House of Lords
Death of a Member: The Lord Bishop of Guildford
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on 3 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the right reverend Prelate’s family and friends.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord John of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on local government reorganisation in England.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interests as a peer mentor adviser for the Local Government Association and Thurrock Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, local government reorganisation is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower their communities. We are working with 204 councils across 21 areas. We have already announced two new councils for Surrey, with elections expected there this May. We anticipate decisions on a further six areas later in March, following the closure of consultation on 11 January. For the remaining areas, the Government are on track and committed to the indicative timetable published last July. Decisions on which proposals to implement, if any, will be announced before the start of the Summer Recess 2026; elections to new councils will follow in May 2027, with the go-live date will be April 2028.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. One part of the country that is not included in the current plans for local government reorganisation is London, despite it now being nearly 30 years since the current model of London governance was introduced. Given that the London model is idiosyncratic in comparison with other combined authority models, does my noble friend share my belief that a review of London’s governance is long overdue? If she does, can she tell me when the Government might undertake such a review?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Noble Lords will be aware that the Mayor of London is directly elected by the people of London every four years, alongside the London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor’s work. This model is unique among strategic authorities and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance and partnership working arrangements are delivering for Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, the Government hope to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities, and we hope to build on these where possible.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, in a county such as Surrey, where the new arrangements are to come into play shortly, we also seem to be getting parish councils. Why are the Government replacing a two-tier system of local government with a two-tier system of local government?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
A large number of areas in the country already have town and parish councils, although I accept that some do not. But town and parish councils are not in scope for local government reorganisation; they will continue to operate as they do now. Central government has no role in funding town and parish councils, but local government reorganisation should facilitate better and sustained community engagement. We need a clear and accountable system of local area working in governance. Local authorities may wish to collaborate with their town and parish councils to determine how they can most effectively contribute to the delivery of services in future arrangements. Those arrangements for town and parish councils are well established and work well at that very micro local level. So it is not the Government’s intention to do anything with town and parish councils at the moment.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, in recent years there has been a growing concern about the failure of front-line range of local services to collaborate effectively with each other to exchange vital information. Will the Minister ensure that, during this transition period in local government, every effort will be made not only to preserve collaborative working at local level but to build on it, so we can continue to learn from the failures of the past?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Collaboration is clearly a very important part of local government, but it is not helped by the confusion between the tiers of local government and over who does what at which tier. For the 20 million people who currently live in two-tier areas, where services are split across county and district councils, which can lead to fragmented public services, this reorganisation will help to drive that collaboration across areas and bring services together into one local authority, so that everybody knows which council to talk to when they have a problem with their service.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, local councils are huge employers, so will my noble friend the Minister use the opportunity of these reorganisation discussions to emphasise the part that local authorities can play in training and apprenticeships, both in-house and through their procurement practices?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. As we go through the reorganisation process, it is important that we continue to pay tribute to the local government staff who are driving this forward, and that we continue to keep a focus on what local government has to offer in terms of employment. One thing that really surprised me when I first became a local councillor was the huge range of employment in local government. We must strive to make sure that students and others know about that, and that we continue to protect the wide range of apprenticeships and training opportunities that local government provides.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I was surprised that the noble Baroness did not give a more positive response to her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, because he knows that there are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. It takes just 3,108 electors to elect a London councillor, but in other parts of the country it takes over 10,000. That is an unacceptable dilution of democracy. What plans do the Government have, when they make their announcement by the end of March, to ensure that there is broad electoral equality across all the councils in England so that, directionally, people’s electoral votes are equal?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Proposals have come from all areas, which have put their own proposals forward; they have worked on them locally. In the areas that we are considering, we have a number of different proposals, but they have focused absolutely on making sure that there is proper representation for people in the new councils. That is very much part of the consideration as we make the decisions on these new areas, and we look at that as carefully as we look at all the other evidence that has been submitted in those proposals.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, what have the Government done to engage local populations and groups in communities to ensure that local people have the chance to feed in to the plans for the new arrangements and engage more fully in voting, thereby lifting the voting figures?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I very much agree with what the noble Baroness says about encouraging people to get engaged with local elections and with their local authorities. We take local people’s views very seriously. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment are both part of our criteria for judging the proposals on new councils, and new councils, like current councils, must listen to their communities and deliver genuine opportunities for people to shape the neighbourhoods where they live, because people generally judge their well-being by what they see when they walk out of their front door. We are determined that communities should have their say in the future of public services, so we have gone through an extensive consultation process and we have made sure that, as we judge the proposals put forward, the authorities putting forward those proposals have done that as well.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in 2015, the previous Government abolished the pension for local councillors— I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, was responsible for that. Do the Government have any plan to reintroduce the pension for councillors?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am delighted to tell my noble friend that the Government are bringing back pensions for local councillors. It is very important that they do that; local councillors provide outstanding service for their communities and many of them have to give up considerable aspects of their working life to do so. I am delighted that this Government see the value of that and have brought back pensions for councillors.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the estimated outcomes of the local government reorganisation are very unclear, so could the Minister clarify how much money overall that reorganisation is going to save taxpayers? What are the geographic boundaries of the new unitary authorities? If she cannot answer today, will she please tell us when she can?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government’s ambition with local government reorganisation is to simplify local government, ending the two-tier system and establishing new, single-tier unitary authorities. Over and again, I have said at this Dispatch Box and in committee on the Bill that we are working on that strong local government will help to growth the economy and drive up living standards. Having one council in charge of each area, making sure that decisions can be taken quickly, will speed up housebuilding, get infrastructure projects moving, attract new investment and help us reform local public services effectively.
On the costs and benefits, each proposal has come forward with its own costs and benefits, and that information will be available when decisions are made on those proposals.
Maternity Commissioner
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government why they have not appointed a Maternity Commissioner; and what assessment they have made of calls to appoint such a Commissioner in (1) the report by Muslim Women’s Network UK Invisible—Maternity Experiences of Muslim Women from Racialised Minority Communities, published on 12 July 2022, (2) the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Birth Trauma Listen to Mums: Ending the Postcode Lottery on Perinatal Care, published on 13 May 2024, and (3) the petition to the House of Commons on this topic by Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest that I am the CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network, whose report recommending a maternity commissioner is cited in the Question.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, while there are outstanding examples of care, I know that there are serious issues in maternity services. That is why this Government launched an independent national investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal care, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, which is expected to make recommendations this spring. Her interim report, published last Friday, reveals systemic, sustained and recurring failures in maternity and neonatal care. Due to the investigation’s ongoing work, there are currently no plans to appoint a maternity commissioner.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke are present today and I thank them for joining us. They started a petition several weeks ago asking the Government to appoint a maternity commissioner. That petition has now reached more than 146,000 signatories, sending a strong signal to the Government. Will the Government commit to meeting them and me, once the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has concluded her report, to discuss this issue further, and what are they doing to tackle racism in maternity services?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I welcome them to the House. Our sympathies go out to them, and I praise their bravery in the work they have been doing to highlight their own circumstances and, importantly, those of others. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government were faced with around 740 recommendations from different reports over the years, which is why the review has been called by the Secretary of State. The recommendations that will come from that very soon will lead to an action plan delivered by a national task force chaired by the Secretary of State himself, which shows the seriousness with which he takes this situation. We want to deliver systemic change. I know that many parents have made representations to the Secretary of State, and it is very important that the voices of women in particular are heard in this debate. I look forward to the action plan when it comes forward.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, tackling staffing issues in maternity really must be a priority. I know that the workforce plan and 10-year plan are looking at staffing and leadership in maternity, but the matter is critical, because, last week, the Royal College of Midwives issued the results of a survey of newly qualified midwives, 31% of whom could not find a post. There is something going wrong between the availability of fully qualified people and the positions that they need to be able to take up to serve women. Are the Government considering population changes and the needs of maternity services across the country?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The considerations that the noble Baroness raises are pertinent. Through the 10-year plan and the workforce plan, we need to make sure that we have the right people in the right place. She raised the issue of new starters wanting to come into the profession, but we also have a huge issue with retention that we have to take very seriously. That is why the Government are committed to intense training and raising awareness of all the issues that, sadly, lead to maternal deaths and exacerbate morbidities. This is a very serious issue. Staff are pivotal, and the Government are working hard to make sure that we address these issues.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is there any evidence whatever that appointment of a commissioner will necessarily improve a service? It seems to me that the NHS has lots of problems and if we start appointing commissioners for every one of those problems, we will have a regiment of commissioners.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
As always, I thank my noble friend for his question. He raises a very serious point: how many experts can we have in this space? That is why the review and the task force will take these requests forward. Many different requests have come forward over, I have to say, the many years that there have been problems in these services. This is a serious moment, and we have to make sure that whatever we bring in leads to action and to change and that vast improvements are made as quickly as possible.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Watts, said, when there is a problem in healthcare, there is often a call for a commissioner to be appointed, but Governments are often reluctant to do so for fear of creating whole new bureaucracies and all the recommendations of the human resources departments. Given that a number of reports have recommended a commissioner, can the Minister tell us, were the Government not to appoint a commissioner, who would be responsible for holding the whole system, particularly maternity care, to account? Also, who could be a voice for patients?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord gets to the point of what the taskforce will be doing. It would be wrong of me to try to pre-empt the outcomes and recommendations that come forward. As I have said before, right through this work, the voices of families and women in particular must be paramount. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has personally met representatives from around the country and is taking a very hands-on role to make sure that we get the right outcome.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, herself said:
“I do not understand why change has been so slow”.
Can the Minister set out with a little more clarity the timeline for the national taskforce to meet and produce its own set of recommendations and, crucially, when families can expect to see those recommendations implemented?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The first meeting of the taskforce is imminent. Obviously, it ties in with the review publishing its final recommendations and making sure that the right people are in the room and that they have the right call to evidence to move forward. As I have said, pace, action and delivery are fundamental to this work. Families across the country have suffered for too long and we are determined to take action that will help in this area.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, one of the problems that is faced—and it is not confined to maternity services but has been seen to be fairly acute within them—is a form of postcode lottery within the health service; we have good practice and the best practice in some areas, but some other areas which are maybe only a few miles away do not provide that. While we wait with anticipation for the Amos review, what actions are the Government taking to drive consistency of delivery within the NHS?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
This comes to the absolute centre of the problem. The different health structures around the country represent very different communities and it is essential that those health services are tailored to meet the needs of their communities. The inequalities, for example, and the difference in maternal death figures between ethnic-minority backgrounds speak to the point that we must make sure that the staff working in those areas are clear about the challenges that are faced. I am afraid that practice has not been good enough in this area, but consistency and oversight—making sure that if there are problems, they are flagged and rapid reviews can go in straightaway to deal with them—will be essential.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is a Yorkshire woman, as am I, and she will know that Leeds general hospital, one of the biggest teaching hospitals in the UK, has had dreadful maternity services and a review was meant to be established. There still is no chair for that review. What is happening in relation to that? If that is the pace of change that we are going to see, it does not bode well for the future.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by declaring an interest: I was born in one of the hospitals there and three of my Leeds-based grandchildren have been born there relatively recently. Of course, it is of concern, particularly for the country; I think it is the largest teaching hospital in Europe. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that the parents have been down to visit the Secretary of State in the past week, and on their mind was exactly the issue she raises about the review and who will chair it. I can tell noble Lords across the House that this is being taken very seriously, and they will be kept in the loop on how it progresses.
Taiwan
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness D’Souza
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to the need to take further steps to ensure democracy in Taiwan.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan remains unchanged. The UK values Taiwan as an important partner with which we enjoy growing co-operation on trade and investment. We will continue to support democratic values, media freedom and civil society in Taiwan. As His Majesty’s Government stated in December, we will continue to underline the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, the likely tactics, other than invasion, that China will use in its goal of incorporating Taiwan include grey-zone tactics, such as sabotage of infrastructure, cyber attacks to take down electricity grids, disruption of the internet by cutting undersea cables, aid to the opposition and, of course, military intimidation in the South China Sea. Resilience is vital to deterrence. What support are the UK Government providing to help build resilience to counter China’s expanding aggressive actions?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, our long-standing position has not changed. The UK maintains strong unofficial links with Taiwan in trade, education, and science and innovation. We think those are the ways in which we can continue to help and support Taiwan and its resilience. For example, we conduct annual trade talks and semiconductor and energy dialogues. The most recent of those was in November 2025. We also have frequent ministerial visits. My right honourable friend Douglas Alexander visited Taiwan last year. In his recent visit to China—this goes to the point the noble Baroness made—the Prime Minister continued to advocate for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, emphasising that the UK opposes any unilateral changes in the status quo. He raised those points directly with President Xi.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, Taiwan has built an impressive democracy over the past 20 years and set up its own foundation for democracy along the lines of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which also works there. However, the reality for Taiwan is that its democracy will survive only as long as it survives and is not incorporated into China. No “one country, two systems” model is now available, given the destruction of that model that has been wreaked upon Hong Kong. What are the Government doing with others to ensure that China is fully deterred from taking any action against Taiwan?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I said, we do not support anyone taking unilateral action in Taiwan. As the noble Lord knows, we work closely with our partners and allies on this. We are aware of Taiwan’s strategic importance to global trade in maritime movement of goods and semiconductors, and therefore not only in relation to democratic values and the points that the noble Lord raises. We are very conscious indeed of the importance of Taiwan and we take that into account in not only our bilateral work with it but our relations with our partners and allies.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, to endorse the two previous questions, China has an appalling record of hostility towards Taiwan, which is a democratic and self-governing nation. Can the Minister please be more specific about what work the UK Government are doing to support Taiwan in the face of those hostile threats from China? Does that include sharing information from the UK’s more recent knowledge about Chinese attempts to undermine our democracy?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
On the last point, I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to comment on information sharing—he is smiling from a sedentary position, so I think he expected that answer. As the whole House knows, we did a China audit, which formed part of the national security strategy published last year. As a result of the China audit and the national security strategy, we are investing in our intelligence services, updating our state threats legislation and strengthening our responses to transnational repression. We are also introducing a new China fast stream in the FCDO and creating an FCDO global China network, and we have trained over 1,000 civil servants on China policy in the past year. I reassure the noble Lord and the entire House that this is an active area and the relationship with Taiwan is one that we take very seriously and value.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the British Government’s trade envoy to Taiwan, a position I have held since 2016, having been appointed originally by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and reappointed by every Prime Minister since, including the present one. I warmly welcome my noble friend the Minister’s confidence about Taiwan and its relationship with Britain. Can he also please pass back to his colleagues in the Foreign Office a report of the excellent work carried out by the British Office Taipei, particularly by Ruth Bradley-Jones and her team? They are indefatigable. Their work is low key but incredibly effective. I am, incidentally, visiting Taiwan on a trade mission later this month.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for all his work on Taiwan over many years. I used to share an office with him; it was full of Taiwan memorabilia, so I can attest to his commitment. On a serious point, I entirely endorse his remarks about the work of the office and our people there. Obviously, noble Lords know that this is a sensitive and serious subject, and I need to choose my words with care, but I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is a relationship that we take very seriously. It is very important to us in trade terms, and for the reasons I have already given in relation to strategic concerns about security and semiconductors. We would not want anything to happen to harm it, so we will continue to support the noble Lord in his work as trade envoy and FCDO colleagues in Taiwan.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that Taiwan is very much threatened by China? Could the Minister please tell the House what actions the Government are taking to produce some hardware there that can protect Taiwan in any way?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I said, the Government will always put national security first. We are taking seriously any risks to Taiwan and to the status quo. However, I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to comment specifically on China and its attitudes; that is a matter for the Chinese Government. As I have said, we do not want to see any unilateral change in the current situation.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, China is deterred from taking military action against Taiwan not by the rules of an international order with which it fundamentally disagrees but by the prospect of the hard power retaliation that it would face in such circumstances. Given that, does this not underscore the importance of the UK’s work to bolster security arrangements in the region, in particular to develop hard power capabilities such as through AUKUS and the Global Combat Air Programme?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree with those observations from the noble and gallant Lord. That is, as he knows, a priority area for investment and engagement. It is not just the status of Taiwan that we take seriously in that region; it is all the various things, which he knows better than I do, that might threaten maritime routes. We support UNCLOS, as he knows. As far as defence and security are concerned, we are very alive to concerns about that region.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Given the Minister’s reply to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend regarding the Government’s assessment of the posture of China, and given the need for Parliament to be fully aware of what the Government believe is the posture of China, why did the Government not publish the China audit?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised that question before. I reiterate what I have already said and what has been said before: the China audit was completed and its findings included in the national security strategy in the way I set out earlier.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the Labour Party.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, on the subject of peace through enhancing trade, what steps are the Government taking to enhance the superiority of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry through its accession to the CPTPP? Could the Minister inform the House of the plans that we have?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As my noble friend alluded to, we are now very much part of the arrangements around the CPTPP, and there are a lot of discussions about that. On the wider question he raises about the trade in semiconductors, I will say two things that are very important. First, we have excellent relations with Taiwan; we have an annual dialogue on semiconductors and feel in a good place about that. Secondly, I recently answered a Question in your Lordships’ House about critical minerals, in which I noted that we have set up capability within government to monitor the areas we are particularly concerned about, including supply chain resilience. However, for the moment we are not concerned about Taiwan.
Ballot Secrecy Act: Breaches
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to discuss alleged breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 in relation to the Gorton and Denton parliamentary by-election with (1) Manchester City Council, and (2) the Greater Manchester Police.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the allegations have been reported to Greater Manchester Police, which is considering the matter. The Electoral Commission is in close contact with Greater Manchester Police and the returning officer. If coercion at the polling stations had occurred, it would have been a breach of the law under the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. It is essential that electors can cast their vote in secret and without the risk of coercion. Your vote should be yours alone. If anyone believes they have witnessed family voting occurring at this by-election or at any time, they should contact the police.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister. She will know that the previous Government introduced a power in the Elections Act 2022 for the Electoral Commission to draw up a strategy and policy document containing measures to tackle electoral fraud and corrupt and illegal practices, including family voting. However, Ministers have now U-turned on this by indicating that they will repeal the legislation and dump their own 2025 elections strategy. Given the substantial concerns after Gorton and Denton, why are the Government removing safeguards introduced because of the endemic fraud in Tower Hamlets, deleting guidance for local authorities on how to stop family voting and introducing secret election pilots for their own partisan advantage? Are the Government going soft on electoral fraud, or is it worse than that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I fundamentally dispute the tenor of the noble Lord’s question. The Representation of the People Bill, which we will discuss thoroughly in this House, had its Second Reading in the Commons on Monday. The point about the Electoral Commission is that it will set its own strategy, which is a step towards, not away from, democracy. On the voter pilots, it is very important to note that Governments of all political persuasions have had voter pilots to see how we better encourage people to vote. We are seeing increasingly low turnouts, particularly in local elections, as well as in general elections and by-elections. The pilots are intended to see whether we can better tailor voting to people’s lifestyles now. We will examine the results of those very closely and make sure that all the people who vote in those pilot areas are as well protected under electoral law as people using more traditional voting methods.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, family voting, as it is now called, is not an entirely new phenomenon. When I first started out as a candidate, a very long time ago, it was most common in working-class communities; it is now rather more common in communities of south Asian origin. There should have been sufficient staff and police to observe whether the report by Democracy Volunteers—that there was an unusually high incidence of family voting in this by-election—was correct. Was there a problem with staffing? Are the Government ensuring that adequate staffing and policing of polling stations is being maintained?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is an offence to accompany a voter into the polling booth with the intention of influencing how they vote. That was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, as part of the Ballot Secrecy Act, and it put that matter beyond doubt. Elections are run by independent returning officers, who will take account of guidance from the Electoral Commission. The commission’s polling station handbook provides guidance for polling station staff on this matter. It is for returning officers to ensure that their polling stations are staffed. In all the areas I have ever been involved with, returning officers have taken this role incredibly seriously, and they make sure that their staff are well trained and kept up to date on election law. On the police, in my own area I have always found the police very co-operative and supportive of what returning officers and their staff do. We will continue to work to make sure that polling station staff are aware of the rules and confident in challenging individuals, and we will continue to work with the commission and Crimestoppers on the annual Your Vote is Yours Alone campaign to raise awareness of these issues.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, if there were these alleged breaches of electoral laws in the Gorton and Denton by-election, any investigation would obviously be supported by the Green Party. However, it is quite interesting that, in view of the size of the victory of the Green Party over the Reform Party, I am assured by psephologists that there is absolutely no case to be answered that the result could be changed by these alleged breaches of electoral law. Is that the Government’s advice?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We do not want to see breaches of electoral law at any time, whatever the outcome of the election. It is very important that voters going to cast their vote can have complete confidence in the system that is operating, whether it influences the outcome of the election or not. It is also very important that we all want to see, both in practice and in the policy that sits behind it, that elections are safe and secure and that people can cast their vote knowing that the elections are above board and legal.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for identifying my involvement in the passage of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, but may I say that it was passed with all-party support throughout this House and the other Chamber? That was very important. In relation to family voting, it should be recognised that Democracy Volunteers identified that this was a national problem at the last general election. It was identified in places such as Stirling and Strathallan, Ceredigion Preseli, and Camborne and Redruth, so it is not new and it is not concentrated solely in certain places. The Minister will be aware, as I am, that urgent discussions have been taking place with the police, the returning officers, the Electoral Commission and Democracy Volunteers. Is this not the opportunity to urge all concerned to concentrate their minds so that we get it right on 7 May?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the work he did on the Bill in 2023. Of course, it is completely right that it should receive cross-party support; none of us wants to see corruption or any kind of illegal activity around our democratic processes. He makes a very valid point about the local elections taking place on 7 May. I know that the Electoral Commission will want to work with Greater Manchester Police to make sure that any lessons that can be learned from that by-election can be carried forward as quickly as possible so that we get any additional steps we need in place before the elections on 7 May and for all future elections.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister able to explain the status of Commonwealth citizens who are not dual nationals but merely resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of voting? Do any residency lengths of term apply to them before they qualify and does the Electoral Commission have any idea of how many there are in the UK who may qualify?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The entitlement of resident Commonwealth citizens to vote reflects our close historic ties with Commonwealth countries, and the Government will not be removing Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights. I cannot give an answer on numbers right now but I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have announced voting pilots, as we have heard, in a number of local authorities for the May 2026 local elections, which, apart from other things, will allow electors to vote at polling hubs up to seven days prior to actual polling day. How will the Government ensure that the security and the safety of the ballot box—which is so important to us all—will continue in these hubs? In particular, what about the chances of duplication of votes in that system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are looking to test several ways of making in-person voting more efficient, more convenient and better aligned with the expectations of today’s electors. Two types of flexible voting will be piloted during the local elections in May. The first is centralised voting hubs, as the noble Baroness indicated, where any elector in the authority can cast their vote on polling day. The second is to offer advance in-person voting at designated hubs in the days leading up to polling day, potentially including weekend access. That said, there is no diminution, in either of those processes, of the security arrangements around voting. They will have trained polling staff, people will have to show their ID when they vote, and we expect those pilots to be as secure as voting in the traditional way.
Surrey (Structural Changes) Order
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March. Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March. Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:11 - Division on Amendment 326 - Ayes: 41 / Noes: 181 - Amendment 326 disagreed.
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces subsection (6A) inserted by another Lord Lucas amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, before we go through the listed amendments, I would be grateful if I could make a short intervention.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been called to move his amendment. The debate will proceed from there.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 318 I will speak to the other amendments in my name. Amendment 318 is a revised and strengthened version of a proposal that was kindly spoken to in Committee by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. It has been modified in light of comments made then, particularly from the Government Benches. It bears on disqualifying persons convicted of a serious cycling offence.
I suspect most of us, particularly those of us who spend any time in London, have experienced the enormous discomfort of being ridden past on the pavement at speed by a cyclist who has absolutely no interest in your comfort. If one has spent any time outside this Palace, one will also have noticed that the police have no interest in enforcing the law in these circumstances. It is up to us to do something to tighten the screws on cyclists like this. They make life for pedestrians extremely uncomfortable. The practice of continual and open law- breaking just brings the whole of the law into disrepute. It is really important that we tighten things up.
Amendment 319 would insert a new offence of riding or attempting to ride a cycle while disqualified. Such an offence requires accompanying sanctions. A licensing system seems to me entirely disproportionate; it would be a heavy weight of bureaucracy. I prefer the solution adopted by the Government in their approach to cycling offences in the Bill, which is to leave them to be enforced if circumstances allow—for instance, where somebody has been involved in a serious incident that the police have taken an interest in, or a member of the public makes a complaint that the police choose to follow up. That would sit easily with current policing practices. Continuing enforcement along these lines, though limited, would, if and when a prosecution or conviction was reported in the media, send a warning message to disqualified cyclists generally.
Turning turn to Amendment 321, the thrust of Clause 121 is to bring cycling offences pretty much into line with those applying to motor vehicles, but it leaves out disqualification. This is a missed opportunity to provide a substantial deterrent to offending. Proposed new subsection (9A), to be inserted by Amendment 321, prescribes that the period of obligatory disqualification for the two most serious offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling will not be less than five and two years, respectively. As for the other two offences of causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling, where the culpability is less, they will be subject to obligatory disqualification for not less than 12 months.
Proposed new subsection (9B) extends the definition of “disqualified” so that it can apply to cycles in a manner that is in conformity with the wording of the new cycling offences already created by the Bill. Amendments 323 to 325 add “obligatory” to the entries inserted by subsection (11) in Part I of Schedule 2; without them the amendment of Section 34 set out in Amendment 321 would be of no effect.
Amendment 333 would prescribe the penalties and mode of prosecution for the offence created by Amendment 319, and it inserts a new schedule containing minor and consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act which is fine-tuned as it applies to persons disqualified for riding a cycle. Sections relating only to mechanically propelled vehicles are omitted.
As someone who frequently obstructs and remonstrates with pavement cyclists, I very much hope that my amendments will attract the support of the Government. I approve of the other amendments in this group and will listen to them with great interest. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments I propose. There are three sets affecting two themes. Amendment 343 is about the registration scheme for cyclists, and the two other groups—Amendments 326 to 328, and Amendments 330 to 332—are about creating a system to award points for offences committed by cyclists against their driving licence. They have the same theme, which is trying to get more accountability for cyclists when they hurt people or commit offences.
I do not intend to take as much time as I did in Committee, because I think the argument is fairly straightforward and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has made it. In 2015, 444 pedestrians were injured by cyclists; in 2024, that had increased to 603 and, of that number, those seriously injured had risen from 97 to 181. These numbers are based on police reporting, where the police attended. It is clear that these are minimum numbers. As a correspondent reminded me recently, it is not a legal requirement for the police to record an accident that occurs between a cyclist and a pedestrian, because it does not involve a motor vehicle. The numbers do not include incidents where the police did not attend a collision, where the pedestrian did not need medical treatment or attend their GP or a hospital— I think we have a serious gap in that information as well, because the data is not recorded well or collected at all—or where the police were not told.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 341 and 342 in my name but I support all the amendments in this group, which are on the same theme. Earlier today I met with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which takes this issue very seriously indeed and has made the point that privately owned e-scooters are illegal to use on public roads and spaces in the UK. They are classified as motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and therefore require insurance, registration and a driving licence, none of which is available for private e-scooters. That is why it is so important that we legislate for this area of the law.
The most recent figures show that fatalities and injuries caused by e-scooters and e-bikes increase year on year. Where there is no insurance for these vehicles, those of us with motor insurance all contribute to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau from which claims are made. While I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for inserting two clauses from my Private Member’s Bill—it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that; it shows that sometimes we Back-Bench legislators can achieve things—two outstanding clauses remain in my Bill.
