.

I know that there are ethnic disparities in the use of stop and search, and that black people are still more than three times as likely to be stopped and searched as other representative members of the community. We need to monitor this closely and keep an eye on it. However, the powers are relatively sparsely used now. There is a magnificently big reduction on the figures from 2008-09, and the other measures we are taking are helping to tackle knife crime. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister could help us. I listened carefully to his remarks but I am not sure that I really understood the difference, as the Government define it, between “violence” and “serious violence”. We all perhaps have some ideas in our minds, and it has been a balanced and considered debate on both sides, but could the Minister help the Committee by helping us to define rather more clearly the difference between “violence” and “serious violence”, and how that might affect the use of these powers? I would be very much obliged if he did that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Section 60 powers are in operation and have been there for some significant time. As I shared with the Committee a moment ago, the use of those powers by police officers was significantly higher in the mid to late 2000s than it is now. That is because we are trying to ensure that there is operational guidance—not ministerial guidance—on the use of stop and search powers. Stop and search is seen by the police as a tool of last resort in an area where there is serious violence. I am not going to speculate for the noble Viscount on what that serious violence barrier is; that is an operational decision for the police at a local level in a particular circumstance.

The legislation is clear. The level of use has dropped because the police recognise that this is a tool of last resort which has to have the confidence of the community. I cannot differentiate between levels of violence in a way that may help the noble Viscount today, but the level of violence must be deemed at the time by a local senior police officer on the ground to be sufficiently worrying that he or she determines an area in which stop and search powers will operate. That may not answer the point, but I hope it is of some help to the noble Viscount.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

On that issue, notwithstanding the fact that these powers have to be sanctioned by a police inspector, they are often accompanied by a public information initiative from the police force concerned, and their time limit is 24 hours. If this amendment were accepted, would it not give the police the opportunity to use these powers at football matches, at which there is a chance not of serious violence but of public disorder leading to lower-level violence? In the last year or so, they have used them 357 times. Therefore, they would not necessarily use the more draconian dispersal orders which are sometimes used at football matches. What this side is asking for is more flexibility not just in respect of knife crime but of public order-related events such as football matches.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say this as best I can to the Committee: to my knowledge, there has been no request from the police for that reduction in threshold to allow them to exercise further stop and search powers. Indeed, as has been shown over the last 15 or 16 years, the use of stop and search has significantly decreased to around the 5,000 figure, as I mentioned earlier. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that the police themselves want to exercise that power to control crowds at football matches. I will leave it at that, if I may.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me on this issue? I think he does, because he said earlier, when the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was momentarily not with us, that minor scuffles are not serious violence and that stabbings and so on clearly are. To my own mind, a common assault between people outside the pub on a Friday night probably does not meet the threshold of serious violence, but knife robbery et cetera does.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I did indicate that minor scuffles would not be seen as serious violence. I am not trying to determine from this Dispatch Box the use of a Section 60 power by a police officer on the ground because of the level of violence the police have witnessed and wish to act upon. If we look at the figure 16 years ago, it was significantly higher than in the 12 months prior to now, at just over 5,000. The law has not changed but, going back to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, police practice and police assessments have meant that they do not need to use that power. In parallel with that, the Government believe that if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall. With that, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has become an even more interesting debate, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.

I say to the Minister and to noble Lords that this amendment is intended to help the Government. Regardless of our politics, everyone would like to see a reduction in violent offences, and increasing police use of stop and search is an incredibly powerful tool to do just that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that there is nothing wrong with stop and search. Stop and search is one of the most useful tools in the box. Having spent 32 years on front-line policing in London, I know that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, it is an issue of training and adherence to the codes of practice. There is no question about that in my mind. That is what police need to be concentrating on when it comes to the issues around stop and search.

Lowering the threshold to the likelihood of violence would enable officers to intervene earlier to prevent harm, protect the public and de-escalate potentially dangerous situations before they result in injury or worse, and before becoming serious violence cases. I know full well that officers often face rapidly evolving situations in which it is difficult to draw a clear line between violence and serious violence. I hope that the Government take this away and reflect, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 411 withdrawn.

Amendment 412 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 413 and 414 not moved.

Amendment 415

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

415: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition on police use of digital ID(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.(2) After section 6 insert—“6A Police not to require digital identity document(1) If, at any time, His Majesty’s Government introduce a digital identity document scheme, a constable may not—(a) require a person to produce a digital identity card on request,(b) ask a person to produce a digital identity document for inspection, or(c) use any information contained within, or obtained from, a digital identity card for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence.(2) In this section a “digital identity document” means a document which—(a) is issued to an individual by a relevant authority,(b) is available only digitally, and(c) contains or records information which could be used to identify the person.”.”

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it has become a cliché to say that a week is a long time in politics, but it is an idiom that forever rings true. We began a couple of weeks ago with the Government still firmly wed to the idea that digital ID cards were going to save us all, and we ended the week with the policy relegated to a footnote in future history books. As with everything the Government touch these days, the digital ID policy had become completely toxic and incredibly unpopular, forcing them into the U-turn. It is a U-turn I am supportive of, and I am pleased that the Government have finally seen sense and ditched this policy.

I suppose I should be grateful to the Minister for somewhat negating the need for this amendment. It is quite easy being in opposition when the Government do your job for you.

The amendment is intended as a safeguard to prevent the police being able to require a person to show them a digital identity card when—or should I say if—such a scheme is ever introduced. Fundamentally, this whole debate comes down to who we are as a nation. Britain has never been a country where, in peacetime, one must have an identity card simply because the state mandates it.

I heard much Newspeak about the policy from Government Ministers soon after the announcement. Following the immediate backlash, many started claiming that it was not going to be mandatory after all, and that it was simply mandatory if you wanted to work. The Prime Minister said at the announcement of the policy:

“Let me spell that out: you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that”.


But requiring everyone who wants a job to have digital ID does make it mandatory—we all need to go to work to earn a living. We heard the justification change more times than we could count. First, it was needed to stop illegal migration and illegal working. That argument was soon blown out of the water by the fact that employers are already required to undertake right-to-work checks, and those who violate the law already were never going to suddenly start conducting such checks simply because of the existence of digital ID. Then we heard that it was necessary for efficiency and joined-up services. I can only wonder what the next justification would have been.

That is why I tabled this amendment. It was always a probing amendment, but we must make these arguments to stand up for the principle. The Government might have U-turned on this now, but what is to say that we do not see this pernicious policy creep back towards becoming mandatory in the future? In such a scenario, having such a legislative guardrail against potential police use of digital ID would make sense.

Fundamentally, the principle is that Britain is not a country where police officers require the presentation of mandatory ID cards. A person should be able, if they so wish, to go about their lives with as minimal interference by the state as possible. Digital ID cards were a wrong-headed and poorly thought-through policy, costing large sums of money that we do not have and coming at the expense of fundamental British values. I am glad to see the back of the mandatory element, but we must guard against any future expansions of this scheme. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am, of course, also delighted that this amendment is now unnecessary and irrelevant, but it fits into some broader concerns that have been expressed in Committee, such as the planned nationwide rollout of police-operated live facial recognition cameras and a whole range of technology used to introduce a surveillance state. The use of digital ID would have not only created that very unpleasant checking of one’s papers by the police but introduced an element of technology which, without being anti-technology, could be seen as problematic.

I noted and would like the Minister’s response to an interview that the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, did with Sir Tony Blair last week, in which she talked about AI and technology having a transformative impact on

“the whole of the law and order space”,

which would therefore mean that digital ID was not totally off the table. The Home Secretary said

“my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times”—

a rather chilling declaration, I must say. At this stage, as we are not going to have to discuss digital ID, that broad use of technology and surveillance might be something that the Minister could reassure us on specifically. It is good to see the back of digital ID, but I am not keen on the eyes of the state being on us at all times as a justification for tackling crime and disorder.

16:30

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness: I read that quote as well and was very worried about it, and the idea that we should all aspire to total surveillance and living in a panopticon. When I saw that—it has been doing the rounds on social media—I assumed it was fake news. I cannot believe that from a Labour Cabinet Minister, even from a Home Secretary—we know funny things happen to people when they go in the Home Office; I was there myself for a bit. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will assure us when he responds that there is no question of building a total surveillance state or, indeed, Bentham’s panopticon. I share the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I am grateful to her for raising them.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for, I think, answering the question that I put to him in the previous group, which is that his objection is to a single compulsory identifier. I share his concerns if that is the problem. I would not want us all to have to carry a single compulsory identifier, digital or otherwise, which becomes a licence to live that you can have demanded of you at any time. The compulsory element was always the problem, not having an optional identifier —for instance, if you choose to have your passport or driving licence on your phone instead of as a physical document. I understand that even lots of noble Lords now pay for their refreshments with their mobile phone; this is the world that we live in. The problem is with a single compulsory identifier, not with the option of having a digital ID, as opposed to a paper ID. I hope he will nod and indicate that we are in the same place on that.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 415 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which seeks to introduce a new safeguard for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 regarding the potential future use of digital identification by law enforcement. I too am grateful for his explanation about the single identifier. I remind your Lordships that there were a number of amendments in some Home Office Bills about three years ago when the Home Office was trying to get access to DVLA data and, indeed, to personal medical data for anyone who might have been present at the scene of a possible crime—not the victim or the possible perpetrator, but anyone who was literally just present. I am glad that, in opposition, his party has decided to change its approach on this. It is very welcome.

I also echo the good news that the amendment is, I hope, fully redundant because of the Government’s announcement, but I look forward to making sure that some of the very minor concerns being expressed are recognised by the Government.

This amendment would provide the protection to individuals, should the Government introduce a digital identity document scheme, that a constable would be expressly prohibited from requiring a person to produce such a document on request or asking for it to be produced for inspection. Crucially, it would also prevent the police using

“any information contained within, or obtained from, a digital identity card for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence”.

That echoes the amendments that our Benches tabled to earlier Home Office Bills.

We on these Benches are fundamentally opposed to any form of compulsory digital ID. We must ensure that a digital identity scheme does not become a tool for “papers, please” policing in a digital format. As organisations such as Big Brother Watch have warned, the expansion of digital identification, such as the proposed access to the DVLA database for facial recognition, risks creating a huge and disproportionate surveillance power that, in effect, places the majority of law-abiding citizens in a permanent digital police line-up without their consent. Can the Minister confirm that it is the case that surveillance will not be used?

The Government have previously suggested that digital ID could serve as an alternative form of ID for specific purposes such as age verification for online sales. However, without the explicit prohibition contained in Amendment 415, there is a significant risk of mission creep. If we allow the police routinely to use digital ID as part of their investigative toolkit, we fundamentally shift the relationship between the individual and the state. This amendment is not about obstructing modern policing; it is about ensuring that privacy rights and civil liberties remain the default. We must codify these protections now to ensure that any future digital identity framework cannot be weaponised into a widespread surveillance system.

From these Benches we are glad about the Government U-turn, but we need more detail to ensure that those protections remain. It is for Parliament and not for operational police discretion to set the boundaries for how the state identifies its citizens. I urge the Committee to support this amendment and hope that the Ministers will give us an encouragement that it is not needed.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the case for Amendment 415. He says a week is a long time in politics, but I am going to take him all the way back to the announcement on 26 September from the Prime Minister that the Government were intending to introduce a national digital ID scheme for all British and Irish citizens and those with permission to be in the United Kingdom.

The national digital ID will empower people in their lives and their interactions with the state. It will make it easier to access public services, cut back on bureaucratic processes and support fairness across society. The national digital ID scheme will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in due course. In the short term, we will examine options for appropriate oversight and safeguards of the digital ID, with a public consultation set to launch soon.

As has already been said publicly, the digital ID will not be required when a person is stopped by the police using stop and search powers. This was picked up in this debate and the debate on the previous amendment by, among others, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It will not be mandatory for those eligible to obtain the digital ID and, as such, there will be no penalty for not having one.

Law enforcement use of data is governed by Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This places a range of obligations on law enforcement, including requirements that law enforcement processing of data must be necessary and proportionate, for a specific purpose and not excessive. All three noble Baronesses who spoke raised concerns over a move towards a surveillance state—certainly, that was the theme of the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. To be clear, the new digital ID will not be used for mass surveillance of the population and will be designed in accordance with high standards of security and privacy. We will ensure safeguards are in place to make sure that any access to data is both necessary and proportionate.

As I said, the public consultation will be launched in the coming weeks. This will ensure that any legislation includes appropriate safeguards. I am sure that, without much prompting, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, will be first in the queue to contribute to that public consultation.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Can the noble Lord clarify something? Initially, those of us who spoke suggested that possibly this amendment was not needed because digital ID was not an immediate issue and was not going to be brought in as a single identifier. So far, the Minister’s arguments have been a justification for digital ID. Is it back on? It would be useful for campaigners to understand that, let alone those of us here. When campaigners argue that digital ID is part of a surveillance state and so on, one wants to say, “Don’t be too paranoid”. I am now getting paranoid myself, having been told that the digital ID scheme had been put to one side, that it has sneaked back into the House of Lords in response to an amendment that most of us thought was not necessary.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am going to try to stay roughly on the topic of the amendment, rather than turn this into a wider debate on the introduction of digital ID, because I am not entirely sure that my briefing will cover all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has addressed.

To be absolutely clear, we are not stepping back from the idea of introducing a digital ID. On 15 January, there was an Urgent Question on the issue in the other place that was repeated here. We have been very clear that we are introducing a digital ID programme. There are two core objectives: first, to make accessing public services easier and to make the state work better for ordinary people, and, secondly, to aid with right-to-work checks and catching those who are working illegally. To be clear, that is still happening. As I say, there is a public consultation coming that will set out the scope of the scheme, and those who wish to respond will be able to respond in those terms.

To respond directly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, around the use of ID by policing and enforcement agencies, there are already safeguards in place to ensure that the use of any such measures is balanced against the need to protect individual privacy rights. That will be the same for digital ID as it is for existing police access to information contained within the passport and immigration databases, for example, which is done in specific circumstances where that is lawful, necessary and proportionate. An example of a legal safeguard already in place is contained in the UK Borders Act 2007, which makes it clear that holders of e-visas cannot be required to carry them at all times.

I think I have already touched on the issue of stop and search, but I cannot quite remember because of the flow of the interventions. To be clear, the digital ID will not be used as part of stop and search, and police officers will never demand to see it as part of stop and search. However, consistent with current powers where immigration enforcement are carrying out an enforcement visit or warrant, they have powers to ensure that all those who are employed have the right to work in the UK. These powers include the ability to demand ID, take biometrics, and detain, search and seize property to assist their investigation. I hope that provides some clarity on that point.

Given the considerations that I have set out, particularly the fact that the introduction of the digital ID scheme will require its own legislation in future, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

At the time when this amendment was tabled, the Government were pressing ahead with plans that would have fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state. The prospect of compulsory digital ID, coupled with the possibility of routine police access to digital identity data, raised serious concerns about privacy and subsequent state overreach. It was precisely because of those concerns and the lack of apparent or clear safeguards that the amendment was necessary. Indeed, I am still not clear from what the Minister said in his response as to whether it will be introduced in future or whether it will be compulsory.

Since then, as we have heard, the Government have performed a U-turn, announcing that digital ID will no longer be mandatory. The amendment before us was therefore not speculative or hypothetical; it was a direct response to a live and deeply unpopular government policy. We can only hope that this sudden enthusiasm for reversing course is not confined to digital ID alone. While the U-turn means that the immediate threat that prompted it has receded, the wider issue remains unresolved. The Government’s approach to digital identity remains unclear and may change again before Report. For the time being, I will withdraw the amendment, but it is something that we will continue to consider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 415 withdrawn.

Amendment 416

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

416: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Wearing a face covering while cycling(1) A constable may stop any person to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This subsection applies to a person who wears a face covering while cycling or riding a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity.(3) A person who fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of their powers under this section commits an offence.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 416 would get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the police by covering their faces when breaking the law.

I was extremely grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet me to discuss the various amendments to the Bill that I had tabled or supported. I endorse much of the Bill, as he knows, in its efforts to prevent and reduce crime. That includes the Government’s new offences on cycling and e-scooters, and the amendments discussed on 15 December and moved by the former Met Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who, like me, felt that we could go further. I just hope that action will follow.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke so eloquently in that debate, may be amused to know that the comparison with the Wild West was a repeat of what I had said many months before. My reference to the Wild West was taken up by, I think, the Daily Mail, only to be requoted by the Mayor of London—no doubt because he agrees that it represents the problem well.

16:45

I return to the subject with today’s amendment, because we have a lacuna that is a matter for the Home Office to address. Our city streets now teem with men —usually men—on fast cycles, electric bikes and scooters whose faces, sometimes even in summer, are hidden by balaclavas or ski masks. This feels hostile, even if it is not, especially if accompanied by live music or shouts of, “Get out of the way”. Often, the intentions of such concealment are malign.

Nor, I must stress, are we dealing only with a London issue. Newspaper reports show, for example, that in Darlington there were hundreds of complaints last year about balaclavad youths on bikes riding recklessly in groups around pedestrians. It is absolutely appalling, and quite frightening, especially for the elderly and disabled.

Increasingly, masking is adopted to avoid identification by passers-by, police officers or digital cameras, because those concerned have a mind to commit crimes, such as phone theft, if the opportunity arises. I believe we need to put a stop to it. We need a new power, and we need it now rather than waiting while the problem grows.

We also may want to make use of live facial recognition, which may help the police to deal with this scourge and obviously does not work when faces are covered. As I did not speak on the LFR amendment, I would add that facial recognition can help with serious offences. There was an interesting article in the Times in December about a convicted sex offender who was walking alone with a six year-old girl, whose mother he had befriended, when he was caught out, thankfully, by LFR and given a two-year sentence. We also heard how LFR was being used in Croydon on another occasion. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, I think rightly, that any LFR legislation would probably take another two years and I do not believe that we can wait for that Bill to deal with the scourge of cycle and scooter crime.

In the Bill before us, the Government are already tackling the problem of the concealment of identity at protests within certain zones. I understand that in some countries—Switzerland, France and fashionable Denmark—there has been a proscription of facial coverings in public spaces. I am not seeking to go that far. My amendment would allow a police constable to stop a person who wore a face covering while cycling or riding on a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity. It would not ban such coverings, but it would create an offence if a person wearing a face covering failed to stop when required to do so. The penalty would be a level 3 fine or imprisonment not exceeding a month. My noble friend Lord Blencathra will note that this is a power for police constables only, not for other enforcement bodies about which he has voiced some concerns.

My main purpose is to take the opportunity of this Bill to aid better enforcement of the law by the police. My amendment would allow the police actively to identify those committing crimes such as phone theft, delivering drugs, harassing and intimidating the young or the old, including riding dangerously past my house on the pavement at very high speed. The Minister promised to look into the matter for me and to consider my amendment. We share the same objective and I hope he will agree to this modest amendment to make it easier for the police to do their excellent work. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am generally with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and we have done an awful lot together to look at cyclists being held more accountable. On this, however, I am probably going to suggest an amendment to her amendment. As it stands, the problem with her amendment is that the police currently have the power to stop any vehicle on the road without reason. They can stop somebody with or without a mask, or for no reason at all. This power would therefore not add anything, given that the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, acknowledged, whether it be in the cool of the winter, or even sometimes on a cool summer’s day, there is a reason to wear a mask or a face covering if you are cycling, because it gets cold. We have probably all been there. However, something to look at in the future—perhaps on Report—is whether someone, having been stopped, can be ordered to remove their face mask. There is not an awful lot of point in stopping them and they can keep their face mask on if their identity is in question. That is also true for motorcyclists, who wear helmets. Their faces are obviously encased in a helmet and there is no power to ask them to remove the helmet. Most of them do, because it gets pretty uncomfortable after a few minutes—in fact, if you prolong the conversation long enough, they always take it off—but there is no power to compel them to do it. That may be something that could be considered in the future.

On the police needing powers to stop cyclists, there is no power to stop an e-scooter, but any vehicle on the road can be stopped by an officer for any reason—not the least of which is that the police are expected to direct traffic. That is one of the reasons that they are given the power to either redirect or stop vehicles. So, as it stands, I am not sure about this amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the excellent and tightly drafted amendment from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I say that it is tightly drawn because proposed new subsection (2) is about concealing one’s identity, not about wearing the clothes themselves: the scarf or the hat. I speak as a cyclist who frequently cycles in the winter, when of course you need to wear protective clothing to keep you warm. However, this is about allowing a police officer, or another person who is entitled to know your identity, to know your identity, and it is about failing to stop when required to do so by a constable.

I am glad that my noble friend mentioned the issue of live facial recognition. I am just about to finish my four-year term on the British Transport Police Authority. In terms of clear-up rates, one of the issues we have in unfortunately failing to tackle violence against women and girls—which, of course, is a government priority and a priority of the Department for Transport—is that we have way too many persistent, repeat offenders on bail who are travelling on the rail network and who are able to enter stations and get on trains. Live facial recognition, were it to be rolled out for a good reason, with proper checks and balances, would significantly reduce the incidence of those people being able to get on trains and Tubes and assault women and girls, and others. Live facial recognition is important because, if people are going to be wearing face coverings, that will naturally circumscribe the powers used in live facial recognition.

Rates of crime on bikes and scooters have gone up. Many people who are committing those crimes are hiding their identity and I believe that, in most cases, there is a legitimate reason for the police to stop them. In 2024, Sky News received figures from FoI requests that showed that crimes involving e-bikes and e-scooters had risen by more than 730% in the preceding five years. These crimes included theft, robbery, burglary, drug trafficking, stalking, rape, violent crimes and weapons offences. In 2023-24, 11,266 crimes were recorded that mentioned an e-bike or e-scooter—up from just 1,354 in 2019-20. These figures do not include data from the Metropolitan Police and the West Midlands Police—I know that West Midlands Police have been busy doing other things, not always to their great credit —so the actual numbers were likely higher.

On 30 December 2025, the Metropolitan Police reported that it had seized 37 e-bikes and scooters in an attempt to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. That resulted in 52 arrests and weapons being seized. Between January and December 2025, Merseyside Police seized 1,000 unregistered vehicles, e-bikes, e-scooters and scramblers. It launched Operation Gears in July 2024 to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour linked specifically to bikes and scooters. In its words, two-wheeled vehicles

“are increasingly linked to serious criminal activity, including violence, robberies, and serious organised crime (SOC) offences”.

The Metropolitan Police has also produced reasonably new data—up to the end of 2023. They show that there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London using a motorcycle or an e-bike in 2023, and a face covering was worn in over 1,000 of those. These statistics demonstrate that it is legitimate to link bikes and scooters to crimes. Therefore, if someone is covering their face specifically to avoid identity while using these vehicles, it does raise suspicion, and it most emphatically gives police a legitimate reason to exercise their due and proper powers. On that basis, I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who regularly jumps out of the way on a pavement from e-bikes, electric scooters and so on, I think this amendment is probably very sensible, but we should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because, as far as I can see, it does not go sufficiently far. We need to add to it, perhaps on Report, a provision that the police can require someone to take their face covering off, because without that, I do not think it goes very far.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, in my experience, the fastest and most dangerous group of cyclists are Deliveroo and Uber Eats riders. That would be the case because they have to get as many deliveries in as they can. In my experience, an awful lot of them wear face masks. I would be interested to hear from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—we have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, had to say—what you would begin to do about that. They have great big things on their backs saying Deliveroo or Uber Eats, but they drive fast and wear masks. Will the police stop them?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and her Amendment 416, because it addresses a very real and rapidly accelerating problem on our streets: the use of face coverings by criminals on e-bikes and e-scooters to hide their identity while committing thefts, robberies and drug-related offences. I did not know that the Mayor of London had stolen my noble friend’s “Wild West” quote; I have lots of pages of newspaper reports on the “Wild West”. We should make sure that it is properly attributed to her; she was the inventor of the slogan.

We are not dealing with petty opportunism here, but with organised, masked offenders using high-powered electric bikes capable of 50, 60 or even 70 miles per hour, weaving through pedestrians and traffic with impunity. That may partly be the answer to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I agree that the amendment may need to be tweaked on Report. We are not talking here about an ordinary man or woman on an ordinary bike pedalling along and wearing a mask to keep out the cold; we are talking about people on big electric bikes, often fat-tyre bikes, belting along at phenomenal speed, wearing balaclavas rather than masks. There is certainly an element of criminality; it is not just ordinary cyclists trying to protect themselves from catching flies while they are riding.

Police forces across the country report that these vehicles are now central to a surge in mobile phone snatching and associated criminality. The scale is stark. Mobile phone thefts have almost doubled to 83,000 a year, with London at the epicentre, recording 65,000 thefts in the last reporting period. The crimes are not only fast; they are deliberately anonymous. Officers and victims consistently describe offenders wearing balaclava masks and full facial coverings. Schools in London have issued warnings about males in balaclavas targeting children for their phones on the way to school. In Newcastle, residents report masked riders armed with crowbars and knives terrorising neighbourhoods, snatching phones and intimidating women walking home.

This is not a marginal issue; it is a pattern. The police are clear: illegal e-bikes and e-scooters are being used for “all sorts of criminality”, including drug dealing, robbery and organised theft. The City of London Police states explicitly that illegal e-bikes are frequently used to commit crimes such as phone snatching, and its targeted operations have reduced such offences by 40% in the square mile. But officers say that identification is the greatest barrier to enforcement. When a rider is masked, unregistered and travelling at 50 miles an hour, the chances of apprehension are vanishingly small. As we discussed the other day, I commend the Met unit using its own fast electric e-bikes to chase these guys on bikes.

17:00

The gap that Amendment 416 seeks to close is real. It would not criminalise all mask wearing or interfere with religious coverings, medical masks or legitimate cycling; it would simply give a constable the power to stop a person who was both cycling or riding a scooter and concealing their identity—nothing more. I believe that it is a proportionate response to a specific criminal modus operandi. Criminals are exploiting anonymity as a tactical advantage, and we need to put the boot on the other foot and give the police the powers they need. If the amendment needs to be tweaked along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested, we should bring it back on Report and support it.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, this is somewhat Groundhog Day for the Committee, as we have considered very similar amendments and issues on earlier days. All Peers who have spoken, including my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, me and many others, have agreed that there is a significant problem—we see it very much in London but also, I am sure, in other parts of the country—of people completely ignoring the Road Traffic Act and the police doing nothing about it, to be entirely frank.

I repeat the assertion that I made from these Benches: I have never, on a single occasion in the last two or three years, seen a policeman stopping a cyclist, an e-bike rider or a delivery rider for riding the wrong way down the street. This happens the whole time; it is now the norm. If you go out after 5 pm—I often walk into the West End from your Lordships’ House to go home—there are limitless delivery riders riding very fast on electric-powered bicycles. As the Committee may know, I ride an electric bike on occasion, but they ride without lights and the wrong way down the road. The police have the powers to stop them, but they do not do it.

I ask for some answer from the Minister about how we square that circle of enforcement, while respecting the division of powers between what the police are charged with—the independence of various police forces —and the will of Parliament. One way or another, we need to get to a point where the House is confident that this problem will be addressed. I am absolutely with my noble friend in what she is trying to do with her amendment, but there are certainly difficulties. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about how the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.

I am sure we will come back to these issues on Report, and there will be determined attempts to pass amendments to this Bill, but when the Minister winds up, can he please specifically address what confidence he can give, if this House and Parliament as a whole wish this issue to be addressed, about how that will translate into action, while respecting the independence of the police force, which has such a tough job to do, does so much of it so well and has many different priorities?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said, this is Groundhog Day, and I fear we are rehearsing many of the points raised on earlier groups. We on these Benches do not support Amendment 416 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As we have heard, there are many reasons why someone might choose to wear a face covering while cycling or scooting, ranging from the practical to the health related. As we have heard, if it is cold weather, of course you are going to wear a scarf or a face covering to keep yourself warm and prevent wind burn. Quite frankly, in the recent cold weather, that might even prevent you getting frostbite while you are cycling along.

In urban areas, there are specific masks that people wear to tackle the pollution that we still have in many of our cities, to deal with and filter out pollutants, dust and exhaust fumes. How is that wrong? Why would we want to prevent people doing that? Likewise, if we have extreme heat, people sometimes wear masks because they want to block out pollen and other allergens, and also to protect themselves from UV rays. While in this Chamber we have heard often, in my experience so far, quite negative debate about cyclists, there are many cyclists here, and they will know that covering your face prevents bugs, dirt and small debris hitting their mouth or nose while they are riding. I am an occasional cyclist, and I wear sunglasses and wrap up warm when I am out cycling to protect myself from the glare and debris. It is practical. How would we make that a problem? Why is it a cause for concern? It is practical clothing for people who choose to cycle or scoot. Why are we treating those people as criminals?

There is a separate need for management of micromobility, which has come out in all these discussions. It would be good to hear from the Minister when we might expect some legislation around managing micromobility, the explosion of e-bikes and e-scooters on our streets, and the extension of trial after trial by the previous Government. But this amendment treats all cyclists and those riding scooters as criminals, rather than as individuals dressing for their mode of transport. I hope that the Government will agree with me and these Benches that it is disproportionate and not needed in the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling Amendment 416, which I entirely support. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution.

The amendment, as my noble friend ably set out, would give constables the power to stop individuals cycling while wearing a face covering. Failing to do so would constitute an offence liable to a month’s imprisonment or a fine of up to £1,000. While I know that opposition to this amendment has claimed that this means police powers encroaching into an entirely innocuous activity, it is unfortunately now a necessary measure. What previously would have been a harmless and inoffensive act has been perverted by criminals into a means by which to commit crime and escape justice. We are facing a theft epidemic in this country, largely concentrated in our cities, where youths, often in gangs, shoplift and snatch phones.

Our capital city is now the phone theft capital of Europe, where a phone is snatched every seven and a half minutes. The United Kingdom accounts for almost 40% of all phone thefts on the continent. I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property. The same is true for shoplifting. CCTV footage consistently shows offenders using face coverings to evade detection, then using bikes and scooters to flee the scene. The cost to retailers of this shoplifting inevitably is passed on to consumers, and last year amounted to £2 billion.

The police must have the power to stop these criminals, and this amendment provides the grounds for it. It is often impossible to see where a thief has a stolen item on their possession, so we must look for other pointers as to who is committing these crimes. Allowing the police to intervene when they are in public on a bike or scooter is the next necessary step. It would dramatically increase the chances of victims being returned their stolen property and allow the police to begin to tackle the epidemic that we find ourselves in.

I once again thank my noble friend for her amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for tabling Amendment 416. I recognise the concerns that she set out, and those set out very clearly by the many noble Lords who contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, about the use of bicycles and scooters in facilitating crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Government have committed to the winter of action initiative, which is running from 1 December 2025 to the end of January. This initiative is intended to focus on making town centres across England and Wales safer by building on the safer streets summer initiative and continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, while addressing retail crime and night-time economy offences, particularly during the darker evenings that we have in winter, when there are higher risks to public safety.

