Lords Chamber

Thursday 5th February 2026

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:08
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
-

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to the Most Reverend, our right, trusty and well beloved councillor Sarah Elizabeth, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and Metropolitan Greeting.

Whereas our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our United Kingdom and the church is now met at our City of Westminster, we strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and love by which you are bound to us, that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending, waiving all excuses, you be personally present at our aforesaid Parliament with us and with the prelates, nobles and peers of our said Kingdom, to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid, and this as you regard us and our honour, and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and church, and dispatch of the said affairs, in no wise do you omit witness ourself.

At Westminster, the fourth day of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reign. I, Sarah, Archbishop of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Sarah, Archbishop of Canterbury, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I do I do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to the right. Reverend, our right trusty and well Reverend, our right trusty and well beloved Joanne Woolley, Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich. Greeting. Whereas our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our United Kingdom and the church is now met at our City of Westminster, we strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and love by which you are bound to us, that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending, waiving all excuses, you be personally present at our aforesaid Parliament with us and with the prelates, nobles and peers of our said Kingdom, to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid, and this as you regard us and our honour, and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and church, and dispatch of the said affairs, in no wise do you omit witness ourself.

At Westminster, the 12th day of reign.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Joanne, Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich, do swear by Almighty God that I will be by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Oral questions: The jobs market, and of the implications for the wider economy
-

Oral Question Lord Hunt of Wirral. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, over the 34 years since Peter Mandelson was elected to Parliament, he has been to Parliament, he has been disgraced and rehabilitated by successive Labour leaders. The Prime Minister brought him back into the fold for the final time. As our ambassador to the United States, we now have a partial explanation of how Mandelson operated. Secretly, he and his partner were in receipt of electronic cash transfers from a notorious paedophile and child sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, as money and benefits in kind flowed their way, he casually passed state secrets to back to his benefactor.

Epstein's crimes were appalling paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. We must not forget his victims who suffered at his hands and are still suffering today. It is right that Mandelson is no longer a member of your Lordships House. It is right that there will be an internal investigation into Mandelson's behaviour, and it is right that the police will investigate any potential criminality. My Lords, while Peter Mandelson's conduct is deeply disappointing, it is the Prime Minister's decision to appoint him as the UK ambassador to Washington, which almost defies belief.

Mandelson's claim, in the years preceding his appointment as ambassador to the United States had been that he did not continue his relationship with Epstein once the latter had been convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution. Thanks to the excellent work of the Financial Times, it was already public knowledge in 2023, before Mandelson's appointment as ambassador, that this story was a lie. The Prime Minister now freely concedes that he was fully aware of this fact at the time he appointed Mandelson.

My Lords, I suspect many in your Lordships House will, like me, find the Prime Minister's decision to overlook this startling fact a complete dereliction of duty and an illustration of an appalling lack of judgement. The Prime Minister was under no pressure to appoint Mandelson. There were many able and distinguished career diplomats from whom he might have chosen. Indeed, there are many able and distinguished career politicians he might have chosen, and who, crucially, had not become embroiled in a disturbing private relationship with a known paedophile.

I do not propose to ask the noble Baroness Lord Privy Seal to explain questions of conduct and judgement which the Prime Minister himself is seemingly incapable of explaining. So instead, I wish to focus on what we on these benches feel ought to happen. Next, though it is clear the Prime Minister disregarded the disturbing revelations made in the Financial Times, it is not presently clear whether the extensive security vetting to which Mandelson was subject had identified either the flow of payments from Epstein or the deeply compromising nature of the relationship between the two.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm whether officials in the UK sought information from the US government in respect of the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson, and, if so, what information was shared? We are separately told that there shall be an internal government investigation led by the Cabinet secretary. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has revealed publicly that he wrote to the Cabinet secretary in September asking for a review of any further communications between Epstein and Mandelson, only to be told by way of answer that no relevant material had been identified.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, also tell the House why, in light of this, the internal Cabinet Office investigation is being undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary. Would it not be better for this investigatory process to be led by somebody who does not report to the Prime Minister, and whom a former Labour Prime Minister has not essentially accused of a cover up? Yesterday, the Other place voted to require the government to lay before the House all papers relating to the ambassadorship appointment.

That is essential if the government is to regain trust. After this sorry saga. The government caveated the humble address to exclude papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. Such material will instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of both houses. Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, assure the House that all relevant material will be made available to the ISC, and that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister will seek to use their powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to prevent that committee from publishing its findings in full.

My Lords, it is not sufficient for any of these investigations to look only into historic behaviour or focus solely on Mandelson's links with Epstein. Unfortunately. Jeffrey. Jeffrey Epstein was not the only rich man of dubious repute whom Peter Mandelson was known to share a close friendship. We need to know how Peter Mandelson conducted himself while serving as our ambassador in Washington. Did this conduct continue there? Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm that neither the Cabinet Office investigation nor the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prevented from looking into all evidence relating to how Peter Mandelson has conducted himself, including while serving as ambassador.
12:17
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My hon. Friend Lisa Smart said >> My hon. Friend Lisa Smart said in the House of Commons yesterday. We are having this debate today solely because of the women and solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women's bravery in speaking up about their experience at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out.

We owe these women justice and we owe it to them to make changes, to create a system that works. I agree with those words profoundly. One of the most upsetting elements of the release of the information from the United States has been the network of enablers who have been rich, wealthy, connected, and the casual nature of how they treated vulnerable girls and young women. We agree with the Prime Minister on one element that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must proactively work with any authorities who may wish to take this forward.

I tribute tribute to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has raised associated issues about how we make changes to uphold our how we carry out our politics and our refer to those in a moment. We called for and we are happy that the police are now carrying out investigations into Peter Mandelson's activities. But we believe that there needs to be a public inquiry now for the wider circumstances. We've raised this and we hope that the government will accept the need for serious questions to be answered, not just on process, but also on judgement and actions.

The Minister, a Minister this morning to the media, said that when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, that the government was relying on an established vetting process. And while I know that the Cabinet Secretary cannot reply in this House to questions that's raised as a civil servant, I think that there are questions with regard to the ability of securing independence in the process going forward with the role of the Cabinet Secretary, and any process going forward now must be conducted independently, not by the Cabinet Secretary.

We are usually we usually believe, that enhanced vetting procedure for our most significant diplomatic postings should address if the person who is being vetted lies. So this is it is not acceptable simply for the Prime Minister to rely on the fact that Peter Mandelson lied. That is the point of an enhanced vetting process. But if there are elements of that process that are set aside because of the relationship, either the Prime Minister or the judgement, the Prime Minister, then we have to ask very serious questions, especially when the Prime Minister knew of contact of Peter Mandelson with a convicted paedophile and a financial relationship that had been reported as long ago as the dispatches programmes.

In 2019. There is also a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest from Peter Mandelson of lobbying interests, and clear information was provided with regards to using public office for public gain. Why was this overruled in the appointment of him as our ambassador? We welcome the government's change of heart with regards to supplying information to the ISC, and we look forward to their work being carried out in a very speedy way. But we also believe that the ministerial code now must be looked at very considerably.

There is little point in having a ministerial code, which is self-policed by the Prime Minister, if indeed processes under that are where there are so clearly conflicts of interest with regards to this House. If Peter Mandelson had not resigned from this House, we have insufficient mechanisms of expulsion for those who bring the House into disrepute. These benches have called for action for this prior to the general election, and we do so again today. We will work with the leader and across the House to bring about changes.

We need to act now before we are asked to do so. About Michelle Mone to a self-regulating house needs to get its own house in order. We also need to act immediately to remove Peter Mandelson from the peerage role, to stop him using that title for the future. Retirement from this House doesn't mean doesn't automatically mean the removal from the periods role. It should be unacceptable for him to be able to trade on a peerage title in the future, which has allowed for if someone is continues to be on the peerage roll, so can the leader.

I checked this morning, he's still on it and I would like to know if the leader can give an indication if the government are moving on that area. We will also support the government to accelerate any legislation to move him from the peerage, to remove his peerage entirely. He cannot be allowed to trade on a title after betraying his own government. This House and the public trust of someone who held public office. It is a privilege to serve in this House, not a right, and there are obligations on someone on the periods role, but insufficient means of correction, and they need to be addressed and addressed on a cross-party basis and urgently here.
12:22
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Can I thank both the noble. >> Lady and the noble Lord for their comments and questions? I their comments and questions? I think for all of us, the thing at the forefront of our minds is those who are victims of a vile paedophile, and how powerful people had a network that not only was there no respect, but it was almost as if they were casual playthings for their benefit. And it is quite an horrendous thought.

And the consequences of that last with those young girls and women for the rest of their lives, with often tragic consequences for them, for them personally, those who know them. So I think I just firstly, a lot of this would never have come to light had it not been for their bravery to stand up, be identified, which is a huge thing to do and speak out. So I think on all of this, that's the thing that's been at the forefront of my mind.

And one of the things I find most distressing on it all, just on the point of the questions on security vetting and investigations as much as possible, needs to be in the public domain. And I think it's absolutely right. And I pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee taken on that role. So everything that is deemed to be in some way identified as a matter of national security, that will be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. And I said to a lot of people at the moment are feeling very betrayed that their trust has been abused.

And if you look at the world outside, they basically think you can't trust any politician. Now, we know from our work in this House, and many of us have worked in politics for many years, that trust is actually the cornerstone of what we do between parties and across parties. And when that trust is betrayed, the people that fit it the most keenly are often those who have put their trust in people who never earned it and didn't deserve it. And I think that's something to reflect on for all of us going forward as well.

And that's why it's so important that information should be made as public as possible. It is a frustration, though completely understandable, that there is some information the police have said can't be released yet because they don't want to have the integrity of their investigation. So information has been passed to the police. But if there's to be justice, particularly for victims, then that has to be information the police and will decide. So with that caveat when that is available, but the information has been given to the police and to the Is.

So we'll do that as a matter of some urgency. I can give her that assurance. Most definitely. The noble Lord. I think my only point of difference with him is on a public inquiry. I'm sure that will be looked at in due course. Partly my experience of public inquiries. I initiated public inquiry as a Minister, and it took something like 17 years for it to report. And that length of time to me is completely and totally unacceptable. What we have to do is do this quickly but thoroughly, and one should not compromise the other.

So there needs. I think another points he made about vetting and going forward, there is an established process which was followed. If that process is found to be inadequate, that needs to be looked at. He also raised the issue. So the noble Lady raised issue and he did about who undertakes this. The Cabinet Secretary will have the guidance of an independent KC at all times on this one, and we'll meet regularly with the ISC. So precise details have yet to be worked out how that happens, but the key is to ensure that all information is released.

There is no desire on anybody's part to try and hide something. Cover up. It has to be very transparent. The noble Lord referred to lobbying interests and public office for profit. It is. It's not just about the minimum serial code that was updated. And this Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code so that the adviser on this, the person in charge of ministerial code, can initiate inquiries without reference to the Prime Minister. So the Prime Minister's giving a greater independence to that.

But I think this goes beyond that, and that some of the emails we've read about information being given to an individual who may or may not have used it, we don't know, is something that needs to be investigated further and information is available to the police if that is part of their investigations. The noble Lord also asked about our own mechanisms in this House. Being a member of this House is an immense privilege and honour. I remember being in the other place.

In order to sit on those benches, I had to face an electorate and knock on doors and talk to people. It was a long process and I could be deselected and unelected as I was. We don't face that in this House. We are appointed at the moment. We are appointed for life unless we choose to retire. And of course, we have a committee now looking at the participation issue. And we have and also a retirement age. But I think we do need to go further.

And the Prime Minister has said this as well, that if standards are as such, that we feel someone should not be a member of this House, do we really think it is appropriate for them to retain that title for life? It is not appropriate and it should not happen. The government is preparing that legislation. I will work with all parties on bringing that forward. I do want to ensure we get this right. That's not a reason for delay. It's just to ensure thoroughness because there are this may not be the only case we ever have, and I think I want to ensure that this House can hold its head up in the future to ensure that we believe in the integrity of every single member of this House.

And so getting that right, ensure that it is legislation that has a long term sustainable application will be really important. So I bring that forward and discuss it. He also mentioned the code of conduct. Can I say I'm grateful to the noble Lord Kakkar? I wrote to him on Monday in light of this, to look at our own code of conduct. And do we think that is fit for purpose? We did say in our manifesto we strengthened the circumstances for the removal of peers who are disgraced.

I'm asking the committee to look at that and work with them. And of course, I think the whole House would want to work together on this as well. So there's work going forward. But I think we as a house have to take the responsibility for that, because if we fail to protect the integrity of the body, then every single member of this House will face those kind of criticisms. And actually, I have great faith in this House and members of this House. But if people let us down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they actually they don't deserve the right to be here. Yeah. My my Lords, my Lords, we now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My my Lords, my Lords, we now move on to 20 minutes of backbench questions. The House wants succinct questions. The House wants succinct questions in many noble Lords as possible. This is not the time. The House does not want speeches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House does not want speeches. I agree. With most of what the noble Lady, the Lord Privy Seal, has said, but
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:35
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Well, the noble Lord, do I take his last point first? All avenues of investigation are open. All of investigation are open. All information of the national security issues have passed to the ISC. So those issues can be looked at in detail. I have to say, with several million documents, I don't think I certainly haven't been through all the emails. And I have to find, say, those that I have read I find pretty unedifying and unpleasant to read.

So but there are people whose job it is to go through all of these and look at every possible link and get to the bottom of whatever has happened. He's absolutely right to raise the issue of political trust. And if you think about the work this House does, most of our work is detailed, painstaking on legislation to try and get things right. And I don't believe anyone in this House comes into public service to do a bad job. But if things go wrong and members do not reach the standards, we would expect them and the public would expect of us.

Then they actually abdicate their right to be here. So the points he makes about ministerial code, for example, that has already been strengthened. There's an independent level that wasn't there previously. The Prime Minister of the day could decide if somebody broken the ministerial code and decided somebody should be investigated. Now it is for the holder of that code to make that decision on an investigation, which I think is a big step forward. Legislation is currently being drafted about removing peerages from those who are no longer entitled to have them.

There will be discussion on exactly what form that will take and how we do that. As I said in the answer to the noble Lord Purvis, we want to get that right so that we are, in a sense, future proofing that should any circumstances arise in the future where we think someone should not not just not be a member of this House, but actually not be entitled to hold a peerage, that that can be done in a sort of a processed way, a fair way.

But it has to happen. And I think we can all think of other examples where we think that should have happened. So how we restore trust. If I probably knew the answer to that, they'd probably make me Prime Minister. But it's a really serious point because this has been going on for a long, long time. That trust over time has been eroded in politicians, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. It doesn't actually matter why what we do need to ensure that we do everything we can in how we behave in our parliamentary lives and our public facing lives.

We behave in a way that people feel. They can give us the trust that we feel we deserve. But if we don't trust it, we have to move out of the public arena.
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Yes. A noble Lord is right that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has also been mentioned. Is this network of powerful people, I think is one of the things that's most disturbing that seem to think they're above the law. It wouldn't apply to them or they wouldn't be found out. It's hard to know what is in somebody's mind when they behave in this way. He'll be aware that he has been stripped of his titles. He is moving out of royal accommodation to alternative private accommodation.

I think the King says His Majesty, to use the proper term, has been very firm on this one and I think the way he's dealt with this is a way that we would support. There are issues around the use of Royal Lodge that is being looked at by the National Audit Office. I stand it and the there's been work undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee, but nobody can be above the law. I think what this shows, both Lord Mandelson resigned from this House.

The King has agreed with the Prime Minister that he should not be a Privy councillor. We're looking at legislation that people in this position should not keep titles. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor lost his title and his privileges. It shows to people that no one is above the law. And that, I think, is a really important point here. And for those who are victims of powerful men and sometimes women, their voices weren't heard when they should have been. And I hope that these actions go some way to ensuring that in future, more notice will be taken of those that want to bring forward complaints.
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:50
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
If there's anything in the >> If there's anything in the papers that warrants further investigation in other areas, and the government will obviously look the government will obviously look at that, she's asked me to give an assurance that we know has happened and therefore can we investigate. Every tech company can't give her that insurance. But if there's anything in these papers at all that indicate that further investigations to get to the truth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is needed, that will be taken on. This question is now up. Members wish to leave the chamber before we wish to leave the chamber before we move on to the next business. Now The Committee on the Crime and Policing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into committee on the Bill for the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, not content. The contents In In in In in clause In in clause one, In in clause one, line In in clause one, line two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 464 Lord Clement-Jones. I note. I. Beg to move amendment 464 and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beg to move amendment 464 and to speak to amendments four, six, seven, four, six eight and 503 in my name. These amendments my name. These amendments collectively address the governance of clauses one nine 2 to 1 nine four, which grant the Secretary of four, which grant the Secretary of State broad powers to make regulations giving effect to
12:53
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill - committee stage (day 15) - part one
-

international law enforcement. Information sharing agreements. My Lords, following the recent passage
12:53
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
of the Data Use and Access Act 2025, we are now operating in a new legal we are now operating in a new legal landscape where the statutory threshold for protecting data transferred overseas has been lowered. These amendments are not just desirable, they are essentially essential safety mechanisms to fill that gap. Amendment 464 is a safeguard of, so to speak, look before you leap. It stipulates that before regulations are made under clause 192 to implement a new international agreement, the authority must publish a comprehensive privacy impact assessment.

My Lords, the necessity of this assessment has intensified following the enactment of the Data Use and Access Act, the UK's new test for onward transfers of data has lowered the bar. It no longer requires foreign protections to be essentially equivalent to ours, but merely not materially lower. This creates a dangerous new risk profile. The European Data Protection Board has explicitly noted that this new test omits key safeguards against foreign government access, and removes redress mechanisms for individuals.

If the general statutory floor has been lowered, amendment 464 becomes the essential safety net. We must assess the specific risks via a privacy impact assessment before we open the digital borders to ensuring that we are not exposing UK citizens to jurisdictions where they have no legal remedy. And this brings me to amendment 467, which addresses the nature of the data being shared where regulations authorise the transfer of highly sensitive personal data such as biometrics, genetics or political opinions.

This amendment requires enhanced protective measures. All this highlights the illusion of data protection when transferring data to high risk jurisdictions that lack the rule of law. We know that in authoritarian states, domestic intelligence laws will always override the standard contractual clauses usually relied upon for data transfers, because the Data Use and Aspect Access Act has removed the requirement for foreign safeguards to be essentially equivalent, we cannot rely on the general law to protect highly sensitive biometric or health data.

My amendment restores the requirement that transfers of such sensitive data must be demonstrated to be strictly necessary and proportionate. My Lords, we cannot allow efficiency of data sharing to deny the reality that in some jurisdictions, once data arrives, the state will have unrestricted access. Transparency must follow these powers. Amendment four six, eight mandates the production of an annual report on international law enforcement information sharing, and this is vital because we are entering a period of divergence. The European Commission, at the urging of the European Data Protection Board, will be monitoring the practical implementation of the UK's revised data transfer regime.

My Lords, if the if the EU will be monitoring how our data laws operate, surely Parliament should be doing the same. We need an annual report to track whether these law enforcement transfers are inadvertently exposing UK citizens to jurisdictions where they have no effective legal redress. Without this feedback loop, Parliament is legislating in the dark. Finally, my Lords Amendment 503 ensures that regulations made under clause 192 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Given that the primary legislation governing data transfers has been loosened, it is constitutionally inappropriate for these specific law enforcement agreements to slip through via the Negative procedure.

Amendment 503 ensures that these regulations, which may involve the transfer of our citizens most sensitive biometric data to foreign powers, must be actively debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. My Lords, we support international cooperation in fighting crime, but it must not come at the cost of lowering our standards. These amendments restore the safeguards that recent legislation has eroded. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed clause 192,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 192, page 223. Line 33 at end. Insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words on the Marshalled List. My Lords, we thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones for his amendment and for the importance that he has obviously placed on the that he has obviously placed on the right to privacy of the general public with his amendments. I support the principle behind amendment 464. Sharing information often carries a risk with it, particularly when it is for the purposes of law enforcement, and
12:58
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
especially when this is done internationally. Law enforcement data contains information that is data contains information that is far more personal to the individual or case in question than the norm, and any data of this sort must be and any data of this sort must be handled with the highest discretion, ensuring that the sharing of this data respects the right to privacy data respects the right to privacy carries no unintended consequences. And most importantly, it actually is actually necessary, should and is actually necessary, should and should be the benchmark from which regulations are made.

If this is accepted, my Lords, I do not see the additional need for amendment 468. At the very least, the privacy impact assessments under amendment 464 should form the basis of any annual report that four six, eight would mandate. Less is more when it comes to admin and reports. And so I am hesitant to support a new report that is not necessarily needed. But I also think amendment 467 is sensible. In general, internationally shared data should not include information prejudicial to any individual, let alone domestic citizens, and this particularly extends to the sharing of biometric data for the purpose of unique identification or genetic identification, and these categories of data are obviously vital for the purposes of law enforcement.

But law enforcement extraterritorially risks placing this data in the wrong hands. This and similar data therefore should be particularly protected, which is the aim of the noble Lords Amendment. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can outline what the government intends to do to ensure that the international data sharing of personal data is undertaken in manner.
13:00
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, is a pleasure to kick >> My Lords, is a pleasure to kick off, which I very much hope is going to be the last day of committee. Not jinxing anything, committee. Not jinxing anything, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-jones, for setting out the case for these amendments, which relate to the provision in which relate to the provision in clauses one nine 2 to 1 nine. For international law enforcement, information sharing agreements are a vital tool that provide law enforcement officers with access to new intelligence to fight crime, increase public protection, and reduce the threat of societal harm posed by international criminality.

To clarify these measures, provide the appropriate national authority with the power to make regulations to implement. Implement both new and existing legally binding international law enforcement information sharing agreements. Such regulations may, for example, make provision for the technical and, where appropriate, operational detail to facilitate the information sharing provided for in a particular agreement. The UK has recognised globally for having one of the most robust data protection regimes anchored in the Data Protection Act and UK GDPR, which ensures that privacy is protected even in the most complex areas of law enforcement and international comparison.

My Lords, this government is committed to maintaining these high standards and ways of working to ensure data protection and privacy is not compromised as we strengthen cross border security. UK law already requires data controllers to conduct a data protection impact assessment for any activity that is likely to result in a high risk to individuals rights and freedoms. Public bodies and law enforcement authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act, European Convention on Human Rights and Equality Act and must duly access assess, rather activities accordingly, existing data protection principles and statutory requirements, particularly data protection impact assessments, already covered the concerns raised by the noble Lords Amendment, making new duties duplicative and unnecessary as is required under article 34 of the UK GDPR regulations made under this power, as they relate to the processing of personal data, will require consultation with the Information Commissioner's Office, the international law enforcement information sharing agreements preceding the making of regulations under clause 102 are subject to usual treaty ratification procedures, including the provisions regarding parliamentary scrutiny as provided for in part two of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Any such agreement will be laid before Parliament with an explanatory memorandum, which would include background as to why the government is entering into the agreement, the implementation of it, noting existing domestic legislation and human rights considerations. Additionally, My Lords, an Overseas security and Justice assistance assessment will also be required to introduce additional security scrutiny requirements, risk duplication and provides no additional substantive information to Parliament beyond what is currently available. We must also consider the operational sensitivity on such processing. Law enforcement data sharing involves sensitive systems and procedures.

Publication of such assessments may inadvertently expose vulnerabilities or methods that criminals or adversarial parties may seek to exploit. Ministers regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement cooperation, including data sharing. I have a long list in front of me, but I'll just. I won't detain your Lordships' House too many of these bullet points. But for instance, on the 23rd of January this year, the Cabinet Office issued the government's response to the EC report, Unfinished Business Resetting the UQ relationship, with publication expected shortly thereafter.

A couple of days beforehand, on the 21st of January, my noble friend Lord Hanson appeared before the EC to discuss the key UQ reset, which focussed on Lijk migration and the border partnership and and in. For instance, you don't have to go far back the. In the 8th of September, the Foreign Affairs Committee questioned the Cabinet Office and FCDO Ministers on Post-summit implementation, coordination and future UK EU cooperation frameworks. And that, my Lords, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to parliamentary oversight of these matters.

Law enforcement authorities and government departments work closely together to ensure to assess rather international law enforcement capabilities and their effectiveness. Such assessments, by the very nature, are operationally sensitive and will not be suitable for publication. Singling out specifically international law enforcement data sharing also risks presenting a skewed picture of wider domestic operational activity, given that law enforcement outcomes are often the result of multiple capabilities and instruments being used, owing to the breadth of law enforcement authorities that may be engaged in such information sharing activity, and likely multiple data systems to source and collate operational data that would be suitable for inclusion in a published annual report, would create significant demand and risk diverting resources from other critical law enforcement priorities.

We must also consider the implications on the international parties of such agreements, who may have concerns with the publication of such data and assessment, particularly where it may relate to operationally sensitive matters, which in turn may affect and limit the ability of future agreements. Such reports may potentially expose operational practices for which it may not be appropriate to be placed in the public domain. We must, my Lords, be mindful that agreements will vary in scope with international partners to publish detail on the volumes of data exchange may inadvertently cause concern from international partners on differing operating scopes.

Finally, as to whether regulations made under clause 1 or 2 should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, I would simply point the noble Lord to the report on the bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Report Bill, which made no such recommendation. Usually we are held to up to the the highest standards of that committee. And when we do when we are found wanting. But in this case we were not found wanting. And I think that's a very good a very good tip that I'm going to I'm going to pray in aid.

I understand the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones concern about these clauses, but I hope I've been able to reassure him that data protection remains at the heart of our approach. And with that in mind,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I ask him to withdraw the amendment. Sir, can I thank the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir, can I thank the Minister for his quite detailed reply? Very cheerful reply, which I find quite extraordinary in the circumstances. It's almost as if the minister's been reading Voltaire's Candide. You know, everything is for the best and the all possible in all best and the all possible in all possible worlds, my Lords. But I do
13:06
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
thank him, and I will read what he said very carefully. But I do think there is an extraordinary amount of complacency built into that response, my Lords, about the response, my Lords, about the nature of sharing data across borders. My Lords, specifically, that the existing regime is sufficient to safeguard these sufficient to safeguard these transfers, and that in a sense, my amendments would introduce unnecessary friction into law enforcement cooperation. And that's because the rules of the game have changed since the Data Use and Access Act 2025.

My Lords, you know, the Information Commissioner can only operate within the legislation provided, my Lords. And that's no safeguard in those circumstances. I've got the highest regard for the Information Commissioner and his office, but they have to operate within the bounds of the law. And the bounds of the law have changed since the act was passed. My Lords, and I mentioned the European Data Protection Board and so on. And the Minister, in a sense has performed some kind of, I don't know, parliamentary jujitsu by saying that, oh, sensitive data, will we? I mean, I quoted sensitive data as being one of the reasons why I was putting forward my amendments, my Lords.

But the Minister seems to say, oh, no, no, this sensitive data makes it far too difficult to do what I'm proposing, my Lord. So I do admire his speech writing, my Lords. But I must say, I don't think that's an answer. My Lords, I will withdraw my amendment. But I do believe that the act that we spent so long debating has changed the rules of the game, and that these amendments are necessary to ensure that international cooperation does not become a back door for the erosion of privacy.

But I beg leave in the meantime,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before coming back on this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chu Lord Trees pleasure this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Chu Lord Trees pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 465 and 466 Lord Hanson moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed to en these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many as that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 192, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content the contents of it.

The question is that clauses 193 and 194 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendments 18167168 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Question is that clause 195 stand part of the bill? Baroness Brinton.
13:09
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My late friend and the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Tankerness had originally laid this amendment. originally laid this amendment. That clause 195 should stand part, and I had signed it to support him because of my interest in human because of my interest in human rights. His untimely death last week means that I am now leading on something that he is an excellent lawyer, really understood and cared about. And we shall during this debate, even when we get into the detail, miss his incisive legal mind, combined with a passion for fairness and the rule of law.

We miss him so much already. I am not a lawyer, but I will do what I can, and I particularly want to thank the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum or Delf for their help and advice in the last few days, as well as their excellent technical briefing from which I shall quote the core of asking for clause 195 to stand part is straightforward. It would remove the right for a retrial following a conviction in absentia, where the person convicted is deemed to have been present, even if there has been no contact between that person and their court approved lawyer.

As ever, there is more in the detail. Clause 195 proposes to amend sections 20 and 85 of the Extradition Act governing extradition, following convictions in absentia, following a stakeholder symposium convened in January, Delphi identified material inaccuracies in the government's stated justification for clause 195, and unfortunately there are consequences as a result of these inaccuracies, which have serious implications of clause 195 for those individuals facing extradition in the future. In the government's justification of clause 195, it said that the proposed amendments, quote, ensure compatibility between UK domestic legislation and the Uk-eu Trade and Cooperation Treaty.

TCA end quote article 61 little one TCA, which governs convictions in absentia, already aligns with section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. Those safeguards, grounded in fundamental rights, reflect the carefully calibrated EU extradition framework, strengthened in 2009 to enhance protections for convictions in absentia, it sought to promote legal certainty and mutual recognition while respecting different, differing national legal systems. The problem is that clause 195 risks making the UK legislation inconsistent with the TCA in two material respects, thereby undermining the reforms advanced by the UK in 2008.

2009 first article 601 one little, One little three TCA permits refusal of extradition where a person did not deliberately absent themselves for a trial in absentia unless they, quote, have a right to a retrial or appeal, which allows the merits of the case to be re-examined. End quote. That standard is reflected in section 20 of the Extradition Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, but clause 195 would dilute this safeguard by reducing it to a mere, quote, right to apply for a retrial, end quote, thus weakening protections previously secured across Europe.