A number of us have tried to insert insurance into the Bill to help this situation and have been told that it is not part of this Bill, so I am trying to do it in another Bill. In the context of that other Bill, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, I will just say in passing that there is a real issue here, because there is no definition of micromobility vehicles. It is incredibly important, for the purposes of motor insurance and of this Bill in creating criminal offences, that we are using the same definition in law. It is not acceptable to rely on one road traffic Act from 1988 for one definition and a later road traffic Act for another definition. When the Road Traffic Act 1988 came into effect, e-scooters did not exist. I am waiting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, whether there is a definition that we can put forward in the context of that Bill.
The purpose of Amendments 341 and 342 is to fill the gap. At the moment, we do not know the extent to which e-scooters and e-bikes are being tampered with. It may be that a rented scooter could be perfectly law-abiding, but, although we have had endless pilot schemes, we have not had their results. Meanwhile, illegal e-scooters are being used for purposes for which they are not fit. That is why I urge the Government today to accept Amendment 341, which calls for a review to understand the way in which e-scooters are being potentially misused.
Equally, in Amendment 342, it is incredibly important that we have an annual report on cycling offences. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has done a great deal of work on this and managed to achieve a level of enforcement, by going out in the City of London—and I pay tribute to the work that the City of London Police do in this regard. There are other police forces doing work in other parts of the country, but I find it staggering that the Metropolitan Police do not have a target of impounding or chasing illegal users in this way.
I am going to come forward with a proposal in a different Bill, possibly my own Private Member’s Bill in the next parliamentary Session. The police may not have the ability to do this, but if an e-scooter or souped-up e-bike is parked, or berthed, and it is clearly illegal, traffic wardens should be trained to slap a fine on them or even confiscate them and take them away, to make sure that these illegal vehicles are taken off the road.
What worries me at the moment is that the Government do not know what they are dealing with. Separate departments are dealing with this issue—for example, the Department for Transport is encouraging people to use e-bikes and e-scooters to get to work, without considering that that has an impact as the level of casualties goes up. According to government data, in 2024 there were 1,339 casualties involving e-scooters; 32% of the injuries were serious and there were six fatalities. The statistics have got worse every year since recording began. We can clearly show that fatalities, injuries and casualties are increasing every year. It could happen to one of us, being knocked down on a pavement or crossing the road, as my noble friend Lord Lucas referred to.
It is unacceptable that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau is left to pick up the pieces when it comes to insurance. If someone has been incapacitated through such injury, a claim can run to millions of pounds to make sure that that individual has the required care for the rest of their life.
The time is right to grab this issue, take it very seriously and plug the two remaining gaps that I have identified with Amendments 341 and 342, along with the other amendments in this group.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 344 on tackling the growing danger posed by food delivery couriers. There are moments in public policy when the evidence becomes so overwhelming, and so consistent across press reporting, academic research and lived experience, that Parliament has a duty to act. The dangers created by high-speed food delivery couriers, many riding illegally modified e-bikes, operating under intense delivery pressure, and too often treating pavements and pedestrian zones as racetracks, now fall squarely into that category.
The Department for Transport tells us that it will do a big consultation on this issue, lasting many months, if not years, but across the country the public can see what is happening. They see it on their high streets, in their neighbourhoods and, increasingly, in their hospitals. One of many published reports state that
“illegal or modified high speed e bikes + gig pay incentives = higher risk behaviours and more collisions, producing rising public complaints and a measurable clinical burden on hospitals”.
That is not rhetoric; it is the lived experience of communities across the whole United Kingdom.
The BBC’s reporting from Lincoln described the city centre as a Wild West, with delivery cyclists riding on pavements and through pedestrianised areas, leaving residents unsafe. Trauma surgeons have warned of a massive burden on orthopaedic services from e-bike injuries, with more severe fractures and complex operations becoming routine. Academic research from UCL confirms that gig economy riders—those working for the very companies that my amendment addresses—are more likely to speed, run red lights and use their phones while riding, and are more likely to be involved in collisions.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 344A in my name, which neatly follows on from that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I begin by saying how grateful I am for the expressions of support from across your Lordships’ House when I introduced this amendment in Committee. I particularly appreciated the empathy from noble Lords, because it showed that the fear I have is real. It is a fear that is caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling to people who perhaps have a mobility impairment like mine, or a visual or hearing impairment, or even to people who are not necessarily in the prime of life.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, who said in Committee:
“Holding companies responsible, or at least requiring a public review of their practices, would help deter irresponsible riding and shift the burden back on to the companies that profit from high-speed delivery models. A review … would also allow us to examine the employment models used by these companies, the incentives placed on riders and the adequacy of training, supervision and enforcement mechanisms. It would provide a valuable evidence base for any future legislative change”.—[Official Report, 17/12/25; col. 747.]
I agree, and I am grateful for his support, as I am for that from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who in Committee made the important point:
“At the very least, this review might want to consider that an employer”—
or indeed contractor—
“could do more positive things than just employ sanctions. They could start to educate their cyclists and reward them for better behaviour”.—[Official Report, 17/12/25; col. 742.]
I also welcome the insightful comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who said in Committee that
“the challenge is that most riders and scooters … are not employees of these companies, whose legal advice is that they do not want to go anywhere near that, because then they may be responsible for their cyclists’ or motorcyclists’ behaviour”.
Surely that is all the more reason for a review that includes contractors, as my amendment proposes. I thank the noble Baroness for acknowledging that the group of committee amendments in which my amendment was placed
“raise an important safety point”.—[Official Report, 17/12/25; col. 746.]
It is wonderful to know that our Lib Dem colleagues are so supportive of disabled people, and I look forward to hearing that they will follow through on their warm and very welcome words by supporting my amendment.
My third point is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I am avowedly pro cycling. I believe that cycling is a good thing: I just happen to believe that responsible cycling is even better for pedestrians, for all road users and, most importantly, for cyclists themselves. Responsibility is the issue that lies at the heart of my amendment. What right-thinking person would disagree with the theory that every cyclist should cycle responsibly? Yet we know that there is a widening chasm between theory and practice. We know that, in practice right now, there is a culture of “anything goes”. As we heard earlier in the debate on this group, a culture of complete impunity is taking root, with the most frightening but inevitable consequences.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the dangerous, careless and inconsiderate behaviour of bicycle couriers, who career through red lights and along pavements, and the wrong way down one-way streets, with increasingly reckless abandon. It is the behaviour of what some noble Lords have described as “the worst perpetrators”—bicycle couriers—that my modest and reasonable amendment seeks to address.
The amendment would require the Home Secretary to institute a review
“assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure”—
or, for legal clarification, take steps to ensure—
“that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 121”.
The review, which must be published within a year of Clause 121 coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law that it determines are necessary. The rationale for this amendment is similarly simple. It seeks to probe how the law can be changed to ensure that companies that contract the services of bicycle couriers bear some shared responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists on the road.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to reiterate the concerns I expressed in Committee about the havoc being created by speeding cyclists, e-cyclists and e-scooters—a Wild West, as I have said before, particularly on London streets. I was nearly run over again this week in the Haymarket, and my next-door neighbour was told yesterday by a speeding cyclist, whom she upbraided outside her house and on our pavement, that he was an undercover policeman. More must be done, and I hope the Minister will give full consideration to all the amendments in this group, of which I am supportive.
I hope noble Lords will understand that I will keep my comments extremely brief. I say to the Minister that I welcome the new offences already in the Bill, which, as we have heard, reflect my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s previous Private Member’s Bill, but she is right, with her Amendments 341 and 342, to seek a review of electric scooter misuse and an annual report on cycling offences. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin has also proposed a review. We must keep up the pressure on the often-helpful noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and his Department for Transport so that we can deliver safer streets and safer pavements.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, we covered these matters pretty thoroughly during discussion of a number of amendments in Committee. As we are now on Report, I shall get quickly to the nub of the issue that I should like to discuss, which reflects a lot of what my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Shinkwin have already said. I say at the outset that I am pro-bicycle and pro-cycling, but I am anti-law-breaking. We have a very serious situation at the moment.
I support this broad group of amendments. In particular, we have a problem with the use of illegally powerful e-bikes and those used by professional delivery companies. There are real benefits from e-bikes being used; it is much better for the environment, for all sorts of reasons, that e-bikes or bicycles are used rather than mopeds and two-stroke engines and so forth. It is a big step forward. The debate should not be characterised as anti-cycling—it is pro-cycling—but the technology has moved so fast that the general public perhaps do not always understand what is a legal or an illegal e-bike. The evidence appears to be that the police either do not spend too much time thinking about it or do not see the enforcement of the use of illegal e-bikes as a priority.
Every speech that we heard in Committee and have heard on Report was very supportive of that—very few views were expressed that did not make it feel as if there was a particular problem, apart perhaps from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, when he summarised the debate on 17 December, saying:
“We of course recognise the concerns about the behaviour of delivery riders, but it is harder to find firm evidence to suggest that their behaviour is so demonstrably worse than that of other groups that it is necessary to single them out for review”.—[Official Report, 17/12/25; col. 748.]
If we took a straw poll around the Chamber right now, I am not sure that he would find a huge amount of support. If he came out with me and the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Blencathra, Lord Lucas, and others one evening to have a look, we might be able to provide him with evidence in person pretty quickly.
The law is being ignored. If these were mopeds without number plates, I feel that the police would intervene quickly. The vehicles used have the performance of mopeds but are not regulated in the same way—they do not carry registration—and they are used to ride the wrong way up one-way streets, for example, in a way that I fell motorcycles are not. The general public see the law being flouted, and that is being normalised, which is a difficult and dangerous situation. These riders are agents or contractors of large delivery companies, which need to take responsibility for the fact that people operating under their flag or banner and doing their business for their commercial gain are routinely breaking the law; that is being ignored by delivery companies and not pursued with vigour by the police. When we had this discussion in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, was generally sympathetic but reluctant to take action.
A number of different approaches have been suggested by noble Lords, but the theme seems to be the same. Members of the House who have spoken are not saying that their particular solution is the be-all and end-all, but they recognise that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The status quo is not working, so when the Minister comes to respond, the House would be very much in his debt if he were to give a clear indication of the degree to which he feels there is a significant problem. If he does not like the approaches being put forward in these amendments, he needs to be able to suggest what is going to change in order to give the House some comfort that the Government are actually taking this seriously.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am a cyclist. I came in this morning and, as noble Lords can see, survived in one piece, miraculously. Secondly, I have to declare that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, saw me dismounting from my e-bike as I arrived, as he put it, prosaically, in front of our “prison gates” the other day. I actually dismounted when I was on the pavement, because I thought it was safer than doing it in the road, and he came towards me at considerable speed. I sometimes wonder if his own electric chariot is within the prescribed speed limit. One often thinks, “Is it a bird? Is it a plane?” and it is actually the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, going down one of our corridors at great speed.
I hate to interrupt this discussion because, from observation, your Lordships are most happy when discussing three particular issues: ourselves, which we enjoy enormously, and we go on at great length; potholes, which really gets your Lordships going; and dangerous cycling. At the root of this is behavioural psychology. The law is there. In repeated statements over the last 10 years, I have heard different Ministers—usually the junior ones, not the senior ones, because they get the short end of the stick—responding by saying, “Well, this is illegal; this is illegal; this is illegal”, which, of course, is a huge comfort to us all, particularly since it is clearly not actually being enforced.
I think back just a few days to the, I thought, rather good victory speech of the new Green MP, Hannah Spencer. She described the feelings of the people in the constituency that has elected her, and their experience of day-to-day life and how that made them feel, and there is an echo of that as one walks or cycles around London and sees open illegality happening everywhere we look. In large part, that is because we do not have a joined-up approach. I support the intent of all these amendments; however, we are never going to actually tackle this unless we have a joined-up approach.
I gently point out to the noble Lords who have put forward these amendments, of which there are a great many, that they might have had more power had they got together prior to Report, put their names together and tried to get some support from across the House to demonstrate the breadth and depth of feeling. When it comes to a joined-up approach, I am really saying that I hope the Government will acknowledge that there are ways of dealing with this, particularly if they look at international experience.
There are five elements, proven by international experience, to a joined-up approach to deal with the problems we are discussing. The first is clarity and adequate coverage of the rules. At the moment, we have a mixture of rules dating back many years in a variety of different laws, so it is not completely clear. The second is that detection and effective enforcement beats severity. Trying to put more rules and penalties in is not going to work if they are not enforced: it is the blind leading the blind. The third element is creating infrastructure in the right way. There is the phrase, “enforcement by design”. If you design roads, pavements, et cetera, cleverly—and some countries are rather better at that than us—you avoid a lot of this, because there is no need for it to happen; but it does require a joined-up approach.
The fourth element is operator and retailer controls. We have heard quite a lot about the operators, whether they are hire companies or food delivery companies. Again, that is not adequately covered by the hotchpotch of different laws we have. Indeed, in debate on a previous Bill, many of the Government’s own Back-Benchers, particularly those with a strong union background, were somewhat horrified to hear of the ways in which these delivery companies are able to avoid the law—by a designated driver, who is the employee or the contractor, actually asking somebody else who is not employed by the company or contracted to drive for them. If that driver is caught doing something bad, the company is not liable, because that individual is not connected to the company. That is done by most of these companies, which is clearly crazy.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is focusing on penalties and other measures for dangerous cycling on our streets. These Benches support a proportionate and evidence-based approach to updating the law, whereby any changes do not discourage people from cycling—considerately, of course—which we believe is an important mode of sustainable transport. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, once again try to disqualify cyclists for dangerous cycling. None of us likes seeing inconsiderate cycling on our streets, just as we do not like seeing dangerous or inconsiderate driving. However, we do not think these amendments are practical; they are not easily enforceable, so we will not be supporting them.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, looking to add up to 12 points to a person’s driving licence for dangerous cycling, are an interesting proposal, given that many people who cycle also have a driving licence. However, fewer people are learning to drive, and this would not work for every cyclist. Whether this is proportionate and right is debatable. The issue remains, as we have heard throughout this debate, that traffic policing has been facing cuts across the country and it is not a prioritised area for policing; limited enforcement is also a challenge.
We do not support the other amendments from the noble Lord, Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to set up a licensing scheme for cyclists and reports on cycling. We do not think they are necessary. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the new amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, try to tackle the many problems that have arisen with the rise in the number of delivery cyclists on our streets. We have been debating this here and on the devolution Bill. Most are picking up shopping from supermarkets or fast food and taking it to people’s homes. The amendments attempt to put some responsibility in law for the company the cyclist or driver may work for, but, as we have discussed, the challenge is that they may not actually be an employee.
We all acknowledge that there are real issues in this area with emerging micromobility modes and technology and their use. But the way forward is comprehensive legislation on e-bikes and e-scooters, addressing what is legally allowed on our streets, what safety standards we expect and the rules on their use. I therefore ask the Minister when the House might expect such legislation to address the many concerns we have heard expressed throughout the passage of this Bill. This is a real issue: we all see it day in, day out. I would like to understand how the Government plan to address it going forward, beyond this Bill. Specific legislation and a joined-up approach, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, are clearly needed, rather than amendments to the Bill today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we have spent many hours in your Lordships’ House debating the issue of dangerous cycling and the misuse of e-bikes. In Committee, I welcomed the Government’s measures to create offences to criminalise causing death by dangerous cycling, and it is right that offences relating to cycling are brought in line with those for driving. I am also aware that there are significant concerns about criminality arising from the use of e-bikes and that courier companies are not being held responsible for the actions of their riders. There is very evidently a problem here. It is for the Government to now come to Parliament with solutions to these issues. We do not need report after report, review after review and trial after trial. We need to need to know what the Government wish to do in this space, rather than simply what they do not want to do.
Fundamentally, there is a serious problem with enforcement. A large number of laws, rules and regulations already apply. E-bikes have legally prescribed specifications and cyclists are supposed to obey the rules of the road. The crux of this issue is enforcement—or the lack of it. Cyclists frequently flout the rules of the road with impunity and owners of e-bikes are illegally modifying them to go far faster than they were intended to. This presents real and very serious concerns for public safety. It is time for the Government to act and not prevaricate. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, so aptly put it, cycling is one of the issues that your Lordships’ House likes to debate at length. It is an important issue and I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Blencathra, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Davies, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pidgeon. Some of them, though not all of them, were a very interesting supporting cast at a meeting in which I very much played junior partner to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I also thank them for that. There, we had a helpful discussion about some of the wider issues about the way that we frame some of the vehicles we have been talking about this afternoon.
We can all agree on the need for all cyclists, as with motorists, to obey the rules of the road so that our roads and pavements are safe for all users. As the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, put it, we can all say—at least, I hope we would—that we are pro-cycling but anti-lawbreaking. The issue is whether the proposals in these various amendments are workable, proportionate and do not have the unintended effect of deterring cycling and other forms of micromobility.
I will address the amendments in turn. Amendments 318 to 325 and Amendment 333, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would allow for persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 121. As we made clear in Committee, our fundamental concern is that such a disqualification could not be adequately enforced without some form of licensing for cyclists. Licensing for cyclists would be both costly and complex, and would mean the majority of law-abiding cyclists would face additional costs and barriers to cycling. It is a disproportionate response, given that these new offences are to deal with those rare cases in which cyclists have caused the death or serious injury of another road user.
I do not accept that the cycling disqualification would be an effective deterrent without effective enforcement. Moreover, it would place an unreasonable burden on the police or, alternatively, raise unreasonable expectations if your Lordship’s House were to give the courts the power to impose a disqualification without an accompanying effective enforcement mechanism. It may well be the case that the only way the police could identify whether such a disqualification was in force would be if the person was found to have breached it after being involved in a subsequent incident. This would entirely defeat the purpose of the disqualification and would not have prevented another incident. It would, in fact, likely be discovered only after another incident has occurred.
I turn to Amendments 326 to 332 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, starting with the amendments that would enable a person to receive up to 12 points on a driving licence upon conviction of any offences in Clause 121. Reaching 12 points on a driving licence would result in a person being disqualified from driving a motor vehicle. Section 163 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a general power for the criminal courts to impose a driving disqualification on an offender convicted of any offence. In addition, Section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2026 provides courts with the power to impose a driving prohibition requirement as part of a community sentence or suspended sentence. I hope these go some way to meeting the noble Lord’s objectives.
Amendment 343, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would create a registration scheme for the purpose of enforcing the new offences in Clause 121. Although I accept that a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier, the absence of a registration system does not, of course, make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry open to them. As he said in his own contribution, there are some forces that are very effective at this, in particular the City of London Police, which he has direct experience of.
As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, we cannot escape the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists. Around 1.5 million new cycles are sold every year. No data is collected on this, but some estimates say that over 20 million cycles are in existence. It would therefore be a gargantuan task to introduce such a registration scheme, or indeed a licensing scheme. It would, for example, require all existing cycle owners, potentially including children, as well as those making new purchases to submit their information to some form of central database, and for some form of registration plate to be produced and affixed to each individual bike. Even if that were deemed proportionate, it is not realistic to suggest that detailed regulations could be delivered on this within six months of Royal Assent, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes.
Amendment 341, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the misuse of e-scooters, including their impact on safety and an assessment of the appropriateness of the legislation within 12 months of Royal Assent. At this point, as others have, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done previously in this area. The safety of all road users is, of course, an utmost priority, and no one should feel unsafe on our streets. It is essential that new transport technology works for everyone. That is why we must crack down on those using e-scooters irresponsibly and in an anti-social way.
However, I do not believe that, after more than five years of running e-scooter trials, the Government should tackle that issue by undertaking yet a further review. I remind noble Lords that private e-scooters remain illegal to use on public roads, cycle lanes and pavements. Rental e-scooters can be used only as part of the Government’s national rental e-scooter trials. Last year, we announced an extension to the rental trials until May 2028, to ensure we have the best possible evidence base to inform any future legislation. We have collected some evidence, but it is still relatively new technology and there remain things we need to learn. We will use this additional time from extending the review to supplement our evidence and draw on further experience.
As I mentioned in Committee, the Department for Transport has already announced that the Government will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, we want to pursue a joined-up approach. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles, which will include e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, tempted me to go down a path of speculating what might be in a forthcoming King’s Speech, which is several rungs above my pay grade. I am afraid I cannot do that but, as I said, this is something we wish to pursue when parliamentary time allows.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I find it a little concerning that he does not agree to a review but the Government have now extended their own review for another four years. We had a very useful meeting with him and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. We are approaching Report on the English devolution Bill. When are we going to get a definition of micromobility vehicles?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I again thank the noble Baroness for the meeting, which I found useful. On the definition of micromobility, I will take that back and write to her on where it will come during the passage of the English devolution Bill, because I am not sufficiently across the details now. I will get back to her on that. I can confirm that, as was mentioned in the noble Baroness’s amendment, the Department for Transport will consult on any new regulations before they come into force, so that all interested parties will have a chance to shape any new regime on micromobility.
Amendment 342, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the number of people charged with dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, as provided for in Clause 121. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concerns about the extent to which the police act on cycling offences—indeed, those concerns were expressed by many noble Lords today—but I reiterate that the offences in the Bill are the most serious in nature, including where a cyclist’s actions have resulted in the death or serious injury of a person. In such cases, we should expect the police to pursue them to the fullest extent possible.
I highlight to the noble Baroness that the Government already publish a range of statistics on criminal offences, notably the quarterly and annual reports on criminal justice system statistics, alongside annual statistics setting out information on those killed and seriously injured on our roads. That provides breakdowns by road user as well as some of the contributory factors such as speeding, the presence of drink or drugs, and non-seat-belt use. As this information is already available in the public domain, we are not persuaded on the merit of producing such a report for cycle offences.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am so sorry. I have just received from the Library the figures to which the Minister referred. There is not a separate category for e-scooters, which I find quite scary. There is a global category of “motorcyclists”. Does that embrace e-scooters or not?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will have to go back to check the definitions. We spent some time in our meeting discussing these categories and definitions. As I understand it, that category does include e-scooters, but I want to go back to confirm that for the noble Baroness. As I said, these statistics are produced regularly. That does not mean that any future work on micromobility cannot allow for greater granularity in those statistics, if they are collected in a way that would permit that.
Finally, Amendment 344, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would allow for food delivery companies to receive an unlimited fine should their riders be convicted of any offence under Clause 121 and where those companies do not have sufficient procedures to prevent those offences occurring. Amendment 344A would require the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of any such procedures within one year of Clause 121 coming into force. Although I absolutely recognise the very real concerns that we heard both in Committee and today about the rogue behaviours of food delivery riders, we need hard, documented evidence to understand this in detail. I understand the straw poll point that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made, but, with the greatest respect, I am not sure how it would hold up in terms of statistical reliability.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I really cannot let the Minister get away with that. I think that all Members who have spoken in today’s debate, and in previous debates, are absolutely unanimous about the degree to which there is a problem. I do not accept the Minister saying that the problem is that there is no data. He represents the Government. I have stood at the same Dispatch Box when I had some responsibilities for transport, so I know that it is the Government’s job to gather that data when there is obviously a problem. The Minister really cannot stand there and say that no action will be taken because there is no data showing a problem.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I think it will please the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to hear that that is exactly not what I am about to do—I ask him to hold on a second.
As I was saying, we want to understand this in detail, including evidence on the extent to which the business practice of food delivery companies may influence the rogue behaviours of their riders—that is very much the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. To that end, the Department for Transport is commissioning research to look into that, which we expect to start at the end of this month. It will take about one year, and the DfT will publish its findings. This research will look at the impact of the business practices of food delivery companies on rogue behaviours and illegal bike use. In effect, it will be a non-statutory version of the review that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, proposes in his amendment. I hope that that will satisfy his concerns—I will find out now.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. Can he give an undertaking to the House that this non-statutory review will consult disabled people on their experiences? Can he write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, saying which disability organisations will be consulted?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library with further details of the research and how it is being commissioned by the DfT.
In addition, the DfT’s road safety strategy, which has been referred to already this afternoon and which was published on 7 January, makes a clear commitment to the Government piloting a national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them, whether using cycles, e-cycles, motorcycles, cars, or light or heavy-goods vehicles. The charter will aim to promote good practice and improve compliance with current requirements. It will be developed in collaboration with businesses and industry and will be informed by existing schemes. The pilot, which is voluntary, will run for two years and will be monitored and fully evaluated.
Before I conclude, I want to pick up a point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in Committee and repeated this afternoon on issues around the employment status of some of these delivery drivers. The Government are absolutely clear that bogus self-employment is unacceptable. Employers should never seek to deny people their employment rights and avoid their own legal obligations by claiming that someone is self-employed when in reality they are not.
We understand that many delivery riders in the platform economy value the flexibility that that kind of employment status can bring, but new technologies and ways of working have made it more complex for businesses and workers to understand and apply the current employment-status framework. That is why the Government are committed to consulting on a simpler framework which allows to properly capture the breadth of different employment relationships in the UK and ensure that workers can continually benefit from flexible ways of working where they choose to do so without being exploited by unscrupulous employers. We understand that this employment space of delivery drivers is a particular issue, which is why this is very much an important issue to act on.
In conclusion, I am afraid that I cannot follow up the call of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for all-out vigilante action from pedestrians. I am not entirely sure that even he and his chariot—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—might expect me to. However, I want to take this opportunity to really acknowledge the frustration and fears of all noble Lords, and, indeed, many members of the public, about the abhorrent and dangerous behaviour of a minority—I stress that—of cyclists.
However, I come back to where I started. Any new legislation in this area must be proportionate and must be mindful of the potential adverse impact on law-abiding road users. I want to encourage micromobility to reduce congestion and promote healthy living— very much the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We need a clear evidence base, and, as I have indicated, we are undertaking research concerning the road behaviours of delivery riders. I just want to repeat what we were saying. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility in the round, including on e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. For now, therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to withdraw his Amendment 318 and other noble Lords not to move their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was disappointing reply, but it ended on a more encouraging note, and I am grateful for that. It is a simple thing. If a company sets terms for its riders that encourage, incentivise and reward law-breaking, we need to control that. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is quite right about that. He and I are going to have to continue our vigilante efforts to deal with the more ordinary personal misbehaviour of cyclists. There we are—that is something we have taken on—and, thanks to the Government, I shall have more time for it than I have had recently. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is quite right that there is a need for a joined-up response, but I did not hear it. It is a fair challenge to the people who are opposing the Government to get their act together, but it is the job of the Government to deliver a strategy that might make a difference and I did not hear it. This has occurred quite a few times now. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made the point about reduced traffic departments. She is quite right that it has nothing to do with this. The traffic departments of this country have never had much to do with cyclists. This is a problem of enforcement; it is not to do with the fact that traffic departments have reduced over time.
What am I asking for? I suppose I am asking for a protest vote. Every time I raise this issue, there is a rumble. People around me say afterwards, “I agree with you, we ought to do something”, but nobody can quite agree what. I am calling on the Members on the Government Benches and others to ignore their Whips. There will be a very marginal impact on their careers. I would never argue that my solution is the only one that will work, but the Government have a duty to do something. As we have all said, it is not just about older people like us complaining about cyclists. It is a general opinion among people whose views we represent.
