(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:46 - Division on Amendment 179 - Ayes: 43 / Noes: 131 - Amendment 179 disagreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
(i) obtained from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in a physical form and a photograph of the buyer, or(ii) took such steps to verify the buyer’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a requirement to section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on a remote sale of a knife to be a physical version, and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in my name are substantially the same as those that I tabled in Committee. As the House may recall, I withdrew those amendments following concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but today I am reintroducing them for the House’s consideration. The amendments relate to the provisions in Clauses 31 to 35, which introduce stricter two-step age verification checks for the sale and delivery of knives and crossbows bought online.
For the House’s convenience I will recap: Clauses 31 and 32, on knives, and Clauses 33 and 34, on crossbows, will require at the point of sale, or point of sale or hire, for crossbows, specific checks to include photographic identity plus a current photograph; and, at the point of delivery, photographic identity checks; and they will create a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife or crossbow to someone other than the buyer—if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company—so that knives and crossbows cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours.
These amendments clarify that the passport or driving licence required as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, or for a remote sale or hire of a crossbow, must be a physical version. We are also again adding provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations, subject to—I hope this helps the House—the affirmative procedure, prescribing an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. These amendments are required to ensure that a digital ID can be used as evidence of identity wherever the physical ID is accepted.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised concerns that the use of digital ID would be mandatory. However, I assure him that this is not a blanket requirement mandating the use of digital ID to purchase knives or crossbows; it is simply making provision for alternative forms of ID, digital or otherwise, to be used. This is to ensure that the legislation keeps pace with future potential developments in digital ID. I know that the Benches opposite have concerns about the Government’s plans for digital ID, but we have been clear that under those plans it will not be mandatory to have a digital ID. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. These provisions are about giving people a choice in how they verify their identity. It will continue to be possible for the purchaser to present a physical passport or driving licence, where they have one, as an alternative to a specified digital ID.
Furthermore, with the permission and support of the authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, these amendments also extend these clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We are amending the legislation to ensure that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products and crossbows to residential premises. This is to account for situations where the delivery company engaged by the seller to deliver the bladed product sub-contracts the delivery to other companies. We believe that it is essential that all companies in the chain are responsible for ensuring that age and identity are verified before the package is handed over to the buyer; otherwise, regulations made under the Bill would be meaningless.
I hope that, having reflected on the debate in Committee, and given the changes and the clarification I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be content with these government amendments. There are other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will, if he so wishes, move Amendment 177. I will respond to the noble Lord once I have heard his speech. For the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who is nodding, which is good news. I thank him; it is much appreciated. There is nothing worse than writing a speech and being unable to deliver it.
I welcome the government amendments in this group, brought forward by the Minister, concerning the remote sale and delivery of knives and bladed articles. As I noted in Committee, we on these Benches fully support the intent behind the Government’s measures in this area. We must strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales. We welcome the robust two-step age-verification checks being implemented. It is entirely right that we ensure a consistent UK-wide approach by extending these provisions, including those relating to crossbows, to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is vital that the law across the home nations is exactly on the same footing, so that criminals cannot exploit cross-border differences to acquire lethal weapons.
I also welcome the amendments that clarify the rules around identity documents. The requirement for a physical identity document to be shown upon the delivery of a bladed product provides a necessary safeguard. Furthermore, we acknowledge the provisions allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe alternative age-verification steps such as digital ID.
As I made clear to the Minister previously, there is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrats’, so we remain highly supportive of the assurance that analogue physical forms of identity will continue to be accepted alongside any new digital alternatives. Embedded among these amendments, however, is our Amendment 177, referred to by the Minister, on the remote sale of knives. This amendment requires that regulations mandate the reporting of bulk knife sales to the police
“in real time, or as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
In Committee, the Minister stated that he was sympathetic to the overall aim of this amendment but argued that the current duty in Clause 36 was sufficient and that exact timeframes would be handled later in regulations, following consultation. Sympathy does not intervene in a crime. We have seen cases where young people effectively act as arms traders, buying huge numbers of illegal weapons online for community distribution. If the police are to effectively track and intercept these bulk purchases, they need that intelligence immediately, not days or weeks later when the weapons are already on the streets. Amendment 177 would ensure that operational effectiveness is guaranteed in the Bill, turning bureaucratic compliance into actionable, life-saving intelligence.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in Committee, I asked the Government to withdraw their amendments that permitted them to require by regulations the use of digital ID for age verification for the online sale of knives and crossbows. My concern was that permitting this would be the first legislative step towards mandating digital IDs. Since then, of course, the Government have conceded that digital IDs will not be made mandatory and, while I still harbour some reservations, I am now content for the amendments to be made to the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If I may, I will address the points from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and thank him for returning to the issue of fixed-penalty notices with his Amendment 177.
We are clear that, in order for the reports on bulk sales of knives or other bladed articles to be a useful tool for the police to prevent knife crime, they must be sent to the police in a timely manner. I say to the noble Lord that we are working with the police on the details of a reporting system, and I want to reassure him that the points he has raised both in Committee and in his amendment, and during the debate today, will be taken into account when drafting the regulations. I do not believe there is any difference of substance between us on that; it is just that we are of the view that the timeliness of reports is best left to regulations, rather than primary legislation. We will be bringing those regulations forward, and I hope he will be able to support, comment upon and discuss them at that time. I hope the noble Lord will be content not to move his amendment.
Before I finish on this it is worthwhile, both in the context of this debate and the previous group, to place on record that while overall knife crime was previously climbing, since the start of this Parliament knife homicides have fallen by 27% and knife-enabled offences have recorded an 8% decrease. The latest admissions data for NHS hospitals in England and Wales also shows a 10% fall in admissions for knife assaults. Now, I am not complacent and will not stop pressing on this, but those results demonstrate progress. Given the measures in this Bill, and the measures we may have on digital and non-digital ID two-step verification, I hope we will further reduce those figures in the coming months. In the meantime, having moved my Amendment 28, I will beg to move the other amendments and hope that the noble Lord will be content not to move his.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 31, page 36, line 23.
“(10A) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (4)(a)(ii) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations prescribing the steps that may be taken to verify a buyer’s age to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 31, page 37, line 6.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale or letting of knives etc: Scotland(1) Section 141C of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (remote sales and lettings of knives) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (5) substitute—“(5) Condition A is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) the accused either—(i) obtained from the recipient a copy of an identity document issued to the recipient in a physical form and a photograph of the recipient, or(ii) took such steps to verify the recipient’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the recipient was aged 18 or over.(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.”(3) In subsection (6)(b) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(4) In subsection (7) for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the recipient”.(5) In subsection (9) omit “or a person acting on behalf of the recipient” in both places it occurs.(6) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5)(a)(ii) are subject to the affirmative procedure.(12) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (5A)(d) are subject to the negative procedure.(13) For the meaning of “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure” see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10).”(7) In section 141A(4B) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sale of knives to persons under 18: Scotland) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation; (b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 31 (as amended by my amendments to that clause).