I say directly to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that we are setting a framework. We always say, and I think all sides of the Committee agree, that it is for good reasons of operational independence that the police decide their priorities and how they deploy their resources, which will always be scarce however much we want to give them—there will never be enough. These initiatives give us confidence that the police are treating these sorts of offences as a priority and understand the concerns not only of this Committee but across wider society about the sorts of offences that the noble Viscount and other noble Lords set out.

The police do have powers to act here, and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about police powers to stop any vehicles, which is a good point. However, the powers to which I am going to refer are different, and this goes to the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 requires individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas where they are being used for the purposes of concealing their identity and gives police the power to seize the face covering. Areas can be designated when an officer of the rank of at least inspector reasonably believes that crime is likely to take place there. We encourage police forces to make full use of these powers in areas they know to be crime hotspots. This includes any road users or cyclists, including those working for food delivery companies, as my noble friend Lord Shamash set out, when the police have due course, and irrespective of the type of vehicle being used, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, went to some lengths to describe.

In addition, local authorities have powers to make public spaces protection orders, which can prohibit specified acts in designated areas. I understand that a number of local authorities already have in place PSPOs that ban the wearing of face coverings in the area covered by the order, to deal with exactly this kind of anti-social behaviour by Balaclava-wearing cyclists.

This is probably as good a point as any to mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, mentioned live facial recognition. I am not sure that either was in their place for the debate we had in Committee last Thursday, but I reiterate that there is a live consultation on live facial recognition, so I once again encourage noble Lords, if interested, to contribute to that and set out their views on live facial recognition.

There are of course legitimate reasons why cyclists may wear a face covering, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, including health reasons or just to keep out the cold. That is often, but not always, seasonal. Notwithstanding the Stakhanovite efforts made, at least in London by the mayor, to tackle air quality through ULEZ and other measures, it is sometimes about protecting cyclists from inhaling particulates and the like. It would be disproportionate to introduce a blanket prohibition of the kind envisaged by Amendment 416 or, for that matter, to extend the Section 60AA powers, to which I have already referred, to situations where there are no grounds to reasonably believe that criminal activity may take place in a particular location. Given these considerations, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

We are saying here that the requirement to remove this would be accompanied by some sort of reasonable suspicion that that person had been committing a crime, so it is not just a person who has a cough or a cold.

17:15

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I completely agree. I was talking more about the rationale for wearing face coverings. Without too much speculation, one could contend that some seasonal conditions might pertain to somebody wearing a full face covering or a balaclava. More importantly than anything else, this being accompanied by anti-social or suspicious behaviour would give police the rationale to use the powers I have already set out. I am not in any sense trying to make light of or excuse the situations we are talking about. I am just observing that there are reasons why people would wear a partial face covering, such as a mask, when cycling. It was just an observation; I agree with the point the noble Lord made.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the concern across the Committee—it is a serious problem—and for trying out his winter of action. However, I am disappointed by his response. The existing 1994 Act powers and the local authority arrangements he mentioned are too narrow and specific.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that I am not against cyclists or masks. I am trying to make sure that, where they are being used by criminals to hide from the police, it is easier to take action. It is quite a light amendment. It is stop, not search, which we were discussing earlier.

I am grateful for the support I have had from my own Front Bench: from my very experienced noble friend Lord Davies of Gower; from my noble friend Lord Jackson, whose evidence that face coverings in particular are an issue I liked; from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke about the scale of the problem, of which there are lots more examples; and from my noble friend Lord Goschen, who spoke about his concerns around lack of enforcement, which I know the Government are trying to address but which is a serious priority. I appreciated the moral support, if I might put it like that, of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. I will take up his offer to talk to him further about the exact character of this amendment before we get to Report—something may need to be added, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. It sounds as if there is a definite lacuna in relation to e-scooters, presumably because they are not usually regarded as vehicles in all legislation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 416 withdrawn.

Amendment 416A

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

416A: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Review: compliance and enforcement mechanisms in relation to police powers(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a proposal for approval by the House of Commons on the establishment of an independent commission to investigate the enforcement powers of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in relation to the police.(2) The proposal for an independent commission must include terms of reference, which must include, but may not be limited to—(a) a review of the powers available to other independent regulatory and investigative bodies, such as Ofqual, the Care Quality Commission, the Financial Conduct Authority, and Ofsted, for the purposes of comparison,(b) the lessons learned from other regulatory bodies with stronger enforcement powers, and(c) an examination of whether a statutory framework of coordination between HMICFRS, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and Police and Crime Commissioners, could enhance the enforcement powers available to all three sets of bodies and the accountability of policing in England and Wales.(3) The proposal for an independent commission must set out a timetable for its work including that—(a) the commission should conclude its deliberations within nine months of its establishment, and(b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament and ensure that time is made available, within a fortnight of the report being laid, in both Houses for a substantive debate on the report’s conclusions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Government to publish a proposal for an independent commission for approval by the House of Commons to review the enforcement powers of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), including consideration of a statutory framework to enhance the collective enforcement powers of bodies supervising Police Forces in England and Wales.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this is an unusual amendment for me because it is very exploratory. At the end, I am going to ask the Minister three questions, which I would really like an answer to, perhaps in writing if it is not possible today. This amendment is supported by StopWatch, an organisation that seeks accountable and fair policing. This is a crucial element of creating fair policing. When serious problems are found, how confident are we that the system can put them right? The system as it stands is a little jumbled. I suggest that it could do with some streamlining.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services does really important work in shining a light on what is going wrong, but inspection takes us only so far. My amendment asks whether the follow-through is strong enough and whether lessons from other regulated sectors could help turn findings into lasting improvements. In healthcare, education and financial services, regulators are able to require change. Those systems exist because inspection without action does not protect the public. The amendment invites us to consider whether policing oversight could benefit from similar clarity and grip. The amendment also raises the issue of co-ordination. Are HMICFRS, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and police and crime commissioners working together as effectively as they can when forces fail to improve? Would clearer statutory alignment help ensure that warnings are acted on and not simply repeated?

Where concerns about proportionality and legitimacy keep resurfacing, it is right to ask whether the oversight framework is strong enough to drive change. As this Bill and others give more and more power to the police, this is the perfect time to ask. I would welcome the Minister’s response on three points. First, how do the Government judge whether inspection findings are actually leading to improvement on the ground? Secondly, have the Government considered whether closer co-operation between oversight bodies could strengthen accountability? Thirdly, are there lessons from other regulatory systems that the Government believe policing can learn from? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to continuing this discussion as the Bill progresses.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment. Noble Lords will recall my work on a particular police force and abnormal loads. I am confused that it was the chief inspector who informed the Home Secretary that there was a big problem. I am grateful to her for dealing with it, but I thought that the IOPC was responsible for dealing with misconduct and that the chief inspector was looking more at efficiency and the proper use of resources. It would be extremely useful to the Committee if the Minister could explain where the dividing line is between the activities of the IOPC, which I see as being concerned with conduct and discipline, and of the chief inspector, who is concerned more about efficiency.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment rightly exposes a serious weakness in our current system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, points out, HMICFRS can diagnose deep-seated problems within police forces but it does not have the power to make sure these problems are fixed. There are simply too few national levers to deal with police underperformance. Labour’s manifesto included a clear commitment to give HMICFRS new powers to intervene in failing forces, and Ministers have signalled that they want to legislate to do this. We welcome that, but the Bill contains no such clause. I appreciate that a White Paper might be imminent. Even so, I urge the Government not to miss this golden opportunity to legislate now for clear, time-bound duties and proper escalation mechanisms, so that police forces are required to act on inspectorate findings.

Amendment 416A seeks to take the Government further by building this question into a wider statutory review of policing oversight. We support that intention, but we part company with the noble Baroness on the mechanism she proposes. Setting up yet another independent commission, with the terms of reference to be devised by the Secretary of State, approved by the Commons and then followed by nine months of deliberation, risks delaying change for at least another year. The evidence base is already substantial. What is missing is not diagnosis but the authority to enforce it. The noble Baroness is quite right that enforcement is a wider problem, one that extends beyond HMICFRS to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, where lessons are not always learned, to put it mildly. I agree with the spirit of co-ordination, but we must remember that the IOPC’s role is distinct—to oversee complaints and investigate the most serious misconduct. It is not, and should not become, a general performance regulator for police forces. That role properly lies with HMICFRS and, ultimately, with Ministers.

From these Benches, our preference is clear: do not commission another review and, instead, move directly and decisively to give the inspectorate the power it so clearly needs. For too long, we have had excellent reports, full of well-reasoned recommendations, almost all accepted by the police and the Government, but nothing happens. That inaction is rarely followed up. Measures that ensure that we no longer see the same failures repeated again and again would be very welcome.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing forward Amendment 416A. While I recognise the intention to ensure that policing is subject to effective scrutiny and that regulatory bodies have the tools they need to drive improvement, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, nor do I think it would represent a proportionate or effective use of time and resources. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services already plays a well-established role in ensuring accountability. It has extensive powers to inspect, report and make recommendations, and these reports are published and robust. They are laid before Parliament and used by the Home Office and policing bodies to drive reform. Where forces fall short, the existing framework already enables escalation, follow-up inspections and external pressure.

I was also worried that this amendment risks duplicating work already being carried out within existing structures. The policing oversight landscape includes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, police and crime commissioners and parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees. Co-ordination between these bodies is important, and I suggest it would be more constructive to ensure the better use of these mechanisms rather than create a new independent commission.

It is also worth noting the practical burden imposed by this amendment. It would require the Government to establish a commission, set detailed terms of reference, run a comparative review across multiple regulators, and timetable parliamentary debates in both Houses within a very tight timeframe. That is a significant undertaking that may not be justified, given the absence of clear evidence that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services lacks the necessary authority to fulfil its core function. For those reasons, while I very much respect the motivation behind the amendment, I do not believe it necessary or proportionate and therefore cannot support it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendment 416A. It gives me an opportunity, if nothing else, to pay tribute to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services for the work it does; she was right to point out its professionalism. Moreover, I want to pay tribute to the current chief inspector, Sir Andy Cooke, who has announced his intention to retire in March. He has served as chief inspector with distinction, has 40 years of service to policing and was Chief Constable of Merseyside. I hope that your Lordships’ House will join me in thanking Sir Andy for his dedicated service.

The Police Act 1996 requires His Majesty’s inspectorate to publish an inspection programme and an inspection framework which, following consultation, are laid before Parliament. The latest versions of these were put before the House on 4 March 2025. As part of its work, HMICFRS inspects every police force as part of its Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy programme, and gives the force a grading on a series of indicators. All these findings are published and are available to chief constables, local policing bodies, the PCC, the public and, importantly, Ministers. HMICFRS also publishes a number of thematic reports covering every aspect of policing, and these form a useful tool for the policing sector to drive performance.

I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that recommendations made by HMICFRS do not just sit on the shelf, are taken seriously and are implemented, and that those affected make sure that the public are receiving the best possible service as a whole. It is important that the three points she mentioned are examined: inspection findings, closer co-operation, and lessons learned. She quoted to the Committee the manifesto, in which we did say we would give HMICFRS new powers to intervene with failing forces. She is right to point to the fact that there is a police White Paper, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, which is expected to be published shortly. By shortly—I know this is always a topic of interest to the Committee— I do mean shortly in this case. I encourage your Lordships to study that document carefully when it is published, because it contains a wide-ranging set of proposals for improving policing in England and Wales. I hope it will go some way toward shining a light, at least, on the three questions the noble Baroness has put to the Committee today.

17:30

I cannot comment on or pre-empt the detail of the White Paper now, because that would be a breach of protocol. But I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that we will clearly examine those issues. We will take steps to enhance the powers of HMICFRS to ensure that its recommendations are properly acted on and indeed taken forward. In addition, we will examine how we can make recommendations more effective as part of the police reform work, ensuring that the key policing bodies’ expertise—the co-operation the noble Baroness asked for—is acted on to drive performance. I look forward to that very shortly and, ahead of the White Paper being implemented, I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Will the White Paper deal with action rather than consultation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The White Paper will set out a number of proposals that the Government intend to bring forward in policy, legislation or executive action. There are a number of areas around police efficiency—what is done centrally and what is done locally, how it is done centrally and how it is done locally—that will form part of the wider debate on the police White Paper. The noble and learned Baroness will not have long to wait for the police White Paper. When it does come, undoubtedly there will be a Statement in the House of Commons and, as ever, I will have to repeat the Statement here in this House. There will be an opportunity to look at that direction of travel and how, importantly, we are going to implement the measures that we are putting in the White Paper, which, again, will be produced very shortly. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Baroness any more comfort than that.

I share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that the proposal in the amendment would kick this matter of efficiency, co-ordination, performance and implementation further down the line than is already planned with our police White Paper proposals very shortly. So I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on the basis of those comments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I take to heart the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Of course I want fast action. I want it all and I want it now—that is my motto for life. It seems that this Committee is always hearing, “Oh, it’s all right, the Government’s dealing with this but you can have it shortly”. It does not matter whether it is talking about protest law or this particular point about accountability and action; there is always a White Paper coming along and we are going to have to wait for that, and why are we doing this Bill now if we do not have all the information we need? Anyway, I do note the Minister’s good intentions, I very much hope to see them put into action, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 416A withdrawn.

Amendments 416B to 416D not moved.

Amendment 416E

Moved by

[Lord Young of Acton]

416E: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of non-crime hate incidents(1) Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (code of practice relating to non-crime hate incidents and related procedural requirements) are repealed.(2) Non-crime hate incidents shall not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom.(3) No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a non-crime hate incident.(4) Subsection (3) does not mean a police authority or police officer cannot record information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motives in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.(5) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, any police authority which has retained any record of a non-crime hate incident, save in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4), must delete such record.(6) For the purposes of this section—“non-crime hate incident” means any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity;“police authority” means a person specified in sub-section 158(1);“police officer” means any person acting under the authority a police authority.”

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union, which has been campaigning against non-crime hate incidents for at least five years.

I thought it might be helpful to begin with a definition of what an NCHI is. The amendment itself says that it is

“any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity”.

How many of these incidents have been recorded by the police since the concept of NCHIs was introduced by the College of Policing in 2014? The Telegraph submitted an FoI request to all 43 police forces in England and Wales in early 2020, and 34 of the 43 —about three-quarters of the police forces in England and Wales—responded and disclosed that 119,934 NCHIs had been recorded in England and Wales in the five years from 2014 to 2019. By my calculation, that is an average of 65 a day—and remember, that that is just in England and Wales, and just three-quarters of the real total. There is no reason to think that the number being recorded every day by police forces in England and Wales has declined from that average of 65 since then, in the subsequent six years.

How long does it take the police? How many police hours are spent recording NCHIs? Policy Exchange published a report last November in which it concluded that the police spend 60,000 hours a year—again, that is just the police in England and Wales—investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents. If you factor in that they have been around since 2014, that means the police have spent at least 660,000 hours investigating and recording non-crimes since 2014.

What sort of incidents are we talking about? “Non-crime hate incident” sounds quite serious. I will give just a handful of examples. A man had an NCHI recorded against him after a neighbour complained that his whistling the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” was racist. A woman had an NCHI recorded against her name because she posted on X that she thought her cat was a Methodist. A nine year-old girl had an NCHI recorded against her because she called another girl in the school playground a “retard”. Two secondary school pupils had NCHIs recorded against them for saying about another girl, again in the school playground, that she smelled like fish. This is the kind of thing that the police have been spending 660,000 hours investigating and recording since 2014.

Incidentally, I know of at least one Member of this House who has had an NCHI recorded against her, and a Conservative Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, had an NCHI recorded against her because of a complaint made about the contents of her speech at a Conservative Party conference that she was addressed in her capacity as Home Secretary.

So it seems that it is not terribly difficult to make the argument that the police have been wasting a huge amount of time investigating and recording relatively trivial incidents. Again, I stress that the definition says that if it is merely “perceived”, not just by the “victim” but by any person, as being motivated by hostility or prejudice towards the “victim’s” protected characteristics, it can be recorded as an NCHI. Sometimes, when NCHIs are recorded, the person against whom the NCHI is recorded is not informed—so you might well have an NCHI recorded against you without knowing it.

All this sounds quite trivial, but having an NCHI recorded against your name can be quite serious, because chief constables, at their discretion, can disclose the fact that an NCHI has been recorded against a person when they apply for a job that requires them to do an enhanced DBS check. So, you can end up not getting a job as a teacher or a carer, or a voluntary position with a charity such as the Samaritans, because you have an NCHI recorded against your name.

I will just point out one more, I think unintended, consequence of the NCHI regime, which is that records are deleted after six years. So if you have an NCHI recorded against you at the age of 17, it remains on what is in effect your criminal record until you are 23, whereas quite serious criminal offences, if you are convicted, are spent when you reach the age of majority. The fact that you have committed a non-crime can hang about your neck like a bad smell long after you have reached the age of majority, even if it was recorded against you when you were a child. So, in some senses, not committing a crime and having that recorded against you can have more serious consequences than committing quite a serious crime and being convicted of it.

I believe that I am pushing at an open door. A report on NCHIs has been commissioned by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. They have published a provisional version of the report, in which they declare the NCHI regime unfit for purpose. I do not think that they have submitted the final report to the Home Secretary yet, but I know that, when they do, the Home Secretary is likely to take up the recommendations, and I think we will see the end of the NCHI regime.

I have four issues on which I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance. The first is that, as I understand it, the new regime will be that incidents are no longer recorded as non-crime hate incidents; some cases will be recorded as anti-social behaviour incidents, but they will not be logged on the police national database. I ask for the Minister’s assurance that anti-social behaviour incidents that would have been recorded as NCHIs under the old regime will not, unlike NCHIs, be recorded on the police national database.

I also ask for the Minister’s assurance that, once the new regime is in place, previous NCHIs recorded under the old regime will be deleted and will not hang around for six years as they do currently, given that there is acceptance that the regime is not fit for purpose. If the regime is not fit for purpose, I hope the Minister can assure us that existing NCHIs—it is not inconceivable that they number in the hundreds of thousands—will be deleted. Finally, I seek reassurance that these anti-social behaviour incidents will not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks.

I hope that the review by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be submitted and digested in time for the new regime to be put in place on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.

Non-crime hate recording had an honourable start, following on from the Macpherson inquiry. There were two problems at the time. The first was that recordable crime was lower than it should have been because it was not being recorded accurately, due to misrecording and it sometimes not being recorded at all. This was linked to police performance being measured by the amount of crime in society. Therefore, the police service was incentivised to record less rather than more crime, thereby, ironically, undermining its own bid for more resourcing.

The murder of Stephen Lawrence showed us that, sometimes, before a crime is committed, there are signals that someone may be a racist, for example, and that, if we take the right action, we could prevent those crimes occurring and someone getting hurt or any other crime being committed. That system worked well at the start, because it allowed the police to collect intelligence and spot patterns—for example, by geography, suspect or victims. That relied on the basic repeat offender victim location theory, which shows that 10% of repeat offenders can account for over half of some crimes.

The problem is that the same system is now being used to police the social harms caused by causing offence. Causing offence is not a crime. The internet amplifies the problem—first, because it has a permanent record of the offensive but not criminal behaviour, and, secondly, because it allows millions of people, sometimes worldwide, to see the communication. For everybody involved, it is then very hard to ignore. This has led to some bizarre police interventions—the noble Lord, Lord Young, has already mentioned some—on issues that are not crimes or even non-crime hate. The public have juxtaposed these with significant complaints—such as shoplifting, car theft and other serious crimes—that, meanwhile, the police say they are too busy to deal with, even when a suspect is available to arrest. The two issues do not sit well together.

There is a need to record intelligence about incidents that may later become significant if crimes are committed. This can be on the police command and control log, where the incident can be given an anti-social behaviour coding, or on the criminal intelligence system. The problem arises if the name of a person who is said to have caused offence is recorded. In my view, if the police say that they will record what is being alleged because someone has called the control room and they need to log all calls—the police later denying that a call had come in would not be sensible—then it is necessary to record those incidents in the control room. However, if, on the face of what a person tells the police, they see no crime or incident, they will not investigate and will not record the name of the person the caller says has offended them.

17:45

There may be times when the police need to attend an incident to verify, as I have just discussed, whether a crime has or has not been committed. If they visit and conclude that the police should never have been involved in the first place, there is still no need to record a suspect’s name. The police need to be advised that, where their judgment is that there is no criminal offence or any other police matter, then they do not need to visit the person who is said to have caused the insult that has been alleged.

A lot of these incidents—and the aggravation—have been amplified by at least one officer, and sometimes multiple officers, attending to talk to the person who has not committed an offence. If you receive a visit from the police, all you can conclude is that the police are investigating—why would you not?—and everybody in the street will perhaps think the same thing too.

The police need a bit of confidence here to say, in short, “We are having nothing to do with this issue”. The only fallback is that, if there is an imminent threat of a breach of the peace, they may wish to warn all the parties about their future behaviour. But many of these incidents are transpiring on the internet. The person involved is often many miles away, sometimes in another part of the world. Generally speaking, the risk of a meeting, or of anything else happening, is nil. We need to keep practicality and pragmatism in mind.

We are left asking the question: why did the police get drawn into this area? I would say that there are three broad reasons. The first, as I have commented on already, is the rise of the internet. The second is a growing feeling that anyone who causes an insult needs to be blamed. The police are the 24-hour social engineers who are available and can help, and so they get the complaint. The link to the recording of crime, which I mentioned earlier, is the third reason. I urge the Minister to treat this as being of equal importance to the removing of non-crime hate incidents.

As the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, the rules say that, if someone alleges a non-crime hate incident or perceives one to have been committed, these things must be recorded. The rules also say that, if a crime is alleged, that has to be recorded as soon as possible—in fact, within 24 hours—even if, objectively, a crime has not been committed. It is recorded as a crime and then later de-recorded if the facts show that a crime has not been committed—for example, someone reports a wallet stolen but eventually finds it, meaning that it was never stolen, so it is recorded as a crime and then de-recorded as a crime.

The problem with this approach is that the police are so worried that the inspectorates and others will accuse them of fraudulently not recording crime that they record crime even where they do not believe there to have been a crime. I am afraid that this attitude has affected the way non-crime hate is recorded. We have had overrecording of both, and even investigations of social disputes that have nothing to do with crime at all. The HMIC has even found that officers, knowing that something is not a crime, have recorded a non-crime hate incident on the crime system to cover their backs, for the reasons that I have already explained. Everybody is rushing around saying, “Why didn’t you record it? Why didn’t you do something about it?” The easiest way is to record it, and then de-record it should something prove that it did not happen. Really, they should have said in the first place, “We are doing nothing and are not going to record anything, other than the initial contact”, as I have mentioned already.

In my view, this is our chance to reduce people being wrongly investigated and recorded as having committed crime or non-crime hate; to reintroduce more confident policing, able to say that this is not for the police; to free up police resources by reducing bureaucracy and the time that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, has already been spent on this; and, finally, but most importantly, to improve confidence in our police service.

As I have already said, I advise the Government to look at the presumption that crime will be recorded even if the police do not believe that a crime has been committed. This is one of the causes of the problem we are discussing. Frankly, if it is not resolved, I guarantee that we will be back looking at this in a few years’ time. For that reason, I support the amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I also very much support this amendment as, I hope, a nudge towards an opening door that the Government are already looking at. Following on from the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, it seems that, quite apart from the recipients of these NCHIs, there are two further issues: the waste of time and the waste of money. The police are always short of money and of time. That is obvious and has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Hogan-Howe. If this was removed, they could get on and do their job. They would save a great deal of money and something even more important, because they would be dealing with the crimes that people really need them to deal with.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this is already proving to be a crucial debate in the passage of this Bill. I support Amendment 416E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Strasburger is unable to be with us to support the amendment, which he has signed, but I hope that I reflect his views in speaking today.

Non-crime hate incidents, although born from the well-intentioned Macpherson report in 1993—which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, called “an honourable start”—have morphed into a mechanism that frequently harasses and silences legitimate debate. In doing so, they consume prodigious quantities of police time, as we have heard—time that is desperately needed to investigate the crimes that we have discussed throughout Committee. Non-crime hate incidents, which started from benign motivations in 1993, have morphed into an ugly and frequently used technique for harassing and silencing somebody whose views the complainant does not like. In the process, prodigious quantities of police time are being wasted on non-criminal matters, meaning that real crimes that would otherwise be investigated are being ignored.

The seeds of what has gone wrong were sown by the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The inquiry concluded that a racist incident should be defined as being

“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

In essence, that means that anyone—whether involved in an incident or not, whether a reasonable person or otherwise—would be able to determine that an incident, no matter how harmless, was racist in nature. The inquiry went on to recommend that

“the term ‘racist incident’ must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment”.

It is remarkable that the inquiry concluded that incidents which are not criminal offences as defined by Parliament should be investigated by the police with equal vigour as those which are criminal offences. That raises fundamental questions about the purpose of the police and what their priorities should be, particularly in a world of potentially limitless demand and highly constrained resource.

Nevertheless, Macpherson’s recommendations relating to racist incidents and their recording were rapidly accepted and implemented by the police and government. Following a 2006 review by Sir Adrian Fulford, a shared definition of hate crimes and non-crime hate incidents was adopted across the criminal justice system, including by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. This expanded the recording of NCHIs beyond purely racist incidents to cover all those characteristics that are covered by hate crime legislation in England and Wales—race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Key to the expansion of alleged NCHIs was the creation, in 2014, of the College of Policing’s Hate Crime Operational Guidance for police forces. Perhaps recognising that the guidance was likely to cause grave concerns to many, the College of Policing made a pre-emptive defence of their policy, saying:

“The recording of, and response to, non-crime hate incidents does not have universal support in society. Some people use this as evidence to accuse the police of becoming ‘the thought police’, trying to control what citizens think or believe, rather than what they do”.


The guidance goes on to say, in relation to hate incidents:

“Where any person, including police personnel, reports a hate incident which would not be the primary responsibility of another agency, it must be recorded regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.


The use of “must” in the guidance leaves no latitude for police discretion or the balancing of rights exercise, which would be necessary in considering the subject’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

With the advent of social media, the number of NCHIs being recorded has rocketed. Policy Exchange reported in 2024 that over 13,000 are being logged annually in England and Wales, consuming 60,000 police hours a year. Some keyboard warriors with an axe to grind have made a full-time occupation out of submitting prolific quantities of NCHI complaints with little or no justification. These include a disgraced former policeman who prodigiously exploits the system to frequently harass his political opponents. Some incidents have hit the press, such as when Graham Linehan, the co-creator of “Father Ted”, was arrested on the tarmac at Heathrow over an NCHI.

However, many victims of spurious NCHIs are not even aware that a complaint has been logged against their name. One campaigner found out only when the complainant launched a judicial review of the police’s refusal to take the matter further. As we have heard, the impact of having an unproven NCHI secretly logged against your name can be severe and mean that you are refused a visa to visit certain countries, including America, or that you fail an enhanced DBS check for a job in areas such as education or health.

Freedom of information requests to 43 police forces found zero examples of NCHIs preventing crime. The Metropolitan Police announced last October that it has stopped investigating NCHIs entirely. Last month, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing reported to the Government that NCHIs are “not fit for purpose”.

NCHIs must go. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, stated during our debates on the seventh day in Committee that the College of Policing is reviewing this guidance and that we would see this review before Report. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that review will address the chilling effect on free speech identified in the Miller judgment and whether he accepts that the police must prioritise actual criminality over the recording of NCHIs.

I support this amendment as a necessary check on the expansion of the surveillance state. When will the Government act to abolish NCHIs? If the Minister cannot answer that question, we will have to return to this matter on Report.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests that I am chair of the College of Policing.

As I said at Second Reading, we need to remember that there were benign reasons for the introduction of this regime over three decades ago; what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in this regard was helpful. The purpose was to ensure that the police would pursue intelligence that could build a pattern of behaviour that would result in harm to an individual. That was the case not just in relation to the dreadful murder of Stephen Lawrence but subsequently in the case of Fiona Pilkington, where a repeated pattern of anti-social behaviour had been ignored. It was not criminal behaviour—it fell below that threshold—but it nevertheless resulted in a tragic loss of life.

Nevertheless, as has been noted, there has been considerable change over that three decades, with the advent of social media, smartphones and a much more contested policy space in many of the areas relating to hate crimes or alleged hate crimes. There is the risk of a number of consequences. Those have been drawn attention to by noble Lords, but they include the chilling effect on free speech, the tying up of resources unnecessarily —I will come to that—and, I suggest, at least as serious, damage to the reputation of the police, if it is perceived that they are prioritising the wrong things and getting themselves involved in matters that they should not be.

18:00

For all those reasons, in July last year, the College of Policing, at my instigation, together with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office, agreed the terms of reference for a review of the non-crime hate incident regime. An interim report was published in October 2025. It is available to read, but the conclusion was that the regime is not fit for purpose. The final report will go to the Home Secretary shortly and it will then, I must emphasise, be a matter for the Home Secretary to decide what the new regime should look like.

In short, the report proposes to end the use of police crime systems for recording non-crime incidents. That effectively abolishes the regime of non-crime hate incidents altogether. Incidents recorded as anti-social behaviour hostility would be recorded on intelligence systems, but only if they meet a very high threshold where there is genuine harm or risk within communities. The totality of that change would free up resources; it would prevent the police being drawn into areas that they should not be. It would, in short, be a sea-change in the way in which these matters are dealt with, and it would see an end to the current regime of non-crime hate incidents entirely.

I believe that there is a considerable amount of common ground in this matter. There is the issue that my noble friend Lord Young of Acton raised, in relation to record retention. He suggested that those non-crime hate incidents that have currently been recorded should immediately be removed. That, I must emphasise, would be a matter for the Home Office to decide, although that has not happened in relation to previous changes of criminal offences.

I should emphasise that the threshold for disclosure in relation to enhanced DBS checks, which was the particular concern that my noble friend raised, is exceptionally high. We know that fewer than 1% of DBS certificates currently include non-conviction data at all. In the review, we have so far been entirely unable to discover any incidence of a non-crime hate incident being disclosed for the purpose of an enhanced DBS check. So, although there is a suggested risk, it does not appear that it is a substantive risk, because of the bar being so high.

I want to note that non-crime hate incidents form a tiny part of the non-crime demand that is placed on the police service. In the review, 33 forces were looked at and it was discovered that, last year, there were something over 7,000 non-crime hate incidents recorded by those forces—which accords with the figures that have been suggested by my noble friend and others—for the entirety of policing. That compares with over 1 million incidents of anti-social behaviour recorded by the police. Those are not crimes, either, but it was nevertheless deemed important that they were noted. It is less than 1% of that number, and the Metropolitan Police, who have now said that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents, say that those incidents account for 0.05% of their overall demand.

So it is important that we understand this in context. One prominent politician has used the catchphrase that the police should be “policing the streets and not tweets”. That is a very good phrase, but I do not think it is the case that, in the main, the police are doing that. There have been some examples of clumsy police action in relation to social media. Some of those examples do not relate to non-crime hate incidents at all.