I may lose, but courage is not measured by picking fights only that you are going to win. It is sometimes measured by picking those that you may subsequently discover that you do not have support on. With that in mind, I would like to divide the House on this amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Aggravated offences(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Meaning of “aggravated”(1) For the purposes of sections 29 to 32 an offence is aggravated if it is aggravated by—(a) racial hostility,(b) religious hostility,(c) hostility related to disability,(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or(e) hostility related to transgender identity.(2) For the purposes of the following provisions an offence is aggravated if it is aggravated by hostility related to sex—(a) section 29,(b) section 30,(c) section 31(1)(a) and (c), and(d) section 32.(3) An offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (1) if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be) (v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.(4) An offence is aggravated by hostility related to sex if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the sex (or presumed sex) of the victim, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex.(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), it is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that subsection.(6) In this section—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.”(3) In the italic heading before section 28, for “Racially or religiously aggravated offences” substitute “Offences aggravated by racial or other hostility”.(4) In section 29 (aggravated assaults)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”.(5) In section 30 (aggravated criminal damage)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”;(c) in subsection (3) for “28(1)(a)” substitute “28(3)(a) and (4)(a)”.(6) In section 31 (aggravated public order offences)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”;(c) in subsection (7) for “28(1)(a)” substitute “28(3)(a) and (4)(a)”. (7) In section 32 (aggravated harassment)—(a) in the heading for “Racially or religiously aggravated” substitute “Aggravated”;(b) in subsection (1) for “racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section” substitute “aggravated (see section 28(1) and (2))”.(8) In section 66 of the Sentencing Code (hostility as aggravating factor in sentencing)—(a) in subsection (1), after “subsection (3)” insert “and subsection (3A)”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) So far as it relates to hostility related to disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity, this section does not apply in relation to an offence under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 committed on or after the day on which section (Aggravated offences)(2) of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 comes into force.”(9) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, for sections 240 and 241 substitute—“240 Increase in sentence for offences aggravated by hostility(1) This section applies where a court or officer dealing with an offender for a service offence (other than an offence mentioned in subsection (7)) is considering the seriousness of the offence.(2) If the offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (3) the court or officer—(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.(3) The kinds of hostility are—(a) racial hostility,(b) religious hostility,(c) hostility related to disability,(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or(e) hostility related to transgender identity.(4) An offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (3) if—(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be)(v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.(5) It is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in subsection (4). (6) In this section—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.(7) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under any of sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (offences aggravated by racial and other hostility).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause expands the grounds on which offences may be aggravated under sections 28 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racial and religious hostility) to include hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and (except for section 31(1)(b)) sex. It also makes consequential amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very proud to introduce Amendment 334, as it delivers on a Labour government manifesto commitment by extending the existing statutory framework for aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
As noble Lords will know, under the existing provision, specified offences are aggravated and subject to potentially greater maximum penalties where it is proved that the offender was motivated by hostility towards the protected characteristics of race and religion. The relevant offences for these purposes are criminal damage, harassment, stalking and certain public order offences, as well as several offences against the person, including actual and grievous bodily harm, strangulation, assault and malicious wounding.
Through Amendment 334, the Government are not creating new criminal offences; rather, we are extending a well-established legislative model to ensure that it properly captures the full range of hostility-based offending that we know is taking place in our communities. I just happen to believe that individuals who are trans or have a disability have a right and a promise to live life free from hostility in our society today. I pray in aid that, in the last year for which figures are available, March 2024 to March 2025, 4,120 hate crimes were registered by the police against transgender people and 10,649 hate crimes were registered against people with disabilities.
The amendment fulfils the Government’s commitment to level up the hate crime legislative framework by extending the regime of aggravated offences under the 1998 Act to cover criminal behaviours motivated by hostility towards sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. We are also adding behaviours motivated by hostility based on sex or presumed sex.
As a corollary to Amendment 334, government Amendments 345, 347, 349 and 353 separately amend the new offences on abuse towards emergency workers to provide for aggravation where these offences are motivated by or demonstrate hostility to the same range of protected characteristics. This ensures, for the first time, parity of treatment across these protected characteristics and provides the police and prosecutors with a broader set of tools for recognising and responding to hate crime offences.
This measure has received a broad welcome from a range of charities and organisations involved with disability or with transgender issues. Stonewall has described the measure before the House tonight as
“a powerful message that LGBTQ+ people deserve equal access to justice”.
Galop, the LGBT and anti-abuse charity, has described the amendment as a “landmark moment” for equality. Real, the deaf and disabled people’s organisation, has said:
“It reflects long-standing calls for equal protection under the law for all victims of hate crime”.
The Spinal Injuries Association has said:
“It sends a clear message that violence and hostility directed at disabled people will no longer be overlooked and must be treated with the seriousness it deserves”.
I concur with all those comments, and I hope that the whole House will do too in due course.
Aggravated offences are well established in our criminal law. By extending the scope of the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act, we will help to ensure that criminal justice agencies identify and record hostility against protected characteristics where they take place and that perpetrators are appropriately punished for their offending.
These are not abstract virtues. They translate into better case-building, clearer communication with victims and, ultimately, more robust outcomes in court. I hope that they will also prevent people being attacked, abused and harassed for issues to do with their identity as transgender people or people with disabilities. It is simply not acceptable in the 21st century for those types of offences to take place. That is why we consider that the aggravated offences framework remains the right tool for recognising and responding to hostility based offending.
Recognising hostility based on sex within the aggravated offences regime complements our mission to tackle violence against women and girls. It will enable the courts to recognise on the face of the offence the serious harm caused when a victim is targeted because of their sex or presumed sex. Making it clear in law that offences motivated by hostility towards a victim’s sex will be treated just as seriously as those motivated by hostility towards the range of other protected characteristics in the hate crime regime reinforces our determination as a Government to confront these harms.
To ensure coherence across the statute book, the aggravated version of the existing Section 4A offence under the Public Order Act 1986 will not extend to cases involving hostility based on sex or presumed sex. That is because the behaviour targeted by that offence—namely, causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress—is already more than adequately covered by the new aggravated offence introduced by the Protection from Sex based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which will come into force on 1 April. This approach prevents duplication while ensuring the law remains both targeted and effective.
I will listen to what noble Lords say in their amendments, but I put a clear message down that this is a matter of principle for this Labour Government and people across this House. I believe and know that it will have the support of many others in this House, for which I thank them in advance. It is not right that transgender people or people with disabilities are singled out for offences. They need the protection of the law and today is the day for this House, and for the House of Commons when it is considered there, to stand up and say what is right. I beg to move.
Amendment 334A (as an amendment to Amendment 334)
Lord Young of Acton
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. Between them, my three amendments address a single, straightforward question: should misgendering a trans person be treated as a criminal offence, still less an aggravated one? The answer is clearly no, and I hope the Minister will assure me that that is not the Government’s intention in moving their amendments to the Bill.
Let me begin with government Amendments 334 and 349. Amendment 334, as we have heard, extends the aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, currently limited to race and religion, to cover sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability and sex. Amendment 349 applies the same aggravators to the new offences relating to threatening or abusive behaviour towards emergency workers. My first two amendments would insert a clarification into both that evidence of misgendering alone would not be treated as adequate proof of any criminal offence nor of hostility on the basis of transgender identity.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton and oppose the Government’s amendments in their entirety, on principle.
I did not expect to be beginning in the way I am about to begin, but I want to say this because the quality of debates around hate crime have become increasingly polarising. In my first year in this House, which has been a great privilege, I have grown to deeply admire the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, in particular for the way he has conducted the passage of this Bill and the many late nights and long hours he has put in. Indeed, I have grown slightly fond—if that is okay to say—of him and our exchanges in the corridors. Therefore, it is with some trepidation and fear that I get to my feet to say that I hope we can engage in a respectful debate. I do not agree that this is the right vehicle for the objectives but I do agree with the objectives.
The Minister used these words—I hope I have taken them down correctly; I think it is verbatim. He happens to believe that trans and disabled people “should be able to live without hostility”. I 100% agree with that, but I do not believe that this is the right vehicle. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton has already covered the existence, introduced in 2020, of the aggravating factors in sentencing which allow all those characteristics and categories to have increased sentencing as a result of hostility acted out on those people. I want to clarify that, because I do not believe there is a single person here, whether Peer or guest in the Gallery, who would disagree with anything that the Minister said. I hope we can have a debate on what the right vehicle is, which does not denigrate anything when it comes to what the principles should be.
Seeking to amend the Bill to add “aggravated factors”, alongside race and religion, introduced a quarter of a century ago, is a significant departure. It is an extension and expansion of the structure of our criminal law. The traditional structure is that conduct constitutes the offence: for example, he hit him and he meant to. The motive may aggravate the sentence; the law does not need to prove why. But once we subdivide offences by protected characteristic or identity, we depart from that principle. We know—because the Home Office itself says that only 7% of recorded hate crimes result in charging—that this becomes a complicated way of proceeding against this kind of conduct, particularly when we already have a vehicle for punishing it. The same conduct becomes a different offence depending on the identity of the victim and the alleged beliefs of the defendant. The motive for the crime moves from sentencing into the definition of the crime itself. It is, of course, more complex to establish, and harder to charge and then to prove. What better way to approach it than by the sentencing mechanism, where a judge has heard the evidence, and it has become quite clear and apparent during the course of the trial that this was an underlying motivation. He or she—I note, with deference, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, sitting opposite—can then increase the sentence accordingly.
This is not something I have just come up with today. Many respected academics and lawyers have questioned the aggravated defence regime. Professor Richard Taylor has argued that racially or religiously aggravated offences created by the 1998 Act are conceptually confused and duplicate what could be, and is now, more adequately addressed through sentencing law. The Law Commission of England and Wales has recognised this structural tension. In fact, the Law Commission goes so far as to comment on sex not becoming a characteristic at all. There have also been a number of reports by Policy Exchange, and I declare my interest as a senior fellow. These reports warn against the steady multiplication of identity-based criminal categories, and emphasise that the criminal law should focus on the conduct, rather than proliferating protected characteristic variants of an offence.
Others, including Lord Sumption, have cautioned that we should not push the criminal law from punishing harmful conduct towards adjudicating belief and motive. We do not need any reminder of the risks, because we are currently dealing with the failure of the non-crime hate incident reporting regime. Why, at the very moment that Parliament is moving to curtail the recording of non-crime hate incidents—recognising the problems created when policing becomes entangled in the recording of perceived hostility—are the Government proposing to expand hostility-based criminal offences themselves? I noted that the Minister said that this was a manifesto pledge, but it makes me very uneasy that we are coming to it only on Report. It is such a significant structural change in the criminal law and an expansion of the regime that I would have appreciated the opportunity to speak to it at Second Reading and to challenge and scrutinise it in detail in Committee.
We need to have an honest and evidence-led debate. It is too easy to reflexively say that this is the kind thing and the right thing. It will not produce change or the results that we want it to. The aggravated offence model has been operating for more than a quarter of a century as a large-scale behavioural and sociological experiment in using identity-based categories to address prejudice. It is taboo to question it and to question whether it has worked, but we must. If it had reduced hostility or strengthened social cohesion then there might be a case for expansion, but it has not, and no evidence of that has been produced.
Hate-crime legislation is not a demonstrably effective enforcement tool. It is wholly wrong to divert resources in this way, in an already overstretched criminal justice system, where we are challenging the very existence of the jury trial without a solid evidential base for doing so. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support the Government’s amendments. As I understand them, they do not create any new criminal offences; they are concerned only with sentencing for criminal offences that are proved and on the statute book. It is elementary that the sentence the court imposes for any criminal offence must depend on the circumstances of that particular offence. I cannot see the objection to the court being told that one of the things it should take into account is whether the defendant, who has been convicted of a particular offence, has acted by reason of hostility based on the victim being, or being presumed to be, transgender.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
The court can already take all the aggravating factors into account, save for hostility to sex. If a crime is aggravated by one of three of the four aggravators that the Bill would introduce into the charging regime, the CPS can flag those as aggravating factors and they can be taken into account at the sentencing stage, so what material difference would the government amendments make?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he is running two inconsistent arguments. He is saying first that the law already allows this, and secondly that this amendment to make the position clear is fundamentally objectionable on grounds of principle. He cannot run both arguments, nor say that it is objectionable for one of the factors that the court should take into account to be whether the hostility is based on sex. Why should we exclude sex? Why does the law currently allow the victim’s membership, or presumed membership, of a racial or religious group to be a factor that the court can take into account, but not sex or transgender status? That makes no sense whatever when the Equality Act deals with all these protected characteristics.
I emphasise that whether it is right or appropriate for the judge to take these factors into account in the circumstances of a particular case, and to what extent, will depend on the discretion of the sentencing judge, which will inevitably depend on the circumstances of the crime. Therefore, to exclude entirely the factor of the victim being, or being presumed to be, transgender, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, seeks to do, seems arbitrary.
Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that we must be very careful indeed to ensure that people are not punished for the exercise of free speech, but the law protects that exercise. It protects it by reference to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the sentencing judge must take into account in all cases. I do not know the circumstances of the case that the noble Lord referred to, where there was an acquittal at the appeal stage, but I strongly suspect that Article 10 had something to do with it. I support the Government’s amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have serious reservations about the Government’s amendments on aggravated offences. I appreciate that this puts me at odds with the Minister, but I knew that long before today, because in Committee he made a passionate speech, as he has today, telling us how proud he would be to move these amendments and claiming that they show a Government prepared to protect LGBT and disabled people.
If this is such an important change in the law for the Government, and a principled flagship for progressive Labour that appeared in its manifesto, we have to ask why the Government waited until Report in the Lords—so late in the Bill’s passage—to table the amendments. They must have thought that they were principled and important before, so why are we seeing them only now? I am afraid that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, explained, this denies this House the constitutional right to properly scrutinise and mull over the complex details of the amendments—let alone the fact that that was denied to the elected Chamber.
In the limited space that we have here, I will start by raising some general concerns I have with aggravated offences. Some people might say that this is a Second Reading speech; if it is, it is because the Government did not bring the amendments forward until now, so I will say it anyway. In my view, the state’s job, via criminal justice, is to prosecute material, clearly defined offences. When the authorities attempt to either infer or impute motivation for a crime, seemingly to signal its particular gravity, that is a dangerous move towards punishing ideas, beliefs or attitudes. Some of those ideas, of course, might be bigoted or abhorrent, but they are none the less ideas and opinions. We need to be wary of inadvertently stepping towards thought-crime solutions just to signal our moral virtue, and I am worried about expanding that regime.
This has consequences. Offences such as these carry higher maximum penalties when offenders demonstrate hostility, and this can mean prison. But hostility can be interpreted broadly in the law as ill will, antagonism or prejudice. Let me be clear: violence, harassment, assault or whatever against a disabled person, a trans person, a woman or anyone should be punished appropriately—severely, if that is your take—and certainly uniformly, regardless of motive. But aggravated sentencing can lead to some perverse outcomes.
On hate crime aggravators, in Committee I used an example from the CPS report Our Recent Hate Crime Prosecutions. A man was put in jail for 20 weeks for
“assaulting his father, sister and a police officer, and using racist slurs against his sister’s partner”.
But the CPS notes that, without the racist slurs, he would have only received a community order. So for the assault he would have retained his freedom but, with the racist words, he got 20 weeks in jail. What is more problematic is that many of the offences we are talking about are not actually those kinds of aggressions but often speech that is promiscuously criminalised.
This sentencing anomaly really hits home when it comes to the much boasted-of addition of sex into the aggregation. “At last”, people will say; “misogyny taken seriously”. But, during the Sentencing Bill, the Government refused to accept a perfectly reasonable amendment exempting sexual assault offences and domestic violence offences from the early release scheme. Surely, a real, material commitment to women would be to have accepted that amendment, not increased sentences for offences deemed driven by hostility to women.
Instead, my view is that we should prosecute actual offences committed against any woman. When those offences involve, for example, sexual violence or domestic abuse, we should give appropriate sentences to perpetrators and then not let the offenders out early to free up prison places. That would help women far more than this amendment, the wording of which says that the aggravators must be announced in “open court” to declare an offence aggravated—if ever there were an indication of the performative nature of this, that is it.
One worry is that many of the offences to which “aggravated” will be attached will be the tangled plethora of hate speech crimes, already leading to the scandal of Britain’s declining free speech reputation internationally, with so many arrested for speech crimes, as we have heard about. So many of these offences are wholly subjective, because hostility can be defined by the victim. We have seen the recent weaponisation of speech against those who do not share the same views, the whole cancel culture and toxicity that has proliferated, and identity groups and those with protective characteristics pitched against each other in grievance complaints.
Although it was not in the criminal law, we saw a gross example of this when John Davidson, a man with Tourette’s and the subject of an award-winning sympathetic film, involuntarily ticked and shouted out the N-word. Subsequent commentary refused to accept that there was no intent to offend. Race and disability were put at odds, rather than empathetically understanding the issues, and that is one of the problems with playing the identity politics issue. Increasing aggravated offences will just add to this toxic mix, and that, combined with public order and communications arrests—if not prosecutions for speech crimes, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—will make this issue really difficult.
The issue of hostility to transgender identity is likely to stir up further tensions. I want to ask: what is transgender identity? At best, it is a subjective category. It is a self-defined description. That is not a criticism; it is just an observation. Transgender identity does not require a gender recognition certificate or surgery. By the way, the wording in the amendment is confusing here: it gives credence to the fact that surgery might be a key, but then it says “proposing to undergo” gender reassignment, which is a very odd phrase. That is why the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, are right to query and probe it, which is what we should be doing, even though it is so late in the day. How transgender people are defined will matter to how these amendments will be understood.
The clarification of the noble Lords from the Official Opposition, in Amendments 337, 350, 351 and 352, establishing what sex means in the Bill, is also helpful. Emphasising biological sex—sex at birth—is necessary to ensure that the cultural clash between gender identity and sex is not muddled up in this Bill or in these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in his Amendment 334A, also hopes to ensure that the proposed changes do not criminalise misgendering.
I just note that I hate the word “misgendering”. If a male identifies as a female, even if he has a certificate or has had surgery, he is still a man. Saying that is not misgendering; it is factually accurate. Asking me to call him a woman is compelled speech, asking me to repeat misinformation. But would that statement, which I am very nervous about making, be seen as evidence of hostility to someone based on their gender identity? Guess what: too often, those accused of, and punished for, so-called misgendering offences are women. Police criminalised Sex Matters’ Helen Joyce for some tweets referring to Freda Wallace by his former name Fred and using he/him pronouns, and the police recorded that as “criminal harassment” with “transgender aggravators”.
What about the young lesbian who says that she is not attracted to a male—a man who thinks that, by wearing stilettos and a dress, he is a woman and should be allowed into a lesbian-only group at a workplace—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not wish to disturb the noble Baroness’s train of thought, but how we frame this debate is important. It is an aggravated offence if the individual has committed an offence that I outlined earlier, such as grievous or actual bodily harm, public order offences, harassment, stalking or criminal damage. It is not about the issues the noble Baroness is speaking to.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
To clarify, in the first example I gave, of Helen Joyce, it was called criminal harassment for the tweets and the aggravated factors. The police actually dropped it in the end, but they—not me but the police—called it criminal harassment with transgender aggravators. In the example I was giving, the lesbian in her work group was then labelled a bigot. In other words, it is the L in LGBT, not the T, that will often take the hit. I mentioned that because she was threatened by the person, who said they would go to the police, and then she was visited by somebody who said that the police would be involved. I am making this point because I am worried about it spiralling out of control. I would say that that is misogyny: demonising a biological woman for expressing her sexuality as same-sex attracted. I want to be sure that the amendments in this group navigate such clashes and do not avoid them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise but, a little unusually, this is a convenient time to break for dinner break business. It is mid group, but I assure noble Lords that we are taking a note of who is in the Chamber so that we can continue the group in an orderly fashion after the dinner break business. Before I hear some sedentary tutting, I note that this has been agreed through the usual channels.
Security Update
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today relating to espionage. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement regarding three arrests that took place this morning as part of a Counter Terrorism Policing investigation into suspected National Security Act offences. I can confirm that this relates to China. I can also confirm that this relates to foreign interference targeting UK democracy.
Mr Speaker, for reasons that you will understand, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any aspect of what is now a live investigation. It is absolutely critical that we do not hamper the work of the police or prejudice any future legal processes by what we say in this House today. I would, however, point the House to what Counter Terrorism Policing has just said in its own statement: namely, that this morning, officers from Counter Terrorism Policing arrested three men as part of an investigation into suspected National Security Act 2023 offences. All three men were arrested on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service, contrary to Section 3 of that Act. Of course, any decision as to whether to proceed with a prosecution will be a matter for the CPS.
The Government stand resolute in our resolve to counter foreign interference activity targeting the UK from any state actor. The Government have been consistent and unambiguous in our assessment that China presents a series of threats to the United Kingdom. We remain deeply concerned by an increased pattern of covert activity from Chinese state-linked actors targeting UK democracy. This involves attempts to obtain information on UK policy-making and interfere with our sovereign affairs.
From the November MI5 espionage alert warning about Chinese intelligence officers targeting individuals with access to sensitive information on Parliament and government to the attempted interference activities of Christine Lee in 2022, this Government will not tolerate it. I can confirm to the House that British officials have formally démarched Chinese counterparts in London and Beijing about these allegations to raise our strong concerns. However, as this is a live investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment further. But let me be clear: if there is proven evidence of attempts by China to interfere with UK sovereign affairs, we will impose severe consequences and hold all actors to account.
In the meantime, the Government are taking robust action to ensure that the UK’s democratic institutions and processes are a hard target for this activity. The National Security Act provides our intelligence agencies and law enforcement with the modern legal tools they need to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of state threats. The action that Counter Terrorism Policing has been able to take this morning is an example of that legislation working well. The political influence tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act also provides an essential framework for ensuring that those who seek to undermine our democracy are held to account.
I also continue to drive across government the delivery of our counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which I announced to Parliament on 18 November. This is being co-ordinated in strong partnership with the parliamentary security authorities. Our aim is to forge a cross-party and whole-of-society shield to safeguard UK democracy. This includes strengthening our legal defences, cutting off channels for interference, and supporting those on the front line of UK politics to recognise, resist and report the threat.
Members should have seen the guidance that the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre published last year, on what to look out for in terms of malicious foreign targeting and some basic steps that Members can take to protect themselves. I urge all Members to read carefully through the guidance that was issued. If honourable Members experience any suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary interaction, whether in person or online, they should report it to the Parliamentary Security Department. The Government will continue to work in collaboration with the Parliament Security Department to set up a range of more tailored, bespoke briefings for those at greatest risk.
In January, I joined the director-general of MI5 and the chief executive of the NCSC to brief the chief executives of the UK political parties on the developing threat culture. I can confirm that officials are now focused on developing a programme of work to engage with the UK’s think tanks and non-profit sector to discuss the threats that they face from foreign interference. Our intent is to work with them to strengthen their resilience, ensuring that their hard-won reputations and networks are not exploited by our adversaries as platforms for covertly influencing UK public discourse and policy-making.
In February, we introduced the Representation of the People Bill, which will further strengthen safeguards against foreign interference through political funding. Our proposed Bill includes introducing tougher rules for donor recipients to conduct risk assessments before accepting donations, as well as increasing the powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it has the tools necessary to fulfil its duties.
The Government eagerly await the report of Philip Rycroft, following his independent review of regulations and safeguards against foreign financial interference in UK politics. The review was commissioned to rigorously test the financial safeguards we currently have in place and will specifically consider safeguards against illicit funding streams, including the use of crypto assets. The review’s findings will be delivered to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and me by the end of the month, and I can confirm that recommendations, where appropriate, will inform the Representation of the People Bill. We are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-style tool to disrupt proxy organisations undermining our security.
It continues to be in our long-term strategic interest to engage with China. We are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically on areas where engagement is in the UK’s national interest, including climate, global health, trade and scientific research, but also illegal migration and serious organised crime, to name just a few. But let me be crystal clear: this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations. We do not trade off security for economic access. Instead, by taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas.
We will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere with or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will always prioritise UK national security. That is why the Prime Minister’s visit opened up a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system, including domestic security issues.
I assure Members of the House and the public at home that further steps can and absolutely will be taken to defend our democracy. The Government are steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and deterring China’s interference activity wherever it takes place. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important statement, and I congratulate her very much on her recent and well-deserved promotion. I look forward to continuing our spirited and enthusiastic discourse over many months ahead, and I shall try not to try her patience too far. We are also grateful to Ministers for making a Statement so swiftly and for allowing us to repeat the Statement in your Lordships’ House today.
Ministers will recognise the seriousness of this situation. If these charges are proven, it will not be the first time that China has spied on us here in Parliament. Interference with our democracy is unacceptable. I pay tribute to all those who have been involved in this investigation, and especially to those public servants who have put themselves in harm’s way to keep us all safe.
This is a fast-developing situation, and I understand that there will be limits to how much the Minister can say to the House on the details of the case. The Guardian has reported that one of those arrested is the spouse of a sitting Labour MP, and that another is the spouse of a former Labour MP.
The Security Minister in the other place reassured Parliament of
“the Government’s determination to stand with all Members to ensure that they are properly protected”.
Can the Minister provide any additional detail on the steps that Members of both Houses should be taking in response to this latest espionage case? Will Members of your Lordships’ House be contacted about any additional measures that should be taken? Given that the individuals arrested for these alleged offences were involved in politics, some apparently over many years, are there steps that we as politicians may take to support the investigations that are ongoing?
Although we accept that Ministers, government officials and parliamentary officials will be working very hard to respond to this shocking news, I cannot let this pass without noting the wider background of the Government’s stance towards China. Since the Government took office, we have seen the collapse of a high-profile China trial. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government have learned the lessons of that case and that every effort will be made to ensure that this case does not collapse in the same way?
Ministers have previously shrunk from calling China what it is: a national security threat. They refused to publish the China audit and failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, so can she also reassure the House that when the Government are asked whether China is opposed or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom, the response will be unequivocal? Will the Government now also place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
More recently, the Government announced a thawing of our relationship with China. The mega-embassy in the heart of our capital has been approved. The Prime Minister went to Beijing to foster closer relationships with his counterparts there. The news of yet more aggressive espionage activity undertaken by China makes the Prime Minister’s new approach to China look faintly ridiculous. Does the Minister accept that these attempts to rekindle a closer relationship with China, at a time when it seeks to spy on us here in Parliament, send the wrong signal to China? Can she see why China might see this thawing of relations as a green light for more aggressive and intrusive activities here in the UK? Will the Government now reconsider the decision to approve the embassy in the heart of our capital?
In conclusion, this is a shocking situation and although Ministers are right to respond rapidly and keep Parliament informed, they should bear in mind that the first duty of any Government is the defence of national security. The Minister has said that the Government will prioritise national security; on that basis, they need urgently to reassess their approach to China. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we also thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, and appreciate the subtleties of where we are now and the limits as to what we can say about this specific case. I declare an interest: I went to China for the first time in 1982 and have been many times since. I was, professionally, an academic working in a think tank on international relations and teaching international relations at a number of universities, and was actively involved in negotiations at the London School of Economics to build joint degrees with Fudan and Tsinghua universities. I well remember the difficulties we had in years after that with the pressure from the Chinese to double the number of students every year and not to maintain the careful controls that we wanted to have on them.
We know that China has become much more of a threat than it was 20 or 30 years ago. That is part of it. We also know that we all live in a bit of a glass house on this and we should not throw stones. This afternoon, I reread the ISC report on China and it is deeply critical of David Cameron—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron —George Osborne and a number of others. We have all walked the very delicate line between maintaining good relations, including good social relations, and not allowing foreign Governments to gain information they should not have or get involved in any sense in undue influence. Foreign influence in British politics is unavoidable. Foreign interference, particularly when it involves money and covert activities, is completely unacceptable.
It is not just China or even Russia. We had the statement from an under-secretary in the US Department of State the other week that she intends to use State Department funds for international development to influence British and European politics. That is also foreign interference in British politics. Some of us feel that right-wing foundations in parts of the southern United States now putting money into think tanks and lobby groups in Britain is also unacceptable foreign interference. We hope that will be part of what we will all actively discuss when we come to the Representation of the People Bill. We look forward to the Rycroft review and to the Government taking an active role in accepting the conclusions of that review and putting them in that Bill.
The strategic defence review talked about building a whole-of-society approach to the diverse direct and indirect threats we now face. It is well over 12 months since the strategic defence review was published and we have heard nothing about that. It also spoke about the need for a “national conversation” on the hybrid threats we now face, many of which are not entirely easy to see but could clearly, in the long run, cause deep damage. We need public education, public information and public engagement. I urge the Government to take some action on that. We do not see it at present. For example, we are told that the Defending Democracy Taskforce is doing very good work, but we are not told what it is doing. I found this sentence on page 61 of the ISC report on China:
“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’—it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.