“Remote sale of knives etc: Northern Ireland(1) Article 54A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) (remote sale of knives) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (4) substitute—“(4) Condition A is that, before the sale—(a) the seller either—(i) obtained from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer in a physical form and a photograph of the buyer, or(ii) took such steps to verify the buyer’s age as may be prescribed in an order made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the buyer was aged 18 or over.(4A) For the purposes of paragraph (4) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;(d) any other document specified in an order made by the Department of Justice.”(3) In paragraph (5)(b), for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the buyer”.(4) In paragraph (6), for “a person aged 18 or over” substitute “the buyer”.(5) In paragraph (8), omit “or a person acting on behalf of the buyer”, in both places it occurs.(6) In Article 57 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) (rules and orders)—(a) in paragraph (1) after “54(3)(c)” insert “, 54A(4A)(d)”;(b) in paragraph (2) after “Article” insert “54A(4)(a)(ii) or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 31 (as amended by my amendments to that clause).
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) In section 38 (delivery of bladed products to residential premises)—(a) omit subsection (4);(b) in subsection (8)—(i) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both.”(1B) In section 39 (delivery of bladed products to persons under 18)—(a) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (c) to (e) substitute—“(c) before the sale, the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the contractor”) by which the contractor agreed—(i) to deliver bladed products for the seller, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed products for the seller,(d) the contractor was aware when they entered into the arrangement with the seller that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, bladed products, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf.”;(b) omit subsections (2) and (3);(c) for subsection (6) substitute—“(6) The contractor commits an offence if, when the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6A) A person acting on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the bladed product is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(6B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed product pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf.(6C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed product by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, bladed products (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed products).”;(d) in subsection (7)—(i) for “subsection (6)” substitute “this section”;(ii) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(iii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other of my amendments to clause 32, extend the provision made by that clause to Scotland and Northern Ireland and make related drafting changes. It also ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for age and ID verification on delivery of bladed products to residential premises.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(3A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 39(6) or (6A) to show that the delivery conditions were met.(3B) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 39(6) or (6A) who did not finally deliver the bladed product to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(3C) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 39(6A) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a bladed product.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(a) the person finally delivering the bladed product—(i) was shown by the person (“P”) into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an identity document shown to a person delivering a bladed product must be a physical document. It also allows regulations to be made prescribing an alternative process for identity verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 32, page 37, lines 31 to 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my second amendment to clause 32, page 38, line 10, provide for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(5A) In subsection (5)(c) “relevant driving licence” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));(b) in relation to Scotland, a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 32, page 38, line 6, provide for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 43, line 14 and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are superseded by my new amendments to section 39 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (see my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11).
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change for consistency.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that is no longer needed because the matter is dealt with in the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine; (b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 43, line 14 and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed products for the seller,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(2A) A person who acts on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if they, or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, deliver the bladed product to a collection point.(2B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed product pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf.(2C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed product by which the person agreed to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, bladed products (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed products).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments to this inserted section, ensures that all contractors in the delivery chain are responsible for marking packages containing bladed products that are to be delivered to collection points as needing age and ID verification.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that is no longer needed because the matter is dealt with in the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 43, line 14 and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change.
(a) gives the bladed product to a person collecting it, but(b) does not give it”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that section 40D(4) applies where a bladed product is given to the person collecting it by a person acting on behalf of the operator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change.
“(a) the individual giving the bladed product to the person (“P”) collecting it—(i) was shown by P an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an identity document shown to a person handing over a bladed product must be a physical document. It also allows regulations to be made prescribing an alternative process for identity verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 32, page 42, line 34.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that is no longer needed because the matter is dealt with in the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“40E Further defences to offences under sections 38 to 40DThe appropriate national authority may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under any of sections 38 to 40D.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provisions that are no longer needed because the matters are dealt with in the new section 40E inserted by this amendment and the new section 42A inserted by my amendment to clause 32, page 45, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(d) in subsection (3), for “40” substitute “40D”;(e) in subsection (4) for “40” substitute “40D”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(a) in subsection (1) for paragraphs (c) to (e) substitute—“(c) before the sale, the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the contractor”) by which the contractor agreed—(i) to deliver bladed articles for the seller, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of bladed articles for the seller,(d) the contractor was aware when they entered into the arrangement with the seller that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, bladed articles, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the bladed article is finally delivered by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf.”;(b) omit subsections (2) and (3);(c) for subsections (4) to (9) substitute—“(4) The contractor commits an offence if, when the bladed article is finally delivered by the contractor or a person acting on the contractor’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(4A) A person acting on the contractor’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the bladed article is finally delivered by that person or another person acting on the contractor’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.(4B) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) or (4A) to show that the delivery conditions were met.(4C) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) or (4A) who did not finally deliver the bladed article to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(4D) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4A) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a bladed article.(4E) For the purposes of this section a person acts on the contractor’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the bladed article pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) the contractor, or(b) a person who acts on the contractor’s behalf. (4F) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale of the bladed article by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, bladed articles (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered bladed articles).(4G) In this section the “delivery conditions” has the meaning given by section 40(4).”;(d) in subsection (10)—(i) for “subsection (4)” substitute “this section”;(ii) in paragraph (b) omit “Scotland or”;(iii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.””Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(9A) After section 42 insert—“42A Interpretation of sections 38 to 42(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 38 to 42.(2) A person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.(3) A person other than an individual—(a) is within the United Kingdom at any time, if the person carries on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time;(b) is outside the United Kingdom at any time, if the person does not carry on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.(4) The “appropriate national authority” is—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.(5) A person charged with an offence is to be taken to have shown a matter if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
“(c) in subsection (3)—(i) omit “, 40(10)(c)”;(ii) after “is” insert “, and regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 40(5)(d) are,”; (d) in subsection (4) for “40(13)” substitute “40(4)(a)(ii), 40D(8)(a)(ii), 40E”;(e) in subsection (6) after “Act” insert “, except for regulations under section 40(5)(d),”;(f) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Regulations made by the Department of Justice under section 40(5)(d) are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.””Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 32, page 37, line 11.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(2A) After section 1 insert—“1ZA Defence to offence under section 1: England and WalesExcept where section 1B applies, it is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 1 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.”.(2B) In section 1A (defences: Scotland)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) for “It” substitute “Except where section 1B applies, it”;(ii) after “charged” insert “in Scotland”;(b) in subsection (3) for paragraphs (a) to (b) substitute—“(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971),(aa) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation,(b) a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State, or”;(c) for the heading substitute “Defence to offence under section 1: Scotland”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendments to clauses 33 to 35, extend to Scotland the amendments made by those clauses to the Crossbows Act 1987, and make related changes.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(i) obtained from B a copy of an identity document issued to B in a physical form and a photograph of B, or(ii) took such steps to verify B’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the relevant national authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on a remote sale or letting of a crossbow to be a physical document, and allows the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 33, page 46, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my second amendment to clause 33, page 46, line 25, provides for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland (for consistency with the existing provision in section 1A(3) of the Crossbows Act 1987).