Secondly, article 601 one little, one little two TCA deems a person present at trial only where they have, quote, given a mandate to a lawyer to defend him or her at the trial, and was indeed defended by that lawyer at the trial end quote. However, proposed subsection seven A of clause 195 weakens this protection, treating a present person as present solely by virtue of their legal representation. Even where there has been no contact or instruction between lawyer and client.

There is further concern that over the government's inaccurate statement that the quote interpretation changed as a result of Bertino a. End quote, the Supreme Court did not create new law by distinguishing it between a right to retrial and a mere right to apply for one. Rather, it affirmed the settled meaning of entitled endorsing established authority, which made clear that entitlement does not mean perhaps or in certain circumstances, and in doing so, the court in that case overturned the conflicting decision in BP versus Romania 2015, which had erroneously treated a discretionary right to apply for a retrial as sufficient.

Having misapplied case law on procedural requirements that do not undermine a genuine entitlement. The government also asserts that, quote, A number of states cannot offer guaranteed retrials when individuals have been convicted in absentia, which may lead to future cases being discharged, end quote, that is misleading. We think that it is only Romania whose national law is in difficulty, providing a clear right to a retrial. It is clear that this only affects a very narrow class of cases, where a UK court finds a requested person's absence was not deliberate and no full retrial is available.

My Lords, in those circumstances, a guaranteed right to a retrial is the minimum safeguard necessary to protect UK nationals and others facing extradition. Where issues arise. Requesting states can provide case specific assurances concerning the nature of the right to a retrial, and this offers a pragmatic solution without weakening established protections. There is also a risk of particularly grave consequences under part two of the Extradition Act in section 85, where extradition is sought by states outside Europe that are not bound by article six of the EC and may apply lower fair trial standards.

Despite this, clause 195 removes the entitlement to a retrial. Even where a UK court has determined applying common law and article six principles, that the person was not deliberately absent. Now the government asserts, quote, the bill does not alter the existing processes or safeguards governing extradition beyond the right to a guaranteed retrial in absentia cases. End quote. It was the unanimous view of stakeholders and practitioners that these amendments destroy one of the most important and fundamental protections in the Extradition Act 2003.

Convictions in absentia are commonplace outside the UK, but clause 195 exposes UK citizens and residents to imprisonment imposed following trials held in their absence. Without a right to retrial. Even when a UK court has found, following a contested hearing, that the person did not deliberately absent themselves, other safeguards within the Extradition Act are incapable of compensating for the loss of this protection. One case study demonstrates how a clause 195 would reverse the injustice arising from it.

In 2016, Paul Wright, a UK national, was arrested on a Greek request to enforce a 15 month prison sentence imposed following a conviction in his absence for joyriding and criminal damage. He had been questioned by police in 2003 whilst on holiday, but was completely unaware of any prosecution, conviction or sentence until his arrest on the extradition request 13 years later. Extradition was refused because he was not entitled to a retrial, having only a conditional right to apply out of time, and although the Greek authorities offered conversion of the sentence to a financial penalty, Mr.

Wright denied committing any offence and he refused. At the time, Lord Hanson of Flint, then David Hanson MP, spoke publicly about the unfairness of convicting a person in absence without any opportunity to defend themselves. My Lords, I am aware of the considerable technical detail in this contribution, but it is clear, talking to the Defence Lawyers Extradition Forum, that they are very concerned that clause 195 would reverse some of the key basic human rights afforded to people under the threat of extradition.

This is serious, and I do hope that the Minister will be prepared to meet up with any speakers in this debate and delve to discuss this further. I beg to move.
13:19
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble >> My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Goldie Brinton for tabling this clause. Some notice, and I this clause. Some notice, and I would like to add my reservations about this clause. Firstly, I am concerned that this clause has not concerned that this clause has not received sufficient scrutiny and consideration by Parliament. It is added at Report stage. In the other place on the 17th of June last year, the Minister moving the new clause, dedicated only 255 words to explain its effect and was not mentioned by a single other member.

So this clause has not received adequate attention. For that reason, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has tabled this amendment to allow us to press the government on the measures they are proposing. That is the first point. The second point I would like to raise is the potential impact this clause could have on the right to a fair trial for British citizens under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, where a person has been convicted in another country, the judge at the extradition hearing must first decide whether the person has been convicted in the person's absence, and then decide whether the person deliberately absented themselves from the trial, and if the judge is satisfied that the person was convicted in absentia and did not deliberately absent themselves from the trial, then the judge must determine whether the person would be entitled to a retrial or to a review.

A review that amounts to a retrial in the territory where the person would be extradited to, and if the judge does not believe that, the person would be entitled to a retrial if extradited, then the judge must discharge the prospect of extradition. Now the Supreme Court, in the recent case of Batino and Karo, distinguished between the right to a retrial and the right to apply for a retrial. The court has held that a person's entitlement to a retrial does not simply mean the person might be entitled to a retrial, but that they must be entitled, that is to say, a conditional entitlement to retrial that is dependent upon the finding of the court in the requesting country, is insufficient for extradition to proceed, and this places the decision on whether a fair trial can be held firmly in the hands of British judges, the Lords.

That is surely right. It is plainly preferable for the determination of the ability for a retrial to take place, to be undertaken by a British judge, than merely relying on a decision from a foreign court. But with clause 105, the government is seeking to overturn this ruling, thereby removing a key safeguard against unfair extradition. And if this clause is brought into force, then the judge in Britain would have to order a person's extradition on the simple assertion by the requesting country that the person could be permitted to stand trial in person, regardless of whether that is actually true or not.

So let us imagine if a person was tried in absentia and was not aware of their conviction in another country. If they were extradited and not permitted the retrial, then they would have would not have been able to stand up in court and defend themselves against the charges they have been accused of. That is surely a recipe for serious injustice. In short, my Lords, I am concerned that this clause will lead to more British citizens being extradited on a whim of a foreign judge and not afforded the right to a fair trial.

And so, for this reason, I very much support the noble Baroness O'Grady amendment.
13:22
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I begin by just >> My Lords, can I begin by just saying how sorry I am that it it is the noble Baroness Brinton moving the amendment, not the noble Lord the amendment, not the noble Lord Wallace of Tankerness who we will greatly miss. He was, as we all know, a staunch advocate for the people of Orkney and Shetland. I served nine years with him in Parliament as a crossover. During that time I found him to be an exemplary public servant, as Deputy First Minister for Scotland and as a member of Parliament.

I had less contact with him in your Lordships House, but I am genuinely sorry that I cannot have contact with him today, and I pass my condolences to his family. I'm also, if I may say so, grateful to the noble Baroness Brinton for taking up the cudgels on this specialist subject, but doing it in a way that is professional, and I promise that I will try to answer the questions and follow up on the points that she has raised. I'm also grateful for reminding me of a constituency case from Paul Wright of Mould, who I dealt with in a former life.

As Paul writes. Member of Parliament. Following the extradition case with Greece, which I will have to Google to refresh all the details of my memory of. But I know that it was a important constituency case for me to take up as a member of Parliament at that time. I'm sorry. Also, if I may just say so, that the noble Lord Davies of Gower feels that this didn't receive sufficient scrutiny. But I take his point, and again, I hope I can answer for the points here today.

Clause 195 stem parts of the bill under the Extradition Act 2003 means that the UK may extradite individuals either to face trial or to serve a sentence where a conviction occurred in absentia. And the UK court finds the person did not deliberately absent themselves. The judge must determine whether they will be entitled to a retrial in the requesting state. Now this clause by Lords amends sections 20 and 85 of the 2003 act to restore the original policy intention that the individual must have a right to apply for a retrial, not a guaranteed retrial for extradition to proceed now the amendment is required, as the noble Baroness mentioned, following the Supreme Court's judgement in Cariou versus Romania, which interpreted the current drafting of the 2003 act as requiring a guaranteed retrial, something some states cannot offer now without this fix, certain legitimate extradition requests could be blocked, undermining justice for victims.

Now again, I know the noble Baroness Brinton herself mentioned this, but the amendment itself does not change any existing safeguards or processes governing extradition. The full suite of safeguards in the 2003 act, including judicial oversight human rights protections, remain unchanged. This includes also whether the UK courts powers to consider and determine whether someone deliberately absented themselves, and I hope that gives some reassurance. There is a small government amendment 537 which makes minor drafting changes, and that simply provides clause 195 be commenced by regulations, as opposed to automatically coming into force on Royal assent as was originally planned.

Now, again, I've heard what the noble Lord Davis has of Gower has said, and I've heard the by by nature complex case that the noble Baroness Brinton has mentioned what I would like to do. The noble Baroness Brinton asked if she could have a meeting with appropriate supporters to discuss this. I'd be happy to do so for the purposes of just confirming that, I'd be grateful if she could email me with details of who she wishes to attend that meeting.

It's entirely up to the noble Baroness Brinton, but I'd be happy if the noble Lord Davis wishes to attend. He could do. Or I can offer him a separate meeting if he wants to have further discussions or representations. But if that could be discussed outside of committee, I'd be happy to do that. But in the meantime, I hope the reassurances I have given are sufficient for the moment, and I would be happy if she would withdraw that pending any discussion which I would ensure takes place if possible, subject to our diaries before the Report stage of the Bill is appropriate, and if not, we can still have the discussion so that explanation can at least reflect upon the points that have been made today.
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:30
None Portrait Amendment:469 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-

the playing fields of our famous public schools who are likely to be referred to the police for the referred to the police for the fisticuffs, minor thefts and criminal damage almost inevitable criminal damage almost inevitable in early years, it is instead the poorest and most vulnerable, such as children in care, who are also preyed upon by groomers and exploiters, and even blackmailed exploiters, and even blackmailed with the threat of being reported to the police by their abusers. So I'm very sad to say that the presumption against child criminality was removed by a Labour government with the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

When I was a young lawyer in the Home Office and I worked on that act, it drew an arbitrary line in the sand and rendered every ten year old criminally responsible, where previously it was assumed at 14. It's remained there ever since. And while most of our European cousins have moved the other way to an average of 14, we sit alongside Switzerland with the ignoble distinction of the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. We sit, my Lords, even behind those bastions of European liberty Belarus, Hungary and the Russian Federation.

We sit even below the global average of 12 years old. The United Nations Committee on the rights of the child deems anything below 12 the global average unacceptable. It urges nations to set the bar as high as possible, ideally at 14. They urged us specifically in 2023 to raise it to 14, but the then government declined. It stated that it believes that children aged ten can differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing. It's a similar logic that underpins Sweden's recent lowering of the threshold to 13, not 1013 from 15, though just for the most serious crimes.

My Lords, let's be clear, a 13 year old child does not, apropos of nothing, come up with the idea to traffic drugs or coordinate terrorism. They are groomed by adults who we should not divert responsibility from. Indeed, adults are capable of manipulating children because by their very nature they are more cognitively developed. And herein lies the rub. Whilst great strides have been made in brain imaging and longitudinal cohort studies of development since the 1998 act, science is unable to grant us an absolute answer as to when criminal intentions can be formed.

It can, however, certainly offer compelling evidence that the bulk of brain development required for planning, decision making and moral judgement in most people is incomplete at ten and slightly less incomplete at 14, so we appear to have drawn the line at the point where the vast majority will be underdeveloped in the aim of widening the net so wide to capture the 1 or 2 precocious criminal masterminds, at the cost of unnecessarily criminalising the many who are unaware of the consequences of their actions and cruelly face punishment without even understanding why we can quantify what we can quantify are the harms caused by criminalising children as young as ten, the number of children aged 10 to 14 convicted each year is, I think, between 3000 and 3500, it was 3175 last year, about about 25% of all convicted children.

In total. We sentenced about 1.2 million people in England and Wales. So a quarter of 1% of proven criminality is conducted by children under 14. And overwhelmingly it is of a less serious nature. But the impact on those children is disproportionate. Almost two thirds of children remanded in custody do not receive a custodial sentence, placing children unnecessarily into a harsh penal environment and robbing them of education, family and childhood. And for those kept in that system, they can expect violence and lawful detention in cells for all hours of the day.

And if they resist weaponry in the form of pepper spray that can now be deployed upon them. Following the Howard League's failed attempt to legally challenge its use. It is no wonder, then, with such poor interventions, that over 30% of 10 to 14 year olds will re-offend instead of our justice system preventing further crime, it only seems to generate it in the young. It is no place for small children. My Lords. What then is the alternative? How do those countries with ages of criminal responsibility as high as 14 or even 16? How do they cope? Unsurprisingly, there are clear and tested alternatives that we could look to for inspiration.

Perhaps we could copy their homework. In France, they use judicial educational measures. Monsieur éducatif judiciaire, which is the name suggests, refer the child to specialist schools for supervised educational interventions or in some instances, health or social care facilities for additional family or psychological support. They can't be imprisoned and they cannot receive a criminal record. In Germany, the approach is to treat kids like kids and young adults more like kids. Their youth welfare system, Jugendamt, constructs an individual health plan with the parents, with the potential for counselling, foster home placements or treatment in a secure residential care facility.

In extreme cases, they cannot be imprisoned and they cannot receive a criminal record. And of course, since 2021, our neighbours north of the border in Scotland do not criminalise the under 12, so they divert the 150 to 200 or so. 8 to 12 year old children a year previously caught up in the criminal system into the welfare system. They cannot be imprisoned and cannot receive a criminal record. Key theme, my Lords, is to focus on education, rehabilitation and child welfare.

We have different standards for children and adults as we well know, because children are developing, which represents the perfect opportunity for rehabilitative measures. In the first instance, criminalisation and by extension, criminal records undermine such rehabilitation to be to be branded a criminal in year five, as you are being assessed on things like handwriting quality, only to be prevented from putting that terrible handwriting into good use by being blocked from being a doctor or a lawyer later in life, is plainly self-defeating.

And further, given their biologically driven lack of foresight, punishment by way of the criminal stigma is unlikely to be effective if it if its effects are only meted out ten years down the line. The problem with records at such a young age and putting children into a criminal system whilst they're still developing, is that the environment rubs off. Brand someone a criminal at such a formative age and they will become one. It enters them into a system where they are likely to be deprived of education, removed from family and if they make it out, left with an impression of that system upon them, make it through all that a sum remarkably do and be faced with stigma and difficulty forevermore.

Because you did something terrible in primary school and for whatever reason didn't get away with it like others do. This is presumably why I understand the government to be considering expunging existing child criminal records. A laudable aim, but surely the Lord's prevention is better than cure. We can prevent this expensive misery entirely by raising the threshold to 14, sparing thousands of children the corrosive and insidious effects of the criminal justice system, and instead give them the space to develop into wiser young people.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause 196, insert the new clause printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. I know. To. This amendment, and I agree with everything that the noble Lady
13:39
None Portrait Deputy Chair of committees. Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)
-

with everything that the noble Lady the Baroness Chakrabarti has said. This is the third time that I have This is the third time that I have tried to raise the age of criminal responsibility in this House. I responsibility in this House. I tried first in the Blair government and lost. I tried the second time in the coalition government and lost. On each occasion. I asked for a modest increase to 12. I would be content with 12, but I would naturally prefer 14.

What is very sad, and I just wonder whether every government of whichever political persuasion is so afraid of the press and the press headlines that they are not prepared to change the law. The four commissioners of the United Kingdom Children Commissioners, about 4 or 5 years ago, wrote a joint report in which they said the United Kingdom is the most punitive country in the whole of Europe, and that hasn't changed. I tried two cases.

One, the anonymity of the Bulger killers, age ten. And secondly, Mary Bell, age ten. I don't know whether noble Lords know that the two Bulger killers, aged ten, had fiddled, I'm sorry, had found a pornographic video hidden under the bed of the father of one of them, and they watched it. And it was a story of how to kill a small child. After painting the child blue, those two little boys went out and did exactly what the film had shown.

That seems to me to be highly relevant to considerations of what I mean. It was an appalling crime, there's no doubt about that. But one does really need to think. And as the noble Lady, the Baroness Chakrabarti has reminded us, the maturity of the brain is not properly completed by the age of ten and is only still partly completed by the age of 14, and there is substantial evidence that one government after another absolutely refuses to recognise. Ten is very young.

As a noble aged, Baroness Chakrabarti said, let's think back to when we were ten. I find that particularly difficult at my age, but ten and one bears in mind one's children, one's grandchildren and how they behaved, the extent to which they really understood not perhaps, between right and wrong, because one would hope they did, but the consequences of what they have done or might do that seems to me to be something that is gained later in life than
13:43
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
the age of ten. One point that perhaps noble Lords might be concerned about is what would concerned about is what would happen to a ten year old if a ten year old committed a really serious offence, particularly murder, which offence, particularly murder, which I have been twice concerned. And I have been twice concerned. And the fact is, section 45 of the Children Act of 1989 would send Children Act of 1989 would send such a child who was a danger to him or herself, or a danger to others, to secure accommodation.

And I am a patron of a secure accommodation unit in Exeter, which is admirable. And every child in that unit is has at least two carers, and some of them who are particularly troublesome have three, and they are properly educated and looked after in a way, which of course would happen to a child convicted of an offence. They would be sent nowadays to secure accommodation. But Mary Bell was sent to prison. The very humane member of this house, the noble Lord noble and learned Lord Woolf with the Bulger killers, arranged that they should not go on to an adult prison, and they in fact left at the age of 18.

You might be interested to know the reason I gave anonymity to those two young men. I received evidence from the police sitting as a judge that there were out there vigilantes determined not just to injure them, but to kill them. There was substantial evidence that there was a group of vigilantes in various parts of the country, and that was why I gave them anonymity. I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, or the noble Lady, the Minister, I suspect, to reflect on what the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti and I have said.

Ten is very young.
13:45
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. >> In support of this amendment, the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti has brought me to this point. I, I have watched your deliberations on have watched your deliberations on this because I was someone who, through multiple decades of youth work in particular, and community work was reluctant to do this. But I do feel it is the right thing to do. I just want to note a few things that would need to happen to make this effective and safe for the wider public.

I have dealt with many, many gang involved young men in particular, and there's a group of young men whose sole job it is to recruit for those gangs. And sometimes our criminal age of being ten, being so low, has made a number of children safer. It's kept them away, because if you raise that age, it means that those recruitment people can go around and say, you're OK, you can't, you can't be prosecuted, you can't go to court, you can't get in trouble.

So if we're going to make this change, it needs to be sounded very clearly that there is still a route for you to get in trouble. That's very important. The more important piece, I'd argue, if you look at how the Metropolitan Police now approach all young children and they view them as a victim first and are very reluctant to move them into being a criminal without some very serious evidence. That is the approach that needs to be embedded somewhere alongside this particular change.

But I do want to make the point. There are a number of ten year olds. They're not there's not millions of them out there, but there's enough in some of our poorest communities who are sophisticated enough to be a real danger. So if we're going to make this change, let's make sure that alongside it, we still have a way to affect the behaviour of those young children, in particular around bullying. Because if you remove supervision from these children and often supervision from the police is the only thing that carries enough weight in their own mind, they become a serious source of bullying and are able to cajole other children into breaking the law.

So while I will support this, I have been I've been moved to this position very recently because it's had to fight against, again, multiple years of of experience of dealing with some very young children who are very criminally involved, deliberately so. I still do see your point, but please, I'd make a plea to the Minister, the noble Baroness, the Minister, to make sure there's measures put in place to keep the community safe, to identify young people early, not label them as criminals, but very much deal with their ability to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bully and cajole other young people. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise. To speak to on. Amendment four six, nine, and I've listened with great care to the dissuasive great care to the dissuasive argument presented by my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, and friend Baroness Chakrabarti, and also by I think I can refer to Baroness Butler-Sloss. I also a
13:48
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Butler-Sloss. I also a noble friend, my Lord. I've also been briefed by justice, a body that I have the highest respect for. And indeed I've been a member of justice. I think I joined in 1964, so I've been a member of justice for up to 60 years. And my Lords, I accept the widespread view in other countries that the age for findings of criminality should be 14 years, which is, of course, the proposition in amendment 4469. I accept also, my Lords, that Scotland has recently raised the age of criminality from eight years to 12 years.

My Lords, I think we should also take into account the alarming increase in crime being committed by young children, going to the down to the age of nine years and even lower, I believe, for example, from Home Office statistics, which records that in 2024 9544 offences are recorded by children aged nine or younger. My Lords, this is a rise of 30% on the 7370 under crime, under ten crimes recorded in 1019. That's before the academic and 18% rise on the total for 2022 of 8064.

My Lords, they range with an alarming rate of crimes concerning rape, arson and this is for nine year olds stalking, attacking police, making death threats and and drug and racially motivated offence. Indeed, in Cheshire recently, my Lords, the police faced an attempted murder suspect who was too young to go to the courts. So all of that I take of all of that, I take full account. But, my Lords, I have to say, I have a sense of unease in raising the age of criminality from ten years to 14 years.

The noble, my noble friend. But Baroness Butler-Sloss raised the the case relating to two year old James Bulger of February 19th of 1993. My Lord, I needn't go into the full facts, but it suffices to say that in the shopping centre in Bootle in Merseyside, a little boy, two year old James Bulger, separated from his mother and was met by two other boys, ten year old Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, and they proceeded to take him away and eventually to a railway line where they committed the most horrendous murder on this little boy.

My Lords. Following that, they were tried and convicted in November 1963, and in June 2001 were released from prison on licence, and Baroness Butler-Sloss has dealt with their inability following their release. Now the record is and I think this is quite, very relevant, that Robert Thompson is not known to be a have been a reoffender, but not so with Jon Venables. He's been convicted of multiple convictions, including child pornography. He is currently in prison.

And recently, I think in 2023, bail was refused because he still posed a danger and a risk to the public. My Lords. As I've said, I've expressed my unease about this and I the only further comment I'll make on the horrendous case of relating to poor two year old James Bulger is that there are not the only recorded crime of horrendous, horrendous behaviour by young persons. I recall reading in the newspaper the murder of a recent murder of pensioner, and I'm fairly sure that it was underage children who were responsible for that.

I also recall reading the newspapers of the murder of a homosexual in a public park. Again, as I recall correctly, I think underage children were involved, including a young girl. My Lords, the record of juvenile crime, I suggest, should be kept on the record. It was highly relevant to Jon Venables that it shouldn't be kept on the record. And, my Lords, perhaps we could make an exception for the very serious crime that I've climbed to your Lordships.

But one way or another that record of criminality should remain with the juvenile.
13:54
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords. >> Lords. >> I'm not going to repeat the wonderful presentation by Lord Hacking. There's a sentiment in me which wants to go a long way with some of the things you said, but some of the things you said, but also listened intently to the noble Baroness Chakrabarti and the arguments were what I call a suitable for a seminar, so that you can look at all the sides of the arguments. And I'm persuaded that some children may need greater care, greater support, and it is quite possible that those who exhibit criminality could actually be helped to end up in a different place.

And certainly the a wonderful presentation for for all of us here by the noble and learned Baroness Batchelor Sloss and the cases that actually you have tried. I don't think anybody could say a ten year old can't commit a crime. I think that would be quite, very strange. If they have committed a crime, they've committed a crime. And the law in question of criminality in many ways doesn't simply do it because you are like, I'm now nearly 77 and therefore because he's an older man, he can't.

In all of us. There's a propensity for being very saintly and holy, but also in the rest of us there is a darkness which you have got to deal with. So I I'm not uneasy about children having a criminal record. If they committed a crime. What Aman is about is the way then they are treated. And I think we did hear from the noble and learned Baroness about really making sure that their identity is not just put out in the public domain, because there will be vigilantes who want to do terrible things to young children.

And again, the fact that a judge took a decision that they shouldn't be taken to another prison, there are appropriate ways of of actually giving punishment to people without always feeling it must be of the same sort because of the nature of the crimes, like every other criminal. And I would have thought a child, if they like, like Thompson and and Venables, what they did to young James Bulger, you need to find appropriate ways of dealing with their safety, their keeping, their being helped.

Not in the same way you would treat a John Sentamu, although he's 77 and I commit a terrible crime, I should have to be answerable to the rest of the population at this stage. So the way we handle children, I think, often leaves a lot to be desired. I was a chaplain in a remand centre, and some of those young people who committed such horrendous crimes. When you actually looked back, nearly 99%. These habits had been learned from the adults that they weren't actually dreaming to do these terrible things.

It was a young boss. Also, take all those arguments. So my, my, my plead would be the arguments the Baroness gave us about children. I don't think it's a question of age. Actually, in the end, I don't know how the brains work, but yes, that could help in terms of sentencing, that could help in the way you want to go. But I don't think that for me, it's a question of age. During the civil inquiry, we went to Wales and to the shock.

Of Sir William Macpherson, who was the chair of the inquiry. And by the way, we called it the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. But the rest of the population still don't say that. They keep on calling it the Macpherson inquiry. It isn't. The title is the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. We were so shocked that children as young as six were committing some of the most horrendous racist incidents. And again, you looked at the parents, they were not responsible, but there was a group enterprise.

People in school, kids in school, learning a language, and there wasn't enough information to help them to understand that behaving like that really is not going to help them. So we we as a nation, I think, should take the view that all children belong to us and it is our responsibility to make sure we create the environment in which they are going to be helped. And I think, lock them up and throw away the key cannot be acceptable.

When children are concerned, no matter what crimes they may have committed. And also we should examine ourselves how on in the street where we live, how well we've actually helped and supported children. So for me, I suggest to the Noble and learned Minister if she's the one responding that we've had quite matters that need to be taken seriously is the best way to do this. Through this particular bill, or find a way in which she will call a little sort of seminar.

Examine this before report and find out what is it that would be best for all our children, instead of sticking on a thing called criminal. Criminal? Because I don't think that actually will help. All 14 will do it, all 12 will do it because they're kids as young as seven, eight, nine, ten can be actually and do some terrible, terrible things. And so we should put on our hearts and say, maybe as a society we need to do much, much better than what we are doing at the moment.

My Lord, can I briefly.
14:00
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
Rise to support the amendment in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti the name of Baroness Chakrabarti and the Noble and learned and Baroness Butler-Sloss? I think it's important to recognise the very important point made by Lord Bailey in relation to the problems of gangs in London, but I do not believe that that should be the reason why we should not make a change. There are three things I think that one can say very quickly. First of all, Baroness Chakrabarti has dealt at length with the enormous improvement in understanding the development of the mind and the enormous scientific advances that have been made.

And across the criminal justice system, we generally are very bad at adapting to science. Secondly, it is right to pay tribute to the youth justice service across England and Wales. They have improved and we now deal with youth crime in a much more humane and civilised manner and deal with young people than we did 20 years ago. The number in places like Feltham has fallen enormously and thank goodness it has. I don't know how many have been there, but it's terrible place and you don't want to send people there, particularly young people.

And the third point I wanted to make, this was an issue I looked at when chairing the Commission on Justice in Wales. And I must tell the noble Lord Lord Hanson, he's not to worry. I'm not making a devolution point now, but I'll come back to that at the Report stage. But the the view of the Commission that examined this issue were firmly of the view that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12, having heard a lot of evidence. But it seems to me this is something we cannot kick into the long grass again.

We must recognise change and we should make it now.
14:02
14:03
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lords, as a former trustee of Unicef, I rise to support amendment 469, so clearly presented by Lady Chakrabarti, signed and spoken to by Lady Butler-sloss internationally, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is recognised as 12, and Unicef has recognised as 12, and Unicef has always been clear it should be 14. I heard what Lord Bailey of Paddington said and understand his concerns about the very large number of young people and children being pulled and groomed into criminal gangs, and he's right to say that we need more concerted support in police education and youth work to intervene.

But it is not the children younger children's fault that they have ended up there. And I hope, particularly given the comments of Lord Hacking and Lord Sentamu, who recognise that heinous crimes need to be marked in a certain way, but both also commented on the fact that we needed to understand that these were children, and I'm really grateful for Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd comment just now. Your Lordships House has been discussing this for many, many years and as Lady Butler-sloss said she, she has actually been campaigning on this for long before she came into your Lordships' House.

Now is the time we need to change it. We need to do that because, my Lords, there is so much evidence now. In 2011, Nicholas Mackintosh, who chaired the Royal Society Study on Brain Development, told the BBC then that there was incontrovertible evidence that the brain continues to develop throughout adolescence and some regions of the brain responsible for decision making and impulse control do not mature fully until at least the age of 20. And that Royal Society report cited concern amongst some neuroscientists that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK was set too low.

My Lords, we're still discussing it today. UNICEF's view is that 14 should be the minimum age, using scientific research as a base, but is very specific that no country should have the age below 12. So this places England, Wales, Northern Ireland in breach of the rights of the child, which is bad enough. But the real problem is a court system that assumes capacity. Children have capacity to make decisions when all the research shows that that is not reliable. And it's wrong for a government to assert that any interference with the child's human rights can be justified.

Unicef says in its excellent guidance note on Youth Offending, published in 2022, that children under the minimum age of criminal responsibility should not be considered alleged child offenders, but first and foremost, children in need of special protection. Offending behaviour by such children is often the result of poverty, family violence and or homelessness. Their involvement in offending behaviour is an indicator of potential vulnerability that has to be addressed by the whole social welfare system. Special protection measures for children should address the root causes of their behaviour and support their parents and caregivers.

These measures should be tailored to the child's needs and circumstances, and based on a comprehensive and interdisciplinary assessment of the child's familial, educational, and social circumstances. End quote that matches the advice of the medical specialist to. Frankly, my Lords, it's time that this government stepped up and took the brave decision that we need to recognise. We are out of kilter with the rest of Europe. And frankly, my Lords, most of the world prosecuting children, holding them in youth offending institutions does not give them the time and space to learn how to live their lives differently.