I encourage the Government to think how much they need to inform us and, through us, the public of the nature and complexity of the threats that we now face.
I make one more point on think tanks and universities, all of which unavoidably work on a global scale. I have talked to vice-chancellors who tell me that among the biggest problems they face, in terms of discipline on campus, is relations between Chinese and Hong Kong students. I am conscious that a number of universities are now deeply financially dependent on the revenue they get from Chinese students. That is the result of the previous Government encouraging them to depend on Chinese students. I ask the Government to take into account that, if we are going to resist Chinese interference, they may need to look again at how they fund some of our best universities to ensure that they remain as good as they are.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions, the very tone of which demonstrates how serious these matters are. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her congratulations on my appointment. My introduction to being a Minister has been a really easy 24 hours.
I hope I speak for all sides of the House when I say that these matters require us to put the protection of our democracy at the forefront—there is nothing more important. As noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, matters of interference, particularly those relating to Parliament and your Lordships’ House, are of the utmost importance to both Houses and the entire nation. They merit careful consideration by the Government, decisive action by Ministers and appropriate scrutiny by Parliament. It is right that the Opposition have the opportunity to scrutinise, to question Ministers in this House and the other place, and to be appropriately briefed on developments, which is why my colleague in the other place, the Security Minister, was on his feet at the Dispatch Box within an hour of the police statement today, and why I am here this evening.
The Government have not hesitated to acknowledge the threats China poses to the UK, from cyber espionage operations to foreign interference. The Government are taking robust action to ensure that the UK’s democratic institutions and processes are a hard target for this activity. We will continue to engage with China confidently and pragmatically in areas where engagement is in the UK’s national interests; however, we will never compromise on our national security.
Members of your Lordships’ House will appreciate the sensitivity of these issues. Protecting the operational integrity of our police and security services is of the utmost importance. To protect the live police investigation, noble Lords will understand that I am extremely limited in what I can say regarding the specific details of the active case. However, both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised a number of questions in their remarks and, while I must be circumspect to avoid any prejudice to legal proceedings, I will seek to address as many of the points that I can now—I will reflect on Hansard if I miss any—within the broader policy points. If I miss anything else, it is because I am unable to address those points, but I will revert to both noble Lords outside.
On the specifics that have been raised, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in thanking our national security staff. They are keeping us safe every single day. As we saw earlier this week with the Statement on Iran, 20 threats were safeguarded by our national security and, in this space, they are working to protect us. I am grateful for it.
A number of questions were asked and I hope that I will be able to answer them as they were asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked about the steps that we can take as parliamentarians. In the last few minutes, the Lord Speaker has issued an email to all Members of your Lordships’ House reminding them of the security that is available. I urge noble Lords to look at the guidance that was issued last year and that has been reissued today about their own security. If your Lordships have any concerns about your work as parliamentarians or who is contacting you and why, please contact the Parliamentary Security Department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted the fact that, because of the political nature of what is discussed, it may be about events here or elsewhere associated with different organisations. If anybody is approached by the organisation, I urge them to be fully supportive. I assure Members of your Lordships’ House, as I was challenged on, that the Government make a commitment, and I make it from this Dispatch Box, to work to deliver a prosecution with our independent prosecution service, if it makes that decision.
On the points raised on the Chinese embassy, the Government have been clear throughout that the planning decision was for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make in an independent, quasi-judicial capacity. We are confident that the decision is lawful and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time given the ongoing action.
With regard to China as a threat, which is fundamental to everything that we have been discussing, the Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to transnational repression of Hong Kongers. Yet we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s third-largest trading partner. Not engaging is no choice at all. That is why the Prime Minister discussed a series of UK national security concerns with President Xi during his recent visit and agreed a new joint law enforcement pact to disrupt the supply of equipment used by people-trafficking gangs operating in the English Channel. We will therefore continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising on our national security, as every other member of the G7 rightly does.
On the FIRS, a genuinely important point that has been discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, no decision has yet been made in relation to specifying China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I have made it clear multiple times to Parliament and to Members of your Lordships’ House that we are carefully looking at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier. We keep specifications on the enhanced tier under constant review to ensure that we are protecting the safety and interests of the UK. Any changes will be announced to Parliament in the usual way. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests, including but not limited to security considerations. It is important that we get it right.
With regard to the comments on foreign interference from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, this is at the heart of why we are here. It is and always will be an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference, and the UK has a strong record of responding robustly to state threats. Through the National Security Act 2023, the security services and law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to deter, detect and disrupt modern-day state threats, as they have done today.
The Government are delivering the counter-political interference and espionage plan, which includes a protective security communications campaign. As part of this, the National Protective Security Authority published guidance for those working in democratic institutions in October last year. The plan also includes exploring how to strengthen legislation and regulation and work to degrade the use of proxies. There is also ongoing cross-government work to address academic interference, information threats and transnational repression.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referenced the report on China. The work of the ISC is incredibly important in this space and I am grateful for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, who is taking on huge projects at this point. I appreciate what has been said about the China audit that was incorporated into the security and defence review. The noble Lord is right that there are some things that now need to follow on from the SDR and we continue to make sure that that happens. We need to have a national conversation about all the threats that we face so that people understand what is in front of them and they can protect themselves and protect us all at the same time.
The noble Lord made a very important point about think tanks and universities, some of which will be addressed in forthcoming legislation. I look forward to discussing it when we are looking at the Representation of the People Bill. We are also awaiting the recommendations of the Rycroft review, which will touch on some of these issues. The timing of the legislation is such that we seek to be able to incorporate some of his recommendations, if needed, in that legislation.
It is important—and noble Lords will appreciate this—that when I was last at this Dispatch Box talking about these issues I highlighted the fact that the vice-chancellors had all been invited to a meeting with the Security Minister for a proper briefing on how they needed to protect themselves. We are repeating that exercise with think tanks to make sure that they can also protect themselves in this space.
I have presented and did present at the tail-end of last year the counter-political interference and espionage action plan to help disrupt and deter spying from states such as China. It included removal of surveillance equipment, which has been done, and additional funding for new and bespoke sovereign IT capabilities. The plan also reminded every one of us, I hope, of our own responsibilities to protect both ourselves and each other, because there are people who wish us ill. We need to make sure that we strive together to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom and to protect this very important institution.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does this not reflect the flaw in the approach of successive Governments to China? They have all said that we will engage with China where it is appropriate, trade with it where it is appropriate and contest it where it is appropriate. That would be fine if those things came in separate boxes, but that is not how the CCP sees the world. It uses every aspect of Chinese society as a tool to further what it sees as its national interests. It is not at all clear to me that we do the same thing in such a holistic fashion. It is not about not engaging with China. It is about checking your fingers before and after you do and approaching every aspect of engagement with the right degree of caution and suspicion.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord. I believe I have all my fingers, but he is right—this is about how we engage, what issues are in our national interests, where we can co-operate and where we need to challenge. We appreciate that we have a £100 billion trading relationship with China, which means that there are tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom dependent on our relationship. But, at the same time, we seek to do everything we can to protect ourselves. How we do that is a matter for ongoing discussion, but the Government have made a clear decision that engagement is key and, in areas of global diplomacy, more words are definitely better than fewer.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of the Free Speech Union. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that, because our universities are so financially dependent on China, there may be a risk of interference at the behest of the Chinese in academic freedom and free speech. The noble Lord recommended various measures to address that risk and the Minister also referred to various measures. But there is an additional measure, which would be to commence Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which requires universities to disclose to the Office for Students their foreign funding and then the Office for Students to monitor those universities to see if there is any interference in academic freedom or free speech as a consequence of that foreign funding.
We know that there are some examples of this. I can think of two off the top of my head, Michelle Shipworth and Laura Murphy, but there are numerous others. It was referred to in the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which we discussed in this House last week. Will the Minister take this opportunity to set out a timetable for the commencement of Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has campaigned actively on these issues through the Free Speech Union, as I did in my previous iteration at Index on Censorship—slightly different approaches and campaign tactics, but with the same aspiration to ensure academic freedom. Our universities —our cathedrals of challenge, engagement and thinking —are incredibly important. I know that the noble Lord has raised these issues directly with the Minister responsible and I will follow up on those conversations.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the newly promoted Minister. My noble friend richly deserves this.
If it is genuinely true that the Government make no trade-off between national security and economic access, what other reasons can there be not to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme now?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, who is also my friend whom I have known, I hate to say, for two decades—so this is all his fault. He raises a very important point about the foreign influence registration scheme. No decision has yet been made in relation to specifying China on the enhanced tier of FIRS, as I said earlier. Any changes to that position will come before Parliament in the usual way, but I promise noble Lords that their arguments in both your Lordships’ House and the other place have been heard.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
To follow up the point about universities made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Xinjiang province of China grows 20% of the world’s cotton. Since it became technically possible to check garments for where the cotton was grown, the laundering of that cotton by the Chinese—because they do not want to put “grown in China” on it—is massive. It was Sheffield Hallam University that produced the report by Dr Murphy on the laundering of cotton, which has been used once or twice in this House. It is a trade issue as well. They are hiding what they are growing because they know there will be reactions against it, and therefore there is every reason to develop these situations, as far as the universities are concerned.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, who had a Question on this specific issue last year. It encouraged me to check where my clothes are made when buying them, which has made shopping on Vinted a challenge. He is right about some of the things that may or may not have been happening in Xinjiang province and what that means for the wider supply chain. I will have to get an update for him on where we currently are, but given that he raised the issue of Sheffield Hallam, I again place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose name is on the institution that was targeted in the way that we are all aware of.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about taking tough steps and the seriousness of this. Can I press her further on the location of the Chinese embassy? I know that she attempted to answer the question from my noble friend Lady Finn, but why has the decision been made? Surely this is one occasion on which the decision to allow the location should be rethought.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I believe the noble Viscount was present when I presented the Statement on the national security element of the Chinese embassy. I and other Minister have repeatedly come before your Lordships’ House to make clear the Government’s line. Given events, I repeat that the Government have been clear throughout that the planning decision was for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make, in an independent, quasi-judicial capacity. We are confident that the decision is lawful, and it would be inappropriate to comment any further at this time.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, further to the excellent question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Chinese make British Army uniforms. On the point about the content of those uniforms, can the Minister let the House know why the Chinese are making British Army uniforms?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I did not see the question going there. The noble Lord is aware of my commitment to the Armed Forces and that I consider myself to be part of the extended military family as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. He raises a very important point about MoD procurement. I will have to revert to him about when the contract was signed, because I think it pre-dates this Government.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, some years ago, while in China with a British university, somebody happened to mention to our hosts that I had been the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for the UK. The following morning, the audience had increased from a desultory dozen to about 150.
The point I wish to make to the Minister, whom I also congratulate, is that we have managed to avoid a lot of terrorism incidents by having a methodology to ensure that at all times we are not only vigilant but carrying out training in which many echelons in our public life and society are required to participate. Can we now consider creating a sort of Prevent-type training for those who may be at risk of the attention of the Chinese Government and others to become involved in forms of espionage, which start in a very subtle way and into which people can be drawn all too easily?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. I cannot believe there were not already 150 people signed up to listen to him. He is right that, in this space and everywhere else, we need a clear methodology and process to make sure that there are not knee-jerk reactions to anything and that the right people receive training in the right way. Counterterrorism police already offer training on the issues of transnational repression to all police forces to make sure they have the skill sets available to them. On the further detail, I will consider the noble Lord’s suggestion and discuss it with other Ministers.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister on her appointment, but can I upbraid her? She referenced in one of the answers that there had been an agreement between the UK Government and the Chinese Government in relation to law enforcement on people-trafficking gangs trafficking people across the English Channel. People smuggling is different from people trafficking, and I urge the Government to be precise in their language.
In relation to the new legislation that the Government are bringing forward on representation of the people, she referenced crypto assets. Given the use of crypto- currencies by organised criminal gangs and hostile state actors, will she guarantee to this House that the Government will bring forward very robust proposals in that legislation, in relation to the use of cryptocurrencies by political parties and in our electoral processes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is right about the precise language. I will go back and reflect on my pack, and make sure that is fed back to everybody. She raises an important point about crypto assets. That is why we have asked Philip Rycroft to undertake a review to make recommendations in this space, among others. When we have his report, I look forward to discussing its details with the noble Baroness and Members of your Lordships’ House, and how we will take it forward.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, a few months ago the CPS dropped the charges involving spying on Parliament against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry. At the time, most legal experts took the view that this was a staggering decision. Does this not send a signal to China and other foreign actors that they can try it on, and try to find individuals to infiltrate and spy on Parliament? After this trial collapsed, I recall the Minister saying at the Dispatch Box that there would be some report back and lessons learned, so have we got anywhere with those?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I do not remember saying that, but I will reflect on the Hansard and see whether I promised to report back. If I did, I apologise and will seek to deliver that. Noble Lords will remember from our extensive discussions on the collapse of that case that its prosecution was being sought under the 1911 Official Secrets Act. One of the things the police were very clear about is that the arrests made today were under the revised legislation that Members of your Lordships’ House brought forward: the National Security Act, which we would hope has a slightly more updated framework than something that is over 100 years old.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a very pertinent point about the amount of trade we do with China, which none of us in this House is naive about. Therefore, we have to take decisions in the round. Notwithstanding that, it is not that long ago that we realised how dependent and reliant we were: when Covid struck, and we were trying to get hold of protective clothing and other things the medical profession needed for the people of this country.
This is not a party-political point, but the lesson learned was that we always need to be very careful to determine who our friends are. It is important to recognise that, when we need something that involves an element of national security, such as during the Covid outbreak, we must ensure we are trading and doing deals with countries that are reliable friends. Does the Minister agree that it would be quite useful to have the Government’s update on that issue now?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her two points. First, on the point relating to Covid, the Covid public inquiry is under way and its recommendations will come forward in due course. I look forward to debating those with Members of your Lordships’ House, because it is a project overseen by the Cabinet Office. The fundamental point, which is important for every Member of your Lordships’ House but also for the Government, is to make sure that discussions about our sovereign capabilities and what we are able to provide, both in the defence space and more broadly, are always considered when we are looking at matters of national security.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it must be clear to all that China is not interested solely in this country; it will be interested in many other countries, too. Is the Minister confident that the exchange of information on such material between the appropriate channels is and continues to be sound?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. We are spending £170 million on sovereign encrypted technology to make sure we can talk to each other, and I hope with our allies, regarding interoperability and safe and secure environments. He also raises a genuinely fundamental point, which I touched on with regard to the China audit. One of the reasons the audit was not published in full was our commitments through Five Eyes, which is why it was a summary—as is normal when we are discussing such issues—as part of the SDR.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:48 - Division on Amendment 334 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 145 - Amendment 334 agreed.
21:07 - Division on Amendment 358 - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 146 - Amendment 358 disagreed.
22:02 - Division on Amendment 359 - Ayes: 129 / Noes: 132 - Amendment 359 disagreed.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I will contribute briefly on this group. In general, the amendment produced by my noble friend the Minister is to be applauded. It is massive and detailed—but this is one of the issues. We are on Report in the House of Lords. The House of Commons will never get the chance to discuss this. When the Lords amendments go back, the Commons will have an hour, or two hours at most, for the Bill, without any amendments, so there is a real issue about our procedures.
It is not the first time this has happened. It is a regular occurrence that when we get massive changes at the end of a Bill—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Is my noble friend aware that they actually had an extensive debate on this matter in the Commons?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
This amendment has just turned up here. It is for this House; it was not dealt with in the Commons. That is why we are debating it. It is a brand-new amendment. It is extensive—two or three pages.
I know I am a bit out of date, having been here so long since I left the other place, but the Commons will not have the chance to debate this amendment, simply because of the procedure for dealing with Lords amendments. So, while I agree in general with what my noble friend the Minister has brought forward, let us not kid ourselves. At the end of the day, the Commons has the last word on everything—but it does not have all the detailed words on everything. So, we have to be really careful in the way we scrutinise something that turns up here at the last minute and cannot be looked at again in the other place. If we start a Bill in this place, it is different, but we did not. We therefore have to be careful about what we are doing.
My other point is that, in general, I agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am not in favour of discrimination against anybody on any grounds whatsoever, but he raised the point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that in general, the discrimination on misgendering is basically anti-women, because they will be the majority who might have the complaint. There is no question about that. Therefore, the issue should not be left nor criminalised. It may be that my noble friend the Minister has a perfectly straightforward answer. I certainly hope he has, because although I do not propose to vote for any of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, he has raised a very fair point. Again, there will be no chance to discuss this in the Commons, so we need to have a bit more of the detail here in this House.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police. My understanding is that the Government’s amendments simply create a legal level playing field, with deterrents currently available on the grounds of race and religion being extended to other protected characteristics. It is far more serious if you are targeted for attack because you are a member of a vulnerable group than if you are attacked at random, and the law should reflect that.
There has been debate today about free speech and non-crime hate incidents, but these provisions are about actual crimes targeted at vulnerable people. I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and those of the Minister.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced these amendments. As he said, this is a government manifesto commitment, and it was evident in the pride with which he moved this amendment. However, I agree with concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others—that it is regrettable that we are seeing the drafting of this provision at this late stage in this House. We have had long debates on the principle as the Bill has gone through, but in this particularly vexed area of the law, the devil really is in the detail, so it is regrettable that we are coming to it fairly late.
In his introduction, the Minister said with clear passion that he wants to level up the protections afforded to people under the law when it comes to hate crime. My concerns are slightly different from some that have been expressed so far in the paused debate: that this amendment as drafted in fact treats some groups of people differently from others and leaves a bit of levelling up still to do.
In part, that is because of the slightly uneasy settlement that we have because of the Equality Act 2010, which, as a Bill, went through Parliament in wash-up. I think it is ripe for a bit of post-legislative scrutiny; it is often prayed in aid in all directions without people fully understanding it. It used to be a bugbear of mine in government when people came to me with a submission talking about people with protected characteristics. I would say, “But that’s everybody”—anyone with an age, a race or a sex has protected characteristics. There is no such person as a person with no protected characteristics. But the way the Equality Act 2010 describes and applies them is not wholly equal, and when it comes to this area of the law, that causes some problems.
We all have a sexual orientation. Section 12 of the Equality Act defines that for us. We may choose different terms ourselves, but it tells us that we are attracted to “the opposite sex”, “the same sex” or members “of either sex”. Accordingly, that is reflected in the amendments that the Government have brought forward vis-à-vis hate crime and hostility on the basis of sexual orientation.
We all have a race or a religion. Again, the descriptions in proposed new subsection (6) talk about
“references to a racial group”,
which could apply to Black people, white people, Asian people, Welsh people—everybody is covered by that provision. In proposed new subsection (6)(b), the
“references to a religious group”
talk explicitly of a “lack of religious belief”. It does not matter whether you are an adherent to a certain religion, you are covered by that. The difficulty in this area comes when we start to apply it to disability or to people’s gender reassignment status, and that is where we start to see the problem in the descriptions in the government amendment. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) talks about
“hostility towards persons who have a disability or … hostility towards persons who are transgender”.
Does that mean that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are, for instance, deaf, could be treated as an aggravated offence, but that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they were a hearing person could not be? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is the case and whether that is really what the Government are seeking to achieve here.
Similarly, when proposed new subsection 3(b)(v) specifies
“hostility towards persons who are transgender”,
and we have seen many horrible examples of crimes that are aggravated on that basis, does that mean that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are transgender, or presumed to be so, could be treated as aggravated, but an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are cisgender—that they are not transgender—could not be? Again, it would be useful to have the clarification.
I am aware that both of those examples are less numerous and, arguably, far less likely to occur, but they are not implausible, and they should not be neglected by laws that we pass in the name of equality. I know this is a difficult area of the law when it comes to drafting—I think that lies behind some of the delay that the Government have had in bringing forward this amendment—but surely it would be possible to avoid these lacunae by stating, for instance, “a disability or lack of disability” or “a person who is transgender or who is not”. Surely that would allow this to be applied in other ways.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Can he give a practical example of when there has ever been a relevant criminal offence committed against a person because they are not deaf?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot—not as a lawyer; I cannot refer to case law on this—but I would not rely on past example alone. If we are passing laws that seek to apply equality, we should seek to apply it on the basis of somebody’s disability status, whether they are disabled or not. It is not implausible—though I accept it is far less likely and far less numerous in past occurrence—for that to be the case. In some of the other areas in the heated debates that we see, it is not as implausible as many of us would like to assume. If it is possible to tighten this up in the drafting, I think it would do the job the Government are seeking to do in a complete way.
That would not prevent the Government fulfilling their manifesto commitment for delivering protections to trans people and disabled people; it would simply ensure that everybody was treated in this area of the law on the basis of protected characteristics in the same way. At the moment, there are greater protections for everybody of every conceivable sexual orientation and people of either sex, but there are not on each of the areas set out in the Equality Act. More pertinently, it would avoid fuelling what is already a very unhelpful public discourse about two-tier policing and laws, or some of the more charged debates that we have in the darker corners of the internet or from the more far-fetched foreign critics who have been mentioned previously.
On Amendment 336 from my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, while it is understandable that they are probing this area, I do not think that their amendment is warranted. It probes the question of whether protections for transgender people should apply to people who are “proposing to undergo” a process of gender reassignment. In fact, Section 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which has been the law of the land for 22 years, requires somebody applying for a gender recognition certificate to undergo that process to have
“lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years”
preceding their application. Signalling an intention to propose to go through that process is an important part of the law as it stands, and therefore Amendment 336 is not needed.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for raising the issue about someone who was not deaf. Unfortunately, he has forgotten that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 set out exactly why people with disabilities were disadvantaged in society—and, frankly, still are. That is why some people—whether we are talking about someone who is deaf, someone who is in a wheelchair, someone without sight or someone with severe autism—need some support to have equality. That is not what these amendments seek to do. What these amendments seek to do is to say that someone who is disabled should now be included with other people as someone who can be targeted simply because of their disability. I want to give two brief illustrations to explain why it is important.
Two years ago, a man launched a racist tirade at passengers on a packed London train. He started shouting extreme racist abuse at a woman in her 70s, using language that I could not possibly repeat in your Lordships’ House. When passengers tried to intervene and support this elderly lady, they were then shouted at and attacked and became scared. Indeed, one person left the train. The police were able to use aggravated charges because the words he used to describe her were clearly racist. She was chosen because of the colour of her skin. It was not because she was just sitting there.
Contrast that with last autumn when comedian Rosie Jones was attacked on a train from Brighton to London Victoria. She was hit with a wine bottle—luckily, it was only plastic; she said that only a comedian could do that. She was hit only because of her cerebral palsy and probably, she thinks, because she is well known to be LGBT. At the moment, those people could not be considered for an aggravated sentence—and that is what these amendments seek to do. That is the point. Therefore, I have no problem whatever in saying that we should support these amendments.
I have reported in your Lordships’ House before that people have said to me on a train, when I have been commuting in the rush hour, “Why are you taking up space? People like you don’t work”. That is not an aggravated offence. But when someone tried to kick me on a platform because they felt I should not be there because I was in a wheelchair and in her way, that would have been an aggravated offence if they had caught her.
I am really struggling with all these debates going on at the moment. Yesterday, the leader of the Conservative Party made a big announcement about getting rid of equalities, and everyone is talking about identifiers. I do not have an identifier; I am disabled—and sometimes people take it out on me. I can live with most of it, but sometimes it goes beyond the right place. Frankly, members of our judicial system should be able to make up their minds about whether it is an aggravated offence. That is the subject of the amendments we are debating today.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. That she spoke as powerfully as she did—and I hope to echo some of her words—draws attention to the fact that so few of us in this House have a severe disability and therefore look at these issues from first-hand experience.
I was not intending to speak on these amendments—Amendment 334 in particular—and I obviously let my Chief Whip know, but I have listened very carefully to the debate and, as I say, I come at this from a purely personal experience. The noble Baroness mentioned the Disability Discrimination Act, which, of course, your Lordships’ House passed about 30 years ago. It was so exciting, because it was meant to herald a new dawn of non-discrimination and equality. Thirty years later, discrimination on grounds of disability is rife—and I know that because I experience it several times a day, day in and day out. It may be low-level abuse—smirks, nudging as I go past, laughter—but the effect it has on a person’s self-esteem and morale, when they are having to cope with so many other challenges in life, cannot really be described. It has to be felt to be believed.
I simply say to the House that this is a new development. I referred to the Disability Discrimination Act coming in 30 years ago this year. I was on the National Disability Council, advising the Government on its implementation, so we were developing codes of practice 30 years ago, almost to the day. I would say that the law is inadequate and needs this amendment. It needs to be updated for this simple reason: the message needs to go out from your Lordships’ House that the sort of behaviour the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has described, and the case studies she has shared with the House, are completely unacceptable. I do not believe a single member of your Lordships’ House would disagree with that. They are completely unacceptable. This amendment sends that message. Notwithstanding my personal support for the wonderful work that the Free Speech Union and my noble friend Lord Young of Acton do, I support this amendment.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister for the introduction of this amendment. It is a vast improvement on the amendment laid in the other place. We discussed it at Second Reading and in Committee, and it is great to see it on Report.
However much we might like to reconsider the wording of the Gender Recognition Act, the way in which we consider hate crime, and the Equality Act, that is not what this amendment does. We can talk about the GRA, we can talk about hate crime and we can talk about the Equality Act, but that is not what this is about. This is about extending to disability and LGBT people and sex aggravated offences that already exist for race and religion and belief. That was a recommendation made by the Law Commission in 2021, which feels like a different country was indeed only five years ago.
What aggravated offences do that is different from increased sentencing is very specific. First, it leads to stronger sentences and a higher maximum penalty. However, in order to do that, hostility must be proven as part of the offence itself and not just considered at sentencing, so you need significantly stronger evidence than you currently do. For those who are concerned about the lacklustre way in which people are accused of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, that will have to be put through a much more rigorous process to be tested before this kicks in. You also get a longer time to report because it is considered in the Crown Court, which gives victims more time to report and gives the police more time to investigate. Therefore, again, there is a much stronger need for substantive evidence before those cases can be considered and people can be found guilty. It is changing in the sentencing, but the nature in which that investigation takes place will be much more rigorous than the current provision that is made on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. That increased sentencing was introduced circa 2020—forgive me, but I do not know exactly when—as an easier way of kind of levelling up the law, because this was too tricky to do then. This is now about just levelling up.
The world feels more hostile. This amendment demonstrates that the Government, and indeed this House, take that very seriously. It incentivises people to provide better evidence of crime. A tweet misgendering would, I think, not likely pass muster, but misgendering while you kick someone’s head in possibly might be an aggravating factor in sentencing, and that feels quite reasonable.
I would say that being counted matters—these crimes being counted matters. I said at Second Reading and in Committee that, when the hate crime law did not exist for people like me, I presumed that the crimes I was experiencing were an okay thing to experience. When Governments from both sides—I say that as a loving Cross-Bencher of all of you—have introduced legislation that protects me, that makes me feel more like I belong in this country. This amendment therefore signals that, as a member of the lesbian, gay, bi and trans community in this country, I am protected from hate crime and that will be taken seriously. I can report it and the police will do their job to find substantive evidence if it exists. If it does not exist, they should send me on my way. This does not give us an opportunity to unpick that, but I absolutely welcome this amendment.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I chair the College of Policing, but I am not speaking in that capacity, nor have I spoken to policing colleagues about this matter.
I want to make a couple of observations about the debate that we have had. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, whose comments I agreed with entirely. The issue that she was seeking to draw attention to was in response to the argument that we have heard that there is no need for the provisions that the Government have set out because the courts can apply a sentencing uplift already for crimes involving hostility to gay or disabled people. Yes, they can, but for the reasons the noble Baroness explained, we are talking about a separate architecture of aggravated offences, which are stand-alone criminal charges, and which are therefore investigated as such from the outset and recorded separately. That sends a much more potent signal about the seriousness of these crimes. These aggravated offences also extend the statutory time limit for cases to be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which the regime of mere sentencing uplift does not. That potentially provides additional protection for victims.