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(5A) In subsection (5)(c) a “relevant driving licence” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));(b) in relation to Scotland, a licence to drive a motor vehicle—(i) granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)), or(ii) issued in the form of a photocard by a member State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 33, page 46, line 21, provides for EU driving licences to count as an identity document in Scotland (for consistency with the existing provision in section 1A(3) of the Crossbows Act 1987).
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(i) was shown by the person “(P)” into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the relevant national authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on delivery of a crossbow to be a physical document, and allows the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 34, page 48, line 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1E(1)(e) applies to deliveries by a person acting on C’s behalf.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because the point is now dealt with in section 1J(2A) (general interpretation) as inserted by my amendment to clause 35, page 54, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1E(3) applies to deliveries by a person acting on C’s behalf.
(a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(5A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) or (4) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(6A) For the purposes of this section a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(6B) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1E, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.” Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1G(2) applies to deliveries made by a person acting on C’s behalf.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(2A) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if, pursuant to the arrangement, that person or another person acting on C’s behalf delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point.(2B) For the purposes of this section, a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(2C) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1G, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to collection points can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change.
(a) gives the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a person collecting it, but(b) does not give it”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that section 1H(4) applies where the crossbow or part of a crossbow is given to the person collecting it by a person acting on behalf of the operator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change.
(i) was shown by P an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the relevant national authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a passport or driving licence used as proof of age on collection of a crossbow to be a physical document, and allows the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID).
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 34, page 52, line 36.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1I(1)(e) applies where a person delivers the item on C’s behalf.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out provision that is no longer necessary because the point is now dealt with in section 1J(2A) (general interpretation) as inserted by my amendment to clause 35, page 54, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that inserted section 1I(3) applies where the item is delivered by a person acting on C’s behalf.
“(4) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if— (a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(6A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) or (4) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
“(8) For the purposes of this section a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(9) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to inserted section 1I, ensure that offences relating to the delivery of crossbows to residential premises can be committed by all contractors in the delivery chain.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) “Relevant national authority” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(2A) A person other than an individual—(a) is within the United Kingdom at any time, if the person carries on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time;(b) is outside the United Kingdom at any time, if the person does not carry on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines when a person is within or outside the United Kingdom for the purposes of the crossbow provisions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State prescribing the steps that may be taken to verify a buyer’s age (as well as regulations under the provisions already specified in inserted section 6A(2)) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 35, page 55, line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 35, page 55, line 6.
“(4) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under this Act, other than regulations under section 1B(5)(d), are subject to the affirmative procedure.(5) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 1B(5)(d) are subject to the negative procedure.(6) For the meaning of “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure” see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10).”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
“(4) In section 66(2) of that Act (guidance by Scottish Ministers), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) any of sections 1 to 3 of the Crossbows Act 1987 as they have effect in relation to Scotland,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Remote sale and letting of crossbows: Northern Ireland(1) The Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) is amended as follows.(2) In Article 3 omit “, unless he believes him to be eighteen years of age or older and has reasonable ground for the belief”.(3) After Article 3 insert—“Defence to offence under Article 33A. Except where Article 3B applies, it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.Defence to offence under Article 3: remote sales etc(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) is charged with an offence under Article 3, and(b) A was not in the presence of the person (“B”) to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire at the time of the sale or letting on hire.(2) It is a defence for A to show that the following conditions are met.(3) Condition 1 is that, before the sale or letting on hire—(a) A either—(i) obtained from B a copy of an identity document issued to B in a physical form and a photograph of B, or(ii) took such steps to verify B’s age as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that copy and photograph or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied that B was aged 18 or over.(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3) an “identity document” means—(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.(5) Condition 2 is that when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A, it was clearly marked to indicate— (a) that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow, and(b) that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of B.(6) Condition 3 is that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of B.(7) Condition 4 is that A did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.(8) Where the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A to a place from which it was to be collected by B, references in paragraphs (5) and (6) to its final delivery are to be read as its supply to B from that place.(9) In paragraph (7) “locker” means a lockable container to which the package is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 33 for England and Wales.
