Crime and Policing Bill

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Committee (13th Day) (Continued)

20:52

Amendment 449

Moved by

[Viscount Hailsham]

449: After Clause 185, insert the following new Clause—
“Proscription process: parliamentary involvement(1) Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3), insert—“(3A) Subject to subsection (3B) the Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (3) unless prior to making such an order, the Secretary of State has placed before the Intelligence and Security Committee (the ISC) or any committee which by statute may have replaced the ISC (the replacement committee), a statement of the reasons for making the order and the ISC or the replacement committee has published a report regarding that order.(3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that by reason of urgency the requirements of subsection (3A) cannot reasonably be complied with and the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.(3C) If subsection (3B) applies, the Secretary of State must within seven days of the making of the order, place before the ISC or the replacement committee, a statement of the reasons for making the order and within a reasonable period thereafter, the ISC or the replacement committee must make a report to Parliament.”.”

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 449, I will speak briefly to Amendment 454. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her support for Amendment 449. I have a nasty feeling that I may be uniting my noble friend Lord Cameron and the Minister in opposition to my amendments; I will forgive them on this occasion. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support on the previous group—I rather hope I might get some support from him on this occasion.

The purpose of Amendment 449 is to ensure that Parliament has as much information as possible before a decision to proscribe is made. I accept, of course, that it is not possible for Ministers to disclose in general debate all the information which they may have received in private and which, in their opinion, justifies proscription. I worked in the Home Office and the Foreign Office for around seven years, so I am under no illusions. Of course, the Minister, who has a similar track record, will be under no illusions either.

Having regard to the serious consequences of proscription, we need to do all that we reasonably can to ensure that, when a proscription order is made, Parliament is as well informed as it can be and that the justification for the order is well based. Otherwise, we are wholly reliant on the judgment of officials and Ministers. Without being unduly personal, on matters of such importance, I do not wish to be exclusively reliant on the judgments of Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman or Liz Truss—however informed and considered some may suppose them to have been.

Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward. Amendment 449 would create a precondition to the Secretary of State’s ability to make a proscription order. Proposed new subsection (3A) would require that, if circumstances allow, before the Secretary of State makes an order, the Secretary of State must place before the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

“a statement of the reasons for making the order”

and, in such circumstances, a report of that committee must be published before the order is made. I accept that there may be circumstances in which the urgency of the matter demands more immediate action. Proposed new subsections (3B) and (3C) address that eventuality. In effect, the procedure would be the same as that provided for in proposed new subsection (3A), but it would be retrospective.

In either event, the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to examine the stated reasons in much greater detail than the House could do in public session. A degree of scrutiny and interrogation should be possible. The report of the ISC could be very important, reassuring Parliament as to the propriety of the order if that is the opinion of the ISC, or alerting Parliament if the ISC is not supportive of the order. I do not pretend that this would be a complete safeguard. However, it would certainly be an improvement. On that basis, I commend Amendment 449 to the Committee.

On Amendment 454, I think I can anticipate the arguments that will be advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. She and I agree on an awful lot, and I know I shall support her on this matter.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee. Of course, I speak for myself only but very much with those concerns in mind.

As noble Lords have heard from my friend who is also noble—but I cannot call him a noble friend—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I will speak to his Amendment 449, which I support, and my Amendment 454. I am grateful for his support and, on the latter amendment, for that of my noble friend Lord Hain, who is very sensibly not in his place at this hour. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.

In contrast with the previous group—I am sad that there are not more participants from the previous group here—these are modest process amendments that are capable of uniting everyone who spoke for and against the various amendments in that group. Both these amendments are about increasing parliamentary involvement in and scrutiny of exceptional executive power—in particular, the power to proscribe an organisation as a terrorist organisation under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act.

To be clear—this may surprise some Members of the Committee—I believe that such powers are capable of being proportionate. In a democracy, no one should be allowed to organise a private army, in particular one that targets humans, and a democracy is proportionately able to respond by proscribing a terrorist organisation. It is none the less an awesome and exceptional power for the Executive to say that people will be prosecuted not just for their terrorist actions but for fairly broad and loose associations with people who may or may not be guilty of terrorist offences.

21:00

I do not say this to relitigate the proscription of Palestine Action, which came up at length in the previous group. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I ask Members of the Committee to think not just about past Prime Ministers who they have been sceptical of but about such powers being in the hands of future Prime Ministers, whoever they may be, as well as future Home Secretaries, because this is formally a power for the Home Secretary to prescribe guilt by association to anyone who expresses support for an organisation that may have some people in it who have committed offences of whatever kind.