And we've heard from both Lord Thomas and Lady Butler-sloss about how the arrangements work for children in the specialist secure accommodation. We can still use those systems, but without giving children the label of being a criminal, when clearly they are not capable of making the right decisions. And I'm really grateful to my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has been campaigning on this particular issue for decades before he came into your Lordships House in 1997, his private member's bill in 2017 resulted in a wide public discussion.

It's a shame that nine years on, we have not progressed further. Let's do so now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate, and the amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness Chakrabarti, would raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales responsibility in England and Wales from 10 to 14. And for the reasons I will set out below, I am unable I will set out below, I am unable to support the amendment. First, the purpose of the age of criminal responsibility has not been responsibility has not been designed to criminalise children unnecessarily.

Rather, it is to ensure that the state can intervene early and proportionately when a child's behaviour causes serious harm. As the noble Baroness Baroness Levitt, the Minister, stated in this House setting, the age of ten allows the justice
14:08
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
system to step in at a point where intervention can prevent further offending and protect both the offending and protect both the child and the wider public. And, crucially, children are not treated as adults. They are dealt with through youth courts under a through youth courts under a distinct sentencing framework, with rehabilitation as the central aim. rehabilitation as the central aim. As the evidence shows that the system already uses this power system already uses this power sparingly. In 2024, we are told that only 13% of all children sentenced were aged between 10 and 14, and that proportion has been falling and that proportion has been falling year on year.

Of the 1687 sentences imposed on children in that age group, just 23 resulted in custody. And those figures matter. They demonstrate that the age of criminal responsibility being set at set at ten, does not mean routine criminalisation of children. It means retaining a backstop for the most serious and persistent cases. While diversion remains the norm. My Lords, raising the age of 14 would create a real and dangerous gap. It would mean that children aged 10 to 13 who commit grave offences including serious violence, sexual offences or sustained harassment could not be held criminally responsible at all and this would limit the state's ability to manage risk, protect victims and in some cases protect the child themselves.

There are rare but tragic cases.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lord. Section 45 of the Children Act deals with children who are a danger to themselves and a danger danger to themselves and a danger to others. The only difference in the criminal court it comes through the Family Proceedings court. But the Family Proceedings court. But in fact a local authority would have to deal with it and they would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be put into secure accommodation. I wonder if the noble Lord could take that on board. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the the noble and learned Baroness Vere for that. and learned Baroness Vere for that. I'm not. I'm not going to dispute that fact. Actually, I quite accept that fact. Actually, I quite accept that. So raising the age to 14 would create a real and dangerous gap. It would mean that children gap. It would mean that children aged 10 to 13 who commit grave offences including serious violence, sexual offences or sustained harassment could not be held harassment could not be held criminally responsible at all and that would limit the state's ability to manage risk, protect victims and in some cases protect the child themselves.

And as I was about to say, there are rare but tragic cases, such as already been mentioned, the murder of James Bulger, where a criminal justice response is unavoidable and undoubtedly in the public interest. And I would respectfully suggest that international comparisons cited in this debate are far from straightforward, and I can sometimes and can sometimes serve to confuse matters. In fact, certain countries are now moving in the opposite direction. Sweden, for example, is proposing to lower its age in response to gang exploitation of children who know they cannot be prosecuted.

And that underlines a key point if the threshold is set too high, it can incentivise adults to use children as instruments of crime. My Lords. It is also worth noting that although Scotland recently raised the age of criminal responsibility, Scotland's experience should not justify this particular amendment. Scotland. Even after deciding the age of criminal responsibility, should be raised from eight, raised the threshold to 12 and up to 14 and moreover, the Scottish Government retained extensive non criminal powers to respond to serious harmful behaviour and this amendment would go significantly further without clear evidence that such a leap would improve outcomes for children or public safety.

And it's worth noting that a number of Commonwealth countries retain the doctrine where a person is considered incapable of wrongdoing, which was abolished in England and Wales by the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998, and many of those jurisdictions. The standard age of responsibility is similar to ours. Australia, for example, has a standard age of criminal responsibility of ten, but a rebuttable presumption exists up to the age of 14. But I can also stress that simply because other countries may have higher ages of consent than England and Wales, that is not in itself and of itself a justification to alter ours.

And we must ensure that the age of responsibility here is suitable for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our needs. OK. For the Lord leaves the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the Lord leaves the question of international comparisons. Would you just like to confirm that in Sweden the proposal is to lower the Sweden the proposal is to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 13, rather than leaving that unsaid?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unsaid? I can't confirm that, but it's something I will certainly have a look at. Thank you. But I can stress it's simply because other countries may have higher ages of consent in England Wales that is not in itself of itself justification. My Lords, the question is not whether children should be protected, but whether removing the ability to intervene criminally until 14 would make children, victims or communities safer. And I do not believe that it would. The current system already prioritises proportionality and rehabilitation, while retaining the capacity to act when it is absolutely necessary.

And for those reasons, I cannot support this amendment.
14:13
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> Friend Baroness Chakrabarti. >> Has a long and honourable record of raising issues on behalf of some of the most vulnerable in society, and she and the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss make a formidable team when moving this amendment. May I say at the outset that I am very grateful to them for ensuring that this important issue remains at the forefront of every government's mind, including this one. It was about a fortnight ago that your Lordships House debated this issue.

In response to my noble friend's oral question, I said at the time, and I repeat today, the age of criminal responsibility is a complex and sensitive issue. I want to take this opportunity to set out a bit more detail than the Oral Questions format allows. Why it is that the government believes that we should keep the age of criminal responsibility at ten years. My Lords, it is a sad and regrettable fact that some children commit crimes. Some of those crimes would be trivial, mere naughtiness, breaking windows, but some of them would be very serious indeed.

And against that background, it's important that I say that we, the government, are also very conscious that many of these children are children, are themselves victims, sometimes of domestic abuse or sheer neglect or even just poverty as the as my noble friend said earlier. But all too often they're victims of much worse things than that. We believe that keeping the age of criminal responsibility at ten gives the criminal justice system the flexibility to deal with these very sensitive cases in a way which seeks to achieve a balance between looking after damaged children, but also putting the interests of their victims very high up in the list of priorities.

Because, my Lords, there victims are a very real issue. Your Lordships will remember, and other noble Lords have made reference today to the awful murder of James Bulger by 210 year olds. The anniversary of James's murder is next week, and as we debate the question of children who commit crimes, this House will want to remember James's parents, as well as his wider family, who have lived with this since 1993. These cases are thankfully rare, but they do happen.

In 2009, two brothers, aged ten and 11, tortured and almost killed two other children in Edlington in Doncaster. They kicked, punched and stamped on their victims did various other things. But it's not necessary for me to set out. But one of the victims pleaded with their attackers to be allowed to die. More recently in 2023. In Wolverhampton, 212 year old boys killed an unarmed 19 year old with a machete in an unprovoked attack in a park. These are the headline grabbing cases, but much more common are cases of persistent antisocial behaviour, much of it perpetrated by children who themselves have come from difficult backgrounds.

They deserve our understanding and our help. But we must also remember that such antisocial behaviour can terrorise neighbourhoods. Often those very neighbourhoods are populated by others of our most vulnerable citizens, including the elderly and those from lower socio economic socioeconomic groups. My Lord, this is a Labour government, many of whom are lawyers who have campaigned for the rights of children caught up in the criminal justice system. But that does not alter our responsibility also to look after the rights and needs of victims.

My Lords, I want to make it clear that the primary objective of this government is to prevent children from offending in the first place. But where crimes are committed, it is important that the police and the courts have effective tools available to tackle it. And we would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that sometimes a youth justice intervention can also be effective at breaking the cycle of persistent offending, providing the child with the support they need to address the root causes of the offending.

A further issue, which was memorably raised by the noble Lord Lord Bailey of Paddington a fortnight ago and repeated by him today, is that raising the age of criminal responsibility may not be without unwanted consequences, though I note that he supports the amendment today. Some countries in which the age of responsibility is higher have found, as has been alluded to by more than one of your Lordships, that unscrupulous criminal gangs are targeting underage children precisely because they know they can't be prosecuted.

And as a number of your Lordships have said for this, for this reason, amongst others, Sweden is proposing to reduce their age of criminal responsibility. And I can confirm in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord Lord Marks, that from 15 to 13 is correct. In response to an increase in gangs recruiting children to commit serious offences, Australia's Northern Territory recently reduced their age of criminal responsibility from 12 to 10. I make this point in order to underline how difficult and sensitive this area is, it has been suggested during the debate that international examples provide a strong basis on which to model our own threshold for the age of criminal liability, but having a higher minimum age of criminal responsibility does not necessarily result in better treatment of children who commit criminal offences.

In fact, there have been alarming reports from organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who found that in countries such as Russia, Egypt and El Salvador, with their age of criminal responsibility set at 16, 12 and 12 respectively, that there are examples of the way that children suspected of of crime are subject to undocumented arrests, interrogations without parents or lawyers present and coerce guilty pleas. My Lords, the youth justice system in this country supports children for whom there is no alternative but prosecution, with a clear framework and protections.

The vast majority are tried in specialist youth courts. They have access to lawyers and rights of appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, and a completely different sentencing regime, and it also allows for scrutiny for the maintenance of public confidence. Now, I say this is for children for whom there is no alternative, because setting the age of criminal responsibility at ten does not preclude other types of intervention. A significant priority for this government is diversion from the criminal justice system, where this would be a more proportionate response.

The government has invested £71 million from December 2022 to March 2026 through the turnaround program to help youth offending teams intervene earlier and support up to 20,500 additional children who are at risk of entering the justice system and as a result, most children aged 10 to 14 years are diverted from the formal criminal justice system or receive an out of court disposal. My noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti said that 3000 children were prosecuted. The figures I have that in are that in 2025, 2638 children were prosecuted.

As far as convictions are concerned, the rate has fallen in 3852 from 3852 children convicted in 2017 to 1691 children in 2024. So we are moving in the right direction. That's a reduction of more than 50%. I turn now briefly to the part played by the Crown Prosecution Service. All prosecutors must apply the statutory test set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. The first stage, as is well known, is for prosecutors to consider whether whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

But even if there is, that is not the end of the matter. The prosecutor must then consider whether or not a prosecution is required in the public interest. My Lords, we completely understand that children are not just miniature adults and that their brains work differently as they mature. Indeed, some studies say that brains do not mature until the age of 25, but it's for this reason recognising the neurological development studies that have developed that both the chronological age and the child's maturity are specific public interest factors on the face the code for of Crown prosecutors as being factors that may point away from prosecution, a prosecutor must consider specific factors, including the best interests and the welfare of the child suspect, and whether prosecution is likely to have a disproportionately adverse impact.

The code makes it clear that the younger the child, the less likely it is that a prosecution is needed. Sitting beneath the code is Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance, which reminds prosecutors that children may not appreciate the consequences of their actions or foresee those consequences, that children may not appreciate risk or the need to mitigate risk. So decision to prosecute must only be taken after a full review of the case and the background information, including information from the Youth Justice Service, the police or local authority, and the circumstances to be considered include the child's accommodation, family background and the physical and mental health of the child.

The overarching principles of preventing offending and the welfare of the child remain paramount, so the general principle of the criminal justice system is that, first and foremost, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution should take place and that wherever possible, an out of court disposal, like youth cautions will be used to divert the child away from the youth justice system. There is also a distinct and separate sentencing framework for children aged 10 to 17, which recognises that children have their own specific needs, requiring a different and more tailored approach.

And I would ask your Lordships to remember that for some children from very troubled backgrounds, the fact that the age of responsibility is as young as ten can allow early intervention by the authorities, which is critical to prevent subsequent offending. Many of your Lordships are rightly concerned about whether early criminalisation and getting a criminal record mean that later on, these children will have problems getting a place in college or employment. As I've already said, the majority of children aged 10 to 14 are diverted away from the formal criminal justice system or receive an out of court disposal.

Those children who receive a youth caution, those are spent immediately. For those who receive a youth conditional caution, the caution is spent after whichever is the sooner of three months, or when the conditions of caution are met. Another important aspect that I should bring to your Lordships attention is that this government recognises the importance of the criminal justice response to children being carefully informed by the best available evidence as it emerges, and we remain attentive to studies looking at youth justice system issues, including, for example, those highlighted in the Michael Sieff Foundation's recent report on special educational needs and neurodivergence in the child suspect cohort.

So to conclude, whilst I realise that my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti and indeed the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss and those who have spoken in support of this amendment are unlikely to be satisfied with this response. I reiterate that this is a government that is instinctively unhappy with the idea of criminalising very young children. And so, whilst we believe that the current age of criminal responsibility is appropriate at the moment, I can assure my noble friend that the government keeps all aspects of youth justice under continual review, and we welcome debate and debate about and scrutiny of our record in relation to this difficult subject.

But we are of the view that if we were to look at this issue again, it should be done through a carefully considered procedure, such as the one that was adopted by Scotland rather than through an amendment. So with that in mind, I hope that she will understand why the government is not supporting her amendment today and I invite her to withdraw it.
14:26
None Portrait 8 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-

I'm grateful to to all noble Lords who participated and what I Lords who participated and what I felt was a very thoughtful debate. And though it's invidious to do so, I'd like to single out two I'd like to single out two contributions in particular. Firstly, the contribution of Lord Bailey of Paddington. It is really quite a big thing to do to to come to committee and to say I've listened. I still have concerns, but I've changed my mind in the face of an argument from the opposite side of the aisle, and I pay tribute to him for that.

Remembering also that it was his party, not mine, that took us into the convention on the rights of the child in the first place. So I'm very grateful to to Lord Bailey. He does great credit to his party and this house. And of course, I also have to thank the noble and learned Baroness Butler-sloss for a lifetime of public service, of considerable distinction at the bar, on the bench, and in your Lordships House. And of course, it was she that gave the answer really to to Lord Baillie's concerns, legitimate concerns, and about what would what what would fill the gap in relation to dangerous and bad behaviour by young children if they were not to be criminalised.

And and the answer she gave was that they would be dealt with in the family court, and they would be supervised and, and and treated in a welfare with a welfare approach rather than a criminal justice one. I thank everyone. I'm obviously disappointed to some extent with with my noble friend and minister's response, but I hope that the door is not slammed closed. I understand a backbench amendment is not the way necessarily to to deal with something of this complexity and magnitude.

But I note, for example, that the Bar Council of England and Wales is currently conducting a commission into into the age of criminal responsibility. I hope the government will, if not engage with that, at least watch those developments very carefully. I this amendment was was, was was tabled on the basis of the age of 14. But, you know, I may consider returning a report with the proposition of 12, but but for now, at least with thanks, I beg leave to withdraw.
14:29
14:29
None Portrait Amendment: 470 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-

disgraced peer, I hope we might all empathise with victims of abuses of empathise with victims of abuses of power by covert human intelligence power by covert human intelligence sources. That is, cheese or police or other agency spies in 2021. And notwithstanding the ongoing public inquiry into the decades old inquiry into the decades old Spycops scandal, the covert human Intelligence Sources Criminal Conduct Act granted prior and absolute criminal and civil in unity to officers and agents of a whole host of public bodies.

If acting under a new scheme of pre-authorisation to commit crime by this one act. Centuries of the principle of equality before the law were breached, I understand that the security agencies had sought this kind of immunity for many years, but the Johnson government spread the favour rather widely, granting it not just to their officers and agents, but to, for example, the police and their assets in the community, including the criminal fraternity. To be clear, my Lords, I understand the vital importance of such intelligence sources in, for example, infiltrating terrorist cells and organised criminal gangs.

However, subsequent revelations from the Spycops scandal and the missing inquiry highlight the grave dangers of abuse by officers and agents sent to spy on their fellow citizens, sometimes building their legends for years on end, often with no specific criminal investigation but only espionage and attempts to discredit in site. Noble Lords will appreciate that whilst a judge signs off on search warrants and a Cabinet Minister on telephone taps, the police effectively self authorise the most intrusive surveillance of all a human being that gains your trust in your office, your friendship circle or even your bedroom doesn't just record your communications and behaviour.

My Lords, they may well seek to influence and alter them. Last month, a number of noble Lords in the committee heard from some of the brave women from the campaign group Police Spies Out of our Lives. These women were the victims of Spycops who deceived them into long term intimate relationships that even included the bearing of children. The Metropolitan Police was forced, by way of civil litigation, to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages before the act came, along with its immunity.

For all purposes. Amendment 470, in my name and that of the noble Baroness Miller of Chiltern, Domer and Jones of Moulsecoomb, replaces the golden ticket of complete advanced immunity from civil or criminal suit with a public interest defence, as long as it is acted within an authorisation and not, crucially, not as an agent provocateur. It is thus a more proportionate form of protection for genuinely brave and ethical public servants, but also provide some safeguards against those who abuse their power and privilege occurs.

Granted, a criminal Conduct authorisation would, under the new proposal no. Whilst in the field that while they will be protected from prosecution or other liability for proportionate acts of criminality to keep their cover or prevent or detect serious criminality, they may have to explain and defend their actions subsequently to investigators, prosecutors and even courts. In other words, my Lords, they will be protected by the law but not sit completely above it. As in the current breathtakingly broad and vague arrangements.

Now, my noble friend, the Minister, I suspect, will point to the the current role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Ipko and its responsibility to oversee oversee the use of CCE pursuant to Ripa, as amended by the Chairs act. There are two key issues with such reliance. Firstly, these reports and the very high level picture they provide are frequently delayed by years after cursory analysis and rely heavily on the users of these powers being forthcoming in both in the issuance of the Criminal Conduct Authorisation case, as well as with respect to any issues which have flowed from them.

Recent cases, such as where it was revealed that the Security Service gave false evidence in proceedings about an undercover operative who violently abused his then girlfriend, Beth, show this to be a poor and inadequate mechanism for proper oversight and scrutiny. For years, my Lords, late reporting has prevented both your Lordships and the wider public getting to grips with the use or misuse of these powers. The Chips act passed in 2021. Yet the annual report for that year was only published in March of 2023.

The 2022 report was published in 2024. The 2023 report in 25 and most recently, the report for 2024 came just before Christmas last year. Can we really afford to wait this latest 2027, for example, to learn what issues arise during the course of this year? Secondly, it is important to look at the detail of the analysis. The latest annual report and its assertion of the quality and content of relevant source criminal conduct authorisations was found to be of a good standard.

Yet in the same breath, the report continues that on occasions we noted that criminal conduct authorisations lacked specificity, with only a general descriptor of the criminality to be undertaken documented. It continues that a small number of errors were reported or found on inspection relating to a failure to notify us with divine defines, timescales and use of a vague or ambiguous wording for criminal conduct. Indeed, Ipco itself has repeatedly identified weaknesses in the clarity and proportionality of criminal conduct authorisations, with the 2023 feedback stressing a renewed need for applicants to explain how proposed criminal conduct related to authorised Cheers activity, what action has been taken to rectify these issues? We might we might ask civil society groups like police, spies out of our Lives and Justice continue to expose the gulf between formal assurances and lived experience, documenting ongoing patterns of misconduct, institutional sexism, and the psychological harm caused by abusive deployments.

Their work is vital, rigorous and should give Parliament pause before accepting any claim that the current framework is functioning as intended. The Berkshire case remains the most visible illustration of what happens when internal safeguards fail. But it is so far. But it is far from an isolated historical anomaly. The ongoing undercover policing inquiry to which many brave women from police spies Out of Our Lives campaign are core participants, continues to uncover and reveal cases of systematic deception, including long term, intimate, intimate relationships initiated by police officers.

In the course of this undercover work. My Lords, it would be wrong to view abuses of powers under the CARES act as mere administrative lapses. They surely represent some of the most profound abuses of state power. They reflect precisely the dangers of a model that grants advanced immunity, impunity, foreclosing the possibility of any independent scrutiny unless journalists or victims themselves force the issue into the open. The evidence base, assembled alongside the jurisprudence that follows Wilson and other cases, underscores that the risks are structural.

It is our responsibility to rectify them, balancing the need for justice with the importance of, for example, national security. The culture of policing in this country is in urgent need of reform. The noble Baroness, lady KC could not have been any clearer than in her report on the Metropolitan Police in 2023. And here we are debating this amendment in the wake of scandal after scandal in the last two years, not least the Panorama revelations into Charing Cross station, the tip of the iceberg of conduct the public rightly demands to be dealt with root and branch.

This is the same policing culture that amendment 470 seeks to regulate more tightly, because the risks of exploitation, manipulation and institutional indifference multiply when the state confers immunity in advance of the act. So the amendment provides a principled and proportionate response, a defence based model that preserves operational capacity whilst assuring that authorisation, necessity and proportionality can be tested if concerns later arise. It strengthens accountability in a policing landscape where victims are ignored rather than protected, and where groups like police spies out of our lives have had to shoulder the burden of uncovering and documenting abuses that should, never, should never have occurred.

My Lords, its prohibitions on the deployments of Agent provocateur also go some way to ensuring proper discipline on the use of these awesome powers, focussed truly on the needs of national security as opposed to individual gain and abuse. The amendment would bring the UK closer to international comparators, rebalancing the relationship between state power and individual rights, and restoring a measure of democratic legitimacy to an area of the law that has for too long operated in the shadows.

It is not, my Lords, an impediment to effective policing, for effective policing cannot take place unless trust is restored, and this can only be done where proper safeguards are in place. Almost precisely, the kinds against precisely the kinds of harms that have already been proven. Time and time again, I beg to move.
14:41
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 196. Insert the following new clause the words as printed on the Marshalled List. >> I was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was. Very pleased to add my name to Baroness Chakrabarti amendment, and I do think it's one of the most I do think it's one of the most probably for me, the most important amendment in the bill, and she's laid out very fully why it's so needed. As she said at the end, if this is going to be about trust in the police and without this sort of regulation, that trust will be lacking even more lacking. If you've been following the Spycops inquiry, which I have been following.

And that also led me to want to put my name to this amendment, particularly because that inquiry has been going on now for, I think, ten years, three judges. And really what we should have is the lessons from that inquiry. If it had wound up, we would have the lessons from that inquiry. And I think this amendment. Fills a bit of the gap from having those lessons. The problem with that inquiry at the moment, though, is that quite a lot of it is held in secret.

A lot of the transcripts are very heavily redacted, and so that it's very difficult for a member of your Lordships House, as I have to actually follow some of what the lessons would be. And for those reasons, I think we should particularly support this amendment, even if it's just a stopgap until that inquiry eventually reports. But that could be years from now, my Lords. So I'm pleased to support the amendment. My Lords, I rise to.
14:43
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Support amendment. >> 470. >> Which I've. Also signed. And I agree with every word that we've heard from the noble Lady heard from the noble Lady Chakrabarti. And the noble Lady Lady Miller. This is referenced to a deep vein of misogyny that existed then in the Met Police, and I rather suspect, still exists in spite of all the, the, the promises to the contrary, the noble Lady. Lady is so calm and it's always it always astonishes me how calm she stays when I know she feels exactly the way I feel about this, which is absolutely furious.

And I know I stand up and I'm absolutely furious, but quite a lot of things. But probably this actually plumbs the probably this actually plumbs the depth of my fury. It is. It is. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Participant in the Spycops inquiry. But the judge ruled I forget which one. It was the first one. The judge ruled that I it didn't apply to me because I'd been spied on by the regular police and not by, by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spycops. And so I couldn't, I. Couldn't be part of it, which I was very disappointed about. But inherent in the police's behaviour was not only misogyny, but sexual exploitation. They used those women as pawns. And we've been looking at as pawns. And we've been looking at the Epstein files this week and over the past few years. But here we have an example in our own country of the most appalling misogyny. I don't understand how anybody can look at the Spycops inquiry and not seek to change the law on it.

It. The women's, the women were not only treated as pawns by the police, but also their concerns when they started raising them were just brushed away and they were brushed away by people who had authorised the police to do that very thing. And the power of the state to authorise criminal conduct should never be beyond scrutiny. But that's what happened in this case. I fully recognise, and I'm sure every noble Lord in the House does that, that covert human intelligence sources have a part to play in tackling serious crime.

But recognising that role is not the same as giving a blank check to the police or any other organisation. And that, I'm afraid, is the current immunity based system that we have. And and not only risks doing, but has done at present. Once authorisation is granted, the conduct authorised is decided lawful for all purposes or purposes. Come a noble Lord sitting on the on the government's front bench. Just hear that and just understand how appallingly open that is to abuse.

History tells us why. We know from past undercover policing scandals that things can and do go wrong. Authorisations overdone, lives deeply harmed and fundamental rights breached and in some cases is only investigative journalism that actually brought all these abuses to light and actually exposed the truth for what had happened. And even then, those responsible have not faced accountability. And and some of us have been working on this for 25 years. We've been raising these issues and being fobbed off again and again by by government Ministers who really ought to have looked harder.

The last time I raised the issue of covert human intelligence sources, I raised it particularly in reference to children, and I was assured the numbers didn't amount to more than ten, and ten is too many, one is too many, and somehow we accept it as a useful way of finding out what gangs are doing. Personally, I feel very strongly about human rights. The United Kingdom has binding obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, especially in relation to torture, inhuman, inhuman or degrading treatment, and modern slavery, a system that pre-emptively grants immunity risks putting us in breach of those obligations.

And it matters for the protection of children who have been authorised as covert sources. I am deeply troubled by the fact that the police use children as covert human intelligence sources. In 2022, children were used in investigations involving class A drugs and firearms, and some of those authorisations were not even reported in time for any oversight to happen. Children are not trained officers. They are children placed by the state into dangerous criminal environments, a system that grants advanced advance immunity and shuts the door on judicial scrutiny offers them no real protection.

That alone is reason enough to support this amendment that we're debating now. What it also offers is a judge's oversight. After the event, not open ended political reassurance beforehand. That's a model used successfully in other countries and reassures the public that no one is above the law, not even in the shadows. And I don't see this as asking us to choose between security and liberty. It asks us to recognise that you can't have lasting security without accountability. Now, I very much hope that we bring this back at report, and I hope that we get even more support, because it's interesting that it's three women here who have signed this amendment and three women who've spoken so far.

And the fact is, if this House does not understand the relevance of this amendment, then itself is actually supporting the concept of misogyny and sexual exploitation and and exploitation of children.
14:49
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to oppose this >> My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment. With that, I have to amendment. With that, I have to concede that, as usual, the the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti made a very beguilingly attractive case for the change and for the amendment. But I do think, in essence, this is a legislative overreach, because the situation is we do not have a situation where this is this activity is being undertaken with impunity.

We do have checks and balances, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept that they can be improved if I can come up. Haven't said anything yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Haven't said anything yet. If I can come back to the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. The reason children are used is because of such a thing as county because of such a thing as county lines. Children are. Children are used to move weapons, to move drugs. And I'll give way, if I may, a little later, because I want to develop my point. If the noble Lady will be so kind as to allow me.

I think there's two sides to every story. And I remember when I was first a candidate and then Member of Parliament for Peterborough, the site every week of animal rights activists at Huntingdon Life Sciences. Now, I don't hold any. I do not support the activities of rogue police officers as enunciated by the noble Ladies points around Spycops. But we mustn't conflate separate phenomena, i.e. a full public inquiry, albeit in camera, which again, I don't agree with.

I think there should be openness and transparency in that and specific criminal cases. But one can also make the case, of course, that those police officers and others who were doxed by animal rights activists have suffered huge degrees of harassment and violent intimidation as well. In the period since the allegations arose, without them having the opportunity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to clear their names in a court of Lady. I want you to. Give way to my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now that. I'm very grateful to her, that. I'll give way to the noble Lady. Grateful to the noble Lord. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the noble Lord. He referred earlier to children and county lines. The problem with this county lines. The problem with this particular case is that relationships were formed, underlies by police officers, and underlies by police officers, and children were born of those relationships whose fathers then disappeared. It is nothing to do with the criminalised activity of the children. Would the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please reconsider his comments in that particular, relevant. Noble Lady? Makes a very fair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lady? Makes a very fair point. And and I was referring to the issue of county lines and why children may be used. I of course, children may be used. I of course, deprecate that unacceptable activity to which she refers activity to which she refers fathering children in a pretended relationship is not something any relationship is not something any of us would support. And so she makes a very fair point. My Lords, I was talking about Huntingdon Life Sciences, and I was talking about animal rights activists.

That level of violence escalated to a to a very significant level for over a number of years, which culminated in the violent attack near death experience of the then chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences. It was a very unpleasant period and therefore there was a reasonable case to be made that the Metropolitan Police in Cambridgeshire Constabulary and others needed to embed officers intelligence assets within the animal rights movement in order to alleviate the risk of further serious criminal activity.

The point being that that was an animal rights issue, but it could have easily been. And and the noble Baroness Chakrabarti concedes very fairly that she doesn't want to circumscribe cases, cases of where you have to do long term surveillance of, say, a terrorist plot, which might happen were it not for police activity and that kind of long term embedding of people, but that is separate to the cases that have come where there hasn't been a criminal, there has not been an operational rationale for preventing that criminal activity.

And so I accept that there is a difference. And that's why I do think that this amendment is rather heavy handed. And I and no doubt the Minister will make reference to the commissioner looking at at whether this is timely, whether it's appropriate. These activities words matter, incidentally, and I do think that there was an inference, unusually, from from the noble Lady when she mentioned the covert human intelligence sources Act, that this was to facilitate criminal activity. I may have been mistaken in hearing that, and she may want to intervene.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Home Secretary Jackson he's completely right, because that is the purpose of the of that act. the purpose of the of that act. It's called the covert human intelligence sources, open brackets, criminal authorisation, closed brackets act. It's all about authorising cheers to commit authorising cheers to commit offences, because we understand that that is sometimes necessary to keep your cover.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep your cover. That's that's. True as far as it goes. But the wider context, of course, it's the principal objective of that legislation is not to enable people to commit crimes. It is to enable people not to be the subject of endless litigation, civil litigation and criminal litigation which may arise from their duties as public bodies, as representatives of public bodies, be it security, service, police, etc. So I do think that the noble Lady is being slightly unfair to Ministers who put through that legislation.