“Delivery of crossbows: Northern IrelandIn the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)), after Article 3B (inserted by section (Remote sale and letting of crossbows: Northern Ireland)) insert—“Offence of seller etc delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), and(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale.(2) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises, or(b) arranges for its delivery to residential premises.(3) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a locker, or(b) arranges for its delivery to a locker.(4) In paragraph (3) “locker” means a lockable container to which the crossbow or part of a crossbow is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on B’s behalf, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.Defences to offences under Article 3C(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3C(2)(a) to show that the delivery conditions were met.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3C(2)(b) to show that—(a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow unless the delivery conditions were met, and(b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the crossbow or part of a crossbow would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met. (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 3C(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.(4) For the purposes of this Article the delivery conditions are that—(a) the person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow—(i) was shown by the person (“P”) into whose hands it was finally delivered an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that document or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied—(i) that P was aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire was an individual, that P was that individual.(5) “Identity document” has the same meaning as in Article 3B(4).Offence of contractor delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises on behalf of UK seller(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed—(i) to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, or(ii) to arrange for the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows, and(e) pursuant to that arrangement, the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by C or a person acting on C’s behalf.(2) C commits an offence if, when the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by C or a person acting on C’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(3) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if—(a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered to residential premises by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of Article 3D(4)) were met. (5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (3) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(7) For the purposes of this Article a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(8) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).Offence of UK seller delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to collection point(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), and(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time.(2) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point, or(b) arranges for the crossbow or part of a crossbow to be delivered to a collection point.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2)(a) to show that—(a) when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was delivered to the collection point, it was clearly marked to indicate that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow and should only be given into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual, and(b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow would be given into the hands of such a person.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2)(b) to show that—(a) when the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow was given to the person with whom the arrangement was made, it was clearly marked to indicate that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow and should only be given into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual, and (b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow would be given into the hands of such a person.(5) “Collection point” means a place—(a) from which the crossbow or part of a crossbow may be collected by the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire or a person acting on that person’s behalf, and(b) where on collection the crossbow or part of a crossbow is given by an individual to the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire, or a person acting on that person’s behalf.Offence of contractor delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to collection point(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed—(i) to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, and(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows.(2) C commits an offence if, pursuant to the arrangement, C or a person acting on C’s behalf delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point.(3) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if, pursuant to the arrangement, that person or another person acting on C’s behalf delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a collection point.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article to show that—(a) when they delivered the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow to the collection point or a person acting on C’s behalf, the package was clearly marked to indicate that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow and should only be given into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual, and(b) they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the package containing the crossbow or part of a crossbow would be given into the hands of such a person.(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the product was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(6) For the purposes of this Article, a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(7) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows). (8) “Collection point” has the meaning given in Article 3F.Offence of handing over crossbows or parts of crossbows at collection point(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,(c) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is delivered to a collection point, and(d) condition A or condition B is satisfied.(2) Condition A is that—(a) the delivery is pursuant to an arrangement entered into before the delivery by—(i) the person operating the collection point (“the operator”), and(ii) A or the person delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to the collection point, and(b) the operator was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery to the collection point of crossbows or parts of crossbows.(3) Condition B is that A is the operator.(4) The operator commits an offence if the operator (or a person acting on the operator’s behalf)—(a) gives the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a person collecting it, but(b) does not give it into the hands of an eligible person.(5) A person acting on the operator’s behalf commits an offence if they—(a) give the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a person collecting it, but(b) do not give it into the hands of an eligible person.(6) “Eligible person” means a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (4) or (5) to show that the collection conditions were met.(8) The collection conditions are that—(a) the individual giving the crossbow or part of a crossbow to the person (“P”) collecting it —(i) was shown by P an identity document issued to P in a physical form, or(ii) took such steps to verify P’s age and identity as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Department of Justice, and(b) on the basis of that document or those steps, a reasonable person would have been satisfied—(i) that P was aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire was an individual, that P was that individual.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (4) or (5) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the product was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(10) In this Article—“collection point” has the meaning given in Article 3F;“identity document” has the meaning given in Article 3B(4). Offence of contractor delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows on behalf of non-UK seller(1) This Article applies if—(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is outside the United Kingdom at that time,(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed—(i) to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A, or(ii) to arrange the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered delivering, or arranging the delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows, and(e) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by C or a person acting on C’s behalf.(2) C commits an offence if, when the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by C or a person acting on C’s behalf, it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(a) is aged 18 or over, and(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(3) A person acting on C’s behalf commits an offence if —(a) the crossbow or part of a crossbow is finally delivered by that person or another person acting on C’s behalf, and(b) it is not delivered into the hands of a person who—(i) is aged 18 or over, and(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of Article 3D(4)) were met.(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (2) or (3) who did not finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (3) to show that the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that what was delivered was a crossbow or part of a crossbow.(7) For the purposes of this Article a person acts on C’s behalf if the person acts in relation to the crossbow or part of a crossbow pursuant to a relevant arrangement with—(a) C, or(b) a person who acts on C’s behalf.(8) A “relevant arrangement” is an arrangement entered into before the sale or letting on hire of the crossbow or part of a crossbow by which the person agreed to finally deliver, or to arrange for the final delivery of, crossbows or parts of crossbows (whether or not the person was aware that the arrangement covered crossbows or parts of crossbows).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 34 for England and Wales.
“Sale and delivery of crossbows: Northern Ireland: supplementary provision(1) After Article 3I of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) (inserted by section (Delivery of crossbows: Northern Ireland)) insert—“Interpretation of Articles 3A to 3I(1) This Article applies for the interpretation of Articles 3A to 3I.(2) A person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.(3) A person other than an individual—(a) is within the United Kingdom at any time if the person carries on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time;(b) is outside the United Kingdom at any time, if the person does not carry on a business of selling or letting on hire articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.(4) “Residential premises” means premises used solely for residential purposes.(5) The circumstances where premises are not residential premises include, in particular, where a person carries on a business from the premises.(6) A person charged with an offence is to be taken to have shown a matter if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.Power to create other defences by regulations3K. The Department of Justice may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under any of Articles 3C, 3E, 3F, 3G or 3H.”.(2) In Article 8 of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) (punishments)—(a) in paragraph (1) for “this Order” substitute “Article 3, 4 or 5”;(b) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A person guilty of an offence under Article 3C is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).(1B) A person guilty of an offence under Article 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H or 3I is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”(3) After Article 8 of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) insert—“Regulations(1) Regulations made by the Department of Justice under Article 3B(4)(d) are subject to negative resolution.(2) Regulations under any other provision of this Order may not be made by the Department of Justice unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”.(4) In section 66(3) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any of Articles 3 to 3I of the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/794 (N.I. 5)) (sale etc of crossbows),”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about crossbows for Northern Ireland similar to that made by clause 35 for England and Wales.
Lord Katz
“Application of Firearms Acts to sound moderators etc(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) After section 2 insert—“2A Possession of a sound moderator or flash suppressor(1) Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person to have in their possession a relevant accessory unless the person holds a firearm certificate or a shot gun certificate.(2) “Relevant accessory” means an accessory to a firearm to which section 1 applies which is designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the firearm.”(3) In section 57 (interpretation)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit paragraph (d);(ii) in the words after paragraph (d) omit “, and accessories to,”;(b) in subsection (4)—(i) after the definition of “registered” insert—““relevant accessory” has the meaning given in section 2A;”(ii) in the definition of “shot gun”, omit the words from “and any” to the end.(4) In Schedule 6 (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry for section 2(2) insert—
“Section 2A | Possession of relevant accessory without certificate under this Act | Summary | A fine of level 3 on the standard scale”. |
This amendment removes sound moderators and flash suppressors from the definitions of “firearm” and “shot gun” in the Firearms Act 1968 and creates an offence of possessing a sound moderator or flash suppressor without having a valid firearm or shotgun certificate, or without an exemption applying.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, will recall that he tabled an amendment in Committee which sought to deregulate devices known as sound moderators and flash suppressors. These items are subject to control by virtue of the fact that they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm, set out in Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to thank the Ministers on the other side of the House. I am very grateful that they have accepted what I think was an entirely common-sense case, which the Government had already accepted in a report that was previously published. I would just say that, in what I think is now my 29th year in Parliament in one House or the other, the number of occasions when Governments and Ministers accept entirely common-sense arguments from the other side of the House and respond is so small that I cannot think of many others, so I really am grateful. It will help the police and reduce the bureaucratic burden on them. It will reduce costs for a lot of people and does not pose any harm whatever, so thank you.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, which deliver on the commitments made by the Minister during our debate in Committee. As I noted at the time, townies such as myself were being educated during the passage of the Bill on what these items were. However, the logic of this measure was immediately clear when the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, introduced his amendments, and we were very pleased to support them when he first championed the cause. We are delighted that the Government have accepted his amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. These measures were rightly pressed for in Committee by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, so I am glad the Government have taken his points on board and are now implementing them. These amendments will remove an administrative burden currently placed on the police—something we all support—and will pose no threat to the public. They are wholly reasonable, and we support them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it is very rare to have both unanimity and common sense break out across the Chamber. I thank all noble Lords for their comments, including those among townies—I associate myself with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as a fellow townie. It was an education and I have learned an awful lot. I thank everyone for their support.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I would say to the noble Lord before he sits down that unanimity and common sense do not always go together.