I support the noble Viscount’s Amendment 449, which he expertly set out, so that the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is owned by Parliament, appointed by the Prime Minister—this is not an out-of-control democracy; it is still very tightly held—and, let us be clear, consists of people who have been vetted by the agencies and appointed by the Prime Minister, should have a role in scrutinising a proscription order, with all the consequences that were discussed. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, saying in the previous group that she was concerned about the recent proscription order. The ISC, which is underused, given its eminence and expertise, should have a role before the order is laid before both Houses of Parliament. I need not go on about that, because the noble Viscount has done it so well.

I will say a few words about my Amendment 454. It is a very short, simple and, I suggest, uncontroversial amendment that suggests that when organisations are to be proscribed—with all the consequences that may flow from that, not just for the members of that organisation but for the people who go on protests and hold up Private Eye, or whatever it is—they should be proscribed one at a time. Each order, signed by the Home Secretary and laid before both Houses of Parliament for one up-and-down, yes-or-no vote with no amendment possible—we know our parliamentary procedure—should address one organisation.

Why do I say this? It is because it would otherwise be open to any Home Secretary of whatever colour, in the past, present or future, to proscribe a number of organisations in a single order. Some of these may be pretty uncontroversial, as most of them have been in the past: al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Combat 18, et cetera are organisations that plainly fall within any common-sense, let alone legislative, definition of terrorism because of the way they instrumentalise and target humans for violence.

However, these orders may currently also include more controversial choices, as we have heard in recent times. It should be open to Members of Parliament, in particular those in the other place, to say, “I agree with so many of these proscriptions but not with this one. Yes, this one is a direct action protest and nuisance organisation, but it does not sit with my definition of terrorism”. This is not a hypothetical, because these matters are currently before the courts. That is why I do not seek to relitigate the proscription of Palestine Action, although it came up today. The courts will deal with that, and we should remember that they have already found an arguable case around the recent proscription.

What if it is just one organisation per order? Just in case a speaking note over there with my noble friend says “Oh, but what if we need to proscribe many on the same day?” It is still possible. Just make multiple orders. But it will be one organisation per order so that no Member of Parliament or Member of your Lordships’ House can ever be told “If you vote against this order, you’ve just voted against the proscription of something like al-Qaeda”—even though it was the Women’s Institute that was included in the order. I mean no disrespect to the Women’s Institute. I think Members of the Committee take my point: one organisation per order and real scrutiny of each proscription. I really do suggest that there is no reasonable opposition to that if what we take seriously in this Committee is parliamentary scrutiny of exceptional executive action, however necessary it may sometimes be.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to both amendments in this group for the reasons that have been so eloquently set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.

The first point is that proscription is a very significant power for the Executive. The consequences are severe. Conduct that was hitherto perfectly lawful becomes not only unlawful but criminal. For that reason, we need to have proper checks and balances. The second reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, is that these amendments are actually quite modest. They do not try to limit or amend the scope of the criminal offences, which was the case with some of the amendments perhaps in the previous group; all they try to do is increase parliamentary scrutiny. To me, the case for doing so seems unanswerable.

The third point is that, as we know, there has been an intense debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, and views on that may differ. But my opinion is that, whichever view one takes, one should be able to support both these amendments—particularly in light of the very interesting exchange in the previous group between the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, where the idea that seemed to emerge was that there might be some way forward on tightening “glorification” by reference to proscribed organisations.

But if the reference point is proscribed organisations, we must be absolutely certain that we are getting proscription right, and we must be able to interrogate fully any proscription that the Government decide. For that reason, I think there is simply no answer to Amendment 454. We need to have one order per organisation that the Government intend to proscribe. It is no answer to say that this would place an undue burden. Civil servants will obviously have to spend considerable time putting together the evidence for proscription and, as part of that, requiring them to prepare two different orders is not asking for too much. Nor is it an answer to say that this would be an increased burden for Parliament.

