Lords Chamber

Wednesday 19th November 2025

(began 1 hour, 51 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Discussions with the United States government on measures to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. the Order Paper.
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Promoting the hydrogen and fuel cell industry in the United Kingdom Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-

experience. So the government does recognise this and will consider it further. In the road safety strategy review that I mentioned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third oral question Baroness Walmsley. I beg. To leave. The.
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:52
15:52
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Flint. My Lords, this is the. First in a number of groups of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First in a number of groups of government amendments, and I apologise, if I may, for the large number of amendments that are before the Committee today. Where before the Committee today. Where the core aim, however, is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement with the Scottish Government and relevant Northern Ireland departments that have happened since the introduction of the Bill, which is why we've moved so many amendments in this case today, and that's happened since February.

In each case, we're bringing forward these amendments at the request of the devolved governments. The amendments unavoidably cover a significant number of pages on that Marshall list. But I assure noble Lords, and this is important, that generally they do not import new policy into the Bill. This group of amendments all relate to the offensive weapons provisions in chapter two, part two of the bill. These will contribute to our Safer Streets mission to halve knife crime in a decade. And I'm pleased to report that even now, within the latest crime survey figures, for the year to the end of June show a 5% reduction in knife enabled offences.

This is to be welcomed, but of course there is much more to do. Clause 28 amends section 141 and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section one of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, and it increases the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons from six months to two years imprisonment. This includes the offence of manufacturing, selling, hiring, offering for hire, lending or possessing in private any prohibitive offensive weapon, as detailed in the Criminal Justice Act 88 Offensive Weapons Order 1988.

There is also cover in here for the offence of selling a knife or bladed article to anyone under the age of 18. Now amendments 50 to 70 to clause 28 simply extend the increase to the maximum penalty for those offences to Scotland. At the request of the Scottish Government. The existing legislation in England and Wales provides that anyone over 18 years of age and over are found guilty of any of these offences will face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

We believe the maximum penalty does not reflect the seriousness of these offences and should be increased in line with the current offence of unlawful marketing of knives, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. This will align the maximum penalties for the offences in relation to the sale of knives. Now, in clauses 31 and 32, we introduce a stricter two step age verification age check for the sale and delivery of knives bought online. These provisions will require at the point of sale, specific checks of a photographic identity document, plus current photograph of the buyer and at the point of delivery, be it a residential address or a collection point.

Photographic identity checks. In addition, we're providing for a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife to someone other than the buyer. If the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company, so that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or indeed with neighbours. I think they're both welcome measures. Amendments 71, 72 and 74 confirm that in section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where a passport or driving licence is used as proof of age on a remote sale of a knife, that it is required to be a copy of a physical version.

We are, however, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations subject to an affirmative procedure. So this House and the Commons will have the opportunity to debate them further, where an alternative step to be taken for age verification, such as digital ID, including digital passports and digital driving licences can be used. These amendments are required in order to ensure that the appropriate digital proofs can be used as evidence of identity in place of a physical document, and that the necessary safeguards can be attached to their use.

My Lords, it is clear that many consumers already expect to be able to use digital forms of ID rather than just the physical version, so they can prove to a seller they are aged 18 or over in order to purchase knives or indeed crossbows. The Data Use and Access Act of 2025 lays the foundation for trusted digital verification services, which are already widely used across the economy, and digital versions of government issued documents like driving licences and veterans cards will become available soon.

It's also important to provide consistency for both consumers who buy and businesses who sell knives or crossbows to that which already exists across different sectors where digital age verification is used or indeed soon will be, for example, in relation to the purchase of other age restricted products such as alcohol, tobacco or gambling. The other amendments to clause 31 or 32 extend the provisions made for England and Wales by these clauses to Scotland, and the additional clause makes provision for Northern Ireland again at the request of both bodies.

Again, I apologise for the length of the discussion on these amendments, but amendment clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Crossbow Act 1987 and requires that crossbows, or parts of a crossbow, can only be sold or let on hire to someone aged 18 or over. Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the same stricter two step verification on age checks that have been introduced for the sale and delivery of knives bought online for the sale, and letting of hire crossbows or parts of crossbows.