I have a concern with the arguments that are being advanced about the Government’s proposal. If, for instance, the issue is that police time will be wasted by this change in the law and that it is the wrong use of resources, that is an argument for the existing aggravated offences to be swept away. The principled argument to take, and one that would be advanced by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who is nodding vigorously, would be to say that if aggravated offences are wrong, a waste of time and do not matter—I think they matter a great deal for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, set out—then we should sweep them away for offences in relation to religious hatred or racial hatred, because those also are protected characteristics under the Equality Act and this architecture is worthless because it corrodes free speech, and so on.
Make that argument if that is what you believe. However, the reverse argument was put by the Law Commission. Extending this protection for some offences to some groups but not others—to groups that are already recognised as being worthy of protection by the criminal law because of their vulnerability, because they are minority groups—creates a “significant disparity” and causes significant injustice and confusion. A Law Commission report, hundreds of pages long, examined these issues in depth and concluded that there should be an extension.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
That is the second or third time that the 2021 report of the Law Commission of England and Wales has been referred to in this debate. To clarify, that report clearly and strongly recommended not including sex as a protected, aggravated characteristic in the charging or sentencing regime. It set out some extremely good reasons for why sex should not be included from a clearly feminist point of view. By all means, cite the Law Commission’s recommendations to support the inclusion of the other three aggravators that the Government want to add to the charging regime, but it was explicitly not recommended that sex be added as an aggravator.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
But my argument was against the proposal that these offences in their entirety should be rejected by this House—that the Government’s proposal in its entirety should be rejected by this House. I was not engaging with my noble friend’s argument. I have some sympathy with his point, and in particular that merely misgendering someone should not become a criminal offence. It might be a thoroughly unpleasant thing to do but whether it should be an aggravated offence is worthy of discussion. My concern is that we may be getting ourselves into the position of opposing an amendment that makes an aggravated offence in relation to disabled people, as well as to LGBT people, and we reject that and yet we do not for the other offences.
There is also a danger of attempting to trivialise this matter and a confusion with the debate on non-crime hate incidents. We will come to that. I have taken the strong position that we need a much higher bar in relation to those incidents and that the whole regime needs sweeping away. We will come to that. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about potentially very serious criminal offences. We are talking about GBH and criminal damage, and are saying that where those offences are motivated by hostility against a group, it does not make sense that the offence can be aggravated in relation to racial or religious hostility but not in relation to disabled people or to LGBT people.
That is the argument. We are not talking about whether people should be able to say disagreeable things on Twitter. This is not the moment for that debate. We are talking about serious offences and whether they should be aggravated, which would result in a more serious penalty and would send a signal to wider society.
There has been a quite concerning increase in hate crimes in relation to LGBT people, particularly transgender people. I have taken for some time a position, which finds me out of step with most of the groups in the LGBT lobby, that there is a very legitimate discussion to have about how women’s rights are affected by transgender rights and that there needs to be a recalibration of the law and the movement’s positions on this. I happen to take that position. However, I know that the way in which this debate is being conducted outside of this Chamber is resulting in an increase in hate against transgender people. That is deeply concerning. It is vilifying people because of ideological positions that are being taken. It is particularly wrong when people in positions of responsibility start using this debate for political purposes.
I have great concern about the climate in which this debate is being—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to clarify or come back on a couple of things.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
It is not allowed on Report. You are allowed to ask a question.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I will ask a question then. I understand that the noble Lord says that this has been trivialised into just Twitter or non-crime hate incidents. However, hate crime law very often involves speech. Therefore, it is not just a question of GBH and so on. Also, one of the reasons why it has not been possible to make a principled objection to the whole shebang, which I am opposed to, is because of how the amendments have been laid out. It has been quite difficult to break them down in the way that is suggested. Would the noble Lord therefore accept that, for those of us who are worried, it should not have been handled in this way and that the way in which the amendment arrived here does not facilitate the best scrutiny that, as he has indicated, we should give?
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s intervention. This issue merits further and deeper discussion, which is a matter for the Government to address. Yes, of course, the whole principle of aggravated offences and hate crime is that it may involve an infringement upon free speech. The judgment that we must make is whether it is legitimate that it does because of the seriousness of the offences. As I have said, it is very important that we do not allow the criminal law and the police to intrude into the trivial.
The point that I was making is that there is a danger of giving the impression that this is only about disagreeable things that are said on Twitter. It is not. We are talking about offences at the more serious end of the spectrum as well: offences which, when committed against people simply because of their characteristics, because they happen to be members of a particular group, make them more serious. We should be sending that signal to society and protecting the victims. If we do not take that position, and if we think that the whole regime of aggravated offences is wrong, let us take an honest position and say that we will not have them for racial offences or religious offences either. That is not the position, as I understand it, of our Front Bench, which is why I cannot support noble Lords in opposing the Government’s amendment.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, those of your Lordships who were in Committee will recollect that, as my noble friend Lord Herbert suggested, I tabled an amendment seeking to remove all aggravating hate crimes.
One of the points that I thought that I made quite well was to show the utter incoherence of aggravators at the time. One law had a few protected characteristics, another had others, some had lots, some had a few. I thought that I had made a point there. It is as if the Minister has said, “Hold my beer; okay, if you feel that it is incoherent, we’ll just put all the protected characteristics into as many laws as we can and we will make it more rational”. I agree that that is the effect of this amendment. Like my noble friend, I am against all aggravator laws. I do not propose to make the earlier speech but I will rehearse very quickly some of the major points.
It is quite a difficult stance to make. The Minister was extremely eloquent in saying why he felt that this amendment should pass and received a huge amount of support from the Benches behind him. It is a difficult argument to make but I will explain why I think that this amendment is bad and why aggravation of hate crimes is poor.
I am going to make four points. First, they are clogging up the courts. All state resources are limited. Choices have to be made. If you put aggravation of a crime as an additional reason for prosecuting that crime, the police will be far more reluctant not to prosecute. You will not get the old-fashioned bobbying. We are not talking about trivial crimes. We are talking about serious crimes, and those can already be prosecuted.
In the old days, a policeman could say, “Come on, chaps, break it up. Don’t do that”. But if someone had said, “You Black bastard”, or whatever—I hate to even say that phrase—the police would find it very difficult not to prosecute. It increases the time of the courts. But in fact, there is a better way than criminalising this, which is just to let society work it out.
My noble friend said that transgender crime was on the increase. I have just looked it up on the AI, and apparently it is not. We know that hate crime against gays and lesbians has massively declined as society has come to accept that it is a perfectly natural thing and that it is something to just ignore or accept, but it is not something to criminalise.
My second point is that this—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He keeps talking about hate crimes, but this is not about hate crimes. This is about offences already on the books in which a judiciary is asked to look at whether it has been aggravated because of the individual’s characteristics. It is not about hate crimes.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I was just about to get on to that in my second point, which is that the whole idea of an aggravated crime increasingly weaponises and politicises the concept of hate.
In the previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very affecting comments. I was able to talk with her about the incident that she also mentioned this evening outside the Chamber. Over the years, my very long-standing and noble friend Lord Shinkwin has told me some very harrowing things that have happened to him. The disabled protected characteristic having an aggravated crime is possibly the most difficult of these to speak against.
But whatever that protected class is, it is exactly the point that the noble Baroness was making. This is an aggravator to a crime that exists. If the crime is committed, it does not matter why it was committed; it can still be prosecuted. If it cannot be prosecuted, you cannot prosecute the aggravated aspect of it either. Weaponising hate and making it into a thing ignores the fact that these are merely aggravator laws. They are not laws that in and of themselves create a crime; they merely aggravate an existing crime. That has received very little attention in the debate this evening.
Thirdly, it further creates and promotes the concept of society as identity groups. I have the view that we are all human beings and the way to have a coherent and well working society is for us all to work together, whereas with aggravated crimes, people with one or another protected characteristic are encouraged to say, “I’ve been discriminated against. They are the things against me. These people are hateful”, instead of saying, “Let’s all join together and just stop crime”.
I would like to lean on two actors who I very much respect and think of as very thoughtful people: Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. They have both been quoted on numerous occasions as saying, “How do you stop hate crime? How do you stop racial hatred? The answer is you stop talking about it”. If they believe that, and I happen to agree with them, what is it about what they say that noble Lords disagree with?
My final point is on this idea of looking into people’s minds. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about a case where the difference between committing a bad crime and committing it because you dislike the gender or whatever it was of the individual was a wrap on the knuckles or going to jail for six weeks. How do you know exactly what was in that person’s mind? Was it just an off-the-cuff remark, or was it some deep hatred that deserved society’s censure? You do not know. Queen Elizabeth I said, “I do not want to look into men’s souls”. It has been a fundamental part of British jurisprudence since the 17th century—I do not know why the noble Baroness thinks that is funny; it is fundamental to the way we conduct our society.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Will he accept that there is no question of a court looking into someone’s soul? The aggravation has to be proved. It has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by what the person has said, or what they have done, and the circumstances of the case. That is a matter for the judge.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
The noble Lord evinces the certainty that comes from a lifetime in the courts. Those of us who sit outside those courts are maybe a little less certain of the courts’ ability to reach such a fine state of discernment.
I will wrap up; it is getting late.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
At least I had this debate in Committee, my Lords, which the Government failed to do with this amendment, so I should have the right to reply to it. The amendment goes beyond what is valuable and on to what is political and dysfunctional. I urge the House not to support it.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, because the one thing I agree on with the previous speaker is that it is late. I was not going to speak, but the amendment directly affects me. It affects the kind of country I want to remain living in. I have to say to your Lordships that I wake up most mornings wondering why our country has become so mean and why hate is so promoted and why hate crime is rising. I speak because I am a member of the LGBT community. I have had bricks through my window in the past. Sadly, if it were done now, it would be properly prosecuted.
A civilised society has nothing to fear from the way it protects minorities, particularly vulnerable, dehumanised and misrepresented minorities. Indeed, I would argue, looking at past legislation that has made my life better in so many ways, that the way we treat minorities is the litmus test of any decent, civilised country. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to get into the Content Lobby behind the Government and support this vital and necessary government amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on this group. It is a very large group with a number of significant amendments.
As a preliminary, my Amendments 346 and 348, and government Amendment 347, are about an issue relating to emergency workers which we on these Benches have been highly critical of throughout proceedings on the Bill in relation to trying to leave out the clauses that create new criminal offences relating to abuse towards emergency workers. We have stated our opposition to those in Committee, and I do not seek to repeat those points today.
My main concern today is government Amendment 334 and its consequentials. The broad thrust of my argument is around, first, the lateness with which the amendment has appeared, and secondly, the overlap with the sentencing regime.
We are very disappointed that the Government have brought forward such a significant amendment at this late stage in the Bill’s proceedings. We have not had the ability to discuss it in Committee, and the Government are now asking us to accept an amendment for the first time which has not been adequately scrutinised. We have had several general debates about some of the issues raised, but tonight we have had a two-hour debate where lots of different points and arguments have been made, and we now have to decide not only whether the intent behind the amendment is sound but whether the Government’s drafting of it is workable. That is a tall order, given that this is our first—and if the Government have their way, our last—debate on the amendment. In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is absolutely right.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her kind comments at the beginning—if I blush, that is the reason why. I appreciate them.
I hope that this debate will be undertaken in a way that respects different views, but there is a significant difference of opinion between noble Lords who support this amendment and those who do not. That is fair, proper and right. This House and the House of Commons are places to debate those issues, and I will try to do so in as friendly and constructive a way as possible while sticking to my firm principles that the Government’s amendment is the right thing to do.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Cashman; the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Herbert of South Downs, Lord Paddick and Lord Pannick; from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green. I think that that spread of opinion from the Cross Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Government Benches and, indeed, the Conservative Benches shows that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, has argued again today. He did so in Committee. I accept his view as his view. He wanted, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, to row back on all aggravated factors in his amendment. He accepts that. I have no argument about his right to do so, but I do about my position on where I accept it. There is a real debate between us.
I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and other noble Lords who have raised this issue that this amendment is not about non-crime hate incidents or offensive tweets; it is about serious offences such as actual bodily harm, public order offences, harassment, stalking and criminal damage where a prison sentence would be given by a judge on conviction. If the judge, having heard the evidence of the prosecution and witnesses in that trial, believes that the harassment, stalking or actual bodily harm was generated not just by two people meeting in a pub and having a fight but by somebody turning up in that pub, having a fight and suffering actual bodily harm because the individual was a different colour, race, religion or sex—or because they dressed in a transgender way, because that is what they chose and that is the way they live their life—that is something that, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put his finger on, a judge should take into account when giving a sentence of up to the maximum potential sentence under the law.
That is because the law will say that it was not just an argument or stalking offence or harassment because of a general factor; it will say that the principal direction of that harassment, stalking or grievous bodily harm was because of a transgender characteristic, disability characteristic, racial characteristic or misogyny. I draw a line in the sand on this and say that this House, the Government and Parliament should stand up for those people who face that kind of activity. That is a reasonable position to take.
The amendments strengthen support and protection for victims. No one will go down for a tweet or a non-crime hate incident under this; they will go down because they committed a serious offence, and they will get an aggravated sentence because they did it for a reason that this society should not tolerate.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am asking a question; is that allowed on Report? I want just to clarify: when the Minister says a tweet versus a serious offence such as a public order offence or harassment, will he accept that that can be a speech crime? I have never mentioned tweets. It is serious if you get sent to prison for a speech crime. That is why there is concern about speech.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are going to have a whole debate at some point in the next couple of weeks on non-crime hate incidents involving the type of issues that we are debating. I am putting the case for the Government. That is my view, it is what we are saying, and I have had support from people who have been political opponents in the past, people who I share political views with, opposition parties and Cross-Benchers. That is a reasonable coalition that has said that this is the right thing to do.
Genuine points have been raised about the tabling of this amendment at this late stage on Report. I say three things in response to that. First, this is a manifesto commitment. Secondly, the Law Commission report in 2022 developed this. It is a complex area of criminal law and has been a long time in gestation. Had we been able to draft an amendment that met the objectives we set then I would have tabled it in Committee, but we have drafted and tabled it now after a long period of gestation.
I also say to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rooker, that it was announced at Second Reading in the House of Commons that we would bring this amendment forward. In Committee in the House of Commons, an amendment was tabled from the Back Benches by Rachel Taylor, MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to meet the Labour Government’s manifesto commitment. The House of Commons debated that amendment and the Government said they accepted it in principle but needed to look at it in the context of the Law Commission and its drafting. After a full debate in the Commons, we accepted the amendment and have brought it back.
At Second Reading in this House, I took great pride in saying that we would bring the amendment back. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, he tabled an amendment in Committee that would sweep away every aspect of race and other protected characteristics. That is his view. In my argument against that view during the discussion we had in Committee, I said to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that I would table an amendment on Report and that we would debate it. We have had two and a quarter hours on this debate so far today. We may have a Division on it, on which I hope to get support from other colleagues. But I say to all noble Lords that this is an important issue.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would, in essence, water down that proposal. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, would water down that proposal. The amendments seeking to strike out the offences in Clauses 122 and 124 of threatening emergency workers would mean that individuals could abuse emergency workers on a racial basis. That is simply not acceptable to me, the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrats, Members of the Conservative Back Benches and the Cross Benches. It might be a legitimate view, and I will not deride that view, but is not one I will ever share. I say to my noble friends: join me in that Lobby—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti reminds me that I have been in this House for just under two years now and have voted only once in the Lobby on that side of the Chamber.
Tonight, I ask my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join me to vote for this amendment, because it does what the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, said: it says to people who have protected characteristics, “Society is on your side”, and if you are picked out because of that characteristic, we will make sure that the people who pick you out pay a penalty for that if the judge in that trial determines that, having had a guilty verdict, your motivation was one that attacked protected characteristics. If it is good enough for people who are Jewish, Muslim or Black, it should be good enough for trans, disabled and other people. That is why I take great pleasure in asking my noble friends to join me in this Lobby any moment now to vote for this amendment. I hope that all noble Lords who support the principle will do so.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and, on the basis that I have understood him correctly that none of these amendments or the Government’s intention of commencing the new Clause 4B of the Public Order Act is intended to encourage the police to investigate misgendering on social media—I can see the Minister is nodding—I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Levitt
“Domestic abuse protection orders(1) The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is amended as follows.(2) In section 35 (provision that may be made by orders), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) A domestic abuse protection order may require P to participate in an assessment to determine whether P should be required to participate in a programme of activities.(5B) A domestic abuse protection order may provide that if, following an assessment required under subsection (5A), the person carrying out the assessment determines that P should participate in a programme of activities, then P is required to participate in that programme of activities.”.(3) In section 36 (further provision about requirements that may be imposed by orders), omit subsections (2) to (7).(4) In section 44 (variation and discharge of orders), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A magistrates’ court may of its own motion vary a domestic abuse protection order made by a magistrates’ court acting in the local justice area in which that court acts.(3B) The Crown Court may of its own motion vary a domestic abuse protection order made by the Crown Court.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause adds participation in an assessment and programme of activities as examples of requirements that a domestic abuse protection order may include, and allows the criminal courts to vary domestic abuse protection orders of their own motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 338 responds directly to what we have learnt from the domestic abuse protection order—DAPO—pilot, which is currently rolled out across Greater Manchester, Cleveland, North Wales and the London boroughs of Croydon, Bromley and Sutton.
We know that positive requirements such as behaviour change or substance misuse interventions are vital tools in tackling perpetrator behaviour, but the current legislation makes it extremely difficult for criminal courts to impose these requirements quickly, particularly in police-led cases where hearings must take place within 48 hours of a domestic abuse protection notice being issued. The changes we are bringing forward will remove those barriers and ensure that victims receive stronger, enforceable protection at the very first hearing.
The change will allow criminal courts to require a perpetrator to attend a suitability assessment as part of the original order, and if the assessment shows that a programme is appropriate, that requirement will apply automatically without the need for further hearings. These amendments are not needed in the civil and family courts as those jurisdictions already impose an assessment requirement as part of a DAPO. We are also removing the need to identify and name a programme provider up front for all courts—one of the key issues raised by operational partners in the piloting areas. Instead, we will set out the role of the responsible person in statutory guidance to ensure flexibility for local delivery.
Finally, we are also closing a gap in the legislation by giving criminal courts the power to vary a DAPO of their own motion, bringing them into line with the civil and family courts. Together, these changes will streamline the process of imposing a positive requirement condition in a DAPO, reduce unnecessary adjournments and ensure that victims of domestic abuse benefit from quicker, more consistent and more effective protection across all court jurisdictions. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister and from these Benches we support the changes set out in her Amendment 338. My Amendment 361A says that if
“there is reasonable suspicion that a death by suicide has been preceded by a history of domestic abuse committed against the person by another person, the relevant police force must investigate that suicide as if it were a potential homicide”.
My honourable friend Marie Goldman MP has talked with a number of domestic abuse campaigners who have become increasingly concerned that police and CPS procedural policy should include this presumption, because sometimes it is missed. Pragna Patel from Project Resist launched a Suicide is Homicide campaign last year, and the group Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse has been calling for this for many, many years. Frank Mullane, its chief executive, said to the Guardian that doing this would guard against evidence being destroyed or lost,
“for example where police have returned the victims’ phones and laptops”,
after an assumption of suicide has been made, thus losing key evidence that might be needed at a later date.
On Monday, the Scottish courts convicted a man of killing his wife after she took her own life. There was a history of domestic abuse right from when they first got together, which included his choking her. There was considerable evidence that he had continued to coerce and pressure her, which eventually forced her, very regrettably, to take her own life. This news from Scotland is good, and I am very grateful for the discussions with the Minister, but I hope she will look favourably on this and reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will consider putting it into practice.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to thank the Government for Amendment 338. I know the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and her team are extremely grateful that they have been listened to—this is something they have wanted for some time—so I would just like to say a big thank you for that. On Amendment 361A from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I understand the reasons for it, and I hope the Minister will be able to give an encouraging response. As far as Amendment 409C is concerned, I cannot see the Government accepting that. The reasoning behind it is right, but I cannot see it being practical or effective.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their amendments in this group. I do, however, have some concerns about the Government’s Amendment 338. We on these Benches believe that domestic abuse protection orders are a very important civil tool; indeed, they were introduced under the previous Conservative Administration. However, they are not, and should never become, a substitute for proper criminal justice consequences. Amendment 338 will expand orders to include mandatory participation in assessments and activity programmes. With respect, I do not believe that the answer to domestic abuse lies in programme participation; it lies in firm sentencing and, where appropriate, immediate custody.
I raise these concerns in the wider context of the Government’s sentencing policy. During the passage of the Sentencing Bill, this House divided at Report on a Conservative amendment that sought to exempt domestic abuse offences from the new rebuttable presumption against short custodial sentences of 12 months or less. Noble Lords on these Benches, in particular my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, argued that domestic abusers should not benefit from an assumption in favour of suspension. When the issue was pressed to a vote, the Government resisted that exemption.
Noble Lords are therefore now faced with an uncomfortable contradiction. The Minister will no doubt say the Government are determined to be tough on violence against women and girls; yet, when given the opportunity to ensure that domestic abusers would not fall within an automatic presumption against immediate custody, they declined. Against that backdrop, it is difficult to accept that expanding programme requirements within civil protection orders represents a meaningful, tough stance against domestic abuse. Real deterrence requires certainty of punishment.
Turning briefly to Amendment 361A, I have sympathy with its intention. Where suicide may have followed a history of domestic abuse, investigation must be rigorous and sensitive. However, requiring all such cases to be investigated as if they were homicides raises practical and legal concerns. Police investigations must follow clear evidential thresholds, and homicide procedures carry significant procedural and resource implications. A rigid statutory instruction risks unintended consequences and may not in practice deliver better outcomes. It is for officers and detectives who arrive at the scene of a crime to determine, on the basis of the available evidence, how to investigate that death. Prescribing in law how to advance an investigation in specific circumstances is not an appropriate course of action.
In conclusion, I am not persuaded that expanding the scope of domestic abuse protection orders is a legislative solution to the problems women and girls face daily. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I genuinely thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, who is not in her place, for Amendment 361A. As I find is so often the case with the noble Baronesses, there is very little between us on the principles involved. The Government agree that it is vital that police officers understand the link between domestic abuse and suicide; the only issue is how it is most effectively to be achieved.
There are three reasons that the Government cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment. The first is that this is about the effective enforcement of police standards and, in our view, primary legislation is not the right place for this to sit. The second is a concern that it would not work, because there are no consequences contained within the amendment for not doing what the amendment requires one to do. If police forces are not inclined to do it anyway then an amendment that does not have any consequences is unlikely to make a difference.
The third and real reason is that, as we say, we are already on it. I will explain why we say that. The Government are already taking steps to improve police responses to suicides, including for cases where victims have taken their own life following domestic abuse. First, last year, the College of Policing published new national guidance for officers which highlights the importance of considering any history of domestic abuse and applying “professional curiosity” at the scene of these deaths. Secondly, the Home Office is working with the police to monitor the implementation of this new guidance, and has since commissioned five deep dives with select police forces to examine how the police are responding to suicides and unexplained deaths that follow domestic abuse. Thirdly, the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published in December 2025, sets out that the senior investigating officer training programme for police officers will, going forward, cover deaths that follow domestic abuse, including suicides.
Fourthly, the Government are continuing to build the evidence base on suicides that follow domestic abuse through funding research developed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s domestic homicide project in order to capture information on these deaths from all 43 police forces in England and Wales and identify how the response can be improved. Fifthly, the Home Office is working with the domestic homicide project to explore the possibility of expanding the project’s scope in future years to encompass all suicides that occur in the context of violence against women and girls. This will enable deeper analysis and a more comprehensive understanding of every suicide resulting from these forms of violence and abuse.
Lastly, in relation to the criminal law, the previous Lord Chancellor asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of homicide law, including the use of manslaughter offences where abuse may have driven someone to suicide. Its final report is scheduled for publication in 2028. I know that your Lordships have expressed concerns before about this particular review, but this is the Law Commission’s own time frame and it is a serious piece of work.
I completely understand and acknowledge the impact that these deaths have on families; it is absolutely devastating. Supporting them is central to the Government’s approach. That is why the Home Office funds the organisation Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse to provide specialist support to families bereaved by suicide following domestic abuse. The Government are clear that the police must respond effectively and comprehensively to suicides following domestic abuse, and the programme of work that we are already undertaking will ensure that they have the knowledge and the tools with which to do so. In the light of the Government’s ongoing work, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content not to press her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for supporting government Amendment 338 today. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we are not here to re-debate the Sentencing Act all over again. The point is that this is only one tool in the toolbox of domestic abuse protection orders, and many of the other tools are much more punitive in nature. We have to remember that some of these people will go on to have other relationships in the future, and we want them to stop doing this. We want to make sure that these things are effective. The use of DAPOs is being evaluated by an independent research organisation. With that in mind, this is an important change. I am grateful that it has been welcomed by your Lordships, and I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Guidance about honour-based abuse(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about honour-based abuse to such public authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2) Guidance under this section may include guidance about—(a) the prevention of honour-based abuse;(b) the identification of honour-based abuse;(c) the collection and sharing of information about honour-based abuse;(d) how public authorities should work together in relation to honour-based abuse.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) A public authority to which guidance under this section is given must have regard to the guidance when exercising its public functions.(5) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance.(6) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance.(7) Subsections (3) to (6) apply to any revised guidance, except that subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.(8) In this section “public authority” means a person exercising public functions, other than a court or tribunal.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confers a power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities about honour-based abuse.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee—and I am grateful for the comments made at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and others urged the Government to grasp the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deliver on the Government’s commitment to introduce statutory guidance to assist front-line practitioners in tackling honour-based abuse by supporting a statutory definition of such abuse. I am pleased to say that we agree that this is not an opportunity to be missed. The Government have tabled Amendments 339 and 340 in response to comments in Committee to deliver on the Government’s commitment.
Amendment 339 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on honour-based abuse. This guidance will sit alongside the statutory definition, operationalising it by clearly setting out expectations on prevention, identification, information sharing and multi-agency working across policing, health, education, social care and other safeguarding partners. Public authorities will be required to have regard to this guidance, meaning that professionals must factor it in to how they carry out their existing duties and safeguarding responsibilities.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for tabling their Amendments 339 and 340, and thank all noble Lords who supported this call in Committee.
These amendments respond to a campaign from Karma Nirvana and 60 other specialist violence against women and girls organisations, along with survivors and their families, calling on the Government to introduce the statutory definition of honour-based abuse. That campaign was established in memory of Fawziyah Javed, whose case demonstrates the tragic consequences of failing to identify honour-based abuse. Despite multiple calls for help, including two police visits just days before her murder, the abuse she endured was never recognised as honour-based abuse. Crucially, professionals failed to identify the multi-perpetrator nature of the abuse, which involved not only her partner but members of his family. Sadly, Fawziyah’s case is not isolated. Again and again, inquiries and serious case reviews show that, when honour-based abuse is not recognised early, victims are left unprotected, escalation is missed, and all those involved in abuse are not held to account.
The hope is that this definition, supported by clear guidance, will enable front-line professionals to identify, understand and respond to honour-based abuse before tragedies occur, and, crucially, to recognise all perpetrators involved. While this progress in the Bill is welcome, the Government’s chosen approach does not explicitly recognise the specific multi-perpetrator nature of honour-based abuse—an omission with real safeguarding consequences. The current wording risks being read as referring to only one additional perpetrator. Honour-based abuse, however, commonly involves multiple family or community members acting collectively, often across households and generations. Failing to reflect this reality in the Bill risks embedding the very misunderstanding that the definition seeks to correct.
