Lords Chamber

Wednesday 19th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
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
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
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
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:52
15:53
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
16:02
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.
16:05
16:06
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
16:15
16:16
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
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise briefly to make observations about amendment one, two, two. And one, two, three. My Lords, I am not against a review or a consultation, but I would make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the point that these are not cost free. Reviews and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reviews and. Consultations take up a lot of time within departments and are expensive, and we need to keep that in mind when this House authorises it. But my point is a very narrow one. It applies to both the review one. It applies to both the review and to the consultation. It is perfectly. True that the sharp bladed knife is a matter of very great concern to the public, and rightly so. It is important to keep rightly so. It is important to keep in mind, however, that sharp blade denies also have legitimate purposes, and the point that I want purposes, and the point that I want to make is this that when we authorise the review or indeed the authorise the review or indeed the consultation, we need to be sure that the scope of the review and that the scope of the review and the consultation is sufficiently wide to address the balance between wide to address the balance between banning or further banning sharp knives, and the proper use and the knives, and the proper use and the impact on those who use them for proper purposes.

In other words, the scope and the consultation must consider the issue of proportionality where we come to proportionality where we come to any further proposed changes. That is the only point that I want to make, but it goes to both the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

review and to the consultation. My Lord, once. Again, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, I. Find myself in a rather scary. Position of. Seeing some considerable merit. In the suggestion of a.
16:30
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the suggestion of a. Lib Dem peer, the. Noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones. And also I want. To. Comment on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the speeches of the Lord Hampton, who has also. Advocated controls on knives. I think there is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Merit in having a review. Or otherwise. Of the measures in this bill, but I would go. Further and say we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

probably need a wide ranging review. governments. Have taken to try and crack down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have taken to try and crack down on knife crime, and despite all our efforts, we cannot manage to do it. I think I was the Home Office I think I was the Home Office Minister who took through the whole of the Offensive Weapons Act of 1996, then followed up next year by the Knives Act of 1987 that was building on section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1998. Now, I'm certain I said, that these new powers would make a huge difference in reducing knife crime, and every Labour Conservative government since then has said the same thing as we constantly try to close the stable door, since the bad guys can move faster than we can now.

We never heard of zombie knives 20 years ago, and apart from the horrendous murder of PC Blakelock of Broadwater Farm in 1985, machete attacks were rare, not ubiquitous as now in this bill we're trying to crack down on online sales and I totally support that. But I think we do need to have a good, hard look about how we can slow down and try to bend the curve. On knife crime. I have some pretty tough amendments to follow in another group relating to machetes, so I believe we've got to hit hard.

Really hard. Those who attack in the streets using machetes or zombie knives. But I think without a concerted effort by lawful authorities will not succeed in bending that curve. Now on knives, my Lord. When I recently bought a new paring knife, it was wrapped in tough bullet-proof plastic, requiring my one of my trusty old Stanley knives to open it. The girl at the checkout summoned a supervisor before she'd sell it to me. Well, initially I obviously thought it was because I looked under 18, but it was to check if the girl had the authority to sell it.

And I must say to the noble Lord, I'm sorry. Try. Cut it. I'm an amateur cook. Try cutting a Savoy cabbage with a paring knife or a lettuce, or trying to strip chicken meat off the bone with a paring knife. Of course, no matter what restrictions we impose, the bad guys will find ways around it. And yes, they will get their hands on kitchen knives of seven inch blades or nine inch blades. And again I say, the noble Lord Lord Hampton is right. A rounded end knife.

A blunt knife won't cut through clothing. It won't cut through an avocado either. So I think we'll be trying to put on unnecessary restrictions. The noble Lord, my friend, has said from the front bench here it is to excessive Lords, in the year ending 2024, there were around 50,000 offences involving a knife or sharp instruments recorded by the police in England and Wales, police operations regularly and amnesties regularly remove thousands of knives from the streets. In 2006, an amnesty collected 90,000 knives.

And I think in a couple of years ago, 60,000 knives were collected from the streets from England and Wales, but it's estimated there are 400,000 knives in circulation and they're not going to be handed in in any amnesty. If the noble Lord, Lord Hampton's proposals went through, and I and I bet none of those 400,000 knives were like my paring knife. My Lord, this is no criticism whatsoever of the current government, nor past ones I served in or supported. But none of us have the answer to knife crime.

Yes, we're tightening up it in this bill, as we've done in every other bill since I've been in Parliament over the last 40 years, but we still haven't got the answer. Therefore, there might be some merit in some sort of review. We might not get the answer the answers we want, but at least we might be asking the right questions. Yes.
16:33
16:34
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The need. For better police data recording on knife crime. Officers often fail to note the specific type of knife used, with further gaps around sales and marketing. Amendment one two, two recognises that without understanding the threat, it's difficult to counter it. So the evidence base must be improved. The amendments of the noble Lords Hampton and Clement-jones promote a policing approach to reduce opportunities for crime through better design of our buildings, known as designing out crime.

And I've spoken to a number of chief police officers who have tried this with great effect and are very, very, very happy about how this can happen and really would like to see it rolled out. This project, this protective preventative, sorry, aligns with the Liberal Democrat position. I hope the government will give it serious attention. We welcome the government's proposals on this part of the bill, but laws only work if they're enforceable and claim and again said that police currently lack the training, know how and resources to police online knife sales effectively.

And can I ask the Minister about the policing of overseas suppliers, since this is where many of these lethal weapons originate, what plans are in place to monitor imports? The claim and review found that it's often very poor coordination between Border Force and police, and noted the difficulty in getting data from tech and communication companies based overseas. Can the Minister just mention that when he's winding up, please? And also claim and suggested an import licensing scheme to ensure a licence is required to bring knives into the UK? And he proposed re visiting the tax levy on imported knives to ensure potential weapons brought into the country are easier to track and identify.

Does the government intend to implement either of those recommendations?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My Lords, we on these benches believe that this group contains
16:36
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
believe that this group contains sensible and prudent amendments. They require us to review the effectiveness of the government's measures and to consider carefully the potential implications, the new regulations around the sale of knives. They also seek to ensure that we have the necessary evidence base to improve legislation where needed. These, in our view, are good principles. My Lords, amendment 122. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones contains both those elements. The first part of the amendment seeks a review within two years of the effectiveness of the measures in preventing the online sale of knives to persons under the age of 18.

This would plainly be sensible. There's little point in legislating to prevent something if we find out, in fact, that that prohibition is not taking effect. We all want to stop the sale of knives to children, but we should want to do so in the most effective and proportionate manner. By reviewing the impact of this bill, the government would be able to make the necessary adjustments in response to the evidence. Having said that, we should listen carefully to the observations of my noble friend Viscount Hailsham on this.

In this respect, another aspect of the question of efficacy is the obligation which we owe to the law abiding public. It is right that we should attempt to ban children from purchasing knives, but we are all aware of the severity of the knife crime epidemic, and that part of the problem is the easy access to knives. But we should not pretend that the entire problem stems from their online availability. Of course it's a factor, but children intent on committing knife crime young persons, that is, will have plenty of other opportunities if they are determined enough to buy knives and to acquire them from other sources.

Thus, they could use an older friends or family member's identification. Or indeed, they could ask them simply to make the purchase. They could steal a knife. Given the current rates of shoplifting, I suspect this already happens. Or they might simply go no further than their kitchen drawer and take one of the many easily accessible knives there by adding restrictions to online sale, the government is merely stemming one route of access, but doing so adds an extra burden to the great majority of law abiding citizens and retailers.

As I have said, we understand why action is necessary, but if we are to make it mandatory, we should ensure it is genuinely effective in practice. And here again, we should listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We must know, therefore, that we are not adding regulation for its own sake, and that we are simultaneously taking other meaningful measures to address the wider issue. The government should continue to explore this further. Part two B and two C of amendment 122 address another aspect of the knife problem.

While the first part reviews the effect of the bill on the sale of knives, these subsections turn to the design and legality of the knives themselves, my Lords. If the knives which we make harder to purchase are not the ones being used in knife crime, then our efforts will be in vain. Collecting data both on knives sold and separately on knives used in crimes. As amendment 194 argues for, could offer a remedy for this, it would provide the government with the necessary data to identify which types of weapons, in particular lie at the root of the problem, and to take action accordingly.

This principle also underlies the amendment 123 three, and I had already noted the typo, if I can put it that way, and I marked his homework accordingly. But taking it seriously, consulting on what knives are actually used in offending, and on the measures to be required to kerb their circulation, must be sensible and must be proportionate, and it should complement the government's proposals. My Lords, this is a moderate group of amendments on a subject that very clearly needs further review and refinement.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on the government's position. At the same time, I think we need to hear carefully and take heed of what noble Lords have said in their words of caution about these on this topic.
16:41
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am. Hampton for setting out the case for these amendments, and for bringing particularly from the noble Lord Hampton, his front line experience of the tragedy in the school in which he currently works. I'm also grateful for the comments of other noble Lords, and I'll try and respond to those in due course. I note the broad support from the noble Lord Sandhurst for the amendments before the committee today. If I may just say I want to just start, if I may, with Lord Blencathra if I may, I accept that there's been numerous attempts by numerous governments to take numerous courses of action to reduce knife crime, and this is another one.

But I just say to him, it's still worthy of trying, and it's still worthy of examining how we can best reduce the level of knife crime and the measures before the committee and the bill today are an honest attempt by the government to put further obstacles in the way of individuals who might use those knives for nefarious purposes. And that's not that's not I simply say it's worthy of trying. And and we we seek to try to do that. As the noble Lord Clement-Jones has explained, amendment one, two, two would require the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of clauses 31 and 32, in preventing sales to under 18 within two years of these clauses coming into force.

And let me just say, I agree in principle with the noble Lord that we should have to keep under review the impact of those measures again, for the very same reasons that Lord Blencathra mentioned, to look at what works and what hasn't worked, the government is providing £1.75 million funding for a new National Police Coordination Unit, currently to tackle online sale of knives, and the police will be responsible for enforcing this legislation. I take again the noble Lady ducie's concerns about enforcement, but it is for the police to understand its effectiveness and what more can be done to tackle knife crime.

I'll return to the other points that you mentioned in due course. It is standard practice and again, I hope this helps the noble Lord Clement-Jones that all measures in the Crime and Policing Bill before the Committee and House today will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny, 3 to 5 years after Royal Assent. This scrutiny will consider the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill, but includes also, self-evidently, clauses 31 and 32. And he's asking for a two year review that will be undertaken within 3 to 5 years.

And I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the measures will be reviewed in a timely and appropriate way, and again, to learn the lessons that the noble Lord Blencathra has mentioned that we need to examine. Amendment one, two, three, in the name of the noble Lord Hampton would require the government to consult on regulating the sale of sharp knives and provide a report to Parliament. And the design of knives is also addressed in amendment one, two, two. In the name of the noble Lord Clement-Jones.

Now I share the view, if I may say so, of the noble Viscount Hailsham bladed articles with pointed ends do have legitimate uses. Bladed articles with pointed ends are often needed for a wide range of purposes. They are used as tools in work they use for farming, for fishing, for cooking. The government is keen to try and strike the right balance between allowing access to knives for legitimate reasons, which the noble Viscount has, you know, ably outlined in his contribution today, but also the need to protect the public from dangerous weapons.

Now, if it helps the noble Lord Hampton, the government are actively exploring options now to look at how we can strengthen enforcement and prevention measures. And this includes consulting on a licensing scheme for all knife sellers in the future. And I hope that, again, is something that that the noble Lord can accept and look at as I progress the discussion today. Amendment 194, in the name of Lord Clement-jones would require regulations relating to the reporting of remote sales of knives to ensure that such reporting takes place as soon as possible following a bulk sale.

And again, if I may say so, I'm sympathetic to the overall aim of the amendment. Clause 36 provides for a duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. It makes it mandatory for online sellers to report bulk sales. It defines those bulk sales as purchases of six or more knives, or two or more qualifying sets of knives, or one qualifying set and five knives in a single transaction, or when made over two or more occasions in a 30 day period.

That's set out now in clause 36. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or two or more persons, where they're believed to be delivered to the same residential address. The amendment that the noble Lord has put down seeks to make it a requirement to report those in real time, or as soon as reasonably practicable. Now, I would just say to him that clause 36 already provides that regulations will be made to specify how and when reports should be made, what the details of those reports should be, including the detail of regulation to allow future changes of reporting requirements through secondary legislation.

Now, again, I say to him that we're working very closely with the police currently to ensure that the regulations set out both appropriate information and that all reporting systems are ready as soon as possible. We're continuing now to work with stakeholders, including the police, to develop those regulations to ensure that their reports are received within appropriate timescales. And I agree entirely, 100% with the noble Lord that the reports have to be of value to the police in preventing crime, knife crime, and if they're to be valued, they need to be received and actioned in a timely manner.

There is absolutely little benefit if the reports are made days or weeks after the remote sale had taken place. Now again, I can't commit today and I hope the noble Lord will understand this to the formula of the timelines of the report, because we do need to consult the police and others. But the point is raised today are well made, and I want to put them into account when we examine those regulations again later on. I hope that in that sense, the regulations and the comments that I've made today are helpful.

The noble Lady Baroness Doocey mentioned improved data collection. And again, she is absolutely right. That improved data collection was a recommendation of Commander Clayman in his entry and end to end review of knife crime online sales. We have implemented the majority and most pressing of those recommendations from the review under the Ronan's Law, which includes measures including stricter rules for online sellers. But we are also considering the other recommendations in the review, and I'll be able to hopefully return to those at some point in the future.

The noble Baroness Doocey also mentioned the question, which is absolutely valid again, of what happens about imported knives coming from externally from outside of the United Kingdom. I can say to her that products from overseas sellers will have to be subject to the same age checks on delivery if they're marked as containing a knife, and that will be part of the verification checks that are in the legislation as a whole. But if she looks particularly and I refer to page 43 of the bill, she will see that clause 42 A of the for the section 42 a sorry of the relevant clause.

Delivery of bladed articles sold by non UK sellers to premises in England and Wales. There are a number of issues highlighted in the Bill on page 43, which will cover, I hope, to her satisfaction, the issues of imported knives from outside of the UK, and I simply refer to those and if she can look at those in slower time, there's opportunities to test them again at report. If she feels unhappy about those matters. So I would say, I hope that the issues that we that we have in relation to knives before us are extremely important.

And I just want to say finally, to noble Lord Hampton, we are actively exploring options to strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, particularly in relation to the pointed ends of knives. And that will be formed part of the discussions that we have. But I hope that with those, again, I would say to to both noble Lords work in progress, we're going to consult still further, and I would hope, with those assurances that the noble Lords could withdraw their amendments.
16:50
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Before I come to the Minister's. What I thought very constructive report response. I want to thank all noble Lords who've spoken in this debate. My Lord, sir, this has been, I think, a very valuable debate, and we've had a huge degree of consensus on the way forward. My Lords, I very much welcome what the noble Lord Blencathra had to say in terms of no easy answers. I would say, my Lords, that he's not just lethal at the checkout, but elsewhere in this house, of course.

But, my Lords, on a serious note, we do have a common cause here to prevent knife crime in any way we possibly can. My Lords. And I very much appreciated what the noble Lord Hampton had to say with his experience as a head teacher, my Lords. And he quite rightly gave Idris Elba a name check, my Lords, who has done so much towards the cause of knife crime prevention. And I do accept what the noble Lord, Noble Viscount Hailsham, had to say in caveating this kind of review, my Lords, but it could be as specific as the Minister has said.

My Lords, in terms of looking in particular at design, and he certainly indicated that in his response. Can I also thank the noble Lord Sandhurst very much appreciate the support from the opposition front bench, my Lords. And as he says, it is legitimate to seek adjustments in response to the evidence. And I think that is a very important point that was made there, my Lords. And when he says this is a moderate measure, my Lords, I'll take that.

I think moderate is good in this context. My Lords, can I come to what the Minister had to say? He said that, you know, the current provisions were an honest attempt to tackle these issues. And I entirely take that, my Lords. But I also took a lot of comfort from what he said about what the government was doing to explore further preventative measures. My Lords, perhaps licensing schemes or whatever. And I very much hope that between committee and report, my Lords, we can discover a little bit more about the actual shape of that.

My Lords, I also took comfort from what he had to say about the content of the regulations that appropriate timescales would be included in those regulations, my Lords. So on the basis of those two assurances, my Lords, I think the Minister has responded and I think we can take some comfort. The fact that we're seeking not only answers, but we're continuing to question whether we have all the answers, my Lords. And on that basis, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. One, two, two. The noble Lord Clement-Jones sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord Clement-Jones sit down. Can I correct a quick note of fact? It's very kind of him to promote me massively, but I am a simple, simple design technology teacher. I have a very good head teacher. I have a very good head teacher way, way, way above me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Obviously. You know. Very. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 123 not moved. Amendment 124. Lord Hanson of Flint. Just checking which might be en bloc. My checking which might be en bloc. My notes suggest not not moved. Right. Amendments one two 4 to 1 three Amendments one two 4 to 1 three Amendments one two 4 to 1 three three.

Not moved. Amendment 100. And. Oh, sorry. But also I need to And. Oh, sorry. But also I need to go to amendment 131. A Lord Davies go to amendment 131. A Lord Davies of Gower not moved. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 134 Lord Hanson of Flint. 33. The question is that clause 33 stand part of the bill, as many of that will say, content. Contrary, not content. the contents have it. In clause 34, amendments one, three, In clause 34, amendments one, three, 4 to 140 moved En bloc not moved 4 to 140 moved En bloc not moved right. Amendments one three 4 to 1 right. Amendments one three 4 to 1 right. Amendments one three 4 to 1 right.

Amendments one three 4 to 1 eight two. Not moved. Amendment 183 Lord Hanson of Flint. The question Lord Hanson of Flint. The question is that clause 34 stand part of the bill as amended, that have been content contrary not content. The contents have it amendment 183. Right 183 to 189. Not moved en bloc. Right 183 to 189. Not moved en bloc. The question is that clause 35 stand part of the bill, as amended, that will say content. Contrary, not content.

The contents have it 190 not moved, 190 not moved, therefore cannot call 190 A and 190 therefore cannot call 190 A and 190 B as 190 not moved, 191 not not I th B as 190 not moved, 191 not not I th 191 B. 192 not moved, 192. Not 191 B. 192 not moved, 192. Not moved 193. 100 and no, because that's after clause 35. So 100, a 193 move. Formally, the question is that amendment 193 be agreed to, as many of that opinion say, content contrary not content, the contents have it 194 Lord Clement-Jones not moved 195 Lord Hanson of Flint.

105 are. It may be for the convenience of the House that amendments 195 to 209 are moved en bloc. The question is that amendments 195 to 109 be agreed to en bloc, as many of that opinion will say, content. Contrary, not content. the contents have it. The question is that clause 36 is amended. Stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it. Member 210 withdrawn amendment 210 a Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally.

The question is that amendment 210 A be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 36, amendment 211 Lord Houchen Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hogan-Howe. My Lords. I rise. To speak to. The amendments.
16:58
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendments. In my name and that of Lord Lucas amendments 211. 12, 13 and 14.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

12, 13 and 14. I'm grateful to. Lord Lucas for. His support in this. These amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments. This is an area which is about producing consistency and fairness, and I wouldn't like anybody to be and I wouldn't like anybody to be confused about thinking that I want it to be more liberal, not liberal Democrat, but more liberal about knife crime. This is about producing consistency for people who possess knives with innocent intent. Generally speaking, I welcome the update of the penalties associated with offensive weapons under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act of 1959 and section one four, one of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.

In line with more modern regulation. May I suggest that, as well as reviewing the penalties, it's appropriate for us now to review the defences as set out in my amendments 11 to 14. The last two pieces of legislation on zombie knives and ninja swords have included a range of defences, such as that of historical importance, being a blunt weapon, a skilled handmade items in addition to existing global defences of religious ceremony, crown and visiting forces, antique theatrical and media productions.

Museums. When the public have access and ownership for educational purposes in the new legislation, items such as zombie-style, knives and machetes and ninja swords, they have the defence of historical importance which applies to sale, gift, loan and imputation. And in my view there is no good reason for that not to apply as a defence in a consistent global manner to the other 20 items which are in that schedule. So, for example, if the family of a World War Two veteran or a collector can prove that the item they own in private is historically important, then it allows them to legally own it so there is no good reason to prevent them passing it on to the next custodian.

The defence relates to the nature of the item, not the person who owns it. I think we should feel confident that in doing this, it will be following what happened in 2018, when many thousands of historical weapons from the trenches of World War One dropped out of the scope of the legislation because they became antiques. And this was not accompanied by a surge in crime involving these knives. Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime. They're far too expensive for that.

And with the public interest in the end of World War One, the only surge seen was not a rising crime. But in the auction prices, they realised because they became antiques and therefore more valuable. My explanation around amendments two and two, which is about the removal of prohibition on straight truncheons, and amendment two and three, which excludes agricultural tools from curd, curved sword definitions. I also think we should review the definitions in the schedule of items about straight, which is item Q, which is straight side handled, and friction lock truncheons and curved swords.

Section one four, one of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was intended to prohibit weapons of a more serious nature, and as 1 or 2 of us will know, the bobbies truncheon of heartbeat, which we carried at the beginning of our careers, hardly pass the test of being a very dangerous weapon. In fact, I think in all the time I had mine, I never used it. I never hit anybody with it. I threatened 1 or 2, but I never hit anybody. And it broke a few windows.

But it wasn't particularly. It wasn't a particularly effective weapon. Even when we were given them at the time. In fact, the similar to everyday objects such as baseball bats, which are in fact often longer and can be more dangerous. And in the 20 years since they were included in the schedule, many thousands have been sold in auctions and antique venues, with no apparent appearance of them on the street. Many hundreds have even been presented by police forces to retiring officers, of which there may be at least two in this.

In this room. Some notable presentations are have been to members of this House and to Queen Elizabeth. The second batons with side handles, martial art weapons known as tonfa and friction lock truncheons will remain prohibited, but the law on straight truncheons does not appear to be actively enforced for many decades. It follows that the removal of the straight truncheon from the restrictions of section one four, one of the act of 1888, presents no additional risk to society, and I think we should consider providing an exemption.

Someone carrying a straight and straight edged truncheon in public as an offensive weapon, or indeed a baseball bat, or even a branch pruned from a tree, could still be charged with an offence. Under the Prevention of Crime Act of 1953, which says, as some of us remember, that anything that's made, intended or adapted to cause injury to a person can be an offensive weapon. It's made a dagger intended whatever you pick up in your hand and suddenly can be made from a stick which has been sharpened.

My amendment 213 is proposed following the inappropriate seizure on occasions by the police of sickles from garden sheds as being curved blade swords, which I may suggest was never the intention of the law, and I believe this item requires an exemption from the traditional tools grouping because they're used in agricultural work, conservation and of course, gardening. Explanation for amendment 214 is that while I fully appreciate that defences for flick knives is a difficult thing to consider, I think we'd all be very careful before we change anything about that, because they continue to be a problem.

There have been six deaths associated with flick knives in the year commencing April 2023, but the purpose of the Restriction on Weapons Act of 59 was to target the cheap foreign flick knives of the Teddy Boy era. Not all of the defences in section one four, one of the Criminal Justice Act, are appropriate to copy, but there are three sections which over the last 65 years have a proven track record of not giving rise to crime and have been treated with a common sense Lord Nelson sort of approach by enforcement officers.

The first concerns an exemption for Crown forces, visiting forces and visiting emergency services. Some museums, like the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum, hold flick knives, but the public are not allowed access, so they do not have an exemption to holding of those knives. You might think ironically, but it does make their position illegal. In that museum, they hold old knives from notorious historic criminals, but the lack of access to the public means that they cannot. They cannot afford themselves to the defence that's available in law.

Subclause seven does not apply to them. Some of our NATO allies and our Ukrainian friends who we train in this country, issue gravity knives and flick knives to paratroopers and airmen for the use in self rescue during parachuting mishaps. They are also in use in Poland, Germany and the USA and appear in the NATO stock numbering system, which allows any member of a UK, the UK Armed forces to draw them. So an overseas ER person on joint exercise, the UK would be at risk of being picked up and prosecuted should they have them in public or even be in possession of them.