Bought or let on hire online. Now the amendments late again in the name of the government one two 4 to 1 eight nine. Extend again those provisions in clauses 33 and 35. So they apply to Scotland as well. Again, at the request of the Scottish Government and amendments 190 to 192, insert new clauses which amend the Crossbows Northern Ireland order to ensure that stricter age verification checks for sale, letting on hire and delivery of crossbows also apply to Northern Ireland.

I think it really is important that on these significant issues, there is across UK approach. Finally, on clause 36, this provides for mandatory reporting of bulk sales of knives. Clause 36 defines reportable sales as the purchase of six knives in England and Wales in a single transaction, or, when made over two or more occasions in a 30 day period. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or up to two or more persons, where these are to be delivered to the same residential address as noble Lords will probably know.

There are exemptions for business sales, sales of cutlery, knives without a sharp point, sales of safety razor blades and pocket knives with a cutting edge which do not exceed three inches. There will also be exemptions for qualifying sets of knives, such as kitchen knife blocks. These will be sets of at least three knives that are each of a different size or shape, no matter how many knives the set contains, and we're all very familiar with that type of kitchen equipment. The purchase of multiple sets of knives, or the purchase of a single set alongside individual knives, where these combination lead to a total purchase of at least six knives, will also be reportable.

Now, again, that's what is in the bill currently. Amendments 193 to 209. Again, extend these provisions to Scotland. And like provisions are also introduced for Northern Ireland. So again, there is consistency across the United Kingdom as a whole. There are various consequential and drafting amendments at the back of the bill relating to the power to make consequential amendments. But in essence, the policy positions in the bill by these amendments under the government today are being replicated to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

And I beg to move. Ireland. And I beg to move.
16:00
16:01
16:02
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
answer yes, then I will revert shortly. But my understanding is I can answer yes to both those points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on these benches we do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on these benches we do support the intent behind these. What was a blizzard? I think of government amendments, my Lords. But and of course, as the Minister But and of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and in certain cases, to Northern and in certain cases, to Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I think it would be extremely useful if the if the Minister could now say whether the Minister could now say whether the law in each of the home nations, so to speak, is pretty, is is the same to speak, is pretty, is is the same because I assume that's the, the, the effect of all these different the effect of all these different amendments, the whole that the that the UK should be on exactly the the UK should be on exactly the same footing.

However, you and wherever you commit that offence, my Lords, even though I understand that obviously it was at the request in the first instance of request in the first instance of the Scottish Government. My Lords, I think we very much support that in terms of the way that the amendments reflect the gravity of the kinds of violence which plague our communities from these offensive weapons, and that the manufacture, supply and possession of these kinds of articles will be met with the full force of the law.

So not only do we welcome the amendments, my Lord, but clearly the original provisions of the of the Bill. But, my Lords, we need to think about not just the penalties but the prevention. And I hope that some of those provisions will indeed prevent and make those individuals accountable. In terms of the digital identity, my Lords, which we also support. But I would very much welcome, like the noble Baroness McIntosh, an answer to the question as to whether, if you like the analogue digital analogue identity provision will continue, my Lords.

Otherwise that could lead to forms of digital exclusion. My Lords, which I don't think the Minister or ourselves would welcome.
16:04
16:05
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
I'll wait to hear what you say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when you respond to. My Lords. This group of. Government amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

essentially encompasses. Several different groups. Of amendments and. separated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

separated. But we are where we are. Two of those groups of amendments within this very large group are, I would this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. And I have absolutely no issue with the government increasing the maximum government increasing the maximum penalties for the offence in clause 28 in Scotland and for extending extending the provision in clauses 31, 32 and 35 to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I have no issue with and Scotland. I have no issue with the government amendments about the bulk sales of knives.

I do, however, bulk sales of knives. I do, however, take issue with government amendments 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 110, 111, one two, nine, one, 31, 110, 111, one two, nine, one, 31, 41, one, 42, one, 71, 71, one, 85, 186, 187, and 188. These amend 186, 187, and 188. These amend clauses in the bill to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying further regulations specifying further forms of identification that can be used for age verification purposes used for age verification purposes relating to the online sale and the delivery of knives and crossbows.