At the time, that wasn't clearly I mean, that's a corollary, clearly, of passing that legislation, but it wasn't the principal reason, I'm sure she would concede. But the reason I wanted to speak is just to interrogate, if I may, the details of this amendment. And if one looks at 2BB, I wonder what is meant by otherwise seeking to discredit the person, people or groups subject to the authorised surveillance operation? That seems to me to be a very wide ranging subclause and a recipe for much litigation in future and that they the way that would be interpreted, should it be eventually found on the face of the bill on the Crime and Policing Act as it will be, will give rise to a situation where police, security services and others are much more reluctant to enter into long term surveillance.

Of the kind I discussed earlier in seeking to thwart a terrorist plot. Because of that, quite wide ranging and open subclause, and maybe, generally speaking, the the noble Lady has made a very fine point, and I can agree with much of what she said. I don't genuinely understand the point of that. And if that is a way of describing Agent Provocateur, I understand that, and she will no doubt because she's an eminent lawyer. Tell me where that is found in other pieces of legislation.

But at the moment, I do think that could be misinterpreted and, and will circumscribe the capacity of the security services and police to do their job and protect individuals. So for those reasons, I'm not necessarily against the amendment as such, but I would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further clarification if possible. Long responsibility for the investigation of matters involving investigation of matters involving judges. And I fully accept that many people who agree to become many people who agree to become Jesus do so in the public interest, because without their activities, the intelligence which they're able to collect would otherwise be unavailable. And I accept also that undercover activity of this kind undercover activity of this kind has long been a feature of criminal
14:58
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
investigation. My Lord. Nevertheless, the The Churches Act, Nevertheless, the The Churches Act, which was passed in 2021, provided what I think was a very necessary statutory framework for the statutory framework for the operation of Jesus, because that was absent before that. But I think that it doesn't contain sufficient safeguards against abuse, particularly where such acts risk particularly where such acts risk falling beyond the scope of the authorisation of the CCE, particularly where they're well concealed by those committing such crimes and not reporting back properly.

Regrettably, like many others, I have seen repeated abuses of authorisations of jisas. I've also seen as acting way beyond the scope of their authorisations, sometimes with the knowledge of of those who manage them. To the extent that they value the churches more than dealing with what is unauthorised conduct and maybe criminal conduct by the churches, and where the churches is not an undercover officer. And of course, not all churches are undercover state employees. There is, I think, less control and potentially a higher risk.

And unlike the noble Baroness Baroness O'Loan experience we have in Northern Ireland been able to expose unlawful activities of jisas, to bring them to account so it can be done. The noble Baroness Chakrabarti has clearly set out the problems created, and I was privileged to attend a meeting she held, which was addressed by some of those who have been had suffered grievously at the hands of those whom they trusted and loved, and who turned out to be using them.

They were very courageous in telling us what had happened to them, and I think that their experience justified this proportionate and necessary amendment. It is clear that more oversight is needed of churches activity, and the Churches Code was updated in 2022, and it does state that CaaS won't render criminal conduct that goes beyond authorised conduct as lawful. It's very clear, and paragraph seven of the code further clarifies that criminal conduct authorisation should be specific and should contain clear parameters.

The public authority must ensure that the churches is clear about what they're being authorised to do, and fully understands the extent of the conduct which is being authorised, and the churches must be made aware that if they do commit a crime beyond that which is authorised, they will face the full rigour of the law. And criminal sanctions, including prosecutions, may follow. But I think although churches are intended to be specific in practice, it's very hard to ensure that that happens. And we have seen that from the reports of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to which the noble Baroness Chakrabarti referred, I'm particularly concerned that the reports of the ICO come really rather late, and that opportunities to intervene and to identify problems are limited.

Also like the noble Baroness Chakrabarti and the noble noble Baroness Neville-Jones, particularly concerned about the four children who were authorised as tools to help investigate class A drugs and firearms. And I understand why this may have happened, but two of those authorisations were reported late and that there should be a priority for police officers in reporting all those who authorised them. But there should be a priority in reporting back so that the children can be subject to maximum protection. I think there is a much greater risk where you have children being authorised as jisas a defence mice model, defence based model of criminal conduct authorisation, as proposed by amendment 42, would introduce greater oversight into covert criminal activities while allowing public authorities to continue with necessary undercover work.

They will will be able to use the authorisation which they received as a defence to criminal charges and the multiple advantages over the current immunity based system. Under the defence based model, public authorities would retain their current ability to authorise criminal conduct in the circumstances specified, so it does not in any way limit the authorisation of Jisas. Under the current model, no judge or prosecutor ever examines such cases. Given CCE, related conduct is rendered lawful for all purposes, and that means they do not benefit from as much scrutiny as they should.

While proceedings involving jisas may occur behind closed doors in courts for reasons of national security or privacy, the defence base model at least ensures a vital layer of accountability. A defence based approach would subject shareholders activities to independent prosecutorial and judicial oversight. After the covert source commits, after the chose commits the offence. Similarly, the defence based model and in particular judicial and prosecutorial oversight would protect victims of charges, actions and kerb misuse of CCAs by allowing a robust and open challenge by those affected by covert source activity in court.

A defence based model would help to uphold public confidence in the rule of law. And I tell you, Lordships, that the abuse of covert sources of in Northern Ireland became a major cause of huge levels of criminal activity by sources who were completely unaccountable to the law. And when people tried to report to the law, the criminal activities of those jisas, the law did not deal with them because the judges were protected. So this can become a very, very, very serious problem.

So I think, my Lords, I commend the defence base model content contained in amendment 42. I think it's reasonable and proportionate, and it does reflect safeguards which have been adopted in other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jurisdictions such as Canada. My Lord, can I add to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, can I add to this debate when the matter came before your Lordships House in the act was your Lordships House in the act was passed in towards the end of 2020, beginning of 2021, this area of beginning of 2021, this area of whether you move from a from a matter where the use of resources and their conduct was looked at ex and their conduct was looked at ex post facto to being looked at in advance was hotly debated. And it's
15:05
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
a difficult subject to debate in an open chamber. We all accept that open chamber. We all accept that this is a necessary, but it's impossible to go into the details impossible to go into the details of these cases here. And I think it's secondly, it's important to it's secondly, it's important to concentrate not on what happened prior to 2020, though they are illustrative of the abuses that can illustrative of the abuses that can occur. We are concerned what's happened since 2021 and how well this act is working.

And as things stand at present, I can't really add much to what Baroness O'Loan said. My experience of this area of jias is that we have learnt an enormous amount from Northern Ireland, and we ignore what the judiciary and those who have experience of Northern Ireland tell us at our peril. And that peril is that we need to be absolutely clear that the system we have of authorising chooses to, or, when chooses, engage in criminal activity is subject to rigorous scrutiny.

And what disturbs me and why I support what Baroness Chakrabarti amendment is that the key to what to the new system was prompt and effective and detailed scrutiny reported to the best extent possible of the way in which the system is operating and on the what the the Baroness Cass said. And I looked at these reports myself. They are necessarily vague. They have to be, because you can't put the information into the public domain, but they are delayed, and I would hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, would look very seriously and maybe meet with some of us to see so we can see.

The reality is this system working, because if it's not working, we must revert to what either the old system or to what is proposed in this amendment. It is key that the to the to public confidence in the police that we do not have a repeat of what happened in the some of the matters that are subject of the inquiry that has been spoken about. This amendment has absolutely nothing to do with that. The ISS operate properly and anything that goes wrong is properly dealt with.

We cannot have another scandal on the scale of that that has been investigated for the past. Must be 1012 years. I've lost count of time and therefore this is a matter where I think where the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness really does need to be investigated. I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will look very seriously at it. I had long discussions during the amendment, during the passage of the bill in 2020, to try and ensure we had a good system at present on what is available.

There is no real democratic accountability, no no independent scrutiny of it. And there has to be that if public confidence in the police is not to suffer the kind of problems it suffered from the inquiry that is going on in relation to pre 2020 events. The level Lord Moore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble and learned, Thomas and Baroness O'Loan have participated Baroness O'Loan have participated in this debate. They, like myself, attended the recent meeting chaired attended the recent meeting chaired by my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti and it was very nice to hear from Baritone Lain the admiration for the courage of the witnesses who came to speak to us witnesses who came to speak to us at that meeting. My Lords, in any form of covert human intelligence, there has to be deception.

It is the only way that the officer of the state, whoever he may, he or she may be, can penetrate through to get the confidence of the criminals that are there to investigate, my Lords. But there should be a Baroness Stuart my noble friend has moved in her amendment. There should be some restraint on what they get up to. It was therefore quite pleasing when the noble Lord Jackson got up, and he started by saying he opposed this amendment, but by the end of his speech he was going quite neutral.

So I that was very, very
15:10
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
reassuring. My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti friend Baroness Chakrabarti referred to the case of 2011 of RV referred to the case of 2011 of RV Berkshire, and that concerned the work of an undercover police work of an undercover police officer infiltrating a group of officer infiltrating a group of climate change activists. And this particular police officer, who I will not name, indulged in a sexual relationship, I think went on for about seven years with one of the ladies involved in that, and that also involved the birth of a child.

This particular police officer, apparently, according to my brief, had as many as ten other sexual relationships during the course of his activity. This undercover officer, and when it came to the court, this is what the court said much further than authorisation was given to him. He played a significant role in assisting, advising and supporting the very activity for which the activists were prosecuted. My Lords, that is why my noble friend and I hope she's noting her.

I'm giving full support in this amendment that that is why my noble friend is absolutely right to suggest there should be restraint. And I accept entirely the restraint which is contained in amendment 470.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to thank justice and the group police spies justice and the group police spies out of lives, particularly the women who were on the receiving end women who were on the receiving end of the treatment by the. And I want to declare an interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which has given grants to police spies out of lives for well over a decade. In the run for well over a decade.

In the run up to the beginning of the inquiry, Lady Jones talked about how long it's taken to get the abuses aren't taken seriously, and it really has the inquiry. The inquiry itself took many years to exactly get established, and the damage to those women's lives in the aftermath. Every time they went to people in the establishment to say, please, will you take our concerns seriously? Stunning silence. The trust had a chance to meet and hear from these extraordinary women who were seeking justice for many decades.

Without their determination, there would be no inquiry, no TV documentaries and no newspaper articles. And I salute them all for their refusal to be cowed and their strength of character, even in the face of repeated setbacks from the establishment, which includes the extremely slow inquiry which is not expected to conclude before 2030 and quite possibly later at an enormous cost to the public purse,
15:13
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and above all, to these victims of the police spies. But, my Lords, the glacial speed of the public the glacial speed of the public inquiry into undercover policing is on a par with the other long delays of other historic scandals, including Infected Blood, Post Office Horizon and the Independent Office Horizon and the Independent inquiry into child sex abuse. As young girls and women who were taken advantage of in the 1970s head towards getting their pensions. It is vital to ensure that there are no further delays.

My Lords, as we heard from the noble Lady Chakrabarti and my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Jones, and amendment 470 would replace provisions for for the Regulatory Powers Act 2000, as amended by the act 2021, that grants complete advanced criminal and civil immunity for authorised operatives and agents with public interest offences as long as they did not act as agent provocateur. Lady alone very helpfully made clear her experience in Northern Ireland of the shortcomings of the legislation, and Lord Thomas's contribution, also confirmed that we must continue to learn lessons from the new system.

Amendment 470 continues to correct the law to ensure that in future, those using quizzes must have a high standard of regulation and accountability. We, the country, need more oversight of criminal activity and the mechanism to ensure that officers and their superiors meet these high standards and make decisions in light of the law. So from these benches, we welcome amendment 470 and the safeguard that it offers to the victims. And I say this to Lord Jackson, but also to the officers, too, because it will give them a framework and responsibility to think about any actions and whether they need permission for them, and, if so, whether they should really be thinking about doing it at all.

And that, my Lords, is long overdue.
15:15
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it might not surprise the Committee to hear that I do not support this amendment. And I'm sure I'll find myself probably making the same arguments as the noble Lord the Minister will be making when he responds. In 2021, Parliament passed the covert Human Intelligence Sources Criminal Conduct Act, which was introduced into this House by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Darlington. The effect of that act was to create a legislative framework in which covert intelligence officers can be authorised to participate in conduct which would normally be criminal.

The Criminal conduct authorisation may only be granted under section 29 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as inserted by the 2021 act, if it is proportionate and necessary in the interests of national security, prevention of crime and disorder, or in the interests of our economic well-being. Section six of that section also requires the person authorising the criminal conduct to ensure that, and I think this is important, that all alternative avenues that do that do make use of criminality have been exhausted.

And in subsection seven it states that the decision to grant an authorisation is required to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Finally, there is an explicit role for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. So there does exist already a number of safeguards to prevent covert intelligence officers from overstepping the bounds of their authorisation and to ensure that the authorisation itself will tightly will be itself, is tightly drawn and strictly necessary. And where a Criminal Conduct authorisation is granted, the officer to whom it relates is permitted to engage in the specified criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for that conduct, and it is perfectly well understood and accepted that covert agents do, on occasion, have to engage in such criminal conduct in the course of their operations, and it is absolutely right that the law protects them.

When this is the case. It is also worth noting that in that the 2021 act did not create new powers for the police and intelligence services, it simply placed on a statutory footing the mechanism by which they can be authorised to engage in criminal behaviour. This is surely preferable to having the whole system working on the side and in the dark. The noble Baroness, Lady Chuckerbutty, has proposed in her amendment for seven zero to remove the criminal and civil immunity provided to officers where they commit a criminal offence in pursuance of an authorisation to do so, and she proposes replacing that with a defence to criminal or civil charges.

But she has also included an exception to that possible defence, where an officer encourages, assists or attempts to discredit the person who is under surveillance. And I have to say, I find this startling exception if a covert officer is given a criminal conduct authorisation, and that authorisation, taking into account all the available safeguards, includes permission to commit an offence. I cannot see why that officer should not be able to do so. It certainly should not be the case that the officer should be held criminally or civilly liable.

So I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister, will have further points to add. But certainly on these benches and myself, we cannot support this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sits down. Is he saying then that he supports officers or or their assets, acting as agent their assets, acting as agent provocateur, actually inciting crime rather than investigating it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crime rather than investigating it? I'm not saying that at all. What I would say to noble Lady is these we all recognise that things have gone wrong, but what I say generally is that this type of generally is that this type of policing, indeed quite a number of aspects of policing, is about testing the law. And certainly this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is the case with with the involvement of kisses. For the noble Lord. Minister sits down. He mentioned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister sits down. He mentioned the safeguards, but why does he think the safeguards failed? Not think the safeguards failed? Not once, but multiple times and over a period of quite a number of years?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I can't answer for all the cases that have gone wrong. I can't answer for any of the cases that answer for any of the cases that have gone wrong. It's not my place to do that. But what I would say to the the noble Lady in answer to her question is that it very much depends on good leadership, good supervision and all that comes down to good training. And it's always been the case with me that training is at the core of all of this.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

One simple and short question does the noble Lord accept that does the noble Lord accept that statutory blanket immunity from civil or criminal action for acts civil or criminal action for acts at that sorry statutory immunity acts as a barrier for people who are affected by such unlawful are affected by such unlawful activities? And it's a significant concern because of the impact that concern because of the impact that that barrier has on those who might need to bring such actions and who may have difficulty getting funding or getting access to the necessary support to do that.

And then there's an ongoing huge impact on trust in policing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Trust in police in this area is is absolutely essential. And I'm is absolutely essential. And I'm not sure I get quite the gist of what the noble Lady is asking, but I'm very happy to discuss it I'm very happy to discuss it outside the chamber with her if that would help.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that would help. It was about statutory blanket immunity. The extent of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immunity. Well, again, I it's something I'd have to have a look at before I came back with an answer on that, but I'm very happy to discuss it with the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Winston. I wonder if he could comment on our the case of of could comment on our the case of of the. I'm just trying to Berkshire r the. I'm just trying to Berkshire r v Berkshire and does he endorse the behaviour of the of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

counterintelligence officer in that case? I have to say I'm not I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to say I'm not I'm not I'm not entirely sure that I know all the facts regarding that case. And probably I'm not qualified to answer the question. My, my, I spent my job putting people behind bars, not defending them. So I'm not a lawyer. I wouldn't like to take that any further. Thank me.
15:22
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti for amendment. The discussion today is taking me back to my time in Northern Ireland, back to my time in Northern Ireland, when I had to see the product of covert intelligence, and as counterterrorism Minister in 2009, counterterrorism Minister in 2009, when I had to see the product of covert intelligence. So I do understand the value of that. But I also understand that the amendment today seeks to amend the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by removing the legal protections that exist for covert human intelligence sources who have been tasked by the police and are limited of other of other public authority agencies, such as the intelligence services, to engage in specific, tightly defined, pre-approved criminal conduct.

Furthermore, the amendment seeks to remove protections for chases engaged in such authorised criminal conduct, where such conduct either engages the offences of encouraging or assisting an offender under the Serious Crime Act, or seeks to discredit those who are subject to a particular investigation. And I understand the the motive behind what my noble friend has brought forward. Can I just begin by, I think, just addressing a point that Baroness Miller of chilthorne Domer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Hacking and Baroness Brinton from the Liberal Democrat frontbench mentioned, and that is the undercover policing inquiry.

I. I took office in July 2009, and the undercover police inquiry had operated for nine years at that stage. And it's quite clear that the historical allegations under consideration by the inquiry are absolutely appalling. Such behaviour should rightly be condemned. The inquiry is ongoing. We await the findings and any recommendations, but let me assure all those who have spoken to it that I am now responsible in the Home Office for managing enquiries, and I wish to see recommendations as soon as possible, for the very reasons that noble Lords and Ladies have mentioned today.

The current landscape around undercover operatives is much changed, and since 2013, enhanced safeguards have been put in place. But I want to see the lessons that inquiry and consider them as government as soon as possible. Noble Lords may recall the Criminal Conduct Act of 2021. It's been referred to to date, and the Revised Code of Practice of 2022, which the noble Lord Thomas also mentioned, and which have been subject to debate and approval both here and in the House of Commons.

This scrutiny includes consideration of similar amendments proposed by my noble friend at the time. Now I say to them generally, and including my noble friend Lord Hacking, that cheers does play a crucial part in preventing, detecting and safeguarding the public from many serious crimes, including terrorism, drugs, firearm offences, child sexual exploitation and abuse. Those who do it do it at such personal risk to themselves. And I noted and welcome. I'll take the support where I get it from the noble Lord Davis and Kaba, and from the noble Lord Jackson, that it does need to be properly authorised.

It does need to be specifically defined criminality by the state, and they do so knowing they will not be penalised for carrying out that activity, particularly from those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity who may otherwise pursue legal action against them. Now, I think it's important again, we place on record that authorisations and criminal conduct authorisations under part two of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can only be validly given where the proposed conduct is necessary, proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act.

Valid authorisations make activity carried out in relation to them both lawful for all purposes, provided protection from criminal and civil liability. However, should a court find that the authorisation does not satisfy these necessary requirements and I know my noble friend knows this, how should conduct go beyond what is permitted by the authorisation? It will not be rendered lawful. And given the significance of these powers, it is important to note that there are independent, effective avenues of oversight and redress, and that these exist.

And I know colleagues have spoken know this, but it's worth putting on the record again via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, for anyone who believes they have been subject to improper activity by a public authority using covert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investigatory powers. Yeah. Wondered whether the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wondered whether the noble Lord is aware that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the on the unsatisfactory nature of the recording of CCE in a number of cases, most recently, and it appears to indicate a deterioration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appears to indicate a deterioration in that area. Sir Brian Leveson, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, says he does provide, from my perspective, robust oversight and that includes comments that he's made and he and his inspectors do pay particular attention to that criminal conduct authorisation. Now, again, he does produce annual reports. I know that they are time lagged for the reasons that are self-evident in any annual report. But in his annual report in 2024, he identified good levels and, I quote, good levels of compliance for the organisation and management of police undercover operatives and noted in the 2024 report that the quality and content of police undercover Operative Criminal Conduct authorisations was found to be of inverted commas.

His quotes a good standard now I will always look and listen to what he says, because we have a responsibility to ensure that these matters are dealt with for the product of that is to help protect the public at large. And I want to assure both my noble friend and indeed Baroness O'Loan in this context, that the cheers cannot be authorised to entrap people, which is one of the objectives of her amendment. Any such entrapment would be in conflict with article six of the EC.

And as my noble friend knows, we are committed to maintaining obligations on the EC and that does also protect the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, I point to my noble friend, the publicly available authorised professional Practice for undercover police, which states in clear terms that an undercover operative must not act as an agent provocateur. Now, I hope that satisfies her on that particular point. Of course. Will you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way? Thank you. Perhaps I can ask you a similar question to can ask you a similar question to the one I asked Lord Davis of GA. If all these safeguards are so wonderful, and if it is all in good wonderful, and if it is all in good order, why was it allowed to happen? Because the evidence from the spycops, from the early days of spycops, from the early days of that inquiry, was that the people overseeing the chairs knew what was happening with their relationships with the women.

They knew that and they let it happen. That does not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sound good. Order to me. No. Or Baroness would you respect is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or Baroness would you respect is raising a number of issues that are historical issues where there has been improvements in performance management and control over a management and control over a period of time, and those historical issues are the ones that I've just said at the start of my contribution are appalling, but are also currently under the also currently under the investigation and remit of the inquiry into undercover policing, and I want to see the recommendations from that inquiry as soon as possible so that we can look at where there are further issues.

I can see that noble Lady is looking to jump in again. Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. No, I could leap up again. That's part of the parliamentary tennis that we play. And it's it's important point that she has the opportunity to do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The, the thing is for me that the police all through the inquiry have blocked information being have blocked information being given out. They have constantly tried to stop the truth becoming open. And so it's very hard to open. And so it's very hard to understand. I can understand the noble Lord saying he he's waiting for the inquiry to report, but it could take another decade. And in the meantime, we still have those concerns that the police, the women's concerns, were brushed away.

There might have been various pathways they could have used to complain, but whatever they did, they were brushed away. And so why? Why does the noble Lord think it's any better today?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady tempts me to go into areas of the inquiry, and I'm not going to do that right. The not going to do that right. The inquiry is looking at historical abuses which we have recognised and which I've said are appalling. In the meantime, there has been the meantime, there has been legislation and improvements by policing in the management of policing in the management of covert operations. And I'm giving her that assurance now that we believe that there are improvements believe that there are improvements in that management.

But there are things that needs to be looked at in relation to the previous operation and the legislation before today, before, before today, which the noble Lady is seeking to amend, has also put in place a range of measures as a whole. I would say to the noble Lady that, you know, I'm to my noble friend in this case that I've made clear that is cannot be authorised to entrap. This amendment would impose broad and unintended constraints on intelligence gathering by where criminal conduct is a factor, for example, by preventing us from going along with offences that they do not instigate.

And I've seen the product of that type of activity by cheeses, and it's extremely valuable in terms of its use for crime prevention and for bringing people who are committing criminal or terrorist acts to justification to, to, to the courts. So I remember would also rule out, in my view, the possibility of discrediting the subject of an investigation, for example, a terrorist organisation, in cases where it is equally important to do so. So I would say to my noble friend that, you know, she has fulfilled her duty.

She is challenging the government on these matters. I think we are in a better place than we were self-evidently many years ago, and that I wait with some interest. The recommendations of the Inquiry on Undercover Policing, to examine any further issues that we need to look at to date. I just want to touch on two other points, if I may. The noble Lord Thomas sort of asked for a meeting. I'm always open to meeting with peers, and I've tried to do that in my tenure in this job to meet with anybody who's asked for him.

But I genuinely say to the noble and learned Lord that I think in this case, given there is an inquiry ongoing, that it would be inappropriate for me to meet with firing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was talking about actually what the level of supervision and what the level of supervision and what's happening in the reports under this act. I entirely agree under this act. I entirely agree with the Lords Minister that actually what happened in the inquiry has got absolutely nothing inquiry has got absolutely nothing to do with this regime. The inquiry is only relevant because it shows the horrendous consequences of not the horrendous consequences of not supervising the use of cheeses and all.

I was concerned to understand better why are there problems in the reports being so slow? Why? What are the problems that the that are being encountered now? You can't put this into the public domain, but it would reassure from a point of view of democratic accountability. And because you can't put the actually we saw what the problems were and whether there were other means, such as strengthening the code of conduct. To put it right. The peril here is the discrediting of the police five years down the line.

That's what I'm concerned to avoid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It. Lord has said, I think those are operational matters for the police, in my view. But we can we police, in my view. But we can we can make some judgements on that. I will reflect on what he said and what he's requested. But my my what he's requested. But my my initial gut reaction, and I'd like to trust my gut on several occasions is that that wouldn't be occasions is that that wouldn't be appropriate to do so. But I will reflect on what he said.

I'm trying to complete the remarks, but I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always give way to the noble Lord. And I thank the noble, the Minister for his generosity. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord Thomas, and I found his and Baroness O'Loan remarks, like others, very helpful. I think I understand he specifically did rule out us considering inquiries, although I think the suggestion I would make to the Minister as someone who is as Lord Hacking the noble Lord Hacking says it was hostile and is now more agnostic, is that if he were able to look at the at secondary legislation regulations in terms of the timeliness of reports for the Commissioner to bring forward, that would be a strengthening of the scrutiny and oversight of the process.

I fully agree with the process, but it seems to me what's come out as a consensus in the debate today is that people think that the scrutiny process is is clunky, it's not timely, and therefore everyone loses in terms of reputation. So I think if the Minister can perhaps give an undertaking that it will at least look at the issue prior to report, that would be helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To give give him. I will reflect on the comments that have been made. I think it's important that, you I think it's important that, you know, Sir Brian Leveson has his independence and oversight. I think it's important that, you know, I it's important that, you know, I look at my good feelings on this, but I will look at this and take advice and see where we are outside advice and see where we are outside of the debate today. But I'd just say in relation to my friend's amendment that I still hope that amendment that I still hope that given what's been said today, a valuable discussion has been had, but I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.
15:37
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
Once more. Grateful to to all noble Lords who who spoke and what I thought was a very important and thoughtful debate. I think there's quite a lot of common ground, actually. I think there's common ground that we must have covert human intelligence sources. They they must play a role in investigating the most the most serious crimes. In particular. This further common ground, that part of keeping your cover in, for example, a criminal gang or a terrorist cell must inevitably sometimes include participating in criminal activity.

Otherwise, those around you will spot that you do not belong. That's common ground. Again, there's common ground that it was right to put activities that were previously completely in the shadows on a statutory footing, as happened in 2021. The difference, I think, between some members of the committees and others is about whether when you are when you are authorised to commit criminal offences in such a role, that authorisation should bring advanced total immunity from, for all purposes, civil and criminal, or whether instead, the authorisation should equip you with a public interest defence.

That's that's the difference between us. And it's a it's a question of principle but also of practice as to, you know, where the balance should be struck and which system, the one that's currently on the statute book or something like the one I'm proposing would give a better balance of safeguards, safeguards for the the brave and genuine public servants who do this work without abusing the trust, but also the rights of citizens to be protected from abuse. That's the that's the that's the difference between us.

Which mechanism provides the most proportionate approach. And I don't think that is a gulf, but it is something to keep under review and keep and keep discussing because, as I think Sir Brian Leveson concedes, even in the report, that my noble friend, the Minister read selectively from he talks, as I said in my earlier remarks about, you know, reporting being good, but then goes on in the same report to say on occasions we noted a lack of specificity and only a general descriptor, we and a number of errors and so on.

So there are some issues that warrant serious scrutiny on an on going basis. My noble friend may regret telling the committee that he now has special responsibility for inquiries in the Home Office because, you know, he will. You know, he he's his kindness is liable to to so so I suspect that we will want to to keep pressing my noble friend, the Minister, not least on the the the progress of the inquiry as to the past, but also as the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said on the way the system is operating today, because the reports suggest that the system today is not operating in the way that we would ideally like.

And with that, for the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 47 one Lord Clement-Jones Amendment 47 one Lord Clement-Jones not moved and come now to element 47 two Lord Wilson of Liverpool.
15:40
15:41
15:42
None Portrait Amendment:472 Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

the JCE saw as a justice gap. They the JCE saw as a justice gap. They are also compatible with the practice in other jurisdictions and are limited in scope. They make a are limited in scope. They make a very small but indicative and incremental change by removing the incremental change by removing the requirement of UK citizenship and UK residents from sections 51 and UK residents from sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act of 2001. I'll try and summarise for the committee the key arguments in favour of the amendments, and then tackle what I think are some of the misconceptions.

Under international law, the UK is already legally obliged to prosecute suspects of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes who are present on its territory, regardless of nationality or residence. A failure to do so puts the UK at risk of becoming a safe haven for alleged perpetrators of international crimes. The rule of law, my Lords, is weakened when alleged perpetrators of genocide or crimes against humanity and war crimes can be here in the UK without facing justice. So this is about closing that justice gap.