When we vote on or scrutinise a proscription, we take a decision of great importance, for the reasons I have mentioned before. We should not be put again in a position, as was the case a few months ago, where we have to decide on the proscription of very different organisations—where, on the one hand, you have organisations for which the case for proscription is probably uncontroversial, and on the other hand you have examples of organisations for which there is objectively an argument to be had as to whether proscription is a good idea or not. For these reasons, I give my full support to both these amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I too support both amendments. I support Amendment 449 because proscription is a huge power. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, used the word “awesome”, and it is indeed an awesome power: it can turn ordinary behaviour into crime. Parliament should not be asked to rubber-stamp those decisions without proper scrutiny. Proscription can criminalise membership, association and even everyday activity, yet at present these decisions are made almost entirely within the Executive, with very limited parliamentary oversight, and that concentration of power carries risks. It leaves decisions open to mistakes or overreach and of course it can also undermine public confidence in counterterrorism law.

Parliament and the public need assurance that proscription is based on sound reasoning, reviewed independently and grounded in evidence. One thing we did not really have when we were asked to proscribe Palestine Action was evidence. Since then, we have had hints of various kinds, telling us that we will see when the evidence comes out and we will understand why that proscription was justified. But so far, I would argue, it has not been justified. Independent scrutiny is particularly important when the intelligence underpinning a proscription is classified and supposedly cannot be shared widely. Where decisions are urgent or complex, having a committee report afterwards helps Parliament and the public understand the reasoning and reinforces the legitimacy of the action taken.

I would have also supported this going further to address the recommendation of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson KC—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—that proscriptions should be time-limited and expire after a set period, such as two years, unless Parliament is asked to proscribe yet again. As we know, once proscription has happened, in effect it lasts forever. Decisions this serious should not be made in private and left to drift. Parliament deserves a proper look at the evidence, so I hope that the Minister is going to bring us the evidence, as he keeps hinting in various speeches.

Amendment 454 is an excellent amendment, I have to say, because, when we proscribed Palestine Action, it was bracketed with two groups. I cannot even remember their names. They were right-wing, fascist organisations, and we had absolutely no choice about that. Had we dealt with each of those individually, we could have made a much better decision, I would argue. It seems that we just have to trust the Government—and who trusts the Government any more? Certainly not me, and many of the general public agree with me. Asking us to trust the Government is not the way it should be. It really should have better oversight.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of Amendment 449 from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and Amendment 454 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I do so on the grounds, really, that—

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

Apologies, I did not mean to put the noble Baroness off, I was just trying to recall whether she was here for the start of the group.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I came in just as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, got up.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Apologies: please continue.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I was simply going to say that I agree with the reasons given by noble Lords, but in particular I want to stress the importance of having checks and balances in the constitution. We need, particularly where our constitution is unwritten, to pay particular attention to the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive. It is so simple for the Executive to bring in proscription, but it must be equally simple for Parliament to be able to scrutinise it and afford a proper check.

It is really for that reason that I support these amendments, at a time when constitutional liberty is under threat, on both sides of the Atlantic, from executive power, whatever the Government in power. We heard earlier this evening from a US Supreme Court judge who spoke of this happening under recent Presidents, going back some time, and it has happened under Governments of all complexions here. Therefore, I commend these important amendments because of the centrality of the separation of powers.

21:15

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, used the phrase “getting proscription right”. He is absolutely right. I support both amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was correct in saying that we have to have in respect of Amendment 449 more independent parliamentary scrutiny, and that goes for Amendment 454 as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, was right to say that we are looking for checks and balances. These amendments are concerned with democracy, with Parliament having a say and the opportunity to consider government proposals.

Amendment 449, which was economically and persuasively moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is plainly sensible. Involving the ISC and for the Government to give reasons to the ISC before proscribing an organisation would increase the confidence of Parliament—all sides of both Houses—in the Government’s decision. As everyone has said, proscribing is a serious and important decision on a matter of great significance for the rights of the individual, the rights of groups and the public at large. I suggest that it would not just increase the confidence of Parliament to have ISC involvement; it would also increase the confidence of the public in these decisions.

The ISC is, of course, independent, parliamentary—it involves Members of both Houses—and cross-party. That seems to me, and I suggest is, an important reason in favour of ISC being involved. It is entirely consonant with the Minister’s assurance on the last group that the Government act on the advice of the security services in making decisions on proscription. That is as it should be—we would expect them to act on advice—but to involve the confidential parliamentary committee in that process can only improve the procedure.