Secondly, there is the question of the film industry. The film industry in this country contributes about 5.6 billion to our economy in 2024. Now, by and large, film directors want their close up shots to be authentic in terms of the look, sound and heft of real weapons. Clearly, these things must be used in secure conditions, but we allow heavy machine guns, assault rifles and similar items to be used in films made in this country under conditions of strict control. There are licensed armourers who supply such weapons for dramatic performances and films.

It does not seem to me that people who are trusted with such weapons should not be trusted with weapons prohibited under law. They have appeared in half of the half a dozen bond movies over the decades, dozen bond movies over the decades, and to remove. I'm sorry to remove from the script of the next bond film, one in the franchise would seem a little bit odd. I cannot see that by allowing an exemption for film and performance, we're doing anything more dangerous than we allow for other weapons.

At the moment. There is a direction in which we I think we should feel comfortable in moving. Thirdly, the same applies to antique weapons. The Offensive Weapons Act in 2019 included a revision to the flick knife definition, which was inadvertently included, which has inadvertently included 18th and 19th century flintlock and percussion firearms with spring operated bayonets. These items are exempt from the firearms legislation, and have not been involved in acts of violence for a couple of centuries now. They should not be prohibited merely because they also have the flick knife mechanism blade.

They're not very practical street weapons of the modern era, at least in this House. Many of our parents were heavily involved in the Second World War. There were many items used in that war that were issued to members of the Special Forces forces, or captured from German troops that are very probably properly considered collectable now. And it seems to me that it's part of our national history, but they're not so unique that the British museums would want to end up with large collections of them.

So perhaps we ought to allow these items as we allow other weapons to be part of collections. We allow old swords and other very dangerous weapons to be collected. So why not the weapons that we are now prohibiting under Roe, as long as they are antiques? I think 1945 is a convenient time to end the definition of antique, especially for the purpose of this act, mostly because shortly thereafter steel became contaminated with radioactive elements from the aerial atom bomb test, which happened obviously in Japan and other parts of the world where tests were carried out, as well as where they were dropped as a weapon of war.

So you can distinguish old steel from new post 1945. Also, designs changed a good deal after the war, and there was a strong a long period when some countries did not produce. So therefore 1945 I think is a convenient cut off point. You can tell what is pre 1945 and what is later. There's also that is where that intense period of history ends. When the world was at war and weapons were so prevalent. So it might be sensible to allow us all to possess the memories of mementoes from the last World War and to prohibit weapons produced after it.

Apart from anything else, in previous times, these antique weapons have gone on, gone for a considerable price, and have been viewed by enforcement officers as extremely low risk or being the cause of crime. So those basically are my amendments. I just want to say a few words at the end about the issue of delivering pointed items and weapons by post, one of the indirect consequences of some of the legislation that's been passed with good intent over the last few years is that more and more restrictions have been placed on the delivery, quite properly, of these items by post, usually by courier.

What it means is that the courier on delivery has to do far more, and this act expects more in terms of proving age and authentication of the person who made the order, being the person to whom the delivery is made. What this means is the courier has got to spend longer there. Consequently, the couriers involved are not wanting to carry this type of weapon, but probably as importantly, they not want to carry pointed items. There are now down to two couriers who are prepared to do this, and while I'm not suggesting it's an item of legislation, it might be something that we collectively need to consider because of course, if the industry that produces cutlery knives cannot easily deliver those items, then that would have a significant effect and clearly is an unintended consequence of what is well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motivated legislation. Proposed. I assume the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed. I assume the noble Lord is moving his amendments. To

**** Possible New Speaker ****

propose after clause 36. Insert the new clause. As printed.
17:11
17:11
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

points made. And the amendments made. By the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and supported by my noble friend, Lord Hailsham. I think we are in territory of unintended consequences here. I think we do want the House needs to take a pragmatic approach, and where there are lacuna, whether there are mishaps in the complex swathe of legislation of many successive bills around knives and similar offensive weapons, we need to take the opportunity to correct those.

And certainly I support the the derogation for agricultural gardening or conservation purposes. And indeed weapons of historical importance, collectables and so forth. So I think this seems to be some very pragmatic measures which I support. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject of truncheons. The noble Lords, even with his experience, didn't use his. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, at the Second Reading of this bill, saying that he deployed it and made liberal use of it in arrest, with results of blood being spattered onto his uniform.

So I guess experience varies. But my Lords, I do support the noble Lord in his efforts today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the. Amendments put forward. By the noble Lord and friend and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colleague Lord Hogan-Howe. I'm just just. For a short period of time. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For a short period of time. He was a Minister as one other person in this House when I was a senior police officer, and I don't remember once my Lords Lord Blencathra in actually instigating
17:13
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Portrait Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (Crossbench)
-
-
Blencathra in actually instigating or taking through legislation that did not have an effect. And that is a fact. The other thing I'm going to disclose and I'm going to keep it secret, but I know I can trust all of you. I'm sure you're all positively vetted, but Lord Blencathra, when he left, was actually given a helmet, as was Baroness Hoey, who was also an extremely effective Minister in my time. He was offered a truncheon, and he decided that his shepherds quake.

His shepherd's stick was far more effective than a truncheon, so he didn't give it to him. And just as a matter of record, yes, I used my truncheon once chasing someone down Tottenham Court Road. I hit him three times. It had absolutely no effect. From then on I never used it. But on the Flying Squad we did introduce when we were going to very violent robberies. We had intelligence that weapons were being used, we used pickaxe handles far more effective than Lords, but this is a move in the right direction.

I think you described it, my Lord, in terms of a practical approach, a common sense approach to things like straight truncheons, a common sense approach to all the other issues that have been raised here this afternoon. It's been a great debate as far as I'm concerned, but we will make a difference. And following my dear friend Lord Kakkar Lord Blencathra approach and his historical delivery in terms of what he delivered with Baroness Hoey in the time they were Ministers, we will make a difference.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I think far be it from me to disagree with two former
17:15
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
me to disagree with two former commissioners. My Lords, that would be, I think, extremely inadvisable. We've heard the word liberal used twice in this debate, my Lords, which just shows that interpretations can vary. I must say, my Lords. The other thing is that, of course, in this House we learn something new every day. I had no idea that you could trace pre 1945 steel in the way that the noble Lord Hogan-Howe described, and I do thank him for what was an extremely clear, expert introduction to his amendments.

My Lords, which seek to refine the definitions and provide necessary defences within the existing offensive weapons legislation. And, my Lords, the exemption for Agricultural Tools amendment. His amendments for exemptions for historical and cultural items. My Lords, seem to us on these benches are entirely sensible, protecting legitimate interests, seeking the law from becoming obsolete or unnecessarily broad, protecting legitimate interests in film, theatre and television industries, as well as non-public museums. And so, my Lords, I think we're entirely comfortable with ensuring that while we crack down on those who equip themselves for violence, we don't punish collectors, farmers or those engaged in artistic production.

And seems to us, my Lords, that these amendments offer common sense amendments that safeguard legitimate possession and use of articles that could otherwise be caught by broad definitions. And so we support them, my Lords.
17:17
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
And my Lords, I we on this side of the House are grateful to the northern Lord, Lord Hogan-howe, for bringing forward this thoughtful group of amendments relating to the controls on offensive weapons. Each of these amendments raises practical questions about the application of the current laws we have relating to offensive weapons, and seeks to ensure that legislation designed to protect the public does not inadvertently criminalise, criminalise legitimate, historically important or professionally supervised activities. Amendment 211 proposes a defence where a weapon is of genuine historical importance.

My Lords, the reason behind this amendment is eminently sensible. It aligns the treatment of such items with existing defences relating to antiques and curated collections. This is a meaningful distinction between dangerous modern weapons intended for misuse and historical artefacts preserved for cultural or heritage purposes. There is therefore an important question raised here. Proportionality and the scope of reasonable excuse, and I hope the government will reflect carefully on whether existing provisions fully address the concerns raised. My Lords amendments two and two and two and three relate to the traditional straight police truncheon and to agricultural tools.

And I can tell the house, in my 32 years as a police officer, I did not use my truncheon on anybody. However, it was very useful in silencing alarms in the middle of the night of business premises when the when you couldn't get the the keyholder out of bed. But here too, we recognise the practical issues that these amendments seek to resolve. It is not a controversial belief that items. It is not a controversial belief that items with legitimate ceremonial, historical or agricultural uses should not fall inadvertently within criminal restrictions where there is no evidence of misuse.

The example is provided in support of these proposals. Make clear that the law must operate with fairness and precision, and I hope the government considers them with due regard. Amendment two and four addresses a wide range of potential exemptions for visiting forces, emergency services, theatrical and film productions, museums and antiques. My Lords, these are complex areas with operational realities that deserve serious thought. The amendment raises legitimate questions about how the law accommodates professional and historical circumstances without undermining public safety, and I look forward to hearing the government's thoughts and response to this amendment.

These amendments rightly probe the intersection of the criminal law with the heritage and cultural sectors. These are sectors that must be protected, and we cannot allow well-meaning legislation to unintentionally criminalise legitimate historical and cultural activities. So we look forward to hearing the Minister's response and to assurances, assurances that these matters will receive the careful consideration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they merit. Goes to the stat box, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Goes to the stat box, and I stand to ask for guidance that when I was a in doing my national I was a in doing my national service in the Royal Navy, and I can name it precisely in March of can name it precisely in March of 1957, I became a midshipman. And with that ranking I was awarded a Midshipman's. Dirk. I still hold that midshipman Dirk, and I can't find that Dirk falling under any of the exceptions.

Moving moved by Lord Hogan-Howe. And my Lords, do I therefore have to make a special do therefore have to make a special do I therefore have to table a special amendment to to make it lawful for amendment to to make it lawful for me to continue to hold my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

midshipman's. Dirk. For the Minister replies, could I respond very briefly to the noble, very kind, remarks the noble Lord Lord Stevens of Welton, and to Lord Stevens of Welton, and to continue the loving I can say he was not only was an excellent commissioner, but he was a superb commissioner, but he was a superb chief Constable, and the House should know that in one he was a hands on Bobby as chief Constable, and one night he decided in plain clothes to go out with a squad car.

He was sitting in the back. A call came in for officers. There was an incident around the corner. So the officer said, you just sit there, sir. We'll go and look at it. No sooner had the officers disappeared than the back door of the car was wrenched open, and he stuck his head and said, it's okay, mate, you can scarper now the rozzers have scarper.
17:21
None Portrait Gov.Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

Very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, particularly Lord, noble Lord, Lord particularly Lord, noble Lord, Lord Hogan-howe, and indeed his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing these amendments, and to bringing these amendments, and to Lord Hogan-Howe for explaining the intention behind them. And, my Lords, we can see the merit in amendments 211 to 12 and 214, but feel compelled to say that making feel compelled to say that making changes like this would first require thorough consultation with the police and officers.

And obviously we're very, very privileged to have the the privileged to have the the testimony, the experience of. I'm not sure brace is the right collective noun for multiple former commissioners, but from Lord Hogan-Howe and indeed Lord Stevens of Cook and Wellington and and also of Cook and Wellington and and also obviously in to to to I must say Lord Clement-Jones did remark on how you learn something every day. I, I had no idea that truncheons had so many uses or indeed non uses.

I'm grateful also to the the noble Lord, Lord Davis opposite, for explaining the ingenious use that he put his truncheon to from from time to time. Whilst I'm referring to comments made by noble Lords, I should say also for my noble friend Lord Hacking, I suppose it does depend on the the question for Lord Hacking how long is your Dirk? And that's not entirely something I'm sure I would. I would say at any point in time at the despatch box, but but there we are.

But I would more seriously like to assure that the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and Lordships' House, that the government will consider further the issues raised in the discussion that we've had in this in in this group of amendments. And in doing so, we will ensure that any changes to the existing defences and exemptions are made after thorough consideration of the impacts. As Lord Davis said in his comments, they all deserve serious, serious thought and thorough consultation. We the noble Lord. Lord Hogan-Howe.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that anything he, he, he said or otherwise suggests otherwise, that the we must place the safety of the public as paramount. And so as such, I can't undertake to bring forward any proposals in time for the latter stages of the Bill. However, I would stress in any event it would be possible to give effect to the sort of proposals that the amendments intend through existing regulation making powers and any such regulations. I'd like to assure Lordships' House would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, and so would need to be debated and approved both in this House and indeed the the the other end.

As regards amendment 213 on items used for an agricultural gardening or or similar purpose, as discussed by by Viscount Hailsham and Goschen, particularly and obviously tabled by noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, we believe the legislation is clear that it targets curved swords, and if that is contested, it is, of course, ultimately for the courts to decide and we'll be working with the National Police Chiefs Council to ensure that police officers have access to appropriate guidance. My Lords, I'm sympathetic to the points made by noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and other noble noble Lords, and the amendments that are proposed do require further consideration and consultation.

But firstly, I want to stress in particular, I suppose with amendment 202 14 as well as all the amendments. This is ultimately it's decisions that are down to the discretion of the of, of, of the police, the CPS and ultimately the courts to, to, to, to, to take action against, against those that are using Riva holding weapons or items that are on the are on the schedule list for legitimate historic reasons or indeed using them for, for, for, for, for legitimate cultural cultural sector reasons.

If I can use that phrase, it is up to the discretion of the of the police and the courts in, in that in taking a case forward. But I'd also want to equally stress, we do have existing powers to change the relevant law through secondary legislation. And so given that, I would for now ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
17:26
17:27
17:27
None Portrait AMDT 214A Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise. Briefly to move amendment 214. A. Which stands in my name, and declare an interest as Honorary President of the British Shooting Sports Council. Amendment 204 A would amend the Firearms Act 1968, with the effect of reducing the administrative burden on the police, and it would do so with no risk whatsoever to public safety. It would remove the requirement that exists at present to apply to the police for a specific variation on a firearms certificate in order to purchase a sound moderator, a muzzle brake, or a flash hider.

My Lords, I hope to be brief because I believe this amendment to be so utterly uncontroversial. Indeed, I stand here seeking to be of assistance to Ministers because in June this government published its response, entitled Firearms Licensing Proposal to Remove sound moderators from Firearms Licensing Controls Government Response, in which the government recommended exactly the course of action set out in amendment 214A, and it has indicated since its intention to implement the recommendation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

My Lords, this amendment is in scope for this Bill. It would help to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on police forces, and the government wants to do it. So I hope that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will commit to incorporating this measure at a later point in our deliberations on this bill. It's clearly a benefit in terms of reducing the drain on police resources. It's a benefit to those who engage in shooting sports. It's a benefit to the industry as well.

And as the government itself has accepted, it poses no threat whatsoever to public safety. Simply removing what in the instance of a sound moderator is essentially an inert tube from a requirement to be licensed as though it were a firearm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just. Amendment first. I presume that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment first. I presume that the Lord is moving it. The amendment proposed after clause 36,
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this is a group of relatively straightforward and common sense group of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. It attempts to carry out the government's own consultation results in a careful and measured way, beginning with amendment two and four. A moved by my noble friend Lord Brady. It is a simple procedural measure that implements the government's own recommendations. And as my noble friend set out, this amendment will not impact, let alone endanger, the public.

Sound moderators are inert objects that contain no moving parts. They do not enhance the ability of a firearm, nor is there significant evidence of them being used in crime. The government have themselves concluded that removing the regulations around them will not pose any risk to public safety. I understand the original logic of including them in many firearm regulations, including them in many firearms regulations. But in practice, all that this means is that police firearms officers now have to obtain a certificate.

It is an administrative burden that is not necessary. Amendment 438 acts much in the same vein. It would require a review of the administrative burdens that noise or flash accessories placed upon the police. The government's own previous consultation on the latter demonstrated that there is scope here for reform, and so to expand that to cover other accessories seems a very logical step. My Lords, we should aim to reduce bureaucratic and administrative hurdles wherever they appear. This is particularly this is particularly the case for the police forces are strained.

This measure is evidently a small reform amongst many that should be made, and is based on the right principle.
17:34
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Brady of Altrincham, and for setting out the case for his amendments to 14 A and 438, and also to noble Baroness, Lady Hoey and and Viscount Hailsham, who also attached their names to the to the noble Lord Lord Brady amendment. As Lord Brady has explained, the aim is to deregulate the devices known as sound modulators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders. And I must, I must admit, like Lord Clement-Jones, I allowed myself to as a bit of a townie.

And so it's been for myself. Also like the previous group, a bit of an education, finding out that about about these about these items and and their uses. They are currently subject to control by virtue of the fact they are intended. They included rather, in the statutory definition of a firearm set out in section 57 of the 1968 Firearms Act, which means that firearms licence holders will legitimate need for these items are required to apply to the police to include them on their existing firearms licence, and this is obviously at a cost to both the police and the licence holder, as many noble Lords have have noted.

Indeed, probably everyone who spoke noted removing these items from the legal definition of a firearm would alleviate the administrative burden on the police firearms licensing departments. And because they are, these are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts. They do not of themselves create a risk to public safety. As the noble Lord Lord Brady and others have said, the government has already set out its intention to remove these items from the legal definition of a firearm, and I'm therefore very sympathetic to the intent behind these amendments.

But but I, I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a commitment at the despatch box this afternoon to bring forward the necessary legislative changes to the Firearms Act in this bill. But if he would agree to withdraw his amendment, I can undertake to update the noble Lord ahead of Report stage. And I will say no more.
17:36
17:37
17:37
None Portrait AMDT 214B Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-

All right, so move amendment 214 B and speak to my other amendments in this group. 214B is rather a small one. The other three are rather are three large new clauses which I hope to sell to the government. Now, first of all, clause 214B the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 makes an offence of an offensive weapon in any school premises except it says it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection 1 or 2 above to prove that he had the article or weapon in question with him for use at work, for educational purposes, for religious reasons, or as part of any national costume.

Now, my amendment suggests deleting for educational purposes, religious reasons or part of a national costume. I see no justification whatsoever to permit schoolchildren to have knives. What is their educational purpose? To learn, perhaps that they've got sharp edges. The religious exemption, I understand, is for the Sikh men and women who are under religious obligation to wear a knife called a kirpan, when they are old enough to understand its meaning. There is no specific age, and I stress that it is a religious artefact and is not worn as a weapon.

I also stress that Sikhs using the curtain as a weapon are extremely rare, and the only documented case I can find was one drawn in self-defence when he was attacked and rightly exonerated for it. Nevertheless, we are awash with knife crime in schools, and I think it sends completely the wrong signal that some young men and girls can attend school carrying or wearing a knife. It gives all the ignorant others a chance to see if they can carry one, why can't I? I stress again, my Lords, that Sikhs do not have any track record of using their kirpans as offensive weapons.

Now, I also say that no religious belief can trump public safety. In my view, no matter what the religion is. Similarly, my Lords, the exception for national costume must go as well as far as school children are concerned, in full dress uniform, which I wore very exceptionally. I had a sword in my left side, a dirk in my right, and withdrew them with contrary arms. So you were fully armed on both sides. And of course we had a scheme to down our hose or our sock for English speakers now in a civilian kilt.

I'd also have that black knife. That's the interpretation of scheme. Do down my right, my right hose. It's a black life. Not because of the colour of it. Because it was sneaky and underhanded, and you could stab your opponent with a hidden weapon he did not know about. Although every single person in Scotland knew you were carrying a secret, hidden weapon down your soul. I'm not sure how my Dirk differed from the noble Lord Lord Hacking Dirk. I'm not sure what purpose his was supposed to be put to as a midshipman, but I'd better not go there.

But my Lords, I say there is no justification whatsoever for permitting any school children in school to wear a scheme, do or any other knife as part of a national costume, and those exemptions should be rescinded. Now, turning now to my principle amendments and the and the in this group. And they are related. My Lords, I think the new clauses I've suggested here are terribly, terribly important. Amendment 214 lists some of the categories of offensive weapons, which are so dangerous and so evil that they should have separate mention from all other offensive weapons in legislation.

Amendment 214D suggests measures to stop their manufacturing or importation, with some tough penalties for breaches. And my new clause 215 creates tough penalties for the possession, carrying and use. Now the first thing the noble Lord, the Minister and other noble Lords can say quite rightly, is what we don't need a special category for these weapons, since they're all caught already in various laws on offensive weapons. That is entirely correct, my Lords. But I shall argue that we now have such an epidemic of the use of these appalling weapons, especially machetes, that we need exemplary action to crack down on the first known machete attack in this country was the barbaric murder of PC Blakelock in Broadwater Farm in 1985, where reports say that he was on the ground, curled up in a ball, screaming in agony as a machete and knife wielding mob hacked him to death with 43 vicious wounds.

No one has ever been convicted of that crime. The next big machete attack was in Wolverhampton in 1996. But it's in the last ten years that machete attacks have really taken off. On Monday, two days ago, an 18 year old was sentenced to 24 years for machete murder of a man in Leeds. Also last Monday, a man was sentenced in Croydon for the murder of a 16 year old with a machete in Woolwich in October, two teenagers, two teenagers, were sentenced for the machete murder of another 15 year old kid.

In September, two years were sentenced to life imprisonment for machete murder of a 14 year old on a London bus. And in Lincolnshire, two men were sentenced for the manslaughter with a machete of another man on October. My Lords, we all saw videos of a group of men fighting in the street with machetes and two weeks ago similar videos were shown of people a gang outside a Starbucks in east London fighting with machetes. This did not look like the United Kingdom, but downtown Kinshasa, where I see that almost re-enacting another Rwanda massacres.

My Lords, I say this carefully who's doing nearly all the machete killings? Why black youths? Who are the nearly all the victims who are dying? I gave my Lords black youths. Now, this is not the time or the place to do it, but we do seem to have imported an African attitude to the use of machetes, either through some of the people coming into this country, or British born youths adopting a machete culture. Now, leaving aside these individual historic cases I mentioned, the generality is that police figures recently released from police forces in England and Wales in an FOI show machetes are used at almost 700 cases every month.

That's a machete attack almost every hour on average, but the true total is even higher. As the nation's largest force, a metropolitan police, failed to provide statistics, saying it would take too long for too long for staff to compile them. I'm certain that the two noble Lords, the commissioners with us here today, would have found the time to compile those statistics, especially if I'd asked them. So six other police forces failed to respond. A survey of police forces found machetes were involved in 1335 crime incidents in the two months and two months at the end of last year, and I have focussed heavily on machetes since.

They are the new preferred weapon of choice for gangs and individuals wanting to terrorise and kill those who see as an opponent. Why? Why take a seven inch knife or a nine inch carving knife from the kitchen drawer when you can get a 21 inch machete and have a much more offensive weapon? Now, my Lords, I used to have a machete myself, a handle and a blade about 21in long, which I which I'd sharpened to a razor's edge. I use it for clearing brambles and brush and an overgrown orchard I had.

It was a superb implement which could slash through anything. The mind boggles to think of that used on any human being. Now, the rest of the particularly dangerous weapons I list in this new clause as zombie knives, obviously. And and cleavers. Well, quite cleavers, my Lord. Have we got butchers on the rampage? Well, no, but the scum who murdered drummer Lee Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks used a standard meat cleaver. That is why I say in subsection three that the Secretary of State must have the ability to add new, particularly dangerous weapons if the fad suddenly changes.

For example, you will find in that rural farming supply shops an implement called a billhook. It's rather like a shorter version of machete, but with a curved pointed end. It's used for hedging, but it's not beyond the wit of thugs to buy these. If we clamp down some actual machetes and other things and they can't get them now, there's no recorded incidents of cutlasses being used, but they're very similar to machetes, and the bad guys will switch to them if we clamp down on everything else.