These amendments give substance to the long standing case for reform repeatedly raised since 2009, and not directed my Lords at any particular country, any particular individual or any particular context. There's no concealed political agenda, and safeguards are included to ensure the continuation of prosecutorial oversight by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney General over decisions about whether to prosecute. They also make a reality of the oft repeated desire for the United Kingdom to reinforce and renew its claim to leadership in promoting the rule of law.

We will be doing so by ending impunity for the gravest international crimes, and by empowering British courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crimes are present in the United Kingdom. My Lords, it's a mirage to cite the role of the International Criminal Court as it cannot single handedly provide accountability for international crimes even before considering the use of vetoes by those who wouldn't wish such crimes to be referred to that court, capable national courts must share the burden, as the German courts have done in the case of successfully prosecuting the crime of genocide.

Other comparable democracies already prosecute suspects present on their territory, and that option should be open to us too. I'd like to give the committee, if I may, some examples where justice cannot be delivered in the places where crimes were perpetrated. The UK must step up. The ICC cannot provide accountability for international crimes alone. Complementarity means capable national courts must share the burden and I will return to that point. These amendments would also demonstrate to victims and to survivors, especially those now resident in the United Kingdom, that their suffering and the terrible things that they have experienced is not ignored and has not been forgotten.

For me, my Lords, there is an element here of unfinished business for not just me, but other members of your Lordships House. In 2015, the number of us repeatedly raised the danger of an unfolding genocide against the Yazidis in Syria and Iraq. I subsequently visited the region in 2019 and took firsthand accounts at Sinjar and elsewhere, some of which I shared with government Ministers. The 2017 UN backed study estimated that nearly 10,000 Yazidis were either killed or abducted, many experiencing murder, enslavement, torture and rape.

Even though these crimes were committed outside of our territory, the UK is able, under the International Criminal Court Act of 2001, to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crime of genocide. Other international crimes such as torture and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, can also be prosecuted on the basis of universal jurisdiction. The. My Lords, when the JSR looked at this and it was debated in your Lordships' House back in September, in a debate led by the noble Baroness Lady Kennedy, the committee was appalled to find that not one, not one of the 400 British ISIS combatants who returned to the United Kingdom had been prosecuted for such atrocities as genocide as part of their Justice Beyond Borders project, the Clooney Foundation drew to our committee's attention the 2023 global Mapping tool, designed to offer a comprehensive review of legislation on international crimes against the world.

The House should note that 28 United Nations member states can exercise absolute universal jurisdiction, meaning they can open a case against a person suspected of committing a serious international crime, regardless of their nationality. The nationality of the victim, the location where the offence was committed, or the presence of the suspect. Most countries include Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden and Finland. I've already referred to the German court which found a member of ISIS guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under absolute universal jurisdiction.

The defendant wasn't a German national or resident, the victims weren't German, and the crimes hadn't been committed on German territory. In 2024. There were 11 other cases against 15 alleged former members of ISIS, with eight of the cases conducted against alleged foreign ISIS members on the basis of universal jurisdiction. The majority of cases include charges of war crimes against persons. Four cases also include charges of crimes against humanity, and two cases were opened over charges of genocide against the Yazidi community in 2025, My Lords Trial International, in collaboration with organisations such as redress and the centre for Justice and Accountability, reviewed a number of cases of universal jurisdiction and they cite cases in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

I don't want to label my point too long and I will share with the noble Lord, Lord Lord Hanson of Flint, the details of those cases. It would help him as between now and report, I hope he considers the merits of the arguments that I'm presenting. So at the heart of our amendments, the House is not being asked to do something unusual, merely to leave open the option of prosecuting such individuals should they decide to come to the United Kingdom and indulge themselves, for instance, on a shopping spree at Harrods, or to visit their property portfolio in Mayfair? This is also an opportunity to iron out a glaring inconsistency.

Despite universal jurisdiction already being included in legislation like the Geneva Conventions Act of 1957, and in relation to the crime of torture in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988, sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act of 2001. The legislation, which of course domesticates the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It doesn't follow the same approach, my Lords, British courts may only prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes as defined by the Rome Statute, committed abroad only if they were perpetrated by British citizens or residents.

So while British courts can prosecute breaches of the Geneva Convention on Torture committed by anyone, anywhere in the world, they can't do so in relation to the international crimes defined in the Rome Statute. Even where the British citizens were victims of such international crimes committed overseas, their families cannot seek justice through their own British courts. So this justice gap is waiting to be filled. And these amendments are designed to do that. Now, what might that gap mean? In practice? Those perpetrators of the grievous atrocities I've referred to are free to visit and transit through the UK, potentially for long periods of time without any fear of prosecution by the UK authorities.

They might include Putin's henchman, the Taliban, responsible for gender and religious persecution in Afghanistan, ISIS collaborators or those responsible for conflict related sexual violence in the DRC who have boltholes and bank accounts in the UK, or members of the Iranian security forces responsible for the execution of thousands of peaceful protesters. Little wonder, then, my Lords, that organisations seeking justice for the victims of such crimes are so supportive of these amendments and they include Yazda, the Free Yazidi Foundation and the centre for Civil Liberties, a Ukrainian organisation supporting victims of Russia's crimes.

That organisation is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. At the end of last year, during my enforced absence from the House following an accident, Lady Kennedy kindly stepped in to host a discussion with the grieving family of Ryan Evans, a young British man working for Reuters, close to the front line in Ukraine. Ryan was killed in one of the targeted attacks against journalists and media outlets. My noble friend Lord Wigley will tell us more about Ryan and deliver a message from his family, and why these amendments could provide a roadmap for them.

But my Lords, before I finish, I said I'd address some of the misconceptions about the amendments. One misconception is that justice must be delivered where the crimes are committed. In the ideal world, maybe, but we live in a very flawed world. Justice can't always be secured where the crimes are committed. Sometimes because the governments or authorities are themselves involved in the crimes or a lack of relevant laws, the weak judiciary, or other reasons. These amendments will provide victims and survivors of international crimes with avenues for justice and accountability, which are often not available to them where the crimes were committed.

Don't take my word for it, my Lord. Ask the victims. Ask those Yazidis whether they saw justice for the horrific crimes committed by ISIS in Iraq or Syria, in which the JSR has documented. Ask Tigrayans whether they've seen any justice after the Tigray war, in which they were subject to ethnic targeting and sexual violence, both as methods of genocide crimes which cannot currently be investigated in this country as the perpetrators are not UK citizens or residents, but who are able freely to travel to the UK.

Ask for Darfurians. Where was the justice after the 2003 to 2005 genocide, or after the atrocities since 2003, in which 23 and which continue to this day? My Lords, ask the Iranians who have seen loved ones slaughtered by the thousands. In 2022, the government organised a ministerial session on PSV, preventing sexual violence in conflict. There wasn't a single session where the issue of impunity wasn't raised by the victims. There's another misconception, my Lords, that the ICC is better placed to deal with such crimes.

I refer to that we appear to have forgotten what the ICC is and what it can do. Their jurisdiction is significantly limited, and the majority of cases of atrocity crimes are outside the jurisdiction of the ICC. Again, don't take my word for it. Ask the Yazidis, ask the Uyghurs, ask the Rohingya, ask the Darfurians, ask the Tigrayans. It's not, of course, that all these groups will see cases heard in the United Kingdom. But the amendments would mean that perpetrators who can currently travel to the UK with impunity would at least run the risk of an arrest and prosecution if all this achieved was a deterrent effect, that would at least be better than we have now.

Which brings me to another misconception that changing the law would flood our already overwhelmed justice system. I reiterate, my Lords, the proposed change is very small. The committee, the JSR considered that question. That's why any prosecution would require the consent of the Attorney General. The attorney can take into account capacity and public interest. There's no way that these changes would overwhelm our justice system. And in any event, my Lords, the number of cases that would fall within the purview of the amended law would still be very low.

But I repeat, having this power in the attorney's locker would send a key message that alleged perpetrators of these crimes cannot travel to the UK and expect to enjoy impunity. Experience from other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, France and Sweden, who already prosecute international crimes where the perpetrator is present, demonstrate that such an approach is workable, consistent with the rule of law, and and capable of implementation. The CPS testified before our committee. They said the lack of prosecutions is not due to a lack of resources.

They said they would support a recommendation to remove the nationality and residency requirements, which would streamline things and make it a lot easier for prosecutors to provide advice or jurisdiction. That was good evidence, my Lords, from an organisation we might not have anticipated would support these amendments. I hope that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee will, and I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords and the Ministers say. Amen.
15:56
15:56
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
make it clear, these amendments are amending the International Criminal amending the International Criminal Court Act and that act, confined universal jurisdiction as relating to the crimes that are in the Rome to the crimes that are in the Rome Statute, to those who had residency or nationality of this country. And or nationality of this country. And and so it's a very, very limited and I do want to tell this House that the United States law followed hours.

They, they, they actually to for certain months certain crimes that would be covered by universal jurisdiction limited them to nationality and to residence. And they've now amended their law to make sure that anybody coming through the United States who is suspected of serious crimes, grievous crimes that would fall under this universal jurisdiction framework could be arrested. And that is certainly the case in large parts of Europe. So you're going to be questioning this business of what is universal jurisdiction. The the UK courts can prosecute certain international crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction, because it is a legal framework that allows states to pursue justice for the most serious offences committed abroad, even when the case has no direct connection to their citizens or to their territory.

And you can imagine what those crimes are. They include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture. Universal jurisdiction reflects the global consensus that such crimes are so grave that they demand accountability wherever they occur. Now, at present, the UK's ability, as I have said, to prosecute grave international crimes under universal jurisdiction is limited. Certainly, and it's in fact quite contradictory. But under the International Criminal Courts Act, prosecutions, as I have said, can only be brought for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Where the suspect is a UK national or resident and as a result, individuals accused of serious international crimes can enter this country without facing justice. And let me tell you, they do. They do remember being. I mean, I hear this from reliable witnesses involved in who are here as as persons who fled persecution, who know those who have come, those who seek independent schools for their children, those who seek university places, usually for their sons, it has to be said, and who are seeking also to shop at Harrods or to vacation in London with all its amenities.

And they often come in civilian attire, not wearing the uniforms that they had worn back at home. Not wearing the uniform of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran or the Russian generals uniforms. But they come for all manner of purposes, and they come and they go, and we cannot act. And when I was one of the masters at an Oxford college, there was a scandal at Oxford because the son of one of the Revolutionary Guards torturers, his father having accompanied him, found a place at an Oxford college.

And so, I mean, let me tell you, this is happening on a, you know, in a in a way that is subterranean, but where action could be taken, the legal gap has drawn strong criticism at a senior level. And and you've heard from Lord Alton about the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, which has criticised the current framework and the barriers to accountability. And I hope you are going to hear from Lord McDonald, who has called the current situation illogical in my presence.

So we'll hear about that too. And let me explain. The Illogicality the there are ways in which universal jurisdiction can be applied. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows prosecutions for torture committed in or after that date, 1988, based solely on the suspect's presence in the UK. Regardless of this business of nationality or residency. And quite right too, and the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 allows prosecutions for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, committed in the context of international armed conflict dating back to 1957.

And that's those offences can be prosecuted and those persons prosecuted based on presence alone in this country. So there is not consistency across the piece in that for some grievous and egregious crimes, you can be arrested if you come into Heathrow Airport and are known as a person sought for crimes, but for others, under the ICC legislation, you have to be a resident and own property, or you have to have British nationality. And so it's that inconsistency that we're seeking to address in these amendments.

And I really do strongly urge them upon this House, because they have such wide support amongst the community of lawyers and and organisations which really are seeking justice for those who have suffered around the world. Now, I've spent much of my more recent professional life listening to victims and survivors, mainly women who have been brutalised in detention centres or in the course of conflicts. Men who have watched their families disappear, communities that have not by accident but by design, have been erased.

Lord Alton mentioned some of them, the Yazidis, the people of Darfur and Tigray, Ukrainians and Palestinians and the list goes on. And there are I mean, for those who have any concerns about this, and I'm particularly mindful of the fact that there will be those who are going to be concerned about, for example, the proliferation of prosecutions. There is unlikely to be great proliferation. People who have committed these crimes are only it's only the most arrogant who bother to seek to transgress and come into the United Kingdom.

But we should not be inactive when the opportunity arises. And the the thing that I wanted to urge upon everyone was that the Attorney General would have to consent to a prosecution. And if you're seeking any kind of, if you like, system to be protective of this, then you have that guarantee in, in you would require the consent of the Attorney general for prosecution. Now, this this House needs no reminding that Britain played a key role in establishing the international rules based order as we know it after the end of the Second World War.

And we helped to forge the Geneva Conventions, and indeed, much of the law that deals with the horrors that are taking place in an escalated way in our times. And so it's it's time that we created consistency and that we created the opportunity to do, as you have heard, what other countries can do, which is when the right occasion arises, prosecute those who have committed grievous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crimes. I rise to support amendments 472

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendments 472 and 473. My Lords, we've already heard how these amendments could help victims and survivors to seek justice for some of the worst atrocities we heard from Lord Alton atrocities we heard from Lord Alton and a moment ago from Baroness Kennedy, of cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. Lord Alton also emphasised the reason why we need to care about justice and accountability for such atrocities. Many may wonder why we in these islands are best suited to investigate such crimes.

How is it that alleged perpetrators enter the UK? Surely this should be regarded as a matter of national security. However, my Lords, my main purpose in speaking today is to bring the debate closer to home. In August 2024, Wales and the UK lost a remarkable man described by his friends and families as a gentle
16:05
Lord Wigley Portrait Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
giant. Ryan Evans from Wrexham, not far from where I live. Ryan was then working as a safety adviser then working as a safety adviser for Reuters in Ukraine. And as it happens, Eleanor and I took in a happens, Eleanor and I took in a family of refugees from eastern Ukraine. Ryan was in the east of Ukraine. Ryan was in the east of Ukraine and with a news crew from Reuters news agency, when the hotel in which they were staying was hit in which they were staying was hit by a missile, Ryan was killed and nine other people were injured in the attack.

So why was Ryan killed? He worked for Reuters, covering the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine. Russia does not want the world to know the scope and nature of those atrocities. Because of that, journalists and media outlets are specifically targeted. In a recent report, Truth Hounds and Reporters Without Borders commented that, and I quote the case of Ryan Evans stands not only as a testament to the dangers media professionals face, but also as a call for accountability and reinforced protections for all members of the journalistic teams.

The killing of Ryan Evans is a part of a wider pattern of similar atrocities, and of war crimes and crimes against humanity. As things stand, and without these important amendments, the family of Ryan have very limited avenues for justice and accountability within the UK. That is because the alleged perpetrators are not citizens or indeed British residents. As such, when we talk about universal jurisdiction, we are talking not only about faraway cases in distant countries. British citizens may well be among victims or survivors, and we cannot continue denying them and their families an avenue for justice here in the UK.

My Lords, may I draw attention to the words of the family of Ryan Evans, namely David and Geraldine Evans, who came to Parliament last year and made this plea in support of strengthening the laws, words which we which deserve to be brought to the attention of the House. And I quote, it's been 16 months since we had the terrible news of our son Ryan's death. For those who have lost a loved one, suddenly they will know that you're in shock for months, even longer.

And as time unfolds, the questions that initially came into your mind come back stronger. In Ryan's case, questions like was it a single missile missile strike on his hotel deliberately planned? Was he killed instantly or did he suffer? What is our government doing to bring the people responsible for killing him to justice? And they go on to say to some questions, we have the answer. Yes. Russia did target our son's hotel in Kramatorsk deliberately. He died helping to seek the truth by working with independent journalists and unarmed non-combat combatant.

Russia's propaganda machine tried to justify the attack on his death and his death with the ridiculous statements, as they do in their horrifying attacks on civilians, including Non-ukrainian citizens. We seek justice for our son's murder. And the plea, my Lords, concludes with the words we, his family, have a life sentence of grief which will never go away. The impact on us, his parents, his siblings, his children, and a wider family and friends is incalculable and life changing. We took our governments, governments to.

We look to our government to change the law and to work to bring the people responsible for such war crimes and deaths to justice. As long as one of our family members is alive, we will seek justice and work with our government for help. Ryan would want that. He was a man of integrity, honour and courage. As the following quote reminds us in the words of Lois McMaster Bujold, I quote, the dead cannot cry out for justice. It is a duty of the living to do so for them.

My Lords, we need to do better for the families of victims and survivors, including the family of Ryan Evans. We need to make sure that the law in the UK enables them to seek truth, justice and accountability. In December 2024, Reuters reported that Ukraine's security service has named a Russian general it suspects of ordering a missile strike on the hotel. And in Reuters words, and I quote with the motive of deliberately killing employees of Reuters, the Security Service of Ukraine have named a deputy chief of Russia's general staff as the person who approved the strike that killed Ryan Evans and wounded two of the agency's journalists, Truth Hounds and Reporters Without Borders have identified two senior leaders in the army units that took the decision to strike the hotel.

I understand that these names are known to the British government at this stage, in view of the fact that we are considering the death of a British citizen, I would expect the authorities in the UK, at minimum, to start investigations into the alleged perpetrators, the options to bring them to account in the UK are clearly limited, but I believe that amendment 472 and 473 could help ensure that the alleged perpetrators are investigated for war crimes. So I ask the support of colleagues in in memory of Ryan for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his family and indeed for justice. And I. Want to strongly support these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to strongly support these amendments, and I shall be relatively brief. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws was kind enough to of The Shaws was kind enough to inform the House that in her presence I described the present situation as illogical. In fact, I situation as illogical. In fact, I think I spoke a good deal more strongly than that, and she's been strongly than that, and she's been kind enough not to repeat the totality of my remarks. My Lords, this is a reform which has been proposed and urged upon successive governments for years.

I found the noble Lord, Lord Alton's speech utterly persuasive and completely unanswerable. I only take issue with him on one point, which is when he expressed, I thought, a little bit of surprise that the CPS would be supporting him. I must say that when I was the head of the CPS, I strongly supported this reform and indeed, shortly after I stepped down from that position, I wrote a column in the Times asking this question what is it about prosecuting war criminals in this context that the government doesn't context that the government doesn't like? I never received a reply to that question, which I understood, that question, which I understood, and the question is still live.
16:13
16:13
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
before me have all done such a stellar job. The one point that I stellar job. The one point that I would perhaps clarify is that a number of these offences under international law, impose on the UK international law, impose on the UK an obligation to prosecute or extradite. The problem that we have extradite. The problem that we have is that in many cases we cannot extradite. We cannot extradite in some cases because there is no some cases because there is no jurisdiction that can, in practice, begin a criminal prosecution.

But sometimes we cannot extradite because the jurisdictions to which we would extradite are jurisdictions where the suspect would face the death penalty or torture. So in those cases, the individuals would, in effect, find a safe haven here because of our generous human rights protection with to which I think we should all remain committed. So we may end up with individuals who cannot be deported, who cannot be extradited, and whom we cannot prosecute unless we have some reform of universal jurisdiction.

That I think is really the need for for this, for this change, which would also bring us into line with international obligations. Now, my concerns are the following. I think first, we need to remember that universal jurisdiction is the last resort. It is true that in a lot of these cases, the countries where the offence was committed, committed, or the country where the alleged offender of which the alleged offender is a national will not be able to prosecute.

But ideally the prosecutions should take place in a jurisdiction that has a closer connection with either the offence or the offender. Where that is not possible, then we need to look at other options. One other option is prosecution before an international court and tribunal. And as we know, under the ICC statute, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is always complementary to national jurisdictions. And only in the third instance, I think as a last resort, should we look at prosecution under universal jurisdiction when everything else fails, which would which it might do quite often, unfortunately, but it's only when everything else fails.

The prosecution under universal jurisdiction should be contemplated. My other concern is, is about the complexity of these prosecutions. I happen to be counsel in one of the very few universal cases brought under universal jurisdiction in this country. I'm not a criminal practitioner, but that case concerned Colonel Kumar Lama, who was a colonel in the Nepalese Armed Forces. He was accused of committing torture in the course of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. At the time of his arrest in the UK, he was a serving member of a UN peacekeeping mission, and in that capacity he enjoyed certain immunities under international law.

The case went to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal asked for a specialist international law counsel who could assist on the question of immunity. That question proved to be not as complex as we had anticipated, because the secretary general of the United Nations waived the immunity of the colonel. The trial then started. The first trial couldn't couldn't be completed because there were all sorts of problems with the interpretation of the evidence. The second trial was also extremely complex because of issues of Nepalese law, and also again with the with the evidence.

At the end of that trial, the judge almost apologised to the jury for the complexity and the unusual challenges that that trial had given rise to. But the fact is that most of these trials were present. Similar challenges. We are a country that has some of the highest standards of criminal justice, thanks to the jury trial system, and thanks also to our very careful way of collecting and examining evidence. In these cases, we would be dealing with situations where the investigators do not have access to the crime scene, often do not have access to physical evidence or to exculpatory evidence, or indeed to witnesses.

The witness evidence will be almost always in in a foreign jurisdiction. These are not reasons not to have universal jurisdiction, but we need to be aware of the challenges that this kind of trial would, would pose under our system. The third concern is about immunities, and that's almost a sort of technical concern. Part two of the International Criminal Court Act contains a provision on immunity, which is section 23. And section 23 says that for the purposes of part two, the immunities that attach to certain individuals will not prevent proceedings under part two.

Proceedings under part two are only the proceedings for the delivery of individuals to the International Criminal Court. The reason why the immunities of state parties to the International Criminal Court cannot prevent proceedings under par two is because state parties to the International Criminal Court are understood to have agreed to waive their immunities, but they've waived their immunities only in respect of the International Criminal Court. We have, as a country that accepted, that became a party to the ICC statute, accepted that in a foreign country, our Prime Minister could be arrested and delivered to The Hague.

But we've not accepted that our Prime Minister could be arrested and put on trial before the domestic courts of other countries. Now, the offences that the amendment would modify are in part five, which is the provision that deals the part of the act that deals with offences under domestic law. A fair reading of the act should suggest that immunities subsist. Immunities under international law subsist. But given that there has been a lot of litigation on immunity, and to make the task for our courts easier, I think it would help if we were to provide, on the face of the amendment and to put the matter beyond any doubt that immunities under international law as far as domestic, under offences under domestic law, subsist.

As far as the other concerns that I have mentioned, I think the the way in which we might try to address them is by providing the strict conditions under which our courts would exercise universal jurisdiction, and those conditions would be first, if the individual in question cannot be extradited to a foreign jurisdiction with a closer connection with the alleged offence or the alleged offender, because, for example, of human rights bars, and secondly, where the countries with closer connections with the offence or the offender are countries that do not have an independent judiciary.

And I think if we have those conditions spelled out, it would deal with some of the concerns that I think have been pointed out.
16:20
16:21
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
No, I appreciate that. It's only about people who are within the jurisdiction, but there are a lot of officials who come within the jurisdiction at different points in time and for different reasons. There was another case a few years ago in which I was also instructed concerning the visit of the Egyptian head of intelligence to the United Kingdom. And on that occasion there was an attempt to arrest him, which which failed and his immunity was upheld. But it's that's the sort of scenario where I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think we need we need clarity. To raise that point, because I think it, again, is very relevant because if, for instance, the Foreign Office were to say to the attorney, we are bringing someone attorney, we are bringing someone here to have discussions about how to secure a peace in Sudan. And yet there's someone who might have been there's someone who might have been involved in the RSF or in the Sudanese army in some of the atrocities there. Then there would atrocities there.

Then there would be no requirement to prosecute them, because in those circumstances, the attorney simply wouldn't allow the prosecution to proceed. It's it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not quite like that because the Foreign Office would have to issue Foreign Office would have to issue a special mission for the person who comes within the jurisdiction. And that now we've clarified the law would give that individual immunity. But as for the attorney general's decision not to consent, there is a risk that that could be there is a risk that that could be the subject of judicial review, and there have already been attempts in that space. But I agree that that's a very important, a very important process, procedural requirement.

And it's already in the act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So stand up and rise to support amendments for seven two and for seven three. The arguments and all the difficulties and intricacies. I the difficulties and intricacies. I think the noble Lord can't be doubted for his involvement with the things actually he's been about. the things actually he's been about. But and actually, in the end, I'm a simple person and I'm going to try
16:23
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
and I know the complications and I know the difficult. But if these amendments are allowed, it will give the possibility of exploring all the intricacies and all the complications or the the real annoying thing for most of us are people whom we know in the who have committed such terrible atrocities. And there is evidence which is quite introverted, but they can come here, do their shopping, have on holiday, when actually they have left places that they have devastated.

And yet this country, and particularly this present government, which says everything is going to be based on the rule of law. Now, the noble and learned Lord Bingham, in his book The Rule of Law, he said some wonderful things. The the rule of law is the nearest thing we've got to our universal religion. In other words, there are no areas that the rule of law does not cover. And I see this as the possibility of enshrining what the noble and learned Lord Bingham actually was talking about.

You see, globalisation, what is actually done, has given us citizens of the world to live in a global village. It's no longer the little island. We all belong to. This huge global village, and whoever touches any citizen in our global village touches us. It isn't just the people who live in Ukraine or somewhere else. They touch them and they're touching us. And so we are partly involved in all of this. United Kingdom must not become a haven, as the noble Lord said, for those who committed such atrocities, escaping justice and in the places where it has been done, we mustn't be the place where it gives the impression that the door is open and they come here, they do their shopping.

They even some of them bring their children to send them to universities or places of learning. And, and these have known and they think they are getting away with it. That's actually, to me, what must have happened when India means government fell. Margaret and I had come to this country in 1974, and it wasn't another nearly six years when his government fell. We were terrified to have any contact with the Ghana embassy because the people he had then sent before his government fell had committed terrible atrocities.

And Margaret and I knew these characters and they got away with it. So it seems to me that, I mean, in his regime, nearly 900,000 people were actually murdered. Chief justice, Chancellor of the university, head of the civil service. I can go on and I can go on. And it seems to me that these dictators and people like that seem to have a very long arm, which will prevent anybody to get anywhere there. So for me, for me, what these amendments are doing are opening a door to for further conversation.

And it seems to me that the movers of the two amendments were wise, that this, if at all, is going to happen. They have laying it at the door of the Attorney General and the Attorney General, and has got a lot of advisors, have got a lot of very able people, and then they may make a decision whether prosecution happen or not. So they're not simply opening it out to every court, to everybody to to think they have a girl. It's so limited.

And it seems to me, my Lords, that if we don't do this as a country that really upholds the rule of law and we do not have this universal jurisdiction as an armoury in our place, that we will not just simply get people come here when they've committed terrible atrocities, and they look as though they were untouchable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know I am. All the speakers have made powerful case in support of of these two amendments, not of of these two amendments, not least, of course, of Lord Lord Alton who moved them. I and I apologise to him. I did miss the first few minutes I was caught out first few minutes I was caught out because I hadn't remembered that 171 or whatever it was had already 171 or whatever it was had already been debated, but I had. I have had the advantage of reading that part the advantage of reading that part of the Jth report, both on the account.

Although I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise, but I the noble Lady, just said that she wasn't in Lady, just said that she wasn't in in in her place for the start of the group. And really she shouldn't be speaking in the speaking to the group if she's if she's not in that group if she's if she's not in that place. That's the usual convention of courtesies of the house and and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

companion as well. So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fireworks. Alton's amendment 7472 and 473 add a series of small but vital issues that ensure the UK can play
16:28
16:29
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
China who had been on the receiving end of the most appalling crimes from genocide to crimes against from genocide to crimes against humanity, including torture and war crimes. All of them looked to countries like the United Kingdom to uphold the standards of universal jurisdiction. Sadly, as universal jurisdiction. Sadly, as Lady Kennedy outlined, we do not do that fully. And as Lord Alton put that fully. And as Lord Alton put it, we need to share the burden by not being prepared to empower our courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crime are present in the UK, we let people down and without the changes proposed in amendments 472 and 473, the British courts lack jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators of international crimes, including including leaders of the Iranian regime who may travel to the UK for medical treatment, despite there being credible allegations of their involvement in international crimes against humanity.

The alleged perpetrators of genocide in Darfur because of the alleged conduct falls under the Rome Statute crimes, but does not trigger universal jurisdiction under UK law. What does it say about our own rule of law? When, in 2016, the Prime Minister, then Boris Johnson actually gave former Rwandan general James Kabarebe special mission immunity to visit the UK? Despite the UN report identifying him as effectively directing the Rwandan backed M23 rebel group, who have themselves been implicated in widespread war crimes in the DRC, including summary executions, rape and forced recruitment in DRC.

The problem is that this case shows that because the UK doesn't have presence based jurisdiction, our courts are prevented from acting even when there are credible allegations and the individual concerned is present in the UK. Even without his special immunity, Kabarebe could not have been prosecuted under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. And as he isn't either a UK national nor a resident, but these two amendments would have corrected that and helped the International Criminal Court, who also have specific jurisdictional limitations.

While it's clear that there would not be many cases likely to end up in British courts from from these benches, the importance of holding these very serious alleged perpetrators to account is vital, and I do hope the Minister will consider making these small changes in order to help change the world.
16:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I fully understand the noble intentions behind amendment noble intentions behind amendment 472 and 473, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the crimes he speaks of are amongst the most abhorrent, and the work he has done is admirable and to be warmly congratulated. However, for reasons I will set out, the opposition cannot support the amendment. We must first recognise that the British British justice system has first and foremost a responsibility to uphold the rule of law and punish criminality in Britain.

Similarly, the British government has first and foremost a responsibility to protect the security of Britain and this must be our principal concern. The British government is not a global government. We cannot police the world and we must be very open and honest about that. It is also more than unfortunate fact that there are a number of Daesh fighters and other terrorists who have been returned to Britain, but have not successfully been prosecuted for the crimes. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to Daesh committed widespread war crimes, genocide against Yazidis and numerous crimes against humanity, and picking up on the noble Lord, noble Lord point if we have people in Britain who committed these heinous crimes but have not yet been prosecuted, then I'm not sure we should be adding even more.