The example that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised in relation to the comedian Graham Linehan, was not a non-crime hate incident. It was an investigation of a hate crime. Whether that investigation and the interview of Mr Linehan were appropriate is another matter entirely, but it was not a non-crime hate incident. Nor was the notorious incident where police knocked on the door of a Daily Telegraph journalist, Allison Pearson, on Remembrance Sunday. Whatever the merits of the police doing that—and I suggest that it was extremely unwise—it was not a non-crime hate incident that they were investigating.

Sometimes, the perceived ills of policing and the failure in many circumstances to attend to the kinds of issues that they should be attending to—that issue has been raised as well—are often laid at the door of the regime of non-crime hate incidents. I suggest that that is disproportionate but nevertheless damaging in terms of the perception of the police and their priorities.

That is why it is so important that this regime should fundamentally be changed, and it is why I think the thrust of my noble friend Lord Young’s amendment —that the regime should be abolished and a better one put in place—is correct. But I will just conclude by emphasising that it is important that the police are able to track patterns of hate that may be emerging in communities that threaten those communities and individuals with harm.

If any of us had any doubt about that, we should consider an issue that has been preoccupying this House, which is the rise of antisemitism and the importance of picking that up and ensuring that individuals are not targeted and that they are prevented from harm. It was precisely that kind of rising hate that this regime was originally put in place to prevent.

It is perfectly possible to take sensible steps to have an entirely different and new regime that will see these matters dealt with properly and will remove the police from getting involved in matters that I do not believe they want to be involved in. But do not let us throw out the baby with the bathwater or believe that the police should not, in some circumstances but far fewer that we have now, be recording matters that are drawn to their attention where hatred is involved.

I emphasise finally that these are matters for the Government, ultimately, in my view, to decide. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to rise to support my noble friend Lord Young of Acton’s excellent Amendment 416E, which seeks to abolish the non-crime hate incident regime, which is long overdue. The principle at stake is quite simple and fundamental. The state must not brand people as potential wrongdoers when no criminal offence has been committed. So I congratulate my noble friend on moving the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, whose masterful speech made an absolutely compelling case for the immediate abolition of this obnoxious regime.

I am delighted to hear the wise words of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, in his role as chair of the College of Policing. If it looks like, as the noble Lord said, the regime is not fit for purpose, and if that report gets to the Home Office before Report, we want amendments on Report to abolish it, rather than putting it out to consultation for another three months to decide whether to do it in some future criminal justice Bill. If it is not fit for purpose now, it should not be fit for purpose a moment longer than necessary.

For far too long, under all Governments, this gross abuse of our fundamental freedoms has been tolerated. I cannot count the number of times I have heard police and Ministers justify it on the basis that it is an essential intelligence-gathering tool which would be helpful in heading off future crimes. I strongly believe in intelligence-led policing and recording secretly any information on potential criminal activity. But it is not intelligence if you record it on a database and give it to prospective employers with, in the immortal words of Monty Python, a “nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more” sort of thing.

Recent reporting makes this danger painfully clear. As my noble friend said, we now have the documented cases of a nine year-old boy logged for calling another pupil a retard; two schoolgirls accused of saying someone else smelled like fish; and the extraordinary case of Harry Miller, a former police officer, who was visited at work by Humberside Police because he tweeted this joke:

“I was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish”—


it is not a very funny joke, but nevertheless—which the force recorded as a non-crime hate incident until the High Court ruled its actions a “disproportionate interference” with his freedom of expression, and rightly so.

The case of Allison Pearson was mentioned by my noble friend: the national newspaper columnist had police officers knock on her door on Remembrance Sunday to accuse her of “stirring up racial hatred” over a tweet she had already deleted. It was never told what she was being investigated for, because no offence had been committed. A person who has committed no crime can be questioned, placed on a police record and left with a stain that follows them into job applications, community life and future interactions with the state.

This is not a harmless administrative note. A police record, even where no offence has been committed, can surface in enhanced checks, damage careers and stigmatise people in their communities. It creates a two-tier system of reputational punishment: one for those convicted of crimes and another, less visible but no less damaging, for those who have merely expressed opinions or made mistakes. That is a grave injustice. The state must not be in the business of branding citizens as potential wrongdoers when no criminality has been established. Recording non-criminal speech as a hate incident treats lawful expression as if it were a criminal matter.

This practice chills debate, deters whistleblowers and journalists, and discourages civic participation. It stops harmless jokes and humour. If this system had existed 30 years ago in the British Army, hundreds of thousands of sergeant-majors would have had millions of records against them, because the wonderful terms of abuse and insults they had for us when we got our marching wrong and made mistakes were absolutely astronomical. I do not think we suffered any harm because of those jokes and humour at our expense.

Amendment 416E restores the proper boundary between policing and free expression. It does not prevent the police investigating genuine criminal offences or using intelligence proportionately where there is a real threat to safety. What it does is prevent the indefinite administrative stigmatisation of people who have committed no crime. It protects employment prospects, reputations and the right to speak without fear of being treated as a suspect.

To me, the key subsection is not on stopping them doing it in future but on purging current records, as proposed new subsection (5) says:

“Within three months of the coming into force of this section, any police authority which has retained any record of a non-crime hate incident, save in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4), must delete such record”.


I agree entirely, but I warn noble Lords that the police, in many cases, will try not to do it. They will find every excuse to hang on to that database and not delete it immediately.

I have tremendous respect for the police and the brave work they do on our behalf, and I pay tribute to the 4,000 officers killed in the last 200 years, since the first salaried officers went on duty. All the police I have ever met have wanted to save lives, crack down on crime and keep the King’s peace—but if you gave them a completely free hand, they would want to collect from every person over the age of five their fingerprints, DNA and biometric data and use them to stop crime. They would succeed—it would make a tremendous difference—but I think that is not the sort of society we want to allow. Therefore, we should not permit the retention of data on individuals who have not committed any crime.

I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, said about recording. When I heard the Metropolitan Police commissioner say a few weeks ago that it was not going to investigate non-crime hate incidents and was just going to record them, I thought, “Hang on”. That means that if someone accuses someone else of being racist, the police will not investigate to see whether it is right or wrong but will still record it as a crime. If keeping it recorded means in the call centre, on the record, that is okay, but it should not be recorded on any other database if it is not actually a crime.

I conclude by saying that this reform is practical. As my noble friend said, police resources are finite. Recording and managing non-crime entries diverts police officers from investigating real criminality and protecting victims. If the state wants to monitor tensions, it can do so through proportionate, anonymised intelligence and community safety work, not by placing individuals on quasi-criminal registers for conduct that is lawful. I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I support what my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs said about the College of Policing saying it is not fit for purpose. I therefore look forward to a commitment from the Minister that we will have an amendment on Report that implements what my noble friend Lord Young has said in Amendment 416E.

[Lord Kempsell (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a freelance journalist and, therefore, somebody who has a very great care for freedom of speech. What a pleasure it is to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which so brilliantly summarised all the reasons there are to support Amendment 416E in the name of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.

18:15

What a silver lining it is to the political rain cloud of the Government that it seems we are pushing at an open door with this amendment and the Government are minded to scrap this regime, which has done so much—as we have heard in brilliant speeches—to frustrate the policing effect sought by the public from police forces and, generally, to reduce confidence in freedom of speech in the public square in this country.

I will restrict myself to asking the Minister only a few questions about how the Government will treat any future regime to replace NCHIs. First, what assurance can he give that, in any future regime, the Government will have given thought to the application of a common-sense regime across police force areas? I think it is fair to say that in the implementation of NCHIs there has been a difference, as always, in the degree of zealotry between the application in different forces. Secondly, what can he do to ensure that the NCHI regime will not be replaced by, in effect, a similar regime but in another name? The forthcoming report from the College of Policing may well throw further light on policy options there.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the excellent amendment of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. I declare an interest as a paid-up member of the Free Speech Union.

I was brought up in Plumstead in south-east London, as was Stephen Lawrence. I can absolutely understand the horror and the imperative for action that arose from the disgraceful racist murder of that young man in 1993: there was a clamour to tackle the culture that gave rise to five racist thugs taking that young man’s life. That is a very important context, but I am afraid that things have developed in a way that we did not foresee way back in 1993.

In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of the remarks of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, in 2024:

“I had to look up what on earth the term”—


non-crime hate incidents—

“meant—I was puzzled by it”.

Coming from the DPP, that reveals a lot about what a strange anomaly NCHIs have been.

The idea that there is a kind of police record that can result in ordinary people who have committed no crime being visited by police at their home or workplace because an investigation has been launched into whether their views or attitudes may one day lead to criminal activity should be seen as entirely incongruent with British justice and freedom of expression. It brings to mind the film “Minority Report” and the fictional idea of pre-crime. But this is not fiction: it is the real world. The idea that, in the real world, a person could lose their job because an NCHI shows up on an enhanced DBS check ought to be anathema to us.

Mention was made earlier of Allison Pearson. My noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs is absolutely right: it was the Communications Act or another piece of legislation that was involved when Essex Police visited her on Remembrance Sunday 2024. She has nevertheless raised the public profile of the impact of NCHIs on people and, for that, we should thank her, as we should Harry Miller and others.

The Times reported that year that 13,200 NCHIs were recorded by 45 police forces in the 12 months to June 2024. That includes allegations against doctors, vicars, social workers and even primary school children. As we have heard, Policy Exchange calculated that this had amounted to at least 60,000 hours of officer time. It surely was never a defensible use of police time, especially while so many serious crimes such as burglaries and sexual offences remain unsolved and uninvestigated. There are too many stories to tell, but one elderly woman was shocked to find herself the subject of an NCHI after taking a photograph of a sticker which read: “Keep males out of women-only spaces”. She did not even put the sticker up; she just took a photo of it. The 73 year-old received a visit from police officers after she was caught on CCTV taking the photo of the sticker, which someone had put up on an LGBT Pride poster. She said she agreed with its sentiments and wanted to show it to her partner. Apparently, the police thought this made her a likely future criminal.

My noble friend Lord Herbert said that these cases have been bad for public confidence in the service, and he is right. It is therefore welcome that over the last year or so there has been a growing realisation and consensus in the Government that there is a need to address the problem. In particular, I welcome the recent press reports that the college and the NPCC are set to recommend scrapping non-crime hate incidents as a result of the review.

My noble friend Lord Herbert has promised that there will be a sea change. We must wait and see the final detail on how the changes are delivered in practice. I say this partly because what we are attempting to do in turning policing away from an excessive focus on what we might call DEI issues towards the criminal matters that the public care about goes against the grain of the last two decades of police culture. We have seen before how difficult this is to uproot. The previous Government published new statutory guidance on NCHIs in 2023. Training should have been given to call handlers on the raised thresholds and common-sense tests, and we should have seen a reduction in the number of non-crime hate incidents recorded, but, sadly, the report published the following year by His Majesty’s inspectorate, An Inspection into Activism and Impartiality in Policing, concluded that there was

“inconsistency in the way forces have responded to the new guidance”

and that

“We often found that call takers hadn’t received training about NCHIs, and had limited, if any, knowledge”


of the statutory guidance.

First, can the Minister say how we will ensure that police training on the new regime is not undercut by an obsession with DEI issues and the politicisation of policing which has clouded police judgments too often in recent years? Secondly, we need to see a clearer commitment from the Government on how they plan to respond to the NPCC report and what the timelines will be. I know there are ongoing reviews into police discretion and hate crime, and I particularly welcome the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, of hate crime legislation. I hope that he will feel emboldened to address one of the more fundamental issues; namely, the injustice resulting from the creation of a hierarchy of victims by legislating for certain protected characteristics rather than treating all victims equally.

However, these ongoing reviews should not be an excuse for inaction. Will the Minister make the commitment that, should the NCHI review require primary legislation to implement its recommendations, this will be done via amendments on Report—a point made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—preferably adopting my noble friend’s carefully crafted amendment?

While I understand the previous Government’s decision to introduce statutory guidance via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 as a first step towards introducing some common sense in this area, it had the unfortunate consequence of providing a statutory basis for recording NCHIs. If this is to be corrected, the law will need to change.

Again, the devil will be in the detail. The NPCC’s final report has not yet been published, but it did publish a progress report last October. There were a number of points where I would want to see improvements in the final report before I could feel confident that the new system will avoid the pitfalls of the current regime. One of those relates to the NPCC’s recommendation that the Home Office introduce a new national standard of incident recording. As I alluded to earlier, the current threshold, which dates back to 2011, is too low and does not adequately cater for contemporary policing demands.

We ought to think carefully, too, about any new definition. The current draft proposition put forward by the NPCC defines an incident as

“a single distinct event or occurrence which may be relevant to policing for preventing or solving crime, safeguarding individuals or communities or fulfilling other statutory policing purposes”.

This helpfully makes it clear that there needs to be a clear policing purpose for this data to be recorded. I am concerned about the words “may be relevant”. At the very least, would it not be better for it to say, “likely to be relevant”? My concern is that an activist police officer would record practically anything on the basis of “may”. We all know hoarders—the kind of people who keep everything because they tell themselves it may be useful in the future.

Finally, we need greater clarity on enhanced DBS checks. The progress report recommends that the Home Office consider whether there needs to be further guidance, but key questions are ignored. Will the police delete NCHIs that they have already recorded, and will the new anti-social behaviour incidents be disclosable in enhanced DBS checks? I am pleased to support this very good and sensible amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Hogan-Howe, for leading on this. It is telling that there is cross-party support for this amendment. The Government should take note of such rich and excellent speeches from across the House. There is widespread concern for all sorts of reasons, and action should be taken.

I feel a bit cynical because I have celebrated the demise of non-crime hate incidents on a number of occasions in the past. When the Fair Cop founder Harry Miller won his High Court challenge in 2020, the judge declared that non-crime hate incidents had a chilling effect and unlawfully infringed on Harry’s freedom of speech. I remember that a lot of us thought that would be the end of that. I then listened to a number of Home Secretaries declaring that there was a problem with non-crime hate incidents, and I thought, “Oh, good, something will be done”, because politicians like to do something. But I am most reassured, genuinely, by the present Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who seems to be determined to get to the bottom of this and to sort it out. Her emphasis that the police should focus on streets and not tweets is quite a good summation of where we are. However, despite that universal acknowledgement that non-crime hate incidents are not fit for purpose in many ways, I worry that, as with the Greek mythological Hydra, all the various attempts at cutting off the monstrous NCHI serpent’s head will result in another couple of heads growing instead. It is important that we do not just console ourselves with getting rid of the name while allowing the sentiment and the politics of it to remain.

As somebody who has spoken many times on this issue in this House, often greeted by some eye-rolling but also offered endless assurances that it was all being sorted—not by this Government but by a previous Government—I now believe that assurances are not enough, and we need to make this issue watertight. We need primary legislation as a guarantee that there will be no more non-crime hate incidents and a full deletion of the historic records held by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, made the point that when there have been changes in the criminal law, records have not been deleted, but these are not crimes, so they should be deleted. Even if they are not used, the idea that the state has a file on hundreds of thousands of people with the words “bigot” or “hate criminals” across them, even if they are hate non-criminal, is not right and they should be deleted.

18:30

I also have a worry that the ideological premise of non-crime hate incidents remains undisturbed. Indeed, it is deeply embedded in the labyrinth of hate-crime legislation that we discussed in Committee last week. There is an acceptance that words, attitudes and beliefs that are interpreted as hate subjectively by the alleged victim or a third party are assumed to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards protected characteristics—not proven, but assumed. That outlook affects hate-crime legislation but it has been drummed into policing and encourages criminal investigation into speech. That is why free speech campaigners are concerned not just about non-crime hate incidents but about the whole concept of what constitutes hate in the law. I am afraid that that those fears will not be allayed by the removal of non-crime hate incidents.

One core presumption of non-crime hate incidents is that certain types of speech presage much worse, often violent incidents. Actually, the notion of escalation was used against the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I spoke on last week, as though the public are just one hateful word or opinion away from launching a racist pogrom and must be stopped by early intervention or recorded, because if they have said that, they are bound to be the type of person to go and kick the hell out of someone. That is insulting and wrong and is a misunderstanding of speech. That kind of early-warning notion that is incorporated into the potential intelligence of non-crime hate incidents does not amount to much more than surveillance of society for no crimes.

I also note that the muddle of discretion and subjectivity associated with what constitutes hate, and which is associated with the promiscuous use of non-crime hate incidents, has been very damaging to the credibility of criminal justice and the notion of it as non-partisan, not least because non-crime hate incidents have been used by police in a particularly one-sided way. The noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, explained that some police forces were zealots and some were normal. On the one hand, the reporting of these appears to be driven by bad-faith complainants using them to harass political opponents, as has been described in other speeches; but there is seemingly the danger of some politicised police officers also joining in—activist officers using NCHIs to punish wrong-think, the wrong kind of opinions, with a knock on the door.

There have been particularly grim examples of inconsistency. Look at the dossier, published last week, of ignored antisemitic crimes and incidents against Jews in Birmingham—evidence supplied by a whistle- blower. They included an attack on a 12 year-old girl, who was punched in the face and kicked in the stomach, the child assailant shouting “Free Palestine” at her. The police email said, “No action required”. No NCHI there, it would seem. Contrast that with the infamous case some years ago, on which I reported, of the four year 10 students in Wakefield who had non-crime hate incidents logged against them after they kicked around a Koran in the playground and scuffed it. Their head teacher noted that there was no malicious intent and the book remained intact, but the police responded to community concerns that were whipped up. There was a kind of outcry, and you could see the weaponising of non-crime hate incidents. Those children got non-crime hate incidents logged against them. Will the Minister comment on how such weaponisation of hate crime as a concept can be rooted out? How will police forces avoid such preference for some subjective lived experiences of hate over others? How can we deal with that? That is a hangover from non-crime hate incidents.

Lastly, I am concerned that the police’s habit of record-keeping in NCHI circumstances might continue even if we do not know about it, behind the backs of scrutiny and accountability. In September last year, Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, after putting in a subject access request, discovered that she had been added to a police national database as being guilty of a crime without ever being charged, tried, convicted or even told. In her Substack, she detailed finding out that she had been considered in need of a non-crime hate incident related to tweets and statements referring to a trans-identifying individual, who calls themselves Freda Wallace, as a fetishistic, trans-identifying man, which it was claimed was factually accurate.

The main thing is that, without her knowledge and behind the scenes, over a period of time there were some arguments about whether or not that deserved an NCHI. Instead, in her file is written, “Crime: harassment motivated by transphobia because of misgendering. No action”. That was not a non-crime hate incident but it was generated in relation to a non-crime hate incident. So can the Minister assure us that the habit of recording non-crime will not merely be replaced by the word “crime” and that the creation of a shadow Orwellian crime-recording procedure with no due process will not replace getting rid of non-crime hate incidents? I want to see the back of them, but I fear that the ideology that has informed them is well and truly alive and kicking, and that needs to be tackled too.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, for his contribution because he set out the balance between non-crime hate incidents and non-crime incidents and the difference between the two. One of our concerns on these Benches is that—I am going to use the phrase he used, for which I apologise, but I had already written it down—in looking at this amendment, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is really important, and I will explain why in some detail later.

I remind the Committee that, in considering our two amendments about hate crime last week, I referred to the recommendation Combating Hate Crime by the Council of Europe, which says that

“hate can be manifested with different degrees of severity, ranging from everyday stigmatisation and discrimination, microaggressions and verbal abuse, to violence, terrorism, war crimes and genocide”,

which is an enormous spectrum. The reason why non-crime incidents, whether hate-related or not, need to be recorded is that often, the perpetrators go on to escalate their behaviour.

I have referred before in this House to being stalked by a political opponent for three years. Before we could get the police to take it seriously, we had recorded some 75 incidents, probably half of which were crimes but half were not. As things escalated, it went from minor crimes to the perpetrator using a very large knife on tyres. The police psychologist said, “If we don’t get him now, it will be people next”. It is that entire spectrum of behaviour, with some incidents ending up being part of a crime, that means we cannot just throw out all non-crime incidents.

I am afraid that the same is also true for non-crime hate incidents. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to the appalling case of the antisemitic attacks, because those would go as well if this amendment were accepted, since there would be no capacity for the police to start monitoring and recording such things until they tipped the balance into a crime, even though the damage was done in those earlier incidents, repeatedly to the same group of people. I think of friends of mine who go to synagogue in one town, and of young Muslim friends in my home town of Watford who are shouted at on their way to worship every single week by the same small group of people. Probably neither of those would even get to the first bar of being recorded as a non-crime hate incident; but, if their behaviour follows the typical course and escalates, and the police have not recorded anything, they have nothing to go back over. So I beg the movers of this amendment to—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

What the noble Baroness has described is a crime. Those people shouting racist abuse at Jewish people or Muslims on the way to a mosque are committing a crime under the existing legislation that has been in place for many years. It has nothing to do with the recording of police intelligence, which is unfettered by this amendment, and it is certainly the case that what she has described is de facto a criminal offence.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I referred to the comments made by previous speakers on this group who talked about police wasting their time recording. The two groups of people I have just referred to have tried to report these incidents and have not been able to get them taken particularly seriously. Therein lies the problem. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, that there has to be new, revised, clear guidance about how the police need to process these things. It may be that there will be many that are not now processed, but we cannot just say that we should get rid of non-crime hate incidents in their entirety.

A lot of the other speeches during this debate have talked about the polarisation in our society being because people are now saying things to others, with people becoming offended. We discussed this briefly last week. The things being said to people on the street would not have been said five or six years ago. People might have thought them as they walked past, but it was quite rare. We are deeply offended if it targets us. We often do not recognise when we are being offensive to other people. I say again: there is something about the way our society is working at the moment that means we have to learn to look at ourselves, not just at the others we do not like. The police, who are literally trying to police all this, are in a very invidious position. They need tools to record information because it helps them to assess and understand when other things happen. It is much broader than non-crime hate incidents, as I have alluded to already.

Paul Giannasi OBE, the national hate crime lead for the police, has been reviewing the current protocols and his recommendations for a new code of practice will be very welcome. I am sure, from what the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has said and from what I have heard elsewhere, that there certainly will be changes. We have to understand that the key issue here is balancing those individual rights: the absolute freedom of expression as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—he and I had a debate about JS Mill last week—alongside the state’s obligation to protect citizens against targeted victimisation. The police must be able to gather intelligence and evidence and log symbolic messaging to targeted groups. All the other things—about whether those end up on DBS—can be looked at as part of this review, and I am sure they will be. But the police need to see that bigger, wider picture.

One of the problems about the Lawrence murder was that the police were not watching what was happening in that community in the months and years running up to it. That institutional blindness was certainly one of the things that came out of the inquiry. As others have said, the monitoring of such incidents was the result of the recommendations by Sir William Macpherson as part of his public inquiry in response to Stephen Lawrence’s murder.

I come back to this point: in terms of practical value, the police must be able to record incidents that do not in and of themselves amount to criminal offence, because many crimes, such as I described with harassment, and indeed with stalking, require evidence of a course of conduct. People say to me, “Oh, but stalking is always about relationships; that’s not about a hate crime”. Quite a lot of stalking is actually non-domestic, and it is targeted at somebody because of a particular characteristic.

I finish on the point I made right at the start about the evidence that police need for this course of conduct if behaviour escalates. If a group of people go out and do things again and again, there is a point at which it is going to tip over. I was party to and a survivor of something that ended up as 132 crimes; once the police saw all the evidence that we had been holding of the earlier non-crime hate, it was extremely helpful when things started to escalate. Reform is absolutely needed. We hope that the review will have recommendations for a new regime. But I also hope that it will not leave victims vulnerable, either from perpetrators whose behaviour escalates or from police who are not quite clear about the role they have in recording non-crime incidents.

18:45

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this very important amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Young. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs.

The status quo is untenable. It undermines free speech, diverts police resources from real crime and risks criminalising people for behaviour that is lawful and should remain outside the criminal justice system. We on these Benches firmly support the abolition of non-crime hate incidents. Non-crime hate incidents in essence are reports of conduct perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a protected characteristic which do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. Under current law, police forces record and retain personal data about those incidents, even though no crime has occurred and no legal breach has been established. That alone is problematic but, in practice, the effects are far worse. Current figures estimate that around 13,000 non-crime hate incidents are logged annually, consuming an estimated 60,000-plus hours of police time that could be better directed to tackling burglary, serious violence, organised crime and other priority areas.

Recording an incident and retaining personal data about motives that are merely perceived rather than proven also has a detrimental and unwelcome effect on free speech. People who express lawful opinions, engage in robust debate or even make clumsy social media posts can find themselves on a police database, not because they have committed a crime but because someone has taken offence to those remarks.

This is not a hypothetical shortcoming of policy: there have been cases where almost trivial or schoolyard remarks became the subject of police records. In one high-profile instance, the arrest of a public figure over a social media post was initially associated with a non-crime hate incident, sparking national debate about policing speech and proportionality. It is no surprise, then, that police leaders and independent watchdogs are reassessing the value of non-crime hate incidents. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary has publicly stated that non-crime hate incidents should not be recorded by police because they risk conflating the offensive with the criminal, diminishing public trust and harming legitimate free expression.

Similarly, the Metropolitan Police recently announced that it will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents, recognising the difficulty that officers face when drawn into matters that are not criminal by definition. The Government’s response to date has been to commission yet another review, with the suggestion that policy decisions should wait until later in the year. But on an issue that so directly impacts both civil liberties and police effectiveness, delay is not a defensible option.

Amendment 416E would go further than reviews. It would abolish the concept of non-crime hate incidents entirely, prohibit any police authority from recording or processing related personal data and require the deletion of existing records. In doing so, it draws a clear distinction between criminal behaviour, which it is right that the police investigate, and lawful expression or debate that should not be subject to police recording or sanction.

We cannot allow a system that treats controversial yet lawful speech as if it were a matter for the criminal justice system. This amendment is a sensible and necessary step to realign policing with its once core mission of protecting people from crime and harm, not policing speech or perceptions. Therefore, we on these Benches very much support this amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for tabling this amendment. This has been a useful debate, and I hope that we can at least look at the common direction of travel on this matter: the need for reform.

I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, through the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I have also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Herbert of South Downs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss. They have raised a range of issues that, in essence, point to the need for change in this system.

I think it is fair to say, and I hope that the Committee will accept, that the current Government have held office since July 2024. There has been a lot of discussion on the issues caused by, and effect of, non-crime hate incidents since the guidance was published in 2014. I do not want to lose the principle, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Herbert of South Downs, that the non-crime hate incident regime had its genesis in the Macpherson report, and in trying to anticipate and examine where crimes were being committed, potentially in the future, and monitor a range of abuses that were present.

However, I say to the Committee—and I think this was recognised by Members in their contributions today —that how the police should respond to hate incidents that fall below the criminal threshold is a complex and sensitive issue. That is precisely why the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Normanton, and the current Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Shabana Mahmood, the Member for Ladywood, have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to conduct a thorough review into non-crime hate incidents.

The review is examining whether the current approach is proportionate, consistent and compatible with the fundamental right to free expression—which goes to very point that was made. As the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said, the review is being led by policing experts and is expected to conclude, in his words, “shortly”. The publication date is one for the College of Policing. We have had the interim report, which has said that there are significant concerns in the way non-crime hate incidents are operating.

Given the points that have been made today, and given that the Government have commissioned a review, seen the interim report and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, expect to receive the final report shortly, I would again ask the Committee to bear with us—I know that I have asked for this on a number of occasions—to examine what professional police officers and the College of Policing are recommending on non-crime hate incidents.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, rightly asked some significant questions. What is happening to database logging of anti-social behaviour incidents? What is happening to people who have previously had non-crime hate incidents put against their name? What is happening with regard to non-disclosure? What is happening in terms of the publication of the report and the Government’s response? Those are all fair and legitimate questions.

However, I say to the noble Lord and the Committee that the current Government have come in, recognised that there is an issue, commissioned the College of Policing to look at that issue and have received an independent report, and we expect a full report on how we can deal with those issues and tweak the regime so that we do not lose the very good things that have sometimes been brought out of non-crime hate incidents and we do not throw everything out immediately. I do not know what the final report is going to say.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said:

“The review has found that the current approach and use of non-crime hate incidents is not fit for purpose, and there is a need for broad reform to ensure that policing can focus on genuine harm and risk within communities. The recording of hurt feelings and differing views should not continue”.—[Official Report, 16/10/25; col. 406.]


That is a very clear statement. However, in moving from that in the interim report to whatever the new regime might be, it is incumbent on the Government to reflect on what the final report says. I am not ducking the amendment that the noble Lord has brought forward, nor his challenge that we need to make some changes. As he says, there is an open door. If we did not want this to be reviewed, we would not have asked the College of Policing and the Police Chiefs’ Council to review the incidence of non-crime hate incidents. Self-evidently, some of the examples given today are not what the original purpose of that legislation and approach was meant to be.

Going back to the Macpherson report, there was a serious element as to how assessments have been made. In Committee today, Members have talked about anti- semitism, racism and a range of incidents where the collection of information might give a bigger intelligence picture that requires a policing response, but which may or may not be a policing response that requires individuals to have their names put against them.

The concerns of everybody, from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, through to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, are legitimate, and the Government want to look at and address them. I hope that this can be examined. However, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and await the outcome of the police review, so that any reforms are grounded in both robust evidence and a consensus.

Ultimately, the Government must and will take some decisions, and we will be held to account in the House of Commons and in this House as well. In the absence of that detailed response, I am not sure that I can come to this Committee and say, “This is what we will do”, because we need to examine that in detail.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his customary courtesy. I can accept his point that, since the Home Office has not yet received the final report, and Report may start in two or three-weeks’ time, it may not be possible to bring forward detailed primary legislation on Report. However, it seems to me—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Herbert can confirm this—that many of the changes may be administrative matters for the police and may not require legislation. What may require legislation may therefore be quite small. This Government, like the last one, love Henry VIII clauses. So would it not be possible for the Government to accept a simple Henry VIII clause so that, where legislation is required on this, a proper regulation can be brought in in the future, once the Government have consulted on what is required, to implement any of the legal changes necessary to give effect to my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in the nicest possible way, that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has given strict instructions to Government Ministers on Henry VIII clauses, and the various statutory instrument committees in this House and in the House of Commons have also expressed a grave view on them.

I put it to the Committee—and I hope that the Committee will accept this in good faith, as I am trying to do it in good faith—that the Government have recognised that there is a problem, and the Government have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to examine that problem. The Government have received an interim report, which the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, referred to at Second Reading. The Government are awaiting the final report, which the noble Lord has said is coming shortly. I have not seen the final report. There may be things in it that maintain, change or revoke altogether the issues that have, quite rightly, been raised. But, if the Government had not realised that there was a problem, we would not have asked for solutions to be brought forward.

I know that I occasionally say, “Something will be happening very shortly”, but I say, in genuine help and support for the Committee, that we know that there is a problem. We want to change that problem, but we are trying to make sure that we get sufficiently robust professional advice to be able to make some political decisions based on the advice that we receive. With that, I have tried to help the noble Lord and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minster as he was getting towards the end of his speech. I have just one point: whatever advice the college gives, there will need to be a litmus test for whether the Government will support it. Whatever advice is given, I encourage the Government to make sure that it is clear, so that officers on the street understand it. If we end up with another series of 20 conditions, that will not simplify things. We must have a litmus test. For me, it might be, “If the officer acted in good faith and within the law as they believed it, we will support them”. I am not saying that that is the answer in this case, but it should be something simple.