My Amendment 340A would address this by making a simple and proportionate change to subsection (2) of the Government’s amendment. It would clarify that honour-based abuse can involve a person or persons, ensuring that statutory language reflects operational reality. It would align the law with the lived experience of victims, the expertise of specialist services and existing safeguarding practice. It is a modest change with major consequences for victim safety.
I am grateful for the engagement of Ministers and officials on this issue. I anticipate that the Minister may argue in response that this amendment is unnecessary because Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that
“words in the singular include the plural”—
I acknowledge that. However, this principle does not translate effectively in safeguarding practice. I appreciate that this issue will be made explicit in the guidance, and I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurances on that point, but we are concerned that legislation may be read literally, and that the harm of relying on “person” is therefore not theoretical. Focusing on a single actor risks professionals misunderstanding the collective nature of the threat and failing to safeguard against a wider group. That is precisely the gap that has led to missed risks and preventable deaths.
I very much hope that the Minister can accept my amendment or perhaps commit to coming back at Third Reading with the Government’s own version. If he cannot, please can he explain two things? First, what is the legal risk or harm of including the words “or persons”? The safeguarding risks of not including them are clear and substantial. Secondly, why have other areas of the criminal law, such as legislation on harassment, organised crime, gangs, affray and riot, been able to use explicit plural language, yet this Bill has not? In each of those contexts, Parliament has recognised the need for clarity where multiple actors are inherent to the offence. Honour-based abuse is no different; indeed, it is a textbook example of collective harm.
In closing, I am very grateful to the Government for taking this significant step forward. I pay tribute to the many survivors of honour-based abuse, and to the families of those who have been killed. Despite unimaginable trauma, they have fought for this definition so that others may be protected. They are following this debate closely, and their message is clear: honour-based abuse is collective abuse; if the law does not say this plainly, professionals may not act on it. I very much hope that the Minister recognises the strength of feeling, the weight of evidence and the safeguarding imperative, and accepts this small but vital amendment that will materially improve professional understanding and, most importantly, save lives.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, that it is not merely that, under the Interpretation Act, “person” includes “persons” unless the context requires otherwise—which I do not think it does here. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the object of his amendment is indeed to cover cases where there is more than one person. If the Minister can say that that is the Government’s objective, the courts will have regard to that if there is any ambiguity at all, which I do not think there is.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward these amendments. However, reading Amendment 340 as it is written, in the context of our treatment of Lord Mandelson in this House, I cannot see how we are not guilty of honour-based abuse. We are a community that considers that a person has dishonoured us; we have subjected them to economic abuse and greatly restricted their access to money and income. How does it not apply? How would it not apply to a part of a community deciding to ostracise people who have been involved with a grooming gang? There is nothing in this definition that exempts “abuse” directed at people who have done serious wrong.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I completely support my noble friend. I have worked in this area for over three decades and know the communities well. Sadly, unless it is very clear that those community members will be punished in the same way as the perpetrator—in many cases, there are many perpetrators —this will not be effective. Clarity needs to be put into legislation, so I wholeheartedly support my noble friend.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this has echoes of previous legislation that has passed through your Lordships’ House. In the three or four years before the Domestic Abuse Act became law, if you had asked people to define domestic abuse, I think you would have had a range of interpretations, many of which would be somewhat wide of the mark compared with what is in the Act and is now generally understood by courts and police forces across the country.
We had a similar journey to go through when we talked about the appalling incidents of non-fatal strangulation, which, again, was a very strange term for many people to hear at the beginning. It takes a while for people to understand the concept and for there to be clarity on what it does and does not mean. For those who have been involved directly with honour-based abuse, including the extraordinary work that Karma Nirvana has done, and those who have been in this field for years, it is completely clear what honour-based abuse is. However, for many people who have not had direct exposure to that, including the people who may be asked to help, intervene and make judgments in these cases, it would be extraordinarily helpful for the definition to be as clear to a non-legal layman, who is trying to help and give support, as it would be to an experienced legal brain.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, first, I want tribute to my noble friend Lady Sugg, who has brilliantly led this campaign. I also pay tribute to Payzee Mahmod, who I was fortunate to hear give evidence in the House on Monday on the whole issue of honour-based abuse. I would never dream of taking issue with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on any legal matter at all, but he talked about the issue of ambiguity and the courts deciding. Why not just get it sorted out now, so that there is no ambiguity? That is why I support my noble friend Lady Sugg in getting the words in now. From what I heard on Monday, it is clear that this would accurately reflect the multi-perpetrator dynamics of the issue. It would provide clarity to professionals and strengthen the safeguarding responses, and it would deliver on the Government’s commitment to a robust definition. Getting it right now would stop any ambiguity, so I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for leading on this, and for the excellent and clear speech that she just gave, as well as in the previous debate, which I read about in Hansard.
First, this is an example of a difficult area that people have steered clear of for many years, because they were frightened that, if they talked about it, they would be accused of racism. Secondly, it is not therefore understood, because it has not had public exposure in broader society. The fact that the Government have accepted these amendments will help raise the debate in a way that is not seen as in any way suspicious.
Whether it is clans, family structures or whatever, the multi-perpetrator point is well made, very important and not understood. My only reservation—I do not even know whether I have it—is that I have been very involved in, and concerned about, joint enterprise law, where not one perpetrator but a group of perpetrators was found guilty. That has led to a huge number of miscarriages of justice—there was recently a debate in the House on it. The danger of everyone in the vicinity being drawn in, and guilt by association in any way, makes me nervous. We must ensure that we are not criminalising people who are part of the family and maybe looked away, but who are not necessarily perpetrators. It would be very helpful if that could be cleared up. In general, however, the clearer that we in this House can explain the law, rather than waiting for the court to interpret us—that point was well made—the better.
Secondly, for those involved in the earlier debate on misogyny, women and so on, which was rather fractious, I regard this as heroic work in fighting crime against women and misogyny. Anyone involved in tabling these amendments and persuading the Government to adopt them deserves to be highly commended, because this is what lawmaking should be, rather than signalling one’s disapproval.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said in his introduction, as a result of the earlier amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, the Government have now brought forward much-needed statutory guidance, together with a clear statutory definition of this pervasive yet often overlooked form of abuse. Both are vital tools for front-line professionals. Without them, warning signs go unseen, cases slip through the cracks and victims remain dangerously exposed.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for her determined and tireless work on honour-based abuse. I know that the Government had intended to bring forward a statutory definition at some point, but it is purely down to her efforts during the passage of this Bill that we are discussing it today, and she fully deserves the commendation she has received this evening.
I will not repeat the points of my noble friend’s speech but simply reiterate that we plainly welcome the introduction of a statutory definition. I hope it will help in getting justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. I also offer my support to her amendment, which aims to provide legal clarity and remove ambiguity about the nature of honour-based abuse. It can take a wide array of forms, but a common trend among them is that it is often committed by families and community groups. My noble friend is, I think, simply seeking clarity on the Government’s new provisions so as to provide explicit confirmation of the position.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her Amendment 340A, which has had the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Verma, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I understand where she is coming from and I will try to explain where we are and how we can interpret her point.
On the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Lord Mandelson, formerly of this Chamber, I do not think that now is the appropriate time for me to comment on that—first because a number of potential legal cases are going on, and secondly because I do not conflate anything that will or will not face Lord Mandelson with the horrors that people have faced with honour-based abuse. The noble Lord has made his point, but I will not respond to it today.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I merely chose it as an example that we would all be aware of. It seems to me that the clause as drafted catches a lot of people who should not be caught by it. I will write to the noble Lord, if he will allow that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always happy to have letters—or, potentially, one of those newfangled things, an email—from Members of this House. If the noble Lord wishes to send something through, I shall happily examine it with my colleagues.
The contributions in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, rightly emphasise the need for clarity and to ensure a proper definition that covers situations where multiple people are involved in perpetrating abuse. I completely agree that the definition must reflect both the survivor experience and capture multiple perpetrator contexts. However, I put the caveat to her that we have to be careful that what appears a straightforward change to the wording does not create drafting ambiguity in itself or add complexity that would hinder practitioners. As I stated in my opening comments, as drafted this amendment covers a situation where there is more than one perpetrator. I am happy to put on the record that the Government will also make that clear in the Explanatory Notes and the statutory guidance, to be published in due course, so that front-line practitioners understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators. Again, I hope that that goes to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool.
I understand and recognise the noble Baroness’s point but, again, the Home Office wants fully to consider the impact of the amendment. However, I hope the statement I have given from the Dispatch Box—which, again, for ease of practice, is that front-line practitioners can understand without doubt that honour-based abuse can be carried out by multiple perpetrators—is clear. I hope that, with that commitment, these government amendments will ensure that we have a significant milestone in strengthening the Government’s response to honour-based abuse, but more importantly that the public authorities have the tools, guidance, understanding and clarity they need to ensure that we provide a better overall multi-agency, victim-centred response.
I thank the noble Baroness for her amendments. A number of noble Lords have referenced organisations outside Parliament that have campaigned long and hard. I pay tribute to them and share their objectives. I hope with those comments that the amendments that I have tabled can be moved—
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, and it is great to hear that the Home Office is considering how this might impact the legislation. However, I do not think I have heard exactly what harm this might do or why it is allowed in other legislation but not in this. I therefore wonder whether the noble Lord might consider bringing it back at Third Reading, if the Home Office is able to find a way to get the provision concerning multiple perpetrators into the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I always try to be as clear as I can from this Dispatch Box, when I can. I simply say to the noble Baroness that the Government would not want to table any amendments to the Bill at Third Reading. We want to try to ensure that the discussions we have had are complete and that Third Reading is a relatively straightforward procedure. So I cannot offer her that comfort, and I might as well tell her that now. But I am also saying, notwithstanding the points she has made, and in the light of the guidance we are going to produce, that I hope the interpretation I have given, which I think reflects the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is one she can accept. I shall move my amendments, but I also ask her in due course not to press hers.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Meaning of “honour-based abuse”(1) For the purposes of section (Guidance about honour-based abuse) “honour-based abuse” occurs where—(a) a person (“A”) engages in abusive behaviour towards another person (“B”) who is a member of A’s family or is a relevant connection of A, and(b) A is motivated wholly or partly by A’s perception that B has behaved, is behaving or may behave in a way which—(i) shames or dishonours A, B, A’s family, B’s family or A’s community, and(ii) does not comply with the accepted norms of behaviour in A’s community.(2) The reference to A engaging in abusive behaviour towards B includes A causing another person to engage in abusive behaviour towards B.(3) A person’s behaviour may be behaviour “towards” B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).(4) Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of—(a) physical or sexual abuse,(b) violent or threatening behaviour,(c) controlling or coercive behaviour,(d) economic abuse (see subsection (5)),(e) spiritual abuse,(f) psychological or emotional abuse, or(g) other abuse,and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.(5) “Economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to—(a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or(b) obtain goods or services.(6) A person is a member of another person’s family if any of the following applies—(a) they are relatives,(b) they are, or have been, married to each other,(c) they are, or have been, civil partners of each other,(d) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(e) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated),(f) they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with each other, or (g) they each have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child,(and references to a person’s family are to be read accordingly).(7) A person is a relevant connection of another person if they are friends or acquaintances who are known to each other in person.(8) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g) a person has a parental relationship in relation to a child if—(a) the person is a parent of the child, or(b) the person has parental responsibility for the child.(9) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;“civil partnership agreement” has the meaning given by section 73 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004;“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see section 3 of that Act);“relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause defines “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of my new clause (Guidance about honour based abuse), inserted after clause 121.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3) The conduct of a person (“D”) is hostile towards another person (“E”) if—(a) at the time of that conduct, or immediately before or after that time, D demonstrates towards E hostility based on—(i) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,(ii) E’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of E,(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of E,(v) E being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or(vi) the sex (or presumed sex) of E, or(b) D’s conduct is motivated (wholly or partly) by—(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation,(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender, or(vi) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the kinds of hostility relevant to an offence under clauses 122 and 123 to include hostility related to disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and sex.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(5) In subsection (3)—(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;(c) “membership”, in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;(f) “presumed” means presumed by D.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in my amendment to clause 124, page 169, line 20.
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—(a) A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person (“B”),(b) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards B that is controlling or coercive,(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will or may have a serious effect on B.(2) A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or(b) it causes B psychological harm which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) A “ought to know” that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know.(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for A to show that—(a) in engaging in the behaviour in question, A believed that he or she was acting in B’s best interests, and(b) the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable.(5) A is to be taken to have shown the facts mentioned in subsection (4) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the facts is adduced to raise an issue with respect to them, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(6) The defence in subsection (4) is not available to A in relation to behaviour that causes B to fear that violence will be used against B.(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour by providing psychotherapy or counselling services.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 358 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Doocey. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who co-signed an amendment in the same terms in Committee and spoke to it, is unfortunately unable to be here this evening but is fully behind the amendment, on which he has campaigned for many years. We bring this amendment back on Report because we regard it as very important that the predatory behaviour of quack psychotherapists and counsellors, at which this amendment is aimed, is criminalised as quickly as possible.
I stress that no one, at any stage since I and others started campaigning on this issue, has expressed the view that this abuse of clients by quack psychotherapists or counsellors is not wicked behaviour that ought to be outlawed by the criminal law. This amendment is aimed at those who claim to be psychotherapists or counsellors and effectively secure clients—I could say “ensnare clients”—and are then guilty of coercive or controlling behaviour towards them. These clients are usually young people—but not always, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will point out. They are, however, invariably extremely troubled. Typically, but again not always, the psychotherapists or counsellors then suborn their clients into believing that their parents or other family members have been guilty of abusive behaviour towards them, which, they assert, explains their present emotional and psychological difficulties.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment, which would have been avoided if we had been able to have proper regulation of psychotherapy professionals. The problem is that the voluntary registration through the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the UK Council for Psychotherapy or the National Counselling & Psychotherapy Society requires people to be appropriately trained and have ethical standards. But if there is a serious complaint against them and they are removed from there, they can still carry on seeing clients and practising in a completely unethical way. There is absolutely no recourse for people who are seriously harmed by whatever activities are undertaken.
There are times in people’s lives when they are particularly vulnerable. One of those is when they are bereaved. Some older people, when they are bereaved, may be in what you could call that pre-dementia phase of being particularly emotionally vulnerable. They may have people who recommend in good faith that they go to see somebody who has some counselling label up, but who then goes on to exploit them tremendously to create dependency, charge huge fees and make the person emotionally dependent on them, which results in coercive behaviour to carry on seeing this person and carry on handing over money. They may also, in the process, implant the idea that their family are being unsupportive and that the best thing they could do would be to cut off contact with their family.
I have seen this first hand, when a family, who were well-meaning and wanting to provide support, had the most awful acrimonious correspondence sent to them by the person who was being advised for their own good in their counselling to have no contact whatever with these family members, and the counselling service that this person was accessing drained many thousands of pounds from their personal account. The problem is that, at the moment, there is no recourse for the public. They can complain and try to take a legal process against the person, but they are very vulnerable people. This amendment would provide a route to having some control, if you like, over some of these quack practitioners who should not be out there, putting up nameplates and calling themselves counsellors.
It is worth remembering that, particularly in primary care, we have talking therapies that have very good outcomes, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, delivered by people who are properly trained, subject to ethical standards and have appropriate diplomas. They provide non-judgmental, confidential, professional assistance and guidance to help people find a solution to their problems. It has become popular in primary care and in the community, but the backlash against it is that an unsuspecting person and their friends may not realise, or have any way of knowing, that somebody who claims to be a counsellor is completely bogus.
In 2024, Alastair Campbell campaigned hard against this, and there was a very good article in the i newspaper about it—I do not think it is advertising for me to name the paper. I recall the discussions we had about trying to get the registration of professionals, so that those who are providing a valuable service can carry on doing so and are not tainted in the minds of the public by those who are completely bogus. This amendment seems to be essential to protect the public.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned the reservations which I expressed in Committee. I have thought further about this matter since Committee. Indeed, the purpose of the gap between Committee and Report is precisely so that all noble Lords—not only noble Lords on the Cross Benches and Back Benches but Ministers—can reflect on what was said in Committee.
I have looked in particular at the provision which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned, Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which creates an offence of:
“Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship”.
It uses, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said, the same concepts that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks to implement in the law in the present context. It seems to me that there is a very close analogy between that existing criminal offence and the present context, which is not in the same intimate or family relationship but in the relationship between the psychotherapist or counsellor and the patient.
For my part, I cannot see why the mischief—and it is a mischief—which the amendment seeks to identify should not be a criminal offence. Why should it be that persons who carry out conduct that is defined in this provision should not be subject to the criminal law? Regulation is important, but it is not the answer. The mischief defined in Amendment 358 should be a criminal offence. I have changed my mind.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for bringing his amendment back on Report, and commend him for his continued championing of this issue. Regrettably, these Benches cannot endorse his amendment. We acknowledge that there is plainly a gap in the current law that is causing an issue within the counselling and psychotherapy sector, but are less sure that the amendment as drafted would best serve victims and help them get redress.
As has just been said, the amendment would introduce an offence modelled on Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which itself introduced the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour by intimate relations or family members. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I understand the parallel with this, but I believe that they are fundamentally different in nature, with counselling and psychotherapy being a relationship with a client and a provider in a different setting.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for setting out his amendment on the issue of controlling or coercive behaviour by psychotherapists and counsellors. I fully understand the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in support of it. I am pleased in some ways—and in other ways I am not—that the noble Lord has managed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to back his cause. However, while I accept that there are concerns in this area, I am sort of with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this one.
The amendment seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients, mimicking a similar offence in the domestic abuse context. I understand the need for that, as explained by the noble Lord, and I fully recognise that those who seek psychotherapy and counselling services may be vulnerable. As the noble Lord knows, psychotherapists and counsellors are not statutorily regulated professions in the UK. However, there are other safeguards in place for the public to acquire such services with confidence.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt of King’s Heath said in Committee, this is a complex area where there is an overlap of roles and titles. It is difficult to differentiate between and reach agreement on defining what these specific roles are, be it psychotherapist, counsellor, therapist, well-being coach, talking therapist, mental health practitioner, lifestyle mentor, family coach or spiritual healer—the list could go on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, touched on, regulation is not always the answer. Quack and unscrupulous practitioners can, as has been described today and during previous debates, easily refer to themselves as something slightly different to avoid any proposed new offence, and regulation does not define the scope of practice.
In Committee, I heard the request for the noble Lord and supporters of the amendment to meet the relevant Minister at the Department of Health. I was pleased to facilitate that discussion, which I know took place on Monday—though there still appears to be a gap between the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my colleague Karin Smyth MP.
The amendment as it stands is intended to protect vulnerable people from rogue practitioners who call themselves psychotherapists or counsellors, but it does not include a legal definition of counselling or psychotherapy services. I respectfully submit that the amendment is not the right route to take, in the light of that issue.
As I and my honourable friend the Health Minister in the Commons have said, the Government are focused on managing the underlying risks. We are ready to work with sector partners to commission a formal assessment of the oversight of such therapies in order to understand current risks as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguards and whether they need to be strengthened to protect the public better. As I mentioned in Committee—I will repeat it again for the noble Lord—if the Government are satisfied that the conditions for the regulation of a profession are met then they can take action through secondary legislation under existing powers in the Health Act 1999 to make changes and to bring into effect criminal offences relating to a person’s registration with a professional regulator.
I openly and honestly say to the noble Lord that we cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that there is some comfort from both the meeting and the direction of travel that I have set out on behalf of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I am not content to withdraw my amendment.
First, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for highlighting how the opinions of the public may be affected, and the fact that the reputations of psychotherapy and counselling services, which are of value and honestly provided, may be tainted by the dishonest quacks who have absolutely no right to be practising—as a matter not just of regulation but of plain, honest practice—because they are there to take money from innocent clients. My view is that the definition of
“providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services”
is wide enough to catch those quacks.
Secondly, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for reconsidering the opinions he expressed in Committee. That is what the gap between Committee and Report is for—to give us all a chance to think—and I am grateful to him for his change of mind and his support for the amendment.
I simply did not understand the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. I understood the Minister’s objections when he talked about regulation, but he does not seem to have taken on board my point—which is central to all this—that regulation for the purposes of a new criminal offence is simply a red herring. What is important here is creating a criminal offence to catch dishonest people who are quacks, who are taking advantage of vulnerable people by coercive and controlling behaviour, and who ought to be punished for doing so. Others also ought to be deterred from doing so.
With some regret in view of the hour, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment; I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Assault of public-facing worker(1) A person who assaults a public-facing worker at work commits an offence under this section.(2) For the purposes of this section—“public-facing worker at work” means a person who is providing a service or facilitating a transaction to the public in a public building or space, on public transport, or in a commercial property which is accessible to the public to buy or receive such services;“worker” includes an unpaid employee.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or to a fine (or both).(4) In subsection (3) “the maximum term for summary offences” means—(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales) comes into force, six months;(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.(5) In section 40(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (power to join in indictment count for common assault etc) after paragraph (ac) insert—“(ad) an offence under section (Assault of a public-facing worker) of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of public-facing worker).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would expand the provisions of Clauses 38 and 39 (assault of a retail worker) to include all public-facing workers.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 359 and will also speak to Amendment 361, both of which are in my name. I am hugely grateful to my co-signatories, the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady Harding, and I thank them for their support. I am also grateful to the Minister for meeting me and his noble friend Lord Hendy. I am only sorry that at that meeting we were unable to persuade him of our case, and I hope I can do a better job tonight.
My amendments replicate Clauses 38 and 39, which introduce a new stand-alone offence of assault against retail workers, but simply expand that offence to include all public-facing workers. I am bringing these amendments forward because the Government’s decision to make the new stand-alone offence exclusively for retail workers is based on arbitrary factors that make little sense, risks making matters worse for employers and employees alike and does not help address the cause of increased violence and disorder in public places and spaces, which causes us all so much angst. In a moment I will explain briefly how my amendments help to address the latter, but let me start with what is wrong with the Government’s approach and how my amendments can help put it right.
As we all know, the crime of assault applies equally to anyone who is a victim of it. No one is not covered by existing law. But four years ago, we introduced an aggravated offence of assault against all public-facing workers via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act because violence and threats of violence to workers across all industries—retail, transport, hospitality, finance and more—were rising at a worrying rate. Now this Government argue that they are introducing a new crime of assault against only retail workers because violent abuse in shops continues to rise and because those workers are charged with upholding retail laws such as those involving age verification.
Of course it is horrific that some retail workers experience violence at work. They do not deserve that, and we all want it to stop. That is why I support Clauses 38 and 39. But other public-facing workers are experiencing increasing violence too. Many of these workers are also responsible for upholding laws and are required to take action when a member of the public flouts them, which they increasingly do. The most obvious example is transport workers and the scourge of fare dodging, but bar staff also routinely need to seek age verification.
The Institute of Customer Service—I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service—has been tracking abuse against all public-facing workers for almost six years. Its most recent survey data from 15,000 responses shows that 42% of customer-facing workers experienced abuse in the preceding six months.
The problem that the Government have highlighted as one they need to fix is not affecting retail workers exclusively. Indeed, some of the worst cases of violence in a public place are against utility workers doing essential work on streets. Yet the Government’s approach even excludes those who work in bank branches, post offices and other outlets on high streets or in retail parks. What makes matters worse is that those workers fear they will not be treated equally if they are a victim of crime because they will fall outside the definition of a retail worker.
We need good people in these front-line jobs who are doing great work to want to stay in these jobs. But the Government’s arbitrary dividing line means we are in danger of losing them. That is not just bad for those workers: it is bad for customers, and it is bad for business. Sick leave associated with abuse and violence experienced at work is estimated to cost the economy at least £1 billion every year.
I must say at this point that we must not lose sight that, thankfully, most public-facing workers are not at risk of assault. Indeed, it is really important to make clear that customers are not the enemy, and we must not create an environment where, even unintentionally, they are made to feel like they are. We do not need more signs telling us not to be rude or abusive, but we do need a new approach. Alongside a better response from the police when crimes do occur, if we are to prevent violence against workers and any criminal conduct in public places becoming normalised, we must work together to discourage low-level disorder and disrespect for shared services and public property when we see signs of it taking root on our high streets, public transport or anywhere else. But that requires leadership from the people in charge of those public spaces and places. Most often, they are not the workers who are the highest paid.
It is not easy to uphold the shared standards and social norms that keep public spaces safe and orderly for everyone’s benefit, which is why those who are out there at work every day upholding the law and doing their best to maintain the common bonds that underpin a strong society do not just deserve our thanks: they need our strong backing for the leadership they are expected to give—and we need them to give—if we are to tackle disorder, which blights our communities. That is what my amendments seek to provide.
Excluding some workers from the cover of this new stand-alone offence risks disincentivising those excluded at a time when we need them most. Business leaders, workers and the wider public support these amendments. I hope that the members of unions and the former leaders of unions who occupy the Benches opposite will also support them. I hope the Minister accepts them. If he does not, I will seek to divide the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 359 and 361 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. On the basis of those amendments, I will not advance the amendment I proposed in Committee for a stand-alone offence for transport workers. My amendment sought to give transport workers equivalent protection to that to be extended to retail workers by the Government in Clauses 38 and 39, but the noble Baroness’s amendments cover transport workers, retail workers and, as she mentioned, many more categories of workers who face the public and are exposed to the risk of violent attack by individuals apparently aggrieved by a worker doing what he or she is paid to do.
In proposing these more widely drafted amendments, there is no intention to diminish the coverage the Government are already offering retail workers. If there is some perceived shortfall in the scope of our amendments compared with that of Clauses 38 and 39 for retail workers, I for one would be very happy if the Government instructed parliamentary counsel to close that gap in drafting.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and me to discuss the amendments, notwithstanding that, as she says, he was not persuaded by us. With respect, I am likewise not persuaded by my noble friend’s justification for restricting the scope of the offence under discussion to retail workers only. The commitment given in the Labour manifesto would be equally fulfilled by adoption of our amendments in place of Clauses 38 and 39. Retail workers would have, and must still have, their manifesto protection. In any event, though it may result in duplication, our amendments do not involve a request to remove Clauses 38 and 39. That is not their purpose.
As to the argument that the wider amendment is not necessary, I point out that even if that were legally correct, the adoption of Clauses 38 and 39 and the rejection of the wider amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, sends a particular message both to the workers in question and the public, as she pointed out. She mentioned violence against various categories of public-facing workers, and I gave figures for violence against transport workers at an earlier stage of the debate. I will not repeat those, but the House should know that the situation is getting worse. For example, British Transport Police figures for the period April to November 2025 showed a 21% increase in incidents involving violence against staff compared to the previous year, which itself showed a similar increase on the year before that. The stabbings at Huntingdon in November 2025 bring the point home.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, given the hour, I shall be brief. I support my noble friend Lady Stowell in the two amendments that she has so ably introduced, and I have been delighted to add my name to both of them.
I have worked all my life in consumer services: for 20-odd years in retailing, but then in telecoms and in the National Health Service, and, today, in hospitality—in horse racing. I should declare my interest as the chair or senior steward of the Jockey Club, given that we have the Cheltenham Festival next week, where we will have thousands of people in front-line, consumer-facing service roles at the racecourse.
I have not engaged in the Bill until this stage, so I apologise for that, but I am speaking to and have put my name to these amendments because I am bemused by the Government’s failure to support public-facing workers in all these other industries. I grew up in retailing and I love retailing, but if you have ever sat in a GP surgery with a receptionist, as I have, and watched them do their job, you will know that it is no different from being at the customer service desk at Tesco, which I have also done, dealing with the ups and downs of everyday life with the customers, the consumers, the citizens you are serving. We should be protecting them and treating them in exactly the same way. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has said, that is true for transport, finance, telecoms, energy and water. We should not exclude the hundreds of thousands, millions, of people who provide us with these essential services. We learned during Covid how important these essential front-line, customer service-facing roles are, and it breaks my heart, five years after the pandemic, to see a Government who say they support working people not supporting many front-line working people.