I refer to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. We should always be aware of the dangers of an overmighty Executive not being as reasonable with their opponents and with others as we are used to expect. Things may change. Looking across the water at the United States, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, did, shows us that respect for democratic independence and procedures is fairly shallow and has to be protected. We should not be complacent about the possible dangers, and I suggest that this is a way of showing that lack of complacency. For the reasons of an added layer of democracy and added independence, the involvement of the ISC would add to our national security and not detract from it.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, when she said that there could be no reasonable opposition to Amendment 454. The idea that orders should be able to relate not to a single organisation but to multiple organisations is simply absurd. Palestine Action was proscribed alongside two other organisations. One was the Maniacs Murder Cult, a “white supremacist, neo-Nazi organisation”—I am using the Government’s description. It had claimed a number of violent attacks globally; it supplied, and supplies, instructional materials explaining to followers, mostly online, how to conduct terrorist attacks.

The other organisation was Russian Imperial Movement, another white supremacist organisation, described by the Government as “ethno-nationalist”, with the aim of creating a new Russian imperial state. That may sound eccentric, but it runs a paramilitary organisation called Partizan, which increases its adherents’ capacity for terrorist attacks. Indeed, two Swedish nationals attended Partizan in 2016 before committing a series of bombings in Gothenburg, Sweden, with devastating results.

The idea that Parliament—this House and, more importantly, the other place—should be given no choice but to approve or to deny proscription of all is, frankly, an insult to Parliament. MPs and Peers were given no choice but to approve or deny proscription of all. I know that MPs on the Liberal Democrat Benches were deeply offended by that denial of choice. It is illogical, undemocratic and unfair. It demeans Parliament not to allow individual MPs to exercise a fair choice over whether to proscribe a particular organisation. These decisions need to be taken individually and on their own merits, having regard to the arguments for and against proscription of each organisation concerned as it arises. The procedure for that would be simple, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, explained. It should not be a job lot put before Parliament as an executive decision, with no choice given to Parliament except the choice to endorse the job lot or not.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but very interesting debate. Amendments 449 and 454 concern the important and sensitive process by which organisations are proscribed under the 2000 Act.

Amendment 449 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham raises a legitimate question about parliamentary involvement and scrutiny in the proscription process. As we have heard, the ISC has deep expertise, access to classified material and a well-established role in scrutinising national security matters. There is therefore an understandable attraction in ensuring that it has sight of and can report on the reasons for a proposed proscription before an order is made, except in cases of genuine urgency.

It may be, though, that the ISC would be receiving the same advice on issues of proscription from the same organisations, be they the police or the security services, as the Government, so there might be an issue of duplication. It is also important to recognise that proscription decisions often need to be taken swiftly in response to fast-moving threats. The Executive have to retain the operational flexibility to act decisively to protect public safety. I accept that the amendment recognises this through its “urgency” exception, but we need to consider very carefully where the balance should lie between enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and the need for speed and discretion in matters of national security. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on whether the existing framework already strikes the right balance. If there is scope for a greater formal role for the ISC, that cannot impede operational effectiveness.

Amendment 454, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, addresses another important aspect of the proscription regime. As we have heard, it would require each proscription order to relate to a single organisation only. It seeks to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I can understand the argument presented, as usual, so eloquently by the noble Baroness, but I also recognise that these are ultimately matters for the Executive and not the legislature. I await with anticipation the views of the Minister on both amendments.

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

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for tabling Amendment 449 and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling Amendment 454. I will try to answer the points raised on both those amendments.

The amendment from the noble Viscount would require engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee in advance of proscription orders being made. As somebody who served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for five years, I know that it is a trustworthy vehicle which does not leak, and which deals with security service issues from both Houses in a responsible manner. In the light of that, the noble Viscount will be aware that my right honourable friend the Security Minister, following the Palestine Action discussion we had, has written to the Intelligence and Security Committee and expressed his intention to write to the committee ahead of future proscription orders being laid in Parliament and, if the committee wishes it, to give a privileged briefing on the reasons why the proscription is being laid so that the committee can, in confidence, have that detailed information before it. I think that meets the objectives of the noble Viscount’s amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. That is indeed a good step forward but it falls slightly short, in that I do not think he is telling your Lordships’ Committee that the committee will be making a report to Parliament.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The time gap between informing and debate would be for the Security Minister to determine. In most cases, I would expect—without wanting to put a burden on my noble friend Lord Beamish as the chair of the committee—that the chair would probably want to contribute to that debate and would be able to inform the House if they felt there were issues they wished to draw to the attention of the House. Although my noble friend Lord Beamish is the chair who sits in this House, there will be a senior Member from the House of Commons who would also be able to answer to the Commons on any issue. So the noble Viscount is right, but the spirit of his amendment is met—though obviously that is for him to make a judgment on.