19:00

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, hit on this following something I mentioned earlier. While we were sat here, I had a quick look at the national crime recording advice. In November 2025, this Government published advice on crime recording for front-line officers. Cops, like I was, might read it at 3 am—it is 92 pages long. It is a symptom of a deeper malaise, I am afraid, and it is infected by the fact that both cases—recording non-crime hate incidents and crime—rely not on the objective test of whether there was a crime, which is very clear in statute and occasionally common law, but on the subjective test of whether somebody thinks that there was a crime. Unless that is addressed, we will have carryover in the non-crime incidence and the crime incidence. I understand the good faith of the Minister and am not doubting that in any way, but I am afraid that the system is already set against him.

People may not know this but in every force two people are employed: a crime registrar and a non-crime incident registrar. The cops are paying probably about £200,000 a year collectively for them. They see the chief constable—the commissioner, in my case—every year to confirm that this system is working well. There is a whole industry around it. We must address that collectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned that the cops have gone a bit woke—that is my term. They went woke because they were coming under political pressure to go woke. They did not create it themselves. We are all responsible for that—I am not blaming any Government. We have to create a political climate that encourages them to do the right thing, not what we all agree has not gone well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, brings great experience to this. In his initial contribution, and in these comments, he gives food for thought as to how we implement the decisions of any review and how Ministers ultimately give guidance to police, which chief constables then put in place for police officers on the ground to deal with. We will look at that. The whole purpose of the review is to simplify this procedure, looking at what is necessary and helpful, and to get the police to focus on the things that really matter. Some of the examples that have been given today are things that the police should not be focusing on because they do not matter at all.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it is important that we look at what the regulations and the review say. We can act administratively on much of what happens. I have no doubt that the Government will do so, once we receive the final review.

I simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for the moment, to withdraw the amendment. He has the right to bring his amendments back on Report. We will have a clearer picture at some point in the very near future. I hope this has been a helpful debate.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his gracious response. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for co-sponsoring the amendment and for his excellent contributions to this debate. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a speedy recovery. I thank my noble friends Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that the police, under very difficult circumstances, do an excellent job on the whole and I admire what they do. But I think he is right that having to record and investigate non-crime hate incidents is as unpopular with ordinary police officers on the front line as it is with free speech campaigners. They do not want to be wasting their time in this way. Many of them have reached out to me to tell me that and to support this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution.

If you look at proposed new subsection (4), you will find that nothing in the amendment would prevent the police recording information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motive in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. I am sceptical whether the police should be allowed to record incidents that clearly do not meet the threshold of being crimes for intelligence-gathering purposes, not least because there is very little persuasive evidence that that is helpful when it comes to preventing crimes, and I am generally suspicious of the concept of pre-crime—of trying to nip potential crimes in the bud by monitoring carefully incidents that do not quite meet the threshold of criminal offences. However, I am not going to die in a ditch and say that the police should never, under any circumstances, be able to record incidents that do not meet the threshold of being a criminal offence for intelligence-gathering purposes, provided that the recording of those incidents has no adverse consequences for the people they are recorded against.

That brings me to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which, on the whole, were very welcome. I am pleased that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council recognise that NCHIs are not fit for purpose and that the regime should be scrapped and replaced with something much better, but I want to respond briefly to two points made by my noble friend.

First, my noble friend acknowledged, I think, that the recording threshold for NCHIs is currently too low, and that when the regime is replaced by another, such as the anti-social behaviour incident regime, the threshold as to what incidents should be recorded will be higher. The implicit acknowledgement that the threshold has hitherto been too low strikes me as a persuasive argument for scrapping those incidents that have been recorded under the lower threshold. If the threshold was too low, that is an acknowledgement that the incidents should not have been recorded. That is a good argument for why they should be deleted once this system has been overhauled.

Secondly, my noble friend Lord Herbert maintains that, even though chief constables have the discretion to disclose NCHIs when responding to enhanced DBS checks, the College of Policing could not find a single example of chief constables having done that. If that is the case then there is no cost to the Home Office agreeing that, henceforth, under the new regime, anti-social behaviour incidents—if that is what we are going to call them—should not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. The fear that they might be—that, not having committed a crime, that is recorded against your name and could stop you getting a job or volunteering at a school or for a charity—is why the current regime has had such a chilling effect on free speech. If none has been disclosed, why not go that one small step further and say that, henceforth, they will not be disclosed?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord is coming to the end of his remarks. When responding on amendments, you are meant to be relatively brief. He has had five and a half minutes now.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I apologise to the Committee for taking up its time. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 416E withdrawn.

Amendments 416F and 416G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 416H

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

416H: After Clause 144, insert the following new Clause—
“Police power to confiscate undocked electric cycles and scooters for hire(1) The police may confiscate any undocked electric cycle or scooter for hire which has been left on—(a) a public pavement,(b) a public highway,(c) any other public place, including pedestrian precincts, or(d) any other place where the owners have not given consent for electric cycles or scooters to be collected.(2) The police must take reasonable steps to notify the hire company responsible for the electric cycle or scooter confiscated under subsection (1).(3) The police may charge the hire company with responsibility for the electric cycle or scooter confiscated under this section a fee of up to £1,000 for the release of the electric cycle or scooter.(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, delegate local authorities or authorised agents to exercise powers on behalf of the police under this section.(5) If the Secretary of State delegates powers under subsection (4), they must publish a code of practice for local authorities and authorised agents on the implementation of confiscation powers and the charging of fees under this section.(6) For the purposes of this section—“local authority” means any council, unitary authority, district or other body with statutory responsibility for highways, public order, or refuse disposal, and“authorised agent” means any person or organisation appointed in writing by a local authority.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will be pleased to know that this is my last batch of amendments on the scourge of illegal bikes scattering our pavements and those big bikes the size of motorbikes mowing us down on the pavement. The Committee will also be pleased to know that, as I am attending the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, this is probably the last speech I will be making on the Bill for a short time.

The problem we face is plain and immediate. Thousands of dockless e-bikes and e-scooters have been dumped across our pavements and public spaces, creating a chaotic, inconsistent and dangerous environment for pedestrians. It is not often that I can agree with the Mayor of London, who described the rollout of these services as having become something of a “Wild West”, a term I understand that he took from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. There has been a rapid commercial expansion of cycling without the regulatory framework or parking infrastructure needed to protect the public and preserve access to our streets.

This is not an abstract nuisance but a daily reality for people trying to get to work, for parents with pushchairs, for older people, and for blind and visually impaired citizens, who rely on clear and unobstructed tactile routes. It is a public safety and accessibility crisis that has been documented repeatedly by local authorities, clinicians and charities, and it demands a statutory response. Amendments 416H and 416I would provide that response. One would create a targeted operator charge to fund enforcement and drive better operational systems; the other would give clear and proportionate powers to remove and permanently dispose of manifestly illegal high-powered machines that pose acute safety and criminal use risks.

The evidence from the ground is clear. Local authorities are already acting because the problem is real and costly. Local enforcement teams in Kensington and Chelsea have seized over 1,000 dangerously parked rental e-bikes this year and recovered more than £81,000 in release and storage fees to fund further enforcement action. They did that after repeated complaints about pavement obstruction and trip hazards. Councils have recovered significant sums in seizure and storage fees and have reinvested that money to expand enforcement activities. These are not isolated seizures but the tip of a systemic problem.

Clinicians are seeing new patterns of injury directly attributed to heavy hire bikes. Trauma and orthopaedic surgeons report a rise in lower leg injuries caused when heavy e-bike frames fall on riders or pedestrians, a phenomenon that has been labelled in clinical and medical circles as “Lime bike leg”. These are not minor bruises: the weight and construction of modern e-bikes, particularly the overheavy Lime ones, mean that even low-speed falls can produce fractures and soft tissue damage requiring hospital treatment.

Charities representing blind and visually impaired people have described how dumped e-bikes block tactile paving and prevent safe access to crossings, forcing people to alter or abandon journeys. One campaigner described repeatedly walking into e-bikes and being “put off” visiting central areas because of the unpredictability and danger of obstructed pavements. Residents and local councillors are vocal. Councils report that residents are “sick” of e-bikes blocking footpaths and that the current situation is undermining confidence in local streets. These are not rhetorical flourishes; they reflect sustained public pressure and the failure of voluntary operator-led measures to deliver consistent outcomes.

So who is responsible, and why have voluntary measures failed? The nuisance is concentrated among a small number of large operators that have scaled fleets rapidly: Lime, Forest, Voi and newer entrants such as Bolt. These companies operate dockless models that rely on users to park responsibly. Where that expectation is not met, the public realm becomes cluttered and dangerous.

Operators have taken some steps—funding parking bays, running in-app messages and offering incentives for correct parking—but these voluntary measures have not been sufficient to prevent widespread obstruction or to ensure rapid removal of dangerous or blocking bikes. The result is a patchwork of local rules and inconsistent enforcement that leaves vulnerable people exposed and councils bearing the cost of removal.

Councils are not standing idly by, but the tools they currently have are reactive and costly. Seizure and storage operations require staff time, secure storage facilities and administrative processing. Councils are forced into an expensive cycle of removal and storage because operators do not consistently prevent or properly remedy dangerous parking. I go further and submit that they simply do not care. They are making big money from e-bike hire, so why should they bother about safe parking when there is no penalty on them for letting their users dump them anywhere they like?

I turn to my Amendment 416H, on the operator charge, its justification and its effect. The proposed operator charge is a proportionate “polluter pays” mechanism that would ensure that those who profit from dockless fleets meet the real costs their services impose on the public realm. Operators make big profits from large fleets and dense urban coverage. Where voluntary agreements fail, statutes should set clear duties to ensure safe parking and fund the use of designated bays, to remove and relocate dangerously parked bikes within a short enforceable timeframe, and to be accountable for repeat non-compliance.

Where operators’ business models externalise the costs of pavement obstruction and enforcement, it is fair and efficient to require them to internalise those costs and pay for them themselves. Revenues from the charge could be used by local authorities to fund enforcement teams and rapid removal to secure storage; invest in parking infrastructure, such as a designated parking spaces, where required; and fund data-sharing and monitoring systems, which would enable councils to identify repeat non-compliance and target enforcement.

19:15

By tying the levy to fleet size and repeat non-compliance, the charge would create a clear financial incentive for big, powerful companies to invest in operational systems: geo-fencing, in-app parking guidance, dedicated bays, real-time rebalancing and rapid retrieval to prevent cluttering in the first place, rather than relying on costly reactive models. The charge would therefore shift behaviour up stream. Operators will find it cheaper to prevent obstruction than to pay repeated levies and enforcement costs. That is the key measure of this amendment.

My Amendment 416I is on the disposal of manifestly illegal high-powered machines, which should not be on a public highway pretending to be a bike when they are in fact a motor vehicle. UK law distinguishes electrically assisted pedal cycles from motor vehicles by objective technical limits. An EAPC—a small electric bike—must have a motor of no more than 250 watts and must cut out at 15.5 miles per hour. Machines that exceed those limits or that are fitted with throttles or non-type approved batteries and motors are legally motor vehicles and must be registered, insured and ridden by licensed drivers. In practice, thousands of high-powered or throttle-driven e-bikes are on our streets. They do not meet EAPC rules and are therefore illegal for public highway use. I cannot remember which noble friend spoke on this earlier, but if noble Lords care to go down Millbank at 9 pm or 10 pm tonight, they will see dozens of these gigantic bikes, with huge fat tyres, delivering to all the blocks of flats in the Horseferry Road area. They are on the pavements, travelling at 20, 30 and 40 miles per hour, and they are an absolute danger.

My amendment would make it clear that permanent disposal of these bikes is justified because they are clearly illegal machines. Getting rid of them would tackle public safety and fire risk. Non-type-approved high-powered e-bikes often use uncertified batteries and conversion kits that increase the risk of battery fires and catastrophic failures. Some of these so-called fat tyre bikes weigh up to 70 kilograms and can go at 70 miles per hour. Put a mere 70-kilogram person on a 70-kilogram bike and, even at 40 miles per hour, you have a mass that will kill a pedestrian on every single occasion. Permanently removing these evil machines would reduce an ongoing hazard to pedestrians, transport infrastructure and emergency services.

High-powered and fast e-bikes and e-scooters are repeatedly used to facilitate acquisitive crime and anti-social behaviour. They are now the main criminal vehicle for mobile phone thefts and luxury watch thefts. Indeed, the Met has created an interceptor taskforce, using fast and lightweight electric bikes—specifically, off-road models called Sur-Ron, which can accelerate from zero to 50 in three seconds. I would not like to be on a bike that can do that, but the Met has them in order to combat phone snatching and robberies, aiming to outpace the criminals who use similar fast bikes.

It would be ludicrous to let these criminals have their bikes back once they are caught. Rapid disposal prevents seized machines being reclaimed and returned to criminal networks, and it strengthens deterrence. This approach mirrors precedent in other enforcement contexts, where rapid disposal of hazardous or criminally used items is permitted after a short, fair process. I do not want the police doing this, so my amendment would allow them to delegate disposal authority to accredited local authorities or approved operators that can demonstrate secure and suitable chains of custody and rapid destruction capability.

These amendments are complementary and carefully targeted. Amendment 416H would ensure that operators pay for the public realm impacts of their fleets, which are scattered all over the pavements, and that they are financially incentivised to prevent clutter through better systems and infrastructure. Amendment 416I would remove a small but dangerous subset of machines that are manifestly illegal and pose acute safety and criminal use risks, preventing their return to the streets or to criminal networks. Neither amendment would ban micromobility. This is not an attack on micromobility at all. Both amendments would preserve the environmental and transport benefits of e-bikes and e-scooters, while ensuring that those benefits do not come at the expense of pedestrian safety, accessibility or the proper functioning of public space. I urge the Committee to support these amendments so that we can restore safe and accessible pavements, and ensure that micromobility serves the public interest rather than undermining it. I beg to move.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I would like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in his Amendment 416I, as the Committee will not be massively surprised to hear, given that we have covered this on previous occasions.

The police are turning a blind eye to the use of illegal vehicles on our streets. Why is that? I should like the Minister to answer that question, if at all possible. Illegal vehicles on our streets should be seized and destroyed. There should be a campaign to do that; if that happened, they would not come back. At the moment, the use of illegal vehicles is tolerated. If people were riding illegal petrol-powered motorcycles around London, they would very quickly find themselves in trouble. If people were driving trucks with no licence plates on them, they would very quickly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. At the moment, the large delivery companies in particular are facilitating this. They are contractors, but, none the less, their agents are using illegal vehicles for commercial purposes. That should not be allowed and the Government should put a stop to it.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, that fact that someone has brought forward these two amendments makes me feel like saying, “Hurrah!” It is not just in Kensington and Chelsea. I live in EC4, and I spend my time walking on the road to get round the huge groups of mainly Lime bikes. I have not checked as to whether they are illegal, but the fact is that a great many of them take up a great deal of space and it seems absolutely extraordinary that nothing is being done about it. I watch other people, particularly women with pushchairs—even in EC4 there are women with pushchairs—and sometimes people in wheelchairs, either negotiating gingerly these bikes or walking, as I find myself walking, on the road. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully what is being suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, because this really is a scourge. I say “Hurrah” to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, these two amendments after Clause 144 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are trying to give further powers to address the issue of dockless bikes and scooters, which we have discussed many times in this Chamber and which have become an issue on many streets in cities across the country, whether they are part of a scheme or privately owned. This is a big issue for pedestrians, as we have heard, as they find their route blocked by bikes and scooters, despite a number of local authorities installing dedicated parking places for such micromobility schemes.

We are all aware, as we have heard in this debate, of the challenges that local authorities have faced trying to manage these vehicles on pavements and highways. However, there is a further issue. As City AM reported last month, a London property firm had to invoice Lime for nearly £8,000 for removing, storing and returning dockless bikes left on private land. Despite the ability to geofence where bikes can be left, I understand from reading this article that it took Lime 11 months to fence off this bit of private land as a no-parking zone on its app—and even then bikes continued to appear. This is about the management and regulation of these schemes. There are many stories like this, where riders park up their bikes near stations or other transport hubs, cluttering pavements or indeed parking on private land, causing issues with access and deliveries for residents.

The devolution Bill making its way through the House will start to help with the management of micromobility schemes across the country, some of which, as we discussed earlier in this Committee, have been on trial many times over many years, partly extended by the previous Government. We need legislation on this issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether future legislation will come to tighten up the rules on what is safely allowed on our streets, on how people park and the regulations, and on what a safe and legal vehicle is on our streets.

These amendments are trying to deal with the inevitable consequence of recent Governments not acting to keep up with the explosion of different types of micromobility on our streets. I hope to hear some assurance from the Minister about future legislation to deal with the understandable concerns across the Committee.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said, we have spent much time in our previous debates in Committee on provisions regarding the use or misuse of electric cycles and scooters. Much of what can be said has already been said, so I hope not to detain the Committee for long.

As always, my noble friend Lord Blencathra raises a strong argument in favour of his amendments in this group. I thank him for his tenacity in this area. There are strong feelings on this in your Lordships’ House, as many of us have had negative experiences with users of electric bikes and scooters, but these amendments address a slightly different problem.

Amendment 416H would permit the police to confiscate electric bikes and scooters that have been abandoned in a public place. As other noble Lords have said, if one requires any evidence as to the extent of this problem, they need only take a stroll down any major road in London. The pavements seem to have become obstacle courses of undocked electric bikes. All this presents serious challenges; they block users of wheelchairs and parents with pushchairs, as well as those with visual impairments, creating hazards for pedestrians, who may be forced into the road. For this reason, these Benches see no reason to object to the police being given greater powers to confiscate such scooters and electric bikes. If the Government have any objection to this proposal, I look forward to the Minister outlining precisely what they plan on doing to tackle this issue.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I was slightly sad to hear that this is the last of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on tackling e-bikes and scooters and, as someone coined, the Wild West that is our streets. Before he rides into the sunset on this subject, I would like to say that we share the intention behind these amendments, which seek to tackle obstructive parking and other use of hire e-scooters and bicycles. It may not surprise the noble Lord to hear, however, that the Government are not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.

I have to be very unfair before the dinner break and say that, if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is Butch Cassidy, we had the Sundance Kid of this debate in the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. Once again, he asked about action being taken. I repeat what I said earlier, on Amendment 416, and say to him and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the police are taking action. I refer again to the winter action initiative, running from the start of December last year to the end of January. That is focused on making town centres across England and Wales safer as a whole by building on the summer streets initiative, continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. This is not an issue that the police are blind to. Ultimately, we cannot want them to have operational independence in theory but not let that be carried out in practice.

I will not detain the Committee any further and will move on to the meat of the amendments. Amendments 416H and 416I would risk creating confusion in an area where the Government are already establishing a clear and proportionate regulatory framework. We are empowering local leaders to license shared cycle schemes, and potentially shared e-scooter schemes, in future through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, as we speak, has started its Committee stage next door in the Grand Committee. This licensing framework, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred, will empower local authorities to set parking requirements and act quickly and decisively where these are not met. To respond to the noble Baroness directly on micromobility, this is something that we have signalled an intention to act on when parliamentary time allows. I am afraid that I cannot be any clearer on that.

19:30

Amendment 416H would complicate enforcement powers in the forthcoming licensing framework. Under that framework, shared-cycle schemes will need to seek a licence to operate from the local licensing authority. Operating a scheme without a licence or valid exemption will be a criminal offence. Licence conditions will include centrally set minimum conditions applicable to all licences to ensure a baseline of safety and operability. Local licensing authorities will then be able to add further conditions on matters such as fleet size, parking and operating area, according to local needs and priorities. This will ensure that schemes work for whole communities, both users and non-users alike.

Furthermore, in e-scooter trials, local authorities are required to provide sufficient parking and ensure that parked e-scooters do not become obstructive to others, particularly those with disabilities. E-scooter operators are additionally using geofencing technology, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred, and other incentives to encourage users to park in permitted areas, with fines for non-compliance.

The Government want operators to take responsibility for ensuring their vehicles are not obstructing pavements, but through licensing rather than additional and unnecessary police powers. The Government agree that shared-cycle operators must ensure their bikes are parked appropriately and do not obstruct pavements. This is why licensing will include provisions to fine operators or suspend or revoke licences for breaching parking requirements or other requirements set out in licences. We must ensure that our streets remain safe and accessible.

On Amendment 416I, I again recognise the concerns behind it, but the powers it seeks to introduce already exist under current legislation. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides the police with robust authority to seize vehicles, including electric cycles and scooters, when they are being used in a careless or inconsiderate manner—or worse, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would put it—that causes alarm, distress or annoyance to the public. These powers apply to both on-road and off-road electric cycles and scooters, including where landowner consent has not been given. Furthermore, under Section 60 of the same Act, the police can dispose of vehicles seized under these provisions; the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to this in moving his amendment. This framework’s powers address the concerns behind the amendment without the need for additional legislation.

Clause 8 of the Bill strengthens these existing powers by removing the requirement for officers—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. If the powers exist, are the police actually using them?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

They are, but we always leave it to chief officers to direct their police forces to use the full waterfront of different powers and regulations under their purview. We can always encourage them. I am sure that a number of chief officers will be looking intently at the debates in all the days of Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill and will understand the priorities the Committee voices. Certainly, with no little thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others, we have had plenty of debate on this issue and they will have heard that it is one of extreme concern.

Clause 8 will allow the police to act immediately to stop offending behaviour and confiscate vehicles without delay. In addition, the Government have consulted on changes to secondary legislation to enable quicker disposal of seized vehicles, and our response will be published in due course. These measures demonstrate the Government’s commitment to effectively tackling the illegal and anti-social use of micro-mobility devices such as e-bikes and e-scooters without duplicating powers that are already in place.

I want to stress that riding a privately owned electric scooter on public roads is illegal, and the police have powers to take enforcement action against offenders, including seizure of the e-scooter for the offence of driving without insurance or a licence. The enforcement of road traffic law remains an operational matter for chief officers, who are best placed to allocate resources according to local needs, threats, risks and priorities. The Government will continue to support the police with the tools and powers they need, but this amendment would add unnecessary complexity without improving public safety. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords and the Minister for speaking in this short but important little debate on cycling. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—and, for the first time, a Lib Dem spokesperson has supported, in concept, one of my cycling amendments. I am either on the right side, maybe, or I am doing something terribly wrong if the Lib Dems are backing me.

Over the past few weeks, as we debated various amendments that I put down on bikes of all sorts, and looked at delivery couriers cycling on pavements on these big, fast, heavy, illegal bikes, and the scooters and bikes dumped on the pavements, the general mood was, “Well, your amendments are not perfect, Lord Blencathra, but there’s a problem here and something needs to be done about it”. I hear what the Minister has said, as far as these big, illegal bikes like motorbikes are concerned: they are already illegal and the police have power to do something about them. He suggested that the powers in the devolution Bill will deal with all these cycling problems. Between now and Report, I shall look more carefully at the Bill to see if it does cover all the gaps, but it may be that on Report we will still want to bring back some little amendment on one of these issues—possibly on the precarious criminal liability of delivery couriers, which we discussed last time. A lot of colleagues thought this was terribly wrong and that something needed to be done about it. However, if the Government do something about it, I will not need to, but if they do not do what we think we need to do, I will do something on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 416H withdrawn.

Amendments 416I to 416K not moved.

Amendment 416L had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 416M not moved.

Clause 145 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.36 pm.

Atrocity Crimes

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:37

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what mechanisms they have in place to evaluate the risk of potential atrocity crimes occurring, including crimes against humanity and genocide; and what measures they take when such risks are identified.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming all noble Lords who are participating in this Question for Short Debate on preventing mass atrocities, I begin by thanking the Minister for the interest she has shown in the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes report. I am a member of that group, and I am grateful too for the meeting she had with myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and Dr. Ewelina Ochab last week.

I have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I am patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response. I co-authored a book on our failure to honour the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, which gives us four obligations: to predict, prevent, protect, and punish. My fundamental complaint, and that of the standing group, is that we do none of these things well. We have no cross-government atrocity prevention strategy, which the Commons International Development Committee has called for.

We live in a world on fire, yet we often seem incapable of making the link between wars in places like Ukraine, Sudan, the Middle East, Burma and elsewhere, with the more than 117 million people forcibly displaced through conflict, violence and persecution, including the 14.3 million people who have been uprooted in Sudan. Those people often end up in small boats, either in the Mediterranean or coming across the English Channel to our shores. We seem incapable of linking the breakdown of international law, conventions and accountability with the emboldening of dictators and autocrats, and what happens when states believe they can get away with war crimes, the seizure of territory, the abduction of civilians, including children, and the bombing of hospitals and schools.

In 1948, foundations were laid for a new world order. The genocide convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights were cornerstones, but we would be deceiving ourselves were we to suggest that this progress is not at risk in this world on fire. In 1959, Dag Hammarskjöld, the United Nations Secretary-General, confidently insisted

“the organization I represent … is based on a philosophy of solidarity”.

Some 80 years after its inaugural session, held just a stone’s throw away from here, Hammarskjöld’s successor says solidarity has been replaced by “powerful forces” that are undermining “global co-operation”.

To challenge this, we should use our place at the Security Council to champion the values of the United Nations charter and the cause of international justice. To do this, we will need to lead by example. We could begin by enacting the all-party amendment currently before the House to the Crime and Policing Bill on universal jurisdiction. We could lead by example by enacting measures to enable the High Court of England and Wales to determine whether a genocide is being committed. I hope the Minister will back these proposals.

Back in 2015, at col. 371, on 19 November, I warned the House of a likely genocide against the Yazidis. In 2019, in northern Iraq, I took first-hand evidence. Notwithstanding that, and 79 Questions and interventions, the Foreign Office declined to act, and it took until 2023 for the FCDO to accept that a genocide had occurred against the Yazidis, and only because a German court concluded that it had—something no British court is empowered to do.

I have repeatedly raised similar threats to Uyghur Muslims, Nigerian Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, North Koreans, Tigrayans, and Burmese Rohingya and Karen. Since the 2017 military coup in Burma, soldiers have butchered men, tortured women, and left over 1 million Rohingya refugees crammed into dilapidated camps in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar. I saw first-hand in Burma a village that had been torched and heard accounts of mass atrocities. Perhaps the Minister can give us her assessment of the role we are playing at the ICJ in bringing those perpetrators to justice.

Perhaps the Minister will also reflect on where impunity and a lack of justice has led in Sudan, a country which continues to bleed after 1,000 days of war. I first went to Sudan during a civil war which had claimed 2 million lives. After later going to Darfur in 2004, I said, “If this isn’t genocide, what is?” Some 2 million people were displaced and 300,000 people were killed. Omar al-Bashir, the author of these atrocities, although indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, has never been brought to justice.

Early in 2023, there were reports of new outrages, and later of mass graves. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan asked me to chair a fresh inquiry. It led to our APPG report, Genocide: All Over Again in Darfur? It described the consequences of impunity and warned of the impending dangers of inaction. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the International Criminal Court prosecutor who indicted al-Bashir, told our inquiry that for as long as al-Bashir and people like him enjoy impunity, others will think they too can get away with genocide. The United Kingdom should now seek his arrest. In 2023, we concluded that, without justice:

“Whatever happens when the violence in Sudan ends, there will be no lasting and credible peace”.


We said that impunity had to end.

In these 1,000 days of war, 150,000 people have died, either caught in the crossfire or from disease or hunger. Millions are displaced. Christian Aid says that 34 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, more than 11 million children face a catastrophic crisis of hunger, and at least 770,000 people are at risk of dying from severe acute malnutrition. Last week, there were more deaths and displacements in North Darfur. The International Organization for Migration says that over 8,000 people were displaced from villages in Kernoi locality on Friday alone.

It is outrageous that these corrupt, marauding warlords from both sides, enabled by foreign quartermasters, are also preventing humanitarian aid reaching those most in need. We surely need additional targeted sanctions and a review of UK arms sales to countries that are supplying the SAF and the RSF. We need accountability and justice.

I know the Minister and the Foreign Secretary care deeply about this. I agree with them, but was therefore concerned to read reports that, according to a whistle- blower, Foreign Office officials removed warning of a possible genocide in Sudan from the UK risk assessment. Why and how did that happen?

I hope the Minister will talk about the cuts that are reported to be taking place in the unit dealing with atrocity crimes, and I hope she will look at ways in which joint analysis of conflict and stability reports are made available to Parliament. In our report, we called for early and urgent warning systems to equip local organisations to be able to alert communities to potential threats and provide information on safe routes and shelters.

Between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced mass atrocities or had concerns that they could take place, with the highest number of armed conflicts since World War II. We must do more, and I hope our debate will help us to do that.

19:46

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate, I thank him for all he does in advocating for the rights of those most in need around the world. We are grateful for the challenging and powerful way he has opened this debate.

My focus is on the mechanisms that are in place to assess the threat to life posed by cuts to UK humanitarian aid, and on their compatibility with our obligations under international law. It is a well-established principle contained in the Geneva conventions, most clearly stated in Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, that deliberate deprivation of access to food, medicine and humanitarian aid for a civilian population represents a crime against humanity. But what if this failure to facilitate the humanitarian aid, medicine and food for a starving population was a result of cutting the budgets of emergency aid providers?

Of course, there is absolutely no legal or moral equivalence between the two actions. They different profoundly in terms of intent and jurisdiction, but they differ less in terms of effect. From the perspective of the child in need or the mother who is a refugee, it matters not whether the access to the food and medicine essential to life was denied to them as a result of a warlord with a gun or an official with a pen—the impact for them both is the same.

Tom Fletcher, the outstanding emergency relief co-ordinator at the UN, has warned of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, with 87 million lives at risk this year. That is more than the total deaths in World War II. Who is defending their legal right to life? Who is intervening to stop this hidden atrocity? What happened to the responsibility to protect?

Over the next 18 months, UK aid will be cut by £6.5 billion to £9.2 billion. At a time when the humanitarian need has never been greater this century, our contribution to alleviating that suffering has never been lower this century. UK contributions to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and to the World Food Programme have already been reduced.

An in-depth study published in the Lancet last year forecast 14 million additional deaths by 2030 as a result of the USAID cuts alone, 4.5 million of them young children. Applying that same methodology to the proposed UK aid cuts would mean an additional 3.69 million deaths by 2030, and 1.18 million of those would be children. Who speaks for them? What do Articles 6 and 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child mean for them? What do they do for them?

The Government cannot claim that they are unaware of the effects of these cuts. Their own equality impact assessments of the reductions in ODA, published last year, warned them of the risks to life in cuts to health spending.

On Saturday I had the great privilege of joining more than 2,000 others at Methodist Central Hall to mark the 80th anniversary of the first meeting of the UN General Assembly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, spoke passionately for the Government about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and reminded us that

“every person, by virtue of their humanity, has protected universal rights”.