Finally, in this new clause, I suggest that the Secretary of State be given a rather unusual power, which I do not think we do anywhere in regulations of putting pictures or photos in the regulations. Look how many words it takes to define a zombie knife. Let us make it simpler by publishing representations of them as well. Now, my Lords, I do not need to spend long on two one for the selling, manufacturing, importing of these particularly dangerous weapons. I have made the case already why? They are evil, and I suggest that anyone convicted of an offence against this section should get up to ten years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Now, I'm not tying the judge's hands. I can throw them over Lords Minister total discretion to to send us up to ten years. And I say it also must apply to the directors and officers of a company who should not be allowed to hide behind limited company status. Finally, on my last new clause, that is 3315215E. This is a key amendment, but I can also be relatively brief here. I've outlined some of the horrific killings we've had recently with machetes and the dramatic increase in the use, leading some commentators to say that London is awash with machete attacks.

Well, my Lords, looking at the numbers and the convictions and the photos we've seen, I don't think anyone can say that. That is an exaggeration. Unfortunately, my Lords, when we get a new criminal phenomenon, then the only way to stop it is to hit it hard with exemplary action. I have identified the weapons which need special treatment. I suggested a range of high penalties for importers, manufacturers and sellers. Now we need very tough penalties for the users. My Lords, I'm delighted to see the noble and learned Lord head eight, Lord Hope of Hillhead in this place, because he can confirm the veracity of what I'm about to say.

In the 50s and early 60s, Glasgow was awash with violent knife crime. Well, actually cut throat razors. There was a sick joke when a razor blade carrying thug would say to someone, can your mother so well stitch that as they slashed the other person's throat with the razor? This was known as the Glasgow kiss. So what did Scotland do after the Crime Prevention Act of 1953, making it an offence to carry a knife in a public place, the Scottish judges got together and implemented a policy of stern sentencing to deter knife crime.

A High Court of Justiciary judge, High Court of Justiciary is the Scottish equivalent of a Crown Court. Lord John Carman was particularly known for his severe sentences, with copping a Carmont, becoming a term for receiving a harsh penalty for them. In one instance in 1954, he sentenced eight men to a combined total of 52 years in prison just for carrying a cut throat razor or cut each carrying cut throat razors, but it worked. The Scottish action killed. Pardon me? Killed off the epidemic of knife crime or razor crime in Scotland.

My Lords, I would dearly hope that our judges in England will adopt the same strategy and the same policy that I may. That may be a false hope. Therefore, I suggest, my Lords in this section up to ten years for anyone aged over 18, in a public place with any of these particularly dangerous offensive weapons, there is no excuse for them. And we can assume that if someone is carrying one of these in the street, a machete, a zombie knife or any of these things, then their purpose is to be for a criminal intent.

For 14 to 18 year olds. I suggest that up to five years in an appropriate young person's detention centre. My Lords, that may sound harsh for for for these juveniles, but let us not look at under 18 year olds through rose tinted spectacles. They are now the main users of machetes, and we have to deal firmly with them too. And there's no excuse of a zombie knife anywhere in the world. Now, naturally, I have built in defences for machetes use for horticultural purposes, cleavers use for meat, butchery or cooking, and cutlass and cutlass is used for for historical purposes or as part of a museum.

I appreciate and I'm very grateful to my noble and learned friend, the Viscount Hailsham, for tipping me off. That there is. The drafting here is not perfect, and I have failed to to cover legitimate uses where 1st May be out in public, but I look forward to hearing what my noble and learned friend has to say. And and I hope he may work with me to improve the drafting in future. And of course, I've also put in here powers for the Secretary of State to amend the defences and issue guidance.

My Lords, I make no apology for setting out in detail my new clauses. So I since I think that the issues I address here are of crucial importance in trying a more radical approach to halting the horrific increase in machete murders and attacks. I am almost finished my Lord Trees life here. Yes, I conclude that from my Lords by acknowledging that these weapons are already covered as offensive weapons in current legislation. But I submit that machete attacks are rising out of control.

We must stop them to prevent dozens more young men being murdered and hundreds injured. It will no longer work just using the current laws on knives. We need to single out these weapons as especially dangerous and take exceptional punitive action to stop them and stop the attacks and stop all our young youths being murdered. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment two and four B.
17:51
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 36, insert the new clause as printed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my noble friend was gracious enough to make a reference to me in the sense that he to me in the sense that he suggested that I have some concerns about his drafting. Indeed I do, and I'm going to take the liberty of expressing them, and also deal with the point made by the noble with the point made by the noble Lord Lord Hacking about his Dirk. I will come to that in a moment. So will come to that in a moment.

So far as I'm concerned, they are my particular cause of concern, but so particular cause of concern, but so too are the cleavers, which are defined in this amendment. We need to understand that both of them have legitimate purposes. Indeed, the fact is clearly unrecognised when one comes to the exemptions when one comes to the exemptions which are contained in subsection which are contained in subsection six of of 214E, where the fact that they do have legitimate purposes is they do have legitimate purposes is fully recognised, so far as the machete is concerned.

I have a machete is concerned. I have a number of them. I've used them all my life, I still do. They are my life, I still do. They are essential for for clearing brambles and thorns. When you can't get at those brambles and thorns with a strimmer or other mechanical instrument. So far as a cleaver is concerned, I haven't actually got a cleaver, but I know that people who are interested in cooking, not me, use cleavers. Butchers certainly use cleavers, and also for that matter, gamekeepers and ghillies when they are preparing carcases from shot on the estate.

So let's face it, these things have legitimate use and it is that that context we actually have to come to the detail with which we have been provided. We start amendment 214 D, subsection one. Any person marketing, selling, etc. any of these instruments is committing an offence. Well, that means that any hardware store in my former constituency, which happened to be selling a machete, would be committing an absolute offence. Now, that's a very bizarre proposition.

It means that any decent catering shop which sells cleavers is committing a absolute offence. I find that a very strange proposition. I then look at subsection two. I find that these are absolute offences, no mens rea whatsoever, an absolute offence. I then find subsection three that anybody who is guilty of any of those offences faces imprisonment for up to nine to up to ten years. And then subsection four, the most bizarre of all is that the police or the National Crime Agency can come into a private house in order to see whether there are any machetes or cleavers in it.

Now, that's all very bizarre stuff. And we then come to an even more interesting set of propositions, 214 E so we start off a person over the age of 18. Now that's myself in possession of a machete in a public place is guilty of an offence. Well, I have brambles and thorns in the adjoining fields to which I have to get access by going along the footpath, which happens to be a public way, or crossing the street, which happens to be a public way in order, armed with my machete to cut the brambles and thorns, and I'm committing an absolute offence that, my Lords, I regret to say, is absurd, then I notice in subsection three that the police can come into my house in order to find these offensive weapons, which I've had all my life.

That is absurd. And then I find subsection four. It is assumed that the possession of carrying these things is for the purpose of unlawful violence. So when I'm going along the footpath or crossing the street in order to cut down some brambles or thorns, it is to be presumed that I am intending some act of unlawful violence. Is that really sensible? And then we go to subsection five. Any that's acceptable, that's zombie knives. But then we go to six.

And six really deals with the hacking point, if I may. So call it the noble Lord. Lord Hacking possesses a dirk. Well, I don't know how long the dirk is, but I can imagine that it's of a length to make it a sort. Well, I can tell the noble Lord Lord Hacking that if this amendment is accepted by your lordships, should my Lord Lord Hacking go for a stroll along Whitehall carrying his Dirk, he would be committing an absolute offence, and it would be assumed that he's intending some violent violence to third parties.

But we can also see what happens if he stores it at home. Let's assume it's a sword. Well, is it displayed for historical purposes? I rather doubt that. I don't suppose it's hanging on the wall to be shown to the public. Is it worn by uniformed personnel, part of their uniform? Well, I'm looking forward to seeing the noble Lord in his uniform, but I fancy the answer to that is no as well. And the truth is, and it's the point actually made by Lord Hogan-Howe in an earlier debate, if you go to any country house like mine or my friends or my neighbours, it does stuffed full of these things.

Swords from previous campaigns, what their great great grandfather carried a Waterloo, or their great grandfather carried at the Boer War or whatever. These are not displayed for historical purposes. They are family possessions, and it is an absurdity to say that the police can come into thy house, my house, and take these things. Oh no, no, no, this won't do at all. Now, the truth is that if somebody wishes to walk down Whitehall waving a machete, I'm not surprised that the police get upset.

But if they come to Lincolnshire or Kettlethorpe in particular, and find me crossing a street in order to cut down brambles and thorns with a machete that I have owned for 15 years, I should be PCC annoyed. And I say to my noble friend, his purpose may be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

splendid, but his drafting is defective. My laws. Have been.
17:58
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have been. Two things which were splendid. First of all were the intentions behind my noble friend Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind my noble friend Lord Blencathra proposals. And secondly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The content and tone of the speech of my. Noble friend Viscount Hailsham.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble friend Viscount Hailsham. It seems to me that essentially. What Lord Blencathra is saying is that there needs to be greater attention paid by the public authorities, and I include legislators as a public authority for this purpose. About the increase in the incidence of the of machete and cleaver crime, and that we need to make sure that there is less of it. But secondly, my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said that there is some deficiency.

I think I think what he was making is what we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

used to call a pleading point. But let's leave it there. More than pleading point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There we are, perhaps in the in the spirit of of of compromise, may I suggest that the answer to this I suggest that the answer to this is is a sentencing question? I think my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out that in some of the particularly nasty cases that he referred to, very lengthy that he referred to, very lengthy sentences were awarded for the people who committed these crimes with these particular weapons. I with these particular weapons. I have a and I said this at Second Reading.

I have a horror of Reading. I have a horror of legislating to create new offences, which are already offences, and it which are already offences, and it is already an offence to do something criminal with one of these weapons, no matter what it's these weapons, no matter what it's called. And although I entirely understand my noble friend's understand my noble friend's motives, I think the the better way is to consider whether the is to consider whether the sentences have sufficient powers to deal very seriously with these very serious crimes.

I think by the serious crimes. I think by the sound of it, they already do. But it may well be that the government it may well be that the government may want to look to see whether the criminal court should have be given greater powers of sentencing when dealing with these particular crimes committed with these particular sorts of weapons. But I, I come back to my point. I understand points, I understand my noble friend's motives. I equally understand my noble friend Lord Hailsham's enthusiasm for the points that he has made.

But essentially, what we're dealing with here is a matter of sensible sentencing for particularly vicious crimes. And if we could concentrate on that, we won't clutter up already over lengthy legislation. We've yet more provisions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mention my name. Perhaps I should just say that his. Recollection of what happened his. Recollection of what happened in Glasgow is is indeed correct. What was. Happening was that Lord
18:01
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

What was. Happening was that Lord Carmont was dealing with convicted criminals, people who've. Been convicted. Of assault. To severe injury. By the use.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of a perfectly. Familiar weapon. An open razor, which people commonly used.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commonly used. But the example that he gives. Makes example. Exactly the point. That the noble Lord. Lord Garnier is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Garnier is. Making. That it was dealt with by. Sentencing, not by legislation. In those.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Days, there. Was no. Sentencing council and a judge was free. More or less to choose his own sentence. And what choose his own sentence. And what Lord Lamont did was choose very severe sentences which were quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shock. That that caused did have a real effect in reducing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effect in reducing. That particular crime. It wasn't the end of knife crime, I'm afraid, although it was suppressed. Later by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Later by. Other measures, but it was a very effective use of sentencing power in the days when judges were power in the days when judges were not constrained by sentencing, council and other rules and so on, they were able to select a really they were able to select a really severe sentence when it suited the situation. So the noble Lords recollection is perfectly correct,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recollection is perfectly correct, but I think it makes. The point that. It's better to deal with this by sentencing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentencing. Very briefly, to associate myself with really all of the myself with really all of the sentiments that have that have been made this afternoon on this matter. made this afternoon on this matter. I think we all know what we want to try and stop with this bill. Zombie knives. There's no excuse, no knives. There's no excuse, no legitimate use at all for a zombie knife, but it's incredibly
18:02
18:04
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment two and four. Be on knives in schools. And it will come as no surprise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it will come as no surprise to Lord Blencathra that we on these benches take a different view. We strongly believe that criminalising strongly believe that criminalising children is just not the way forward. Last year, an authoritative joint police and Ofsted report warned serious youth violence has spread its tentacles further than many adults realise, and that 11 year olds now carry knives for protection. So there's no doubt there is a major problem. However, the same report does not call for more punitive sanctions to deter young people from offending.

Instead, it recommends a preventative public health approach focussed on early intervention, safeguarding and partnership working. And it warned that without better coordination and sustained investment in prevention, efforts to tackle youth, violence will fall short and the cycle of harm will continue. These warnings must be heeded. Yet budget pressures mean police forces are cutting safer school programmes. The met, for example, is moving 371 officers out of schools due to funding shortfalls. Prevention has to be taken seriously and resourced properly.

Public health funding per capita has fallen by 28% since 2015. That results in reactive rather than preventative policing, and nowhere is this more important than this. Children and knife crime. I agree that there is no justification for a child to bring a knife into school, but we cannot support the approach of amendment two and four Be. We should instead concentrate on the success of interventions like Operation Devon, which involves a single voluntary face to face meeting between a young people at risk and a police officer or a youth justice worker.

This prioritises prevention, education and safeguarding, and early results show a 60% reduction in knife and weapon offences at a cost of only 30 to £65 per person. Turning briefly to the noble Lords, remaining amendments and the proposal for a special category of particularly dangerous weapons, as the noble Lord recognises, these weapons are already prohibited, creating another category, in our view, risks unnecessary overlap without adding any real benefit. without adding any real benefit.
18:06
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
I thank my noble friend. Lord Blencathra for his series of interesting amendments regarding knife crime. As we've already heard, my noble friend comes to this debate with the experience of some time in the Home Office. Real experience at the sharp end. Although the rates of knife crime have fallen a little over recent years, any victim of a crime, and particularly one caused by knives is a victim too many. And we heard of just recently of the terrible incident at fireworks night a year or so ago, and the trial which finished in the Old Bailey earlier this autumn, and I think 16 year olds involved one of them died and it all happened very quickly.

So knives are a real problem. The government pledged in its manifesto to halve knife crime by the year 2030, if they wish to make good on that premise, it's imperative that they really do something to reduce it. My noble friend's amendments are, I suggest, a welcome practical measure in that direction, but subject to a number of reservations. Can I begin first with schools? My Lords, Amendment 214 introduces an important clarification to the law in respect of offences for carrying a knife in school premises.

It makes plain that the only justification for someone having a knife at school can be in relation to educational services, and it is also right, we suggest that this justification in turn should only apply to teachers or those holding important step to ensure that both pupils and teachers are safe from knives at school, and we hope that the government looks at this and considers this amendment seriously. We also thank my noble friend for his series of amendments two, one for C, D and E.

These, as we've heard, seek to create a special category of particularly dangerous weapons machetes, zombie knives, cleavers, swords and cutlasses. The merit we suggest is in identifying particular weapons by name that will strike a chord with the public, and it will strike a chord with those who might otherwise carry them. They will know that if they carry one of these weapons, just by having it in their possession risks a very heavy prison sentence. But just having existing powers of sentencing does not, it seems, carry that resonance with those who most need to hear it.

So we have got to do something. Given the substantial increase of use in use in recent years, and we heard from my noble friend the increase in the rate of use of machetes in particular, something has got to be done which identifies them and singles them out and kerbs their circulation in use in 2024. That's last year there were 18 machete homicides, an increase from 14 in 2023. My Lords, the amendments two one for D and E similarly ensure that manufacturing, selling, ownership and possession of these dangerous weapons will be regarded as a specific new offence.

Now it is quite right, as my noble friend Viscount Hailsham pointed out, that the drafting is obviously one which causes problems. And there are people, people in the countryside in particular, who may have a legitimate use for machetes. But we are not in the jungle of Belize. We are in the United Kingdom. Sickles and scythes, of course, can be used. But if there is going to be a use for something like a machete, then there should be a specific clarity to make sure that we don't allow it to be put forward as a specious defence.

So to call these amendments bizarre in my submission would go too far. We know full well if we take this matter seriously, as we all should, that this really is an important mischief which has to be addressed and it has to be named. It has to be called out. My noble friend has raised an important issue, and the government, if it is serious about cutting knife crime and not just knife crime, but the use of these appalling tools and weapons must work to bridge the drafting gap so that the sort of things which we have seen and heard about in the last few years are heavily reduced, and people can walk in safety and live in safety, particularly in our big cities.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I confess, my Lords, that despite preparation for today's debate on these amendments, I
18:13
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
debate on these amendments, I didn't expect to venture into Glasgow, raise a crime in the 1950s, or the use of Waterloo swords, or indeed the brambles of Lincolnshire. But I think it's been an enjoyable debate on a very serious subject, and I welcome the contributions from across the committee today. Lord Blencathra amendment 214B really asks the question whether existing knife defences for the possession of a bladed article, that is, a knife, should be removed in educational establishments. I'm of the view that the defence is listed under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are appropriate and in line with similar defences that already exist for the offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place.

Now the defence for educational purposes, for example, which amendment 214B seeks to remove would cover instances where both the teacher and the student may need to use a knife in the classroom or for educational purposes on premises, and also for issues such as craftsmanship, cookery lessons and others. And the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie, and indeed the noble Lord Sandhurst did make a common cause with that view, in that there is a need for certain uses of knives in schools under strictly controlled circumstances, but there is that certain need for those issues.

The issue of prevention, which the noble Baroness Doocey also mentioned, I think is important and I would endorse that. We need to look at how we do prevent the use of knives. But I would suggest to the noble Lord Blencathra that in the first series of amendments on two one, four B that his withdrawal of those definitions would cause some difficulties in educational matters. The religion's reason, religious reasons. Defence also takes into account the need to sometimes carry a knife for religious reasons, and the noble Lord and others have mentioned the position of individuals of the Sikh faith.

And I'd just say to the committee that the government is not aware of any cases where this or any other existing defensive defences have been abused in educational establishments by members of that faith. Now, again, it is appropriate to put on record that educational establishments can, of course, introduce their own rules and regulations. And of course, if someone brings a knife into an educational establishment or uses a knife already in the establishment to cause harm, even if they have a defence such as for work purposes, they will have committed a serious criminal offence.

Under existing legislation. That. That brings me to the other amendments that the noble Lord has tabled. 241C241D214E, which seek to separate categories of particular dangerous weapons that would attract tougher penalties. Now I do say to the noble Viscount Goschen, to Lord Sandhurst and indeed to the mover of those amendments Lord Blencathra, that the government has taken strong action in this area in the past 12 months. I have, on behalf of the Home Office in this chamber, but all the government has across the board in the House of Commons and in this chamber, have taken through measures which have implemented a ban on zombie-style knives and on zombie-style machetes that came into effect in September 24th.

And we have banned ninja swords in August of this year. So there is a real measure of examining and differentiating, dare I say, with the noble Viscount Hailsham points on the legitimacy of certain weapons, trying to differentiate certain types of offensive weapon and banning them through legislation passed with support for the opposition in this House and in the House of Commons. Furthermore, new restrictions in relation to bladed articles and offensive weapons, I would suggest, do require consultation. For all the reasons that have been mentioned in the discussion today.

Getting the descriptions of knives and weapons right for legislation requires consultation, and I greatly enjoyed the noble Viscount Hailsham contribution about his legitimate use of certain weapons that would fall under the remit of the proposals from the noble Lord Blencathra. Well, and indeed Lord Sharkey, I think I can tell the noble Lord Hacking that that, on reflection, his dirk is a dagger, and therefore does not fall within the remit of the legislation proposed. I think that information was considered by my noble friend Lord Katz, but not able to be deployed at the time of that specific event, but we can return to that at some point.

I'm relieved on that. But I think the serious point on this is getting the defences and the exemptions under which weapons may be legal to own, import or sell under certain limited circumstances. Getting that right also does require consultation, and I think that's something that the noble Viscount Hailsham and indeed the noble Lord Sandhurst has acknowledged in the absence of such consultation, this Bill, I would suggest to the House in committee, is not the right place to legislate on a specific category of knives and weapons, and we risk not taking account of some important matters if we've not consulted first.

In any event, it would be possible to give effect to these proposals for further restrictions through existing regulation making powers provided for. Since the Criminal Justice Act of 1988, and any such regulations would be subject to draft affirmative procedures, so again would be subject to debate and approval in both houses of Parliament. And we've also debated in chapters one and part two of this legislation, new measures providing with the police to require social media marketplaces and search engines to take down illegal content.

So I suggest to noble Lords that I understand again, if I may say, the the honest, genuine motivation of Lord Blencathra in moving these amendments, but I think just a casual listen to the debate today shows that there's a number of issues we need to consider, and I believe that the existing powers that we've got and the actions we've taken and the measures under this bill would be sufficient. And I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken some mildly in support of my amendments, mildly in support of my amendments, other liking the concept, but pointing out the serious flaws in pointing out the serious flaws in them. And I am grateful to my noble friend Viscount Hailsham. He's absolutely right. The drafting is absolutely right. The drafting is flawed and and any future amendments I would need to make to amendments I would need to make to it would need to include legitimate and lawful use.

And he did point out how he need to go on to the out how he need to go on to the high street under public police to use his machete. I realise I'd have to do the same myself with Buddleja
18:20
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
to do the same myself with Buddleja Overgrowing the road. If I had a machete, I'd have to go on to the pavement to use it instead. I've got an electric trimmer and which my wife can use instead, of course, so there are legitimate flaws in my drafting here, and I also, I suspect, many of my noble friends who may be from a hereditary background, may have houses stuffed full of of dangerous, sharp weapons from from pikes to swords and armour and all the other accoutrements acquired over centuries in this great noble land of ours, where they fought tremendous battles to try and secure our freedoms since 1066.

And of course, they're not for public display. I accept that is also an error in my drafting. They're there because they're owned by the family, and they should they should not be penalised for having them. My Lord, I come back to I think my concept is right. There's a problem here and I hope we could, if we come back to this and report in some elements of this report, I hope my noble friend and Lord Viscount Hailsham would help me in the drafting. And I'd say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking Dirk is not included.

It's not included in the definition I've got here, and I believe that my noble friend and Lord Gardiner put it hit the nail on the head that tough sentences are required. It may not require some of the amendments I've suggested, but tougher sentences. And I'm so grateful for the noble and learned Lord, our hope of Hillhead. He did point out that when we had the 53 law, it was tough sentences which cracked down on Scotland, and I did. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think he did say that.

Of course, then there was a full judicial discretion and we didn't have a sentencing council. Well, my words tying the hands of our judges, who should have full discretion to sentence as they see fit. And of course, it is the case that some of those cases I quoted in the last few months, people have got 24 years, a minimum term of 24 years, 30 years for the appalling murder. But hundreds and hundreds of others who did not die but were attacked.

The sentences there were much lesser. And I'm simply making the point that I believe that machete attacks in particular, have now become so endemic. It's the weapon of choice of bad guys, of youths who want to want to go out and commit crimes or to terrorise their opponents and other gangs that I believe we do need unique and specialised exemplary action. And I'd say to the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, I'm not calling for children to be criminalised, I'm merely suggesting that in two cases.

Well, I suggested three. I'm wrong in suggesting removing educational uses, but I can still see no justification for maintaining a religious exception and a national dress exception for kids to bring those knives to school. And I think the government is wrong to stick to that. So, my Lords, it has been worthwhile me introducing this, I, I don't mind that my noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham called some of it bizarre. What is happening on the streets of England in London today is bizarre.