That might seem innocuous at first, but all it takes is to look at the member's explanatory statement to realise what these amendments are really about. The member's explanatory statement for amendment 71 says that the amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification, such as digital ID. That is the point. What is happening here is that the government is attempting to perhaps sneak in provisions permitting digital ID by the back door, and I say that the government is sneaking these in because they have not only tabled amendments to change clauses already in the bill, but have included the regulation making power, permitting digital ID in the drafting of the new clauses that extend provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland.

On top of that, they have lumped these amendments together with all the others in this enormous group. So I can only assume that the government hoped no one would perhaps notice their attempts to take the very first step towards legitimising, sorry, legislating for mandatory digital ID, and that is why we cannot support these amendments. The government, I'm sure, will perhaps attempt to play this off as a small and practical change to allow Ministers to retain flexibility by allowing new age verification processes.

But my Lords, that is a red herring. Digital ID is an affront to our rights. The government has repeatedly stated that it will not be mandatory. There is no big deal and that it will simply make things easier. And yet, here we are with the government seeking to insert provisions for digital ID into the Crime and Policing Bill. They have not even enacted the policy, and yet they are already trying to expand its purpose. Does this not tell us all we need to know? They say it will not be mandatory, but how can we be ever? How can we ever be sure of that? My Lords, we notify the government of our opposition to these amendments in advance to let them know that we will not accept any amendments to this bill, or any bill for that matter, that enables digital ID, digital ID it is also in that spirit that I've tabled my amendments in this group, amendments 72 A, 72 B, 87 A and 131A remove provisions in the bill that permit the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify other identity documents.

So my amendment 75 A 75 B 75 C 76 A 76 B 76, C 198, 190 B 191 A and 191 B amend the government amendments for that same purpose. If the government accepts these proposed changes to their own amendments, that is to say, they accept that there can be no power to specify digital ID for the purposes of these clauses, then I have no further concerns with them. However, if they do not want to accept my changes to their amendments to remove the ability to specify digital ID for age verification purposes here, then we will not be able to support them.

able to support them.
16:10
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful for. and I do. Gratefully. I'm grateful to him and to the opposition whips office for giving him the notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I'm sorry that he's done it. You know, we're in the 21st century. Digital ID is becoming a commonplace issue, and I understand that, you know, we're going to have steps to have age verification, such as acceptable digital ID as the norm in future. As I've set out earlier, it's to allow different forms of digital ID to be used to verify purchaser's identity information.

When changes to the acceptable proofs of identity, digital or otherwise, are proposed, then these will indeed be subject to the affirmative procedure. So there would have been an opportunity for the noble Lord in both houses to to oppose or question at that time. But I understand where he's coming from. I'm of the view that as technology progresses, there's going to be different types of digital ID, which might be acceptable. It's not an attempt by the government to speed up or usurp the process. It's just a a future proofing, because it might well be that there's digital ID on a range of issues I have.

Just as an example, I have a digital railcard and I have a hard copy railcard. You know, I show both of those at different times depending which one's easiest to get to. Digital ID is something that is progressing and will continue to do so. And there are, you know, potentially new digital documents like the recently announced digital ID card that will be potentially coming downstream. As with any new legislation, that is still a matter for Parliament to consider. But if a bill comes before the House and the outcome of consultation, it might be in the next few weeks, then that's something we're trying to to future proof accordingly.

I would hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord will be prepared to support all these amendments, but I I'm guessing he won't. And that's that's a reasonable position for him to take. And that's one we'll have to look at and, and to help him today, in a genuine spirit of trying to help him today, if the noble Lord remains unpersuaded, which I think he is. Yes, he confirms he is. I will only move today. The amendments 57 to 70 and 193 to 209 to clauses 28 and 29, respectively.

Amendment two 110 A, which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland to that contained in clause 36 and in due course, the related consequential and drafting amendments to the Bill. But I will not move so that we can look at these matters on report and not have that sort of debate and discussion today. I will not move at this stage. The amendments to clauses 31 to 35 and the associated back of the bill consequential amendments. But I just say to the committee, please rest assured that I'll be bringing them back at report.