But rights do not feed the hungry and heal the sick unless we uphold them and apply them as a measure of our actions too.

My request to the Minister this evening is this: before the revised allocations in the aid budget are implemented for the next financial year, will she ask the Attorney-General to review them to ensure that they are fully compatible with our responsibilities to protect those most in need in our world and our obligations under international law, which we have done so much in this country over the past 80 years to shape and uphold? If she does, perhaps we may rediscover the philosophy of human solidarity of which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us at the beginning of this debate.

19:50

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and his deep and long-standing commitment to these issues, which serves as a great example to us all in this House.

In one of my unpaid personal roles I chair USPG, a global Anglican mission agency. We are celebrating our 325th birthday this year. We have been operating for a long time, and we operate across much of the globe. It is in that capacity in particular that I have become aware, through the contact we have with people in various jurisdictions, of places not only where atrocities are regularly committed against religious and ethnic minorities—sometimes Christians, but not exclusively—but where the security or the political situation is edging towards a greater risk of atrocity crimes and crimes against humanity in the future.

I am going to avoid the word genocide, because I am cautious about where I use it. If we use it too widely, we devalue a very powerful word that we must save for situations that are absolutely clear.

Clearly, sometimes there are atrocities committed in Britain. In my time as its bishop, Manchester has suffered both the arena attack of 2017 and the murderous assault at Heaton Park synagogue just a few months ago. But my remarks are about the wider global context. They are about places where the situation descends into a context where atrocities become systemic, and we are very much not that.

The one thing I have learned is that there can be so many different reasons why this happens. Some are cases of weak government—think of the eastern DRC, where Christian civilians are targeted by armed extremists, some of them affiliated with ISIS. There are attacks on churches, massacres during worship and killings of whole villages. The DRC is an example of a long-standing weak state. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned Darfur. I will not repeat his comments, but that is a similar example.

For these places, where the problem is the weakness of the governmental institutions, what can the UK Government do? Can we still use soft power as we often have so well in the past to support the establishment of better governmental institutions? How can we help regimes manage their countries better? Sometimes, that is by taking a long view. We have educated many future leaders. They have not all turned out to be good ones, but at least some have. What is it today?

It is not always about weak and ineffective government. Sometimes, atrocities happen where the Government themselves are behind them. Earlier this evening I was at a meeting on the estate discussing Iran. There are lots of Iranian refugees in my diocese. There are several Farsi-speaking clergy and several Farsi worshipping congregations. Perhaps Iran—along with Myanmar, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about so eloquently—represents what happens when long-standing authoritarian Governments begin to face serious challenge.

One particularly distressing development in Iran is the increased use of maiming rather than killing. Not only does that reduce the fatality figures that inevitably dominate the news cycle but it can be politically expedient. As we have seen in the past in parts of Africa and elsewhere, if you kill someone, you make their family your enemy. If you maim someone, you make their family their carers.

How can the UK Government better support those at risk from the most oppressive regimes? We have debated refugee status so many times in this House— I will not go there tonight—but what can we do to support those at risk from the most oppressive regimes, particularly when those regimes are beginning to collapse?

We need to be alert to a lot of places where perhaps there are not a lot of atrocities committed at the moment but there is great potential in the future. I worry greatly about the situation in India—the increasing violence and the way in which the current regime in India does little to restrict that violence and its more extreme adherents and followers. The situation there has deteriorated dramatically over the last 10 years. Christians, Muslims and other minority groups are often picked on and treated in the most appalling manner. I will not go into a great list. That is an example where I fear that one of the problems we face is that our own commercial interests can trump challenging atrocities.

I remember an OQ that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about a year ago, and I came in behind him. It was about West Papua, and we were told, “Indonesia is an important trading partner; we can’t get too cross with it”. I am old enough to remember the ethical foreign policy of the incoming Blair Government in 1997. That did not last very long, did it? Are we now in an era when UK commercial interest trumps—and the pun is intended—any matters of morality? That was the principle that justified the worst excesses of our own colonial history in centuries past. Does it have to be how we choose to exercise our foreign policy in 2026?

19:55

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on introducing this debate. I am incredibly grateful to him for all he does to ensure that human rights are never forgotten in this House. This is an important topic to address, now more than ever. I declare my interest as co-chair of the Women, Peace and Security APPG and a member of the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, and I set up and chair the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.

The Red Cross reports that the global situation of armed conflict has deteriorated into a world succumbing to war, characterised by more than 130 active conflicts, more than double the number of conflicts 15 years ago. Wars are increasingly protracted, complex and deadly, with 204 million people now living in areas controlled or contested by armed groups. The ICRC warns that the rules of war are being ignored, with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks and women disproportionately affected. It was Major-General Patrick Cammaert who said:

“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in modern wars”.


This was brought home to me when I visited Iraq last year. I had the privilege of visiting Lalish, the most sacred temple of the Yazidis. In 2014, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to, ISIL attacked the Yazidi people at Sinjar, destroying their 400,000-strong community, killing many and taking around 6,000 women and girls captive to be used as sex slaves. The UK recognised this as a genocide, and today, nearly 11 years on, a third of the women and girls are still missing.

There are so many other examples, as we have already heard, some of which have already been raised: gender apartheid in Afghanistan, child hostages and the use of rape in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Ethiopia, Haiti, DRC, Nigeria, Myanmar, the Uyghurs in China—all heartbreaking stories.

States have a legal obligation to prevent atrocities, and there are a number of international protection mechanisms in place. However, despite their powerful wording, these mechanisms are globally weak, and often there is a lack of political will with hard-worked-for commitments not integrated into policy or programmes. There is a glaring gap globally between the obligations under the Geneva conventions and action.

I understand that the UK maintains it has tools available to prevent atrocity crimes abroad, including early warning mechanisms, the use of diplomacy to de-escalate and development to address root causes. However, the Trump Administration have slashed overseas development aid. Why have the UK and others followed suit at this critical time, often removing life-saving help from the poorest countries? Most importantly, we should be investing more into conflict prevention so that atrocities are never committed. This would save not only lives but billions of pounds by averting the massive costs of war and fostering stable societies with economic growth and improved livelihoods. Studies show that every £1 invested could save as much as £100.

However, the report by Mercy Corps and Saferworld last year revealed a sharp decline in in the UK’s investment in peacebuilding, violence prevention and conflict resolution in recent years—an area in which it was once a leader. In conflict resolution, it is proven that including women in peace processes is crucial for durable peace, yet women remain significantly under- represented as negotiators, mediators and signatories despite efforts to increase their roles in peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. The UK has just withdrawn funding for the Women Mediators across the Commonwealth network.

Too often, these crimes are committed with impunity for the perpetrators. In talking to survivors of atrocities, most will say that they want justice, yet the mechanisms for this are ineffectual, and, often, the nations where the crime is committed have no institutions or appetite to address this. How can the ICJ, the ICC and universal jurisdiction become more effective? We must not fall into the trap of mistaking process for progress, status for impact or rhetoric for action. Clearly, we need to try to ensure peace at all costs, yet the UK appears to be cutting its contribution to conflict prevention and resolution and international development at this critical time. Most importantly, we need to stand up to those who wish to ignore and undermine existing international mechanisms and instead help to strengthen them and make them more effective. I leave you with the words of Ernest Hemingway, who said:

“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime”.

20:01

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, and, as others have said, for his timeless commitment to these issues. I direct noble Lords to my interest as a partner of the Good Faith Partnership and as one of the founders of the UK Freedom of Religion or Belief Forum. At the outset, I also want to thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Chapman, for her leadership on these issues. I met the noble Baroness earlier today and I am hugely grateful to her and her team for their sustained efforts to reduce conflict and promote peace in some of the most challenging contexts around our world.

It is now almost seven years since the FCDO published the Bishop of Truro review, commissioned by the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. That report, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, Philip Mounstephen, assessed both the scale of persecution faced by Christians globally and the adequacy of our foreign policy response. Government accepted all 22 recommendations, and an independent review in 2022 welcomed further progress while also identifying the need to strengthen protections for vulnerable communities. Further progress has been made under the current Government, and, in particular, I commend the work of my honourable friend David Smith MP in the other place as the UK’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief. I also want to welcome the FCDO’s strategy for FoRB. Its willingness to identify countries of concern and prioritise specific contexts signals a welcome move towards a more proactive approach, an approach that has already been affirmed on multiple occasions by noble Lords in this debate.

By implementing the Truro recommendations, His Majesty’s Government can go a considerable way in dealing with the issues at stake in this discussion. More often than not, FoRB violations are a symptom of wider sociopolitical problems and instability. Left untreated, these issues all too easily escalate, resulting in wider harms and the potential for greater atrocities. Furthermore, the systems required for early interventions in relation to FoRB violations will increase and accelerate our ability to prevent further atrocities. As with the other 21 recommendations, His Majesty’s Government accepted recommendation 7 of the Truro review in full. There have been valuable developments since. These include the creation of the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation and the Mass Atrocity Prevention Hub, and the development of early warning tools such as the Countries at Risk of Instability process and Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability assessments.

In terms similar to those used by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, earlier, the UN Secretary-General has warned that the world is witnessing the highest number of conflicts since the end of the Second World War, with rising identity-based violence and serious violations of international human rights ever more prevalent. In such a fragile global order, readiness to act is essential. My question is therefore focused and simple. How is recommendation 7 of the Truro review being refreshed in practice? What further steps does the Minister believe are now needed to ensure that early warning consistently leads to early action, particularly where religious persecution significantly heightens the risk of future atrocities?

The Truro review gave us a framework. The Government’s FoRB strategy gives us renewed momentum. The task now is to ensure that recommendation 7 is fully realised so that our commitment to prevention is not only principled and aspirational but operational and effective.

20:05

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this important debate. Truly, he is the greatest parliamentary champion for human rights that this country has had since William Wilberforce. If you want to know just how good he is, he is the only Member of Parliament sanctioned by China, Iran and North Korea. That, to me, puts him on the side of the angels.

Tonight, I want to focus on a group no one cares much about: the genocide of Christians worldwide. The UK and the West rightly reacted strongly over the murder of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995, but since then we have had 8,000 Christians killed every two years—4,000 a year for the last 30 years. That is 120,000 worldwide, with at least 50,000 of them massacred in Nigeria alone.

Persecution of Christians takes many forms: targeted killings, kidnappings, forced displacement, arson and attacks on churches, legal discrimination, imprisonment, and social exclusion. The organisation Open Doors reports more than 365 million Christians facing high to extreme persecution. Persecution is concentrated in several regions and countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is identified as the most violent region for Christians, with extremist religious groups and weak governance driving attacks. Countries repeatedly ranked highest for severity include Somalia, Eritrea, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan.

What do these countries have in common? The killing there is done by Islamic extremist Governments or out-of-control Islamic factions dedicated to killing Christians. Islamic extremists are killing Christians at the rate of one Srebrenica every two years. The killing ranges from individual murders and targeted assassinations to mass attacks on communities and churches.

What does the UK do about it? The short answer is absolutely nothing under all Governments for the last 30 to 40 years. Theoretically, the United Kingdom evaluates atrocity risks through something called the Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability, the JACS, which the Government say is a—wait for it—strategic, cross-government assessment used by the UK Government to understand the causes, the actors, and the drivers of conflict in a specific country so as to inform effective policy and drive action, which is early warnings, diplomatic pressure, sanctions and development aid restrictions.

The JACS are not published, and everyone knows that they are useless and never implemented. The Commons International Development Committee has long called for improvements, but they were rejected by the last Government, and this one have said they will not implement them either. The JACs are a big joke, but not for the tens of thousands of murdered Christians or the hundreds of thousands driven from their homes. We do not need early warnings to understand the causes, the actors or the drivers of genocide; we just need to do something about it when we see it under our noses all around the world. How much more understanding of Muslim genocide of Christians in Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan or Somalia do we need before cutting off aid to the countries doing it or doing nothing about it?

Last year, we gave £201 million to Afghanistan, £143 million to Somalia, £142 million to Yemen, £108 million to Nigeria, and £133 million to Pakistan, which, like Nigeria, is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, spending $1 billion on nuclear weapons and $9 billion on defence. UK taxpayers fund that country, which specialises in bombing churches to kill Christians. On Afghanistan, we say that it is focusing on vulnerable women and girls, food security, health, and education. Really? The Taliban have banned girls from education after primary school, restricted their access to healthcare and restricted where they can work, causing poverty.

In September, Germany, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands announced legal action before the International Court of Justice against Afghanistan’s violence against women. Can the Minister tell me whether the UK will join these countries in legal action against the Taliban, or will we just carry on giving them the money? Afghanistan is a thoroughly evil regime which despises everything we believe in, and we just keep pouring in money in the naive belief that we are making a difference and helping women and girls.

If we want to help stop the killing of Christians, let us stop funding the countries that are doing it.

20:10

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate, and I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his team for their tireless work that focuses on atrocity prevention and human rights.

The question before us is practical and legal. How do the Government assess the risk of genocide and mass atrocities, and what do they do when the risk is evident? Article 1 of the genocide prevention convention is explicit. We undertake

“to prevent and to punish”

genocide. That is a binding obligation which we have signed up to.

History shows that genocide is rarely sudden. It does not start with a mass grave, a massacre or a rape camp. It is preceded by recognisable patterns: dehumanising language, othering, scapegoating of minorities, pressure on independent media and civil society, corruption and state capture, and security forces or militias acting without constraint. Those are the conditions in which atrocity crimes become possible. We have seen this sequence too often, in Rwanda, Darfur, Srebrenica, in the persecution of Yazidis, Christians, as my noble friend said, and the Rohingya—now before the International Court of Justice, alongside allegations related to persecution of Uyghurs—and in Ukraine and Gaza. The common thread is not lack of warning, but delay and the failure of resolve and political will while action was still possible.

Others have already addressed many contexts in which genocide has happened or is happening. I will focus on Bosnia-Herzegovina. Thirty years after the genocide that was committed in Srebrenica, the risk of relapse must be treated seriously. A recent policy briefing on Bosnia produced by the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes—here I declare an interest as one of the members of its advisory board—identified familiar risks: the hollowing of state institutions, normalised hate speech, genocide denial, the celebration of convicted war criminals, corruption and parallel security structures. These are not isolated incidents.

The evidence is clear. Senior political figures in the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska—ethno-nationalists aligned with the Kremlin—have denied genocide and publicly honoured convicted war criminals, including Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić. In this climate, all the non-Serbs are again spoken of not as equal citizens but as a threat—a threat that needs to be dealt with.

I welcome the Government’s stated support for Bosnia’s sovereignty and the Dayton settlement, and their stated commitment to EUFOR Althea, but the central question is whether this deters those prepared to push the boundaries. Deterrence is not achieved by statements. It exists only when spoilers calculate that consequences will follow from their actions.

With this in mind, I will ask several questions. Recently, the United States has regrettably lifted sanctions on the very people who are looking to destabilise the country, denying genocide and seeking separatist actions. Will the Government state unequivocally that the United Kingdom will not follow suit?

On enforcement, what concrete steps are being taken to prevent sanctions evasion through proxies, front companies and permissive jurisdictions? What further actions will be taken against those who finance and facilitate destabilisation? Additionally, I hope that the review of the foreign influence registration scheme and lobbying rules will look into paid political influence activity carried out in the United Kingdom on behalf of foreign authorities and organisations whose senior leadership is subject to UK sanctions.

On EUFOR, annual renewals at the UN Security Council create a cliff edge and an invitation to brinkmanship. Will the Government press for a more resilient mandate, including longer authorisation, so that the stability of Bosnia is not exposed to predictable yearly risks?

There is also a practical signal available right now. Would the Government consider the deployment of a small UK specialist training contingent to Bosnia, with a readiness to bolster troop strength if required? In parallel, will they also work with supportive states on co-ordinated sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, to secure compliance with international law of those bent on destabilisation?

Atrocity prevention depends on timely decisions, credible consequences and consistent enforcement. I believe that Bosnia is a country where deterrence can still work and where acting now can prevent not only instability but the crimes that so often follow it.

20:15

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate and thank all noble Lords who have spoken in it. The contributions have been extremely thoughtful, especially from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who reminds us that these things do not always happen on the other side of the world; they are closer to home and more prevalent.

We cannot continue to think of atrocity crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing —as rare events. They are increasingly at the heart of today’s most difficult foreign policy crises, from Sudan to Myanmar, and from Gaza to Ukraine. Identity-based violence has become a weapon of choice for authoritarians and extremists, yet our systems for understanding and preventing such crimes have not kept pace.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s recent report on Sudan made the situation painfully clear. It revealed that, despite clear warnings, the Government have

“opted to take the least ambitious approach to the prevention of atrocities”.

That should trouble us all. When a system fails to generate bold, timely policy options, Ministers are left unable to act with the agency such crises demand. So I ask the Minister: what lessons have been taken from Sudan and how can the Government’s approach change to ensure that early risk analysis now triggers early preventive action?

This matters all the more now, as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s internal restructuring appears to be placing the very capability to evaluate atrocity risks at risk itself. This is not simply a reshuffling of desks; it has real implications for our ability to detect, analyse and respond to mass violence. Can the Minister show the House that atrocity prevention expertise will be safeguarded and not decreased in this process?

Finally, the whistleblower’s account that references to a possible “genocide” in Sudan were removed from internal risk assessments should prompt the most serious reflection. If officials feel unable to use the very term that describes the gravest of crimes, when the evidence points clearly in that direction, then we must confront why crucial analysis is not guiding timely action. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons to learn from Sudan must be to strengthen the channels of honesty and accountability?

Watching and documenting atrocities is not enough. Prevention demands more than observation; it requires analysis to drive decisive action, backed by systems and structures strong enough to ensure accountability. Without such commitments, our ability to protect vulnerable populations and uphold our moral responsibilities will always fall short.

20:18

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on securing this timely debate. In our increasingly unstable world, the incidence of atrocities has grown in recent years, as mentioned by all noble Lords. The noble Lord has long been an effective champion for the victims of crimes against humanity and genocide. In particular, he has consistently stood up for the Uyghurs, who have suffered so much at the hands of the Chinese Government.

The regimes and organisations that commit atrocities invariably seek to hide their crimes through information blackouts and suppression of freedom of speech. Photographic evidence is particularly powerful, and that is why those who perpetrate these crimes seek to suppress images. The importance of image-based evidence was demonstrated in the case of the massacres in Sudan, where the evidence could be seen from space using satellite imaging.

None of us will forget the harrowing images we have seen from Ukraine; and in Iran, despite the regime’s internet blackout, the evidence of murder of protesters is irrefutable. On the situation in Iran, as highlighted by the right reverend Prelate, the Times reported this weekend that as many as 16,500 protesters may have been killed by the Iranian regime. Has the Minister been able to verify any of these reports, and what steps are Ministers taking in response to them?

The systematic mass murder of civilians on this scale must be met with the harshest condemnation. We have debated the plight of the Uyghurs on many previous occasions. Can the Minister please set out what work the Government are doing to verify and monitor reports of abuses by the Chinese Government? When was the last time Ministers in her department raised this issue, and their concerns, with the Chinese Government?

The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, is completely right to have triggered this important debate. We do need to monitor risks and rapidly developing situations where atrocity crimes are likely. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

20:21

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

My Lords, I begin as everybody else has done, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I know he does not need this, but I will just say how much I respect and value his contributions in this House generally; tonight we heard a particularly powerful speech from him.

By contributing in this way, the noble Lord manages to keep raising the issues of atrocity prevention, genocide determination, and the atrocities that too often we see happening around the world. He brings them to us and makes sure that they are never, ever to be ignored, and that we cannot turn away. I really do thank him for doing that. I did not know he had written a book; I will find myself a copy and make sure that I read it.

I am very grateful for the discussions we have had, not just tonight but in recent months, particularly on Sudan but on many other areas as well. This has to be among the most sobering and serious of subjects that we discuss in this House: the very worst of atrocities that humans commit against each other. I thank everyone for their contributions, although I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not think everybody sees things in exactly the same way when it comes to the role our ODA programmes play; we can come on to that.

I have to begin, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, did, with an alarming acknowledgement that across the globe, conflict is reaching record levels, and with it so too is abhorrent violence. The noble Earl asked me if I can verify reports of the numbers coming from Iran. I am afraid I cannot do that this evening, but I am sure that we will be bringing information to the House as soon as possible, as he would want us to do.

I think people across the country are completely horrified at the accounts we are starting to hear from Iran, as well as from Sudan, certainly Gaza, from Ukraine for sure, and the from eastern DRC. We can all list these dreadful contexts. The regularity with which we are hearing such stories can leave the public, as well as us in this House, at a loss as to what we can do. Therefore, it is with a great deal of humility that I set out the UK Government’s position on this. I have met the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, to discuss the specific issue of genocide determination and universal jurisdiction. The situation I am going to lay out is the situation as it is today. That does not mean that there cannot be movement in the future. We take on board the challenge that comes on this critical issue—this is not something that can never change.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, last week, we had a discussion on aid programmes and the decision to cut our official development assistance, which we did because we wanted to spend more on hard power. That was a conscious choice we felt that we needed to make in the context that we find ourselves in. The events of recent days may lead some people to think that that was the right decision. I point out that most ODA spend is not the humanitarian assistance that he may remember as a Minister and which he described this evening. The vast majority of the humanitarian work that we do is done through multilaterals. We are the largest contributor to Gavi and we are a considerable contributor to the Global Fund and to the World Bank’s IDA programme. We are the biggest contributor to the African Development Fund, which is an African-led organisation. It leverages in far more than any programme or ODA budget that we would ever have been able to provide for Africa. We are dramatically changing how we do this. Perhaps I could organise a briefing for the noble Lord to explain this in more depth. Exchanges like this are helpful but I doubt that I would ever be able to persuade him through this mechanism, so a more detailed conversation might be worthwhile.

Identifying the risks of atrocities early, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and others have said, is essential to prevention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised the importance of working on democratic structures and strengthening civil society organisations. I absolutely agree with him on that. Respectfully, I disagree slightly, in that he said that we privilege our economic connections ahead of all other considerations. I do not think that is true. The sanctions that we implement and the positions that we have taken around Ukraine very much do not bear that out. However, I take the point he makes in the spirit that he makes it.

The UK monitors risks around the world. We assess a range of factors, including ongoing armed conflict, a history of unaddressed human rights violations, and, as the right reverend Prelate said, inadequate state structures. Too often, it is states that are responsible for atrocities, but sometimes it is armed groups, such as in Haiti, which was mentioned, and Sudan and Colombia. We fund work with an exceptional organisation, Geneva Call, which attempts to work with these groups. We focus on countries and regions where the risks are most concerning and where the warning signs of imminent violence are strongest. We target UK action where we can help prevent horrific atrocities, including genocide and crimes against humanity, working alongside civil society, academic experts, bilateral partners and multilateral organisations.

I completely share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about the persecution of Christians. However, I assure him that we do not give money to the Taliban. We fund some programming in Afghanistan. It is incredibly limited, because it is a difficult place to operate, but it is humanitarian work around finding ways to fund and make possible the education of girls. We do that with partners on the ground and through the World Service, which has done some amazing, inspiring work that enables that to be possible. Noble Lords should not think that just because money is being spent in a particular geography that it is given to the Government of that country. That is very often not the case.

There are a number of tools that we use. At the forefront are our joined-up assessments of conflict and stability across countries and regions. That is a process that we updated in 2024. Noble Lords have expressed a desire to have those assessments shared with Parliament. We can all appreciate why that might not always be what happens, but I commit to taking that back and re-challenging ourselves on whether we can hold up that decision. I think that is a fair question to ask the Government.

The approach that we have draws together a vast pool of insight and expertise to identify the actors and drivers of conflict and guide our interventions to promote stability, security and peace in the long term. We have our global network of embassies. They play an important role in many aspects of this. An example I would use is our team in Kyiv, supported by specialist technical advisers and analysts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, explained really well the work that is done to help identify and assess risk and then support efforts to keep civilians safe amid ongoing attacks on civilians. She explained how this could have been done in Rwanda. I visited the genocide museum in Rwanda recently, and I recognise what she was saying. Because of time, if she does not mind, I will write to her on the specific issues around Bosnia, partly because I do not know off the top of my head the answers to all her questions, but they are issues that need to be responded to.

It is important that as a founding member and chair of the conference of participants of the register of damage, we hold Russia accountable for its crimes in Ukraine and work alongside fellow signatories to the convention to establish an international claims commission. We worked with the US and the EU to establish the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, co-ordinating support for the office of the prosecutor-general of Ukraine, and we back efforts—I know the House is concerned about this—to identify the tens of thousands of boys and girls snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia in a revolting attempt to erase the future of an entire nation, and help to bring them home, with over £2.8 million committed to that important work. I know that colleagues across both Houses are helping to do all we can to raise awareness of this.

We are strengthening our own systems. On the issue of FCDO 2030, several noble Lords asked about the staffing reductions at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I support the process being undertaken because the truth is that, compared with 10 years ago, even taking into account the merger of the two departments, there are 30% more people working there than before. We really have to challenge ourselves about whether that is the most efficient and dynamic way to run that organisation. We will be making changes, but I can commit to noble Lords that on the assertion that there will be less emphasis, skill and resource put into the work on atrocity prevention, conflict prevention and related issues, the hub is being taken into a wider team—so, in fact, there will be more people working on this important issue.

In response to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rook, about the review—he specifically asked about recommendation 7—we will continue to develop our capacity to respond to atrocity risks, drawing on expertise across government and beyond, including from civil society, academia, co-operation with bilateral partners and multilateral organisations. We remain committed to this, and we will continue to do the work that is needed. Through the FCDO’s transformation plan between now and 2030, we will be updating how we work because we have to be more agile and more focused on impact.

Finally, I want to just underline the Government’s commitment to this. We will be strengthening our ability to identify risks at the earliest stage possible, deploying our global network of diplomatic and technical expertise and supporting efforts to save lives, uphold international law and break the cycle of violence that drives displacement and instability in the long term. The UK has an important role to play. We will continue to work alongside our international partners because we must do all we can to prevent atrocities wherever we can.

20:34

Sitting suspended.

Crime and Policing Bill

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Committee (11th Day) (Continued)

20:36

Amendment 417

Moved by

[Lord Banner]

417: After Clause 145, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to introduce public interest compensation orders(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After section 133(b) (compensation orders), insert “, or(c) to make a payment to one or more relevant organisations for public interest or social purposes (“public interest compensation order”).(2) In this Chapter, “relevant organisation” means an organisation listed in Schedule 22A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders).”.(3) After section 135 (making a compensation order), insert—“135A Public interest compensation orders(1) When convicting a person of a relevant offence, the court shall consider whether to issue a public interest compensation order, and what the terms of that order should be.(2) In this section “relevant offence” means an offence listed in Schedule 22B (Relevant offences for public interest compensation orders).(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the relevant offences listed in Schedule 22B.(4) In determining whether to make a public interest compensation order against an offender, the amount to be paid under such an order, or to which relevant organisation(s) the payment(s) should be made, the court must, in addition to the factor in section 135(3), have regard to—(a) the rights of victims of human rights violations (inside or outside the United Kingdom) to receive effective reparation and remedy,(b) the fact that individuals who are not proven to be direct victims of the offender’s offence may nevertheless be victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related,(c) the broader impact of the offender’s offence on victims of human rights violations in the United Kingdom or in other countries,(d) where there is a large number of victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related, the urgency of victims’ needs (which may vary depending on the harms that they have suffered),(e) where the relevant offence is an offence under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the purposes of the relevant regulations and any human rights violations arising in connection with conduct that these regulations seek to discourage, and (f) whether it would be appropriate to make another type of compensation order and, if so, whether the offender has sufficient means to pay both orders, as well as the need to prioritise compensation to direct victims of the offender’s offence.(5) If the court considers issuing a public interest compensation order, the court may (but is not required to) ask the Secretary of State to recommend the relevant organisation(s) to which the funds subject to the order should be paid and if the court makes such a request—(a) the Secretary of State shall, within 90 days (the “relevant period”), recommend to the court in writing one or more organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid (the “recommendation”) and in doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the same factors as under subsection (4) above(b) the court may issue a public interest compensation order after the earlier of—(i) the court having received a recommendation, and(ii) the relevant period having expired,(c) if a recommendation has been made within the relevant period, the court may take it into account in issuing a public interest compensation order but shall not be bound by it.(6) The court may direct that confiscated funds be paid to a relevant organisation subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend the organisations listed in Schedule 22A and the Secretary of State shall review the organisations listed in Schedule 22A at least annually.(8) If, under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State recommends one or more organisations that are not listed in Schedule 22B, the organisation(s) recommended by the Secretary of State shall be considered relevant organisation(s) for the purposes of the public interest compensation order at issue.(9) For the purposes of this section, a court may issue a public interest compensation order regardless of whether there is a direct connection between the offender’s conduct and the harm suffered by the ultimate recipients or beneficiaries of the public interest compensation order.”.(4) After Schedule 22 (Amendments of the Sentencing Code and related amendments of other legislation), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 22ARelevant organisations for public interest compensation orders1 The following organisations—The Trust Fund for Victims, created by the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.The Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by Resolution CM/Res(2023)3, or any successor body or attached fund.The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, established by the United Nations General Assembly through resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981.”.(5) After Schedule 22A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders), insert the following new Schedule— “Schedule 22BRelevant offences for public interest compensation orders1 The following offences to the extent that they are offences under the law of England and Wales—Offences arising under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020. It would allow the courts to award compensation orders not only to individuals but also for public interest or social purposes, thereby enabling the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to be more readily used to compensate victims of offences under the UK’s sanctions legislation.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 417 I will speak to the associated Amendment 419, both in my name and with named support across the Committee. The purpose of these amendments is to provide a clear and easy-to-use legal basis for those found guilty of sanctions breaches and other similar offences to pay compensation in the public interest to specified victims’ organisations listed in the proposed Schedule 22A and any other similar organisations added to that list through regulations.

There is a clear case for legislative intervention in this area. By way of overview, the existing law provides only a very narrow basis for using the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to compensate victims, and only in straightforward cases. Victims are rarely allocated any share of the sums recovered. Amendments 417 and 419 would empower courts to award compensation for public interest or social purposes, addressing a significant gap in the law by enabling compensation in the more complex cases for which the existing law is ill suited—for example, supporting Ukrainians who are most impacted by breaches of the UK’s targeted sanctions against the Putin regime and its corrupt cronies.

Against that overview, I turn to the main features of the existing law to demonstrate why they do not go far enough. First, compensation orders under the Sentencing Act 2020 are designed to compensate direct victims of criminal conduct. Where a conviction has been secured, the court is empowered to order the offender to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage arising from the offence in question. The courts have, however, held that these kinds of compensation orders are intended only for clear and simple cases, where there is an obvious direct victim and the amount of compensation can readily and easily be ascertained. Thus, for example, a builder may take a £15,000 deposit to complete building work for a home owner and fraudulently make no attempt to carry out the work. There is a clear victim and a clear loss: the home owner and the £15,000. The compensation order is well suited to handle that sort of case.