Amendment 454 had support across the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked for proscription orders to include one single organisation at a time. Historically, proscription orders have come in groups on many occasions. At the beginning of 2001, some 20 groups were proscribed in one order that took effect under the first statutory instrument made under that order. Four more organisations were proscribed on 1 November 2002, 15 were prescribed on 14 October 2005, and so on. In the interests of parliamentary time and the speed and flexibility needed to put those orders down, that was the case then and it was the case when we tabled the order with three organisations in June and July last year in this House and, at the same time, in the House of Commons. Security issues sometimes require a speedy response, and those issues were dealt with in that way for that reason.

I will give my noble friend one more reason, which she may want to reflect on. There is a threshold for proscription under the 2000 Act. Whether noble Lords like it or not, the decision of the Government was that the three organisations bundled together in the debate in July of last year had all met that threshold. I was available, as was the Security Minister in the House of Commons, to answer questions about each and all those organisations. The advice from the security services and officials, and ministerial examination and judgment of that advice, was that all those organisations crossed the threshold. Individuals might have wanted to vote against each one individually, but if they had, they would have been voting against exactly the same principle in each case—that the organisation had crossed the threshold.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister as always for his patience, fortitude and engagement but, with respect, the historical precedent does not answer the constitutional question: would it not be better for Parliament to have an up-and-down vote? Given that Parliament has already decided that it has a role in approving these proscriptions, would it not be a more meaningful approval if it was one organisation per order? Multiple orders can be drafted and signed on the same day. I say this having worked as a Home Office lawyer, including on terrorism matters.

Finally, I say to my noble friend, who I respect so much: this is not about him and it is not about the current Home Secretary. This is about the future and about the checks and balances that noble Lords opposite spoke about so passionately.

21:30

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I just say to her that the fact that there were three organisations bundled together in July last year did not stop a significant number of Members of Parliament, nor a significant number of Peers, voting against the order. They may have voted against it because they did not like Palestine Action, but I put to my noble friend again that Palestine Action had crossed exactly the same threshold as the two other organisations in that order. The judgment is not a judgment about Palestine Action. It is a judgment about the intents of Palestine Action, in line with the intents of the other two organisations in that order, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to, and which gave an explanation of their actions.

I was accountable at this Dispatch Box to say that those three organisations had crossed the threshold. Here was an order that we put together for speed and efficiency—accept my logic or do not. Both Houses accepted the logic. Some people voted against, maybe because of Palestine Action, but in voting against Palestine Action the logic was that they were voting against exactly the same tests that had been put against the other two organisations. That is the point. I give way.

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

I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, the procedure that he has described involves an executive decision that the organisations had crossed the threshold and an executive decision that they ought to be proscribed. That is not a parliamentary decision; far from it. If you are going to give Members of Parliament a meaningful vote, they have to have an opportunity to express a view on each of those proscriptions. That is the first question.

The second question is rather simpler. We have a parliamentary service of unparalleled quality. It would not be beyond the wit of that service, or generally, to devise a system of degrouping whereby, if either one or a number of MPs or Peers wanted the orders to be drawn up separately, they could be drawn up separately. If everybody was content that a bundle of 24, 15 or three orders could be dealt with together, they could be dealt with together. That would involve minimal consultation and a slight procedural adjustment, but it would involve the importation of fairness and good sense into a procedure.

Certainly, those people I know who voted against the proscription of the three had nothing against the proscription of the other two but were concerned that they were being told they had to vote against all three if they wished to argue against the proscription of the Palestine Action group. I ask the Minister to accept that that is unfair and a denial of parliamentary democracy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I give way also to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the Minister can take all the questions in one go. The threshold may be the same, but there are three separate decisions and each decision is based on different evidence. We are dealing analytically with three distinct decisions, and that is the reason why there should be three different orders.