And if the noble Lord has his his disagreements, then then we test the House. And if the House votes one way, we accept them. If it votes the other way, we potentially test the House again. So that's a matter for discussion and debate downstream. But I hope that I hope that I hope genuinely, I hope that there's nothing to fear from the proposals to have someone having a digital ID and showing it when receiving a knife or or a weapon through the post, which is what this is proposing.

That's not something to be afraid of. And we are, dare I say it, in the 21st century. Well, I am in the 21st century at least, let's put it that way. We'll we'll go from there. Can I just also just assure assure the noble Lord the paper documents on passports and driving licences will be acceptable as forms of ID, as well as potentially any digital versions of those in due course. And I hope that satisfies his question. And I welcome, if I may, in the spirit of cooperation and consensus, the agreement from both front Benches that the provisions for Northern Ireland and Scotland are welcome.

So on the areas where we agree there is a United Kingdom response from the three administrations that deal with these matters in a devolved or non devolved way. I beg to move the amendments that I've said I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Before the Minister sits down. I'd just like to thank him for what
16:14
16:15
None Portrait
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to, as many of that will say, content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. I think I'm right in saying it may be for the convenience of the House. If amendments 58 to 70 are moved en bloc move formerly en bloc. The question is that amendments 58 to 70 be agreed to en bloc, as many of that admin will say content contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 28, as amended, stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say.

Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 29 and 30 en bloc stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 71 not not moved. Amendment 72 not moved. Amendment 72 a not moved. Amendment 72 B not moved. Amendment 73 not moved. Amendment 70 not moved. The question is that. Clause 31. Amendment 31 be sent part the bill, as many of that opinion will say.

Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 75 not not moved. I therefore cannot call 75 A, B, or C as amendment 75 has not been moved. Amendment 76 not moved and therefore again cannot call amendment 76 A, B, and C as amendment 76 has not been moved. It may be for the convenience of the House. If amendment 77 to 84 be moved formally. En bloc no. To 87. R 77, not moved.

Okay, so amendment 77 not moved 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, five, 86 and 87 not moved. Amendment 87 A not moved. Not moved. Amendment 88 121 not I think I have Amendment 88 121 not I think I have Amendment 88 121 not I think I have to go to 109I think. So. Oh. Is that right to 121 88? It may be the convenience of the House if amendments 88 to 1 to one be more formally not moved, not moved, not formally not moved, not moved, not moved.

Right. The question is that amendment 32 stand part of the bill, as many that have been all say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 32, amendment 122 Lord Clement-Jones.
16:19
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We welcome the effort to strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales. We must ensure that these new powers are effective, enforceable and subject to continuous review. And I rise to move amendment 122 and to propose to speak to amendment 194, both of which aim to enhance the long term effectiveness and impact of this legislation. My Lords, Amendment 122 inserts a new clause immediately after clause 32, and this amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of sections 31 and 32 of the act of what will be the act within two years of these sanctions coming into force.

New powers addressing the remote sale of knives are crucial, yet legislative intervention alone is rarely sufficient to address a complex societal challenge like knife crime. My Lords, I recall some years ago running a project in the London Borough of Lambeth on precisely this issue, and it was extremely complex dealing with young people in this particular area. We must ensure that the mechanisms we're implementing, such as the requirement to physical ID on delivery and the provisions for age verification, and indeed those mentioned by the Minister, are moving towards digital verification, are actually achieving the desired result.

Preventing the online sale of knives to under 18 seconds. The review must go beyond merely confirming compliance, crucially, and must also look at other measures that might limit the availability of knives that could be used in violent offences, such as the design of knives, for instance by changing kitchen knives available online to rounded ends. Home office statistics indicate that two thirds of the identified knives used to kill people in a single year are kitchen knives. We are very much on the same page as Lord Hampton as a noble Lord Hampton with his amendment one two, three we must not stand still, but use real world evidence of what works in tackling violent crime prevention.