It is not just front-line working people who want us to protect them; their bosses do too. The CEOs of businesses in all the sectors I have just mentioned know that it is good business to protect them. Some 42% of front-line workers, according to the Institute of Customer Service, have experienced abuse in the last six months, as my noble friend Lady Stowell has said; 37% say they have considered leaving their role because of that hostility; and more than 25% have taken sick leave as a result. That costs productivity in our public services and it costs economic growth in our private sector. The chief executives of all these organisations know that, and they want us to make sure that we treat all those workers with the same respect that the Bill, at the moment, treats retail workers only, which is why I support these amendments.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because it is trying to achieve consistency in law. At the moment, the law protects a retail worker more, when in fact those who provide services are doing exactly the same thing. Broadly, they deal with the public and they are trying to get rules enforced. They are just trying to make sure that things work well.
My reading of the present advice on providing protection to retail workers is that they are protected if they provide goods, but not if they provide services. The consequence of that is that people who, for example, work in betting shops, theatres and cinemas do not receive the same protection that they would receive if they were providing that same retail worker service and also providing goods, and that seems inconsistent. Then there is the further group of workers that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred to: people who work in transport, such as taxi drivers. All of them face people who are often affected by drink or drugs, for example, and have to challenge bad behaviour, but they do not receive this protection. That seems odd. I find it odd that the Government do not want to protect that group of workers in the same way. For reasons of consistency, and because the workers I have described—those who work in betting offices, for example, where you get some pretty bad behaviour at times—deserve that protection, they ought to be included.
My final point is that although the present legislation excludes wholesale workers—should I name the companies? Perhaps not—you only get access to some of these wholesale or, I would say, retail sites by joining a club; you do not pay any money. I think we all know the ones I am talking about, where you get access to better prices merely by joining the club. Apparently, that is not retail. I think it is pretty much like retail. They still get bad behaviour on these sites. For all those reasons, I think this amendment regarding public-facing workers is a good idea and I encourage the Government to support it for the sake of consistency for those who provide services to us.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief, partly to remind all noble Lords that the shop workers’ union, USDAW, under Joanne Thomas, the current leader, Paddy Lillis before her and, indeed, John Hannett—the noble Lord, Lord Hannett—has campaigned for years for freedom from fear for a predominantly female workforce facing violence at work. As we have heard, that got a lot worse through Covid. At the time, USDAW was pressing for legislation; nobody listened. I have to commend the Government for listening to the campaign from the grass roots all the way up to the top of USDAW for that protection for workers in that industry.
Having said that, I have looked at the very latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive and from the Labour Force Survey, which show that public-facing workers across a number of industries, sectors and jobs disproportionately face violence at work. More than that, I have heard it from workers themselves. Bus workers, transport workers and hospitality workers have been spat at, assaulted and threatened. I also alight on transport workers, because they too perform a significant act of public service in the work they do. They often face real threats and real assaults because of the job that they do.
I share my noble friend Lord Hendy’s hope that, even if the Government cannot support this amendment, my noble friend the Minister could at least commit to talk to colleagues in the relevant departments to get us around the table to look at a real strategy for prevention of violence and enforcement of the laws we have. Many workers still feel unsafe going to work to earn a living and no worker should face that threat at work.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we strongly support the creation of a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker. It sends an important signal to those working in shops at a time when shop theft has surged and the risks to staff have grown. But if this measure applies only to those who work in shops, we risk sending an unintended message to other front-line staff that they somehow count for less.
The Minister previously gave three reasons for rejecting the noble Baroness’s amendment in Committee. First, he said that the case is especially strong for shop workers because they enforce age-restricted sales and are on the front line of theft. We agree that shop workers are at particular risk—that is why we support these clauses—but many other public-facing workers also enforce rules, refuse service and challenge bad behaviour. They too attract anger and sometimes violence.
Secondly, the Minister said that a narrow definition of retail worker is needed for legal clarity, while suggesting that some hospitality workers might be covered by the definition of retail premises in Clause 38. In practice, that causes new uncertainty. It is hard to justify protection for a worker in a café inside a supermarket but not for one in a café next door to a supermarket.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston for moving Amendment 359. I know that she has been pursuing it with tenacity. This amendment and Amendment 361 relate to the Government’s proposal to create a specific, stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker at work. I want to be clear from the outset that it is already an offence to assault a retail worker, because it is an offence to assault any person, full stop. That is the law. I do not believe that criminal law should treat anyone differently based simply on whether they are a retail worker. I fully recognise that retail workers face an appalling level of abuse and violence in the course of their jobs, but to say that the creation of a new, specific criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker will stop assaults on retail workers is, frankly, for the birds.
What will stop these assaults, or at least reduce them, is the police stepping up enforcement, and the Government stopping the release of criminals and handing anyone convicted of these offences suspended sentences. However, the Government clearly believe that creating this new offence will reduce violence against retail workers. If we are to take their logic to its conclusion, why would we not extend the offence to cover all public-facing workers? Does the Minister believe that transport drivers, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Stowell and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, are of lesser value than retail workers? If the Government believe that this new offence will work then why do they not believe it will work for other public-facing workers?
My noble friend’s amendment exposes the absurdity of the Government’s position. They argue that violence against retail workers is a significant problem that needs to be tackled, which is absolutely correct, but then propose a solution that they refuse to extend to other workers who also face significant levels of violence at work. There is simply no logic to the Government’s approach. Either they believe that creating a new offence for specific groups of people will reduce violence against them or they do not. They cannot argue both. I would prefer that we did not have any new offences that outlawed things that are already outlawed and that we did not legislate to criminalise actions towards specific groups of people but not others. That would be my preference, but if we are to do these things, then we must take them to their logical conclusion. For that reason, I support the amendments from my noble friend.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment, and for the opportunity to discuss it with her and with the organisations she brought in for face-to-face discussions with us. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for his contribution and for our meeting.
I declare my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which I joined 47 years ago and which sponsored me as a Member of Parliament. I put that on the record. I must also say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I understand that he would prefer to have no offence. I understand that because when, as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, I tabled amendments to put these types of offences down, the then Government rejected them. I therefore understand where he is coming from, because that is consistent with the position of previous Conservative Governments.
In this case, we have a Labour manifesto commitment endorsed by the electorate. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned USDAW. I pay tribute to that union, which has collected evidence and, through three general secretaries, including my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, campaigned strongly for an offence against retail workers. The Labour Party listened to that in opposition and put in its manifesto—I cannot claim credit for this, because I was out of Parliament at the time—a commitment to legislate for that offence, which appears in the Bill before the House today.
I have heard the comments from the noble Lord, Hogan-Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on why they think that the bespoke offence against assaulting a retail worker should be extended to all public-facing workers. Along with proposing a new broader offence of assault against public-facing workers, the noble Baroness has tabled an amendment that would place a duty on courts to make a criminal order in the event of a conviction.
I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but I repeat the arguments that I put to her in Committee and elsewhere. Public-facing workers such as those mentioned by my noble friend, the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Harding, and others, are covered under existing legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes a range of violent offences, such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Further, the provisions of Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, makes it a statutory aggravating factor of assault against any public-facing worker. That offence means that if someone, having been charged with the serious offence of assault and having gone through a trial, is deemed to have committed assault against public-facing workers, the court has the power to add aggravating factors to that sentence. That covers every type of worker that has been mentioned by noble Lords today. The aggravating factor applies in cases of assault where an offence is committed against those public service workers performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. That is an important factor.
Noble Lords have asked why there is a specific offence against retail workers that is additional to the aggravating offence. That is a reasonable question to ask. In clauses that have been mentioned there is provision for additional prison sentence capacity, criminal restriction orders and an unlimited fine for this stand-alone offence. Retail workers are still covered by Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, so why have we put that extra power in place?
The reason for this—and why I declared an interest—is that USDAW has, to my knowledge, for 17 or 18 years campaigned regularly for this in the Freedom From Fear Campaign. It has done so under the three general secretaries that my noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned, and it has done so for a purpose—one that the Government share. Retail workers are fundamentally on the front line of upholding the laws passed by both Houses of Parliament on a range of matters. It is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of cigarettes, it is a retail worker who stops illegal sales of alcohol, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a knife, it is a retail worker who stops an illegal sale of a solvent, and it is a retail worker who protects the community by upholding all the laws on those issues that we have passed in this House and in the House of Commons. That is why USDAW campaigned for the specific offence, and it is why the Labour Party in government has been pleased to support the creation of that offence by putting it in the Bill.
That goes even further to the appalling shop theft situation. I do not call it shoplifting—it is shop theft. There has been a continued rise in shop theft over many years, and it is the retail worker who is on the front line saying, “Put that back”, calling the police and taking action in the shop. The Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and a whole range of retail organisations have campaigned for this, alongside USDAW, over many years. It has been thought through and there is an evidence base. It is a manifesto commitment, and we are trying to introduce that extra offence. I do not wish to see a train operative or members of customer services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned, attacked with a knife. This is covered by common assault legislation from 1861 and by the 2022 Act as an aggravating offence. But the Government have put forward a stand-alone offence for shop workers for the reasons I have outlined.
Does that potentially create an anomaly? Let us discuss that and reflect on that view. But the manifesto commitment is clear, and we are delivering on that manifesto commitment. This is an important issue, based on evidence and campaigning by a range of bodies—retail organisations and trade unions—and it has my support. Therefore, I cannot support the noble Baroness—I have told her that—or my noble friend.
That is not to say that the Government accept that attacks on those members of staff are a normal part of what they should face. We are committed to driving down assaults and to enforcing, with the courts, the legislation on the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked what the Government are doing to reduce the attacks in the first place. This Government are rebuilding the police force—13,000 neighbourhood police officers—and have put in place, with this Bill, changes in shop theft legislation. This Government are focusing on retail crime in hotspots and on making sure that we drive it down. We will ensure that the police forces have retail crime as a major priority.
In the last 14 years before July 2024, police numbers fell, neighbourhood policing fell and the focus on the high street fell. It was not a Labour Government but a Conservative Government who did that. They refused the legislation on assaults on shop workers that I proposed in the House of Commons, they refused to take action on shop theft on high streets and they refused to stand up for the workforce. With due respect, I will not take lessons today from the Conservative Front Bench.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
May I check whether my assertion is accurate or whether I am wrong? Would someone enforcing an age limit in a betting office not be protected by the retail workers’ protection but someone enforcing an age restriction in an off-licence would be? It seems to me that the distinction is simply between providing a service and providing a good. If I am wrong in that, I withdraw my comment, but I am not sure that the Minister has said I am.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have clearly defined in the Bill what we believe a retail worker is. I accept that there are areas of interpretation for the courts, such as, for example—we have discussed this with colleagues outside the House—whether a post office is covered by the retail worker provision. Somebody might walk into a post office to buy Christmas cards or birthday cards and go to the post office counter—is that a retail worker? Those are areas where there may be some interpretation, but we have identified this as tightly as we can. It is a straightforward clause that defines a retail worker. I commend it, given that there has been a considerable amount of work by the Home Office in drafting the amendment, after a considerable amount of work by retail organisations and trade unions to develop the campaign.
I go back to my point that all attacks on all staff are unacceptable. Other areas are covered, but the reasons I mentioned on the specific provision of upholding legislation are why we have put in a specific offence against retail workers. That is why I commend those clauses to the House. I ask the noble Baroness—although I understand that she cannot do this—at least not to push her amendment to a vote.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I think there was appetite among many of us to see the beginnings of a strategy for each sector that we know is facing rising violence. I know that that is not within the gift of the Minister, but a request to talk to Ministers and get people around the table in those sectors so that we can deal at a strategic level with the causes of violence, as well as big issues such as resources for enforcement, would go a long way to give comfort to people that this is the beginning of a conversation about how we deal with violence against working people.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said to the House, I do not support, encourage or condone any violence against anybody under any circumstances. The public-facing workers are covered by two pieces of legislation; we are adding a specific offence for retail workers, for the reasons I have outlined. I have met personally with a range of bodies that the noble Baroness has brought before us. I understand that my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill has met organisations and met and discussed issues with my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is here today, and will continue to do so. However, this campaign on the clauses in the Bill has been a long time in gestation—it has taken 15 and 16 years to get where we are today—and I want to get them over the line, so I cannot accept the amendments that the noble Baroness has introduced. I ask her to withdraw her amendment but if she puts it to the vote, I shall have to ask my noble friends to join me in voting against it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments—indeed, I do not think that any noble Lord apart from the Minister has spoken against them. I just say to him that nothing in my amendments dilutes or diminishes what he has brought forward in Clauses 38 and 39. His manifesto commitment is still being met; all the work that he pays tribute to USDAW for doing over many years all stands. Nothing of what he is so proud to have brought forward in the Bill will be changed by us voting for my amendments tonight. My amendments would address the illogical way, as we have heard in the debate tonight, in which the Government are determined to tackle a problem that expands way beyond retail workers. I am afraid that I am not going to withdraw my amendment—I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“Offences of causing harassment, alarm or distress: amendments(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.(2) In section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm or distress) omit “, alarm” in each place where it occurs (including the heading) and omit “, alarmed” in subsection.(3) In section 5 (harassment, alarm or distress) omit “, alarm” in each place where it occurs (including the heading).”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am returning to a theme I raised in Committee in moving my Amendment 360. Amendment 360 is straightforward: it would remove the word “alarm” from Sections 4, 8 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. In Handyside v the United Kingdom, the Strasbourg court reminded us that freedom of expression protects ideas that “offend, shock or disturb”. This concept was reinforced in the oft-quoted dictum of Lord Justice Sedley, which I will not repeat tonight, which I sometimes think should be turned into a poster campaign by the police and CPS.
In a democracy, robust debate—political, religious and philosophical—will sometimes unsettle people, it may even alarm them, but that should not be a matter for criminal law. Section 4A currently criminalises
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
that causes
“harassment, alarm or distress”
where there is deemed to have been an intention to cause harassment, alarm and distress. In Section 5, the test is “threatening or abusive words” that are deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Alarm is inherently subjective, often momentary, and is too easily confused with discomfort. It is an emotion. This is a dangerously low threshold for prosecuting people over words, especially in today’s political climate where so many people have been implicitly trained to respond to hearing challenging opinions by talking about how hurt their feelings are. I watched the video of Nick Timothy MP documenting Islamists outside the infamous Maccabi v Aston Villa match, and Islamists persuaded officers to move on Mr Timothy by complaining about him talking to them.
We saw a similar attempt more recently on the streets of Whitechapel, where a crowd of men tried to get police to arrest a Christian street preacher in what they regard as some kind of “ethnic enclave” where preaching the gospel is prohibited. Thankfully, in that case, we saw a marvellously brave and sensible female police officer face them all down and defend free speech.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for bringing this amendment back, because I had some thoughts on this after the debate we had in Committee. Having read English at university, I went back to the definition of “alarm” and started to look at the definition used in the Public Order Act. There are components of causing alarm, particularly in the Public Order Act, which the noble Lord wants to amend. The levels at which charging happens use different definitions of alarm, which are quite interesting for these purposes.
The definition of alarm in this context is to create a state of apprehension, fear or panic in a person, often accompanied by a sense of immediate danger or worry that something unpleasant is going to happen to them. There is a key difference in usage. Section 4A of the Public Order Act details using “threatening, abusive or insulting” conduct with
“intent to cause … harassment, alarm or distress”,
and, on likelihood, using threatening or abusive conduct that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, without necessarily intending to.
The issue I take with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is that he says it is all just about how you are feeling, but the point is that the definitions at the different levels within the Public Order Act, at least semantically, seem to show that it is more than that, because you need to identify what has triggered that sense of alarm. It is a range, as we have discussed in previous debates. Because his amendment wants to remove “alarm” from intentional harassment, alarm or distress, it falls at the higher level that I have just described. I wonder whether he might reconsider it in that light, because when the 1986 Act went through it was clearly very well thought through.
Interestingly, the OED definition:
“To make (a person) feel suddenly frightened or in danger; to strike or fill with fear”,
says that more recently it has been seen in a slightly weakened use. However, the WordWeb online dictionary says:
“Experiencing a sudden sense of danger”.
In a lot of dictionaries I have looked up, there is the repeated use of it as not just how you feel but a panic response to danger, a heightened level. Therefore, certainly in my books, it should stay with harassment as well, because they are both more serious than just feeling a bit worried about something, which is what the noble Lord described.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s amendment, which would remove the word “alarm” from the relevant sections of the Public Order Act. I entirely support his aims. Alarm is not an emotion that should be policed, if emotions should be policed at all. The Act in question has been used for the unprecedented policing of speech that we have seen recently, for which Sections 4A and 5 have been largely responsible, and any measure that weakens the effect of this law is welcome. So, although I am sceptical that he will, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment, and I will explain why to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. We will therefore have another opportunity to look at the offences in the Public Order Act 1986 and to reflect on the balance we must continue to strike between free expression and ensuring public safety.
The Government remain firmly committed to protecting freedom of speech. The ability to voice strong and at times uncomfortable views is fundamental to democratic life. However, as I set out in Committee, the ability to intervene early is an important tool for police to protect both the public and those involved, a point that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson, will accept. The definitions in the 1986 Act, passed by a previous Conservative Government, including the words “alarm” and “distress”, are there so that there can be early intervention and examination, and so that people who feel “alarm” and “distress” can have that support.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has also referred to the review of public order and hate crime legislation led by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. Government has given it the task of examining the threshold definitions of public order legislation, which are needed to protect the public, while ensuring that we do exactly what I know the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wants to do: ensure that we do not have undue interference in freedom of expression. The review is expected to conclude in the spring—it is a flexible definition, as we know, but it will be in the spring—and the Government will carefully consider its recommendations before determining whether legislative change is necessary.
I cannot commit to where we are on that because we have not seen the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. Given the circumstances —and given that the Act is now 40 years old and has stood the test of time from Mrs Thatcher’s Government to those of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, however many Conservative Prime Ministers held the office between 2010 and 2024, and my right honourable friend the current Prime Minister—it strikes me that it is a sound piece of legislation. It has stood the test of a number of Prime Ministers and Governments. With the review pending, I hope that we can examine and look at all those issues. With those comments, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
It gives me inordinate pleasure—it warms the cockles of my heart—to listen to the Minister praising the legislation of the late Baroness Thatcher in her pomp. We do not often get that, but we should be grateful for small mercies.
We have had a short and interesting debate. I take in good faith the comments of both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Her contribution was very thoughtful in really drilling down into what the word “alarm” means. I think the debate we had in Committee was about the consistent nature of a criminal offence. That is harassment and distress: if someone harasses or threatens someone on a consistent basis. It is different from a momentary issue that might arise.
I say that because we have seen too many examples of where individual police officers, who may not have had appropriate training and education in interpreting these pieces of legislation from the 1980s, have, in my opinion, overreached. That has a very corrosive impact on the faith and trust that the public have in the police force. It leads them to believe that there is such a thing as two-tier policing, which is not good for any of us.
I take on faith what the Minister said. I look forward to what I think will be a very comprehensive and thorough piece of work by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. On that basis, we will no doubt return to this specific issue and piece of legislation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) a device which is capable of using five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably, for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1A), or(b) an article specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(1A) The purposes are—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to specify different articles as SIM farms in regulations.
“, or
(b) an article specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to specify different articles as SIM cards in regulations.
“(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may specify only articles which the Secretary of State considers are capable of being used for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1A) in a way which is a similar to a device within subsection (1)(a).(4A) Regulations under subsection (2) may specify only articles which the Secretary of State considers have a similar function to removable physical subscriber identity modules.(4B) “Article” includes information in electronic form. (4C) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be likely to be affected by the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations amending clause 129 and inserts a restriction on the kind of articles that may be specified by the new powers inserted by my amendments to clause 129, page 173 line 35 and page 174 line 1. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult before exercising those powers.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the kind of articles that the Secretary of State may specify under clause 132.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Digital identity theft(1) A person commits an offence of digital identity theft if—(a) the person obtains, or attempts to obtain, personal or sensitive information relating to an individual, including but not limited to passwords, identification numbers, credit card numbers, national insurance numbers, biometric data, or other unique digital identifiers, and(b) the person intends to use this personal or sensitive information to impersonate that individual, or to enable another person to impersonate that individual, with the purpose of carrying out any transaction, activity, or communication in their name without their consent or lawful authority.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—(a) “personal or sensitive information” refers to any data, whether digital, physical, or otherwise, that can be used to identify, authenticate, or impersonate an individual;(b) “obtains” includes acquiring, accessing, collecting, or otherwise coming into possession of such information.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or both.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an offence of digital identity theft.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 366 also stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Doocey. I have been a persistent—or is it insistent?—advocate for a specific offence of digital identity theft for many years. There is currently no criminal offence of identity theft in England and Wales—none. A fraudster can harvest your biometric data, clone your digital identity and impersonate you across multiple platforms, and at the moment of those acts they have committed no specific crime. The law does not intervene until after the damage is done.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has got to the nub of an issue that seems to fall between a rock and a hard place. One of the issues that we face in terms of the crime survey, which is now being used by the Government as the primary way of deciding police resources, is fraud. Without doubt, the increasing use of digital identity will be the source of more fraud if we are not careful.
The Government seem to be in a predicament about whether to press ahead with digital ID more generally. We saw the resignation of a Minister at the weekend over their dubious ways of trying to challenge the credentials of a journalist assessing the organisation Labour Together. The Government have reappointed a Minister to undertake this task of establishing a digital identity card, which I am led to believe there will be a consultation announcement on within the next week. I hope that the Government are listening to the noble Lord by getting ahead of the issues that could come about with the mass spreading of digital identity.
I am very grateful to Nationwide, which rang to alert me to a fraud that was happening. I had used my card when I was abroad representing Parliament at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and suddenly it was being used in a number of places to secure money. That is a reminder, as we move to this digital approach to money, with cash evaporating, that the last Government did a lot to try to protect cash and to make sure that it was still being used on a widespread basis, and I appreciate that. However, it would be useful to get a sense of what the Government are doing to tackle this very real threat of digital identity theft.
This is particularly pertinent because of the 10-year NHS plan—never mind the 10-year NHS cancer plan—regarding how much is being put into the hands of government. With artificial intelligence understandably being introduced to increase productivity and the deployment of public services, somebody’s identity is precious, and the validity and protection of digital identity can become an extraordinary challenge to somebody’s integrity.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has set out a number of issues in a great deal of detail in Amendment 366, with the proposed new subsection (2)(b) defining what “obtains” would mean. I think it would be helpful to the Committee to understand what protections are in place or being planned by the Government not to mandate the use of initial identity but regarding what their desire is. Again, I understand the desire of the use for government, but what is good for government is also good for general commercial practice.
It would be helpful to get an understanding of why the Government are resisting the amendment—if the noble Lord tests the opinion of the House, I will vote with him in that Division—and a sense of where they believe they have sufficient protections in making this case. We have discussed identity, fake imagery and deepfakes quite a lot during the passage of this Bill. I seem to recall in the last general election that the now Prime Minister was, all of a sudden, in the middle of a deepfake situation, with comments attributed to him that were not made.
We can go further with how technology has advanced in that regard, but where would this go if we started using digital identity to register for elections? Where is this going when it is about accessing cash, frankly, from the Government? I know from running the DWP for three years that, unfortunately, people seem very determined to try to commit fraud to get money to which they are not entitled. But as we continue to try to use AI as a force for good, what are the Government doing to try to stop it being used as a force for bad?
I do not wish to labour the point, but the noble Lord has really hit on something. There is a gap. There is a desire by the Government to do this good, but I think the amendment would plug the gap very well. There are so many instances in this Bill and other Bills which are coming before the House where the Government want all sorts of powers just in case. This is not a “just in case”; this is a “waiting to happen”. It is happening now, so what are we doing to address it?
I go back to the fact that 40% of crime is due to fraud. Two-thirds of that is digital, online fraud. This is affecting not just people in this Chamber but people right across this country, and that is something that I hope the Government will consider carefully. If there was a vote, I would certainly support the amendment to make sure that the Government take note and actually get something done about this. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing back his amendment on Report. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain our support for his measures, and I thank him for continuing his campaign.
I understand that the Minister refrained from supporting the amendment in Committee for fear of unnecessary duplication of legislation. I gently urge him that this provides an opportunity for the opposite. It is common practice across Governments to use new legislation to amalgamate old pieces of legislation into a single draft. This seems the perfect time to do so with digital identity theft.
There is an array of Acts that creates a puzzle from which a digital identity theft offence appears, but it is somewhat distorted, if not fragmented. At least five Acts cover areas of digital identity theft; a wide purview is by no means a bad thing, but they were all designed for a different age. Just reading out the years of our primary Acts demonstrates this: 1968, 1990, 2006 and 2010. Even the Data Protection Act 2018, the most recent application, is for an era without AI.
It is not worth repeating the statistics that we have heard throughout the course of the Bill. A simple fact will suffice: 60% of all fraud cases are identity fraud, and the recent increase has been driven by the internet and artificial intelligence. The Government talk about being ahead of the curve on AI safety and online regulation. That is commendable, but to claim one thing and then refuse to act on it is not. I hope the Minister can at least acknowledge the scale of digital identity theft and its growing prevalence. If he cannot support it now, I hope that he will commit to look into it in the future.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for returning to this important matter. As I set out previously, although digital identity theft is not a stand-alone offence, the behaviour the noble Lord highlights is already captured by existing legislation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, predicted some of the response that I would give; it has not changed hugely since Committee. This includes the misuse of personal sensitive identifiable information. The Fraud Act 2006 criminalises the use of another person’s identity with the intention to gain or to cause loss. Unauthorised access to personal data, including biometric information, is covered under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
I fully recognise the concerns raised, which is why the Government are already taking clear action. The new Report Fraud service has replaced Action Fraud, giving victims improved reporting tools and providing police with stronger intelligence and better support pathways. A full review of police skills has been completed and its recommendations will be reflected in the upcoming fraud strategy, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be pleased to know will be published imminently.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am actually very pro-digital ID, as long as it is not mandatory, but one of the things to improve take-up is the fear that people will have fraud committed against them. This amendment introduces an offence not necessarily to reduce the likelihood of that, but to provide potential weapons that can be used against criminal forces. That is why I am so keen on this amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
While I understand the point the noble Baroness is making, I do not want to presage the content of the fraud strategy, which will be upon us really quite soon, or indeed what is in the legislation that will introduce national digital ID. I absolutely take the point that some people want to encourage digital ID because it gives security of identity in a digital form for deployment in a number of different areas, whether claiming a benefit, voting or whatever use it may offer—I will stop there because my expertise on digital ID does not extend much further. All I will say is that, given the comments I have already made about the Fisher review and the forthcoming fraud strategy, which will address emerging fraud risks, including identity theft, I hope that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and very much appreciate what she had to say. In particular, I thought the phrase “precious digital identity” was extremely important, as well as her reference to deepfakes. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his support. As he rightly identified, I said 59% and he rounded it up to 60%. That is the figure for the percentage of identity fraud in our landscape.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said that the Government need to answer what they are planning to do. The Minister threw the kitchen sink at that question but did not really answer it. We have police training in AI and digital, but I am not sure what I am expected to understand when he starts off by saying there is perfectly adequate criminal law on this, but then tells me that they will look very carefully at this as part of the Fisher review. Which one is the answer that I should take from the Minister—that he is taking it seriously or that he is not?
We seem to keep getting the same answer. The Minister starts off by saying that there is enough criminal law to cover this—completely contradictory to the Fraud Act Select Committee—and on the other hand he says that the review will consider this very carefully. That is a series of mixed messages, quite apart from the fact that the police will prioritise their response to digital crime. How will they prioritise their response to digital crime without the tools they need—i.e. a proper criminal offence of digital identity theft?
There is some confusion on the part of the Government. I still think they have not taken this seriously, and our citizens will suffer as a result, particularly in the age of AI, which both the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, were clear about.