I suspect that the historical examples to which the Minister referred—I am not certain; perhaps he can explain—were cases in which all the various organisations were in the same context, whether it was organisations related to Afghanistan, ISIS or al-Qaeda. What we had in the case of Palestine Action was the lumping together of very different organisations: a British extreme movement and two white supremacist Russian movements. They have nothing to do with each other, and the evidence is different. Does the Minister accept that, in those circumstances in particular, where we are dealing with very different decisions based on different evidence, there should be an order per organisation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, have made fair and reasonable points. We group them for speed and efficiency, and historically they have been grouped because we want to clear a number of proscription orders at the same time. However, I put this point on the table for the Committee: if, in the light of the advice of the security services of officials, ministerial interrogation of that and, now, the added locus of the Intelligence and Security Committee having sight of and being able to be briefed on those orders, we brought three orders into one order, the threshold remains the same, and that threshold will have been crossed by those organisations. It might be that its members have a sympathy for the Palestinian cause rather than the Russian nationalist cause, but the threshold decided by ministerial jurisdiction, on advice from officials and the security services, is the same: they have crossed the threshold of the 2000 Act for a terrorist organisation. Making them separate orders would still mean that Members of both Houses would have to vote and say, “We do not accept that they have crossed the threshold”. That is a different decision.

I am conscious of time. Those points have been made. I hope I have put the Government’s case with the response I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and with my “take it or leave it” explanation of the points on disambiguation of the orders. Members can reflect on it. In the meantime, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious that the Committee wants to make progress, so I will be brief. I hope the Minister realises that we are not revolutionaries here; we are all parliamentarians. He refers to the threshold, but the truth is that Parliament never knows the detailed reasons. It is because we do not know the detailed reasons that we want to involve the ISC to a greater extent than the Minister has suggested. I would like to push him to say that there will be a report whenever possible, more than just a statement from the chairman.

As to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it is difficult to see any disadvantage to what she suggests. All in or all out is not a good way forward. The Minister talks about efficiency and speed, in his charming way. However, the truth is that we could lay three orders in one day, each with a separate object; that would be a proper way forward. That said, with your Lordships’ permission, I withdraw Amendment 449.

Amendment 449 withdrawn.

Amendment 450 not moved.

Amendment 451 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 186 agreed.

Schedule 20 agreed.

Clause 187 agreed.

Schedule 21 agreed.

Clauses 188 to 190 agreed.

Amendment 452

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

452: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Prevention and investigation measures: online information(1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (terrorism prevention and investigation measures: electronic communication devices) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (4), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”. (3) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The “inspection” of a device, or an online account accessed by means of a device, includes—(a) accessing the device or the online account,(b) examining information held on the device or accessed by means of the online account, and(c) extracting such information.”.(4) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(7) An “online account” means an account by means of which information held on a service provided by means of the internet is made accessible.(8) The reference in this paragraph to “extracting” information includes reproducing it in any form.”.(5) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 to the National Security Act 2023 (prevention and investigation measures: electronic communication devices) is amended as follows.(6) In sub-paragraph (4), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”.(7) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The “inspection” of a device, or an online account accessed by means of a device, includes—(a) accessing the device or the online account,(b) examining information held on the device or accessed by means of the online account, and(c) extracting such information.”.(8) After sub-paragraph (6)—“(7) An “online account” means an account by means of which information held on a service provided by means of the internet is made accessible.(8) The reference in this paragraph to “extracting” information includes reproducing it in any form.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a measure imposed under Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 or Schedule 7 to National Security Act 2023 may include conditions relating to the inspection of an online account accessed by means of an electronic communication device the use of which is restricted under the measure.

Amendment 452 agreed.

Amendment 453

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

453: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Threshold for offences to be considered as terrorism-related: review(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a review into what the effect would be of raising the threshold of offences which can be considered as terrorism-related offences under the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021.(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must report within nine months of its establishment.(3) Within one month of the day on which the report is published, it must be laid before Parliament, and the relevant Minister must table a motion for debate in each House on the report’s conclusions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the government to review how raising the threshold for classifying offences as terrorism-related (under the 2021 Act) has impacted sentencing. The review must be completed within a set timeframe, reported to Parliament, and debated in both Houses.

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

My Lords, I have considered this amendment while preparing for today’s debate. It calls for a review, within a timeframe, of how raising the threshold for classifying offences of terrorism related under the 2021 Act has impacted sentencing. Considering that a review is under way by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, it seems to be a waste of time to call for a review that is plainly within his terms of reference and will be within a timeframe after this Act has passed into law, so I do not propose to proceed with this amendment. I have spoken to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Doocey, about this, who share the amendment with me, and they are content to go along with me. I do not know whether the procedure is now that I simply do not move the amendment or that I withdraw it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I think the amendment has been proposed with the wording on the Marshalled List and the noble Lord has spoken to it, but he may now wish to withdraw it.

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

That would be correct.

Amendment 453 withdrawn.

Amendments 454 to 454B not moved.