Lord Katz (Lab)
That is the point that I was struggling to make, which is put more eloquently by the noble Lord.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that low-value shoplifting is to remain as a summary only offence, so as to not introduce greater burdens for the Crown Court.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as in Committee, these Benches oppose Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. I will briefly remind the House of the background. Clause 40 repeals Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which was inserted into that Act in 2014. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act provides that, where a person is charged with a shoplifting offence but the value of the stolen goods is under £200, the offence is triable only summarily. Accordingly, low-value shoplifting cases will be heard only before a magistrates’ court and will not go before the Crown Court. That is the current position.
The Government now propose to do away with this and make low-value shoplifting triable either way. In its criticisms of the status quo before the general election in 2024, the Labour Party suggested that the status quo had created,
“effective immunity for some shoplifting”.
That was the wording in the Government’s manifesto.
As I have said previously, this is incorrect. There never has been effective immunity for any shoplifting offences. If making an offence a summary offence is akin to granting immunity, then it follows that we have given immunity to anyone who commits common assault, battery, theft of a car, drunk driving, dangerous cycling, being drunk and disorderly, and harassment, to name but a few offences. The truth is that there are hundreds of summary-only offences. Do the Government think that they create immunity and should become triable either way too?
There are two other matters that demonstrate further the contradictory and, indeed, damaging consequences of this clause. Essentially, the question hinges on the interaction between this clause and two other measures that this Government are pursuing with perplexing enthusiasm: their Sentencing Act and their proposed court reforms.
In the Sentencing Act, the Government have introduced a presumption of a suspended sentence where the sentence is less than 12 months. I know that the Government do not like these Benches making an ongoing critique of their sentencing reforms but, given their negative future impact, we shall continue to do so.
The average custodial sentence for shop theft is two months, meaning that, in future, it is likely that all shoplifters will be spared prison time. If you wanted to look for effective immunity, this is where you will find it. Permitting those charged with low-value shoplifting to seek a Crown Court trial may very well lead to a collapse in the prosecution of those offences, as the CPS will determine that prosecution is simply not worth it.
Coupled with the presumption of a suspended sentence order for all sentences under 12 months, there is a significant likelihood that, under this Government, the vast majority of shoplifters will avoid prison entirely. Furthermore, the Government’s court reforms will see more cases moved away from the Crown Courts, the curtailing of jury trials and an increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts.
The Government say that this is necessary to tackle the backlog. They have argued that offenders are trying to game the system by electing for Crown Court trials, knowing that they will take longer to go to trial and that the case may collapse. So, on the one hand, they are reducing the number of either-way offences because the Crown Courts are overwhelmed and yet, on the other hand, they are making low-value shoplifting triable either way. This makes no sense whatever.
If the Minister will not listen to my arguments, she might perhaps listen to those of her own colleague, Sarah Sackman, the Courts Minister, who is quoted in a Guardian article as asking:
“Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?”
I quite agree with Sarah Sackman. I do not think that a person who steals a bottle of whisky should go before the Crown Court, but that is exactly what could happen if Clause 40 becomes law.
For all these reasons and, essentially, because in our view the Government’s position here is completely contradictory, I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 40 delivers on a manifesto commitment made by this Government. I am very happy to note that I and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, share the same overall objective: to reduce the backlog in the Crown Court by reserving jury trials for the most serious cases. I am delighted to hear that they agree with the Government, so I look forward to their support for our proposals to do exactly this when your Lordships’ House considers the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which was introduced in the other place earlier today.
The low-value shoplifting provision was always a curious beast and quite unlike other criminal offences because shoplifting was, and still is, charged as theft, which is always a “triable either way” offence. This meant that, although there was a presumption that if the goods were valued at less than £200 the case would remain in the magistrates’ court, a defendant who wanted a jury trial could still choose—or “elect”, to use the formal term—trial in the Crown Court. It is nonsense to say that this keeps it in the magistrates’ court, because Section 22A still allows defendants to elect trial in the Crown Court if they want to do so. The reality is that hardly any of them did; I will return to this shortly.
This was an administrative provision designed to reduce the burden on the Crown Court. In reality it had very little impact on that, but it did have a very undesirable effect that was entirely unintended. Although multiple factors have contributed to rising retail crime, one persistent issue is the perception in many quarters that low-value theft has no real consequences. Some regard it as having been, in effect, decriminalised. It does not matter whether that is in fact true; it is the perception that is damaging.
Section 22A created the perception that those committing theft of goods worth £200 or less will escape any punishment. Clause 40 rectifies that—and it really matters. Evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that only 36% of retail crime is even reported. Many retailers choose not to do so because they think it is a waste of time; they believe that the police will not do anything. Once again, it does not really matter whether they are right about that; that is what they believe.
This underreporting masks the true scale of the problem and leaves businesses vulnerable. We must act decisively to support retailers facing this growing challenge and scourge of shoplifting. Clause 40 does exactly that. It closes a critical gap by sending a clear and unequivocal message: theft of any value is a serious criminal act and will be treated seriously.
I hope noble Lords will accept that probably no one is more concerned than I am—as one of the only people who has actually lived through what it has meant in practice, when I sat as a circuit judge—about remedying the position of the backlog in the Crown Court. As I have already said, jury trials for these cases are a very small proportion of the Crown Court’s workload. In the year ending in September 2025, almost 50,000 defendants were prosecuted for shoplifting goods valued at £200 or less, but only 1.3% of those cases were committed for jury trial in the Crown Court. The vast majority of them had been sent there by the magistrates, with only a very small proportion of defendants electing trial themselves.