By contrast, a court is highly unlikely to be able to make a standard compensation order in a sanctions breach or similar case. Sanctions breaches are rarely clear and simple cases because, by the nature of the offence, the consequences are wide reaching, and they can violate the rights of a large number of people. Victims of the breach, or indeed the precise loss or damage suffered, will typically be very difficult to identify or quantify with the necessary precision required by the current law.

Courts are ill equipped to handle victim compensation in such cases, given the vast and multifaceted harms at issue and the indirect connection between the harms and the sanctions breach. The NGO Redress has advised that its experts are not aware of any single sanctions breach case in the UK in which the court has issued a compensation order for victims. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can provide us with any such examples. Such compensation orders are simply not suited to complex economic crime, such as sanctions offences.

The second area of the existing law is confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In the event of a conviction, the court can order the confiscation of a portion of an offender’s assets, provided they have been found to have benefited from their criminal conduct. These confiscation orders are intended to deprive the defendant of the proceeds of the crime, rather than to compensate victims. The amounts confiscated are usually paid to the Government’s bank account and then sometimes shared across certain government departments and arm’s-length bodies. No amount is typically paid to victims, subject to very limited exceptions.

The third category of the existing law is forfeiture orders, also under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In this respect, agencies such as the National Crime Agency, HMRC and the Serious Fraud Office, among others, can institute civil forfeiture proceedings in some situations, in which a court may issue a forfeiture order in respect of funds associated with unlawful conduct. Here too, however, the law is inadequate to deal with sanctions breaches. There is a statutory requirement for funds that have been forfeited under such an order to be paid, again, to the Government’s general bank account, with very limited exceptions relating to situations where someone can show that the amount belongs to them and that they were deprived of it by the offender’s unlawful conduct. Again, that is ill suited to the sanctions context.

Pulling this together, I suggest that, unless the law is changed, in the vast majority of cases judges will have no real ability to award compensation to the victims of sanctions and associated crimes. Not a penny will go to the very people most harmed by the criminal violation in question, not because they are undeserving or have not suffered a harm, but simply because there is a gap in the law that means their position cannot be addressed. This shortcoming is increasingly indefensible in the current world in which we live and will only grow as the UK rightly takes more sanctions enforcement action, most immediately in the context of Ukraine but also in any future cases.

Dealing with the context of Ukraine, the UK positions itself, quite admirably, as a global leader on Russian sanctions. Some 3,000 targets have been sanctioned to date. Yet, when it comes to enforcing these sanctions and penalising any breaches of them, it is the UK, not the victims, that retains the proceeds. Having dedicated unprecedented diplomatic and financial resources to seeking to bring an end to Putin’s war for the benefit of the Ukrainian people, it is striking that the courts have practically no legal basis to channel any of the proceeds of Russian sanctions breaches to Ukrainian victims, whom the sanctions programme is ultimately intended to protect.

I turn to alternatives. In correspondence between Redress and the Home Office, which I have seen, the Minister referred to other amendments proposed to the Bill to ensure that the uplifts to existing confiscation orders can similarly be redirected. However, these are subject to the same or similar limitations as the existing law. In particular, the limitation of the concepts of victim and loss being narrowly defined means that redress is not available for indirect victims. It is that gap that my Amendments 417 and 419 are intended to address.

In the light of that, I stress that my challenge to the Minister is a constructive one, because I want to put on the record the personal experience I have of the deeply conscientious engagement he has had on matters of Ukraine that I have raised with him. I thank him publicly for that, as I have done privately. Can he offer a cast-iron guarantee that the existing law, coupled with any proposed amendments the Government are putting forward, goes as far as Amendments 417 and 419, or does he accept that there is a gap? If he does, can he explain the justification for it? I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I have signed Amendments 417 and 419. The noble Lord has made a powerful, constructive and eloquent case for we should try to tackle the public interest compensation orders and deal with the gap that is left by confiscation orders, compensation orders and forfeiture, which he mentioned in his speech.

20:45

I have had an interest in this issue since the time we discussed in this Chamber the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations in 2024; I was grateful to the then Government for the way in which they responded to that. I think there is good will right across the spectrum in your Lordships’ House towards making available seized assets to those who are victims.

In a rather minor way, as long ago as 1982, I moved a Private Member’s Bill in another place called the Victims of Violent Crimes Bill. It was about using the seized assets of people who were plying drugs on the streets of Liverpool. My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, who was a police officer and assistant chief constable on Merseyside during that period, will recall how often those gangs were able to play on the needs, the grief and the opportunities of selling drugs on the streets, and then to walk away with the proceeds. As a result, I will not say just of that Bill but of the climate that built up, the Government decided that they would use assets to put back into the community, as a demonstration that crime did not always pay. What the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is trying to do fits very much in that scheme of things.

The Government have taken important steps to address Russia’s war on Ukraine, including by way of imposing sanctions and freezing assets. I join the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in commending the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for all that he has done on this question.

However, despite the issue being raised several times, the Government have not yet really come up with a formula to ensure that the sanctions can be used to provide compensation to victims and survivors. During that debate back in 2024, I asked:

“In addition to the targeted approach of repurposing assets that are, after all, a product of criminal activity—namely, sanctions evasion—what is the Government’s assessment of other ways in which frozen assets could be repurposed?”.—[Official Report, 15/10/24; col. GC 24.]

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, suggested that the Government are still giving that thought. I hope, therefore, that a Committee debate of this kind will perhaps flesh that out. I proposed at the time that the Government should review the approaches taken by the United States and Canada; I wonder if any more work has been done on that.

Recent months have not seen any progress on the issue, just as there seems to have been no progress on the Chelsea Football Club money being used to benefit victims and survivors of Russia’s war. That is an issue that I have raised with the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, on the Floor of this House and in correspondence. I wonder again if the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, is able to tell us any more about that.

Why do we need the proposed change that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has outlined? As it stands, UK courts’ ability to award compensation is overly narrow and does not respond adequately to more complex crimes such as sanctions offences involving large numbers of victims, who have varied connections to their offender’s conduct, but where there is a clear broader impact of the offender’s crime on victims of human rights violations in the UK or beyond.

I shall focus on the case of Russia, and then I have one other example. The Government have imposed sanctions on those most responsible for the horrific crimes that we are all well aware have been committed in Ukraine. As it stands, though, the Government retain the proceeds from those cases without ensuring that they benefit the very people most harmed by the violations, despite the fact that those assets are key to supporting Ukrainians and helping them to rebuild their lives.

The other example that I want to give is one that I referred to in the dinner break business, concerning what happened to the Yazidis at the hands of Daesh. Noble Lords might say, “What’s that got to do with this Bill?” It has everything to do with it, because sanctions were imposed on those working with Daesh—that is, ISIS, Islamic State. We do not know the exact amount of frozen or criminal assets in enforcement cases and, despite being asked about that in the other place in November last year, the Government have been unable to give any clear response.

All that has happened so far is a reference to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation annual review 2024-25. I would like to restate this question and hope to receive a clear answer today. Daesh stands accused of committing genocide against the Yazidis—a word that even the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office has been prepared to use since a finding in a case in Germany, led by Amal Clooney, resulted in a conviction of the crime of genocide. I understand that this was used to submit reports to the UN on the value of the frozen assets of Daesh. However, this was stopped at some point in 2023. Can the Minister say why the Government stopped sending such reports, and commit to ensuring transparency in future reporting?

In supporting these amendments, I also draw attention to the Government’s position on those responsible for conflict-related sexual violence in the DRC. The position the Government have taken has been a good one. However, as it stands, none of the victims will be able to benefit from frozen assets. This is despite the fact that, as stressed on many occasions by Denis Mukwege—someone I know well; a remarkable man working with women in the DRC who have been violated—the DRC is the rape capital of the world. The crime continues to be perpetrated on a systematic basis in that country, with very little response. Particularly in the context of reduced ODA, we must find a way to ensure that victims are provided with the help they need to rebuild their lives. These amendments would be a recognition that the aggressors must be made to pay for their violence and their crimes.

Without repeating the arguments already advanced on the inadequacies as things stand, none of the options the noble Lord, Lord Banner, outlined is appropriate for sanctions cases. Sanctions offences are rarely clear and simple, because the consequences of sanctions breaches are wide-ranging and can violate the human rights of many people. Unless the law is changed, it is likely that no money in these cases will go to the very people harmed by the crime. This is not because they are undeserving or have not suffered significant harm, but because there is no law in place to address their situation.

As it stands, there is a significant gap in the law in the UK which prevents victims seeking compensation. Amendment 417 seeks to close that gap, and it is a great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, on Amendments 417 and 419. I will not repeat what I and my colleagues have said many times in this House. I am, however, most anxious about the compensation money that does not go to these countries and these people. We are told that it is in the Treasury in some cases; we ask about interest; and we have had a debate with, and letters from, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. But these amendments could really change things, so that everybody would know where the interest is going, where the money for the victims is going, where it is held, how it is given, how it is sent, and who is in receipt of it. This is vital, because we can see what is happening in Ukraine, which will need much more support; and we know that this is happening in Russia and elsewhere.

Also, we work on the case of the DRC all the time; we know what is happening there and in other countries. It is vital that this be included in the Bill. It would make such a difference to so many people around the world, and it would deal with the perpetrators. So I hope the Government will look at this. Finally, I would like to thank Redress for all the support it has given to us, along with writing to the departments and so on.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I had hoped to speak to this Bill on Second Reading, but was unable to do so; I hope noble Lords will allow me to jump in in Committee.

As has been pointed out elegantly by previous speakers, standard compensation orders are simply not suited to complex economic crimes such as sanctions offences. We now have these two amendments, which seek to ensure that victims are not excluded from receiving compensation simply because their harm is deemed too indirect or too complex for UK law to handle. We also know that it is highly likely that the UK will bring in yet more sanctions, particularly in the context of Russia and Ukraine. It is therefore timely to adjust our laws now.

In the comprehensive briefing that we all received from Redress, of which I am honoured to be a patron, it has been estimated that, at present, there are almost 3,000 targets of sanctions imposed by the UK Government, and more are likely to follow. However, as we have learned, at present the courts have almost no legal basis to channel any of the proceeds to Ukrainian victims, who the sanctions are intended to protect.

Achieving a way to compensate victims of Russian aggression from the criminal assets of oligarchs breaching UK sanctions will be perceived by the Ukrainians as a form of justice that is not to be sniffed at. These amendments would strengthen UK law by empowering courts to award compensation orders for

“public interest or social purposes”

by means of compensation forfeiture orders arising from criminal conduct under the UK’s sanction laws. I thoroughly support these amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 418. I also support Amendments 417 and 419, which were spoken to so well by the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady D’Souza—powerful testimony. Collectively, these amendments provide a necessary pathway for turning the proceeds of international crime into a force for restorative justice.

Currently, when the Crown Court makes a confiscation order, the primary objective is to deprive a defendant of their benefit from crime. While we support this, a significant gap remains in how these recovered funds are used, particularly when the criminal conduct involves serious human rights violations, mass-atrocity crimes or grand corruption. At present, funds not directly owed to a specific claimant in the immediate proceedings often flow into the general consolidated fund.

The Minister, in his recent letter to the human rights organisation Redress—of which I know there are many supporters in the Chamber today—suggests that current mechanisms are sufficient. He argued that the UK already shares over 50% of proceeds recovered through international co-operation with other Governments. However, as Redress compellingly points out, state-level sharing is not the same as victim redress. When funds are returned to a foreign state, the level of support victims receive depends entirely on the political will and potential corruption risks within that recipient state. Victims of mass atrocities and grand corruption have a clear preference for reparations paid for by their abusers and enablers. It is a matter of human dignity, justice and their own healing journey.

Amendment 418 would give courts the discretion to direct a portion of these confiscated proceeds towards

“public interest or social purposes”.

This is not a mere accounting change but a mechanism to provide support, redress or therapeutic services to victims of international human rights violations who might otherwise have no procedural pathway to compensation. To ensure that these funds are managed with the highest level of integrity, my Amendment 418 would require the Secretary of State to establish a public purpose fund. This fund would be subject to strict regulations, operation and auditing. It would ensure that recovered sums are applied to defined social purposes before any remaining balance reverts to the state under Section 55(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it would require the court to calculate directives while respecting the duty to ensure full payment of any existing priority orders or compensation directives for direct victims.

21:00

The amendment would insert a new systemic mechanism into the Proceeds of Crime Act: the judicial trigger. When the Crown Court makes a confiscation order under Section 6 of the POCA, the judge would be granted a new discretionary power to issue a public purpose direction. In deciding whether to make this direction, the court must look beyond simple numbers and consider the gravity and context of the crime. Specifically, the court would consider whether the conduct involves serious human rights violations, mass atrocity crimes or grand corruption.

The amendment preserves the integrity of current law by ensuring that direct victims remain the first priority. The court must ensure that all unpaid amounts under existing compensation directions or priority orders are fully satisfied before any funds are redirected. Once these priorities are met, the specified sum would be retained by a designated officer and placed into the public purpose fund. These funds would then be applied to defined social purposes, such as providing therapeutic services, and redress or support to victims, whether they are in the UK or overseas. It would also allow for contributions to reputable international funds, such as the ICC Trust Fund for Victims, which have the expertise to identify victims and map their support needs in a way that the courts cannot.

The Minister has previously pointed to existing uplifts to compensation orders as a solution. However, these are strictly limited by narrow legal definitions of a victim and their loss. They are fundamentally unsuited for the indirect victims of sanctions breaches—the millions of Ukrainians, for example, as we have heard today, harmed by the very war an oligarch has illegally supported. Amendment 418 would ensure that these rings of damage are addressed. Further, this is not intended to dismantle the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. These amendments are designed to work in parallel with ARIS, ensuring that any remaining balance after the public purpose has been served still flows back to law enforcement.

While Amendment 418 seeks to create the fund, Amendments 417 and 419 would provide the immediate vehicles for justice through public interest compensation orders. These, as we have heard, would allow the court to direct payments directly to established international bodies, such as the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture or the Register of Damage for Ukraine.

This Bill is an opportunity for the UK to show global leadership by aligning our enforcement outcomes with the purpose of our sanctions—protecting the vulnerable. We cannot continue to allow millions of pounds in criminal assets to vanish into the general state coffers while victims of heinous crimes suffer in silence. It is time to make criminal assets work for justice. These amendments reflect a growing cross-party consensus on the need to modernise our laws against digital and coercive harm. They align with proposals advocated in the Commons debates, where there was a significant concern regarding the state’s ability to use the proceeds of crime to support victims of international law breaches and sanctions violations. By supporting this amendment, as well as Amendments 417 and 419, we could ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of global efforts to ensure that those who profit from atrocity and corruption are made to fund the recovery of those they have harmed.

[Lord Kempsell (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 417, from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to which I have attached my name. I think there is very little I can add to the technical, financial and legal arguments in support that have already been made from all sides of the Committee. I will simply confine myself to a diagonal point on the effectiveness of the UK sanctions regime, which is funded by taxpayers’ money. A huge amount of work and official time goes into ensuring that it is effectively implemented, but the funds and the proceeds remain largely in the UK. It would be a better return on the intention of that public time and effort if those funds ultimately reached victims. That is what the public expect when they support a sanctions regime.

I attach to that the recent debate over the effectiveness of sanctions in general. Surely the measures in these amendments would increase public confidence in the overall sanctions policy of the Government, if the public are able to see that victims themselves are truly the beneficiaries of funds sequestered by their use. I consider the current position to be a rationing of justice and, as Sophocles said, there is no justice if it is rationed.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for introducing this series of amendments and congratulate those who supported him. This is an important public policy question that can, from time to time, raise its ugly head—although it is then ignored. I hope that, as my noble friend has so attractively argued for his amendments just now, we will gain some momentum.

I turn to a related but not exactly identical subject: compensation for overseas victims of crimes committed by British defendants. I raised that question during Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill on 16 December, just before Christmas. The Minister there, who is in her place—I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, who will kindly respond to this group, and I am, as always, grateful to him for bearing that burden—recognised that the question of compensation for overseas victims was a matter of some importance that she would think about. Indeed, she suggested that she might like to meet me to discuss it further. I am open to that invitation, as I am sure would be my noble friend Lord Banner.

My noble friend has opened up a discussion about a lacuna in our law, in that we fail adequately to compensate victims. The victims could be those who have suffered at the hands of the Russians or of those that we, the European Union or the United States have sanctioned. I say in parenthesis that part of my practice at the Bar involves sanctions law, so anything that legislates to increase the size of my practice is to be welcomed. More to the point, it seems to me that we have two parallel streams, which demonstrate that the way we treat victims is insufficient and inadequate.

I thank my noble friend for bringing this to the attention of the Committee and the Government more directly. I trust that, when the Minister comes to respond, he will do so positively. If he is unable to do so, I invite my noble friend to reintroduce his amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill when it comes back to us in Committee at some as yet unannounced date.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments in this group, and all noble Lords who spoke.

Amendments 417 and 419, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, would provide courts with the power to make public interest compensation orders during the sentencing of certain offences. He made a typically eloquent and compelling case for these amendments. He has consistently and powerfully campaigned, especially on Ukraine and the proceeds of sanctions, and I pay tribute to him for that.

Public interest compensation orders would grant the courts the ability to compel offenders to pay money to approved international or public interest bodies that support victims of serious human rights violations, such as torture or aggression. The courts would have to consider relevant factors, such as the broader human rights impact of the crime and the need to prioritise direct victims where relevant.

The amendment also lists relevant eligible recipient organisations with powers for the Secretary of State to update them, creating a structured mechanism for using the proceeds of sanctions-related crime in reparative funding for victims in the wider public interest. The amendment proposes a reasonable and practical process through which courts could divert illegally obtained funds to support victims, and I hope that the Government consider it very carefully. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendment 418 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, similarly proposes a mechanism through which the courts could direct a portion of confiscated proceeds for public interest or social purposes. It is very similar in nature to Amendment 417; it differs slightly in that it specifically requires the courts to consider whether the crime in question

“involved serious human rights violations, mass atrocity crimes, or grand corruption”.

But like Amendment 417, it raises very important issues as well as a broader question: if we are to make public compensation orders, what crimes should they apply to? I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on that matter too.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his amendments. He has had a wide level of support today from, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Kempsell, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lady Goudie. They have all spoken well on this series of amendments. I will try to address the amendments, self-evidently, but I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in particular, that I know how committed he is to Ukraine. He has my support in addressing the viciousness of the Russian regime and the international crimes that it has committed by invading Ukraine. There are obviously a number of consequences to that, but the principles that he puts forward today could apply to a number of other regimes as well.

The amendments seek to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to enable courts to issue public interest compensation orders. These orders would be for public interest or social purposes to support those who may be impacted by offences under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, including victims of human rights violations, as well as other offences added by the Secretary of State via secondary legislation. I recognise the intentions behind these amendments and affirm the Government’s support for victims of human rights abuses and our commitment to tackling economic crime.

On Amendment 417, courts already have the power to impose a compensation order on an offender, which would require them to make financial reparation to a direct victim of a specific offence for any resulting personal injury, loss or damage. Therefore, in seeking to amend the Sentencing Act to allow courts to award compensation orders for public interest or social purposes, there is a danger that it would undermine the current victim-centred approach of the legislation to date.

In passing, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that I know he is seeking a meeting with my noble friend Lady Levitt. It may be my fault that it has not happened, because of a diary clash, but we are agreeing to examine that, and either my noble friend’s office or mine will get back to him with regard to a meeting on those issues.

I recognise the critical importance of supporting victims of crime. As noble Lords will know, the victim surcharge is imposed on offenders by the court in the public interest to ensure that they hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses. The revenue raised from this surcharge is currently used to fund victim services through the victims and witnesses general fund, so the principle has been established.

The UK provides support for victims of human rights and sanctions violations worldwide. Noble Lords may wish to know that we have committed to provide £22 billion of funding to Ukraine. The Government are currently exploring further avenues—such as the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan to Ukraine—alongside our colleagues in the G7 and the EU. This has seen a $50 billion loan to Ukraine, which—this goes to the heart of the amendments tabled—is to be serviced and repaid by future profits generated from frozen Russian sovereign assets.

21:15

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned money from Chelsea and Roman Abramovich. I suspect he knows this but it is worth placing on record, given that he has raised it: on 17 December, the Prime Minister formally announced that the United Kingdom will issue instructions to transfer £2.5 billion from Roman Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea FC to humanitarian causes in Ukraine. The funds that we are transferring have been frozen in a UK bank account since 2022. Although the Government have tried to negotiate a way forward, the said Roman Abramovich has now been given three months to establish a foundation and transfer the funds before the Government consider further options, such as pursuing the matter in court. It is an important signal from the Government as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also mentioned Daesh. I had not considered it in the context of today’s debate, so I do not want to give him information that may prove wrong. If he will let me, I will write to him on that point after the debates today.

Amendments 418 and 419 seek to enable courts to redirect proceeds from confiscation orders to social purposes, as I have just mentioned, by issuing a direction for public interest or social purposes, and to award public interest compensation orders either instead of or in addition to forfeiture orders. I understand the intentions of the amendments but the Proceeds of Crime Act already prioritises directing funds to victims. It allows the court to direct that the proceeds from confiscation orders be applied towards payment of a compensation order. In the financial year ending March 2025, some £47.2 million in compensation was paid to victims from proceeds of crime recovered through confiscation order receipts.

In the context of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, the UK also continues to seek to be, and is, a global leader for asset return and asset sharing, which allows funds to be shared with international partners to recognise victims and international co-operation. The last five years, crossing over both Governments, has seen the UK share over 50% of the proceeds of crime recovered through international co-operation, which demonstrates our commitment to compensating those harmed by such international-facing crimes.

There are, however, a limited number of sanction cases in which the amendments, as tabled, could apply, therefore creating only limited additional funds for the support of victims of human rights abuses. I suggest that we should consider the costs versus benefits in this instance. Additionally, the amendments would direct funds away from the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, which allots a portion of recovered funds to the recovering law enforcement agencies. This process supports and incentivises our law enforcement agencies in their crucial work to tackle economic crime.

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. I hope my explanation of where we are currently is of help. He may still feel there is a gap between the Government and himself. If so, he knows that we can revisit this in due course. I hope that the explanation I have given and the commitments we have shown in the last month on Chelsea FC, and the general support for the international funding of some £22 billion to Ukraine, are of help. With those comments, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his comments, and indeed all speakers. The force of the unanimity on this issue across the Committee is telling. I hope it is the beginning of the momentum that my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier called for.

With respect to a couple of points the Minister mentioned, the proposal would not distract from the existing law because it applies only to relevant offences, which are defined in the amendment as, essentially, sanctions and money laundering. The option of a public interest compensation order would not be available for the dodgy builder-type case that I outlined before. It would not, in fact, distract from direct victims but, in precisely those kinds of offences where the existing law is inapt, it would provide for a remedy for victims. It is true that this category is relatively narrowly defined, but it is precisely that category of offences where the law is currently deficient.

I therefore urge the Minister and officials to give this further consideration. If he is not sick of meeting me on Ukraine-related matters, I am very happy to meet him again to talk through how the wording could perhaps be tweaked to deal with some of the issues he has outlined. If we cannot reach agreement, I would be inclined to bring this back on Report, and/or in the context of the Victims and Courts Bill, as my noble friend mentioned. Against all that background, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 417 withdrawn.

Schedule 16: Confiscation orders: England and Wales

Amendment 418 not moved.

Schedule 16 agreed.

Schedules 17 and 18 agreed.

Clause 146 agreed.

Amendment 419 not moved.

Clauses 147 and 148 agreed.

Amendment 420

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

420: After Clause 148, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to review treatment of childhood convictions and cautions(1) Within a year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the management of childhood convictions and cautions.(2) The report must consider at least—(a) the prevention of automatic disclosure of childhood conditional cautions;(b) the prevention of adult treatment of offences committed by individuals who were minors at the time of the offences in question taking place;(c) the range of childhood convictions which are removed from standard and enhanced checks after five and a half years.(3) In considering the areas outlined in subsection (2), the report must consider the policy merits of reform of the existing management of childhood convictions and cautions, and which actions would be required in each case for reform to take place.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report reviewing how childhood convictions and cautions are handled within one year of this Act being passed.

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

My Lords, in this group on childhood convictions, Amendment 420 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Brinton seeks a general review and report on the management of childhood convictions and cautions. Later in the group, there are four specific amendments. Three are tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with all his wide experience of working as a magistrate, particularly in the youth court, and is also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Spellar and Lord Hampton; the other is tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I support all four specific amendments. They are all consistent with our general proposition that we should be very careful before we mark people out with a criminal record for mistakes committed when they were children.

I am grateful for the briefing we have received from Unlock and Transform Justice. They make a number of helpful proposals for reform. Our amendment calls for a report to be commissioned and laid before Parliament within a year to enable Parliament to be fully informed on the issues and possible reforms in this difficult area —and it is a difficult area. We must not only consider the position of young people who acquire criminal records that may blight their futures but balance their position against the need to protect future employers and others who might be affected by repeat offences in the future, in particular vulnerable children, and society as a whole.

The position of children in England and Wales is exacerbated because we have a very young age of criminal responsibility—10 years old—with the result that, in this jurisdiction, children aged between 10 and 17 can be convicted of criminal offences. This compares with the Netherlands, Belgium, and Scotland, which raised the age of criminal responsibility in 2019, and with Germany, Spain, and Italy, where it is 14, along with many other countries. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to set a minimum age of criminal responsibility without expressing what that should be, but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urges states to raise the age to 14.

The reasons why this matters are not confined to the unfairness of punishing children for crimes when they lack the maturity or responsibility to be held criminally responsible by state laws. The unfairness extends to exposing them to the long-term disadvantage of being scarred with criminal records acquired for childhood offences for longer than is necessary for the protection of the public and often well into their adulthood.

There is a wealth of evidence of the ages at which young people’s brains and cognition mature. Although it differs, the best evidence provides that full maturity is not reached until the early 20s and that full responsibility does not develop until the late teens at least. That matches the obvious and instinctively understood reality that children and young people are that much more likely to get into trouble than adults. Yet, we do not presently match our law on the acquisition, collation and disclosure of criminal records to that obvious reality.

There are many injustices. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds and minority communities are much more likely to acquire criminal records than children from more privileged backgrounds. There is a vicious circle in operation here. Disadvantaged children are overwhelmingly more likely to be in care, to be excluded from school and to develop personality disorders and other mental health issues. Those factors make them significantly more likely to commit offences and get into trouble with the law.

By saddling children with criminal records, we make their disadvantages worse in securing employment or training opportunities, and even in further education. Fines and community orders generally stay on a child’s record for two years on a basic check, and maybe for much longer if an enhanced check is sought, which it is likely to be for any work in a school, for example.

It is not just convictions, though, that damage children. Cautions in childhood can prevent children and young adults securing employment. A basic DBS check provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service, which it is open to any potential employer to seek, will disclose youth conditional cautions, which are intended to be an alternative to formal criminal proceedings. Such conditional cautions can be given to anyone aged between 10 and 17 and avoid the need for criminal proceedings. That is clearly a sensible strategy to provide an alternative criminal justice solution to avoid the need for proceedings and a formal conviction. However, the caution will stay on the child’s record on a basic DBS check for three months or until the conditions have been complied with, whichever is earlier. Even in that time, the caution is capable of being really damaging to that child’s prospects.

Then again, the effect of court backlogs has been, as we know, that convictions are delayed. Such delays may last from the date when a person charged with an offence was a child to a date long after that child’s 18th birthday, so they are then an adult. So, a person can commit an offence as a child and be convicted as an adult but, for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, the date when the conviction becomes spent depends on the date of conviction rather than the date of the offence. So, through no fault of their own, children’s convictions for offences that ought to have been spent are unspent for far longer.

This is an area in serious need of review. We need wider consideration of all the issues concerning the treatment of criminal records acquired for childhood offences, including: whether and for how long children’s offences should stay on their records; how far the seriousness of the sentence passed should be the sole or even the main criterion for convictions becoming spent; what other criteria there should be; whether conditional cautions should be treated as giving rise to a criminal record; how far it should be open to children convicted of offences committed in childhood to apply for their records to be expunged—when, to whom and on what basis; and how far such offences should still be disclosed on standard and enhanced higher-level DBS checks.

These are serious issues affecting many lives that are currently blighted by a past that sticks with them, and they are important to society as a whole. I beg to move.

21:30

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for so fully setting out his and the other amendments in this group. I agreed with his opening points, and I support all the amendments—I suspect all the speakers in this short debate will support them too. In a sense, they offer a range of possible changes, from a broad review to addressing specific anomalies, which the noble Lord did.

I am absolutely confident that our Lord Chancellor would be very sympathetic to these amendments. I know that he has said in recent speeches that he wants to look at criminal records, and those for young people in particular. That is an excellent starting point, and I hope that the Minister can reinforce that point when she comes to sum up.

Touching on the amendments in my name, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lord Spellar, who will speak on these matters as well. My Amendment 476 seeks to prevent the automatic disclosure of childhood conditional cautions in a DBS check by amending the definition of a criminal conviction certificate in the Police Act 1997.

My Amendment 477, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, addresses a clear anomaly in the law as it stands. The amendment seeks to ensure that the criminal record for a juvenile is dated from the offence rather than the conviction date. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, these could be really quite far apart, so the way the conviction is treated will be different, because the young adult will be convicted even though the offence was committed when he was a youth.

Amendment 478 seeks to ensure that custodial sentences, except for the most serious sentences, will be removed from an individual’s criminal record after five and a half years if the offence was committed before the age of 18.

Sitting here earlier today and at previous Committee sittings of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, drew something to my attention which I was not aware of involving non-crime hate incidents. He pointed out that, for youths, a non-crime hate incident is treated the same as for an adult, and that means a six-year retention of the information. That is another example of an anomaly, and I hope, when the Home Office comes to report on non-crime hate incidents, it can ensure that that is tied up with the Ministry of Justice considering the way youth convictions are looked at for DBS checks.

I also want to say something about Amendment 486D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. That is specifically about transport-related convictions of young people. I support what he is going to say, I am sure, but I have to say that, as a youth magistrate for nearly 20 years, I cannot remember ever seeing a young person in court for evasion of a fare. If he has figures—he is nodding his head—I will listen to them with interest, because it is not my personal experience of what I saw in youth court. I tend to see much more serious cases, but nevertheless I will listen to and support what he says with interest.

The overarching point is that this is a difficult area. It is very easy to point out anomalies. I am sure that we have a very sympathetic Lord Chancellor, and I really hope that the Government seize this opportunity to address the overarching issue of the way we treat our young people, so that they are not held back when they go into the adult world and the world of work.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I have been arguing for some years in the House of Commons that the DBS scheme has, frankly, run out of control. I can quote from June 2020, when I said to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson that it was

“a major obstacle to people turning their lives around. It is inefficient, unfair and, frankly, discriminatory. The Lammy report dealt with this in some depth nearly two years ago, so we do not need any more … inquiries. We need action”.