Amendment 454C

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

454C: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Submarine Telegraph Act 1885: amendmentIn section 3(2)(a) of the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 (punishment for violation of Article 2 of Convention), omit from “penal” to the second “imprisonment” and insert “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years and to a fine at level 5 on the standard scale”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to increase the punishment for sabotaging an undersea cable to a 15-year prison sentence, in addition to an unlimited fine, in the light of their status as critical national infrastructure.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 454C seeks to increase the punishment for sabotaging an undersea cable to a 15-year prison sentence and an unlimited fine. This constitutes critical national infrastructure and we need a stronger deterrent, I believe—as do one or two others from the Back Benches who have probably been caught out by the loss of the previous amendment.

Interestingly, one of Rishi Sunak’s early successes was a pamphlet on the subject for Policy Exchange, which he wrote with Admiral James Stavridis of the US Navy, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Written in 2017, it helped to propel him into office and to his extraordinarily rapid advancement. As he said:

“While few realise it, our ability to transmit confidential information, to conduct financial transactions and to communicate internationally all depend upon a global network of physical cables lying under the sea”.


The admiral said that

“we have allowed this vital infrastructure of undersea cables to grow increasingly vulnerable”.

A severe attack by a hostile actor

“is potentially catastrophic, but even relatively limited sabotage has the potential to cause significant economic disruption and damage military communications”.

Fast forward to last year, when I took a renewed interest in the subject with the release of a report by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy. It found, as the Minister concerned said in reply to a question I asked last year, that:

“The UK has plenty of cable routes and good repair processes for business-as-usual breakages”.


However, it also found “particular vulnerabilities” around the UK’s outlying islands, military cables and the financial sector, with a small set of “high-value targets”. Onshore infrastructure was also a concern, with links to data centres creating worrying levels of concentration. All this infrastructure could also be targeted in a crisis.

It noted that there were various laws around telecommunications, notably the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885. These have low penalties—£100 for damaging a cable by culpable negligence—with only modest increases possible via secondary legislation. The report concluded that updated and

“tougher criminal liability provisions might also help”.

In response to the report in December, the Government argued that the National Security Act 2023 could be used, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but only if the activity was carried out by a foreign state or at the direction of a foreign state. Where this was not possible, it would be necessary to rely on the 1885 Act.

That Act is plainly inadequate for today’s dangerous situation. As the time is late, I would like to cut to the chase and hope that the Minister might look positively at my simple amendment in these dangerous times. I beg to move.

21:45

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, and I apologise for arriving a little late to the scene. The intermediate amendment before this one seemed to disappear suddenly and caught me sprinting down the corridors, so I crave your Lordships’ indulgence. I will cut most of what I was going to say, mainly because it has been so well introduced by the noble Baroness.

This is an important amendment, and I support it. These are two-way supply chains of information, and they are as important to us—perhaps more so—as any other supply chain for our national security, our economy and the basic functioning of our society. Those who wish us harm are aware of this, are experimenting with ways of disrupting and damaging these cables and are finding ways to attack even the deepest of them. The Commons debate on the report to which the noble Baroness referred pointed out that deliberate damage can be denied or made to look accidental, and that undersea cables governance falls between eight departments, seven agencies and numerous private sector actors. The need for co-ordinated updating of the legislation is clear. The Government response basically agreed with this.

To conclude, these are perilous times of escalating insecurity, and they highlight how vital yet vulnerable these cables clearly are. Wider legislation may be required in due course—although goodness knows when—but in the meantime, we should act now as legislators in this Bill to update, clarify, and deter interference with, and attack on, this vital infrastructure. I thank your Lordships again for your tolerance.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. It offers a small change to an historic Act of Parliament, but it relates to the very lifeblood of modern society: the data on which we all depend. The UK is a crucial junction box, with 64 submarine cables; 75% of transatlantic capacity goes through just two cables, landing in Cornwall.

Clearly, this Act was designed for a very different time, and the penalties are not a deterrent and have not been fully updated, despite the Act having been updated in other ways. We have no hesitation in recognising the seriousness of undersea cable sabotage, as has been spoken to already. These incidents are increasing in the grey zone conflicts, and they can have serious consequences for our everyday ways of life.

The deterrents are not in place; this Act needs to be updated. This amendment addresses a real problem. The maximum term for wilfully damaging undersea cables would be up to 15 years, coupled with “to a fine at level 5”. That would send a stronger signal. It would align more clearly with legislation that is in place to govern other critical infrastructure—national infrastructure—including undersea energy and other critical things that we depend on.