By bringing prosecutions against people with no connection to the United Kingdom, and let us prosecute those who have been involved in genocide and war crimes, who are in the UK. First, before we start trying to prosecute others. But I also think it is very important that we do not simply welcome people with terrorist connections back into our country. We in these benches are firmly supportive of the Home Secretary, robustly using their powers to exclude people from the United Kingdom who pose a threat to the British people and, when necessary, strip particularly dangerous people of their British citizenship.

And finally, there's also a question of where prosecutions are best to take place. There is a compelling argument for prosecutions and investigations to take place closer to where the crimes are committed, which should allow for a better evidence gathering process. So ultimately, we must be careful not to subordinate the safety and security of the British public for the purposes of advancing international law. For these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons, we cannot support the amendments this time. I wonder if I could.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just invite him to comment. On the. Remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lord Verdirame. And the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. And the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald of River Glaven did he find nothing in what they had to he find nothing in what they had to say of in the least bit attractive?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say of in the least bit attractive? I'll say that I found nothing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. I'm grateful to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Alton of Liverpool, my old home city, and I'm very grateful for the way in which he's approached these way in which he's approached these amendments today. And can I just say thanks to him for the work of say thanks to him for the work of the Human Rights Joint Committee, which he chairs? And I'll also, if I may, through him, pass on my
16:35
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I may, through him, pass on my thanks to my old colleague Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham, for the work that she's done on on this issue. We've had an opportunity, as you knows, to debate the committee's report in the grand committee when I would say I was fortunate that my noble friend Lord Katz took the debate on that occasion and was able to set out the government's response, which the noble Lord Alton will realise has not really changed in the intervening months since that debate.

But I'm grateful to him, and I'm grateful also to my noble friend and learned friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws for the noble Lord Wigley for the noble and learned Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the Right reverend and noble Lord for their supportive comments. And I'll come on to comments from other noble Lords in due course. Can I just say as well I know she's not in her place at the moment, but for the benefit of the noble Baroness Ludford, who did miss the start of the debate and therefore was not able to speak in this debate, although she tried.

If she reads Hansard tomorrow, I make the offer to her to put any points she was going to raise in the debate to me in a letter, and we will consider those prior to Report stage, which I think is is, I hope, a fair compromise on on the issue that has happened to date. Now, could I just again before before I go on to the main bulk of the arguments in the case, could I just refer to the noble Lord Wigley and his comments on the death of Mr.

Ryan Evans of Wrexham, which is again close to him and close to me? I think it's it's obviously a deeply saddening incident that has occurred, and his death in Ukraine in 2004 did follow a Russian strike, as the noble Lord has outlined, the UK government continues to support efforts to ensure accountability for those crimes that are committed in Ukraine. This includes supporting the independent investigation of the International Criminal Court into the situation in Ukraine, as well as providing assistance to Ukrainian domestic investigations and prosecutions of international crimes.

And although I can't give him much succour today in relation to that particular issue, I hope he will pass on the condolences of the government to Ryan's parents, and we're obviously happy again to have further representations on that matter, should he wish to make them in due course. Another point that my noble friend Lord Katz made in the debate, and again, the points I will respond to to the noble Lord Alton of Liverpool, relate to the fact that the UK does apply its universal jurisdiction only to a very few specific international crimes.

Our approach to universal jurisdiction is designed to ensure that those suspected of or accused of crimes are investigated, charged and tried fairly and impartially at every stage with access to all available evidence, and this is in accordance with local constitutional and legal frameworks, and it remains the case. And I know this will disappoint those noble Lords who have spoken in support today, that we do not believe that it is necessary to extend the scope of the UK's policy on universal jurisdiction to include genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity at this time.

It is the long standing view of successive governments in general that where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime. And this goes to the point the noble Lord Davies of Gower has made, that we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted to where they are perpetrated, and, if I may say so, that really goes to some of the points that the Lord Lord Verdirame mentioned, because the advantages of securing evidence and the witnesses required for a fair investigation, and indeed a successful prosecution, are part of a credible judicial process.

And I think it should be noted that the UK already has jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, where they are alleged to have been committed by UK nationals or residents. Now again, in some cases where the UK does not have jurisdiction, and I've just mentioned that in relation to the situation, the noble Lord Wigley mentioned in relation to Mr. Ryan Evans, such as in Ukraine, we are trying to ensure that we build domestic capabilities and we support the work of the office of the Prosecutor General to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully investigated by independent, effective and robust legal mechanisms.

And again, going back to the point that the noble Lord Verdirame made the most serious international crimes not covered by the UK's universal jurisdiction policy are generally already subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which again, I would argue today is better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not being dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities. Now. The UK is a strong supporter of the ICC and its mission to end impunity, and I know that that we will do what we can to ensure that the crimes that have been mentioned today are dealt with by that international court.

But I have to say that the debate that we had in the Moses room, led by my noble friend Lord Katz and the amendments and the response I've given today, is the government's position. I accept and respect the points that have been put to the House Committee today. But given the considerations that I've mentioned, I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw his amendments. I do, in saying that I suspect that we will return to these matters on report. The government will always

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reflect on what's been said in the committee today, but I hope in due course. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Apologies for interrupting. I just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstood. I think the ICC is misunderstood. I think the ICC is there when it has jurisdiction, but the problem that we have is that in some of these countries, there is some of these countries, there is no ICC jurisdiction yet. So Syria is not a party to the ICC. Ukraine has become a party to the ICC, but only as of the 1st of January 2025. So any offence in Ukraine predating that date would be an issue in terms of ICC jurisdiction.

So that's where the gap in I think universal jurisdiction policy is, is quite relevant. I just wanted to clarify my position, which wasn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to say we don't need it. No, I accept that and I, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I accept that and I, I thought I'd understood the noble Lords position clearly, but I'm grateful for his clarification on grateful for his clarification on that. But it still adds to the general point that I have made to general point that I have made to date. And I go back to the original overarching point is that the UK applies universal jurisdiction to applies universal jurisdiction to only a very few specific international crimes, and our approach to that through long standing support of both governments, is that where there is no apparent link between the UK and initial and international crime, we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they're perpetrated.

That may be not a position that satisfies the noble Lord Alton of Liverpool or his supporters today, but it's one which I hope I have clarified, and I. I do note also, which I didn't mention earlier, the support of the noble Baroness Brinton for that general approach of her noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend, Lord Alton. But with that I ask him to withdraw the amendments. My Lord, I thank everyone who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Participated in this important debate. I'm particularly grateful, of course, to Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws with her immense experience, but also as a colleague from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We're beginning to miss her Rights. We're beginning to miss her already. Only one week after she rotated off the committee. This was a unanimous recommendation, not a unanimous recommendation, not just on one, but on two reports. We took evidence. This wasn't just about our inability to intervene in far away places.

We took evidence about British nationals who had been in north east Syria and in northern Iraq, and who committed what even the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has now decided was a genocide, and willing now to use that word, which is very unusual on the part of the FCDO. So we have the evidence, we know that 400 of the fighters, British fighters who went there, came back, and not a single one has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide. And too often there has been rank impunity.

We also know that they have connections with other people who are not British citizens, and who regularly travel to the United Kingdom, and what this limited amendment seeks to do is not bring all those people before the British courts. It's about taking people who come into the UK with those kinds of links and bringing them to justice. If the attorney general believes that there is a case to answer. So I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for reinforcing the argument. The noble Lord, Lord MacDonald of River Gladden Lord Verdirame, my noble friend, the noble Lord Teignmouth, my noble friend.

Lord Wigley, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who I wish we could have heard from. But there will be an opportunity, I suspect, to report, and I hope that that omission will be put right. But nevertheless, I was grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Flint Lord Hanson of Flint, said about being willing to to hear what she has to say, but on a 1 to 1 basis, the noble Baroness, Baroness Brinton, the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, and of course the noble Lord, the Minister himself, Lady Kennedy and I recently met with Baroness Chapman of Darlington from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I felt at the end of our conversation that she had become much more receptive to what it was that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was trying to achieve. And as she left the meeting, she said, we should meet with the attorney general. A meeting hasn't yet happened, though. I briefly met the attorney a few days ago, and Lord Hermer did say that his door is open. It would be really helpful if Lord Hanson were able to be present at that meeting as well, because I think it is something that stretches across departments, and I think the briefings that have been given to Ministers may have been based on misconceptions, some of which I tried to deal with earlier in my remarks.

Baroness Kennedy reminded us of the historic role of our rules based system. The names of Hartley Shawcross and Maxwell Fyfe immediately sprang to mind. But of course, outside our jurisdiction, it was Raphael Lemkin who'd seen more than 40 of his own family murdered during the Holocaust, who gave us the Genocide Convention. It was my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead who, when I was promoting another amendment to another bill, on another occasion, said that convention, wonderfully inspired, though it was to predict, to prevent, to protect and to punish.

That convention, he said, is no longer fit for purpose. And I think that is the challenge for us today. What more can we do in an incremental way? So I think that there is more to be done. We'll take away what the Minister has said and see if we can come back with something that can be agreed between now and report. I particularly valued the support of my noble friend Lord MacDonald, not least because of his own role at the CPS.

My point wasn't that I had doubted the sincerity of the CPS, but I thought that others might be surprised how enthusiastic the CPS were for this amendment. Another reason why I think the government should think about it further and think about it more seriously amongst those who support this amendment and who haven't been referred to during the debate is Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who was the prosecutor at the Milosevic trial. Another supporter was the former United Nations special rapporteur, who's a professor of law in the United Kingdom at.

And that is Javid Rehman. Professor Javid Rehman very strongly in support of what these amendments seek to do. My noble friend Lord Sentamu said. It was we needed to promote these amendments because we shouldn't be a safe haven. And noble Baroness Lady Brinton said small changes that might change the world. And I'll just simply say to the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, I was very pleased that his noble friend Baroness Hodgson is one of the signatories to this amendment. She's dealing with an issue concerning some of those who have suffered so much in Afghanistan this afternoon, and was unable to be here to speak, but I hope he will talk to her about why she is one of the signatories to this amendment, and that he will think again about this requirement to have trials conducted in jurisdictions where they were committed.

Just think about that for a moment. In north east Syria or northern Iraq, how are they going to be trials of some of those who committed these offences, and for them to have impunity in the United Kingdom, or to have links with other people who travel here? That cannot be right, which is why I would commend this amendment to the House. But for the time being, I see that it's a moment to withdraw it and to give it further consideration. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
16:48
16:49
16:49
None Portrait Amendment:482 Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-

lightened for me only by hearing Lord the noble Lord Jackson referred to as neutral, which isn't referred to as neutral, which isn't an epithet I would normally attach to him. I'm sorry he's not in his place at the moment. I hope that place at the moment. I hope that the operational amendment that I'm going to put to you shortly will conclude with a more positive and conclude with a more positive and more optimistic outcome. My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord and the Minister, the noble Lord and the Minister, the Minister and his officials for meeting with me to discuss this amendment, along with the Labour MP Phil Brickell, who, with the support of the APPG on Anti-Corruption, championed this amendment in the Commons.

I am also grateful to that APPG for the excellent policy note it provided to the Minister following our meeting and again to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his helpful subsequent letter of the 9th of December. I would also, of course, like to thank the noble Lord Hogan-howe and the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for their kind support and adding their names to the amendment of the noble Lord. Hogan-howe wanted to be here, but has been called away. He did, however, give me a statement which I will quote briefly from when apposite.

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to include in the Bill a requirement to undertake a viability study of the establishment of an economic crime fighting fund. I am mindful that this is Committee stage, and so I will mention only the three following three summary points about the amendment. First, just two statistics to illustrate the scale of the problem. Statistic one currently economic crime overall costs the UK £350 billion a year. That's equal to 17.5% of GDP, but we spend less than 0.05% of GDP tackling it.

Statistic two of the 100 billion in illicit illicit financial flows alone each year, law enforcement recovers only some 0.2%. My second point crime fighting agencies are currently trapped in a cycle of underfunding. The 2024 Civil Service survey found that only a third of National Crime Agency staff thought that they had the necessary tools for their job, the lowest percentage of all 107 public bodies surveyed. This lack of funding limits vital recruitment, recruitment, damages effectiveness and crushes morale.

Meanwhile, despite fraud accounting for 43% of all reported crime last year, fraud prosecutions were actually down 50%. Half my Lords on the ten year median level. Third, and this is where the fund comes in, despite the underfunding and the face of the almost overwhelming level of economic economic crime, the agencies do still manage to generate an average of £566 million per year in fines and recovered assets. However, my Lords, most of that 566 million recovered per year is not reinvested in fighting economic crime.

Instead, most of it goes to the Treasury and to the Home Office, redirecting even a fraction of these funds to the key agencies. Fighting economic crime would be transformational. This amendment simply requires a very timely viability assessment of enabling these agencies to break out of the current negative funding cycle, to fight more economic crime, and to gain long term, sustainable funding for their vital work. Please note, my Lords, that the taxpayer would pay nothing. The funding would be paid for by confiscated proceeds of crime.

Rather poetic justice. I feel I should also clarify the following points which just arose in discussion of the amendment after Second Reading. First, the fund would be wholly separate from victim compensation and would not alter the status quo in that area at all. In fact, there are also many cases where economic crime cannot be linked to specific victims. For example, where a criminal is laundering money from a drug dealing gang. Second, my Lords, this is not a new or unique idea.

All 13 supervisors for the accountancy sector retain penalties imposed for anti-money laundering breaches. The Ministry of Justice is permitted to retain part of the value of fines and fixed penalties collected, amounting to nearly 360 million in the financial year 20 2425. The FCA is allowed to retain a proportion of fines, and this amounted to 71.6 million in the same period. These are just some UK examples. There are numerous other precedents of fines being reinvested, both in the UK and internationally.

And third, the current system is opaque and subject to the dreaded Annularity rules, meaning that any money the agencies do retain must be spent by the year end or it's taken away. This encourages some truly bizarre behaviours to use up the money in time. A particular example which has I know we discussed with the Minister in our meeting, was a sponsored yacht race. There is also a specifically British wrinkle here. My Lords police forces, as Crown servants rather than civil servants, are subject to different accounting rules.

Thus the met can keep some seized cash and spend it over multiple years, allowing them to plan and use it strategically. As a quoting from the noble Lord Hogan-Howe statement, the police force have been able to take a share of the criminal assets they seize should a court so decide. Everyone accepts that the amount seized is a small fraction of the criminal assets out there, and the police's share of the money is pooled in the Treasury and then returned to the forces. Albeit that this process often takes 1 to 2 years.

Nevertheless, this allows the police to invest in discovering and seizing further criminal assets. That is the end of my quotation. However, my Lords, unfortunately, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, HMRC and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot do this. They are, as mentioned, captured by Treasury rules, which require central government bodies each year to return what they have not spent. My Lords, this confused and chronic underfunding cannot continue. While I welcome the government's anti-corruption strategy and its interest in improving the Economic Crime Levy and the arrest systems, discussions recently with HMT and other officials suggest that they are not going to do anything to substantive to move forward, claiming a lack of data from law enforcement agencies for the return on investments on the use of these funds.

I therefore suggest to the noble Lord Dear Minister that consultation on the viability of the fund, which is what this amendment proposes, would be the right opportunity to speed up the frankly glacial progress made so far on data collection in the Home Office. Finally, I would like to remind the noble or the Minister and the House of two things. First, that the amendment does not require the fund to be established. It simply requires that its viability is examined. Second, that there was and is wide cross-party support for the amendment in the Commons.

Details of the support have been provided already to the noble Lords Minister. In closing, I therefore ask the following question of the noble Lords Minister if, as he may indicate in response, he or the government consider that such a viability study could be undertaken without legislation, will he commit from the Dispatch Box today to implement such a study, and tell the House when it can be expected to start and to report? I give the last word to the former director of the National Economic Crime Centre, Adrian Searle.

I quote substantive and sustained funding is crucial. The resource currently deployed is not commensurate with the scale of the problem. Doing the necessary analysis appears to be a no brainer. I look forward to any comments from others and hope for a positive response from the Minister. And I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 196. Insert the new clause as Lords.
16:58
16:58
17:00
17:02
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling this amendment. Economic crime is one of amendment. Economic crime is one of the most pervasive threats to public trust and business confidence in the UK. And in the confidence in the UK. And in the year ending March 2024, fraud accounted for around a third of all crime recorded by police, and the industry estimates suggest the industry estimates suggest that industry estimates suggest that economic crime costs the UK economy tens of billions of pounds per year, and that's according to police statistics.

And these staggering statistics underscore the need for effective enforcement and resourcing. And in this context, the need for seeking more sustainable and predictable resourcing for economic crime enforcement is an understandable one. The proposal to assess the viability of an economic crime fighting fund, based on reinvesting a proportion of receipts from enforcement, reflects a desire to tackle this persistent and widespread issue, and I recognise that there may be merits to an approach which allows specialist technology and expertise to be built and retained over multiple years.

And Lords. The amendment also calls for an examination of the impact of budget exchange rules on the functioning of the Asset Recovery Incentivisation scheme. There have been reports that recovered assets sometimes cannot be easily redeployed by frontline investigators, and that incentives can be blunted by accounting constraints if funds that are recovered through enforcement cannot, in practice, be retained or redeployed effectively by those doing the work, it is sensible to ask whether the current framework is optimally aligned with the policy objective of strengthening economic crime capability.

However, I recognise that any move towards hypothecation of enforcement receipts raises potential governance issues, and there is also the question of how such a fund would sit alongside existing funding streams and the government's wider strategy in this area. I therefore look forward to the noble Lord Minister's response to this amendment, and I'd be grateful if the noble Lord could perhaps outline what steps the government are currently taking to fight economic crime, and whether they believe any further action is required. required.
17:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord Cromwell not just for his amendment today, but his patience in sitting through the debates in committee prior to his introduction this evening. I'm grateful to to the meeting we had with himself and with Phil Brickell, MP for Bolton West, in October, and also in the meeting we had on the 18th of November. I think that it is important that amendment 42 is considered. It would require the government to consult on the viability of a ring fenced economic crime fighting fund, and the intention of the amendment is to examine whether such a fund could provide multi-year resourcing for tackling economic crime.

And I'm grateful for the support from the noble Baroness Doocey and indeed for the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their comments in support of the amendment. The amendment recognises the significant harm that economic crime causes, which again was reflected in the contributions made in the committee to individuals, to businesses, to the economy and to wider society. And I can just say to the committee today that the government remains committed to tackling economic crime. And that is evidenced not just by words in this chamber, but by our continued investment through the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Incentivisation scheme and the Economic Crime Levy, which has allocated £125 million to tackling economic crime in recent months.

These schemes are delivering state of the art technology to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools it needs to stay ahead of criminals, and it includes also a really important factor, which is the recruitment of 475 new officers across the threat leadership, intelligence, investigative and prosecution capacity. We are putting people on the ground to deal with this issue as part of the hopeful, tangible benefits that we can get in the fight against economic crime, and we want to continue as a government to work with our partners to ensure that we are most effectively investing the funding available.

Now, I do understand and I accept, and I did so in the discussions. We had face to face with the noble Lord Cromwell and with the Member of Parliament, Phil Brickell, that the call for sustaining funding is an important one that needs to be investigated. So I want to just be able to confirm to the noble Lord what I hope is of help to him that the government is committed to exploring the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement, and this is witnessed by the statements that we've made in the recently published Anti-Corruption strategy, which was published in December of last year and which I quote for the noble Lord, particularly paragraph on page 23, paragraph 42 of that economic anti-corruption strategy of 2025.

And that says, and I quote in the context of the Spending Review 2025, we will explore the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement as a joint Treasury Home Office priority commitment in that anti-corruption strategy. Now, again, the strategy is a fixed strategy. It has a timescale for that strategy when published, and I hope that the noble Lord Cromwell will accept the intentions that we've got in terms of identifying the issues that he's raised and not just doing what we've done to date, which is ensure that we have put resources in already, but that that review commitment in the strategy in December is of help to the noble Lord in the objectives of his amendment here today.

And I would be grateful with that commitment if he would, I hope at least welcome it, hold us to account on it, but also in doing so, withdraw his amendment today.
17:08
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
First of all, I can certainly promise to hold the noble Lords Minister accountable for it, so I hope that pleases him. I'd like to first thank the speakers, Baroness Jones, Baroness Doocey and Lord Davies, who've kindly commented on on this amendment. I'd like to thank in particular the noble Lord, the Minister, for engaging with me before and for his comments tonight. I'm still not quite sure what I'm looking at. Exploring the funding landscape, I think was the phrase they used a couple of times.

Does that when does that exploration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reach its destination and come up with a report? Well. Can I say we have the strategy?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I say we have the strategy? It was published in December. It's a fixed term strategy. It includes in that the commitment to have an examination of the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. I'm very noble Lord has mentioned. I'm very happy. My time is quite stretched at the moment, but I'm very happy if the noble Lord, we find it helpful for him to meet with helpful for him to meet with officials who are dealing with that aspect particularly, and we can potentially explore from from there whether his input is helpful in terms of stretching that strategy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and making some positive outcomes from it. I thank the honourable Minister for that answer. I was described in a previous debate as a legislative terrier, so I can assure him that I would like very much to meet his officials and if necessary, nip their heels because I'm after a date when we're actually going to date when we're actually going to find a result of this viability study. So let's leave it at that. I've been very grateful to his for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've been very grateful to his for his positive response, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 483 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
17:10
17:10
None Portrait Amendment:483 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-

is when my small dog hustles me out of bed in the morning. I've tabled this amendment to probe what the government's thinking is about rural crime prevention. I do appreciate there's been the recent rural crime strategy from the National Police Chiefs Council, and that strategy covers the years 25 to 28. It's very helpful to have that document and to see the priorities there. However, I don't believe it replaces a government wide prevention strategy. There are many issues that would benefit from the government having a complementary strategy.

For example, from the Department of Education and Defra, both of whom have a huge role to play in educating the public with regard to the countryside and its wildlife. For one question you could consider is when does lighting a fire in the countryside become a crime? Something that is increasingly serious with climate change? And what is criminal behaviour? When you're in your boat and you spot a dolphin, I won't weary the house with too many examples, but society as a whole and the government need to take a role in ensuring that our wildlife and our rural areas don't become crime hotspots.

Organised crime very sadly, sees rural areas as soft touch, and we've had a really big example of this recently, as highlighted by your Lordships' House environment committee, Fly-tipping on an industrial scale, and it's become almost a full time job for my noble friend Baroness Sheehan to go around the country just looking at these huge fly-tips, and she's done a terrific job raising awareness of the scale of the problem and eliciting some response for the Environment Agency and the government.

But again, that's a question also of public awareness, because it's really important to report very early on where something is going to become a fly-tip. So it illustrates how rural crime has become big criminal business, as has wildlife crime, hare coursing, for example. There's big money through the bets placed, and that's disastrous for farmers driving straight through their fences, through their hedges. And it's very hard to stand in the way when you're alone and facing a gang. It's also hard to police in remote and hard to reach rural areas.

So I hope that that sort of crime is something that the government is really paying attention to. And of course, the government should be praised for pledging to introduce to closed season for hares, which is an excellent thing to do. But it will be a shame if actually hares continue to suffer as they are from hare coursing. Peregrine falcon chicks not something you would normally associate with commanding high prices and again being the subject of organised crime. But they've become such a luxury item in the Middle East that that, again, is a matter of now having to police peregrine falcons nests, eel poaching and again, not 1 or 2 eels for supper, but glass eels.

That's the babies. It runs into millions of pounds 53 million, I think was the last annual count and all illegally fished. And that trade is really wiping out the eel. So these are very serious crimes, backed by criminals with serious money and who are making serious money out of it. And they threaten very precious parts of our wildlife. So my question for the Minister on that is, what part will the wildlife units play and how will the police reorganisation that's been recently announced affect those sorts of issues? And then there's the wanton or one off crimes, perhaps best exemplified by the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree.

If there was one benefit that that piece of wanton vandalism elicited was that it highlighted the public how vulnerable our trees are, that ancient and iconic trees need protection, and if they're damaged or destroyed, then that's a criminal issue. There are a lot of issues around farming. Of course, livestock rustling, which I mentioned at the start, but theft of machinery, tractors and quad bikes, those are crimes that I understand on the whole are falling because of much increased prevention measures.

And that's all to the good. But it's not something to lessen effort on the list in my amendments is not definitive, and I'm very grateful to Julian Fry, who's the rural affairs officer for the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. And he pointed out some additional issues to those which I had listed in particular heritage, Crime and maritime crime and heritage. Crime is something that really affects both the DCMS and the Home Office heritage crimes. Everything from stealing load off church roofs and artefacts from buildings, often churches.

They're easy targets because they're isolated, but those centuries old carved lecterns, those stone figures, they command high prices. And the tragedy of those thefts is, as Mr. Fry put it, once they're gone, that heritage is lost. And the effect for communities, for tourism and for our actual history is tragic. It's not like a TV stolen from a home, which can be replaced if it's insured. These items are irreplaceable. And then maritime crime. I mean, it is pretty jaw dropping when you realise that Devon and Cornwall Police have to cover all of that extensive coastline, including the Scilly Isles, again with all their wrecks, which is another heritage issue.

Maritime crime includes wildlife crime and I last week I went to a meeting hosted by Wildlife and Countryside Link about seals and sea mammals, and at that meeting it was explained that much of the harassment of protected mammals, though constituting a crime, is because people want an Instagram photograph with said mammal, so the creatures are harassed, the police are called, the police are very stretched. They have to to Police Act to the 12 mile limit. They then have an enforcement job.

But this is an education issue really. We should be explaining better to the public what happens to our wildlife when actually you just want your Instagram photo. But maybe you are frightening the seal. It leaves its pups, the pups die and that's another tragedy. My second question to the Minister is why? Why on earth a wildlife crime figures are not recorded by the Home Office. That is extraordinary. There can be absolutely no logical reason why such figures aren't recorded.

As I've said, they are both the subject of serious crime and in. If the government is serious about improving nature outcomes, the wildlife crime figures do need to be recorded. So in responding to this amendment generally, I hope the Minister can in particular comment on how the Home Office, the DCMS and DEFRA come together to tackle these crimes that so badly affect our rural areas. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 196. Insert the following new List. My Lords, I have added my name
17:19
17:20
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
the often metropolitan policy maker. Three related themes my Lords first, isolation, rural homes and businesses are often isolated, making them vulnerable to crime, making them vulnerable to crime, including violent and destructive crime. While the motorway network provides a rapid and anonymous provides a rapid and anonymous escape route. And more recent phenomenon is the use from the highway of drones to scope out highway of drones to scope out machinery or products for later theft, something we will return to in amendment 486 a while the police generally do their best to engage with the local community, and I pay testament to Leicestershire's Neighbourhood Link scheme, which is local to me, but on an area basis.

Police resources are spread very thinly. Secondly, and it has been touched on waste dumping. There has at last started to be some press coverage of the large scale and often toxic waste dumped by the lorry load at illegal waste dumps in the countryside, of which a growing number are now being recognised. But, my Lords, anywhere the vehicle can pull over out of sight for just a few moments, there is constant fly-tipping of discarded furniture, building materials, dumped tyres Unmalted household goods to say nothing of the endless food wrappers, beer cans, bottles and seemingly ubiquitous Red bull cans which now form a continuous linear rubbish dump along the base of almost every rural hedgerow in my area.

There is also widespread dumping and then setting a light of stolen cars. Imagine the effect in a field of wheat when that happens. I also would like the committee to note that in responding to a series of written questions from me, DEFRA, whose RA does stand for rural affairs, has confirmed that no current they have no current obligation to address these matters beyond the immediate edge of national highways. Criminals, of course, know this and exploit it by driving up rural tracks or into fields to tip their waste.

Third, wider rural crime. My Lords, I recently spoke to a farming family who, against everything they believe in every year kill all the hairs on their land. Why? Because if they don't, violent gangs in four wheel drive vehicles come and deliberately crash through their hedgerows, career across their crops and kill their hairs across their land with dogs, such coursing as it's called in some cases involving international criminal syndicates betting large sums on the outcome. I could go on my Lords churches stripped of their roofs, armed gangs of violent poachers, raids and threats at village shops and post offices, widespread vandalism and theft.

But in short, my Lords rural areas are under siege from people who either with criminal intent or antisocial indifference, are turning what we like to portray as a green and pleasant land into a rubbish strewn hinterland whose population increasingly fear for their safety, their livelihoods and their property. That, my Lords, is why we need this amendment to recognise that rural areas have specific characteristics, specific types of crime and an overall lack of focus. Despite the best efforts of an overstretched police force.

If I may finally refer briefly to the noble Lord, the Minister's answers to questions on the statement on police. On the Police Reform White Paper on Tuesday evening, he was asked a question on how rural policing would be covered. His reply was that the government is looking at reviewing the funding formula, and that the overall organisational model will include responsible, non-elected persons. I do not wish to express a view on the reforms, but I do respectfully point out that he did not say anything about how rural areas would be affected by the reform.

Secondly, to a question on waste crime, the noble Lord, the Minister, said that organised crime is behind it. He's correct, of course, and that regional and national agencies would be looking, in his words, over time, how to deal with serious organised crime. May I suggest to him that a dedicated, rural focussed strategy is needed to prevent and tackle such crime and not just the Environment Agency, which largely deals with post facto matters? My Lords, there needs to be a specific strategy to develop and enforce appropriate countermeasures to what is not a passing rural crime wave, but a rising flood.

