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.
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).
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.
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.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 33, page 45, line 32.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.