We see this amendment as serving two purposes. The first is as a sensible tidying-up measure—an interim step, I guess—to remove an obvious anachronism from a still-operating statute. Secondly, it would serve notice that we await the more comprehensive regime that is also clearly required. We see this as an interim measure and an encouragement to the Government to bring forward a more comprehensive framework to deal with this problem.

I have more of my speech but, considering the time, I will leave it at that. We feel that this is just and proportionate. There are some issues about extraterritoriality and scope, but I will leave those for another time. Generally, the Government should accept this and view it as a stepping stone towards clarifying this area of law and making sure that we have the proper penalties and security for our vital infrastructure.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling this amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I also express my thanks for the diligent work of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Its report into the vulnerabilities of our undersea cables is a brilliant piece of work and makes for sobering reading.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, these are perilous times and there never has been a more important time to consider the measure proposed, given that cables are the invisible backbone of much of our economy, security and everyday life. As we have heard, they carry the vast majority of international data traffic, underpin financial transactions, connect critical services and link the UK to our international partners.

The committee’s report underlined that while the UK has plenty of cable routes and good repair processes for what it phrased as “business-as-usual breakages”, there are distinct vulnerabilities particularly where multiple cables cluster, or connect to key landing stations, and in the links servicing our outlying islands. I represented the Highlands and Islands region in the Scottish Parliament for eight years or so, and that last point is very real to me on a personal level because these are not abstract concerns. They are very real. Damage to a cable connecting the Shetland Islands in 2022 disrupted mobile, landline and payment services for days.

As we have heard, despite these vulnerabilities, the legal framework has not kept pace with the security environment. The principal instrument remains the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885. The deterrent effect of criminal sanctions matters. As the committee observed, the UK cannot simply assume that hostile actors would refrain from targeting these cables in a future crisis, and the Government have to be prepared for the reality that hostile states or proxy actors may exploit these vulnerabilities deliberately.

In conclusion, I add that increasing penalties is certainly not the only measure the Government should be taking. The threats we face are far more wide ranging than simple criminality. There is a need for a whole of government approach to protecting critical infrastructure such as submarine telecommunications—that would involve the MoD, DBT, DESNZ and the Home Office. But this amendment is a start, and I hope that the Minister will listen and take action.

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

My Lords, this Government take the security of our subsea cables extremely seriously. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for raising this issue. It is crucially important and right that it is debated and achieves the attention it deserves.

As the noble Baroness said, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy recently conducted a public inquiry into the security of the UK’s subsea cables, and it shone a spotlight on this issue. Following that inquiry, in November 2025 the Government formally committed to increasing penalties for those who damage subsea cables where the activity cannot be linked to a hostile state. As the noble Baroness rightly says, where it can be linked to a hostile state, a life sentence is available through the National Security Act.

I hope that the noble Baroness, for whom I have a great deal of respect, will understand why the Government are not able to support her amendment today. I am sure she will readily agree that penalties are not the only issue here. It is essential that any strengthening of the law is done carefully and not piecemeal, with full consideration for our fishing and wider maritime sectors. Any potential changes would need to be proportionate and workable for those sectors, and that requires proper consultation.

One further aspect about the non-criminal elements of this that may reassure your Lordships’ Committee is that cable breaks happen regularly in UK waters, given the busy nature of our shallow seas. But the UK’s international connectivity is highly resilient, and we have a well-developed system of civil litigation that ensures that cable owners are reimbursed when a break occurs. I hope that, for all these reasons, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is late, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend the opposition spokesman Lord Cameron of Lochiel, with his compelling Scottish perspective.

Given the vulnerabilities that have been identified, and identified successively, most recently by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s report—which nobody is disagreeing with—it is important that something is done. The Minister rightly refers to the possibility of civil litigation. However, for something of this seriousness, given the scale of the threat that we now have in the waters around our country, that is not good enough.

I will reflect, but I hope the Government will take this away and perhaps come forward with their own amendment. That would obviously be ideal. Perhaps we can have some further discussions about how we solve this problem sooner rather than later. I note the point that the Minister made about fisheries and so on, but that feels like an excuse. I have been a Security Minister and, normally, when you have a big security issue, you try to take steps to mend matters as quickly as you can, as has been done with previous legislation. For today, I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I might come back to this on Report.

Amendment 454C withdrawn.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.57 pm.