Reference has been made to the impact in different parts of the country. In smaller police forces, not only are cases often not taken to court but cautions are not issued, and instead people are very informally told to mend their ways. In cities, it can often be very different, and this also still lies on the record. The then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in his reply to me:

“Any MP will have had very hard cases caused by the DBS system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/20; col. 1309.]


I think there is a general recognition at the political level that this is a problem. I have to say from all my experience that there is deep inertial resistance inside the Civil Service to changing this, and I urge Ministers vigorously to overcome it, particularly given the report done by David Lammy, who was commissioned by the then Conservative Government to look into this area.

We also saw similar problems with the first elections for police and crime commissioners. Unwisely, a requirement was put in that someone should have no criminal conviction. We had a candidate who had to stand down as he had been convicted for possessing an offensive weapon when he was 13. We had another candidate who had committed a minor offence 22 years previously. These are people with long records of public service, and in no way should that have been held against them.

Whatever steps we take should also relate to proportionality and relevance. When I was a Transport Minister, there were proposals to introduce DBS checks at airports—I fully understood that—but if somebody had a conviction for an assault outside a nightclub in Southall on a Saturday night, I was not really worried if he was throwing my bags around in the luggage section. I would have been concerned if he had had a conviction for theft or for dealing in stolen goods. That also needs to be taken into account and be put right.

As a constituency Member of Parliament, I also had a woman who had been given a suspended sentence for an assault, age 18, in an argument with another girl over a partner. In her 40s, this was still preventing her. This does not just affect young people; it blights people right the way through their lives—and not just their lives but their children’s lives, as they are not able to provide support for them and have all the frustration of not developing their skills of life. It does not let people move on but also deprives the workforce of talent.

We are told sometimes that DBS checks and the ongoing system are fine, and that employers will look at them and take proportional action. They do not. Once a DBS check comes back with anything on the record, the fact is that people automatically get dropped. What is even more outrageous is that those same employers then go bleating to government, saying, “We can’t get workers here”, and so we have to bring them in from abroad. That was one factor that led to the huge surge of care workers being brought into this country in recent years—a considerable amount of exploitation and fraud accompanied it, by the way. At the same time, people were being kept off work, on benefits, not able to provide for themselves or their families.

My plea to the Committee is to support change and give people hope that they can turn their lives around, to take the opportunity to reinstate what I would argue were the principles of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act when it was first brought forward, and to make some progress. We may need to make further changes in the future, but these amendments provide a very good start.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad that I waited for the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to contribute to the debate, as I agree with just about everything that he has said. Noble Lords may say that that is not terribly difficult, given that I have co-signed the amendments that he has signed. I share his view that —I am paraphrasing what he said and will probably get it wrong—reviews can sometimes go nowhere. Having listened to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am much attracted to our amendment.

Equally, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Marks, introducing his amendment, and having studied it a little more closely, I am attracted by his idea that the review should look into what I think we all admit is a quite complicated area, in public policy terms, of discussion. I am attracted to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Marks. If this amendment is accepted by the Government, we would have a report within a year of the Bill’s enactment—we could be talking about, say, June 2027, by the time the review has taken place and the Government have reported. Further, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 420 begins by saying:

“The report must consider at least”,


and then identifies three broad subject areas. It would be able to take on board the points that the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Spellar, have so far outlined.

A combination of these four separate proposals need to grip the Government’s attention, so that we can come back with a coherent, thought-through and workable set of policies that recognise the need for these two public interests to be borne in mind; that is to say, the protection of the public and employers and so forth, set against the need to allow youngsters who may have made some terrible mistakes to get on and live their lives.

I will finish with an anecdote. I used to make a habit of visiting prisons and so forth, when I was shadow Minister of Prisons—before the ark was set afloat. The adult male prison population was once largely aged between 21 and 30. It was an unscientific approach but I noticed that, since around the first decade of this century, the average age of the adult male prison population has risen, largely because of the conviction of historic sex offenders. People have been convicted in, say, the 2010s, in their 60s or 70s, for offences committed when they were youngsters, so the average age of the prison population has to some extent risen. It is a generalisation, and something that the review could look into, but, by and large, people grow out of criminal behaviour. Once they have found a partner and somewhere to live, and got a job—as long as they have not been ruined by Rehabilitation of Offenders Act antipathy—they will get on, earn a living and live their lives. The stupidity of their teenage years falls away behind them, and it should be allowed to stay there.

21:45

This discussion has opened up an important but much underdiscussed area of public policy. I hope that the Government seriously take on board all that has been said by those who have spoken and remain attracted to the idea of a serious review of this complicated area of law to see whether we can mend it.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. As is my way, I must sound a note of caution for one group of people. I know that many noble Lords have a problem with our very low age of criminal responsibility, but it affords a level of protection to young children being groomed for gangs. We need to bear that in mind.

I have great sympathy for these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Spellar, spoke about the Lammy review. I was on the Lammy review. I ran a job club for over 12 years, and many of the young men I dealt with were unable to seek employment because of what we used to call a blip when they were younger that was still appearing on their DBS. That small blip often drove them to much more serious crime, because they were older and needed to raise more money.

We should do a review, because it is a complicated area, but there are two things to focus on. First, returning to my theme, the single biggest driver of crime is the idea that you have got away with it. If we are going to remove some of the consequences, we need to think clearly and carefully about how that will be perceived by people who are involved in criminal activity—particularly if they are young and do not have all the experiences to risk-assess their own behaviour. We must bear that in mind, because, inadvertently we might be encouraging them to approach criminal behaviour. The myth on the street will be that when you are 18, it is wiped out anyway. We might argue about the nuance of what we are prepared to wipe out or not, but that will not be the conversation on a dark night in the park when the boys are planning their next manoeuvre. It is important that we bear that in mind.

Secondly, there are people in gangs whose sole job is to recruit young people. One of the big things they say to those young people is, “You are too young to go to court”. We have to be careful about making that true, or at least appear to be true. Removing these spent convictions would be such a powerful thing to help people move on, and I support it, but let us think very carefully about how we talk about it, where we draw the lines, how we explain it and how it is enacted in reality rather than just in concept as we sit in this Chamber.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to all these amendments, particularly Amendments 476, 477 and 478. These amendments highlight how the system of criminal record disclosure, particularly as it relates to children, is complex and very confusing. I am an advocate for criminal record reform, having been a youth magistrate for over 20 years and having been on the Youth Justice Board. Those roles have consistently demonstrated to me how decisions made in childhood, often in relation to relatively minor offences, can have consequences that extend well into adult life, as we have heard this evening.

As noble Lords will know, I recently tabled an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to address the anomaly in youth sentencing whereby the first court appearance, rather than the date of the offence, determines whether a young person is treated as an adult. I am therefore very conscious of the unfair impact these technicalities beyond a child’s control can have on their future.

Although we have had success in reducing the number of children in custody because we wanted to keep young people out of prison, we have at the same time increased the threshold of seriousness of offending in these disposals of conditional cautions over a number of years.

I know that the Justice Secretary has recently acknowledged publicly that aspects of the criminal records and disclosure system are in need of reform. Rehabilitation is about giving people a chance to change, and, where appropriate, we should work to ensure that childhood mistakes do not turn into lifelong punishments, giving them the opportunity to get on with their lives.

I am also attracted to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier referred. It is very important that the Minister view these amendments on childhood as an opportunity to reflect on a broader review of criminal records and the DBS disclosure system, which might now be appropriate.

These amendments highlight just how complex the system has become. Ensuring that the system is fairer, while keeping in mind the importance of rehabilitation and protection to the public, would, in my view, be a worthwhile objective.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendments 476, 477 and 478 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which I have added my name. I am also sympathetic to the other amendments in this group and declare, as ever, that I am a schoolteacher in Hackney. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Transform Justice.

I rather innocently assumed that one of the cornerstones of the justice system in this country is rehabilitation, but this does not seem to be the case with our young people. As we have heard, every year in England and Wales there are 13,000 convictions of children aged 10 to 17, who are disproportionately from poor backgrounds, minoritised communities, in care or excluded from school. Those convicted acquire criminal records which only add to their disadvantage.

Some of these criminal records remain through life. A child charged for affray for a playground fight would have to disclose that for ever on a standard and enhanced DBS check. Also, currently, as we have heard, a criminal record is acquired on conviction rather than according to the date of the offence itself. This means that many people commit offences as children but acquire an adult criminal record because, through no fault of their own, the hearing at which they are convicted happens after their 18th birthday. This situation has got worse because of the recent delays in the court system. This is patently absurd.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has said, brains do not mature until people are well into their twenties. Also, research has shown that teenagers take more risks when they have an audience. As I see in the playground every week, children are immature and often reckless, not seeing the consequences of their actions.

Our criminal records should allow for rehabilitation in order to allow young people to move on from childhood mistakes. These amendments would mean that young people should be able to be free of their childhood offences at a specific interval after they have finished their sentence, so they do not have to explain old and no longer relevant childhood offences to potential employers—even if they manage to get as far as an interview. We are not talking about the most serious crimes here.

For everyone else, these amendments would mean that childhood offences should automatically be taken off the records five and a half years after conviction. We also propose that a conditional caution, when accepted by a child, should not appear on the records. We propose that those whose conviction is delayed until after their 18th birthday should not acquire an adult criminal record.

With the number of NEETs approaching 1 million, we should be doing everything we can to remove barriers to employment and let rehabilitation of the young be truly part of the justice system.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I am going to speak to Amendment 486D, and I support all the other amendments in this group. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his compelling introduction, and for the other powerful speeches. You may wonder why I have tabled this very specific amendment. The best way I can relate it is to tell a brief story. I was truly shocked when a friend drew my attention to an incident involving his teenage daughter a few years ago, but which, I believe, affects many of our young people, receives very little publicity and ruins many lives.

My friend’s daughter had arrived at a railway station to find that the ticket machines were not working and there was a long queue for the ticket office. Desperate to catch a train to get her vaccinations for charitable work abroad, she foolishly jumped on a train without a ticket.

When she got out at her destination, she offered to pay at the barrier. The inspector told her to get a ticket at the ticket office. However, there was a long queue, so, knowing that she would not have time to do that, she went to the machines, but she found that she could not get a machine ticket for a journey from the station where she had left to the station she had arrived at.

Very naively, she thought she would therefore get the ticket after her appointment for vaccinations, and she left the station in a state of some panic. It was then that she was approached by the ticket inspector and told she was to be prosecuted under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for travelling without paying the fare with intent to avoid payment. It was the first time she had ever done something like this. Her ticket would have cost £3.20. That is less than a cappuccino coffee.

I discovered that, if convicted, she might not only face a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to three months, but her conviction would be recorded on the Police National Database and future potential employers would see it after a basic criminal records search for up to six years and for up to 11 years, I believe, after an enhanced check. Through just one moment’s teenage lack of judgment, her prospects of obtaining a job and a career would be blighted during a crucial period when most young people are trying to get on the career ladder—all for a £3.20 fare.

Acting as a friend, I had many exchanges of correspondence with the rail company, all to no avail. The upshot was that I ended up joining her and her desperately worried parents at the local magistrates’ court for her hearing, where I intended to plead the mitigating circumstances of her case. To my horror, I discovered she was one of dozens of other children and young people queuing up that morning, charged with exactly the same offence, which was a regular occurrence at that magistrates’ court, I found. It was nothing unusual. I managed to persuade the train company to drop her case if she paid a fine, but thousands of other young people are not so lucky.

This was a young teenage woman who was on an important journey in connection with unpaid charitable work abroad. Her heart was in exactly the right place. On the spur of the moment, she panicked and thought she might miss her train. She had tried to pay the fare at the train barriers when she arrived, so she emphatically did not intend to avoid it. Of course—and I emphasise this—she thoroughly deserved the fine, but did she really deserve the likely prospect of being unable to obtain a decent job for the next six to 11 years, all for a one-off, first-time offence relating to a £3.20 train ticket? She was no serial offender.

The charity FairChecks has demonstrated that, with a criminal record, young people can be locked out of future employment opportunities and even voluntary work. Research shows that at least 30% of employers automatically exclude a candidate with an unspent conviction. But the facts show that, as we have heard, young peoples’ brains are still developing, which makes them more impulsive and less able fully to understand the consequences of their actions. It is therefore crucial that they be given the opportunity to move on from their mistakes without carrying the weight of those childhood errors during early adulthood. In all honesty, might not many of us say, “There but for the grace of God go our children”?

My amendment would give our children a second chance if they are found without a valid ticket on the railways. They would still be liable for a penalty fare or a fine but, provided it was a first offence, their lives would not be ruined by being given a disclosable criminal record. I emphasise that my amendment would not apply if they were caught a second time. In those circumstances, they would not have learned from their mistakes and potential employers would have just cause in wanting to know they were dishonest.

22:00

This is apparently a widespread problem. In June 2025 the Office of Rail and Road, the ORR, did a report on rail fare enforcement and identified a number of issues with train operating companies’ revenue protection practices. It said:

“Fare evasion and revenue loss are increasing … However, passenger safeguards have not kept pace”

and train operating companies’ practices

“may result in unfair or disproportionate outcomes with passengers being penalised for innocent or minor mistakes”.

The Government said in July last year that they were urgently considering the sensible recommendations in that report and would respond as soon as possible. I would be very grateful if the Minister would give an update on the Government’s response to the ORR report.

Are there statistics on how many children and young people under 21 have been convicted of these offences? The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised this point in a challenge to me. The evidence I have is the evidence of my own eyes and the questions I asked at that particular magistrates’ court. There were 40 or 50 young people queuing up that morning, charged with exactly that offence, and apparently it was a weekly occurrence at least. I would be most grateful if the Government could give any statistics on how many young people under 21 are convicted of that railways offence under the 1889 Act.

In conclusion, this is about proportionality. Yes, children should not escape punishment, and a fine or penalty fare is entirely appropriate, but a criminal record for 11 years for a first offence by a child is totally disproportionate.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed my noble friend Lord Marks’s Amendment 420 and thank him for his excellent explanation. I am also reminded that our noble friend Lord Dholakia has campaigned for decades for a review of the way in which society deals with children in the criminal justice system. His principal concern, and the subject of a number of Private Members’ Bills, was on increasing the age of criminal responsibility, and we will address that specific issue in the next couple of Committee days. He also expressed some concerns about the treatment that children and young people who had entered the criminal justice system would face later on.

Reference has been made to David Lammy’s review. I also remind the Committee about Iain Duncan Smith’s report for the Centre for Social Justice in 2012, in which he said:

“There is now a significant body of research evidence indicating that early adolescence (under 13-14 years of age) is a period of marked neurodevelopmental immaturity, during which children’s capacity is not equivalent to that of an older adolescent or adult. Such findings cast doubt on the culpability and competency of early adolescents to participate in the criminal process and this raises the question of whether the current MACR”—


minimum age of criminal responsibility—“at ten, is appropriate”. I think that also reflects on cautions and convictions for that age group, although I recognise that my noble friend’s amendment goes right up to the end of childhood.

All the amendments in front of us look at how convictions and cautions are handled and how they are disclosed. Mention has already been made of the organisation FairChecks. It has called for a major review of the criminal records disclosure system. Interestingly, it produced the same evidence as Iain Duncan Smith about the capacity of people of this age to understand and take responsibility for their actions. As has already been mentioned, young people hoping to move on suddenly discover that in trying to get work or a promotion they have to disclose their criminal records, and too often, on top of the almost inevitable rejection letters, their shame emerges once again, destroying their chance of creating a new life once they have served their time.

FairChecks proposes that there should be an automatic disclosure of a caution in criminal records, the slate should be wiped clean for childhood offences and we should stop forcing people to reveal short and suspended prison sentences for ever. But, it says—as has every other speaker so far today—safeguards must remain in place for more serious offenders in order to protect the public. At the same time, it would give individuals the chance to move beyond their childhood criminal record so they could get work and forge a new life as an adult, and the first steps towards that would be a review. I hope the Minister will look favourably on Amendment 420.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for his Amendment 420. In general, of course, these Benches abide by the notion that policy and practice should be guided by the feedback of evidence and outcomes, and the amendment would support that objective with regard to childhood convictions and cautions. I believe the data that currently exists on this would have to be thoroughly analysed to determine whether the measure is necessary, and I hope the Minister can shed some light on that existing evidence in her response.

We have great sympathy with the general thrust of Amendments 476 to 478. I have some reservations about Amendment 476, in that we have already removed the automatic disclosure of youth cautions on DBS certificates and I am unsure whether that should be extended now to the more serious youth conditional cautions, which of course include duties alongside the original caution. But I completely understand the principle behind Amendment 477, in the name of the same noble Lords, and why the legislation as currently drafted may lead to individuals being treated as adults when they commit an offence as a juvenile—all the more so given the backlog that the courts are currently suffering and delays in the court system, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out. Likewise, I see the rationale behind Amendment 478, which seeks to ensure that custodial sentences received by youths are removed from their criminal records after five and a half years.

On Amendment 486D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, as others have said, children of course make mistakes, and there is a spectrum of offences, where avoiding a fare payment and travelling without a ticket is certainly on the less severe end. There is plainly a case that, as first-time offences, these do not warrant a criminal conviction certificate being issued.

My only point in conclusion is to echo what my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington said: we have to be a little careful not to increase the incentives for petty crime. As he pointed out, that can perhaps lead—especially with regard to criminal gangs—to a potential for danger. With that said, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for tabling Amendments 420, 476 to 478 and 486D. They form a formidable trio in terms of not just their expertise but the respect that they rightly command in your Lordships’ House.

A number of noble Lords have raised the question of the age of criminal responsibility. I hope I will be forgiven for not addressing that now; I know for certain that we will be addressing it at least twice in the days and weeks to come.

The Government acknowledge the principle that underpins these amendments—namely, that having a criminal record will have a significant impact on children and that such a record can, in some circumstances, follow them into later life as adults, again with profound consequences. That said, as I think all noble Lords agreed, it is critical that our criminal records disclosure regime strikes the right balance. On the one hand, we want to support people who have committed criminal offences, either some time ago or when they were very young, to be able to move on with their lives. But there is also a need for appropriate risk management in the public interest, as well as to safeguard the most vulnerable.

I will deal first with Amendments 420 and 476 to 478. The existing regime helps employers make informed recruitment decisions through the disclosure of appropriate and relevant information. This will mean that some serious offences, even when committed as a child, will always need to be disclosed, particularly where a person is applying to work with children or vulnerable adults. As some of your Lordships will be aware, in his recent independent review of the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the Government review the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. In the Statement I made to your Lordships’ House on 2 December, I said that we will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is both clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.

I would be very happy to meet with any of your Lordships over the coming weeks to discuss this in more detail. It is of the utmost importance to the Government that we work together to ensure that we get this right. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I was very struck by the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, that this is not always as straightforward as it might appear, hence the need to make sure that we do this carefully, in a structured and thoughtful way. As I said, I would be delighted to see any of your Lordships. Given the offer made by my noble friend Lord Hanson in the previous group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and I may be seeing rather more of each other than perhaps he had intended—but it is always a pleasure on my part.

Turning to Amendment 486D, I am very surprised to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says because the Government’s view echoes what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said: children are generally treated leniently when fare evasion occurs. This offence is most commonly dealt with by transport staff, so usually no question arises of a child acquiring a criminal record for fare evasion and similar offences. The police usually become involved only in cases of a refusal to pay for a ticket, for repeat offences or because of some other complicating factor. Even when the police become involved, this does not usually result in a prosecution taking place because the Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to consider, as a specific public interest factor tending against prosecution, where a child is young or where it is a first offence.

Police officers can give out-of-court disposals, which allow them to respond to low-level offending proportionately and effectively. These out-of-court disposals, of which there are a variety, provide opportunities for children to make reparation and restoration to victims, and to be diverted into courses or services which can help to change their offending behaviour. Most types of out-of-court disposals are not automatically disclosed on criminal record certificates.

The Government believe that it would be very unusual for a child or young person to get a criminal conviction for this type of offence but, were that to happen, the disclosure time limits under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are very different from those that affect adults. Rehabilitation periods for children are typically half the length of those for an adult. For example, if a court were to impose a fine for fare evasion, there would usually be a requirement that the child disclose their conviction for only six months, as opposed to the case of an adult, who would have to disclose it for a year.

For all these reasons, under the existing legislation, the Government’s view is that there is a very small chance of a child who is a first-time offender getting a criminal record for a fare evasion offence in the first place, and an equally small chance of such a conviction following them into adult life. I will, however, make inquiries and write to the noble Lord giving such statistics as I am able to find.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

I am extremely grateful. To some extent mine is a probing amendment—I need more facts and evidence around this—but the Minister referred to the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The cases I spoke about were prosecuted by the train operating company. I am not really convinced that it had even heard of the Code for Crown Prosecutors; judging from all the correspondence I had with it, I do not think it had, to be honest. I believe there is something there to be investigated more closely, because I saw the evidence with my own eyes.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I do not think that I can improve on what I have said. I will make inquiries into the statistical evidence that we hold and write to the noble Lord.

I reiterate that I am very happy to meet any of your Lordships, including, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, ahead of Report to discuss these issues in more detail. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that I have had from across the Committee, and for the very detailed and helpful response from the Minister. I will gladly take up her invitation to have a discussion. It is important that the Government intend to review this area, at least in part. If we can commission a review of the sort that I have suggested, I would be very pleased to help with that. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 420 withdrawn.

22:15

Amendment 420A

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

420A: After Clause 148, insert the following new Clause—
“Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements(1) A person (“relevant offender”) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6). (2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing —(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth,(b) their national insurance number,(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names,(d) their place of residence on the date of notification,((e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay, and(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2);(b) a change to their place or residence;(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service, and(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.(6) The relevant offences are—(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia (section 3);(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 420A. Although it is in my name, it is a product of tireless campaigning from my honourable friend Helen Grant MP. I thank her for her long-standing commitment to this issue. It is thanks to her unwavering commitment that we are one step closer to making a child cruelty register a reality.

I thank the Government for their ongoing communication with us on this important topic and their assurances that they would like to implement a policy that supports a child cruelty register. When this amendment was tabled during the passage of the Sentencing Bill in your Lordships’ House, government officials requested that it be reserved for Home Office legislation, rather than that of the Ministry of Justice. That is why I am moving this amendment today.

This proposed register would be very similar in kind to the register for convicted child sex offenders, for whom notification requirements already exist. It would ensure that those convicted of cruelty to vulnerable children must notify the police of their home address and other relevant details following their release from prison. The register would act as a safeguard by providing the police with the oversight needed to manage offenders and reduce the risk to children. It would mean that those who commit cruelty to children in a non-sexual manner cannot simply disappear back into the community.

These provisions already exist for sex offenders, and we see no reason why they should not similarly pertain to those convicted of child cruelty. Although the offence is different, its effects are detrimentally serious in nature. Child cruelty is a heinous crime that can have a lifelong impact on victims and affects the most vulnerable individuals in society.

Common sense requires that those who commit crimes such as allowing the death of a child, neglect of a child, violence towards a child, infanticide or female genital mutilation should not be able to slip under the radar in local communities once their custodial sentence is spent. There should be a centralised mechanism for the police to know where these people live. This is particularly so given that, in the vast majority of child cruelty cases, the offender has parental responsibility for the victim. They are therefore likely to have connections to the child’s guardian, who, in many cases, will be a family member.

There is a clear gap in the child protection systems that unnecessarily endangers children. The child protection system must exist to free children from the conditions of cruelty towards them, but it must also contain preventive measures to ensure that children are not placed in such appalling situations. Child cruelty offences have doubled in the past few years; now more than ever, it is important to act swiftly to curb this rise. Given the Government’s previously stated support for this measure, I hope that the Minister will be equally able to offer her support today.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my colleagues in the Commons very much supported Helen Grant in her campaign for this amendment. I pay particular tribute to Jess Brown-Fuller MP. It is very helpful that it has been directed to this Bill, and we on these Benches are very pleased that the Opposition have laid the amendment to this Bill.

It is getting late, and I will not speak for very long. The only other people we need to credit are Tony Hudgell and his parents. After being taken away from his birth parents, he has lived for many years with his foster parents, who he describes as his parents. He has endured 23 operations after injuries that resulted in him losing both legs when he was a toddler. That is the sort of cruelty—although unusually bad in this case—that the amendment is intended to address. For all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined, we absolutely support the progress of this amendment, and we hope that the Government will look favourably on it.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, notification requirements received attention during the passage of the Government’s Sentencing Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for ensuring this important matter remains firmly on our agenda. I join the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in paying tribute to Helen Grant MP and to Paula Hudgell, both of whose tireless campaigning has done so much to advance the protection of children. As my noble friend Lord Timpson set out in Committee on the Sentencing Bill, this Government are committed to safeguarding children and ensuring robust measures are in place to protect them from those who seek to cause them harm. We are working hard to consider the best way to manage such offenders effectively.

We are unable to support the amendment at present, as further work is needed to determine the most effective way to strengthen offender management. We need to consider fully all aspects of implementation when it comes to adding notification requirements to a new cohort of offenders, particularly in light of the Government’s recently published violence against women and girls strategy, which sets out significant reforms to offender management.

It is right that we take the time to understand the potential impact of these proposals. One of the issues is that adding notification requirements to a new cohort of offenders would involve significant costs for policing. For example, notification duties such as taking biometric data, verifying personal details, recording changes, conducting compliance visits and managing ViSOR data must all be absorbed into the general workload of the police. One of the tasks for the Government is to reflect that this could mean shifting resource from other important areas of police work.

I can reassure noble Lords, however, that since December, Home Office and Justice Ministers have met regularly to discuss options in this space and have held initial discussions with national policing representatives. So, I can add my reassurances to those already given by my noble friend Lord Timpson: Ministers will continue to pursue this issue with vigour. With these reassurances, I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to the Minister for their contributions. I think we can all agree that child protection should be a priority for any Government and that we must ensure that any gaps in the law are plugged with immediate effect.

This amendment, unlike many in this Bill, is not about creating a new category of offender or about an expansion of the criminal law; it simply reflects and seeks to fix the troubling reality that individuals who commit acts of cruelty or violence or neglect do not have a monitoring regime upon leaving custody. That is what we believe needs to be corrected. We already accept, as a matter of principle, that where an offence demonstrates a clear and ongoing risk to children, the state has a responsibility to ensure appropriate oversight in the community, and that is why notification requirements exist for child sex offenders. This amendment merely extends the same logic to offences that, while different in nature, can be as devastating in their consequences and no less indicative of future risk.

I am grateful to the Government for acknowledging the need and the advantages of this amendment both inside and outside of this Chamber. I am grateful for the Minister’s words of support tonight, and I understand the point she made about considering this properly, but the rise in child cruelty offences demands action rather than any kind of delay. Every year that passes without a mechanism of this kind leaves children unnecessarily exposed to harm. Therefore, I want to give, with the greatest of respect, notice to the Minister that unless there is an amendment from the Government on Report that supports the substance of this amendment, it is likely that I would want to bring it back. I re-emphasise my gratitude for the Government’s co-operation on this point, but for present purposes I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 420A withdrawn.

Clauses 149 to 151 agreed.

Amendment 421

Moved by

[Baroness Doocey]

421: After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of Chief Constables(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 38 (Appointment, suspension and removal of chief constables), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Before exercising the power under subsection (3), the police and crime commissioner must consult with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, or relevant successor inspectorate.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Police and Crime Commissioner to consult with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services before calling upon a Chief Constable to resign or retire.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 421 is now a hot topic. The West Midlands Police chief constable has resigned, and the Government are pledging to restore the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chiefs who “fail their communities”. Last week’s events bring the motivation behind this amendment into sharp focus, underlining the need to shield operational policing from political interference.

Contrary to some recent reporting, police and crime commissioners are not required by law to consult the police inspectorate before sacking a chief constable. Although they are expected to seek its advice, it is not a statutory duty. Amendment 421 would put that safeguard clearly into primary legislation, requiring HMICFRS to be consulted before a chief constable is removed.

When PCCs were created, they were given the power to hire and fire the chief officer, but concentrating that power in one pair of hands has had damaging consequences. Across England and Wales, around a quarter of forces now lose their chief constable every year—an astonishing level of churn for such a senior role. That is both wasteful of talent and destabilising for forces. Too often, these departures are driven not by incompetence or misconduct but by political disagreement, with some PCCs permanently in election mode and prioritising their own political agenda rather than responding impartially to the real policing challenges on the ground.

We must never reach a point where a chief constable fears upsetting the Home Secretary, or where any politician can bully a police leader to serve their own political ends. That would take us dangerously close to the American model of political control over policing. In the British tradition, officers swear allegiance to the Crown, not to any politician, and they are expected to act independently without fear or favour. It is a model that has stood the test of time, commands public confidence and deserves to be preserved. Although PCCs have used the formal Section 38 removal process only twice, several more have threatened to invoke proceedings, usually starting with suspension. In all these cases, this has resulted in the chief constable choosing to retire or resign rather than fight a public battle they are unlikely to win.

The Government now propose to move responsibility from PCCs to elected mayors, with council leaders taking the lead elsewhere through new policing and crime boards. On these Benches, we fear that this simply repeats the same mistakes in a different guise. The mayoral route in particular concentrates even more power in a single individual, often elected on a low turnout and with limited day-to-day scrutiny. What replaces PCCs must be better, not just different, and for the Liberal Democrats that means local police boards drawn from councillors and community representatives. Moving powers from one underscrutinised politician to another is not a solution.

Amendment 438EC would allow the Home Secretary to instruct a PCC to begin the dismissal process, effectively giving central government the power to fire chief constables. No individual, whether a PCC, mayor, council leader or Home Secretary, should hold unilateral power to dismiss a chief constable. Dismissal must remain possible where justified, but only through a fair and transparent process, with mandatory independent scrutiny.

That is the role of HMICFRS—to provide an external check, ensuring that decisions are based on competence, conduct and the public interest, not political convenience. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary sought the inspectorate’s view in the West Midlands case, but that essential safeguard is missing from Amendment 438EC, which allows appointment of a person outside government or policing with too much scope for political influence, and only after the Home Secretary has already decided, making the process look uncomfortably like a rubber stamp. That is what Amendment 421 is designed to prevent.

22:30

We cannot continue with a framework in which highly experienced senior officers are pushed out not because they failed the public but because the governance framework leaves them vulnerable to political whim. This is not about shielding chief constables from accountability; it is about ensuring that accountability sits within a framework that protects the public interest and respects the line between governance and operational control. If we get this wrong, we will continue to lose good leaders and further erode the independence that is so essential to policing by consent. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, if ever there was a pertinent time to debate this matter, it is now. The mechanism by which chief constables can be removed has faced significant scrutiny, given the very controversial actions taken by West Midlands Police in the Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Nick Timothy MP for his tenacity in pursuing the truth of that matter. I think it is now axiomatic that the former chief constable of West Midlands Police failed in his professional duties, and it is welcome that he has now accepted that his position is no longer tenable and has announced his retirement. It is against this backdrop that we discuss the amendments in this group.