If 20 years ago we said we'd see those gangs fighting on the streets outside a Starbucks with machetes, we'd say, don't be fanciful. It's absolutely barking mad. It's never going to happen. It's happening day in and day out in our streets. It's only bizarre. It is obscene and dangerous. Therefore, my Lords, I think we do need at some point to take special action, exemplary action to deal with this particular problem. But having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

214B Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 214C to leave withdrawn. Amendment 214C to E taken together. Lord Blencathra
18:24
None Portrait Amendment:214F Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-

E taken together. Lord Blencathra not moved. Clause 37, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

214F Baroness Neville-Rolfe. No. I rise to. Speak to. The two. Amendments for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments for. 121 for F and. Two one for G in my name. As we move away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move away. From the regulation of weapons to retail. Crime and shoplifting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Crime and shoplifting. And I'll try to be. Brief. By. Way of background. I should. Say that in my 15.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should. Say that in my 15. Or so years as an executive at Tesco and as vice chair of the British Retail Consortium, I spent British Retail Consortium, I spent many hours investigating and studying shoplifting and what could studying shoplifting and what could be done to reduce it. We use staff training, the latest waves of training, the latest waves of technology and generous business investment to combat it. I was always very worried by the wider always very worried by the wider social impact as stolen goods were sold on to fuel drug habits, and innocent shopworkers were sometimes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

innocent shopworkers were sometimes hurt in the process of trying to stop it. The truth is. That these.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Risks and their devastating effect on individuals, have become much greater as society has changed and become more divided and less moral, and hence violent crime has become more a day to day occurrence. As with so much else, the long Covid lockdown has made things worse and the police have prioritised other things. However, this bill is full of amendments requiring them to do more, and that will put yet further pressure on the police contribution to the tackling of neighbourhood crimes like shoplifting and assault on retail workers, which frightens the retail workers, especially in the smallest shops, and leads, sadly, to more shop closures on the high street.

For some years I strongly supported Usdaw campaign for a standalone offence for assaulting a retail worker, and as the noble Lord the Minister knows, I am delighted that the Bill puts that into law. I think it's also a good day for the Minister, given his Usdaw links and for the noble Lord Lord Hannett of Eaton. Everton, smiling over there, who represented Usdaw so intelligently. When I was at Tesco. However, I understand that the Bill as drafted does not quite do the trick as it does not cover retail delivery drivers who have also been the subject of growing aggression.

This is a particular problem where the driver has to ask for ID, because a juvenile under 18 is taking delivery a flashpoint, according to a recent British Retail Consortium survey, or where there is a disagreement about what has been paid for and delivered. Last week, Tesco even announced that it was piloting giving body cameras to delivery drivers. Another point of significance is that such drivers are already covered by parallel legislation in Scotland. Now, that's not always a recommendation, but given the national character of much of retail, I hope the Minister will agree that alignment makes sense and accept my amendments.

Two one for F and two one for G. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 37,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 37, page 57, line 17. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall List. And I rise very briefly, this time to move my amendment 214 EFRA
18:28
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
time to move my amendment 214 EFRA to add hospitality venues. This is an important clause which has my full support, and I simply want clarification that cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars and included in the definition of retail premises in UK law, the term retail premises typically refers to premises where goods are sold directly to consumers for personal use. This includes shops, supermarkets and other establishments where tangible products are offered for sale. Hospitality venues such as cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars primarily provide services, namely the preparation serving of food and drink for consumption on the premises.

Whilst these venues may sell some items for takeaway, their main business activity is the provision of hospitality services rather than retailing goods. Now UK planning law differentiates between retail and hospitality venues through the use of use clauses, which categorise buildings and are permitted. Activities. Class E commercial, business and services includes shops, restaurants, cafes, financial services and other commercial uses, while both retail shops and hospitality venues are covered under class E, they are distinct subcategories within this class. Class E refers to shops selling goods, and class E refers to the to quote the sale of food and drink, principally to visiting members of the public, where consumption is mostly undertaken on the premises, and that covers cafes, pubs and restaurants.

Therefore, My Lords was cafés and restaurants fall under the same broad planning class as class as retail shops. They are not regarded as retail outlets in the strict sense, but rather as hospitality or food service venues and legislation relating to employment, health and safety. Licensing and business rates may further distinguish between retail and hospitality businesses. For example, food hygiene regulations specifically address food service establishments, while retail regulations focus on the sale of goods. Now under UK law, I say my Lords cafés and restaurants are not generally regarded as retail outlets.

They are classified as hospitality venues or food service establishments, so the key distinction lies in the primary activity selling goods as retail, whereas providing food and drink services as hospitality. Now, from what I understand, the core hospitality operations serving meals, drinks and accommodation are not generally covered under the definition of retail outlet in clause 47. If I am wrong here, and if clause 37 includes cafes, bars and restaurants that I am content, no problem. But technically, if it does not, then we've got a gaping hole here in the law and my recommended is essential to plug it.

And if I am right that it's not covered, that I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will bring forward a little amendment to make sure they get the same protection as retail

**** Possible New Speaker ****

workers and retail shops. I'm pleased to. Contribute to this debate. In fact.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some months ago I introduced a debate on retail crime, and I think it's fair to say there was. A support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A support. wouldn't. There be? This is a good example.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a good example. And Baroness. Neville-rolfe made the point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that to some. Extent. This was between. A a debate between.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A a debate between. Employers and the trade union. It's a good example where we come together for a common cause. Now, I just did in historical terms, my
18:31
Lord Hannett of Everton Portrait Lord Hannett of Everton (Labour)
-
-
just did in historical terms, my Lord should say that in 2003, Usdaw, which has been referred to introduce what we call a freedom from fear campaign, sounds very dramatic, but it was born out of necessity, where too many retail workers were verbally abused, physically abused, and in some ways it become normalised. There was a kind of acknowledgement that working in retail on occasions, too many occasions people were abused. And this campaign has run since 2003 and has resulted in the standalone offence being accepted.

And I want to congratulate the noble Minister, not just because he had the enlightened view to become a member of Usdaw, which I should acknowledge. But because of his commitment to retail workers and his commitment to understand the implication of being verbally and physically abused, now we often see the retail store as an environment that quite rightly encourages people to come in, and the vast majority of the public do so. But in truth, over the years, the trend to come into a store and believe you can abuse somebody is become normalised, not condoned by the employers and certainly not by the trade union.

And the £200 threshold to some extent gave licence that even some of the perpetrators would say, don't worry, if it's less than £200, there'll be no action taken. Now. Retail workers, of which there are under 3 million, do an exceptional job and reference was made to the pandemic. Abuse can never be a part of the job. It's a fundamental right to go to work safe and come home safe. And that's why I congratulate the government and the Minister for the commitment to this matter.

Now, I could read out lots of statistics about the effect of retail crime, and I won't do so, but I would draw people's attention, pays attention to the Usdaw campaign, retail crime, and the impact of it. Every one of you has stores within your area and if you talk to Shopworkers, you will see this is not a campaign that is not evidence based. It's very much evidence based. And what we're talking about when I talk about statistics, I'm not talking about the theft of the store.

I'm talking behind every statistic. There was an individual, and some of those individuals, I have to say, were physically abused, never went back to the workplace. They didn't have having been abused 2 or 3 times the confidence to return. And that's a shame. And maybe it reflects the way society has gone, as was referred to. So I welcome this standalone offence and I don't want to detract from that because it's 22 years at least in the making, and a lot of effort has gone in.

And I'm proud of the fact that this government understood it and has done it. But I have to say to the Minister as well, there are has been referred to the question of where does the the the act stop in terms of this offence? I'm proud of defence because it matters if I can say to my noble friend, the Minister Usdaw wants me to send a big thanks for the effort that's gone in in achieving its outcome. But I do want to make a request of the Minister if he would consider this, and I hope he will do favourably.

I would like to meet him to consider some of the implications of the further reach of retail offences, and if he would do so with my general secretary, Joanne Thomas, and maybe people from the Home Office. I do that on a without prejudice basis, but it gives me the opportunity to express some further considerations and concerns that's been raised in this House. I'll leave it at that, but express my support for the work that's been done on this bill. And hopefully when this bill takes effect.

Effect in terms of the standalone offence, Usdaw members will feel now it's been accepted as will feel now it's been accepted as of course.
18:35
18:36
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can have a conversation about that at some stage. Thank you. My Lords. If I may, I'll come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. If I may, I'll come back to, to to the topics of, of the, of this group. But I too have an amendment in this group. Three, an amendment in this group. Three, five, one is in my name and and I'm pleased to be following the noble Lord Lord Hannett because I think a lot and indeed my, my noble friends, because a lot of what they have said and argued, I would, as I said at Second Reading, I've got huge sympathy for those in public facing jobs who have been subject to abuse and violent threats at work, and aside from such threats being unacceptable, I do understand, as the noble Lord Lord Hannett has said, the fear that that generates and anyone at work on the receiving end of such a threat should at least be confident that the police will respond swiftly when they're in danger, or an actual crime starts to be committed.

So my instincts have always been to support clauses 37 and 38 of the bill, as I said at Second Reading. But I do find myself somewhat conflicted because arguments made by several noble Lords during that debate that existing laws on assault are an adequate protection in law, and that a special law for assault against retail workers was not needed were, I thought, somewhat convincing. But I must say, I. And just to be absolutely clear, having said that, I have no desire to remove clauses 7 or 38 from the bill.

So let me continue before before everybody thinks that I'm going to be doing something radical, which will cause all sorts of upset. However, I think that the amendments tabled by my noble friends Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Lord Brennan Lord Blencathra to extend the protection to delivery drivers and some hospitality workers in some establishments, highlights that having started down the path of singling out just the retail sector, it is difficult to draw a clear boundary line and the noble Lord Lord Hannett has already said that he now wants to push it yet further.

As we know, the aggravated crime of assault against public facing workers, which we added to the Crime and Courts Bill, included all industries and sectors. So that wasn't just focussed only on the retail industry. And and I do worry that the aggravated offence of assault, which covers everybody in a public facing, work together with this new offence of assault on retail workers, is going to create a somewhat confusing picture for people who are employed in public facing roles that are not in the retail sector.

And I'm thinking here of people in public transport, working in banks, post offices. I mean, there's all sorts of different categories. So what this potential confusing picture does is bring me back to my underlying concerns. And first, that is that we cannot afford to lose good people doing a good job on whether it's in shops or on public transport, banks, post offices, as I have said. And in fact, when we think about them, recent horrific incident on the LNER the other Saturday and the the railway worker there who was heroic in intervening, you know, we we are very conscious now that there are a lot of people who are in places of work where they are subject to real threats and abuse.

So one of the questions I wanted to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, was what work he and the Department has done to satisfy himself that any perception of a two tier protection for people in different public facing roles will not have a detrimental effect on employees who may fear that they're no longer as covered as some other people in other public facing roles. And, you know, if there's been any work on that, that would be really helpful to know and understand.

And second, and in my view, just as important, if not more so, noble Lords who were in the chamber at Second Reading may have heard me argue, then, that one of the things which I feel is needed is for workers who are in charge of public spaces or places, whether they be commercial or public sector spaces. I, I think that we need to encourage them to be more active in upholding common standards of conduct that we should all have a right to expect of ourselves, each other in public, the breakdown of which is adding to people's despair and the sorts of things I'm talking about here is litter dropping feet on seats, watching videos, or listening to music on phones without headphones, headphones, queue jumping and that sort of thing.

And that's kind of activity, which is clearly before we get to actual offences that sometimes are happening now, like fare dodging, smoking or drinking alcohol on public transport when they're not meant to be, or even defaecating in public, we I think we need workers to have proper sort of delegated authority from their employers or their unions and all of us in leadership positions, and the confidence that, along with them, we will do the same in upholding these important standards in public places.

Because I think that what I feel is needed is a is a collective effort to tackle what I sort of see as a kind of broken windows type theory of this kind of activity. And if we if we if we keep allowing this kind of activity to be ignored, then what we're doing is allowing the risk of escalated bad behaviour to continue, which could then lead to actual serious crimes. So whilst the various trade bodies are coming at this from their perspectives with a desire to protect their staff, and rightly so, I think we need to look at this through a much wider lens and and see the bigger picture.

And I think as a consequence of that, it might be that the price that we need to pay is expanding what some believe is an unnecessary new crime in this bill to include other workers and to match the terms of the aggravated offence which are in which is in the Crime and Courts Bill. So what I would like to ask the Minister and as I say, this was a probing amendment. This is not me trying to introduce a new law, but what I would like is if he would agree to meet me, perhaps with my noble friend Lord Davies, to talk about this some more, because I genuinely do think that there are potential unintended consequences to this.

We need to at least be alive to and consider what more is needed to ensure that everybody who is in public facing roles both feel sufficiently protected. But also, I think if we are to tackle the behaviour which is leading some to feel that they can do things with impunity, and that then gives them the courage and the confidence to go on to commit more serious offences. Then we need to be thinking about this in a very thinking about this in a very different and more innovative way.
18:45
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have a lot of sympathy with many of the points made. Firstly, we welcome the new protections

**** Possible New Speaker ****

introduced by clauses 37 and 38. As legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We cannot stand by whilst so many people turn up to work every day. Excuse me, expecting to face potentially terrifying abuse, threats and physical violence, this threats and physical violence, this was brought home to me very, very. Recently when a friend of mine earlier this week went into our local Boots the Chemist in order to buy some headache tablets, only to find that practically every shelf in the shop was completely empty. in the shop was completely empty.

And when she spoke to the staff, they said, oh, it happens on a they said, oh, it happens on a regular basis, on a daily basis, and they are so terrified that they just stand by and do nothing just stand by and do nothing because they are absolutely petrified that if they do anything or say anything, they could be knifed. And, you know, that is not knifed. And, you know, that is not in an area that is known for shall, to use your expression, baddies.

It to use your expression, baddies. It is in an area of London that is, you know, it is very, very safe you know, it is very, very safe area of London. So that is really, really worrying. Many of these shop workers are often female, most of them earning less than the minimum wage. Ethnically diverse and working late at night and early in the morning. And it must be terrifying going into work and thinking that at any stage people can just come in and clear your shelves and there's nothing you can do about it, the new offence sends out the right signal that something should be done, and we fully support it.

I understand the concerns raised and I share many of them. The proposals tabled by Baroness Neville-Rolfe would ensure delivery drivers receive the same protection as their colleagues in the physical store, and this can only be right on these benches. We have repeatedly urged the government to follow the Scottish example on this, and to extend the meaning of retail worker to cover delivery drivers because they deserve equal protection and shouldn't be left exposed. Moving on to amendment 351, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Stowell of Beeson, which concerns extending this protection to other front line workers, I think she made a very, very powerful case for us to be very careful that they are not unintended consequences of making sure that retail workers are protected and not protecting other workers who are also in customer facing roles.

I know that some workers in other sectors are concerned that creating this new offence may send the wrong message, potentially leaving those outside retail who engage directly with the public on a daily basis feeling less protected. So can I ask the Minister if the government has carried out an assessment of the potential impact on the criminal justice system, which, as we know, is working at 98% of capacity at the moment. If a similar offence were extended to all public facing workers, including those employed on public transport, the British Transport Police, as we all know, do a vital job preventing abuse across the transport network and protecting staff and customers alike, and the government must ensure that they have the resources and staff required to meet this challenge.

So in closing, I would say that I don't disagree with anything that noble Lords have said, but I do think that we must be particularly careful that we don't just choose some people to protect, while unintentionally giving the impression that we don't really impression that we don't really care about others.
18:49
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward amendments to and for F and two, one for G, which address a gap in the protections afforded to retail workers under clause 37. I'm also very thankful to those noble Lords that have contributed to the debate. These amendments seek to ensure that delivery drivers who are employed as part of the retail and distribution process, are fully included in the scope of the proposed offences against retail workers, and that delivery vehicles themselves are recognised as an extension of the retail premises.

My Lords, we understand and support the underlying principle behind these proposals. Delivery drivers, in many cases are the face and point of contact between businesses and consumers, and they often work alone, sometimes at unsociable hours and in circumstances where there may be exposed to heightened vulnerability and increasing levels of aggression and abuse. The safety of delivery drivers should not depend on whether they are standing behind a shop counter or stepping out of a branded van. The rise of home delivery is a core component of modern retail, means that this work is an integral part of the sector, and it is only right that the law reflects that reality.

It is regrettable to read that certain major supermarkets have rolled out body cams for their delivery drivers in an effort to protect them, so I therefore hope the government will consider carefully how these protections might sensibly be extended to those whose job it is to ensure goods reach the customer. Turning to amendment 351 in the name of my noble friend, Lady Stowell of Beeston, I fully understand the principle and intent behind this amendment. It raises significant questions about whether the current scope of legal protection is sufficiently broad, the question of whether other public facing workers, such as in transport, hospitality or civic buildings, face similar risks is one worth raising and discussing.

Many of those workers play a crucial role in maintaining order, ensuring safety and supporting essential public functions in spaces accessible to the public. I similarly thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for his amendment 200 4FA. This amendment would include premises used by the hospitality industry for the supply of food or drink as part of the definition of retail premises. For the purposes of this offence. This is also an. This is also an important question to pose to the government, and I hope that they consider it with care.

My Lords, the issues raised by this group of amendments deserve serious consideration. It invites the government to reflect on whether extra provisions are needed to protect certain public facing roles, and, if so, which roles specifically need to be highlighted? The question that needs to be answered in response to all the amendments in this group is why should only retail workers be afforded a special criminal offence? Does the A and E receptionist not face the threat of violence and intimidation and intimidation, too? What about the bar staff at a nightclub? There are a wide range of people who are at high risk of assault during the course of their work.

If we are to create a specific offence of assaulting retail worker, it would make sense to expand this. So I hope the government will give them careful thought and return with clarity in how they intend to address the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns expressed. You say at the outset that I'm grateful very much for the noble grateful very much for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe and Lady Stowell, and noble Lord Blencathra for their amendments. I should note, if not declare an interest. But I should note that at the start of this that I have been the start of this that I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for Distributive and Allied Workers for 46 years now, and that is a long time.

So I think it's worth noting time. So I think it's worth noting that I do have an interest in this matter, and indeed spent many years trying to raise this very issue trying to raise this very issue when a member of Parliament and indeed when outside of Parliament, before coming to this House, and I before coming to this House, and I just should say at the outset as well, that I know already I'm meeting the noble Lady meeting the noble Lady Neville-rolfe to discuss this matter.

I'm very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to discuss this matter, and the request from my noble friend Lord
18:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
request from my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton to meet with himself and Joanne Thomas of Usdaw as the general secretary. I'm also happy to do that between now and Report stage. It may not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immediately, but between now and Report stage. For giving way, and I would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way, and I would be very happy to join a group meeting, rather than him having to have several meetings with each of us. several meetings with each of us. If there were to be third parties involved in such a meeting, such as involved in such a meeting, such as Usdaw, I wonder whether he would also consider including the Institute of Customer Service in such a meeting, because they have the unique position, and I should the unique position, and I should declare an interest as a vice chair of the all party group on customer service.

They they do have an service. They they do have an interest in that. They look at this across the board and the letter across the board and the letter that they have organised included signatories from a whole range of different industries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different industries. Well. Can I say that we will reflect on that? I think it's a helpful on that? I think it's a helpful suggestion if colleagues are happy to have a joint meeting. And I'd like to involve also the Policing like to involve also the Policing Minister as well, who has an interest in this matter as a whole. I just want to play as well, if I I just want to play as well, if I may just place on record my thanks to both the noble Lady Neville-rolfe Baroness Neville-Rolfe and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, because they have campaigned very strongly as representatives of the supermarkets, in this case Tesco's, but also the workforce in this case, my noble friend for many years on this issue.

And the freedom from fear campaign is one that both Paddy Lillis, the previous general secretary, and Joanne Thomas, now the current general secretary, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, as the before that general secretary, have campaigned on for a long period of time, and it's because it's been brought to them by members of the Union as an important issue. So I think it's just worth putting that on record, and we can examine how we organise the discussion and consultation in due course.

Everyone being assaulted, including delivery drivers and transport staff, is wholly unacceptable. Everyone should be protected from assault and everybody also would be criminalised under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where common assault has a maximum sentence of six months in prison, and the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act covers serious violence, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm. But I come back to the the reason why I've campaigned for this issue for many, many years is that retail workers, particularly in my view, have been at the forefront of upholding much of the legislation.

They uphold legislation on solvent abuse, sales, on tobacco sales, on knife crimes, on knife sales, on drink and a range of issues. And as well as being the first port of call, very much on shop theft as well. And the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. That's why, with Usdaw themselves showing that 10% of staff have reported in the last year alone a physical attack on them, that seems to me to be a very strong reason why the government has brought forward this particular amendment.

There's a wealth of evidence to back the position that there's a significant problem specific to retail workers because of the nature of that work. That's why clauses 37 and 38 provide for the bespoke effect offence of assaulting a retail worker, but also place a duty on the court when sentencing an offender to make a criminal behaviour order, because very often it's either shop theft, but it might also be linked to issues to do with drug and alcohol abuse as a whole.

Now our definition of a retail worker is intentionally narrow, given the vital need to provide legal clarity and ensure there's no ambiguity for courts, and identifying whether an individual is a retail worker when impacted by their jobs. Now, the noble Lord Blencathra, a member of the hospitality sector. The hospitality sector is specifically excluded. But if he looks at clause 37, subsection three, there is a definition of retail premises in that, and it would be open to a judge to determine whether or not.

For example, there are many places where cafes might well have stalls inside the shop, which could be potentially defined under that act as a retail premises as well. So there's no specific offence and I wouldn't wish to extend it to the hospitality sector, but a judge could potentially interpret under 37 three some aspects of hospitality being within that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retail sector. I think he makes quite a telling case on his remarks there case on his remarks there particularly. I was struck by the point he made that retail workers, because of the things they sell, the cigarettes, the tobacco, are more in the front line than people serving chicken nuggets or whatever. serving chicken nuggets or whatever. So I accept I accept that they could you could have a very good point that retail sector needs to be guarded, especially specifically, possibly different from the hospitality sector.

But I look carefully at what he said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carefully at what he said. Now, again, a delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles, and therefore including them roles, and therefore including them could potentially give cause of issue with definition and therefore issue with definition and therefore with the courts using the legislation. Now again, my noble legislation. Now again, my noble friend and the noble Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lady Neville-rolfe Baroness Neville-rolfe Baroness Neville-Rolfe have put that case. I'm happy to meet with them, and I think we can examine and discuss think we can examine and discuss and hear what they have to say outside of the committee today with regard to public facing workers, regard to public facing workers, which the noble Baroness Stowell also has mentioned the previous government and this is again, to government and this is again, to their credit, introduced a statutory aggravating factor for assault against any public facing worker via section 156 of the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022.

And I'm advised that would include, for example, train staff currently and the aggravating factor would apply in cases where assault an offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. So again, that there may be areas of definition. But I hope that that issue that the noble Baroness has raised ensures that the courts treat the public facing nature of a victim's role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence, and would send a clear message that violence and abuse towards any worker in a public facing context will not be tolerated.

The noble Baroness Doocey again, I welcome her support for the general offence that she's asked whether assessments have been made regarding the impact of the offences. Obviously the the offences in the Bill in clauses 37 are and have cross-government support, including an assessment of the impact of that clause on any other aspects of the criminal justice system. We haven't made a formal assessment published of what the extension of those potential offences would be, and we don't really have as well.

Actually, I visited a store of a major supermarket last week and asked about whether the number of delivery drivers, for example, how many were there that they have incidences of, and they couldn't supply that information to me there. So there's no as yet real wide expansion of assessment of what the general problem is in that field. So I would say that that I understand the additional pressure for delivery drivers. I hope I've clarified the point on public facing workers, and I hope I've clarified the point on hospitality workers, but I want to have this opportunity, and I'm grateful for the support across the House to grab the opportunity of a long standing campaign from the people who are at the front face of retail violence.

For this offence to be implemented. And I really welcome and I'm really proud to be able to stand here today and speak to that offence in clauses 37, and I hope we can settle on that offence. And let's look and have the discussions that we've got with other colleagues around other matters outside of the committee today. But I would hope that on the back of today's discussion, noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe could withdraw her amendments. The other amendments could not as yet be pushed. We have an opportunity to discuss between now and report with the groupings that I will try and pull together with the help of my officials, but I welcome very much this long standing campaign from Usdaw, and I welcome the fact that the Freedom From Fear campaign has been successful.

And I hope that with that positive note that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd first like to start by warmly thanking the noble Lady, Lady Doocey and my noble Lady, Lady Doocey and my noble friend Lord Davis for their support for my amendment. And I'd like to thank the Minister for agreeing to
19:02
19:04
19:05
19:06
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 39 Stand part. Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

party in government in their 2024 election manifesto, they claimed that this had created, and I quote, that this had created, and I quote, effective immunity for some shoplifting, unquote. And the government's policy paper on the government's policy paper on the bill published on calls it perceived immunity. This, of course, perceived immunity. This, of course, is absolutely false. There is no immunity in any form for any shoplifting offences allowing an offence to be tried in a magistrates court only does not magistrates court only does not give anyone immunity.