I commend this amendment for highlighting this, and I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister and the government will get behind it.
17:24
Lord Forbes of Newcastle Portrait Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, if I may be permitted to make a brief contribution to this discussion on this amendment, and you may ask yourselves, why is somebody whose political experience was predominantly in a metropolitan area would seek to speak on rural issues? But I grew up in Weardale, in County Durham, and my mother still lives in the dale. And so I do know from growing up there and from contemporary experiences that the issue of rural crime is not just one which is felt very keenly by communities in rural areas, but which can damage the fabric of those communities in a way that makes them feel further under threat.

And if I may add to the list of examples of crime given by the noble Baroness who spoke just a few moments ago, the stealing of oil from fuel tanks, the stealing of logs from log stores, and my Lords drink driving which we know is more prevalent in rural areas than it is in urban areas. Which is why I particularly welcome the government's commitment to reviewing, reviewing and reducing the drink driving limits for the whole of the country. And my Lords, I think we need to reflect in the context of this amendment why some of these issues occur in rural areas and what some of the root causes for their lack of response may be.

It is, I know, my Lords, the case that many rural communities have a greater sense of trust, a greater sense of community spirit, but that can have a downside in the sense that it can make people more susceptible to fraud, more liable to be scammed, particularly online and alongside the amendment under consideration at the moment, I particularly welcome the measures to introduce stronger investigatory powers and a stronger national approach to such crimes because although they do affect people, any can affect people anywhere.

The effect on people living in rural areas, in isolated areas without support around them, can be really quite devastating. And my Lords, there is also, I think, a challenge around the whole scale withdrawal of policing stations and and police presence from many of our rural communities. That has resulted in one particular case that I'm aware of, because it affected my mother where she was subject to theft, actually, of some logs from some land that she owns. And the police response was in that area.

We suggest you go out and buy some cameras from Amazon to see if you can record this now. My Lords, I do not think that that is sufficient, appropriate or suitable in the circumstances because what it implies is that a small scale crime like that is of no grand consequence. Whereas to somebody like my mother, it has a very real consequence because it affects her fuel supply over the winter period. So, my Lords, I do think that there is an issue about the the particular nature of crimes which are more prevalent in rural areas.

And I do hope that as we come to the Report stage of this bill, we can look more wholesomely at ways in which the government can work alongside police and crime commissioners while they are still in existence, and whatever their successor bodies are, to ensure that rural areas do not feel second best when it comes to crime prevention and community safety.
17:28
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. In the name of my noble friend, Baroness Miller. To which I have added my name. And I thank the noble Lord Lord Cromwell for his support and those who have spoken already. My Lords, this amendment addresses an issue that has for too long been treated as a periphery, and that is the growing crisis of rural crime. For those who live and work in our countryside, this is a reality of of financial loss, of fear and a deep sense of vulnerability and isolation.

After rising to around £52.8 million in 2023, the estimated cost of rural crime stood at around £44 million in 2024. Despite some improvements and resources devoted to addressing this, the resources remain inadequate. Freedom of information requests from my party, done last April, uncovered the shocking fact that only 0.4 percent of police workforce across England and Wales is dedicated to rural crime teams. In Norfolk, for example, there are just two dedicated full time officers and some forces have no rural crime forces at all.

I acknowledge over the past year that the police chiefs and Ministers have begun work on recognising what farmers and villages villagers have known for a long time, and that is that rural crime is serious and organised and damaging. We welcome the three year Rural Wildlife Crime Strategy, which rightly identifies priority areas for machine theft, livestock worrying, illegal hunting, poaching and and need to protect our species and wildlife. The government has also committed funding to keep the National Rural Crime Unit and National Wildlife Crime Units going, and we welcome that.

These are positive moves, but they are not enough. My Lords, the very documents that promote this strategy also set out why a more ambitious strategy for rural crime prevention framework, the kind envisaged in this amendment, is desperately required. The National Policing Lead accepts that specific rural offences are cross border, involve a high degree of planning and coordination, and rely on an increasingly rely and relate to international networks and have substantial impacts on our rural communities. This is not just localised offending, my Lords.

This is serious. Organised crime networks have been said and we need to recognise that this type of crime is different, the geography is different, the victim profiles are different, the opportunities are different and crucially, the sense of isolation and vulnerability are extremely different from those who live in our urban areas. We must not allow our rural communities to become the playground for serious, organised criminal networks. So this amendment seeks to bridge the gap between strategy and delivery. First, it requires a Secretary of State to establish a Rural Crime Prevention Task Force, a clear remit for full range, to examine the full range of rural offences, producing a rural crime prevention strategy within six months.

This is consistent with existing policies. Secondly, the taskforce must determine if we have the right specialist capacity. Enough rural crime officers and specialist equipment and training required. Thirdly, this amendment would deliver the accountability that is currently missing. My Lords, I accept that the government has made a start on these issues, but there is more to do and we seek further progress on these matters. If we accept as Ministers and police chiefs now do, that rural crime is complex, cross-border, organised and uniquely corrupt, uniquely problematic.

We need more action to take these matters forward. So I support this amendment.
17:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne, Domer and Miller of Chilthorne, Domer and noble Lords Earl Russell and Lord Cromwell for tabling their amendment today. As a rural dweller myself, I agree and I recognise many of, if not all, the offences that have been identified. Our rural communities are incredibly important and are on this side of the House. The opposition has made it an absolute priority to support them in this difficult time, and that support extends past simply fiscal policy following recent tax policies, but to all issues that affect them, including crime.

My Lords, it is promising that last year rural crime fell by over 16%, but there is still work to be done. Those offences still cost rural communities over 44 million on the year, a fact that underlined our pledge to set up local force taskforces to tackle rural crime. So our objectives are not different to those of the noble Baroness. We simply differ on delivery. A top down, centralised approach is never normally the most effective way to tackle local, disconnected issues, and rural crime is the prime example of this.

It is far less the operation of the highly organised criminal gangs we see in our cities, and more often the actions of an isolated few who sense an opportunity to steal or exploit the countryside and act on it. Our Lords localised problems require localised solutions. Police forces are budgeted based on local needs and are therefore the ones who are the most alert to the specific issues facing their communities. So it should be them organising task forces to tackle rural crime, as they have the knowledge and ability to act and adjust to the changing crime picture of their area.

So whilst we agree with the noble Baroness intentions and entirely support them, we would rather see funding directed to local forces and delegate responsible and their task forces to tackle the rural crime that we all want to see curbed. So I do hope the noble, the noble Lord. The Minister agrees.
17:34
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the Baroness Miller of Chilthorne, Domer, for raising this issues and for the noble Lords who have spoken in support of her. I would just say that as someone who represented a rural constituency in the House of Commons for 28 years, things such as sheep worrying, isolation, local policing were meat and drink on a daily basis and in fact the North Wales Rural Crime Unit that existed was the model for a lot of the work that's been done at a national level on rural crime.

So I appreciate and understand, I hope the problems that are faced by rural communities. And I would say to the noble Lady and to others that the government remains committed to tackling those crimes, particularly impacting our rural communities. And noble Lords have spoken today about some of the government measures that are being brought forward, but I just want to address them as a whole. We do have a Safer Streets mission, and as part of that, there is important measures on rural communities to look at clamping down on anti-social behaviour, strengthening neighbourhood policing, looking at stronger measures on preventing the very farm theft that the noble Lord Cromwell spoke to.

The issues of fly-tipping, which have been mentioned by noble Lords today. And also I would just add to that shop theft, which I think is an important issue because particularly in rural areas where there's maybe only one shop, an organised crime gang or regular shop, theft can impact very strongly upon small, independent businesses, and we're trying to deal strongly with those issues as a whole. Rural communities across England and Wales are already better protected from the rising threat of organised gangs, and we do have a potentially new strategies to tackle crimes plaguing countryside areas.

I was struck also, if I may say so, by my noble friend Lord Forbes of Newcastle, who not just focussed on the rural crime issues that I know he is aware of there, but also raised important issues around fraud and around the isolation the potentially fraud can bring. And I just advise him that the government is intending on looking at those issues very strongly in a fraud strategy, which we're intending to publish in relatively short order, to give a three year fraud strategy.

On looking at things that we can do in that space, particularly now, developing a robust response to rural crime is extremely important. And I know noble Lords have mentioned it, but the objective of the the amendment is to try to, it says, devise a strategy and a task force to look at tackling rural crime. I would just say to the movers of the amendment that the Home Office DEFRA, the National Police Chiefs Council, have published in November 2025 a significant rural crime and wildlife strategy, which essentially does what the amendment has asked for, and which is also bringing together in the very points that, again, the noble Lord Cromwell has asked for oversight of that through ministerial oversight as well.

The strategy is a vital step in the mission to provide safer streets everywhere. And there is also a DEFRA led rural task force set up last year, which sounds a long way away but was only just over a month or so ago, with the aim of gathering evidence through a series of meetings and workshops to look at the challenges specifically faced in rural areas. And the evidence gleaned from the workshops is being examined and will be used to outline the government's strategic ambition on rural communities as a whole, and some of the points that noble Lords have mentioned today on things like, for example, tackling equipment theft, that is a huge concern.

I understand that we intend to implement the Equipment Theft Act of 2023, which will introduce forensic marking and registration on a database of all new terrain vehicles, quad bikes. And I'm pleased to say also, we've announced recently removable GPS systems. Now again, those are demands that I had just over a year ago when I went to the Police and Crime Commissioners Rural Crime Conference, which was chaired by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire.

And we've acted upon this. And if the noble Lords look at clause one, two, eight of this bill, which we've already considered, there is a valuable tool for police in that clause, which is going to help tackle stolen equipment, to ensure that they can search and enter premises which have been electronically tagged by GPS or other means, where items are reasonably believed to have been stolen and are on the premises, and where it's not been reasonably practicable to obtain a warrant from the court.

Now, again, that is a very strong signal for organised criminals who this is that we are going to track you. We're going to monitor you. We're going to have a non warranted entrance to your property. If you have stolen that equipment, and we will hold you to account for it. Again, the the National Rural Crime Unit and the National Wildlife Crime Unit, I was pleased to be able to announce last year at the Police and Crime Commissioners Conference that long term commitment of £800,000 for the National Rural Crime Unit and National Wildlife Crime Unit, and we've committed to replicate this year's funding in next year, 2627 as well.

In what our tight financial difficult times, we still manage to commit that funding to help support the National Police Chiefs Council in achieving the aims of that strategy, and going to some of the specific issues that the noble Baroness Miller mentioned, for example, on hare coursing, the establishment of that unit and the work that unit has done, and through that unit, the operation Galileo, which was undertaken, has seen a 40% reduction in hare coursing, which again, I note the noble Lord Cromwell mentioned as a specific problem that has existed and which causes great difficulties in rural areas.

We've also not just looked at the excellent work of the Rural Crime Unit, but we've also looked at overall looking at how we can work to tackle rural crime in, in a in an organised way. Now, again, I do recognise that there are challenges. The government separately through the statement we made only a couple of days ago in this House, is looking at reorganising and shrinking the number of police forces. And we've got we're going to have a commission to look at that with a review in the next few months to come to some conclusions on that.

We're trying to centralise some national activity on serious organised crime, which is very much behind a lot of that rural crime. And that landscape will need to be looked at, as I said on Tuesday night, which the noble Lord Cromwell again referred to, we are looking at the issue of how we review the funding formula. I think that's important. Again, I can't give specific answers on that today, but I would say to the noble Lady who moved the amendment and to those noble Lords who have spoken to it, including the noble Lord Davies of Gower, that I think that there is significant work being done on this.

But we have a strategy. We have a task force, we have cooperation with Defra. We have specific measures that have been called for for a long time being brought in on equipment theft, on wildlife crime and on the funding of the unit. We have looked at a range of other measures which we will bring forward to tackle organised crimes in rural areas, and we are looking with the neighbourhood Policing guarantee that every neighbourhood police force will have named contactable officers dealing with local issues.

Those neighbourhood police officers, of which we're putting 13,000 in place over this next 3 to 4 year period, will mean that we've got 3000 extra neighbourhood police officers by March of this year, and that 13,000 by the end of this parliament. And that is focusing people from the back room to local police forces. Now, again, there's a big mix in this, and I know noble Lords will appreciate that. This is a significant challenge at the moment, but I hope that that work is helpful, and I hope that the direction of travel suggested by the noble Lords amendments are one which they can understand that we're trying to achieve.

And with that, I would hope that the noble Lady would withdraw the amendment.
17:43
17:45
17:45
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank Baroness Jones for her support for them. I move both amendments for my noble friend as she is unable to be here. They address the critical environmental and public trust issue, the persistent and systematic failure of water companies to stem the flow of pollution into our rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Both amendments are designed to work in tandem as a linked pair of provisions, specifically targeting persistent and sustained underperformance. They are not designed to punish one one off incidents.

They are a measured response to prolonged and sustained regulatory failures that, in the public's eye, have become a matter of criminal neglect. Amendment 484 would insert a new clause into the regulatory framework, creating a clear corporate criminal offence for a water or sewage company. That offence is triggered when a company, or readily regulated by Ofwat, an Environment agency, either fails to meet its pollution performance commitment level for three consecutive years, or experiences an increase in serious pollution levels for three consecutive years.

The pollution performance commitment level used is the exact target that companies commit to under the existing regulatory regulatory framework, which reports on annually the data regarding serious pollution incidents is similarly drawn directly from the Environment Agency's annual environmental performance data. A three year threshold is a deliberate and calibrated response. We recognise that water companies can face individual problems from climate change, weather events, rapid population growth and other unforeseen circumstances. When failures persist year after year, however, and they are reported black and white in regulatory reports and nothing done is done, that is a different matter.

By setting this three year window, we offer companies ample opportunity to correct their course if they fail to do so. As a result of this amendment, they could result in the matters being criminal. Amendment 485 builds directly upon this foundation by creating personal criminal liability for senior managers, liability arises where corporate offences under amendment four, eight, four has been committed and the individual has failed to take all reasonable steps steps to prevent it. We have adopted a functional, robust definition of senior manager, mirroring successful legal models in health and safety and economic crime.

Already in legislation. It applies to anyone who plays a significant role in making decisions about the how the company's relevant activities are managed or organised. This ensures that no one can evade their responsibility through misleading job titles or a corporate web of complex structures. Critically, this amendment includes built in protections to ensure fairness. The core requirement is to take all reasonable steps. My Lord and manager who can demonstrate that they have done this, will have a clear path to acquittal.

This structure piece pierces the corporate veil without being reckless. Decisions regarding budgets and infrastructure carry personal weight for those who operate at the top. My Lord, while there is change, there is. There is a lot that still needs to be done. Billpayers are facing a 26% increase in their bills in 2025 alone. Supply interruptions across England and Wales rose by 8%. Even more concerning is that 60% increase in serious category one and category two incidents, which have climbed to 75 in 2024.

I recognise that we have had the Water Special Measures Act, we have had the Cunliffe Review and that we have recently had the White paper and there's more legislation to come and we welcome a lot of the measures, particularly the ones in the white paper. But regulators have imposed record fines, some as high as 90 million. However, we must confront the reality that we may have reached the limits of a fines only based model. When penalties are too modest, they just become the cost of doing business.

When they're too punitive, they risk bringing down the very water companies that we're trying to sanction. Despite these fines, executives continue to draw substantial bonuses. Shareholders continue to receive massive dividends. While the environment bears the scars. The public is being asked to fund a staggering £104 billion in the promised Ampa investment, and much of it is publicly underwritten through government schemes. We must have a statutory mechanism that ensures this money delivers verifiable environmental gains, rather than just being siphoned into higher gearing and profits.

Some critics may argue these amendments will deter talent and overburden regulators. My Lords, I disagree. These provisions are carefully calibrated to protect those who work in this industry, and they could do exactly the opposite. They could attract those people into the industry, those people that we need that are actually motivated to make change. And having that protection of reasonable defence steps could help to attract the very talent we need. These measures are in line with requirements of the Environment Act that the polluter must pay.

For too long this has not happened and individual poor performance has been allowed to pass unchallenged. These amendments provide the precise tools needed to bridge the gap between reporting failure and enforced change. Persistent pollution pollution is not a technical glitch or an oversight. It is a substantial betrayal of public trust and an environmental duty. These issues need further thought than I have seen to date from the government. Despite the legislation coming forward, the new water regulator, when established, must have the necessary tools to hold individual companies and individual corporate members within them to account personally for any serious and persistent failings.

Otherwise, it will not succeed, just as other regulators have failed to do so. I hope that the government will view these amendments as a timely enhancement to their own thinking and plans for further reform. I beg to move.
17:52
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
This amendment proposed after clause 196 insert. The following new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. Marshalled List. >> I love these amendments and I wish I'd tabled them myself. They wish I'd tabled them myself. They are excellent because water companies dumping sewage into rivers has been illegal for years. rivers has been illegal for years. It's just this government and the previous government's refusal to act that has let it continue without serious consequences. The legislation allows Ministers to set a bar of what is acceptable behaviour, and so far, every politician in charge has refused to say what is and isn't a major failure.

Failure. The result of this political cowardice is that water companies continue to make a profit out of polluting our waterways and our beaches, and the people in charge continue to collect their big paycheques and their bonuses. The regulators, like Ofwat, have been in bed with water industry bosses and the Environment Agency has lost staff and legitimacy. Labour are wedded to private ownership of water and refuse to consider public ownership, even though it would be the most popular legislation they could enact.

This Parliament. I keep making suggestions about how Labour can get some voters back, but they're not listening. These companies are fleecing Billpayers with the excuse that they need to carry out the investment they have failed to do for decades. They have taken the public's money and given it directly to shareholders. They have run up debts to pay even higher dividends, and the bill payers are now paying for those debts. What's going to stop them doing this all again? This amendment, these amendments take a direct route to stopping pollution by making this personal to the people at the top.

If they don't spend the money to to invest and reduce pollution, then that's a crime. They are taking the public's money and failing to improve. My own preference would be to put them on long term community service, cleaning up the sewage from our beaches and from our waterways and riverbanks. And I would probably put them in very special uniforms so that everybody passing by would know exactly who they are. And of course, put a complete ban on dividend and bonus payments.

I am happy, she says through gritted teeth, to support this more moderate suggestion as being something the noble Lord the Minister, might actually accept. I wouldn't give them three years to turn it around either, but again, setting some sort of firm deadline would be preferable to the inaction of this and the last government. Finally, the best way of stopping this crime are water companies dumping sewage in our rivers is to take them into public ownership, reduce bills by reducing the money wasted on debt repayments, and replace the current set of overpaid bosses with people who can actually do the job and care about our environment.
17:55
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
I declare. >> That I was the chairman of a water only company more than ten years ago, but it does mean I know a bit about the water industry, and a bit about the water industry, and perhaps that's helpful. After that last intervention, because the truth of the matter is this, that this is not just the problem of the water companies. First of all, it's the problem of those people who controlled the water companies. This was a great mistake as a.

The way in which it was operated. There were two regulators, and the fact of the matter was the Environment Agency was almost always overturned by the off what and off what was leant on by successive governments to keep the price of water down. So I want to start off just by saying we have to have a system where we are paying for the big changes that we know about, because I've been around for a long time, I remember why privatisation took place wasn't anything to do with Mrs.

Thatcher wanting to privatise. It was that when it had been in public ownership, both municipal and national, there had never been the investment. All right. The noble Baroness to say that's what we want. If you look at the history, it's about the worst history of public investment that we've ever had. We had Surfers Against Sewage, we had the filthiest water. We had the worst water in northern Europe. And when we signed up to as we did when we were sensibly in the European Union, when we signed up to the water directive, it was quite clear that we didn't meet the standards and we had gone round, you know, the Daily Telegraph used to say, oh, well, of course our water is better than anyone else because they drink bottled water in France.

The truth of the matter was our water didn't meet the standards round the whole of Europe. Now, then the privatisation took place in order to get private money into the water industry, in order to make the changes that were necessary. And for a bit that worked. And I was the Minister responsible after that had been done, and for a bit it was murder to try to deal with it, because as these companies brought new technology and the rest into it, they of course had to charge more.

And therefore we had all the arguments about keeping the water price down. And unfortunately, we have to recognise that water isn't cheap, that it's going to be more and more expensive. And I just take an example. Essex and Suffolk Water, which is about 2 or 300 yards outside Anglia where I am affected so I don't have a direct connection, has announced that it cannot provide water, new water for any new industry or any extended industry until 2036. That's the effect of climate change.

That's the effect of not having the water that we need. So we have to be frank about our problem. Our problem is that we're going to have to spend a lot more money on water. We're going to have to make it much more efficient. We've got to use a lot new, new technology, and we are going to have to do that through the privatised system that we've got no point in arguing about. It's not going to be it's not going to be nationalised. The government has made that quite clear.

Nobody else is going to nationalise it. So just let's see how do we make this work? And that's why I come to be semi supportive of this amendment, because the reality is that we have not been able properly to regulate water and we need to do that. And I do believe that directors of companies in these sort of areas really do need personally to be responsible when for a period of time, they have clearly not done the job, which they're supposed to do.

Now, the noble Lady wanted to not to not to have three years. Well, frankly, you've got to have a period of time in which you can see whether this is a persistent problem or whether it is a one off problem. And we're going to have lots of one off problems. I know it bores a house for me constantly to talk about climate change, but the point about climate change is really that it's climate disruption. It means that we have very significant changes in weather, which we can't tell about in advance, and therefore you can have real problems of so much water that you can't deal with it, or not enough water, so that you cannot provide for people.

Now, that doesn't mean to say that the people of Tunbridge Wells don't have a very considerable complaint about the fact that, yet again, they haven't been able to have the water that they ought to have. So what I want to say to the government is very simple. It is this because we know that people will have to pay more for their water. We have to be very careful to make sure that those who are providing it, and those who have to deal with these problems, are behaving properly.

And the reason that I am attracted, although I wouldn't support exactly the wording of this, why I'm attracted to tougher measures is really because we have to carry the public with us. There's no point in pretending that we're not all going to have to pay more for water. It's no, because we've got to build, we've got to build reservoirs. If we're going to have enough water for people to be able to drink, we're going to have to do something much more about moving water from the north of England down to the south, because at the moment it goes off on the way, and by the time it gets to Southern Water or to any of the other water companies in the South, then they have a real difficulty and one understands that.

So because we're going to have to spend so much more money, and the only people who pay for that, the people who are actually using the water, I think there are two things we have to do. One is not in this amendment. I do think we have to look at the way that we that we deal with the payment for water always seem to me that we should have a basic payment and then a very sharp, rising payment for those who use a great deal of water.

I want to protect the family that is using water, but I do not see why they should be penalised by people who are using a great deal more water for swimming pools and the like. I want to see a rather different way of looking at it. I only say that to qualify what I'm about to say about this amendment, what this amendment seeks to do is to ask the government seriously to consider how it can assure the public that in paying the extra money, it's going to have to pay for water that the companies concerned are using the best private enterprise mechanisms.

They are actually using the best modern technology, and that they really are on the route to solving the problems which we have faced. There is one coda. We have to be a bit careful about blaming the water companies for everything. A great deal of the pollution that we have is because of industrial farming, and we do have to recognise that there is a real issue. For example, in the Wye Valley, where I have family in the Wye Valley, where very large concentrations of chicken farms really do damage the water quality, and there's nothing the water company can do with that because this is run off from there.

And so in saying this, I don't want to look as if I'm merely blaming the water companies. I'm merely saying they do have a very major part to play. And I would like the government to make sure that the public feel that they are playing that part properly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sits down. It's very brave of him to say categorically that this government won't put put the water government won't put put the water companies into private hands because they are famous for their U-turns. So who knows what's going U-turns. So who knows what's going to happen next week. And secondly, all these bonuses and these, you all these bonuses and these, you know, huge payouts. Surely that shows a level of incompetence. They had the money to do the investment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had the money to do the investment shareholders. Well I'm sorry, the second part of the noble Ladies comment she makes about everybody who's in the private sector. I mean, that's what she thinks about the private sector. And I don't agree with that. I mean, the Polanski mechanisms of this world are devastating politically and economically. And really, I'm not going to answer because I just think it's not true and it's nonsense. But the first part is actually quite important. The reason that the government doesn't want a private to, to make, to nationalise the water companies is that it would cost a great deal of money, which we ought to use for other things.

And it doesn't necessarily end up it doesn't necessarily end up with a better system. I'm merely saying I'm a historian. I always like to look at what happened before, when it was in the public sector, when it was run by municipalities. We didn't spend the money. That was the problem, and we still wouldn't do so because there's always something better to spend the money on. Immediate. We're politicians. You do it for what the next moment is. The trouble with investment in water is that it is crucial, but it is long term.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't want to get into a spat. With the noble Lord because,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the noble Lord because, excuse me, but could you not mention people by name? I think mention people by name? I think that's quite rude in, in, in this chamber. And secondly, I'm an chamber. And secondly, I'm an archaeologist and I, I know exactly how these things start. And the fact is, it may be that public fact is, it may be that public ownership didn't help, but private ownership has made it much, much worse. And it is not true that I condemn all private businesses.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd just say to the noble Lady. Order. Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just say that we are straying away from the amendment and strolling into a a bigger debate? If we can get back to the amendment, that would be really fantastic.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Say the personal attack. Mr. Polanski is the leader of a party. If he can't be referred to in this If he can't be referred to in this House, I wonder what on earth we're coming to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to follow the the strictures just put on us to stay with the amendment. I would only say to the Lord Deben, as he still came back for another bite, that as came back for another bite, that as someone who sat on the regulators committee that looked into the water industry in detail, the Victorian system reached its Victorian system reached its capacity in 1960 and public ownership and private ownership in
18:06
18:06
18:07
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Here Lord Agnew. noble Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling the amendment and indeed the noble Lord Earl Russell for moving it, and indeed for the to the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for for speaking to her name to it. Well, I do enjoy well, enjoying inverted commas, sparring on issues of water ownership, and water companies use it in Oral Questions rather than in the middle of the Crime and Policing Bill. But hey ho, you take your chances wherever you you can.

Really. I'd also like to thank the noble, noble Lord Lord Deben for bringing his sense of history and actual active participation in over a number of decades, if I may, on on on the issue of water, water ownership and stewardship and and rather maybe not too strangely, I found myself agreeing in no small part with many of his comments, to be clear as he as the noble Lord Lord Deben said, before I get into the the meat of my remarks, the government is not going to be nationalising the water industry.

It would cost around about 100 billion. And at the moment we've got we've well, it is, as I will say to the noble Lady, I'm very happy to direct her towards Defra's costings on the, on, on this that you have to take account all sorts of factors, including debt that you inherit, as well as the equity stake of the companies that they are currently valued at. And I think it's a very simplistic economics that leads you down a primrose path of of of the valuations that some people like to think it would cost.

That's not the that's not the case. I would also gently point out to the noble Lord Earl Russell, that the 104 billion that comes up in the in PR 24, that to which he referred is an investment commitment from the water companies. It's the fact that we haven't built we are building a new new a new aqueducts now. We haven't built them for decades. That's one of the main reasons that we have continual problems of lots of rain, but not enough water supply to which the noble Lord Woodley would.

Referred. But anyway, I'll take off my DEFRA whip hat, and I'll put on my home office whip hat, and I will speak to the actual amendment. My Lords performance commitment levels, including for pollution, are set for Ofwat in the price review process. Where companies fail to meet these commitment levels, they must return money to customers through reduced bills in the next financial year. Companies are therefore already penalised for meeting their for failing to meet their performance targets. In addition, this government has already introduced the toughest sensing powers against law breaking water executives in history.

Provisions in the Water Special Measures Act 2025 to which, to be fair, the noble Lord Russell referred in moving the amendment, extended the extend the sentencing powers of the courts to include imprisonment in all cases where the regulator's investigations have been obstructed by individuals and enable obstruction cases to be heard in the Crown Court. As a company cannot go to prison, the provisions ensure directors and officers are held to account. The threat of imprisonment will act as a powerful deterrent as water companies invest in upgrading broken water infrastructure and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.

The 2025 act also allows the government to expand and strengthen the current range of financial penalties available to the Environment Agency in a bid to clamp down on more more water company offences, the government has consulted on the scope for these new penalties and their value. The changes will make it much easier and quicker for the Environment Agency to hold water companies to account through the 2025 act. The government has also given off what the power to ban executive performance bonuses, where companies fail to meet certain standards.

Since this was introduced in June last year, six companies out of nine I think in total Anglian Southern, Thames, United Utilities, Wessex and Yorkshire have triggered the bonus ban rule and more than £4 million of potential bonuses have been blocked. So this is hard. This is the legislation actually working clearly in action. The government has already announced in its in its response to the Cunliffe Review that it will establish a single powerful regulator for the entire water sector with the teeth to enforce the standards that the that the public rightly demand.

We've also accepted the, the the recommendation from Cunliffe that we should end the era of water companies marking their own homework and through operator self monitoring, we'll introduce open monitoring to increase transparency and restore public trust. We've set out our wider vision for the future of the water sector. In a white paper which was published on the 20th of January. And this marks the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. We will introduce in in the new session, when time allows a new water bill creating the laws.

We need to fundamentally change the system when parliamentary time allows. And I suppose to answer the noble Lord Lord Deben point about will the government being committed to it. I think you've got a very kind of from the Water Special Measures Act last year, the Cunliffe review or response to the review, the Water White paper, our commitment to legislate. I think that that is, if you will, a down payment on our commitment to do the do the right by both the industry, the environment, the consumer and and indeed those who wish to invest in our water system.