Returning the situation to the previous law, where the offence is triable either way, therefore carries no greater risk to the Crown Court than already exists under the existing provision. But it sends a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators: this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. We are signalling to retailers that we take this crime seriously, that they are encouraged to report it and that the police will take it seriously.
The happy news for the noble Lords who tabled this amendment, and any others concerned about the backlog in the Crown Court, is that once we pass the Courts and Tribunals Bill, low-value shoplifters will no longer be able to game the system by choosing jury trial because in all cases the decision on venue will be made by the magistrates’ court, not by defendants. As I have already said, I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on this. In the meantime, given that this is a manifesto commitment, I make it absolutely clear that the Government are determined that it shall pass. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I am afraid I am not quite persuaded. The Government have been attempting to appear tough in a so far unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate that they are cracking down on crime. Yet, as we know from the latest crime statistics, in the year ending September 2025 there were 519,381 recorded incidents of shoplifting, which is a 10% increase on the previous year. To make matters worse, they are now proposing measures that will not see a soul go to prison for shoplifting and, via Clause 40, will allow offenders to string out their trials through the Crown Court, all while they pursue the polar opposite outcome for other offences through their court reforms. If this is the policy of a Government who are serious about tackling shoplifting, they have a strange way of showing it. We are not prepared to allow shoplifters to go unpunished, and I therefore have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is made for the purposes of my amendment at line 19.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, on this occasion, I hope I can be accused of listening and hearing in order to assist the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. These amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence will, in cases involving children aged 13 or over, remove the requirement that a perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was an adult. In bringing forward these amendments, I am directly responding to concerns raised in debates in the House, having listened in particular to the cogent arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. Indeed, arguments were made in the House of Commons for the same.
We maintain that reasonable belief in age would not be a simple loophole for perpetrators and that it is a precedented and long-standing legal test. The CPS and courts are experienced in dealing with such an element. However, having reflected further, and acknowledging that there is a heightened risk of teenage Black males, who are overrepresented in the cohort of children vulnerable to child criminal exploitation, being wrongly perceived as older, we will not risk perpetrators being acquitted because of how society misperceives children as appearing older than they are in this context.
Adults who draw children into committing criminal activity should always be convicted of this offence, regardless of how old the perpetrator believed the children were. These amendments send a clear message that responsibility for involving children in crime, which is always bad and harmful, rests with the adult. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments. We wholly support the intention of Clause 41, which introduces the offence of child criminal exploitation, but I have several concerns regarding the amendments, which I hope he will be able to allay.
First, is the original crime being brought forward to highlight and punish exploitative behaviour? An adult will perhaps get a 12 year-old to shoplift or deal drugs because they are less conspicuous and have less chance of being caught. That type of coercion is what is being targeted here. I am not so sure that this is always the case when it comes to older teenagers. When the child is 16 or 17, it is often far more of a voluntary decision, based on a mutual understanding, to commit a crime. While there may be exploitation, the offender may not be enticing them towards crime because they are a child. That is a subtle but important difference in intention. Introducing strict liability up to 18 removes the discretion that courts often exist to provide.
That brings me to my second concern, which is that this may end up being used to absolve fully complicit young offenders of criminal responsibility. The Government have made it clear that they see 16 to 18 year-olds as adults, and the law already provides them with many legal rights that 15 year-olds do not have. The Government will soon give them the right to vote. Is the Minister really arguing that personal volition never plays a part in crimes committed by young people? Of course there will be cases of exploitation, but I am sure that your Lordships’ House will agree that there will also be cases where that is not the case. Introducing strict liability will open the door to others already implicated in the crimes committed by the teenager being rendered wholly liable for a crime that somebody else was a part of.
I understand the Government’s intentions with this updated measure. It involves a different principle from child sexual assault, but just as that crime includes a condition that factors in intent, so should this crime, on the part of those under-18. Obviously, there should be an arbitrary cut-off, as the original measure suggests, but we have a criminal age of responsibility of 10 and we are giving 16 year-olds the vote; to suggest that 16 to 17-year olds involved in a crime with an adult can always claim that they were exploited and coerced is not consistent. I hope that the Minister will be able to address these points.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I was just checking with another Member of your Lordships’ House before I started my winding-up speech. My apologies for not attracting his attention.
We welcome the Government’s decision to address child criminal exploitation. The range of measures in the Bill are certainly a start and address the growing concern about children being exploited into criminality. I particularly welcome the Minister’s letter, dated a couple of weeks ago—about 15 February—explaining that the amendments laid address a highly specific concern about the requirement for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator did not reasonably believe the child was aged 18 or over, if the child was aged 13 or over. We thank him for that.
However, from these Benches we urge the Government to go further in the longer term in ensuring that all children are safeguarded from exploitation. This needs to be recognised as a form of exploitation. Along with a number of organisations, we think that this should be done through a statutory definition in Parliament, partly because that will guide the services but also because it would make it very clear where the boundaries are on CCE.
Hand in hand with this is the whole issue of cuckooing, which we will come to in the next group. That is equally important. It is one of the newer, more virulent ways of coercively controlling children. We welcome the amendment, wish it had gone further, and look forward to discussions in the longer term about how that can be remedied.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords and will try to respond briefly. I remind the House that we are responding to requests from noble Lords, and in addition from partners in children’s charities, law enforcement and Members of the House of Commons, to make a change to ensure that the child criminal exploitation offence works as intended to protect the children most at risk of being targeted.
As both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, have said, boys aged between 15 and 17 and, very often, Black and other minority children are commonly overrepresented in those figures. They are the same children at risk of being wrongly perceived as being older, and therefore not protected. We have tried to ensure that we place the responsibility for any criminal activity firmly where it belongs in this case, which is with the adult who is effectively trying to groom, encourage, lead—however we wish to describe it—the child under the age of 18. For the purposes of this legislation, a child is dealt with as being under the age of 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised again his concerns about voting at 16. That is an issue for debate, and it is a Labour manifesto commitment, but it is not an issue for debate today.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord says it is a comparison. I accept that, but for the purposes of this legislation, we are saying that individuals aged 15 to 17, particularly, are vulnerable. This goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Requiring the courts to consider what age the perpetrator reasonably believed the child to be by reference to their appearance or behaviour risks, in my view, reinforcing the injustices we have and risks somebody who has undertaken child criminal exploitation getting off because they believed that that person was older than they actually were.