We need to continuously monitor and assess the effectiveness of the solutions we put in place. Amendment 194 relates to clause 36, the duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. Clause 36 introduces the requirement for sellers to report bulk sales and essential provision for tackling the grey market and ensuring ensuring accountability. However, for this provision to be an effective law enforcement tool, the information reported must be timely. In my amendment requires regulations made under clause 36 one to include a clear provision that any reportable sale must be notified to the specified person in real time or as soon as reasonably practicable.

Furthermore, to eliminate any ambiguity, the amendment sets a hard stop specifying that notification must occur in any event no later than the delivery of the bladed articles or the end of the day on which the seller became aware that the sale constituted a reportable sale. If we expect law enforcement agencies to use this reporting data to intervene and prevent crimes, giving them advance warning is paramount. A delay in reporting a suspicious bulk purchase renders the power largely reactive rather than preventative, and this amendment simply ensures that the regulations implement the duty to report as soon as possible.

Turning bureaucratic compliance into actionable intelligence. And I hope the government will support amendment 1 to 2 to ensure accountability and scrutiny over time. And amendment 194 to ensure the immediate operational impact of the new bulk reporting duties is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

maximised. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 32. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled list. To speak to my. Amendment one, two, three that within six months of the day in within six months of the day in which this act is passed, and I, my Lords, as a teacher, I realised marking my own homework, actually marking my own homework, actually this drafting gone wrong. There it was last and was launched. A was last and was launched. A consultation on the ban of sharp knives. And in this I would like to associate myself with the words of associate myself with the words of the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones.

My Lords, I'm a teacher and my My Lords, I'm a teacher and my school two years ago lost a student school two years ago lost a student to knife crime in with respect to my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool I see is not in his place, Liverpool I see is not in his place, who during Second Reading warned that there must not be too much law. If I can use the analogy that amendments are like cars, everybody agrees there are too many, but agrees there are too many, but nobody wants to give up their own.

According to you. There you go. According to you. There you go. Well done. According to the ONS, last year, 46% of homicides in the UK were with a sharp instrument and 5,250% of those were with a kitchen knife. It was 52% the year before. Combat knives account for 6%, zombie knives 2%. My Lords, are we looking in the wrong direction here? Should we be looking within the home? I'm very grateful to Graham Farrell, the professor of crime science at the University of Leeds, also the Youth Endowment Fund and the Ben Kinsella Trust for their help.

And my Lords, if anybody has not watched Idris Elba's brilliantly thought provoking film Our Knife Crisis, I would heartily recommend it. It's still available on BBC iPlayer. My Lords pointed tip knives are significantly more lethal than round tip knives, as shown by forensic studies on penetrative damage. A rounded knife will not penetrate clothing, let alone kill domestic settings. A high risk environments, especially for women, where kitchen knives are readily available and often used in fatal attacks.

Now, my Lords, Blade magazine disagree. The harsh truth is this no amount of blunted blades, banned kitchen knives or bureaucratic licensing schemes will stop individuals hell bent on violence. You can't legislate evil out of existence by targeting inanimate objects. England doesn't have a knife problem. It has a people problem, a system problem, a failure to act when it matters problem, unquote. But it is not the perpetrator who has planned their attack and carefully obtained or adapted a weapon to kill that this would prevent.

It is the impulse homicide, particularly within a home environment, that we are trying to reduce here. And here is the theory. Situational crime prevention theory supports reducing crime opportunities by altering environment and tools like replacing lethal knives with safer ones. Rounded tip knives reduce temptation and harm, making impulsive violence less deadly without affecting culinary function. Small paring knives don't penetrate far enough. Could be used in kitchens where a sharp point is really needed.

Evidence also shows that crime rarely displaces to other weapons. When access to one is restricted. Alternative weapons like scissors or screwdrivers are less effective, less available, and carry a lower status, thereby reducing their appeal. My Lord Stone knives are already rounded, showing a public tolerance for safer designs in everyday life. There are also policy parallels with phase outs such as incandescent light bulbs, diesel cars, smoking ban, the expected outcomes from this, My Lords, include halving knife related homicides, reducing other knife crimes and preventing thousands of injuries.

Could we please, my Lords, year? year?
16:28
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page