The Sentencing Council's guidelines for sentencing a person guilty of theft sentencing a person guilty of theft from a shop state that the starting point for low value shoplifting, with little additional harm to the with little additional harm to the victim, is a high level community order, with a maximum being a 12 order, with a maximum being a 12 week custodial sentence. And for low value shoplifting, the significant additional harm to the victim. The starting point is 12 victim. The starting point is 12 weeks custody and the maximum is 26 weeks custody.

So it is clear then weeks custody. So it is clear then that magistrates courts can impose community orders and terms of imprisonment on offenders found imprisonment on offenders found guilty of low value shoplifting. If the government believes that is the government believes that is immunity, then they clearly need to have a serious rethink. Because my question to the noble Lord, the Minister, is why, therefore, are the government making this change since there is absolutely not immunity for low value shoplifting, what can they possibly hope this will achieve? The reality is that clause 39 is purely performative, but worse than that, it is performative politics with negative ramifications.

Where an offence is triable either way, it is up to the Magistrates court and the defendant to decide which court finally hears the case. And if the Magistrates Court deems itself to have sufficient powers to try the case, and the defendant is able to elect the court, their case will be heard by. So are we seriously saying, my Lords, that we will be permitting a person charged with stealing £50 worth of chocolate to be hauled in front of a Crown Court judge and jury? In such a scenario, the most likely sentence would be a community order for a few months imprisonment.

That sentence would be likely the same whether the case is tried in a magistrates court or the Crown Court. So why enable the possibility for a person charged with low value shoplifting to elect to go to a Crown court for them to simply be handed the same sentence they could have been given in the Magistrates court. Now there are around 73,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard by the Crown courts. Many people are waiting years for their cases to be heard.

The last thing we need now is for more minor offences to be sent to the Crown courts, adding to the already sizeable backlog. This is not a solution to shoplifting. It is simply another way for a defendant to string out their proceedings, permitting low value shoplifting to be tried only summarily, does not give shoplifters immunity, but will only serve to further clog up our already stretched Crown courts. But what does create an effective immunity for shoplifting is the government's sentencing bill.

Noble Lords will know that the bill creates the presumption that a custodial sentence of less than 12 months be suspended. So even if a person is given a custodial sentence for low value shoplifting, they will not serve any time in prison. If that does not give, would be shoplifters more incentive to steal then? I do not know. What does. My Lords, clause 39 is pointless. It is performative and it will be damaging to the swift passage of justice.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I acknowledge the intention of the noble Lords Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie to pose. At clause 39 stand part of the bill. I clause 39 stand part of the bill. I have listened with care to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Davis. But we do firmly believe that the inclusion of this clause is necessary. I think there's one thing we can all agree on. Shop thing we can all agree on.

Shop theft has risen at an alarming rate in recent years. It's a blight on in recent years. It's a blight on our society. It causes loss and distress to the retailers, undermines the safety of retail undermines the safety of retail spaces. This government is committed to restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, and in the safety of retail spaces, and to protect businesses from escalating losses. The latest figures from the Office of National figures from the Office of National Statistics are stark. Shoplifting almost doubled over the past five almost doubled over the past five years, increasing to 530,643 cases years, increasing to 530,643 cases in 2025.

And whilst multiple factors have contributed to rising retail crime, one persistent issue is the perception in many quarters
19:10
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
is the perception in many quarters that low value theft has no real consequences, and some regard it as having been effectively decriminalised. The noble Lord is right that its section 22 A of the Magistrates Court Act, which converted theft, theft of goods worth £200 or less from shops, is to be tried summarily, and I completely understand that the argument of the previous government was that this would increase efficiency by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low value theft and keeping the cases in the magistrates court.

But it hasn't worked. And instead, my Lord, it's not that there is immunity, but there is a perception that those committing theft of goods worth £200 or less will escape any punishment at all. And my noble friend Lord Hannett referred to this in his speech in relation to the previous group of amendments. So clause 39 will rectify this, and it really matters, because evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that only 36% of retail crime is even reported, many retailers choosing not to do so because they think it's a waste of time, because they believe that the police won't do anything.

So this underreporting masks the true scale of the problem and leaves businesses vulnerable. So, my Lords, we must act decisively to support retailers facing this growing challenge. And clause 39 does exactly that. It closes a critical gap by sending a clear and unequivocal message. Theft of any value is a serious criminal act and will be treated seriously by removing the financial threshold for so-called low value shop theft, we're sending a clear message to perpetrators and would be perpetrators.

This crime is not going to be tolerated and it will be met with appropriate punishment. And we're also making it clear to the retailers that we take this crime seriously, and they should feel encouraged to report it. I do acknowledge the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davis, that by making short theft triable either way, there is scope for some cases to end up in the Crown Court. But there are two reasons why the noble Lord does not need to worry about this.

The first is that Sir Brian Leveson highlighted in his independent review that the risk is mitigated by the existing sentencing guidelines, which provide a clear and structured framework to ensure that the penalties remain proportionate. What this means is that in practice, the vast majority of such cases fall well within magistrates court sentencing powers, meaning they're highly unlikely to be committed to the Crown Court, either for trial or for sentence by the court. So we anticipate that the effect on the backlog will be negligible.

As far as defendants electing trial in the Crown Court is concerned, they already have the ability to do this in relation to the so-called summary only offence. But in practice, elections occur only in marginal numbers. There's no evidence to suggest that clause 39 will change this. So I would urge the noble Lord to join with us in sending this very clear message, which was always the intention. We entirely accepted the previous government not to decriminalise this, but to make it clear to everybody what a serious offence this is, and I hope that he's willing to withdraw his opposition to clause 39.
19:14
19:15
19:15
None Portrait Amendment:215 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 215 Lord Davies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Gower. My Lords, I rise to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment 215 in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Cameron of of my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Keen of Ellie. It is an amendment that speaks to a growing and deeply felt concern shared by communities and retailers shared by communities and retailers across the country, that the persistent and habitual shoplifter persistent and habitual shoplifter is too often left to re-offend with little intervention, limited consequence and insufficient support to break the cycle of offending.

There has been a 13% increase in shoplifting offences in increase in shoplifting offences in the year ending 2025 alone. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime. It affects small family businesses and major retailers alike. It drives up costs, erodes public confidence and contributes public confidence and contributes to the sense of disorder on our high streets. The British Retail Consortium estimates millions of Consortium estimates millions of pounds in losses each year, with many retailers reporting that the same individuals commit offence same individuals commit offence after offence.

Yet, as things stand, even repeat offenders may receive even repeat offenders may receive community disposals that lack the structure, monitoring or restrictions necessary either to protect the public or to encourage rehabilitation. So this amendment seeks does not seek to remove judicial discretion. Indeed, I shall return to that point in a moment, but it does seek to ensure that where an adult offender has already been sentenced twice for shoplifting, a third or subsequent conviction resulting in a community order or suspended sentence order should, as a norm, carry a meaningful and enforceable requirement.

So the new clause we propose would therefore require courts save in exceptional circumstances to impose at least one of three measures a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or electronic whereabouts monitoring. Each of these is already well established within the sentencing Code. This amendment does not invent new powers, but ensures they are applied where they are most needed. My Lords, persistent offending demands a persistent response. A curfew can provide stability and reduce opportunities for offending. An exclusion order can prevent an offender returning to a very location where they have repeatedly caused harm.

Electronic monitoring pardon me? Electronic monitoring can give both authorities and the community greater reassurance that restrictions are being observed. But crucially, judicial discretion is preserved if there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender that makes such a requirement inappropriate, the court may depart from the presumption. Likewise, where electronic monitoring cannot lawfully or practically be imposed, the requirement falls away. The amendment is therefore both firm and flexible. It sets a clear expectation without creating an inflexible straitjacket.

This amendment also carefully defines adult shoplifting and ensures consistency across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It contains proper safeguards, for example by providing for cases in which previous convictions were later quashed and ensuring that appeals remain possible in such circumstances. And always what we propose is modest, proportionate and targeted. It will help retailers support communities and provide offenders with structure, often the very thing that is lacking in the lives of those who fall into serious serial offending.

The government's rhetoric must be met with practical measures. This amendment offers one such measure it does not overload the courts. It simply ensures that where an offender has persistently exploited the leniency of the system, the system responds with firmness, clarity and consequence. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will look favourably upon this amendment. It strengthens public protection, reinforces judicial tools already at the courts disposal, and sends a
19:19
19:19
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

39. Insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list. I rise to speak to amendment 216

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 216 in my name, and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the proposal from my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for tougher community treatment of repeat offenders. Because because it's focussed on the community and on suspended sentence orders, it seems to fit in very well with the spirit of the sentencing bill, which we will no doubt be debating on a number of further days. My Lords, as I know, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, has already acknowledged and as the Crime Survey recent crime survey shows, shoplifting has risen very significantly in recent years, especially since Covid.

Indeed, we heard on the today programme this morning that the average number of days it takes to deal with shoplifting cases has increased by 80% in the last decade. Now, my own experience has taught me something else that the biggest problem about shoplifting is not so much the law as the patchy and sometimes non-existent nature of police enforcement, enforcement of shoplifting and associated misdemeanours, the general acceptance that thefts were less than £200. Noble Lord Lord Hannett was the first to mention, to mention that that minimum that they don't don't matter to the authorities is, I have to say, a particular bugbear of mine and of others who care about decency and of limiting neighbourhood crime and its distressing effects.

So it lies behind my amendment 216, which would reverse that deplorable trend. It would require the College of Policing to issue a code of practice to ensure that police forces also investigate shoplifting, where the value of goods is less than £200. My Lords, letting people walk into shops, steal things and get away scot free eats at the heart of a civilised society. As the noble Lady, Lady Ducie explained earlier, you only need to visit San Francisco in recent years to see the awful effects on their once golden streets.

But there is hope there. A Democratic mayor is at last seeing good sense, and I hope the government will follow that lead and consider my amendment this evening. this evening.
19:22
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, in relation to the noble Lords, amendment two and five, I have great sympathy with the suggestion. Electronic monitoring can certainly play a useful role, although there is mixed evidence of its ability to reduce re-offending. However, there are multiple challenges in implementation. These include inconsistent use of probation services, delays in procuring new GPS tags, and gaps in responding promptly to breaches. But my main problem is that from a policing perspective, I worry there's just no slack available in police time to monitor curfew, exclusion orders or electronic tagging.

I fear it may be counterproductive to give the police yet more work when they're having great difficulty coping what they already have. I have a similar reservation about amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe. In principle, I would support a code of practice to improve enforcement. However, in the absence of more police resources, the danger is this would only exacerbate a situation where chief constables are already faced with having to rob Peter to pay Paul in other areas of policing, and victims of other crimes likely to suffer as a consequence.

I would stress prevention over cure. Can I draw the House and the Minister's attention to a West Midlands Police programme that diverts repeat low level shoplifters into services like drug rehabilitation? Since its pilot in 2018, it's created. It's credited with saving local businesses an estimated £2.3 million through reduced shoplifting. Surely this is something we ought to at least investigate a. My Lords, I'm grateful for the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe for tabling amendments 215 and 216, respectively.

I have great respect for both the noble Lady, whose background means that she knows more than most about the corrosive experience of shoplifting, and the effect it can have on those working in the retail industry. The noble Lords distinguished career as a police officer gives him great authority to speak about the challenges to police forces, and
19:25
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
also the obligations to society which they should be fulfilling. May I reassure both the noble Lord May I reassure both the noble Lord and the noble Lady that we are all on the same side about this. This is one of these situations in which is one of these situations in which I am very keen to work with members of your Lordships' House from all sides, in order to ensure that we deal with the social and economic menace, if efficiently and menace, if efficiently and effectively.

May I deal first with amendment 215? I'm going to repeat amendment 215? I'm going to repeat what I said a few moments ago. This government takes repeat and prolific offending extremely seriously. But sentencing in individual cases must be a matter for our independent judiciary, for our independent judiciary, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the the offender, as well as the statutory purposes of sentencing. Your lordships will, of course, be aware that the courts have a broad aware that the courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders.

As some of your offenders. As some of your lordships may be aware, until relatively recently I was a judge in the Crown Court and I sentenced in the Crown Court and I sentenced my fair share of shoplifters. There was a complete spectrum of those offenders, from the destitute, offenders, from the destitute, homeless young mother stealing nappies for her baby at one end, to the shameless organised shoplifting gangs who terrify and terrorise Shopworkers. And as the sentencing judge, there was a toolbox of disposals available to me of increasing seriousness so that I could match the appropriate sentence to the offender on a case by case basis.

These included discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences with requirements and custodial sentences where appropriate. Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with the sentencing guidelines making it clear that sentences must consider the nature and the relevance of previous convictions and the time elapsed since the previous conviction when determining the sentence. But really, what that does is repeat what is in fact common sense and what every sentencer knows. I can tell you from my own experience that the more frequently a defendant appears before the court, having gone out and done exactly the same thing, that he or she had just been sentenced for, the more exasperated the judge becomes and starts imposing tougher and tougher sentences.

My Lords, despite the popular caricatures, judges do live in the real world, and whilst as a standard proposition, sentencing a shoplifter to prison will seem harsh, I can tell you that it can and does happen. If the court concludes that there is no other way of stopping them. But what is important is that this government is going to introduce a whole range of options, which will really ramp up the sentencing powers for judges as far as community and suspended sentences are concerned, if you like.

The toolbox is getting fancier and more extensive. As the noble Lord, Lord Davis, has said. Sentences are already able to impose a robust range of electronic monitoring requirements on anyone serving their sentence in the community and where the court imposes curfews, exclusion zones and or an alcohol ban. They must be electronically monitored, subject to individual suitability. I note the concerns of the noble Lady Baroness Doocey about the effect on the resources of the police. Actually, quite a lot of the monitoring is done by the probation service and as the noble Lady is probably aware, the government is putting a lot of additional resources back into the probation service in order to enable them to do this.

But soon, my Lords judges will be able to add driving bans attending pubs, bars and clubs, banning offenders from desirable social activities like sports and concerts and some tough new geographical restriction zones to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the existing tools. Order. Of course. Minister, I love I just love

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, I love I just love what you said. Judges will be able to do that. Will she use the new powers? I think the the the powers? I think the the the attorney general seeking to overrule overrule the sentencing Council if they try and dilute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those powers. Well, this probably isn't the moment for me to embark on that one. moment for me to embark on that one. And of course, it's it's simply about agreeing the Sentencing Council's guidelines in individual Council's guidelines in individual cases, and it's not about actually overriding them at all. And I'm confident that agreement will be confident that agreement will be reached. But perhaps that's one for another day, if I may. With respect to the noble Lord Lord Blencathra to the noble Lord Lord Blencathra deal with it that way, as well as the expansion of the and and also the expansion of the and and also we are about to expand the intensive supervision courts to deal with the root causes of these deal with the root causes of these crimes by making repeat offenders come back in front of the same judge on regular occasions to see judge on regular occasions to see how they're doing.

So that's what's going to be available to the judges. going to be available to the judges. But can I just for a moment look at the other side of the coin? Many shoplifters have complicated shoplifters have complicated backgrounds and complex needs, and sometimes electronic monitoring may not be an appropriate requirement to add to an offender's sentence, even if this is their third or more offence. Many prolific offenders are homeless and lead chaotic lives, even getting them to turn up to court on time can be a significant challenge.

Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement in some of these cases would be setting the defendant up to fail, instead of helping to improve the outcome for perpetrators of crime and for the victims, and for the public at large. It's all entirely case specific, and the judge is the right person to make that decision. My Lords, I'm proud of our judiciary, who are working hard under very difficult circumstances at the moment. And I'm asking you to trust our magnificent judges because they do understand the problems repeat shoplifting can cause, and they understand the powers available to them to sentence individual offenders appropriately.

This measure will put unnecessary constraints on them and actually make an already difficult job harder. I can also assure noble Lords that we are continuing to work with cross-government partners and police forces to consider new ways of targeting and tackling persistent and prolific offenders. Turning now to amendment 216. My Lords, we absolutely share the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe desire to hear the to see the police take more and more effective action against shoplifters. But I'm going to give three reasons why the government doesn't feel that this amendment is needed.

The first is that the College of Policing has already published guidance on tackling retail crime. That said, we appreciate the need to ensure that this guidance is up to date, and I know that Home Office Ministers will continue to work with the police to make sure that that happens. Second, training for police on tackling retail crime already exists. This was produced by the Police Crime Prevention Academy with funding from the Home Office. And in addition, the government is providing £100,000 of funding in this financial year for the National Police Chiefs Council to give further training to police and retailers on prevention tactics.

Finally, thirdly, tackling retail crime requires a partnership approach between policing and business. The previous Minister for Crime and Policing launched the Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy. This was jointly developed by the police and the industry, with the aim of providing a collaborative and evidence based approach to preventing retail crime. This government wants to go further and faster, which is why the Home Secretary announced a winter of action this winter. Police forces across England and Wales will again form partnerships with local businesses and authorities to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season.

So I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lords and the noble Lady. I don't believe that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady sits down, and I'd like to thank her for her courtesy and the depth of her reply. courtesy and the depth of her reply. I'm not quite sure how we solve the £200 problem. The point she's made a very good one is about enforcement, very good one is about enforcement, but the difficulty is that this belief that if you steal something's less than £200, nothing something's less than £200, nothing will happen to you. Thus, my parallel with San Francisco. What are we going to do about that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are we going to do about that? Well, of course, the first thing we want to do is close 39, which of course was opposed by the noble course was opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davis. But in addition to that, this is about making it to that, this is about making it clear to everybody that it really does matter. And driving it through to the police that actually there to the police that actually there should be no immunities. There are no levels below which it should not no levels below which it should not fall, but I.

So for all these reasons, I do believe that these amendments are not required, but I amendments are not required, but I would be very happy to discuss the matters further with both the noble Lord and the noble Lady, and would encourage them to do so if they feel that there are matters that I haven't fully taken into account. haven't fully taken into account. But for now, I invite them to withdraw their amendments.
19:34
19:35
19:36
19:36
Earl of Courtown Portrait The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
yesterday on Gaza and Sudan. The opportunity to respond to the government statement and the other place on two of the most serious conflicts in the world today. Given these are two distinct issues, I'll address the situation in Gaza first, and then move on to the conflict in Sudan. My Lords, the government has been right to praise President Trump for his success in securing peace in Gaza. When the announcement that a peace deal had been reached was made, many were surprised.

After two years of conflict, peace seemed a long way off. President Trump's determination to secure peace was game changing, and he deserves credit for this huge achievement. My Lords, we also welcome the UN Security Council's decision to pass the US resolution in support of President Trump's 20 point peace plan for Gaza. As the US ambassador, Mike Waltz said, this is another significant step towards a stable Gaza. It's a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to do.

My Lords, the UN resolution included a mandate for the International Stabilisation Force on the UK's role with the International Stabilisation Force. I know, the Foreign Secretary said in the other place, that we do not expect the UK to contribute troops. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, please explain why the Foreign Secretary was not able to rule that out completely? And what are the circumstances in which we would provide troops to play a role in the force? My Lords, the Foreign Secretary also confirmed the UK is providing military and civilian deployment into the Civil Military Coordination Committee, which is US led.

This is an important contribution, and it is right that we play a full role in securing the peace. Can the noble Baroness Minister confirm what steps her department is taking to ensure that all Britons involved in these efforts are provided with the right advice to keep them safe? And what contingencies have the Foreign Office put in place to support Britons working in the region should the ceasefire fail? Finally, my Lords, we have been concerned for many months by the imbalance in the government's approach to Israel and Gaza, respectively.

Hamas must fully disarm. That is essential to the peace. What steps is the government taking to ensure Hamas will have no role in running Palestine? My Lords, Ministers will be aware that Germany has lifted their partial arms embargo on Israel in light of the ceasefire. Can the noble Baroness Minister update the House on the UK's decision to suspend certain arms export licences? And has the government commissioned new legal advice in light of the ceasefire? And if not, when will Ministers do so? And, my Lords, can the noble Baroness Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with our allies to ensure we remain focussed on the return of the final three deceased hostages, so their families may grieve properly? I know I speak for the whole house when I say May their memory be a blessing.

My Lords, turning to Sudan, the appalling atrocities that are being perpetrated in that conflict must be brought to an end. We have consistently called for the United Kingdom to spearhead efforts to secure a ceasefire, and the United Kingdom should play a strong role in sanctioning all those who are responsible for those atrocities. I understand officials have been instructed to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm when these sanctions will be implemented? Will they be imposed before the end of the.

And we. Because as the noble Baroness is only too aware, we must move really quickly on all these items relating to Sudan on aid. My Lords, given the extent of the physical obstacles to aid the impassable routes, we know Her Majesty's Government are looking into aid delivered by air time once again is the essential factor here. When will aid start being delivered directly to those who need it via air routes? And finally, my Lords, there has been concerning reports about British made military equipment being used by forces involved in the conflict.

Can the noble Baroness and Minister please confirm what steps her department has taken to investigate these reports? When will those investigations be concluded? And what action is the government considering in light of these concerning reports? My Lords, I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness, the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I agree with the noble Earl, that we thank the government for bringing the statement to bringing the statement to Parliament and an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister. I ask questions of the Minister. I would say that having every single opportunity since I've been become leader of the Liberal Democrats in leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords to asking for a statement. This is the first statement since July that we've had on Sudan, but July that we've had on Sudan, but it's welcome.

With regards to Gaza, we now have resolution 2803 and we now have resolution 2803 and while positive that it is supported by the Palestinian Authority and Arab states, it is worth noting that Palestinian statehood is not that Palestinian statehood is not recognised as a right within it, but is conditional, and there is a lack of reference to the continuing occupation. The task ahead will be to move at pace, at implementation, and also to begin peace building. Peace remains an ambition, but Peace remains an ambition, but cessation of violence is an essential component and a credible pathway to Palestinian pathway to Palestinian self-determination.

And statehood is now the agreed focus and is is now the agreed focus and is welcome. The most recent statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu in the right wing elements of his government, however, could not have
19:42
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
government, however, could not have been more clear that they believe there should never be a two state solution. How is His Majesty's Government responding to this contradictory situation? The UK can, as I have called for previously, play an essential and practical service in the way forward, built on our expertise and experience in re-establishing education services, health services, law and order and trusted judicial processes. Unless Hamas is disarmed, then there will continue to be gangsterism and the threat will remain on Israeli civilians.

And the victims will also be Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. I note even the Israeli president signalling his view this week that settler violence as shocking and crossing a red line. But in crossing a red line, we would expect to see action, not impunity. And I hope that the government will continue its work on adding pressure to try and reduce the violence within the West Bank, which is now at unprecedented levels. I've previously said that task of reducing violence in the West Bank, the commencement of state building and the work to clear rubble is a monumental task.

It is 20 times the scale of the destruction of the Blitz of London in a quarter of the geographical footprint. But even this barely comprehensible destruction does not get close to matching the continuing horror in Sudan, a country that the House knows I visited very frequently and that I love in my ongoing work to support civilians as a constant inspiration for me for their bravery and resistance. But the urgency and the scale of the atrocities need comparable, urgent and direct set of actions.

Now in El Fasher and North Sudan. The latest North Darfur, the latest credible estimates are that the total death toll in Gaza has happened in three weeks and it was signalled but not prevented, even though protection of civilian tools had been authorised by the Security Council and were available before the summer recess, the Minister will recall. I specifically asked what preventive actions were being taken and in the House we we discussed and even questioned the values of resolutions if they cannot be implemented.

But this is the worst ethnic and genocidal atrocity since the mid 1990s, when the world was stained with Rwanda and vowed never again. It is happening now and it is about to get worse imminently unless action is taken. And it is now apparent that as a result of a failure to prevent and the continuation of the supply of equipment and munitions to the RSS, that they feel emboldened to commit further atrocities and El Obeid and Tawila. And I will say with respect to our government and other governments around the world, that condemnation without action is not acceptable.