That is a line we have drawn and an argument we have made, and it is in the legislation. I am not the Minister responsible for this, but I would still be happy to have a discussion with the noble Lord at some point about why votes at 16 is important. If he wants to do that, we will find an opportunity, I am sure, if it relates to a Home Office Bill at any time in the future.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) D engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child (C), and(b) D does so with the intention of—(i) causing C to commit an offence,(ii) causing C to do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part, or(iii) facilitating the causing of C, in future, to commit an offence or do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom which would constitute an offence if done in that part.It is irrelevant whether or not D knows or suspects that C is a child.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement that the child is under 13 or the person does not reasonably believe them to be aged 18 or over, and spells out that the person’s state of mind in relation to whether the other person is a child is irrelevant.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Clause 41 at line 19 of page 62.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“ScheduleSound moderators etc: exemptionsFirearms Act 1968
1 (1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) In section 7(1)—(a) the words from “a firearm” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) at the end insert—“(b) a relevant accessory.”(3) In section 8—(a) in subsection (1) for the words from “, have” to “ammunition” substitute—“(a) have in their possession, purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition, or(b) have a relevant accessory in their possession,”;(b) in subsection (1A)—(i) after “ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, insert “, or the possession of a relevant accessory,”;(ii) for “or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) after “of, or” insert “firearm or ammunition is”.(4) In section 9(1) for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 11—(a) in subsection (1) for “or ammunition”—(i) in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) in the second and third places it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (4)—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“and(c) a relevant accessory,”.(6) In section 11A at the end insert— “(7) Where a rifle is borrowed on any premises in reliance on subsection (1), the borrower may, without holding a certificate under this Act, borrow and have in their possession on those premises a relevant accessory for the period for which the rifle is borrowed.”(7) In section 12(1) after “firearm” insert “or relevant accessory”.(8) In section 13(1)—(a) in paragraph (a)—(i) for “or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for “or ammunition therefor” substitute “, or ammunition or a relevant accessory therefor,”;(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) for“or ammunition”, in the first place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or a relevant accessory”;(ii) for“or ammunition”, in the second place it occurs, substitute“, or ammunition or relevant accessory”;(iii) omit the “and” at the end;(c) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) having obtained a permit under paragraph (c), remove any relevant accessory from or to a ship, aircraft or aerodrome, to or from the place specified in the permit.”Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
2 (1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 15—(a) in subsection (1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”;(b) in subsection (2) for“or ammunition”substitute“, ammunition or relevant accessories”.(3) In section 16A(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(4) In section 16B(1) for “and ammunition” substitute “, ammunition and a relevant accessory”.(5) In section 17 after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) The holder of a visitor’s firearm permit may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in their possession a relevant accessory.””(6) In section 25(4) (interpretation), for “or ammunition” substitute “, ammunition or relevant accessory”.(7) In paragraph 1 of the Schedule, in sub-paragraphs (2)(a), (3) and (4) for“and ammunition”substitute“, ammunition and relevant accessories”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Schedule adds sound moderators and flash suppressors to exemptions from the requirement in the Firearms Act 1968 to hold a firearm or shot gun certificate.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to ensure children are not held criminally responsible for cuckooing or coerced internal concealment offences.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, like other noble Lords here this evening, I am quite keen to get home, especially as I will have to stay up all night tomorrow night reacting to the Gorton and Denton by-election, which is going to be very exciting. I hope the Minister expresses the same sort of support for these amendments—well, obviously he will not, but perhaps somebody else will—because I am concerned that Labour has promised something that these clauses will not actually deliver. Perhaps I can explain.
I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, both of whom signed these amendments, although the former’s name is not on them. Amendment 195 and the related amendments seek to ensure that children are not held criminally responsible for the offences of cuckooing or coerced internal concealment where those acts arise from exploitation. These amendments come from joint work by the Children’s Society, Action for Children, ECPAT UK, Catch 22, the Alliance for Youth Justice, the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and other academics.
The Government’s decision to introduce the offence of CCE, alongside new offences addressing cuckooing and coerced internal concealment, demonstrates a genuine commitment to closing gaps, increasing justice and ensuring that those who exploit children are held to account. Taken together with the new preventive orders and the strengthened safeguarding orders elsewhere in the Bill, this represents real progress.
However, there is a troubling inconsistency at the heart of the legislation as drafted. Children being exploited by adults, whether forced to take over another person’s home or to facilitate internal concealment, could be criminalised. While the offence of child criminal exploitation applies only to adults, Clauses 58, 61 and 62 bring children under the age of 18 within the scope of the new offences of cuckooing and coerced internal concealment. That means children who are themselves being exploited by adults could, in law, be treated as perpetrators rather than victims. This directly contradicts the Government’s stated intention to address the imbalance of power exercised by adults who use children to commit crime. It also risks undermining the very purpose of the new offences by re-criminalising children through the backdoor.
We know from the National Crime Agency that child exploitation is a defining feature of cuckooing linked to county lines activity. Police forces report children as young as 14 being found in properties that have been taken over for criminal purposes. This clearly is a legal point, and I am not a lawyer; I very much hope the Government’s lawyers can look at this and see that I am right and perhaps tighten up the Bill as drafted. Children subjected to violence, grooming, intimidation and control cannot meaningfully refuse adults who demand their help. They cannot consent and they should not be punished for crimes that arise directly from their exploitation. This Bill really has the potential to mark a genuine shift in how we respond to child exploitation, and these amendments could help ensure that children are victims and not offenders, and that the law reflects that without any sort of ambiguity.
Amendment 198 concerns Clause 62 and the provision of statutory guidance for agencies responding to child criminal exploitation. Again, it comes from the same child action networks I mentioned before. As I have said, the creation of new offences and preventive orders in this Bill is welcome, but legislation on its own is a blunt instrument and its success will depend entirely on how it is implemented on the ground by the wide range of statutory agencies that come into contact with children at risk of exploitation. Child criminal exploitation is complex, hidden and constantly evolving. It cuts across policing, social work, education, health, youth justice, housing and safeguarding partnerships. We have to have a joined-up, consistent, well-informed response; otherwise, it is pointless putting any of this into the Bill. Support and guidance must extend to all public authorities with statutory responsibilities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, because without comprehensive multi-agency guidance we will continue to see uneven responses, confusion over roles and responsibilities, and children falling through the cracks.
Elsewhere in the Bill, in Clause 99 in Part 6, the Secretary of State is rightly given powers to issue multiagency statutory guidance on the new stalking offence. That recognises that identifying victims, managing perpetrators and preventing harm requires co-ordinated action across multiple agencies. Child criminal exploitation is no less complex and, in many cases, far more so, and the same approach should apply here. Amendment 198 would ensure that statutory guidance is issued to all agencies operating under Section 16E of the Children Act 2004, reflecting their safeguarding activities and duties.