On Amendment 421, I am of course aware of the Government’s indication that they will abolish PCCs in due course; that is important context to this amendment. For the time being, of course, they remain in place. I am not entirely convinced about the necessity of Amendment 421. With the Maccabi Tel Aviv affair, it was evident for quite some time that the PCC for the West Midlands should have dismissed the chief constable. As it happens, he did not, but I am not sure that consulting His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services beforehand would have had any bearing on the PCC’s decision. Furthermore, if the PCC was required by statute to consult the inspectorate, would that not have provided further delays to any decision?

Amendment 438EC seeks to grant the Home Secretary the power to remove chief constables. In her Statement to the other place on the 14 January, the Home Secretary said that until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. On the face of it, that is correct. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 repealed the direct power of the Home Secretary to remove the chief constable of a police force, and Section 38 of that Act grants the power of dismissal to the PCC of the police area. However, the Home Secretary has the power to give directions in relation to police forces and local policing bodies under Sections 40 and 40A of the Police Act 1996. If, for instance, it was clear that West Midlands Police was failing to discharge its functions in an effective manner, the appropriate measure to remedy that failure would have been the removal of the chief constable. Therefore, according to those sections, the Secretary of State has perhaps an indirect ability to remove chief constables.

In her Statement to the other place, the Home Secretary also said that the Government are going to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. Does the Minister have a timeline for when the police reform White Paper might be published, and, if he does not have precise date, can he give us an indication of its rough progress? Will any change in the law be brought forward in time for Report on this Bill, or will we have to wait until the next Session for another policing Bill?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment, which concerns the process by which police and crime commissioners may call on a chief constable to resign or retire. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has mentioned, the Government’s intention is to replace police and crime commissioners with a mayoral model or, in some cases in which the mayoral model is inappropriate, with a policing board made up of local councillors, and that will be brought forward in due course. Further details will be set out again in the policing White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, asked me when that would be produced. I say again to him the time-honoured phrase of “shortly”, but by shortly I do mean shortly; I hope he will not have too long to wait for the report be published as a White Paper. Self-evidently, it is a very complex document with lots of discussion items in it. Again, any legislative proposals in it will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I am not trying to short-change him, but we will give that detail in the near future.

As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of her amendment is to ensure that, before taking steps to dismiss a chief constable, a police and crime commissioner must first seek the views of HMICFRS. I agree that this is a desirable approach, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that this is already in place as a requirement. The noble Baroness should know, and I hope that it is helpful to her, that under Section 38(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs may call upon the relevant chief constable to resign or retire. Before exercising this power, and under regulation 11A of the Police Regulations 2003, police and crime commissioners are required to seek the views of HM inspectorate in writing and provide them to the chief constable and the relevant police and crime panel, alongside their rationale for why the PCC is proposing to call for retirement or resignation. I appreciate that it is a confusing landscape to have regulations under the Act and under police regulations. However, the position currently is there in black and white, and what her amendment seeks to do is already enshrined in law.

The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is not in his place so I will not say too much now, if anything, about Amendment 438EC. However, because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, I want to place on record for the Committee the fact that the Home Secretary has already announced the Government’s intention to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to remove chief constables. It has been a difficult few weeks in the West Midlands and, following the changes that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, it has highlighted the absence of such a power allowing the Home Secretary to act. We believe that action is needed, and I can assure your Lordships that this is high on the Government’s agenda. The White Paper is due in very short order. It will set out exactly the Government’s intentions in this regard and will be followed by legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, because we need to make changes on a range of matters, not least the abolition of PCCs. I look forward to debating this with noble Lords across the House. However, if the noble Baroness accepts that, difficult though they are to find, the regulations and the requirement are there, I hope she will be able to withdraw her amendment for the moment. I look forward to further discussion when the other matters come before the House at some future point.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

In view of what the Minister has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 421 withdrawn.

Amendment 422

Moved by

[Baroness O'Loan]

422: After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause—
“Police disciplinary proceedings: use of force(1) Schedule 2 of the The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/4) (standards of professional behaviour) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading “Use of Force”, at end insert—“Where a police officer uses force on the basis of an honestly held but mistaken belief, they can rely on that belief as justification for the use of force only if the mistake was an objectively reasonable one to have made.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to (1) codify the decision in W(80) UKSC 24, that in police disciplinary proceedings involving use of force, an officer may rely on a mistaken belief only if that belief was both honestly held and objectively reasonable, and (2) and enable parliamentary consideration of the appropriate test in this context.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 422 relates to the test used to determine whether an officer acted in breach of discipline when he or she used force in self-defence. We come late to this, but it is a very important issue. Currently, the test used in police disciplinary law is the civil law test. Under the current law, an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others are in immediate danger, must use only proportionate and necessary force, and, critically, where their belief is mistaken, their mistake must have been an objectively reasonable one.

The amendment is necessary because, following the police accountability rapid review report, published in October 2025, a recommendation was made to change the legal test to the criminal test. This would allow officers to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if it was unreasonable. The Government have said they will implement this change through a statutory instrument without public consultation. At this stage, I thank Justince and Inquest for their research on this matter.

The criminal law test, which the Government propose, would allow officers to rely on a mistaken belief, even if it was unreasonable, so long as it was honestly held. I fully understand that officers are under great pressure when faced with possible or actual violence. Split-second decisions must be made on the ground in the immediate context. That is why it is critical that officers are properly trained and managed. However, it is not a good reason to move from the civil to the criminal law test.

This determination arose from a criminal law test where the Supreme Court made a decision in the W80 case, where an officer shot a man. When misconduct proceedings were brought, he claimed he had done so in self-defence. The IOPC recommended to the MPS that the officer should face misconduct proceedings, the MPS declined to initiate those proceedings, and the IOPC wrote to the MPS directing disciplinary proceedings. That decision was challenged by judicial review. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant’s claim. The IOPC appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was allowed. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court judges commented:

“This is an area of the law of vital importance to the public and to the police. It is essential that the public and the police should be informed in straightforward terms of the law which applies. We hope that it will now be possible to recast legislation and guidance so as to achieve this result”.


This amendment is not about criminal law, and it is not about whether an officer should be prosecuted for the use of force. It seeks only to provide the clarity that the Supreme Court advocated.

The criminal law test is simply not appropriate for disciplinary proceedings. Applying it would undermine public confidence in the police disciplinary process, weaken accountability and make meaningful scrutiny of police use of force far more difficult. The Home Office’s statutory guidance makes it clear that the disciplinary framework is intended to encourage a culture of learning and development for individuals in the organisation. This focus on learning and development is part of what makes disciplinary procedures distinct from criminal procedures. Misconduct processes are an important and excellent opportunity for forces to identify mistakes, learn from them and prevent recurrence.

The Supreme Court in W80 made clear that the criminal law test conflicts with the fundamental principle of the disciplinary process, which is

“to contribute to learning and development for the individual officer concerned or for the organisation as to the reasonableness of mistakes”.

If the objective reasonableness of an officer’s mistaken belief is no longer relevant, unreasonable beliefs, however dangerous and widespread, may never be identified. Allowing unreasonable but honestly held beliefs to serve as a defence would strip away the incentive to examine, understand and remedy the factors that led officers to hold those beliefs in the first place. For public safety it is essential that unreasonable mistakes and the conditions that enabled them are identified and addressed.

Moreover, the introduction of the criminal law test would risk allowing honestly held beliefs based on prejudice or stereotyping, however unreasonable, to provide a defence following police use of force. Police use of force is continually increasing, with over 812,000 recorded uses in 2024-25, an increase of 9% on the previous year. Police complaints about use of force rarely lead to investigation by the IOPC, because most complaints are referred back to the officer’s force for investigation. Fewer still result in disciplinary proceedings, and hence the opportunity to identify training or management deficiencies to enable institutional learning and improvement is not there.

22:45

Applying the criminal law test would further erode police accountability in an environment where police use of force is already too rarely scrutinised. As recognised by the Supreme Court, it is important for public trust and confidence that citizens do not feel that unreasonable mistakes made by the police are left unchecked or that the police are not held accountable for such mistakes. Public trust in policing has declined in recent years. Diluting accountability, by allowing officers to rely on unreasonable stakes, would only deepen that crisis.

When I was the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, I was very concerned about the number of complaints of wrongful use of force by Police Service of Northern Ireland officers. We conducted an analysis and established that the level of complaints about the use of force by the PSNI was 40 times the national average and that there were high levels of claims by people injured by police use of force. The number of sick days taken by officers was very high and the level of claims for injury on duty were very high. Complaints about abuse of force did not, as we thought, arise in anti-terrorist policing situation; they arose, as they do here, in situations such as arrest.

Among other things, we identified training deficiencies in content and in the regularity of required updates in human rights compliant police training, the provision of suitable equipment and de-escalation methods. When the recommendations were implemented, the level of force reduced significantly, as did the number of civilian claims against the police and the number of officers injured. The numbers of officers on sick leave diminished rapidly, and the level of compensation paid for injuries on duty diminished. The facts speak for themselves.

Research commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council in 2023 found that just 41% of people in England reported trust in the police. For non-white respondents, it was even lower, at 32.1%. Those subjected to force often hold more negative views and lack confidence in the complaints system.

The amendment is profoundly important. It seeks ongoing police arrangements that are clear and apply the current test for use of force, rather than reducing police accountability. It would thereby make it possible to identify why something happened, so that policing will improve. It would result in greater disclosure by the police to the public, especially those who have been harmed. Such transparency will, experience shows, enhance public confidence in policing. I hope the Minister will think again about the proposed change in the law, which the amendment seeks to address. I beg to move.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 423 would implement a recommendation of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the judgment in the Lee Clegg case in the 1990s. Briefly, the facts of that case were that, on 30 September 1990, Private Lee Clegg was on patrol in west Belfast, when a passenger in a stolen car was shot and killed. Lee Clegg was charged with murder, and his defence was that he fired in self-defence. He was convicted of murder on the grounds that he used disproportionate force.

On an appeal, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had to decide whether a soldier on duty in defence of the civil power—in a similar position, therefore, to police firearm officers—who kills a person and who would be entitled to rely on self-defence but for the excessive use of force, is guilty of murder or manslaughter. A manslaughter verdict would have meant a change in the law. Lord Lloyd of Berwick said that the arguments in favour of such a change were very persuasive. Quoting from the Court of Appeal, he said:

“There is one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder. The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they are terrorists or domestic murderers, kill from an evil and wicked motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of 30 September 1990 he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone. However, he was suddenly faced with a car driving through an army checkpoint and, being armed with a high velocity rifle to enable him to combat the threat of terrorism, he decided to fire the … shot from his rifle in circumstances which cannot be justified”.


Lord Lloyd continued:

“It is right that Private Clegg should be convicted in respect of the unlawful killing … and that he should receive a just punishment for committing an offence which ended a young life and caused great sorrow to her parents and relatives and friends. But this court considers, and we believe that many other fair-minded citizens would share this view, that the law would be much fairer if it had been open to the trial judge to have convicted Private Clegg of the lesser crime of manslaughter on the ground that he did not kill … from an evil motive but because his duties as a soldier”


meant he had a high-velocity rifle, and

“he reacted wrongly to a situation which suddenly confronted him in the course of his duties … we consider that a law which would permit a conviction for manslaughter would reflect more clearly the nature of the offence which he had committed”.

However, Lord Lloyd ruled it was inappropriate for the courts to change the law, and it was for Parliament to do so.

Here we are, 30 years on, with that opportunity, and the issue has never been more important, given the analogous position of police firearms officers. Since 2010, British police have shot dead 30 people—an average of two a year. Most recently, we have seen the prosecution last year for murder in the case of Sergeant Martyn Blake. Police officers are being deterred from volunteering for firearms training and the National Police Chiefs’ Council says police forces across England and Wales are grappling with a significant shortage of firearms officers, exacerbated by the lack of legal protections afforded to armed officers, particularly regarding criminal and misconduct hearings. The move to anonymity in criminal proceedings is welcome but not enough.

Parliament enacted legislation in 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which set out the law of self-defence in Section 76. This provides that the question whether the degree of force used by D—the defendant—was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, but, crucially, the degree of force used by the defendant is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances if it was disproportionate. Therefore, the upshot is that a police officer cannot rely on self-defence to a murder charge if he used disproportionate force. This is unlike in the case of householders who, since the Crime and Courts Act 2013, will now generally have a defence if the force was disproportionate, but not if it was grossly disproportionate.

This confirms my belief that there is a lacuna that needs to be addressed, just as the House of Lords said in the appeal in the case of Lee Clegg. I should add a brief postscript here to the Lee Clegg case, since I believe he was subsequently acquitted on the grounds of new evidence.

On 23 October 2024, the then Home Secretary made a Statement on the Martyn Blake case. She said that

“the current system for holding police officers to account is not commanding the confidence of either the public or the police”,

and that although the public are entitled

“to expect that when officers exceed the lawful use of their powers … there will be … robust processes in place to hold them to account”,

she continued:

“Police officers who act with integrity and bravery to keep us safe each day need to know they have strong public support. If officers lack the confidence to use their powers … public safety is put at risk”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/24; col. 300.]


My amendment seeks to strike this balance by implementing the recommendation of the House of Lords in the Lee Clegg case all those years ago. If passed, it would not, as in the householder’s case, result in an officer’s acquittal, since I do not think that can be justified in the case of trained firearms officers. There needs to be accountability and a criminal penalty. The House of Lords in Clegg seemed to agree, since it recommended manslaughter, not acquittal, for such cases. I will be very interested to hear the views of the Government on this long-standing issue.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. Firearms officers provide a valuable and necessary service, and are an important part of UK policing. They do a very difficult and dangerous job and deserve our thanks. The current climate is not conducive to good policing and does not support our officers. This amendment is a positive one which will help them.

This is a topical amendment. Several days ago, the Independent Office for Police Conduct ruled on the case of Sean Fitzgerald being shot during a raid by West Midlands Police. He was holding a black mobile phone, which the officer who shot him believed was a gun.

This ruling was the conclusion of a long, complex investigation that included experts whose reconstruction corroborated the officer’s testimony that the phone could have been mistaken for a gun. The director of the IOPC said:

“The determination over whether the officer should face disciplinary proceedings largely came down to a split-second decision in what was a dynamic, fast-moving, armed police operation”.


This was a tragic accident, but it highlights the fact that firearms officers have to make very difficult, instantaneous decisions that can result in life or death. They have to quickly make a call on what is the safest option for themselves, their fellow officers and the public. In order for them to make the best judgments for themselves and for the public, they need to be confident that they will be supported in making that endeavour.

It is striking that in a piece in the Daily Telegraph, former firearms officer Sergeant Harry Tangye said that his and his fellow officers’ main fear was not being shot themselves; it was facing the investigation that would happen after they discharged their weapon while doing their job. The case of the shooting of Chris Kaba demonstrates this. In response to how the officer was treated, up to 300 Metropolitan Police officers stepped back from firearms roles, and the Army had to be put on standby to support the Met.

Firearms officers go through intensive training, including in how to respond in high-pressure situations. These are dedicated people with a strong desire to protect the public and serve their communities. Tangye said:

“But each time an AFO attends a scene, they face an uncomfortable truth: if I get this wrong I could be jailed. In my 30-year career I never once met an officer who wanted to ‘bag’ a scalp; no-one who hoped for the chance to use their gun to bring down a criminal. Most of us weren’t even keen on firearms at all. If you were a weapons enthusiast, you would be viewed with great suspicion by your force and probably removed”.


Authorised firearms officers, or AFOs, he said,

“shouldn’t have to do their jobs in fear of being jailed, or in fear of their careers, their lives, being ruined”.

The Police Federation also shares these concerns: that firearm officers,

“even when they follow the tactics and training they have received, will face significant struggles and hardships over what are usually split-second decisions taken by them in dangerous and fast-moving situations”.

Firearms officers need to be protected in primary legislation to make sure it is certain that they will be treated fairly when they have to make a very difficult decision. This amendment from the noble Lord is not a “get out of jail free” card; it still holds them to account for their actions. It means that officers who do their job properly, who make a decision that would be impossible for most people in this Chamber to comprehend, are protected under the law, and on that basis, I strongly support the amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 423A and will talk a little about the two other amendments.

In England and Wales, police firearms officers have intentionally discharged conventional weapons at people around 120 times over the last 20 years, between 2006 and 2026, so that is a discharge of a weapon at a person about six times a year. This figure represents less than 0.05% of all authorised firearms operations during that period.

In 2024-25—in just one year, the latest—there were 17,249 firearms operations. During that 20-year period, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the police shot dead on average around three people a year, each one a tragedy. There is no way that any officer should celebrate what happened, nor the families, of course, or all the people who are hurt by these terrible things. At the same time, the police injured a further two people a year.

This is not a trigger-happy group of people. They are the only people in this country who can go forward to deal with criminals or situations where a person is armed or similarly dangerous. They are a unique group of around 5,500 people in England and Wales who protect the population of 60 million of us and our visitors, and on our behalf they go forward.

They then expect, as I think we all do, that they will be held accountable. They do not expect immunity in the criminal or any court, but they do have a reasonable expectation that the system will understand the challenges they face, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned. In that fraction of a second, they have to make their decision on whether to shoot.

They suffer from the further challenge that they are only human beings with all our human strengths and frailties. Despite the fact that they are selected from still a reasonably large group of police officers who apply—not all who put themselves forward are selected—and then go through some rigorous training, at the end of the day they remain a human being, with all our frailties, fears and, at times, courage.

23:00

In America, the police shot dead over 1,300 people in 2024. The police in the US are challenged by society there about that number but, of course, American police face a society with around 300 million guns in circulation, a hugely different scenario from what we see in the UK. The Americans complain because the police shoot so many people. In the UK, the rarity of the event produces a hugely magnified scrutiny, often by people who have little experience of the issues at hand, not least the fact that the officer had to make that decision in a fraction of a second while someone’s life was perhaps at risk—or perhaps their own life was at risk from someone armed with a gun, or at least they believed that.

We in this country continue to believe that it is better to have specialist units rather than every officer armed; I support that. But the contract we have to strike with police officers demands that we treat them well. At the moment, I do not honestly think that we do.

The latest case that has been mentioned a couple of times is that of the shooting of Chris Kaba. The officer involved was under investigation for around three years before a Crown Court jury took just three hours to find him not guilty. He is now facing a gross misconduct charge on the same facts. The facts were thrown out in a criminal case, yet the IOPC’s own statement said that it was basing a new charge of misconduct on the facts that had been dismissed in the criminal court. If it is lucky, that might take another two years.

In the notorious case involving PC Anthony Long, he shot dead a man in 2005 and was cleared by a jury in 2015, 10 years later. He was charged despite the fact that he was arresting a man who was together with two others in a car containing three MAC-10 submachine guns and the ammunition for them.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, raised the case of W80. I reserve my position on the point that the noble Baroness made about the standards for when you decide to make a prosecution. As the Minister will know, these are very complex legal issues. I am not qualified to talk about that, and certainly not in the space of hearing the noble Baroness’s comments; I am not here to say that she is wrong. But W80—

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I did not talk about criminal prosecutions at all.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I did not say that the noble Baroness did. My point is that after a public inquiry, where it was found that W80 had lawfully killed Jermaine Baker in 2015, and a series of further hearings that led eventually to the Supreme Court, W80 appeared before a gross misconduct hearing by an independent body—nothing to do with the police; it was ordered by the IOPC—and was found to have no case to answer. It was not found that there was an arguable case, or that there was mitigation. There was no case to answer, 10 years later. It had been through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and nobody had noticed that there was no case to answer.

One of the central problems in these cases is that they are rare. Every time an officer waits years to be cleared, there is an outcry asking why they were charged in the first place or why it took so long to resolve. Every Government affected by this has said, “We will review it, and improve”. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has just mentioned the latest example of that.

My broad point is that all the reviews in the world have produced absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed. I have given two examples but there are many more, where people have been waiting 10 years for something to be shown to be not a criminal offence. I am afraid that the reviews have not produced anything, which has led to me tabling this amendment.

The officers are under a triple jeopardy. First, the IOPC considers whether there is a criminal offence or an offence of misconduct. That can take around 18 months. If there is a claim of a criminal offence, that is considered by the CPS, which probably takes another year. In the event that there is a criminal charge, the officer will go to court. During this period, the inquest into the person’s death will have been suspended. If there has been no charge, the inquest, usually with a jury, will be resumed. Those juries can find, and have found, that there was an unlawful killing, which then must be reconsidered by the CPS, usually leading to a criminal charge to go through a criminal court and then back through the IOPC. It has been hard to establish the facts, but by my calculation there have been around five officers charged with murder following cases over the last 20 years, each leading to a finding of not guilty at a Crown Court. The people who seem to be able to appreciate this issue, and deal with it with some wisdom, are called jurors.

My amendment is designed to give some comfort to firearms officers that their case will have to reach a higher bar before a prosecution can be started. It is modelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has mentioned—he is the one who pointed this out to me—on the householder defence to murder that already exists in criminal law. If a householder is attacked in their home and, in the process of defending themselves, kills the intruder, there is a higher legal threshold to pass before a prosecution for murder can follow. All I am asking is for the same to apply to a firearms officer.

I have talked to the Attorney-General about this. He reminded me that lawyers generally have concerns about this because it creates a unique group, a group of people who are treated differently by the criminal law, but I have two points in response to that general principle. First, householders are already a unique group. The criminal law has decided that they are a unique group and that is okay, but that it would not be all right for police firearms officers, who—I argue—are also a unique group. Why can we not add one more group? This was decided by Parliament on the advice of lawyers. What is different about this group? More importantly, for the reasons that I have given, they are a unique group. They the only people in society who use a firearm to prevent a crime, save a life or make an arrest. We say that no one can carry a firearm for that purpose, even if they are a legal firearm owner.

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

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I end with this. I know that it is late. All our firearms officers are volunteers. They cannot be ordered to carry a gun. Unlike in the USA, it is not a condition of service. We rely on their honour and willingness to come forward and take on these roles. There is evidence that this is not happening in the numbers we need. There are not many noble Lords in the Chamber, but I ask those who are here whether they would do it. Could they do it? Would they take that responsibility, facing the inevitable inquiries that would follow? It involves not only the officer but their family.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I know, but I have waited all day as well.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

If the noble Lord could conclude his remarks, that would be helpful for everyone.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

There are just too many times when officers are faced with the challenge, which is unfair. The solution I propose is that we should treat firearms officers fairly and differently. I am not a lawyer. The Government may be able to come up with a better proposal, but the position that we have at the moment is untenable and something that I am not prepared to let rest. I ask for support from the Government in some respect.

My final point is that I support, to some extent, the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Jackson. My concern is that it might lead to more people being charged more often, and I am arguing that they should be charged less often for doing their job.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me, if I can beg your indulgence. In order for there not to be any confusion, I neglected to advise the Committee that my brother is a serving Metropolitan Police officer. I should have mentioned that earlier.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, these three amendments raise a difficult but important question: how should the law treat the use of lethal force by authorised firearms officers so as to protect both the public and those officers who act in good faith in dangerous situations?

Amendment 422 would make it clear in the Police (Conduct) Regulations that when an officer uses force based on a mistaken belief, that belief must be both honestly held and objectively reasonable. This reflects the Supreme Court’s decision in W80 and would give bereaved families, and communities that often feel over-policed, greater clarity and confidence in the system.

Amendment 423A would update Section 76 of the 2008 Act so that force used by an authorised firearms officer could never be treated as reasonable if it was grossly disproportionate to the situation as they saw it. That would set a clear upper limit on what can count as lawful force, drawing a boundary beyond which self-defence cannot reach, however real the threat appears.

From these Benches, we understand the intentions behind both amendments: the first writes the W80 test into disciplinary rules; the second provides clearer statutory guidance in firearms cases.

Amendment 423 goes further. It proposes that if an authorised firearms officer kills someone while acting under an honest but mistaken belief that the force used was necessary and reasonable, the conviction should be manslaughter rather than murder. We are concerned that this would, in effect, create a special route from murder to manslaughter for authorised firearms officers, one not available to others who also face life-and-death decisions.

When police use potentially unlawful lethal force, there must be full investigation, prosecution where appropriate, and robust disciplinary proceedings. The central question, then, is whether these amendments strike the right balance between public accountability and fair protection for officers who must make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 422 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has had a detailed introduction, and I would like to abbreviate my remarks as a result.

The issue under consideration in that case was whether, in police disciplinary proceedings, a police officer could have a finding of misconduct against them if their use of force was found to be honest and mistaken but unreasonable. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the appropriate test was the civil law test and that an honest but mistaken belief that the use of force is necessary is justification for that use of force only if the belief is objectively reasonable.

Amendment 422 would place that judgment into statute. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether the criminal or civil test should be applicable, I am not convinced that it needs to be codified into statute, because there now exists relevant case law at the highest level which can be applied by the IOPC and the courts in the future. It is not clear to me what benefit there would be in placing this into the regulations.

I would like to concentrate my remarks on Amendment 423 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, because I want to express my strong support for it. I believe firmly that we must support our armed police officers who regularly put themselves in danger. This amendment presents an opportunity to do that. It would create a defence to a charge of murder for authorised firearms officers who used lethal force in the honest but mistaken belief that such force was necessary and reasonable and convert a conviction for murder into manslaughter.

23:15

This amendment is grounded in the recognition that authorised firearms officers operate in uniquely dangerous, fast-moving and high-pressure environments, where decisions about lethal force must be taken, often in fractions of a second. Unlike civilians, such officers are routinely required by the state to confront armed and violent individuals in order to protect the public. The criminal law has long acknowledged that context matters when assessing culpability. This amendment would recalibrate liability to reflect the exceptional circumstances in which firearms officers are required to act and seeks to address the chilling effect that the prospect of murder convictions may have on armed policing. If armed officers fear that split-second errors of judgment could result in a murder charge, they may hesitate in circumstances where decisive action is required to save lives. By providing legal certainty that honest operational mistakes will not attract the most severe criminal sanction, we believe that this amendment supports effective law enforcement while maintaining accountability for unlawful conduct.

Lastly, I listened with sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on his amendment—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

This is one of my major objections to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, proposes. Can the noble Lord explain to me why a firearms officer would feel more supported by a discretionary life sentence, which is what would be available for the charge of manslaughter, compared with a mandatory sentence of life for murder? I am not sure I would.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

The point I was making is that the prospect of a murder conviction may have an effect on an officer if they feared that an error that they made may result in a murder charge. On the noble Lord’s own amendment, as I said, I listened with sympathy to it, and I await the Government’s response on it and, indeed, all the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard during this short but important debate, these amendments all relate to the same matter of principle—namely, the legal standard by which an authorised firearms officer should be judged on the thankfully rare occasions when they discharge a firearm.

The Government pay tribute to our armed officers. Theirs is a difficult, dangerous and stressful job. They do it to keep us all safe, and we have a great deal for which to thank them. Of course we recognise that they often find themselves in exceptionally difficult circumstances, having to make life and death decisions in an instant. That said, there is the matter of public confidence in the police. I do not think that any of your Lordships would disagree that confidence in the police is of equal importance. I would not be doing justice to this debate if I did not recognise and mark the fact that some of our citizens feel great anxiety about the accountability of firearms officers. In the past, when there have been high-profile fatal shootings by the police, this anxiety has boiled over into anger and social unrest.

The Government’s job is to balance these factors. We must ensure that the law offers protection to our brave police officers while at the same time providing reassurance to our fellow citizens that, if officers do fire their weapons, their conduct will be rigorously scrutinised. It is only right that the public should have confidence that any officer whose actions fall below the high standards we rightly expect will be held to account in the public interest.

Our conclusion is that we should not create a two-tier justice system where police officers who kill or injure in the course of their duties are judged by a more lenient standard than applies to the rest of the population. Our reason is this: we are confident that the criminal law which covers self-defence, defence of others and the use of force in the prevention of crime already provides sufficient protection for police officers. Because of the lateness of the hour, I am not going to go through the details of this, which I had intended to do, but will move straight to the amendments.

Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, would change the law so that an authorised firearms officer who acts with disproportionate—in other words, unreasonable—force would still be guilty of an offence, but it would be manslaughter, not murder.

I want to say a few words about what the law says about how a jury must consider whether the amount of force used by the officer was reasonable, sometimes described as proportionate. While this is an objective test, if the jury is told that what the officer did in the heat of the moment, when fine judgments are difficult, was no more than they genuinely believed was necessary, even if they were mistaken in that belief, that would be strong evidence that what they did was reasonable. If the jury also considers that the officer may have done no more than was reasonable in the light of what they believed to be happening, they are not guilty of anything. In other words, the law provides a full defence.

It is unclear whether Amendment 423 is intended to replace this full defence with a partial one, or whether, as I think is the case, it is intended to work alongside it in some way. If the noble Lord’s intention is to create a partial defence, then what he is saying is that officers who use unreasonable or excessive force should be held to a different standard from the rest of the population. We cannot accept this because the Government believe that to do so would fundamentally damage confidence in the police and in the justice system.

I turn to Amendment 423A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which seeks to amend Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. As your Lordships have heard, Section 76 deals with householder cases. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to make authorised firearms officers subject to the same standard as the householder confronted by an intruder. The amendment attempts to raise the threshold for when force becomes unreasonable from disproportionate to grossly disproportionate for firearms officers. In effect, this means that firearms officers could rely on the defences of self-defence, preventing crime or making a lawful arrest if they used force that was disproportionate in the circumstances, provided it was not grossly disproportionate.

For the reasons I have already given, the Government are of the strong belief that it would be wrong in principle to authorise the police to use excessive force and that this would be extremely damaging to public confidence. In any event, we do not think there is a proper comparison to be made between householders facing an unexpected intruder and trained firearms officers. The threshold was raised in householder cases to recognise the exceptional nature of being unexpectedly confronted by an intruder in one’s home. The unique stress and shock of a home invasion justifies greater legal protection, allowing a higher level of force than in other self-defence contexts. The same logic does not apply to firearms officers, who are trained and equipped to use lethal force and are deployed only in the most high-risk situations. They are subject to strict command, control and training protocols to ensure that lethal force is used only when necessary and in accordance with the current legal framework.

I turn finally to Amendment 422, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. As the noble Baroness has explained during the debate, her amendment deals not with criminal trials but with police conduct hearings. The previous Home Secretary commissioned Timothy Godwin and Sir Adrian Fulford to carry out an independent police accountability rapid review because it was recognised that there was ongoing complexity and confusion, and that there were concerns that this was having an impact on recruitment and retention of these essential and much valued officers. Sir Adrian and Mr Godwin examined the matter thoroughly and heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their conclusions and recommendations, published in October 2025, were clear that the Government should change the legal test for use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test.

The reviewers found that police officers need confidence and greater consistency in the disciplinary system and that this would improve fairness and public confidence. The Government have taken on board that recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes to The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Our intention is that these changes will come into force in the spring. We accept that the amendment is well intended, but I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why the Government cannot support it and, for the reasons I have given, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has spoken. There is a major issue of public trust in policing which has yet to be fully explored, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 422 withdrawn.

House resumed.

Sentencing Bill

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with amendments.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with a reason.

House adjourned at 11.24 pm.