And as United Nations Security Council penholder, we have a global responsibility to secure coordination and implementation of the protection of civilians. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact report on Sudan made depressing reading. I know the Minister will have studied it closely and from my experience it is accurate. It is very depressing to read that policy decisions have been made as a result of budget reductions, not through policy choices themselves. It is not only depressing, however, it's an outrage.

The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons that there needed to be action. I agree with her, but she didn't say what. So can the Minister for Africa State. What actions are now being proposed by the UK to prevent the atrocities which could be happening in weeks? The Minister has stated that funds have been raised in the London conference last year, and the new additional funds from the UK are welcome, but that London conference only raised a third of what was needed for the humanitarian emergency last year.

And we know as a consequence that of the lack of a UN Sudan wide arms embargo, no designated safe places for education and health, no kinetic action to prevent intelligence gathering and drones attacks on civilians, no fly zones. All of these are emboldening the RSF and the SAF forces, and the NCP backers are preventing humanitarian aid into the areas. So finally, my Lords, I hope the UK can now steer a regional coordination mechanism for humanitarian assistance. I hope that the Minister can appeal to the Prime Minister so that he makes it a priority for this country on the global stage to ensure that there is a cessation of violence.

There is a prevention of atrocities, and we can signal the work that the future of Sudan is for the civilians of Sudan, not for the warring parties, which currently feel as if they have impunity.
19:48
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, and I agree with much of what has been said. It is noble Lord Rook opposite started by talking about the ceasefire in Gaza. We very much welcome this and we will do whatever we can, everything we can to support the path to peace. As both noble Lords have said, this is an early, early stage in the process and there is a very, very long way to go and it is unlikely to be smooth and without disruption along the way, and we need to be ready for that and to have the determination to do whatever it takes to see this through.

I was asked about the ISF and UK troops. It isn't our intention that there should be UK troops. The Foreign Secretary said. I think very clearly that that's not what we expect to happen and there are very many reasons for that. But the I was also asked about Hamas and that's an important question. It's long been the position of this government and our predecessor governments, and will continue to be the position that we consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation.

And we therefore think that Hamas should have no role in the future of leadership at all in Palestine, in any guise at all. I'm going to Brussels tomorrow to meet. Mr. Mustafa and talk about how the Palestinian Authority takes that role in the future, and to make sure that they are properly equipped and have the capability to do that. And that's not something that is we're not ready today. But it's important that the international community, as appropriate, comes together and provides that support.

We've been doing that, and we need to really increase those efforts. I think at the moment, because it's difficult to see accepting the Board of Peace and all the other structures within the the 20 point plan that we still have to work through, it is difficult to see how in the longer term, you have a government of Palestine without the Palestinian Authority on the issue of arms sales. Clearly we keep this under review. We're mindful of the decisions that are partners and allies make.

We are at an early stage in the process, and I wouldn't rule out a change. But at the moment I think we need to just monitor things and see how they progress. The return of hostages is absolutely vital that those families have been through far, far too much. And it is right that they should have the tragic though it is, the bodies of their loved ones must be returned, and we will continue to make the case for that to happen as soon as possible.

On the. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, he said, I mean, he asked about the the plan as well. And our position, I think, is this is the best chance that there is of achieving peace at the moment. And I know that there is some scepticism and there will be people who can. It's not difficult to find things that are missing and elements that it would be good to see, but that we are in a position where this is the plan that we have. It's the plan that we must all work as hard as we possibly can to make work, and where we think there are things that we can add to it, and things that would help and ways in which we can support, then that is what we must do.

The noble Lord asks what we will do when the government of Israel perhaps doesn't want to do some of the things that we would like it to do in relation to the plan? Well, we need to have dialogue and discussion and take those issues as they come. And I think we need to start from a position that before this plan was agreed, very, very close to the moment where this plan was agreed, there were many of us who were really starting to lose most of our hope in relation to this.

And and yet the plan happened and the ceasefire happened. So I think we have to proceed with clear eye, but with best intentions. What are we doing to support the Palestinian Authority? We're doing a great deal. And the work with Michael Barber, I think many noble Lords will be familiar with, but we continue to work with them. We have a very good relationship with the Palestinian Authority. I've met them many times, as has Minister Faulkner and many others, and we'll continue to do that.

On the settler violence. It has been a dreadful season. It's olive harvest season. This has been some of the worst in terms of volume and nature of violence, periods that we've seen. I met myself, families in Palestine who've been forced to move many, many times, and their stories are really quite devastating. We have used our sanctions regime to address this, but we'll continue to use that and other mechanisms, as we would expect, to try and improve the situation for those living in the situation for those living in Palestine.

And on Sudan. Yes, the noble Lord asked me about sanctions. We do use some sanctions in relation to Sudan. Obviously, everyone's heard me say this many, many times, but we don't comment on future designations. But that doesn't mean it's a waste of time to raise it in this House. It's important that we're noble Lords feel they would like to see more action, that they use these opportunities to encourage the government and and to make that clear, because that does affect our calculation and our thinking.

And it's important that we know that that is the view of parliamentarians. And on aid was raised, of course. I mean, the issue in Sudan. Yeah. It's not there is an issue with the amount of aid, but really it's an issue of access that is the problem, and it's the restrictions that are placed on agencies, the registration requirements, the payments that are needed, the safety of just the blocking of access. It's it's incredibly frustrating. I was asked about airdrops.

I mean, I think there are real problems with airdrops, like real, real problems. And it is an absolute last resort. You don't know who aid is going to. People have died when we've dropped aid in this way in the past. So it is absolutely not something that and it's an incredibly expensive way of getting aid to a population that you could reach easily over land, if only the the warring parties would, would allow for that to happen. So we continue to argue alongside Tom Fletcher and others.

Tom Fletcher's been in Darfur this week, and I'm sure that this is one of the cases he will have been making. Is that the necessity of both sides, whatever else they can't agree on, and there's plenty. They must come to a position where they can allow access for humanitarian workers to operate safely. The issue of British made equipment, we have looked into that. And of course we have. We've incredibly concerned about any evidence of anything happening of that nature.

We are, as the noble Lord will know, we we take pride in the robustness of our systems, and we take incredibly seriously any issues there may be with diversion. These have been investigated and the items that were included in the reports were items that were sold many years ago and were not. Bullets or guns or anything like that. I think it was something to do with a car engine and but nevertheless, those things shouldn't end up in Sudan.

And we and we should we should continue to monitor this very closely, because we do not want anything that's come out of this country to be used to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities that we're seeing in Sudan. And we will keep that closely, closely monitored. And any evidence that that there is, we will, of course, investigate immediately. And Lord Purvis of Tweed asked us about the Icai report. I mean, I thought it was a very, very good report. I, I read it, I think it was a well.

A really thoughtful, well rounded piece of work and but the the policy choices on Sudan, I think in the report, the policy choices that were referred to. And these are not things that have happened recently or even under this government. And the policy choices that we're making in relation to Sudan have not been related to to budget, because we haven't reduced our budget for Sudan, we've protected it for reasons that noble Lords don't need me to explain. And we're also going to be making sure that we consider the money that's used to support the the fast growing numbers of people who are finding themselves living on the border of Sudan and Chad, in Egypt, in South Sudan, who are being displaced as a result of this hideous conflict.

We also he asked what we're doing. I mean, the point he made about statements only taking you so far and not having an impact on the ground. I mean, I have a lot of time for that opinion. I think we held a session of the Human Rights Council last week. The position on Sudan was agreed unanimously, which was encouraging. It's good, I think, in this situation. I was talking to a Minister from Chad just to thank the government of Chad, really for what they're doing, but what his view is very clear that this is this is a war, that it's political.

It needs to stop there. You can do all you want with refugees and all you want with aid. But until those those warring parties stop and put down their arms, we are going to be continuing to face this hideous situation. And I think that the fact that we're able to pass something unanimously in Geneva that does serve to bring attention and focus to this conflict, because we are going to need all of our partners and allies to bring their attention to Sudan in a way that they did in the end with Gaza.

And we're going to need an international pressure and response, I think, to make progress on bringing about peace in Sudan. So they do serve a purpose. But the I was asked also about the impunity we have, the fact finding mission that we support. We're supporting the ICC and we're supporting local agencies as well to make sure that we can. We've got evidence and that we're able to to seek those prosecutions, which I think are going to be necessary, hopefully very, very soon, to bring those responsible to justice.

responsible to justice.
20:00
20:02
20:03
20:04
20:06
Lord Austin of Dudley Portrait Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
been said, the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, with half a million children already dead from starvation, 10 million more starving, millions more internally displaced, or leaving the country as as refugees. And we've seen, tragically as well, the number of starving actually is more than Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza, Mali and South Sudan put together. We've seen appalling bloodshed in El Fasher over the last few weeks. It looks like Tawila could be next. 650,000 desperate civilians. So given our our role at the at the UN, what more what more can the government do to to to to protect civilians, to enable the negotiation of a ceasefire and to get the desperately needed, the desperately needed aid that we've just heard about into the country.

And whilst I, I, I want to end on a discordant note, it is as the, this long overdue. I after the last three years, the almost daily obsessive, if I may say so, debates on Israel and Gaza discussed in Parliament more than any other issue, any other issue, even the economy, the NHS, crime or the or education. Why is it that we sit here an almost empty chamber? Why is it that there are no protests outside every day marches in marches, taking over the streets of London every week? What what does what? Why does the Minister think that when it comes to the plight of the desperate plight of people in Africa, Parliament, I'm afraid, and the public, what could it.

What is it that could explain this apparent it that could explain this apparent comparative lack of concern? comparative lack of concern?
20:08
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I mean, there is no doubt this is the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. By considerable measure, the number of deaths, the atrocities that are being committed and the lack of control and the normalisation of violence, particularly sexual violence in this conflict, is beyond anything that we've witnessed this century. What more can we do? We need to be rallying the international community and to get more focus on this conflict, because I think that, in the end, is the way that people are going to be brought to the negotiating table.

We need to make sure that we do everything that we can within the legal structures that we have and our work on the ground, to make sure that testimonies are taken and the evidence is gathered so that there is accountability and an end to impunity. We need to continue to provide the practical support that we do directly, but also through our through our partners on the ground to provide the food, the medicine, the education that's needed by people who are in such desperate need.

Why has this taken so long to reach the attention of the country and internationally? And there are many theories around this. I think the noble Lord, my friend, has his own. You can point to the lack of journalists in the area. You can point to the fact that Africa generally receives far too little attention. And and the noble Lord Forsyth says that there is desensitisation. I've no doubt that that's part of it too. But it's our job to put all of those things to one side and to make sure that this conflict and the suffering that it is brought about does receive the attention that it needs.

Because if we don't, this carries on for year after year after year. The only way this gets resolved is the international community, including the African Union, but not only the African Union stepping up and shining a light on it and coming together and resolving to conclude it. resolving to conclude it.
20:10
20:11
20:12
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Could I also join Lord Purvis in the frustration about the, you know, how long it's taken to have a statement on Sudan? And in particular, I have concerns around that. It's credible evidence that exists about atrocities that are highly possible in Al Bayda and Tawila. And my question to the Minister is what specific actions is Her Majesty's Majesty's Government taking to prevent this? In terms of the statement itself, can I just welcome particularly the final sections of this report, and I quote the section that says that the resolution was unanimously securing international consensus for urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes at El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of horrifying events in El Fasher and across Sudan.

And we we need to make sure that teams get into, investigate those atrocities and hold perpetrators to account. And I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuse in Sudan. And my question would be, we need to get those individuals in to investigate and collate that evidence, because every day that passes, then the likelihood is that those people, whether it's civilians or people in regular or irregular armies in there, will may well get away with it.

However, I also want to touch on the same issue, but to say that we'll His Majesty's Government have the same determination to also hold those people to account who have committed war crimes in Palestine, be it in Gaza or in the West Bank, particularly given the settler violence that we had. And what clear message will His Majesty's Government sent to those individuals that are going around burning dairies and other livelihoods? And can I also finally ask around the issue around we've seen pictures of aid stacked up in places like Jordan, and we've seen the flooding that's happened in Gaza.

What actions will His Majesty's Government take to ensure those tents that are essentially needed right now, and the access to baby food and other essentials? And I've talked about sanitary products for women in the past that could we please ensure that they are reached to those people in Gaza urgently?
20:15
20:16
20:17
20:19
20:20
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
laws, new powers and new penalties. And the first thing which has to change, my Lords, is terminology. I disagree with my noble friends in calling it shoplifting, since this diminishes and the Minister in the diminishes and the Minister in the last minutes in the last discussion calling it shoplifting since this diminishes the enormity of the diminishes the enormity of the criminal rackets now operating. It sounds rather like the the legitimate taker food takeaway legitimate taker food takeaway foods we see in shop called grab and go.

I assume people are supposed to pay for it before they go. Now, this is not shoplifting, my Lords. It is shop theft and some organised on a massive scale as organised on a massive scale as conspiracy. Conspiracy to steal my amendments address the concerns of the British Retail Consortium the British Retail Consortium following the annual survey published in January this year. It showed that losses from customer showed that losses from customer theft reached a record 2.2 billion in 2324, and that we have record crime levels despite retailers spending 1.8 billion on prevention.

That's a total cost of £4 billion. Now, retailers want the police to take retail crime more seriously, take retail crime more seriously, improve response times, use technology and data sharing to target prolific and organised target prolific and organised offenders, and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Key actions the retailers are demanding or advocate for are as follows. Improve police attendance retailers want police to prioritise attending incidents, especially when an offender has been detained by staff. Violence has been used or key evidence like forensic needs, immediate attention and collection.

They want effective investigations. They ask for all reasonable lines of inquiry to be pursued, including collecting and using CCTV footage, eyewitness statements and forensic evidence to identify and prosecute offenders. They want targeting of prolific offenders. Retailers want a proactive approach to identify and focus resources on the small number of repeat offenders responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. This includes using criminal behaviour orders and, for serious cases, electronic monitoring. They want better data sharing and intelligence. Businesses are keen to share data and intelligence through partnerships and platforms like Project Pegasus and the Disc system to help police forces build a national picture of organised crime groups and link up crimes for unknown offenders across different locations.

They want easier and consistent reporting. Retailers want a streamlined, consistent and
20:23
None Portrait Amendment:216A Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-

easy way to report all incidents as underreporting due to complex systems and a perceived lack of police response is a major issue. police response is a major issue. They also want visible deterrence. They support hot spot patrolling They support hot spot patrolling and high visibility policing in high crime locations to deter potential thieves and provide potential thieves and provide reassurance to staff and customers. They want tougher sentencing and legal measures. The industry legal measures. The industry advocates for a robust judicial response, including the introduction of specific laws like introduction of specific laws like a standalone offence of assaulting a retail worker, which I'm pleased to say we're going to have.

And signal that these crimes are unacceptable and will not go unacceptable and will not go unpunished. And finally, they want collaboration. My Lords, over all shops want stronger collaboration shops want stronger collaboration between the police, the criminal justice system and businesses to address the root causes of offending and ensure that staff are offending and ensure that staff are supported in providing evidence and attending court. My Lord, I am arrogant enough to say that my new clauses address all of these concerns and are related.

First, giving shopkeepers and retail giving shopkeepers and retail outlets the powers to deter shop thieves, second powers to arrest thieves, second powers to arrest and detain them, and third, tackling organised shop theft as conspiracy. So first of all, let me explain my new clause 216. Now the Information Commissioner's Office has suggested that it is inappropriate to publish photos of known thieves because it may infringe on their data protection rights. What nonsense, my Lords, it is a great deterrent. And my section, subsections five and six, gives compensation for a shop that makes a mistake and publishes the wrong photograph.

Now retailers like M&S, boots, Morrisons and Greggs are now contributing data including photos and CCTV footage of repeat offenders to a national database, which is shared with the police and used internally by security staff. That's on as a band boards and in staff areas only. That's to prevent entry and it's a compliant method which seeks to get round, although it seeks to comply with the Information Commissioner's guidance. The other thing shops must do, and I suggest they will do, is to make it easy for the police to prosecute.

The police will naturally not respond to a phone call that says that some some anonymous bloke stole from their shop or made a getaway and they don't know who it is. I won't respond to that myself. But if the shops keep all photographic and video evidence, I say video, but it'll be digital these days. Time and data and of course evidential quality with statements from the observers. Then the police will think it worthwhile to investigate. At least the police will have no excuse, no reason not to.

Following on from that, my new clause says that if the retailers have done all of these things and have good evidence, which is a good chance of catching and convicting thieves, then the police must take the investigative investigative action along the lines of subsections three and four. My Lords, I submit that these measures will not only lead to more unjust convictions, but also deterrence. My new clause, 206 b moves on from deterrence to dictate to detention. Retail outlets must have the power to arrest and detain suspects under proper controls.

But very few now do so because they're afraid of the consequences of getting it wrong. And even when they get it right, criminals will sue for wrongful arrest or excessive force, no matter how untrue that is. So my new clause sets out powers for shops to arrest and detain shop thieves, but with very strict conditions, as set out in subsection two. I won't go through all of them, but they are tough conditions on shops and security guards which guarantee that evidence is retained and the rights of the suspect are properly guaranteed, just the same as if he or she had been arrested and been detained by the most woke police force in the country.

So, my Lords, I say the security staff must be properly trained and must use minimum necessary force. They must wear cameras all the time, capturing the action when detained in a secure room. It must be covered by cameras at all times. The suspect told why he or she has been arrested. No intimate body searches, female security staff or female suspects, etc. and of prime importance, the police must be called as soon as possible. And I say that when the shop has complied with all those requirements, the police must then respond and do their duty.

If the shop has done a gold plated job of collecting the evidence, handling the suspect properly, and then the then the police must take their responsibility seriously and no question of releasing the suspect on the spot. Of course they can release them or or or charge the person when they review the evidence of the police station and interviewed the suspect. No 1st May point out that this regime may be perfect for the big retailers and big shops, but it will not work for the corner shops and smaller retailers.

I accept that, but it is highly likely that individuals who steal from small shops will also steal from large multiples, as the type of store of depends on the as. The type of thief often depends on the specific motive modification. So the choice of stores selected often depends on the specific modification and perceived opportunity of the thieves, rather than a strict adherence for only one type. Ultimately, shopkeeper shop thieves tend to be generalists in times of in terms of store format, seeking out environments with low security and high opportunity.

Large multiples often have more security resources, CCTV and security guards, but their sheer size and high footfall can also make them easier. Easier theft targets in certain areas, small shops may have less sophisticated security, making them a target for burglars. Opportunistic thieves but owners often know their regulars, so to speak, which can act as a deterrent to some. My Lords, we have got to remove the fear of shops and staff doing their own arrests, own arrests, and that means professionalising their arresting and detention regime regime and then empowering.

Well, a few weeks ago I was in a large boots down in Victoria, Cardinal Place, where I saw a guy come in in a hoodie. He went to a cosmetic shelf, opened a carrier bag, and was scooting the shelf contents into the bag. He then started to go out. I started shouting, stop that guy! He's thieving! Stop him, stop him! And then I charged after him in my chair. He began to run, so I powered up to warp speed, but I lost him when he went down into the underground.

I went back into the boots shop, sought out the one and only person on duty, and said, call the manager. Look at the look at the videotapes. The response was nothing they could do. No point. They didn't interfere. It's just one of those things, my Lords, that's not good enough. And we're all paying the price through the cost of increased goods to cover theft losses. Perhaps I go so far as to say possibly Sycamore Partners, the private equity firm owning boots, has decided they can make more profit from letting people steal things than employ enough staff to stop them stealing in the first place.

I only surmise I don't know that for a fact. Then I must tell you, ten minutes later, when I was at M&S down there, an American woman rushed up to me and said she tried. She'd chased the man who stole my shopping, but she lost him in the underground. I explained that it was not my shopping, but thank a United States tourist for trying to do what no other Brit in the area had tried to do. So I know Mr. Jenrick, my Lords, waging a one man fight against criminals in London.

But again, a few months ago I was in a small retail outlet in a large supermarket, only a few hundred yards from here, when I saw a man stuffing his jacket, pockets full of things a few yards away from a security guard, I shouted to the guard that he was thieving. The guy gave me a mouthful of abuse and then walked past the guard, giving him two fingers. I asked the guard what he was playing at and he said there were trained not to intervene and he just had to let them get away with it.

My Lord, why should the innocent public pay for useless dodos like that, who are taught and are told by the shops just to ignore shop thieves? My Lord, my new clothes would make a difference. Giving them the security to arrest and detain, provided they complied with all my provisions to do it properly and legitimately. And finally, my Lords, I turn to conspiracy to steal and steal a lot. We are talking about here about organised crime gangs. Now, Bicester Village outlet was, I think still is a favourite target for organised criminal theft gangs.

And Thames Valley Police has had some success. But it's a constant battle and I congratulate the Home Office for increasing funding for operation Opal, which has had considerable success in tackling organised crime from shops. Now, it's no surprise that the majority of Eastern European gangs run gangs, bringing in illegal women as prostitutes and filling the van on their way back home with high value stolen goods. Opel has identified 23 highly organised gangs with over 200 professional and violent criminals operating.

One Romanian thief, called Dima, was caught with £60,000 worth of goods stolen from boots. Perhaps he was a guy I chased, but I think not. This was down in Pontypridd, but he got four years as an individual thief. However, he was part of an organised gang and my new clause would have permitted a sentence of up to ten years where five or more persons were acting in concert or conspiracy. Therefore, my Lord, we cannot wipe out organised and massive crime gangs thieving from our shops.

With the current law on shoplifting and shoplifting penalties, when we've got real massive shop theft, Big crime deserves big sentences. So let me say in conclusion that I know the government wants to do more, and I'm pleased that the steps are taken. I'm pleased that the steps the government took to tackle crime and violence against shop workers. I support all of that. But we need to go further. Shop theft is absolutely massive and it's way out of control. That's not the fault of the government.

Only exemplary measures, as in my new clauses, have a hope of slowing it down and possibly reducing it. And I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment to. An amendment proposed after clause 39. Insert the following new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 39. Insert the following new clause the words as printed in the Marshall List. My Lord. I won't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I won't. Detain the House very long. I. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Detain the House very long. I. I speak as somebody who, for most of my adult life, until the good people of the Uxbridge constituency people of the Uxbridge constituency sent me into the other place, and I continued to be a retailer behind the counter, and also having to the counter, and also having to deal with putative shoplifters. And I would just like to say that I I would just like to say that I fully support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is putting forward,
20:34
20:35
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
photographic evidence of suspects, including on social media. This raises significant questions about privacy and misidentification. If the accused turns out to be innocent, the shop must pay compensation. But I believe this is fundamentally unworkable and could cause serious harm to innocent people, damaging reputations in ways that money cannot fix. The noble Lord himself has said that this is likely just to be able to be worked with large stores rather than small shops, but the shops most affected by theft are small businesses run by 1 or 2 people, and shopkeepers in my area are busy enough running their shops without spending hours reviewing camera footage, creating digital copies and ensuring time stamps.

Clarifying the arrest powers of security staff as proposed, an amendment to 16B may seem helpful, but increasing their authority to arrest and detain risks, misuse and legal challenge. Security staff do not have the same training or accountability as police officers, increasing the chance of wrongful or disproportionate arrest. Video evidence and procedural protections are helpful, but not adequate substitutes for professional policing standards. Finally, amendment 216C proposes a new offence of conspiracy to commit theft.

The noble Lord is right to point to the growing involvement of organised crimes, the police have said. International criminals are targeting UK shops in what a co-op boss describes as organised looting. However, I disagree with the noble Lord in respect of the solution he proposes. It seems likely to disproportionately target those committing relatively minor thefts, potentially imposing severe sentences on them of up to ten years, while doing little to address those orchestrating and controlling those criminal activities. Shoplifting is undoubtedly out of control, with a new direction desperately needed.