I realise it is very difficult for the Government to react to all the amendments that we put in. I am feeling a bit lonely on these Benches, actually—I do not know if everybody else has gone home already; I am quite jealous. My ambition is to ensure that the provisions in this Bill are supported by the clear, authoritative, multiagency guidance necessary to make them work in practice, and to make sure that we can see they are working in practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has outlined the amendments and their importance in detail. I want to echo her last point about the need for proper guidance to set out exactly what the many agencies that should be involved need to do. The group of charities that have written to us propose that this should
“Provide clear advice on the complex and evolving nature of CCE”,
including cuckooing;
“Clarify the roles and responsibilities of all relevant partners”
and “Emphasise transitional safeguarding”, ensuring that young people do not suddenly get pulled out of somewhere and have absolutely no resource to face a new life. They add that it is important that this is not just the obvious agencies; it needs to include those concerned with slavery and trafficking and the police specialists working in child abduction, and it needs to extend to care orders, secure accommodation and deprivation of liberty orders.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments, and I fully appreciate that they are concerned with the protection of children and young people. The amendments would restrict the new offences of cuckooing and coerced internal concealment so that they applied only to those aged 18 and over, and they would require the Secretary of State to issue statutory safeguarding guidance in connection with these provisions.
Let me say at the outset that we all recognise the deeply exploitative nature of cuckooing and forcing or coercing individuals, particularly vulnerable people, into internally concealing drugs or other items. The purpose of these new offences in the Bill is precisely to target that exploitation, and we on these Benches have a lot of sympathy for that principle. The clauses are designed to disrupt organised criminal activity that so often preys on the vulnerable.
However, we cannot support the amendments in this group. They would, in effect, create a blanket exemption for 16 and 17 year-olds from criminal liability for these offences. In this country, the age of criminal responsibility is 10. Parliament has long accepted that young people under 18 can, in appropriate circumstances, be held criminally responsible for serious criminal conduct. To carve out a specific exemption here would create inconsistency in law and risk signalling that certain forms of serious exploitation-related offending are less culpable when committed by older teenagers.
That is not to deny that many young people involved in such activities are themselves victims. The courts already have extensive powers to take age, maturity, coercion and vulnerability into account at charging and sentencing. Prosecutorial direction and the youth justice framework provide mechanisms to distinguish between a hardened exploiter and a child groomed into criminality; a blanket statutory exclusion would go too far.
As for the proposed requirement for additional statutory guidance, safeguarding responsibilities are already embedded in existing legislation. Public authorities with safeguarding duties are well aware of their obligations, and we should be cautious about layering further statutory guidance unnecessarily. We must ensure that exploiters are prosecuted, victims are protected and the law remains coherent. For those reasons, while I very much respect the intentions behind these amendments, I cannot support them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—and I start by welcoming her genuine recognition of the progress that we are making through this legislation by introducing the new child criminal exploitation and cuckooing offences in this Bill. We are grateful for that. As she explained, her Amendments 195 to 197 seek to restrict those who commit the cuckooing and internal concealment offences to those aged 18 or over.
The Government fully recognise that children, particularly those exploited by county lines gangs, are often used to carry out cuckooing activity or to persuade others to internally conceal items such as drugs for a criminal purpose. The act of turning these children into exploiters themselves is particularly appalling and is why this Government’s work to target child criminal exploitation is so important. I think that everyone across your Lordships’ House recognises that. While I appreciate the spirit of these amendments and believe that it is absolutely right that children, when they have been exploited and groomed into criminality, should be protected as victims, this does not in itself override the age of criminal responsibility, where the law holds children over a certain age responsible for their actions. It is possible for a child to commit cuckooing or internal concealment without having been exploited to do so.
Let us be clear that decisions as to whether to charge someone should be taken on a case-by-case basis. As with all offences, the police exercise operational judgment when investigating and gathering evidence to establish the facts of a case, and the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test will of course apply. This includes consideration of the child’s culpability and whether they have been compelled, coerced or exploited to commit any potential crime of cuckooing or internal concealment. We will also issue statutory guidance to support implementation of the cuckooing and internal concealment offences, including on how the police should respond and identify exploitation when children are found in connection with cuckooing or internal concealment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, posed the question why we are not creating a statutory defence for children against their prosecution for crimes, including cuckooing and internal concealment, committed as a result of effectively being a victim of child criminal exploitation. When a victim of proposed child criminal exploitation offences also meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery, they may retain access to the statutory defence contained in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Many victims of CCE will continue to be able to access the Section 45 defence, as they do now. However, we consider that creating an additional stand-alone statutory defence for victims of child criminal exploitation beyond that which already exists in Section 45 of the 2015 Act for victims who are also victims of modern slavery and/or human trafficking could have unintended consequences, given the breadth of the proposed offence. The child criminal exploitation offence is to address the imbalance between children and those individuals who criminally exploit them.
I add that we are working with partners in the criminal justice system to improve awareness and understanding of the Section 45 defence, which will support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings being brought against victims. It is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the Section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance that will accompany the new offence.
I turn to Amendment 198. We similarly sympathise with the intention behind the amendment to introduce statutory guidance for multi-agency partners. It is essential that agencies work together to safeguard and protect children and vulnerable adults from criminal exploitation. However, statutory safeguarding responsibilities are already set out in statutory guidance, principally in Working Together to Safeguard Children, which includes guidance on child criminal exploitation. To supplement this, we will issue non-statutory guidance for partner agencies on the child criminal exploitation offence and orders and on cuckooing and internal concealment to support them to identify these harms and recognise how their statutory responsibilities apply. Issuing separate statutory guidance with additional legal burdens for safeguarding partners on these specific crime types alone risks duplication and a siloed approach to protecting children and vulnerable adults—something that I am sure we would all wish to avoid happening.
More broadly, the Government are taking a range of actions to strengthen child protection through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will introduce new multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority in England. This will ensure stronger join-up between police, health, education and children’s social care when responding to harms such as child criminal exploitation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned stalking offences, which are committed mainly against adults, so it is appropriate to have bespoke guidance. Here we are talking about safeguarding children where the DfE guidance will apply, so it is appropriate that we take this approach, given the range of agencies involved for children. I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I said in my contribution that I hoped that the agencies might extend beyond the usual ones, and the Minister certainly named the usual ones. Would it, for example, include working with the local gangmaster operations as well?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will not speculate. I suspect that would be the case, but I had probably best undertake to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that detail.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his answers. I recognise the points he made, and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but quite honestly, when you have so many children’s organisations saying that the Government have got something wrong, the Government ought to listen. Although I am not going to push this to a vote, I feel like tackling the various Ministers in the corridor sometime and making sure they understand the depth of my care and passion about this. We all want to protect children, and the Government will be responsible if there are gaps. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.