If I wanted to talk to the Chief Whip or the government roster at this time of night, or if we were in prime time, I might push it to a vote. But I will not; I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Defences to charges under the Computer Misuse Act 1990(1) The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1, after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that—(a) the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime, or(b) the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest.”(3) In section 3, after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that—(a) the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime, or(b) the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates defences to charges under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 367 is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Doocey, and there is rather better news on this amendment as a result of conversations with the Minister. I warmly welcome the significant movement the Government have made in this area. This is reflected both in the recent policy paper on introducing statutory defences into the Computer Misuse Act, which they have shared with me, and in the constructive meeting I recently held with the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for which I thank him.
The principle we have long championed, that a cyber security researcher’s intent and motivation should be a relevant factor in law, has finally been acknowledged. As the industry has told us for decades, the 1990 Act is a relic of a different era. It was drafted when only 0.5% of people used the internet. It is now being asked to govern a world of generative AI and industrialised cyber warfare. Its current blanket prohibition on unauthorised access makes no distinction between a malicious hacker and a white-hat security researcher. Under current law, our cyber defenders are forced to operate with one hand tied behind their backs, fearing prosecution for the very activities that keep our national infrastructure resilient. This is not just a legal anomaly; it is a direct threat to UK resilience.
However, while the policy paper is a major step forward, we must ensure that it results in robust statutory protection, not just a vague promise of prosecutorial discretion. Reliance on the good faith of prosecutors is not a long-term solution for an industry that requires absolute legal certainty. Our amendment would provide that framework—a defence where actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime or justified in the public interest.
I ask the Minister to address some of the following critical concerns arising from the Government’s own policy paper. Because of the time of night, I am going to abbreviate it to give him the headings and write to him subsequently. First, the accreditation bottleneck is a national security risk. The whole question of having to have chartered-level UK Cyber Security Council accreditation will create a bottleneck. The definition of “suitably qualified” suggests that only those with membership of professional bodies such as the UK Cyber Security Council will be valid, but will it recognise in due course that those with established industry experience, who may not hold formal academic credentials, will also qualify? The “no supervision” rule is operationally unworkable, and the scope of non-intrusive activity seems somewhat random.
The vulnerability duty creates a legal trap. The paper requires a researcher who discovers a vulnerability to make all reasonable efforts to report it to the system owner as soon as practicable, but the paper itself acknowledges the difficulty of identifying system owners.
The bug bounty market is under threat. The paper prohibits permitted persons from requesting or demanding payment for reporting a discovered vulnerability. The global bug bounty market, where organisations invite researchers to find and responsibly disclose flaws in exchange for payments, is worth hundreds of millions of pounds and is a cornerstone of modern cyber defence. The paper’s drafting risks chilling this entire ecosystem.
Then we have statutory versus non-statutory protections. The paper acknowledges that reliance on the good faith of prosecutors is not a solution. Can the Minister commit to placing these defences in the Bill during this Session? If not, what vehicle do the Government envisage? Could the upcoming Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill accommodate this reform? We need a clear answer on the legislative timetable.
The paper does not seem to cover the public sector—the National Cyber Security Centre itself—yet the proposed defence appears directed entirely at privately accredited individuals. That is a question that needs answering.
We cannot allow technological development to race ahead of democratic deliberation. Our cyber security professionals need the clarity of the law to protect the UK in 2026 and beyond. I very much hope that this is a moment of genuine policy momentum, so let us produce legislation that is workable, inclusive and legally certain. I am very hopeful that the Minister will continue the dialogue over this policy paper. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I started using a computer before 1990. I was one of those children who started using the BBC Micro—one of the best things the BBC ever produced. Indeed, I learned how to code—admittedly only in BASIC, but sufficient in the days when the internet had not even been created—to start working out how to use data in the computer system.
Unlike the previous amendment, I cannot say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nor indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I would support them if they were to call a Division on this amendment. I completely agree with proposed subsections 2A(a) and 5A(a) that
“the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime”
but not this latter bit that they have lumped into it, saying that
“the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest”.
I am a great believer in the public interest, but I find that it is being used now to try to justify too many things, including not releasing information from government. In fact, it would be contrary to the public interest, for example, to release information on some of the Bills that we are debating, not just today but at other times during this Parliament.
Let us just try to get a sense of what is going on with the Computer Misuse Act. Why was it introduced? It was introduced to stop manipulation. At what point does manipulation using computers become justifiable in the public interest? For some, that might be a whistleblower caveat. From what the noble Lord set out, I am not quite sure why this is the defining element. I am conscious that the Government may want to automate even more, so what is the balance with what is there to prevent crimes and similar? I appreciate that we do not want bureaucracy and legislation to get in the way of generally trying to stop harm, but what is the impact of the other elements of the noble Lord’s amendments? They could actually deploy harm while still trying to justify it in the public interest.
I appreciate there is sometimes a resistance to old legislation, but old legislation is not necessarily stuck in its time. There are many other Acts that go back hundreds of years that are still perfectly valid because the principles are the same. I would be concerned if we walked into allowing this amendment to go through without testing the opinion of the House to try to assess precisely what actions the noble Lord is trying to allow by making a case for the defence that something be done in public interest. That is why I express my concerns tonight.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak against Amendment 367. I have the gravest concerns about it. I am not going to echo everything my noble friend Lady Coffey said, but it amounts to a hackers’ charter. I take security and IT security very seriously. I am responsible for IT security in my business. We are in a sensitive industry—we are involved in global trade—never more so than today, when ammonia and natural gas are under global pressure as part of a war. You have to take these things seriously.
When I joined your Lordships’ House two years ago, there was a briefing and I was pleased that I was one of a handful of Peers and MPs who had a password manager. Every password I have is at least 16 characters—they are random and not one is repeated. You have to take this stuff seriously—no pet names, not using your wife’s name or possibly a wedding anniversary. Using a VPN is important as well.
No matter what precautions you take, however, someone is always going to have a go. What this amendment does is give the malevolent hacker a free pass to get through: a ready defence. It is not just that. We need to recognise that technology is changing all the time. All the things I may do with passwords are not enough. Even using face, voice, biometrics and two-factor authentication, cloned SIM cards or using public wifi to intercept signals are important ways in which even the most diligent and careful person can have their data compromised. There are people who want to abuse your privacy or insult your business. We can simply create a crime, but we must take a huge number of steps to avoid jeopardy or giving them a “get out of jail free” card.
In my view, this amendment would mean that, if somebody finds something, they get off, but if they do not find anything then they are guilty. All those years ago when I was at school, we were taught about trial by ordeal. If you gripped a red hot iron bar and you got blisters, you were guilty; if a lady was put on the ducking stool and she drowned, she was probably innocent. This is the sort of perverse outcome that this amendment would provide.
Further, it denies how technology is changing in so far as AI is concerned. In our minds, we have a spotty teenager hacking away at their computer, perhaps late into the night while playing Fortnite on the other screen. What this amendment does is give an opportunity for AI, mechanisation, and the industrialisation and automation of structured hacks on a phishing expedition—a mass insult or mass trolling to try to scrape as much as they possibly can. The public interest is in the eye of the beholder, and because there is no pure definition that is challengeable, and so one would have to go to the law or ask international lawyers what amounts to a statement of the law, we are going to get in a muddle.
I cannot support Amendment 367, not just because I think it is naïve, in so far as it is thinking about the individual at home, but because it fails to understand the way that technology is changing so rapidly—the industrialisation, AI and so forth, and the volume attacks. We cannot give a perverse incentive that allows those people with malevolent intent to get off while individuals, business and the economy, at home and abroad, are under attack.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for bringing back this amendment on Report. As was our position in Committee, we recognise the need to update the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and bring it in line with the online reality in which we now live, 36 years after the Act.
I am grateful that, in Committee, the Minister acknowledged the need for the Government to examine the pro-innovation regulation of technologies review by the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and come to their own conclusions. He was right then that it is entirely reasonable to expect cyber security to be updated with the growth in internet use and the corresponding growth in cyber attacks.
Little more needs to be said, other than that we support the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on the changes to the Act that the Home Office has considered.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment and for returning to this very important subject. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for contributing to this short but vital debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for taking the time last week to meet with myself and officials to discuss this issue.
Cyber security professionals play a crucial role in protecting the UK’s digital systems. I support the intention behind this amendment; we broadly agree on the benefits of introducing a statutory defence. That is why we have been developing a limited defence to the offence of unauthorised access to computer material, provided for in Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act, that will allow trusted cyber security researchers to spot and report vulnerabilities in a responsible manner.
We have made significant progress in shaping a proposal, but some details, including ensuring adequate safeguards, still need refinement. To date, we have briefed over 100 industry and expert stakeholders, including both cyber security firms and system owners, to finalise the approach. Engagement to date has revealed strong support for reform, alongside clear calls to ensure that the defence is workable for a range of cyber security researchers. We will provide a further update once that work is complete.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said that the principle of a limited statutory defence risks creating a hacker’s charter. I stress that we are working with the whole industry—including, of course, the system owners—to develop a nuanced approach that is future-proofed and allows for responsible work in this area.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Government intend to legislate for a statutory defence against Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act once this work has been completed and when parliamentary time allows. We are not quite there yet, so this Bill is not the right vehicle, but we are committed to delivering a solution that is proportionate and practical for both researchers and law enforcement. Like his colleague on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—did earlier, the noble Lord tempts me to somehow forecast what might be in a future King’s Speech. I cannot be that precise.
As a possible response, the noble Lord mooted the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will be a carry-over Motion. I am not going to get into the detail of that tonight, but I am very keen that we stay in communication. The noble Lord has asked some complex questions. He is going to write to me, and I am very happy to respond in kind. In light of the progress we made at the meeting we had last week, and the progress we were making on developing a proposal that has acceptance across the industry and is future-proofed and nuanced—we are, of course, very keen to continue the dialogue—I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister just said that he will exchange correspondence with the noble Lord. Will he make sure that that is copied to everybody who is participating in this debate?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for their contributions. As the Minister says, this defence is at the behest of the cyber security industry. That is a very important point. This is not just a group of hackers who have decided that they need to cover their tracks; this has long been demanded by the cyber security industry. I very much hope that when the industry sees the policy paper produced by the Government, it will see that the movement towards a defence is constructive and particular and does not have the kind of loopholes that it fears.
I thank the Minister for his reassurances about future legislation. I am obviously in very good company with my noble friend in providing temptation for the Minister about the King’s Speech. We look forward to the future legislative opportunities that the Minister has described. In the meantime, I withdraw my amendment.
“Consumer cloud-based service provider access restrictions: lost or stolen devices(1) A provider of consumer cloud-based services referred to in subsection (7)(a) that are accessed from a device must, upon receiving verified notification from a relevant person that a device has been lost or stolen, take reasonable and timely steps aimed at preventing any person who is not the device owner from accessing the provider’s consumer cloud-based services from that device, in order to discourage, where possible, the resale of devices obtained unlawfully.(2) In subsection (1) “relevant person” means— (a) a consumer who is the device owner,(b) a person that is a legitimate seller of the device, or(c) a relevant authority.(3) The provider must, so far as it is technically possible for the provider to do so in accordance with the technical standards referred to in subsection (7)(a), block access to the provider’s consumer cloud-based services from the device identified in the relevant verified notification.(4) The provider must inform, as soon as practically possible, the National Crime Agency and the police service in the area in which the theft or loss of the device was first reported.(5) Providers must, subject to appropriate safeguards, establish a process for relevant persons to appeal or reverse a block on a device in cases of error, fraud, or device recovery.(6) A provider shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered in consequence of any action taken under this section.(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for—(a) the technical standards required to enforce the steps outlined in subsections (1) and (3),(b) the categories of consumer cloud-based services in relation to which providers will be required to take the steps outlined in subsections (1) and (3),(c) the implementation timeline for providers, and(d) sanctions for non-compliance.(8) In this section—“consumer” has the meaning given by section 2(3) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015;“consumer cloud-based service” means a digital service which—(a) is a cloud computing service (as defined in the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/506)),(b) is supplied directly to consumers in the United Kingdom, and(c) is used by those consumers solely for personal use.“device” means a mobile telephone device with an IMEI number;“device owner” means—(a) a person that—(i) is a consumer in the United Kingdom,(ii) has purchased a device through a contract or transfer of ownership of the device, or(b) a legal person that can demonstrate legitimate ownership through supply chain documentation.“legitimate seller” means—(a) a manufacturer or trader of the device,(b) an online marketplace provider or legal person that sells the device, or(c) a trader operating on an online marketplace provided they can trace the origin of the device.“provider” means a person who enters into a contract directly with a consumer in the United Kingdom for the provision of consumer cloud-based services;“verified notification” means a written notification that a device has been lost or stolen, which includes all of the following information—(a) details of the relevant device that has been lost or stolen, including its IMEI number,(b) evidence demonstrating that the person who has submitted the notification is a relevant person, such as proof of purchase or supply chain documentation, and(c) any other information that the provider reasonably requires in order for it to comply with its obligations under this section.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, occasionally there are measures brought before this House that will hugely benefit people, that will be positive and that people of all political persuasions can support in the sometimes fractious fulcrum of Parliament. This is such a measure, and I am disappointed that the likelihood is that the Government will set their face against this proposal.
I commend to the Minister the excellent letter sent by Commander James Conway of the Metropolitan Police on 11 July to Dame Chi Onwurah, the chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, as part of its investigation and inquiry into mobile phone theft and designing out mobile phone theft as far as is practicable. It is an excellent letter, and I will return to it at the end of my remarks.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson. I was delighted to move the amendment in Committee in his absence and to attract so much cross-party support. We also had the support of the police, of the esteemed former Met Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who I am glad to see in his place, and, as we have heard, from Dame Chi Onwurah, a very distinguished Labour MP.
As it is so late, I rise to say only that I agree entirely with my noble friend. The sight of distressed people in the Apple store, some from abroad, having to buy new phones and trying to get back into their accounts, affected me profoundly. It made me determined to change the incentive structure, both for criminals and indeed for retailers, which actually benefit from emergency sales of mobile phones. Given the degree of concern expressed across the Committee, at a much more civilised time, and the changes that my noble friend Lord Jackson has made to the amendment to try to meet any concerns, I very much look forward to a positive response from the Minister and to getting after this ghastly criminal operation.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 368 in support of my noble friend Lord Jackson, because losing your phone is not just inconvenient. When your device is stolen, a crime has been committed, and operators have a responsibility to take a much more leading role in disincentivising the opportunities to steal, to make it a lot easier to reunite people with a phone that might have been lost and to discourage the black market in stolen goods.
It is a late hour, but I hope to tell a little uplifting story about my experiences today, because today I found a phone on the Tube as I got off at Westminster. It turns out that the gentleman sitting next to me, who had got off at Victoria on the way from Fulham, had left it behind. I am an honest chap. I had a look: it was a pink case with two phone numbers inside. I called them and there was no answer, but I texted them and, by and by, there was a response. To cut a long story short, the phone was reunited with the owner—perhaps, as I have the phone number now, I might send them the YouTube clip and possibly the Hansard as well. The phone was deposited at Westminster Tube with TfL staff, who were really good. They were actually really interested and keen to help this poor, unfortunate chap.
But what if someone had not been quite so honest? What if that phone number was not tucked inside the pink case? How would it have been secured and returned? I did not expect to talk to this group, but my experience today shows how important this amendment is. The man in the street should not rely just on the kindness of strangers. The phone companies should not make it harder to reunite; we should prevent the perverse incentives.
But there is another point. The phone is no longer just a phone. It is not just a device to doomscroll on late at night. It is not just a device to play “Candy Crush”. The phone is now a token—part of our security infrastructure and part of the devices that secure our economy. I do not believe that this has been fully understood. I got locked out of my parliamentary account the other day, and because I had left my phone behind, I could not do my work, neither my commercial work nor the work associated with this House. I do not think that the penny has quite dropped with the operators to recognise that they are now part of the security infrastructure of our economy. It is not just the inconvenience of losing a phone and queuing up, as my noble friend says, in the Apple store to replace it; this is part of the technological infrastructure of our nation. Technology has moved on, and the phone companies must do so too.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I rise briefly to support this amendment. This country has been good at reducing fires. It has done it by designing things and places not to burn. We have never had the same determination about designing things not to be stolen. This is all about preventing crime by design. The secondary feature is that people do not tend to steal things that have no value. There are a lot of negatives, but fundamentally, if it has value, people will steal it. They do not steal it to deprive you of it but to sell it, often to fund their drug habit. This amendment is all about taking the value out of the stolen phone.
There is some success at the moment, in that some of these phones cannot be reactivated on UK systems, but as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, they are getting activated abroad. It is hard to stop them going abroad; very small portable devices put in containers are hard to discover. Although it was mentioned that the Met and others are having good success with drones and chasing, I guarantee that one day somebody will get badly hurt—either one of the people being chased or one of the cops. Chasing is, inevitably, dangerous. This is about stopping the chase and stopping the crime.
The 70,000 crimes mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will be a bare minimum. Many people do not bother reporting them. There is no need to report them for many people. Sometimes they lose them in embarrassing situations, and they certainly do not report it then. We are talking about a large amount of crime that can have something done to prevent it.
My final points are these. There is no incentive at the moment for the phone companies to stop this crime, because when you lose your phone or have it stolen, you buy another one from them. The £50 million-worth of phones that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned means £50 million more for the providers of the phones. So why would they stop it? All they have is more business coming through the door. The business model is not helpful to preventing crime.
It is a common-sense measure. It is well thought out. The amendment looks like it will work, given its extent and comprehensiveness, and nobody has a better idea; or, if they have, I have not heard it. This does not cost the Government anything. It will possibly cost the manufacturers, but it will be marginal to the costs and profits they have already. It is a really good idea. It helps the police a bit, but it mainly helps the victims as it reduces their number. It means that you can walk down the street, come out of the Tube, take your phone out and not have somebody whip it out of your hand.
My final point is that it is not just about theft. Often people are injured when their phone is taken—it is violence as well as theft. Particularly with vulnerable victims, nobody knows where it will end. It can end up with a murder or a very serious crime. If we can do something about this, it will have an impact. It is achievable, and I recommend that the Government, if they do not accept the amendment, try to find a way to do it in the future.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 368 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on which he has campaigned so strongly. It addresses a crime that has become a blight on our streets: the industrialised theft of mobile devices. We must remove the profit motive from street crime. If a phone is useless the moment it is stolen, the thefts will stop. California proved it and the technology exists; the only thing missing is the will to legislate. I urge the Minister to move beyond collaboration and accept the amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
It is the Government who have kept their Back-Benchers here at this time of night and kept the debate going. I am allowed to speak, am I not? The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sprang up before me. But for all the Back-Benchers complaining about people debating this important issue, it was the Government’s decision to keep the debate going to this point, and some of that is to prevent a Division on the matter.
I am trying to understand—a question that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put so eloquently—why the Government are not accepting this amendment. They have given every indication that they will not. I appreciate that losing a mobile phone may be inconvenient, but the number one issue is the impact on tourism in London. It is why Sadiq Khan has painted up and down Oxford Street the words, “Don’t stand here”—because you might be attacked for your phone. It is ridiculous that, in our capital, the Mayor of London is painting these signs. It is all over the Tube as well that you might get your phone pinched. Yet the Government, for some reason, do not seem prepared to get tough with the mobile phone companies and prevent, as a former Metropolitan Commissioner has pointed out, a pretty lucrative business model which could be addressed—not just the thefts but the physical incidents that are happening, principally, though not only, in our capital—by taking forward my noble friend’s amendment.
It worries me that there is a risk of getting tribal on this, when we do not need to. Does the Minister want to intervene? I think she just said something from a sedentary position. I see she does not want to intervene. Does somebody else want to intervene? Was that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes? Does he want to intervene, with his experience of Newcastle? No, he does not want to intervene.
This is affecting not only citizens but tourists, and that has a massive impact on the attraction of our capital. The Government should be taking this issue a lot more seriously than they seem to be and trying to stop a crime that is one of the principal causes, in crime survey statistics, of people being frightened to go out and about on the streets of our capital city.
I am somewhat disappointed that this debate is happening close to midnight. I am conscious that Government Back-Benchers do not want to be here, and I can see that the Opposition Back-Benchers do not want to be here, but I do, because I care about people in our communities.
I appreciate that my noble friend will not want to test the opinion of the House tonight, but we must find a way to tackle this issue for the sake of everybody. Parliament must listen to the concerns of people across this country, and those trying to visit this country, and tackle something that has become so pernicious that it is a genuine threat to the prosperity of the many businesses that rely on people coming to this country and going out to enjoy themselves.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his amendment regarding cloud-based services and access restrictions for lost or stolen devices. As my noble friend said, a similar amendment to the one before us was presented in Committee, during which it was pleasing to see Cross-Bench support from noble Lords on this proposed solution to an increasing problem.
Mobile phone theft is now a high-volume and high-impact crime. It is particularly prevalent in urban areas, obviously, and can often cause distress to its victims, as well as financial loss. Rather than simply creating new offences or imposing more severe punishments, we must address the current incentives that sustain the criminal market for stolen mobile devices. As was our position in Committee, we must act to remove the profit motive that fuels this behaviour in the first instance.
Amendment 368 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson seeks to achieve that precise goal. By requiring providers to take reasonable and timely steps to block access to services once the device is verified as lost or stolen, stolen phones would no doubt be less valuable on the resale market. This would result in the substantial removal of the economic rewards that drive organised and individual phone theft. The blocking of access to cloud synchronisation and authentication services would plainly strip stolen devices of much of their value to criminals. Quite bluntly, this proposal has the potential, as we have heard from other noble Lords, to undermine the business model of those stealing phones.
The amendment would also build on important safeguards. It would require a verified notification, a mechanism for appeals or reversal in cases of error or fraud, and an obligation to notify both the National Crime Agency and local police forces, thereby strengthening intelligence. Of course we must recognise that any operational mandate of this kind must be technically feasible and proportionate—the Secretary of State must therefore set appropriate standards and timelines through regulation—but the principle behind my noble friend’s amendment is vital. If smartphones lose value as criminal commodities, the incentive to steal them will be reduced. We on these Benches give this amendment our fullest support, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Once again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling this amendment. I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in particular, but also to the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this Government take mobile phone theft seriously. That is why we have measures in the Bill to take it seriously, and why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a mobile phone summit for the first time last year. That is also why we encouraged the Met to undertake its conference next week on mobile phone theft.
That is also why, in figures I can give to the noble Baroness, over the past year—the first year of this Labour Government—mobile phone thefts in London have fallen by 10,000, a reduction of 12.3% from the previous Government’s performance. It is a real and important issue. We are trying to tackle it and are improving on the performance from the time when she was Deputy Prime Minister. I just leave that with her to have a think about that, even at this late hour.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
So will the Minister accept my noble friend’s amendment?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will come on to that in a moment, if I may. I accept the principle of the work the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is bringing forward, but I do not accept it in the context that the noble Baroness put it: that we are doing nothing. We are doing quite a lot. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which is the important thing—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness did, actually. She said that nothing was happening under this Government. Every Member on this side of the House heard her say that.
The hour is late so I will go to the nub of the issue, which is the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. Law enforcement partners—the police and the Home Office—are taking robust action to drive down instances of mobile phone theft. We have delivered the most comprehensive, intelligence-led response to mobile phone theft, and Operation Reckoning, supported by the Home Office through the Metropolitan Police Service, is tracking down criminal gangs on this issue, going to the point the noble Baroness did not mention.
I agree that we need to take action to make sure the companies that design these devices provide services, play their part and do absolutely everything they can to ensure that a stolen mobile phone is not a valuable commodity and therefore not worth stealing, which was the very point the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Law enforcement partners—all of us in the law enforcement sector—are currently working in collaboration with technology companies and partners, including phone manufacturers, to look at the technical solutions, which, I must say to the noble Baroness, is something that the previous Government did not do. The Home Office is supporting this important work, and I thank everybody involved for their constructive engagement.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular, that it is our preferred approach to allow this collaborative work between mobile phone manufacturers, mobile phone operators, law enforcement partners and the Home Office to continue, so that we find a positive solution to this problem, rather than accepting the amendment before us today and mandating a specific, untested solution through legislation. It does not mean that we will not do this—we want to try to do it—but we have to make sure that we do it in a way that works, is sustainable and is in partnership with the mobile phone authorities. The approach we are taking will reduce the risk of legislation not achieving the desired output.
I want to be clear to the noble Lord that we are working on that now. If it does not work, and if we find blockages and we do not make progress, we reserve the right to look at any and all options. At the moment I cannot accept his amendment, because it would mandate us to do something, but we are already trying to work on this to make sure that what we do works. We are doing that in partnership with all those authorities. At the same time, we are doing practical stuff by tracking down people and putting more police on the beat, including the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are introducing over the next few years. We are also ensuring that we take action through the Bill on tracking mobile phones and giving police superintendents more action. That is a positive programme of action. However, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment and I ask him to withdraw it. If he does not withdraw it, I will ask my noble friends to vote against it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I had hoped the tone of this debate was going to be a bit more productive, collaborative and consensual. I just wish that the noble Lord would sometimes bite his lip on this. Frankly, we had a consensus, but he had to go into partisan, party-political mode, attacking the previous Conservative Government.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am a fairly gentle soul, but if the noble Baroness provokes this Government by saying that they are taking no action, then this Government will fight back and explain what action they are taking.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Let me talk in detail about something I remember.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Yes, I will. I do not want the noble Baroness opposite heckling. She has not been here for most of the debate. If she does not want to take part in an erudite, interesting debate on this issue, she could probably go elsewhere.
This is an important issue about people. The reason I got involved in this is because—as you do—I got into a discussion with a taxi driver. The taxi driver told me about picking up an American tourist, who was in floods of tears because her dream trip to London had been utterly ruined by phone theft. She was bereft and distraught. I then began to look at the excellent work that the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee had done. The fact of the matter is that there is no substance to the Minister’s assertion that the technical solutions are misplaced, not in place or not ready—they are. A number of the tech companies, such as Samsung and Google, have confirmed to the Select Committee that they are in place and that there is a technical solution to it.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My noble friend is making a valid point. The reason I made the point I did earlier is because I understand that the Back-Benchers are irritated at being here at this time of night debating such an important issue.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Well, that seems to be the case. My concern is that we hear about collaboration, but here is a tool that the Government can readily deploy, with the backing of Parliament, in order to strengthen their hand, and not wait for more time. I am conscious that all sides of the House want this to end. However, I have to say that the attitude so far has been that it is inconvenient to discuss this important matter.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I concur with the spirit of my noble friend’s observation.
I have given the Minister plaudits in the past for doing a very difficult job on marshalling the Bill through the House—his diligence, his hard work, his commitment to the Bill. We support many of the aspects of the Bill, and we believe his heart is basically in the right place. What frustrates us—he must understand this—is seeing that his own senior Back-Bencher, who chairs a Select Committee, is robustly critical of a senior politician such as the Home Secretary for her inaction, while bringing forward technical solutions in a non-partisan way with a multi-party Select Committee. I find it quite difficult to understand why the Government should not accept it, because, at the end of the day, the Government would get the credit from the people of this country for doing that.
However, I accept that the Minister feels constrained. I take him at his word that he will continue a proper, thorough dialogue with the tech companies, based on empirical data and facts, and talk to senior police officers—people who know about building out crime and designing out crime. I hope that a future Bill will be tabled and that the Government will feel confident enough to include a clause incorporating what we have discussed.
We are discussing this at 11.50 pm because some earlier amendments were debated at significantly greater length than we expected. I would have pressed this to a vote but, notwithstanding everything that has been said, I hope that the Minister will reconsider and talk to his colleagues. This is a very good proposal. It is not a Tory proposal or a Labour proposal, but a proposal that will help people. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, it will do a lot for tourism and put us where we ought to be: as a pre-eminent technological superpower, doing something to change things for the better.
On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.