The Liberal Democrats believe the current epidemic is the result of years of ineffective police resourcing, which has left local force overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on solving crimes like shoplifting. And I stress the words unable to rather than unwilling to. We want to see a return to genuine neighbourhood policing with more police visibility and a staffed police counter in every community. That is why I have tabled amendments 429 and 430 later on in the bill.
20:38
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I strongly support the intention behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Len Lord Glenarthur. And he's absolutely right, actually, to to refer to it as theft. It is section one theft, section one of the Theft Act 1968. And he's right. There is no such thing as no such offence as shoplifting. And, my Lords, we have all heard the same stories from businesses, large and small, prolific offenders walking out with hundreds of pounds of stock in broad daylight, frightened or in many cases not allowed to intervene.

Police too stretched to attend and time and time again the same individuals returning to commit offence after offence because they believe, with some justification, that nothing will happen to them. My noble friend's First Amendment deals with the ability to share clear evidence of theft with those who need to see it. At present, retailers might be reluctant or legally uncertain about whether they can circulate images of offenders, even to neighbouring stores, to their own head office or to crime reduction bodies. Yet these are precisely the channels that allow patterns of offending to be identified and prolific offenders to be caught.

The amendment set out a lawful, proportionate system. Images can be shared where a theft has occurred, provided the originals are preserved, timestamped and unedited and sent to the police. It ensures integrity of evidence and prevents misuse, and importantly, it provides a remedy and compensation. If a photograph of the wrong individual is mistakenly published. My only concern here might be that being required to pay £300 per day in compensation might deter the shop owner from circulating the evidence. Amendment two and six B is one I'm particularly supportive of.

We know that a number of retailers have told their staff to not intervene when they see a person shoplifting. This has led to numerous instances of brazen theft, whereby people walk into a shop, grab armfuls of products and walk out in full sight of security guards and staff. Such scenes make a mockery of law and order. This amendment permits the lawful detention of suspected thieves by trained security staff. Shopkeepers should not have to look on helplessly, while brazen thieves simply walk out of the store.

What my noble friend proposes is eminently sensible, properly trained staff equipped with body worn cameras using only minimum force, operating under strict rules and with constant video recording. This is not a free for all. It is the opposite. It is a controlled, transparent, safeguarded process that both protects the right of suspects and gives retailers the ability to intervene proportionately when theft is happening before the eyes. The amendment also places obligations on the police. When they when called, they must attend promptly, take custody of the suspect, secure the evidence and make decisions based on full review, not a hurried assessment at the store door.

This is entirely right. Retail staff are repeatedly told to detain no one because the police won't come. This amendment sends the opposite message when retailers do their part correctly, the police must do theirs. Finally, my Lords Amendment 260 addresses a growing and deeply troubling phenomenon whereby organised gangs loot shops, raid entire streets or retail parks and steal thousands of pounds worth of goods. These are not opportunists, they are organised criminals. Yet the system too often charges them with individual low value thefts rather than with conspiracy or organised crime offences.

This amendment establishes that where there is reliable evidence of at least ten thefts involving two or more individuals, a full investigation with conspiracy charges must be instigated where appropriate. The sentencing framework. My noble friend proposes, is proportionate and targeted. Higher penalties for organised groups of five or more and automatic confiscation of vehicles or property used in the crime. These are necessary deterrents, my Lords. The current penalties are not Lord Case. Taken together, these amendments represent a robust but balanced response to an urgent and worsening problem.

They support shopkeepers, empower security staff and assist the police with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

collection of evidence. My Lords, can I begin by sharing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I begin by sharing in part, the aspirations of the noble Lord? Blencathra? I agree
20:42
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
noble Lord? Blencathra? I agree with him. It is shop theft. It is not shoplifting, it is shop theft. And I agree with the noble Lord Davis on that same point. When I began my working career 45 years ago, after university with the co-op on a management training course, we called it leakage. I found that term offensive then and I found it offensive now. It is shop theft. So I agree with him that there needs to be an effort by the government to tackle this issue.

And if I could just begin, this answer is in part, noble Lady Baroness Doocey, the Home Office is working with police representatives through the National Police Chiefs Council to make it easier for retailers to report crime. The Policing Minister, as was, and the Policing Minister as is now, are both supporting a Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy launched by the policing, chief constables and industry. We had a summer of action on shop theft which involved visibility on policing on the streets and targeting high hotspot areas.

The Home Secretary plans this winter police forces across England and Wales partnering with local businesses, local councils and police and crime commissioners to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season. There are plans to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground from neighbourhood policing through to special constables, through to PCSOs, and the measures in clause 39, which we debated earlier, try to raise the level of importance of shop theft so that it is something that we recognise as a government, as an issue that we want to take action upon.

Now, where I would disagree with the noble Lord is some of the proposals he's got here. But like the noble Lord Randall, who again has great experience of the retail world, I take the issue of shop theft extremely seriously. Probably like him. I'm one of the few people in the chamber tonight who have apprehended a shoplifter and reported them with the manager of the shop to the police and being present at the shop theft interview as part of my duties. It was shop theft then and it's shop theft now, and it shouldn't be tolerated whatever the level of that shop theft.

But the measures that the noble Lord Blencathra brings forward, such as amendment 216, which seeks to create deterrent actions by shopkeepers through the use of video or photographic evidence. Now, again, it is important that we have CCTV. We have evidence supplied like that. But I think that the widespread introduction of publication, which is one of the objectives of the noble Lords Amendment, would meet the objectives of the Baroness Doocey, which would be potentially impinging on the rights of individuals who may or may not be guilty.

It looks like it could well incite vigilante action. It could well undermine the fundamental presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I have no objection to CCTV, but I think he just needs to be careful with that, which is the reason why I can't support it. His amendments. He moves on later. I would just before I move on to that, can I just say as well that I appreciated his support for operation Opal? Again, that shows that retailers are able to refer cases of organised retail crime to operation Opal, the National Police Acquisitive Crime Intelligence unit will investigate, and I think that's unnecessary to specify it in the legislation because it's an operational issue.

But again, it shows the importance that we have on the issue of shop theft. His amendment two on six B, which relates to the powers of shop security staff to arrest and detain persons suspected of shop theft under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. The act that I've just mentioned there already allows any person, including a security guard, to make a citizen's arrest of anyone they have reasonable grounds to suspect, has committed, or is in the process of committing an indictable offence.

The power of arrest is subject to certain necessary criteria, but essentially that power of arrest, in addition to section three of the Criminal Law Act 1967, allows also for reasonable force in the prevention of crime, or effecting or assisting a lawful arrest. Now, again, we've put in place the security industry's authority, which is the regulator for the private security industry, and it's setting training standards for licence linked qualifications. And as part of that training, security guards learn physical intervention skills, how to perform a citizen's arrest, the law on use of force and how to de-escalate areas of conflict.

Now, again, I think that individual businesses can and they do determine their own policy on the arrest of shoplifters by licensed security guards in compliance with UK law. But I do think that it is a valuable area of work and giving security guards wider powers of arrest, in my view, would create potential difficulties. It would require even more specialist training. It would require oversight of the use of detention powers. It would, as described in the amendment, entail significant training requirements, significant costs for business, and it would also open up issues of public accountability for the exercise of coercive powers.

Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, arguably. I didn't think my man was creating considerable extra powers creating considerable extra powers of arrest for security guards, but it does seem that the current powers largely mirror a lot of the powers largely mirror a lot of the things I put in this amendment. My question, then is why are so many shops scared to use it? I shops scared to use it? I appreciate the determination of the retail unit or the outlet, whether they let the security guards arrest people or not.

But there's people or not. But there's certainly a fear amongst many security guards, amongst many shops. We can't let you arrest people and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We can't let you arrest people and we must empower them to do so somehow or other. Let me say there is a genuine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me say there is a genuine fear and I understand this about what the response would be. And in the days that I, and indeed the the days that I, and indeed the noble Lord Randall may have stopped the shop theft in a retail premise, the shop theft in a retail premise, that might have been a long time ago in different climates the carrying of knives, the carrying of carrying of knives, the carrying of violence, the threat of violence is is all there now.

And that might be a fear. And it's up to individual a fear. And it's up to individual shops to determine their own policy. But again, if I couple it with the clauses in amendment clauses 37 of this bill to look at the attacks on retail workers, which would be in retail workers, which would be in the context of a whole range of retail staff, I think that, again, adds an extra protection and it will be up to individual shops. But I think it's important that those two measures are seen in in coterminous.

And the fact that protection to retail staff in the event of shop theft and assaults is, again, a further measure to give support to action on shop theft. But it is ultimately for individual stores to determine their their policy. The noble Lord has also raised the issue of multiple thefts and planning for thefts. I mean, I find it objectionable to see criminal gangs organising mass hits on shops, but that already is a factor that aggravates the seriousness of the theft offence.

It's therefore that evidence of multiple parties involved in a theft, and each party could be and should be charged with theft, as well as conspiracy to commit theft. The amendment requires the police to consider charging conspiracy to commit theft. If there is evidence that two or more people involved. Again, I know he knows I'm going to say this, but it is for the police and for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on relevant charges, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

I don't want to put on statute what charges the police or CPS should bring. But again, the potential is there should they wish to do so. If I can just touch briefly on the sentencing aspects of the amendment. At present, the maximum penalty for theft is seven years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit theft or robbery has the same maximum penalty as the base offence. So the effect of this amendment, therefore, is to create a form of conspiracy to commit theft offence that would actually have a fewer than five people were acting together, a potentially lower maximum penalty for offences than theft or conspiracy to commit theft.

As now and again, we've had this discussion earlier. The amendment also introduces minimum sentences and I've made plain in our debates on Monday, minimum sentences are rare in law and Parliament has set them in statute only exceptionally. So. I don't think it's appropriate in this particular instance, sentencing guidelines for theft, which courts are required to follow unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so already highlight when considering the culpability of an offending factor, such as involvement in others through coercion, intimidation or exploitation, and the sophisticated nature of offence.

Significant planning issue is also relevant. There are other aggravating factors the court must consider, including taking into account previous convictions. So I would say to the noble Lord that I can't accept his amendment for the reasons that the noble Baroness Doocey has mentioned in part, but also for the reasons I have given. But I do not want him to walk away from the committee tonight, and thinking that this government is not committed to tackling shop theft, it is through the measures that we've taken.

It is through the measures we're encouraging police to take. It is to the measures in this bill to change the definition of shop theft in clause 39 and to provide protection for retail workers in clause 37. Shop theft is shop theft. It costs all of us resource on our bills. It costs businesses resource and it is money that should be invested in the local economy, not ensuring that it goes into the pockets of people who opportunistically, individually, through whatever reason, from poverty to organised criminal gangs, from drug abuse to alcohol abuse, provide shop theft in many of our stores.

And I want to make sure that we do all we can to reduce it and to provide deterrence for it. So I would ask the Lord if he may, to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hello. I'm grateful to noble Lords have contributed to this debate, including my noble friend debate, including my noble friend Lord Randolph Oxford and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for his full support for my amendments. full support for my amendments. First of all, I'd say to the noble Baroness Doocey, I think she said that shopkeepers, if someone's stealing from the shop, then they stealing from the shop, then they haven't time to go through the video cameras to get the evidence. Well, I say, if a shopkeeper has Well, I say, if a shopkeeper has someone stealing from their shop and he can't be bothered to look at the TV cameras to see the the evidence for it, then he can't
20:53
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
evidence for it, then he can't complain about shop theft. If he's got the evidence, we're going to say he should use it. And I'm afraid I don't think you read my amendments and all the protections I've built in. For those who do want to arrest criminals, the Minister set out in his excellent speech all the the powers of citizen's arrest, a security guard or a shopkeeper can have. But I think the noble Lady Baroness Doocey said that no one should have the power to arrest except a policeman who's properly trained.

And I think that is rather bizarre, to quote a word that's been used earlier today. If my amendments. Yes, I give way to noble Lady. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say that it what I said. I didn't say that it wasn't possible to look at CCTV coverage. What I said was, if coverage. What I said was, if you're a small shopkeeper and the shop has been run by 1 or 2 people, you are not going to sit there and you are not going to sit there and do everything that you have suggested in that amendment. Date, suggested in that amendment.

Date, stamp things, take photographs, make sure that everything is absolutely hunky dory, that it's absolutely hunky dory, that it's handed over in a in a file. It's just pie in the sky. It won't work. just pie in the sky. It won't work. So, you know, I really if you are going to quote me, please quote me correctly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also said in my speech, my Lords, that I, I did understand that small shops would have difficulty with this, but I also difficulty with this, but I also made the point that the people who steal from small shops in the main also steal from the big shops, and also steal from the big shops, and everyone can prevent them stealing from the big shops that arrest them there. Then we will bear down as well. On the theft from the smaller shops. Of course smaller shops are more difficult problem, but it will not be solved by by just putting not be solved by by just putting more policemen on the beat.

Because of course the police have got to prioritise and they've got in prioritise and they've got in London in particular, they've got to put terrorism at the top of the list rape, murder, serious violence and shop theft will inevitably be lower down. But the important point is this if, if, if the shopkeeper. I was familiar with the Oxford Street experiment a few years ago, I don't know if it's still ongoing, but there the shops discovered that if one shop, Debenhams phoned up or Selfridges and complained.

No good. If they cooperated amongst themselves, then they could get enough evidence together to justify the met. Then coming along and grabbing some people who are working in a concerted effort to steal from their shops. And they also discovered that if they give the police a gift wrapped package of good evidential material, then the police would take it seriously. And I think that is that is the the key message here. And it is bogus to suggest that just having more police will actually deal with this problem.

I, I liked what the Minister said. We're on the same side here. I've no criticism of the government on this whatsoever. We're on the same side here. And I like his strong words that it is not shoplifting, it is theft. And I like what he said as well. We must make it easier for the shops to report crime. And that's what I've been suggesting. Now, he did not support publication of photographs. I understand his nervousness there, but I hope he does support the cooperation between shops and others to share all the photographs they've got internally, between their own security staff and the shops and possibly any other police liaison units.

So they develop a full picture of what's going on. Then it makes it easier as the guys move from one shop on Oxford Street to somewhere else, they can move in and grab them. Grab them in the I, I, I'm sorry I suggested lower penalties. I must show I'm getting soft. In my old age I did not intend to lower penalties, but penalties whatsoever. But of course, even with the maximum he has suggested, they will still be halved when the when the person is sent to prison.

All penalties are hard and again I take the view. There's no harm in having minimum sentences for this. But my Lords, as I say, I'm grateful for the words of the Minister. We must fight. We can't stop here. I'm not sure we can come back to this and report if there's enough to come back on any narrow aspects of report. But constantly we've got to bear down on shop theft. It is completely out of control. It's been getting out of control for many years.

And all of us as governments, we keep nibbling away at it, but we're not managing to crack down on it. So I hope over the next few years we will look at all aspects of trying to deal with this. And if some of the ideas in my three new clauses are workable, and I hope the government, I have no qualms with the government grabbing them and implementing further measures. But in the meantime, I beg, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
20:57
20:58
None Portrait Amendment:g233 Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hanson of Flint. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name along with the standing in my name along with the others in this grouping. These government amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence are. criminal exploitation offence are. Clauses 40 and 41 are intended to provide legal certainty and further tighten the grip of the law against tighten the grip of the law against those who seek to draw children into criminality. At the request of the Scottish Government and the Northern Irish Department of Justice, the trial child criminal exploitation offence was extended exploitation offence was extended UK wide in the other place, as the offences committed were an adult intentionally takes action to cause a child to commit criminal conduct.

It is now necessary to provide further clarification about where the child's conduct must be criminal. This is owing to the fact that the criminal law is devolved that the criminal law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the child's conduct, which is criminal in one, may not indeed be criminal in one, may not indeed be criminalised in another. Perpetrators who exploit children for criminal purposes do not care about the UK's internal borders. about the UK's internal borders. And so it is right that we ensure that this new offence prevents them that this new offence prevents them from taking advantage of that fact.

So if noble Lords look at government amendments two one, government amendments two one, seven two, 2221 and 223 to 230, they ensure that it does not matter whether the intended conduct of the child is criminal. In the part of the UK where the adult is acting to exploit them, or the part of the UK where they intend the child to act. It is criminal in either one, and the perpetrator can be prosecuted if it is not criminal in either one. The offence is not committed.

If we look at and turning to amendments 231, this puts beyond doubt that a perpetrator commits the child criminal exploitation offence, where the child they have exploited is under the age of criminal responsibility, even though a child under the age of ten in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, or under the age of 12 in Scotland, cannot technically commit an offence or be prosecuted for it, they can still be exploited and it is right that this offence says so clearly and explicitly on the face of the Bill.

Amendments four, eight, seven four, nine three and 510 make consequential amendments to the general provisions at the back of the Bill. My Lords, together, these amendments demonstrate the government's unwavering commitment to leave no space for perpetrators who target children for criminal purposes, to expose loopholes, or to escape to. Now, there are a series of other amendments in this group. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, my noble friend, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Baroness Finlay of Llandaff also have amendments which are numbers two, one, eight, 219222 and 222A in this group.

And if I may, I would want to listen to what noble Lords have said, and I will respond to any comments or moving of those amendments at the end of my
21:01
21:01
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top Portrait Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour)
-
-
is something that quite honestly, when I started my career we didn't think about, but it is something that we all became or I think we all became very aware of in the last decade and particularly during Covid. And I have had and I declare my interest as having worked with action for children and in its previous iteration, National Children's Home and NCA for many years for most of my life, really. But I certainly was in their governance for ten years, and I've been a long term ambassador ever since, and they have been working with a number of children who have been criminally exploited.

Some of them we would talk about when they'd been picked up during Covid, for example, and exploited with carrying drugs and moving drugs around the country, and the threat that they and their families are frequently under is unbelievable and really, really harmful to them, and really, really harmful to them, to their future and to the the family and the family cohesion. Even where I lived in County Durham, where quite honestly, the police used to say we were among the safest in the country.

At one stage, some friends of mine, their grandson, board went, you know, left just playing on his computer, went into the small town, met up with mates. They were spotted and the exploiters. You know, got them involved in drugs, massive mental health problems. Then lots of suicide attempts and the the work that the family have been through and are still going through in order to try to bring some reality back to their lives and to make them safe and enable them to continue to grow, to learn, to develop.

I just can't tell you how absolutely excruciating the life of the family has been. So I know that this is a really important issue and I am very, very relieved that the government is looking at this issue and seeking to address this issue in this bill, and it is very important that the government are introducing a new criminal offence and the offence of criminally exploiting a child, along with other measures, in order to deal with those perpetrators is a very positive move and has my very full support, however, working with Action for Children, we really do think that there needs to be.

Means of protecting the child victim. Whatever happens to the perpetrator, because sometimes it's very difficult to find and to catch the perpetrator. So. One of my later amendments actually deals with introducing another offence, another measure which is to protect the child even more. But let me deal with the amendments in this group. First, the amendment 218 simply tries to be clearer about what is involved in the exploitation of children in these circumstances, and I just want to make sure that all of us.

Sometimes recognise that this is something that police forces are only just now coming to terms with handling, but they haven't in the past had to think of the child as both a perpetrator and a victim. And what do they do to actually do something that's totally outside of their normal activity? And instead of simply treating the child as a perpetrator of a crime. Recognise that that crime has come because of the manner of the exploitation of the child, and because this is new, because police forces, others in the criminal justice system have not dealt with this sort of thing for very long and are really not sure how to handle it.

We thought that it would be useful for Parliament to discuss and consider putting more detail about what has happened to the child in the bill, and that is what this amendment is. And I'm be interested to know what others and the Minister thinks of being more specific. I recognise that there are problems with that in any legislation, but I also think because this is so new in many senses, in terms of the criminal law, we really need to be a bit more, a bit more forthright in what we actually how we actually describe what can happen.

So describe what can happen. So amendment 219. Really relates to the fact that as the bill stands, a child would need to be coerced into criminal actions. But very often the actions of the child may not in themselves, if you just saw the instance, be criminal. For example, if they're asked to carry money. But actually it's exploiting them and leading them into danger, which will have subsequent consequences, which again, it's very difficult to work out how you handle people.

And this is simply trying to make sure that if the act, such as holding or carrying money, is not in itself illegal, it is nonetheless part of exploitation that makes the life of the child virtually impossible because of the threats that go around, whether they carry the money and whether the offender gets the consequences of the child carrying the money in the way they want to, that then becomes very serious for the child, even if the actual act itself was not illegal.

And the this amendment will make it absolutely clear that actions that support or facilitate criminal activity, whilst not being a crime in itself, may nonetheless should nonetheless be taken into account in this order. I think that would be helpful to the police and to the prosecutors and the courts as well. And then amendment two two, two. Really is just about how do we determine that a child is 18 or not? There's a lot of debate on that in a whole series of areas of work at the moment.

Many of them, my noble friend on the front bench, would be pleased. He doesn't have to deal with and that is migrants. But well, I suppose he does. Yes. Home office, but that is a big debate around migrants. How do we actually know what the child, how the child, how old the child is. And this amendment really we are concerned is because we're concerned that at the moment there would be a defence in the bill that the perpetrator thought the child looked 18.

And I really do think we have to think about that, because actually we need to know that children are children until they're 18, but young people are still exploitable in a way that we have to take account and be able to say that is wrong and you cannot do it. And simply saying, oh, I thought they were 18 is not a good enough excuse, in my view. And I just think that we want to we need to get hold of that.

And I also know so many young people who, for example, are leaving care at around that age. And the idea that, you know, it's okay for criminals to exploit them, because yesterday was their 18th birthday and they now don't they now out of the the foster care or the children's home that they've been in, I just think we need to think that happens. And actually it's not acceptable to really not think about that, at least when we're looking at that order, this order.

So it really is to help all of us understand what this order is all about and what we can do to actually make sure that we more effectively protect children. Than we've been able to do in the past. Thank you. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to separate you two. If you were in my class. My Lords, If you were in my class. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 222 in the name of a my name and that of Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top that
21:12
21:14
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I was happy to put my name to two amendments, 218219 and 222. And while I'm about it, the noble Lord, the Minister, mentioned that Baroness Finlay has amendment 22A she apologises for not being able to be here this evening, but she said that she thought that Baroness Armstrong was amendments were so much better than her own she wouldn't move her own anyway. So that deals with that. I would just say that I'm a governor of Corum and used to be a trustee there, so quorum is very involved in some of the activities we're talking about.

The J review is a bit like a sort of gut punch to the stomach. I had heard of it. I hadn't actually read it. I read it last night, and all I would say is I didn't have a particularly undisturbed night's sleep. It is pretty horrifying what it contains. I think Charles Dickens, Dickens or Charles Booth would recognise the same forms of criminality, the same ability of some adults to to use childhood as a as a training ground for, for extending their criminal activities in a way that is unconscionable.

But when it is done efficiently, I suspect is highly profitable. The fact that it has a potentially lifelong effect on the children that are being drawn into this, I think, for the perpetrators, is completely and utterly irrelevant. Thanks to the noble Lady Baroness Armstrong, some of us were able to attend a meeting in your Lordships' House organised by action for children where and professor J was actually there herself. So I think what it is perhaps important for the government and the noble Lord, the Minister, to understand is that the amendments that Baroness Armstrong has spoken to and that we will talk about in future groups, actually, professor J herself has said how important she thinks they are, and they do deal with parts of the review which she did go into in detail.

So I think from her point of view, while she and I think all of us are extremely pleased and grateful for the government in taking on board so much of what professor J was trying to illustrate needed to be done. I think there are some tidying up bits around the edge, which it is felt by those who have the most knowledge of this particular form of criminality. That will be extremely important to try and make this legislation as effective and watertight as it can be.

And for those reasons, I fully support those amendments. those amendments.
21:17
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, from these benches, we welcome the amendments from the noble Lady, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and the noble Lord Hampton, which strengthen and clarify key issues. Baroness Armstrong's Amendment 218 defines how children are affected by child criminal exploitation. This should help police and reduce the chances of inconsistent decisions. It's necessary because, as seen with other crimes where police or CPS have latitude to define such matters, it often works to the detriment of the child or young person.

Amendment 209 is equally helpful. It makes provision for the occasion when a child has committed something that may not be illegal, but which might lead them into future criminal behaviour. The way the child criminal exploitation works is often very similar to grooming and without support in education, a child or young person may end up in trouble. Baroness 222, from the noble Lord Hampton and recommended by the Children's Commissioner, clarifies that a perpetrator of child criminal exploitation does not have to believe that the child or young person was under 18.

This makes sense as clause 40 currently provides an easy get out for perpetrators to say, but I thought they were 18. The Joe Dick's Foundation welcomes this new standalone offence, but has also called for a national register for all perpetrators who are convicted of child criminal exploitation. Can I ask the Minister if this is something that the government might consider?
21:19
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The group largely seeks to clarify the Bill as it stands, but that is none the more important than when we are addressing child exploitation. And I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Hanson of Flint for the amendments tabled in his name. I know we may not always see eye to eye. This Dispatch Box, but I can wholly support the principle behind his amendments in this group. I know that it may seem like semantics to clarify that offences may differ in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an important point.

We must ensure that the legislation allows crimes to be prosecuted only where they are, only where they are crimes. His amendments two, one seven, 220 and the many consequential amendments aim to ensure that this is the case. Similarly, his amendments 487493 extend the devolutionary power to make regulations to the area of child criminal exploitation. It is right that this is consistent. Those who create the law should have the legislative right to make provisions within their remit. My Lords, we also broadly support the principles behind the amendments in this group that aim to give more protections to children.

Amendments two and eight and two and nine. In the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek to further define that which constitutes child criminal exploitation and extend the provisions to actions that may support criminal activity whilst not being criminal themselves. Amendments two and two aim to narrow the scope of reasonable excuses that offenders can give when claiming to believe the child was over the age of 18. The sentiment behind this is a noble one. It is largely inconsequential to the exploited child whether or not the adult believed they were a child.

Therefore, if the adult is not to be prosecuted, the court must be absolutely certain that they did not believe the child was under 18. That being said, I am slightly wary of completely disapplying reasonable excuses in defence. It would take away the opportunity of defence and a very rare cases where the adult had a genuine and proven reason to believe the child was an adult. As I say, this is very rare and still criminal exploitation, but we must still account for it.

This is overall a sensible procedural but also necessary group, and I therefore offer my support to the Minister's intentions. Minister's intentions.
21:21
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
And I'm grateful to the noble Lord Hampton, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool for his supportive name and comments on the amendments before today, before I lose the point. Can I just say to the noble Baroness Doocey that the police, national computer and the Child Criminal Exploitation Prevention Orders can impose notification requirements on persons subject to orders requiring them to inform the local police of their name and address, which is the sort of National Register point.

I didn't want to lose the point because I've just had that on my phone before. I appeared to my notes and I didn't want to lose that point at the beginning. Can we just start by, I think, welcoming clause 40 of the bill? I think it's a really positive, forward looking clause which will help support reduction of exploitation of children. And I'm grateful for the amendments that have been tabled. And I'm grateful, if I may say so, for the support of the noble Lord Davis, for the amendments that I tabled, and from the noble Baroness Doocey amendment two 118.

Tabled by my noble friend Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, supported by the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, would require that for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, the perpetrator must use inverted commas or quotes, threats, physical force, intimidation, persuasion or any other means against the child. Now, in doing so, my noble friend seeks to illustrate the ways in which children can be criminally exploited. However, the point I just want to put for her to think about in this amendment is that by specifying the required means by which an adult gets a child to commit criminal conduct, the way the amendment is phrased risks actually narrowing the application of the offence, because the prosecution would have to additionally prove those means of exploitation did in fact take place where at the moment, under the way in which our proposals are there, the child offence does not require proof that the child was subjected to threats, physical force, intimidation or any other harmful ways.

A child's compliance was obtained by their exploiter. This is because, as a government, we're very clear that children cannot consent to their exploitation, so the offence should be committed regardless of whether and how the child is compelled to engage in the intended criminal activity. Now, although my noble friend's amendment also includes the words any other means which mitigates against any narrowing of the scope of the offence, I don't consider it necessary to include an illustrative, non-exhaustive list in this way, which I think would cause courts to potentially wonder what the purpose of it is as a legal test, and may have the unintended consequence of limiting the circumstances in which the child exploitation offence may be made out.

Now, I want my noble friend to think about that, but I just basically suggest to her that that the prosecution wants to get the best case. And by having that, we may end up narrowing the potential for that offence to be successful. My noble friend also has amendment 219, which would more specifically capture adults who intend to cause a child to engage in actions that support or facilitate crime. My noble friend indicated in her speech that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the offence of child exploitation also includes causing a child to commit an action which, while not itself illegal, can lead to future criminal behaviour.

We've looked at this amendment in some detail, but I consider the objective is already met by subsection one A3 of the offence, which captures where the adult does something to the child. Now, to facilitate or make it easier to call the child, cause the child to do a criminal act in the future. And I hope again she can look at this, which is on page 60 of the bill as currently drafted. And I hope that she can look at that and again, reflect on that potentially as part of the discussions that we're having now.

Before any further discussion at report. Furthermore, actions that support or facilitate crime may already amount to an offence, such as the offence under the Serious Crime Act of 2007, where an adult intentionally causes a child to commit an offence, the child criminal exploitation offence may be committed. Now, if I turn to amendment 222, in the name of the noble Lord Hampton, I'm grateful for his words in support of his amendment. This seeks to remove the requirement that for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, it must be proved that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim is aged 18 or over.

Just as a separate instance, my friend mentioned the issue of migrants we are examining currently facial recognition issues in relation to migrants, and we had a discussion about that in the other bill that I'm taking through the House at this moment on immigration very recently. But she makes a very important point, and I sympathise with the noble Lords desire to ensure that all adults who target children, to draw them into crime can be caught by this offence. But that is precisely why the reasonable belief test is, I would argue, important to ensure that perpetrators who deliberately and intentionally target children to commit crime are correctly identified and prosecuted.

If there was no requirement to prove a lack of reasonable belief that the alleged victim is a child, it would risk criminalising people as exploiters of children who genuinely did not intend or contemplate involving a minor in criminality. We must remember that the child's criminal exploitation offence requires no proof of harmful behaviours against the child, such as coercion, force or threats. Going back to the first point that I mentioned in response to my noble friend's First Amendment, it is committed simply where an adult engages in any contact or conduct towards or in respect of a child, intending to cause them to commit a crime.

The exploitative nature of this offence is the imbalance of power, which is exercised by an adult in deliberately and purposely seeking to involve a child in crime, where that is not a factor in a case, as demonstrated by what they believed about the child's age. There are other, more appropriate offences that might be charged, for example, where a person encourages or assists someone to commit an offence regardless of their age. There is already an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

Now again, I welcome the discussion that we've had this evening and I welcome the contribution of the action for children, and I welcome the discussion that we've had from the Children's Commissioner for England, who called for this amendment due to concerns that perpetrators will seek to take advantage of considerations around the reasonable belief of age to undermine the credibility of victims and indeed potentially escape prosecution. I welcome those contributions to the debate. I want to give them, with my colleagues in the Home Office, serious consideration, but I just make the point to the noble Lord that at the moment we do not consider reasonable belief of age to be a loophole, as is suggested.

And I think in support of that I would make a number of points. Firstly, there is a test of reasonable belief that does not necessarily require that the defendants have specific knowledge about the victim's age, which would be a higher burden. Secondly, a perpetrator's claim as to their belief alone will not be enough to escape prosecution as prosecutors can, and I hope would establish either that they did not believe the victim was 18, or even if they did, that, that belief was not reasonable.

And thirdly, the it only applies to children aged 13 to 17, not the most vulnerable children aged under 13. And finally, it follows established precedent in other offences where the core offending relates to an adult's conduct towards a child. For example, child sexual exploitation offences in the child. In the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, if I may, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool again for referring to Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and the amendment two, two, two a she's not here today, and and may I just say, I think it's commendable that someone has looked at other amendments and decided not to move their own.

It's a it's a very un egotistical way of approaching this business and, and well, the noble Lord Russell says crossbencher I will I will take that as a, as a, as a bonus point for the crossbenchers. But I think it's a very, very noble approach to take towards the amendment today. So I won't deliberate on those points as I would have potentially done, but just simply, if she if she could pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness for her self-awareness on that issue, I think it's very commendable.

But I hope that with those comments that my noble friend and other noble Lords can withdraw their amendments, reflect on what I've said if need be. Consider it outside of the committee, and I remain committed to begging to move the amendments to begging to move the amendments that were in my name at the start of this group.
21:31
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-

The question is that amendment 217 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendments 218 and 219 Baroness Armstrong not moved. Amendment 220 and 221 move formally En bloc Lord Hanson. The question is that amendments 2 to 0 and 2 to 1 be agreed to. En bloc as many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

Amendment 222 Lord Hampton not moved. Amendment 222 not moved. Amendment 223 and 224 move formally en bloc. The question is that amendments 223 and 224 be agreed to. En bloc as many as that opinion as they content the contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 40, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendments two two 5 to 2 three one move formally en bloc.

The question is that amendments two two 5 to 2 three one be agreed to. En bloc as many as that opinion say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 41, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as that content the contrary not content. The contents have it in after clause 41, amendment 232 Lord Hampton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 232 in my name and that of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. And I admit that I'm using an old amendments list, so there might be some other people who've also added their name, so I apologise if I've missed them. This new clause amend
21:33
None Portrait Amendment:232 Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-

missed them. This new clause amend section three of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to explicitly include Act 2015 to explicitly include child criminal exploitation within the definition of exploitation, aligning it with new provisions in aligning it with new provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clause 40 of the Bill creates a new offence of child criminal offence of child criminal exploitation. The offence rightly focuses on the prosecution of perpetrators. It is vital that we perpetrators. It is vital that we don't lose sight of the child victims of criminal exploitation.

We must ensure that there is a We must ensure that there is a consistent definition that can be used to identify children formally, so that every child gets the so that every child gets the support they need to escape this abuse. This amendment is also essential to close a legal gap that leaves criminally exploited children at risk of prosecution, rather than protection, without corresponding changes to the Modern Slavery Act of 2015, legal Slavery Act of 2015, legal protections remain inconsistent and inadequate.

Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which provides a statutory defence for victims of exploitation, does not currently cover criminal exploitation explicitly. This leads to inconsistent application across the criminal justice system. Evidence from the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and UK shows that police and prosecutors frequently struggle to apply the existing statutory defence to children exploited into criminal activity. Children often continue to be treated as perpetrators rather than victims, despite clear indicators of exploitation for criminality.

In 2024 alone, over 2891 children were referred to the National Referral Mechanism as potential child victims of criminal exploitation. Yet many of these children still end up in courtrooms, not safeguarding systems. Young people exploited for criminality are particularly vulnerable to being prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. This undermines the UK's obligations under international law, including the UN convention on the rights of the child and the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which requires states to facilitate the non-prosecution of trafficked children for offences committed as a result of the exploitation, including child criminal exploitation, within the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act is essential to ensure that children are formally recognised as victims under the UK's framework for identification, allowing them to access the full range of protections and entitlements.

Under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, including specialist support, we have the opportunity to fix this now by ensuring that legal definitions and protections are harmonised. Without this amendment, we risk embedding a two tier system, one that recognises exploitation in theory but fails to protect child victims in practice. Clear, consistent legislation will empower professionals to intervene earlier, prevent inappropriate prosecutions, and ensure exploited children receive the safeguarding support they need.

This is a targeted, evidence led amendment that strengthens, strengthens the bill and ensures our legal framework reflects both the reality of child exploitation and our responsibility
21:37
21:37
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
name, and I have also signed, of course, a noble Lord, Lord Hamptons, two, three two and 263, and I want he's given an excellent explanation for those. So I will just say I agree with with them. Now, both of my amendments provide a defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who are coerced into committing offences. Both amendments have a simple purpose to ensure that victims of exploitation are not treated as criminals for acts. Acts they were compelled to commit, they are.

These amendments are supported by academics and charities such as the Children's Society. Now the bill as it comes before this House creates two new offences child criminal exploitation and cuckooing in clause 56. These are important steps. They recognise forms of exploitation that front line workers, police officers and charities have been grappling with for years. But my Lords, the bill currently only does half the job. It recognises exploitation but not the victim. Unlike the long established defences of modern slavery and human trafficking, these new offences do not come with a bespoke defence for victims who commit unlawful acts as a direct result of their exploitation, unless a victim can prove duress.

A notoriously high bar, their only option is to argue what that what happened to them also amounted to slavery, servitude, forced labour or trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act. Now that is legal contortion and for many victims, simply impossible. And of course, it leads to outcomes that I don't believe this House would wish to endorse. For example, a child forced by older criminals to store drugs or weapons, or a young person threatened into carrying out low level offending under fear of violence, or someone whose home has been taken over by gang, who is then compelled to assist in their criminal activities, would all be vulnerable to find themselves in before a court, even where their exploiters are the ones truly at fault.

We've been here before. When Parliament passed the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, we rightly accepted that victims sometimes commit offences because they see no realistic alternative. Section 45 of that act created a defence for those victims, carefully limited and subject to important exclusions. It has not opened any floodgates. It has provided protection only where the courts are satisfied that the offence was the direct consequence of the exploitation, and that a reasonable person in the same situation, with the same relevant characteristics, would have acted in the same way.

So these amendments are had have the aim to apply the same principle to the new offences that we're creating today. The amendment on child criminal exploitation mirrors the structure of section 45. It does not exclude or excuse all behaviour. It does not allow serious offences listed in schedule four. It would apply only where the prosecution cannot disprove that the child acted because they were compelled to do so, that the compulsion arose directly from exploitation, and that a reasonable child of the same age, sex and vulnerabilities would have seen no realistic alternative.

In other words, My Lords, this is a defence grounded in both common sense and in compassion. The same is true of the amendment concerning victims of Cuckooing. Anyone familiar with this phenomenon, and many police forces now are knows that victims have often been threatened, groomed, manipulated or assaulted. They may be obliged to let their home be used for criminal activity, and they may then be forced to play a role within that activity. The amendment makes clear that where the compulsion arises directly from cuckooing, those victims should not be criminalised for acts they were compelled to perform.

These offences would not apply. In most cases, they would apply only when the court is satisfied that the offending was the direct result of the exploiters conduct, not incidental, so they offer a fair and proportionate safeguard and they prevent the injustice and indeed the absurdity of Parliament recognising exploitation on the one hand, while punishing its victims on the other. When vulnerable children are exploited, adults are used as tool by criminal networks. The criminal justice system should not compound their suffering by treating them as willing participants.

These amendments complete the logic of the bill and ensure that the law protects those who need protection most. And I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will look at these amendments and see the validity of what I've explained.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I should start by registering my interest as the chairman of the Human Trafficking chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which probably these days should have changed its name to the Modern Slavery Foundation, because that is actually what we really dealing with. It was the late, great Lord Field of Birkenhead who first came up with Birkenhead who first came up with the expression modern slavery, and I think it is something we should
21:42
Lord Randall of Uxbridge Portrait Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
all have as a tribute to to the late Lord, who was a fantastic member of this and the other House. I welcome the government's intention to address criminal exploitation through the child criminal exploitation, offence and cooking offences and commend them for doing it. It's a very important thing to do. However, the offences will not apply to the exploitation of vulnerable young adults over the age of 18 or with issues of cognitive impairment. As far as I can see, I'm not a lawyer.

As I explained the last group, I have more skills on on on marking things down in a sale, but and thank goodness we didn't have Black Friday in my day. And for but I do I don't. This is a probing amendment. I want to know, for example, for those young people and I believe I've got this figure here that in 2024, 774 young adults aged 18 to 24 were referred to the National Referral Mechanism for criminal exploitation, including, alongside other forms of modern slavery.

65% of all victims referred in that age group. Now, as far as I can see, they aren't covered and perhaps they should be. And what I don't understand, and I'm very willing to be lectured and taught on this, is what happens if somebody has started these criminal children exploitation, say, at the age of 15.5, and it doesn't come to light till they're 18, which could easily happen, or 19. Are they going to be treated in a different way? And obviously, as I mentioned very briefly, those young adults who've got cognitive impairment, who are not who effectively, I'm sure this isn't the correct expression, have the mental age of of a child.

So what I'm really asking with this, and I fully support the previous and Lord Hampton's amendment. And I think Baroness Jones put her name to my amendment. I fully support them, and I think this should go into the Modern Slavery Act, because I think for for all the reasons that were said. But I would like some clarification. And what can be done about those young adults and where do where does the where does the law we're creating? Where is it law we're creating? Where is it going to put them? I'll go.

going to put them? I'll go.
21:45
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for moving this group. These amendments speak to deeply serious issues concerning child criminal exploitation and the protection and coercion of vulnerable people who are manipulated into criminality. The stories behind these legislative questions are tragic and demand considered and compassionate policy making. Amendment 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would ensure the children criminally exploited under clause 40 continued to be identified within the modern slavery framework.

The intention behind this amendment is clearly to safeguard exploited young people who are groomed and coerced into offending, and we are. These benches recognise the importance of ensuring that systems designed to protect victims do not inadvertently overlook those most in need of support, those most in need of support. I look forward to hearing the government's response to this amendment. Similarly, amendments 23282628 from the noble Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb seek to provide a statutory defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and for victims of cuckooing who are compelled into committing offences.

My Lords, we support the principle that the law should distinguish between those who willingly commit crimes and those who do so under coercion or fear. These amendments raise legitimate questions about how the proposed law operates in practice, and whether vulnerable individuals are adequately protected. And I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing these issues before the committee, and we look forward to hearing again the Minister's reflections. Amendment 263 in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Randall of Uxbridge probes whether Modern Slavery Act definition of exploitation should explicitly incorporate offences relating to child criminal exploitation and cuckooing.

My Lords, that proposal has clear merit in principle. We understand the concerns that the law must evolve to meet new forms of organised criminality. We hope the government will give this careful and serious consideration.
21:47
None Portrait Gov.Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

Lord Black.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Everyone who has taken part in this short but very important this short but very important debate on the issues of child criminal exploitation and the interface with our modern slavery interface with our modern slavery law. It's it's a vital issue and one that we all, I think, across the across your Lordships' House the across your Lordships' House wish to wish, wish, wish to ensure we're taking kind of coherent we're taking kind of coherent action on amendments two, three, two from Lord Hampton and two three two from Lord Hampton and two three from Lord Randall, seek to include child exploitation within the meaning of exploitation under section three of the Modern Slavery section three of the Modern Slavery Act, 2015.

Amendment 263 also seeks to add cuckooing and broader adult to add cuckooing and broader adult criminal exploitation to the meaning of exploitation under section three. Section three of the section three. Section three of the 2015 Modern Slavery Act already recognises the securing of services by use of threats, force or by use of threats, force or deception, and the use of children and vulnerable people to provide services and benefits. Benefits. services and benefits. Benefits. Such services and benefits may include criminal activity. Therefore, criminal exploitation is Therefore, criminal exploitation is already captured by the broad terms of the existing modern slavery legislation and is as good as any legislation and is as good as any to pick up a specific point raised by Lord Hampton in moving his amendment around, around alignment with our international law obligations.

And I'd say to the noble Lord that the government, satisfied that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 adequately protects victims of modern slavery in line with our international law obligations, exploited victims, including of child criminal exploitation, may benefit from the statutory offence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, 2015. My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's intentions and expanding the meaning of exploitation to maybe to ensure that victims of criminal exploitation are not prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation.

My Lords, the statutory defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, which I just referred, is there to protect slavery and trafficking victims and where a victim of criminal exploitation meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking. They may have access to the statutory defence as they do now. Similarly, amendments 232 and 262A in the name of the noble Baroness Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, seek to provide a standalone defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who have all who have committed offences as a result of exploitation.

Again, I appreciate that noble Baroness desire to protect victims of exploitation from prosecution. But again, we consider section 45 defence already provides the necessary protection. Furthermore, where victims of child criminal exploitation or cuckooing are aged under 18, these amendments would require evidence of compulsion, whereas the section 45 defence does not require evidence that a child is being compelled to commit an offence, only that they have done so as a direct consequence of their exploitation. These amendments may therefore, and I accept completely inadvertently, provide a more limited defence for child victims of exploitation.

And clearly it is the intention be beyond a statutory defence, beyond statutory defence. Whether or not to charge a person is an operational decision for police and prosecutors, who must consider the facts on a case by case basis, they will apply operational discretion and consider whether potential existing defences in the common law, such as duress or relevant, or whether it is in the public interest to prosecute Lord Randall in his in in moving his amendment, raised the issue of child of of of in effect, while we're limiting this to victims victims to children aged under 18 and talk about vulnerable adults, those with those with cognitive impairment, or indeed those who pass the threshold into adulthood over the course of their their exploitation.

Let me try and address those points. The offence is aimed at stopping adults from exploiting children, and we consider this as justified because children require special treatment and protections from harm. Vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and the cuckooing offence will also seek to recognise the harm caused by the takeover of a person's home for criminal purposes, often the home of vulnerable person, such as an individual living with substance addiction or physical or mental disabilities.

Cuckooing is a particularly insidious and harmful form of adult exploitation, which could not only causes harm to the victim, but often facilitates violent and exploitative forms of drug dealing and drives anti-social behaviour in communities. So I hope that gives Lord Lord Randall some comfort.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologise for not being clear on this or so. If, for example, there this or so. If, for example, there were two people, two members of a family and they were victims of family and they were victims of this and one was 17 and one was 19, would there be discrimination in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how they were dealt with? Well, I think to be to be clear,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think to be to be clear, and I'd like the noble Lord, I am also not a lawyer. I don't have his, his, his, his, his fantastic his, his, his, his fantastic experience in the retail sector to, to as, as an alternative. To be to as, as an alternative. To be clear, as I understand it, the offence would, you know, we have to draw a line somewhere and so there would be a differentiation in, in, in, in what protection was available, under which bits, which bits of the, the Modern Slavery Act bits of the, the Modern Slavery Act or indeed the new offences, depending on where they were, whether they were 17 or 19.

But I whether they were 17 or 19. But I think what we're trying to make clear is there are, you know, we could there are alternative could there are alternative protections for those, for those, those who are over the age of 18, what we're looking at in criminal what we're looking at in criminal exploitation is obviously, you know, as with everything, we draw the as with everything, we draw the line of childhood at being under 18 in these cases. And that's and those and the focus of that is usually children quite well under the age of 18.

The point is taken that at any discrete boundary there will be some cliff edge consequences. But we do consider that there that that vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 and the whole point of the cooking offence. It's about taking over a person's home for criminal purposes, and often that that could be a vulnerable person, most probably a vulnerable, vulnerable adult. Whether it's vulnerable through existing mental health issues or food substance addiction or or whatever.

So I hope, I hope that has clarified to to an extent at least, I think it's worth. I think it's probably just worth stressing before I conclude that in trying to make the offences that we are introducing, that we're introducing in the Bill as give as great utility as possible, there will be guidance for prosecutors, which will state that where a suspect is a potential victim of modern slavery, insofar as possible, a charging decision shouldn't be made into trafficking.

Decision has been taken. This protects potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being charged and prosecuted until it's been determined whether they are a victim. And so we're working with criminal justice partners, as outlined in the Modern Slavery Action Plan, to develop a national framework for the investigation of modern slavery. This will include guidance for frontline officers on the section 45 defence to support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery, and prevent criminal proceedings being brought against victims. And it's intended probably worth me stating is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance which will accompany the new offence.

So insofar as we're able, we'll try and kind of give give a good a good framework through guidance as to the order in which decisions around charging should be taken. So again, it it avoids some of the consequences that we've been discussing in, in this debate on this group of amendments. As I said at the start of my remarks, we are all coming at this from the right place with the right motivation. And I welcome the fact that that everybody has spoken is, has, has welcomed the government's intention to create the new offences around child criminal exploitation and indeed cuckooing.

These are gaps that we need to that we do need to fill in terms of what's on the statute book, but we don't think these amendments are necessary, nor indeed the right approach. We want to avoid unintended consequences that they may well bring. So I hope in light
21:56
21:57
21:57
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page