So, my Lords, I hope that the measures I've set out demonstrate that the government and regulators are taking firm action to hold water companies and their executives to account for poor performance. And for these reasons in the knowledge, we'll be bringing forward further legislation in due course. I hope the noble Lord Earl Russell will withdraw the amendment.
18:13
None Portrait 5 Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-

My Lord, I thank everybody who spoke. That was a more interesting spoke. That was a more interesting group of amendments than than I expected it to be. Can I can I also, first of all, start by giving my apologies to the house. I should have, at the start of my speech, declared my interest as a board member and non-director of the water retail company. This has been a really interesting debate. My amendment was not actually really about the ownership or privatisation of water.

Obviously my party has a middle way on that, but it's really about making sure that actually we, the government has the tools in the toolbox to change the behaviour and the direction of water company execs to make sure that money and I take the minister's point about the 140 billion, but a lot of that is actually underwritten. And actually we need that to be invested to get the change. I recognise the issues of climate change and the particular problems we face, but but actually this this amendment is quite carefully crafted and it is about adding this extra tool in the toolbox.

And fundamentally, my worry is that when we create the new regulator, which I welcome, that new regulator needs to be set out to succeed and to deliver when frankly, no other regulator has to date delivered in this space. And fundamentally, my worry is that fines alone may not be enough to change corporate behaviour. And if we come, I do not want to come back in another 510 years time when the climate has moved on and the problems we face are worse.

And the reality is that more money has gone in and the systems have not changed. But with that, I agree to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment and I thank all those who have spoken. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 485 Baroness Blake will not moved. We come now to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. We come now to amendment 486 Lord Garnier my Lord, my amendment 486. Co-signed by the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the noble Lady Fox of Buckley, and. The noble. Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton,
18:15
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
>> Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, is a probing amendment designed to enable the Committee to consider the criminal law on joint enterprise, and the government to tell us how and when they intend to reform this troubling aspect of our law. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, regrets that he can't be here this afternoon, but he had wanted to refer to the law of Scotland, which I won't. The noble Lord, Lord, simply because it would be a mistake for me to venture into that dangerous water.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may regret after having listened to what I have to say, and endured my speech, that he could be here. But I'm very grateful to him for his being here. The instigator of this amendment is Kim Johnson, member of Parliament. She presented a private member's bill to this effect in the other place in February 2024, and initiated a debate on joint enterprise through her amendment 13 to this bill on report in the other place, in June 2025.

Amendment 486 is in the same terms and its supporters come from across your Lordships House. Legal academics and practitioners outside Parliament have argued for it as well. Section eight of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, if changed by my amendment, would provide that. And I quote whosoever shall, and then I add in the amendment the amending words by making a significant contribution to its commission, end of amendment, aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.

Now I believe my the noble Lord Lord Marks will address the corresponding need to amend the Magistrates Court 1980. Later this evening. Now, the last government rejected this proposal because they said it would be too difficult for the prosecution to prove a significant contribution. I disagree this amendment may not provide the best or only answer, but the intention is to bring to Parliament's and the government's urgent attention the need for clarity and therefore justice to an aspect of our criminal law that has over the years led to confusion and injustice as our courts have wrestled with how to deal with defendants who agree to commit one crime, but who go on separately altogether to commit another one.

Over the years, it has led to a version of the law of joint enterprise that has allowed several people to be convicted of a crime, usually murder or manslaughter, even if only one person committed the fatal act. In some cases, there have been demonstrably unjust convictions. Let me just mention a few recent developments. The first is the combined Supreme Court and Privy Council decision in two appeals, Jogi and Ruddock from respectively, England and Jamaica heard in 2016. And if I may, I refer to these two appeals as Jogi.

The question of law relating to the liability of a secondary party was whether the common law took a wrong turning in two cases, one called Chan Wing su in 1985 and the other the crown against Pil in English in 1999. My Lords, the appeals concerned a subset of the law of secondary liability for crime relating to the person who did not himself forge the document father, gun or stabbed the victim. That's to say the person who did is the principal, but who is said to have encouraged or assisted the principal to do so.

There's no question that persons who are indeed together responsible for a crime are guilty of it, are all guilty of it, whether as principals or secondary parties. Sometimes it's not possible to determine exactly whose hand performed the vital act, but this doesn't matter, so long as it's proved that each defendant either did it himself, or intentionally assisted or encouraged it. Jogi did not affect that rule. In Jogi, the court was considering a narrower subpart concerning secondary parties who've been engaged with one or more others in a criminal venture to commit crime.

A but in doing so the principal commits a second crime, crime B in many of the reported cases, crime B is murder committed in the course of some other criminal case cases of criminal venture. But this aspect of the law is not confined to cases of homicide or even to cases of violence. The question in Jogi was what is the mental element which the law requires of the secondary party? This narrower area of secondary responsibility has sometimes been labelled joint enterprise.

To speak of a joint enterprise is simply to say that two or more people were engaged in a crime together. That, however, does not identify what mental element must be shown in the secondary party. The narrower area of secondary responsibility in question, where crime B is committed during the course of crime A has been in the past more precisely been called parasitic accessory liability, a phrase which I have to accept does not exactly trip off the tongue. The two cases of Chan Wing soo and Powell held that in the kind of situation described, the mental element required of the secondary party is simply that he foresaw the possibility that the principal might commit crime.

B if the secondary party did foresee this, the case is treated. His continuous continued participation in crime a not simply as evidence that he intended to assist crime. B but as automatic authorisation of it. So the secondary party was guilty under this rule, even if he didn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intend to assist crime B at all. This set a lower test for the. Secondary party than for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secondary party than for the principal, who will be guilty of crime B only if he has the necessary mental element for that necessary mental element for that crime, usually intent. That was in contrast to the usual rule for secondary parties, which is that the mental element is an intention the mental element is an intention to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime. Jogi principal to commit the crime. Jogi held that Chan Su and the crown against Powell had taken a wrong turning.

In their reasoning, the decisions departed from the well-established rule that the mental element required of a secondary party is an intention to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime. They also advanced arguments based on the need that co adventurers in crimes which result in death should not escape conviction, without considering whether the secondary parties would generally be guilty of manslaughter. In any event, the Supreme Court decided that the law must be set back to the correct footing which stood before Chan Wang Su.

The mental element for secondary liability is the intention to assist or encourage the crime. Sometimes the encouragement or assistance is given to a specific crime and sometimes to a range of crimes. One of which is committed either will suffice. Sometimes the encouragement or assistance involves an agreement between the parties, but in other cases it takes the form of more or less spontaneous joining in a criminal enterprise. Again, either will suffice. Intention to assist is not the same as desiring the crime to be committed.

On the contrary, the intention to assist may sometimes be conditional in the sense that the secondary party hopes that the further crime won't be necessary, but if he nevertheless gives his intention assistance on the basis that it may be committed, if the necessity for it arises, he will be guilty. Now, in many cases the intention to assist will be coterminous with the intention that crime b be committed, but there may be some where it exists. Without that latter intention, it will remain relevant to inquire in most cases, whether the principal and secondary party shared a common criminal purpose, for often this will demonstrate the secondary party's intention to assist.

This will be a matter of fact for the jury after criminal after careful direction from the judge. The error, Jogee says, was to treat foresight of crime B as automatic authorisation of it, whereas the correct rule is that foresight is simply evidence, albeit sometimes strong, evidence of intent, to assist or encourage. It's a question for the jury in every case, whether the intention to assist or encourage is shown. The correct rule, therefore, is that foresight is simply evidence, albeit sometimes strong evidence, as I say, of intent to assist or encourage, which is the proper mental element for establishing secondary liability.

Now, my Lords, the story doesn't end there. I'm sorry to say, for those of you who are still with me, for those convicted, for those convicted post-training, there is now a concern in the minds of some academics and practitioners that the Court of Appeal has subsequently lowered the conduct element and removed causation once again to widen liability through another error of law. This criticism follows two cases in the Court of Appeal in 2021 and 2023, one called Roe and the other called Hussain, where it was held.

If I've got this right that save for procuring a crime, conduct is enough, causation is not necessary and contribution is implicit and the and the need not and need not be measurable. The consequence is that the statutory language of aid, abet, counsel or procure is lost, and liability through complicity does not require proof that the accused person made a significant contribution to the crime in which he's alleged to have been complicit and without a significant contribution. An alleged accomplice is not meaningfully involved in the principal's crime.

A professor, Matthew Dyson, in his paper The Contribution of Complicity, published in the Journal of Criminal Law in 2022, suggests judges should direct juries on contribution. This would retain the necessary derivative nature of complicity. The result of Dyson's research, argues Doctor Felicity Gerrie. Casey, who appeared for one of the defendants in Hussain, is a much safer legal framework to ensure that only those who make a significant contribution to the crime are at risk of conviction. The current approach, she says, fails to make it clear that there must be some nexus between the alleged acts of assistance and encouragement and the principal's commission of the crime.

Doctor Beatrice Krebs has explained that without further guidance on the level of contribution made by the accessories, action towards the principal's commission of the offence, the jury has no tool to distinguish between an accessory who was merely present, and one who, by their presence, has assisted or encouraged. Put simply, the decision in Hussain leaves a real risk of convicting people who make no significant contribution to the crime. The fundamental problem that both Dyson and Krebs identify is the Court of Appeal's focus on the accessory accessories conduct, rather than proof of of the contribution of the principal's commission to the offence.

Dyson's proposed test of a significant contribution, which I import into amendment 486, is a measure that could have tightened the conduct element in complicity, just as Jogee envisaged greater care in fault. So, my Lords, Dyson argue that Jogee passed over the important issue of what contribution an accomplice needs to make to a principal's crime. He submitted that English law is too willing to assume that such a contribution has occurred, and has little detailed law to test for it, and that a more rigorous approach is needed.

He suggests that there should be a two part approach to be liable for assisting or encouraged the crime. The accomplice must make a substantial contribution to the principal's commission of it. To be liable for procuring the principal's crime, the accomplice must bring the crime about whether the accomplices, assistance or encouragement had made the necessary substantial contribution would be a question for the jury. This approach, Dyson argues, would be consistent with what was said in Jogee about overwhelming supervening acts.

Where such an issue arose, a jury would first have to decide what level of contribution the assistance or encouragement of the accomplice had made, and would then have to decide whether that had persisted to the point when the principal committed the offence. The Court of Appeal rejected that proposition in in Hussain. So, in addition to all those wrongly convicted before Jogee, there's a growing cohort of prisoners whose contribution to a crime has never meaningfully been measured, with no minimum threshold for the conduct element, and in murder, the consequence of lengthy tariffs on life sentences.

This latest approach to joint enterprise contributes to overcriminalization and overincarceration prison overcrowding and perceived injustice are, I suggest, a toxic mix. Absent a further case before the Supreme Court, we look to the Law Commission and the government to find a way through. Now, in December 2024, the Law Commission announced a review of homicide and the sentencing framework for murder. It will, amongst other things, examine the law on joint enterprise following the Supreme Court ruling in Jogee. Now, I suggest that the published timetable for the review is too long.

Opened in August 25th with two separately focussed consultation papers to be published in 26 and 27. It will not report until 2028. Would it not be possible, my Lords, to conclude the proposed review with two separate, if linked reports on first and much earlier the offences, and secondly on defences and sentencing, rather than waiting until 2028 to publish one final report. It could be well over two years after that, depending on what is in the legislative programme for 28 to 30, and bearing in mind the delays caused by a general election and changing political priorities for anything to be done, I know from my own experience in government and in opposition in Parliament since 1992 that governments are reluctant to do anything that looks like being weak on crime, especially violent crime.

But getting the law on joint enterprise understood and settled in statute is not, I suggest, my Lords, a sign of weakness, but Lords, a sign of weakness, but evidence of the search for justice. Amendment I do. It even says here I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 196. Insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I. Thank the noble Lord, Lord noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier very much for introducing so fully this
18:30
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
matter. He introduced his comments by saying that this was a troubling by saying that this was a troubling aspect of the law, and I wanted to talk about how troubling it is and talk about how troubling it is and also reflect on the academic research which underpins many of the comments which he has made. And I'm also talking from my own experience as a youth magistrate experience as a youth magistrate for, for, for many years. And, and certainly my experience as a youth magistrate is underpinned by the academic research, which I'll refer to in a minute.

As the noble Lord said this the this is originated from the private member's bill of Kim Johnson, and it's an issue which has been coming around repeatedly through successive attempts at legislation. And I first seriously became aware of this issue maybe about ten years ago when I made a friendship with Lord justice Bill Davis, who sadly now died. And at that point I was chair of the London Youth Magistrates, and he was the lead law Lord for for the youth justice system.

And we spoke about we spoke about joint enterprise and how, how how the law is applied. And I believe he had recently conducted or been involved in a review of, of the whole situation. But, my Lords, what I wanted to just draw attention to the the committee is what some of the academic research actually says. So I wanted to refer to Doctor Nisha Waller at the centre for Crime and Justice Studies, who states that joint enterprise laws are vague and wide in scope, causing systemic injustice, including overcriminalization over punishment, discriminatory outcomes and convictions where there is no compelling evidence of intent and the defendant's physical contribution is minimal.

Her research shows that the current flawed law encourages, firstly, the police and the CPS to charge suspects based on poor quality evidence. Secondly, highly speculative prosecution case theory to take precedence over evidentiary evidentiary foundations. And thirdly, the use of gang narratives and vague concepts such as being in it together to imply collective intent, allowing mostly young black males to be stereotyped and criminalised. She recommends that the scope of secondary liability law must be narrowed in favour of a clearer and safer legal framework, and calls on the government to make good on their commitment to reform the laws of secondary liability as soon as practically possible.

My Lords, it's also worth just reflecting on a on another report, research by Becky Clark and Patrick Williams at the Manchester Metropolitan University that shows that nearly £250 million every year is spent on prosecuting defendants in joint enterprise cases. And for about a thousand people a year a year are convicted under joint enterprise cases and the total future punishment costs of those convictions is about £1.2 billion. So it's an expensive way that we are treating it has a cost implication that there are these these this large number of of convictions.

I also wanted to talk about the the group which has been set up, which is called the Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association Group, which together with Liberty says that the CPS agreed to collect and monitor data on the disproportionate prosecutions of ethnic minorities, disabled and working class people under joint enterprise. The result of their pilot data collection was stark, showing 16 times more black people being prosecuted under joint enterprise than their white counterparts. The results from the first year, first full year of the CPS data collection scheme were published in September of last year and confirmed the stark disparities in charging and prosecution data.

The proportion of black defendants made up 25% of their caseload last year, compared with 4% of the population. The percentage of joint enterprise defendants who are mixed race is 7.8%, compared with 2.9% of the population. The CPS also looked at the use of discriminatory language and stereotypes, and language used by both police and prosecutors in charging decisions, which have revealed clear differences in language used to describe suspects and circumstances of offences depending on the subject's ethnicity.

In a letter to the chair of the Justice Select Committee in November of 2024 regarding their investigations into the data on disproportionate prosecutions of ethnic minorities, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated, and I quote, it is clear from the data that there have been racial disparities in our legal decision making. Close quote. So, my Lords, this is an ongoing issue. It's a serious issue. I know the government takes it seriously, and I and the noble Lord has come up with a very practical way of addressing this.

But I do know that my noble friend, the Minister, will be very familiar with these issues, and I look forward to her response with great interest.
18:36
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. >> If ever there was a day to consider whether we should just assume guilt by association, then assume guilt by association, then today's political context does provide us with a reminder that provide us with a reminder that it's complicated. I've added my name to the noble Lord Lord Garnier amendment 486. In terms of attempting to reform joint enterprise. Having listened to the elegant and legally erudite contribution by the noble Lord, followed up then by such a well informed contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am rather nervous that I'm going to let the side down somewhat, but let me take a different approach.

Reading through the first hand accounts in the publication in their own words, produced by the Joint enterprise. Not guilty by Association grassroots campaign group that the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby referred to. It really brings home that this tool of criminal justice is destroying too many young lives by incarcerating them for crimes which they made no significant contribution to, and sending people to prison for life and labelling them as murderers when they haven't killed anyone or were in many instances, effectively bystanders, is something Parliament must address.

Why? Because we have a responsibility to make sure the law is fit for purpose, applied properly and as originally intended. And I think that joint enterprise fails on all those counts. I think we can all understand what the intention of joint enterprise is and was. Sometimes there does seem equal culpability of those who don't metaphorically wield the knife. The armed robber involved in the heist that's gone wrong is the one that's always used. It could be deemed that he's as guilty as accomplice who actually shot the cashier, because he significantly contributed to the crime by, for example, carrying or supplying the gun or threatening the cashier.

And we can all acknowledge that in the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence, a group was closely involved in the killing. And actually, interestingly, if you look back to the ancient history of the law, which was explained by the noble Lord Lord Finkelstein in a times article a couple of years ago, it also brings home that things can be complicated, but people can be equally guilty. It began, apparently, with duelling aristocrats in the 18th century. The courts hit on the idea of reducing the number of duels by making seconds and surgeons liable for murder alongside the principles.

So once more, we can blame the hereditaries for everything that's gone wrong since. But before I continue, that was a joke. It's important to stress that this is not about getting the guilty off the hook, because behind each of these joint enterprise cases that we are talking about, the victims of crime, the families of those brutally killed must not be forgotten. But justice for them is ill served by over criminalisation or over punishment of the wrong culprits. I do want to use a couple of examples.

Pfizer fires, who found out about the murder that he committed at the same time as everyone else because he saw it on social media. He didn't know beforehand that there had been a murder because he was waiting in the back of a car as two of his colleagues in the drugs gang that he was involved in went round the corner intending to steal cannabis from a local dealer. So I want to stress Faisal was no angel. He was a involved in the drugs trade.

He was a teenager in a gang, but he didn't know that his gang accomplice were carrying a knife, or indeed that they had gone on to stab the dealer to death. The stabber fled the country to Pakistan and is still at large, whereas Pfizer was jailed for life a minimum of 23 years without any compelling evidence of intent or knowledge of the crime about to happen, or even that it had happened. But his vicinity, his presence in the vicinity, and guilt by association was deemed enough to suggest to the CPS that he contributed to the murder in such a way that he is in prison for life.

So he was punished as harshly as if he'd wielded the knife. But I don't think that's the same as its original intention of the heist gone wrong, or indeed, the jewels. That, my Lord seems to me to be the crucial weakness in the current law of joint enterprise, that the courts seem indifferent to the precise contribution to the crime of the accused. And this breaks the link between any action and accountability for that action and this and in this context, then, of course, evidential standards are watered down and can even be dispensed with.

I was really struck listening to Joseph OAPA, who is part of a group which clashed with rival schoolboys when he was 15. He was 200 yards away from a fatal stabbing of a 16 year old. He didn't stab the victim. He didn't see the stabbing. So of course he assumed that he would. That would all be taken into account. But to use his words, he said, I didn't see it. I didn't know it had happened. And I can account for where I was.

I could prove it. And I always thought, well, you know, I didn't do it. So when all the evidence comes out, eventually they will see the light. But that's not how it went. So despite no DNA, no evidence that he was directly involved or he saw the act or knew a knife was involved, he was found as culpable as the teenager who did in fact commit a stabbing. Understandably, then, people conclude that the law of joint enterprise is being so loosely interpreted by the criminal justice system that it's done for the reason that it makes it easier to secure convictions.

It removes the faff of investigation. Evidence gathering proved beyond reasonable doubt, and so on. In other words, it fuels cynicism in criminal justice. And there are side injustices created by the counts, the courts wielding enterprise as a blunt instrument, have been convicted. That way means that defence barristers have been known to persuade innocent clients to plead guilty to lesser charges, like GBH, to avoid a trial of joint enterprise. All of these problems are well known, as we've heard and as we've heard.

Back in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the law around joint enterprise had taken a wrong turn and was used wrongly for three decades. And the court thought it was rightly restoring the proper law of targeting those who intended to commit or assisted or assist in a serious crime. But as we're all too aware, Supreme Court clarifications aren't always used to rectify wrong readings of the law. So, according to the centre for Crime and Justice Studies, they have revealed that in the three years leading up to the ruling in 2016, 522 individuals were charged.

But in the three years afterwards, 547 were so. As others have noted, reform of joint enterprise has gone as far as it is possible for it to go in the courts, and it now needs a change in the law. And I really want to pay credit to the MP Kim Johnson, who has used her voice in the other place to really draw attention to this and to inspire us on her. Her attempts have failed so far, but I do think that the government should now grab this chance here at committee to right this wrong.

One part of this debate, though, that I have some qualms with, is implying that this is an active racist law or that its purpose is alleged, as alleged by Jimmy McGovern. If I can quote him, he said, it's to keep scum off the streets. That's what the how the police see it. That's how they see all young people as scum. Now, I really love Jimmy McGovern's powerful 2014 drama common, but I really think that's not what's going on here. I actually think that joint enterprise has been used by many in good faith to try and tackle the scourge and the blight of gang violence.

And yes, black people, young black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted. And lots of young people, 14% are aged between 14 to 17 and 40% between 40% between 18 to 24, and 93% of defendants are male. But let's be honest, there is a problem, a real problem of young black men stabbing each other. I live in Woodgreen in Haringey and it is real and that is not racist to note it. It's something we have to take into account.

We have a problem. I think of young men for trivial reasons, indulging in violence. We have cultural social problems, the collapse of adult authority in reigning in alienated, disenfranchised young men. There is a big cultural issues that demand our urgent attention. But how that effectively rounding up young men for hanging round together and indulging in aggressive, violent counterculture and then sending them into prison, where gang culture becomes replicated and normalised when they haven't actually committed the crime. I don't know how we can think that that will help.

It will just make things a lot worse. We need to teach these young people, lively young men and boys, that they need to take responsibility for their actions, their conscious decisions, their interventions, not turn them into victims. Because one of the people that they hung round with actually acts out the acts out the violent rhetoric and takes another life. But they didn't. But they're held equally guilty. So assuming collective intent or collective guilt is a terrible law and unjust. And we need these young men to understand that criminal justice is not targeting them.

conclusion.
18:46
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Not targeting them personally, but that the crime is fair and proportionate. That's what we should do. >> But my Lords. >> I support amendment 46 and thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support amendment 46 and thank Lord Garnier for his excellent introduction to it, which was very clear to follow. Over the decades, thousands of people have been wrongly jailed for life in appalling miscarriages of justice because of the use of joint enterprise to charge those present at the commission of a serious crime. Sometimes that might be someone who was present and thought they were going to be involved in a low level crime, and they had no involvement at all in the actual violence or murder committed by another, but are still charged under joint enterprise, as if they had also committed the act of violence or murder.

And that's very similar, I think, to the example that Lady Fox gave us. First of all, even worse, there are those who've been jailed for murder simply because they were present at the act of murder. They had not been members of the gang involved over the last 15 years, this House has seen various amendments and had debates and questions, trying to correct and clarify when charges should or shouldn't be used. For those who didn't commit serious acts of violence, as has already been mentioned a decade ago, the Supreme Court recognised that joint enterprise had been used repeatedly and incorrectly in many cases.

But nothing has really changed since then, and I'm grateful to Lady Fox for quoting the figures for three years before 2016 and three years after, because it hasn't changed the numbers either. The key questions addressed by the Supreme Court, including what qualifies as assistance and encouragement, remain obfuscatory. And it's still not clear whether presence at a serious crime is in itself enough. I won't repeat the data that Lord Ponsonby did and others have mentioned in the briefing we got from Joint Enterprise by not guilty by Association.

I differ slightly from Lady Fox's view. I think it's quite notable that over 50% of those prosecuted are not just black young black men and women, but there's also substantial overrepresentation of disabled and neurodivergent people, as well as many under 25. I might understand the last, but not certainly the others on their own. My Lords, Lord Garnier's proposal completely changes the approach to considering who's been involved in serious crime. The amendment ensures that rather than guessing the individual's state of mind, associations and their foresight of what might occur, the CPS must look at actual material actions, making that the baseline objective threshold for prosecution.

And I do hope that the Minister is finally prepared to change the injustice in the use of joint enterprise and start a new era based on facts, not suppositions.
18:49
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I fully support this amendment and I agree effectively amendment and I agree effectively with every word that has fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lord Garnier Lord Ponsonby. My noble friend Baroness Brinton and almost every word uttered by the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley. But I do hope that the government will listen to and give very careful consideration to this amendment. My Lords, the law of joint enterprise has long been unsatisfactory.

It was, of course, substantially improved by the decision of the Supreme Court in the JJ case, as explained by the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier, the present state of the law in the light of JJ is that an offence is only committed by an accessory if the defendant charged as an accessory intended to assist the principal in the commission of the offence. However, even so, the law is still unsatisfactory and unclear as extensively supported by the academic evidence cited by the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier and by Lord Ponsonby sorely needs a reform.

The use of the phrase significant contribution to the commission of the offence used in the amendment is apt. It overcomes the difficulties mentioned by Lord Garnier with the Court of Appeal's position on the related accessory offences of procurement. The phrase has been proposed by the centre for Crime and Justice Studies and widely by academics. It was the phrase used in Johnson's private member's bill, supported by, among others, sir Bob Neill, then chair of the Justice Select Committee. Therefore, one presumes by the committee itself, while the expression may in some ways seem vague, it sets exactly the type of type of test that juries can and do, recognise and apply regularly.

Apply rather similarly to the test for dishonesty that's used in relation to Theft Act offences. So the amendment would make an offence of being an accessory much more comprehensible and justifiable than the present test. The present test, I suggest, focuses disproportionately on the mental element of accessory liability, whereas the amendment would focus on the actual contribution of the accessory to the commission of the offence. There is also considerable cause for concern that joint enterprise law in its operation is discriminatory.

Lord Ponsonby mentioned the research showing black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted on the basis of joint enterprise than white people. A Baroness Fox mentioned the same research. What neither mentioned is that that staggering figure, and I suggest it is staggering, was based on the CPS own figures for 2023. Now, I accept that there may be cultural issues as mentioned by the noble Lady Baroness Fox, but they have to be judged against the caution that was mentioned by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, my noble friend.

And there is also, I suggest, serious evidence of unjustified, unwarranted group prosecution. There is significant concern about evidence of racial bias and the risk of guilt by association and consequence, and Baroness Fox point that it sometimes may seem easier to prosecute for joint enterprise than by establishing individual guilt is, or maybe justified concerns about guilt by association and gang involvement are entirely legitimate. I think they're shared by the public, and they are evidenced by the clear examples of which we've heard today.

And they evidence, I suggest, a lack of principle in prosecution and in the application of the law in evidence to the Leveson Review. Kim Monteith KC and Professor Ethan King from the University of Manchester argued that joint enterprise was overused and they went so far as to say that it contributed as inevitably, statistically it does, to the growth of the backlogs. They cited the trial of seven black teenagers in 2022 who were accused of murder, where the prosecution accepted that they couldn't be sure who stabbed the victim, but asserted that all of those who went to the park where the killing occurred.

And I quote, shared responsibility, at the very least contributing to the force of numbers. Now, that was an inaccurate or at the very least, an incomplete statement of the law in the light of Jogee. And six of the seven defendants were acquitted. But the facts that they were tried and went through, the period that they did prior to trial highlight the confused state of the law, which makes the essential ingredients of the offence difficult for jurors. And even, it seems sometimes for prosecutors to understand.

And we should also take into account, particularly given the delays that we have in bringing trials to court, the serious risk of charges based on joint enterprise, leading to defendants who are ultimately acquitted being held on remand as one of the seven defendants in the case I mentioned was for no less than 14 months. Finally, a technical point which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord Garnier to whom I'd mentioned it. While I support the amendment completely, I think it needs to be reworded or supplemented to cover summary offences.

That's because, as a result of the amendment of section eight of the Accessories and Abetters Act 1861 by the Criminal Law Act 1977, the accessory offence under the 1861 act applies only to indictable offences. Offences either indictable only or triable either way. And a parallel amendment is required to. Section 44, one of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 to cover a summary offences. There's no justification for distinguishing between them. With that rather academic point, I rest.

But I do hope the government will act on this.
18:56
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, for bringing forward this amendment and for the care and intellectual rigour with which he has set out the case for revisiting the law on joint enterprise. He has laid out a clear case for why this area of criminal law generates much concern, not least because of the length of sentences involved and the understandable anxiety about culpability and clarity in attributing criminal responsibility. My learned friend is rightly reminded the house of the complex and often unsettled journey this area of law has taken from the missteps identified by the Supreme Court in jogee through to more recent Court of Appeal decisions, which some commentators argue have again widened liability in ways that risk injustice.

And his concerns about overcriminalization and the potential for convictions where an individual's role is marginal are serious points that deserve careful reflection. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the Minister's thoughts on these points. The noble Lady, the Minister's thoughts on these points. That said, while I welcome this debate and acknowledge the the force of many of the arguments advanced, I am not persuaded that this amendment provides the right statutory solution at this stage. The introduction of a requirement that an accessory must have made a significant contribution to the commission of an offence raises difficult questions of definition and application.

What amounts to significant is not self-evident, and if left undefined, it would inevitably fall to the courts to develop meaning over time through case law, creating precisely the uncertainty and inconsistency that this amendment seeks to address. Alternatively, attempting to define significant contribution exhaustively in statute risks rigidity and unintended consequences across a wide range of factual scenarios. And to add to this, there is currently a wealth of case law which can be applied by the courts when considering joint enterprise, and this case law would in many scenarios be made redundant if the law were to be changed by this amendment, and this would surely not be desirable.

My noble and learned friend, I believe, acknowledges that this amendment may not be the only or even the best way, but rather uses it as a probing amendment, as a means of drawing attention to the problem. And there is clearly an ongoing need to ensure that the law of secondary liability remains uncle to principles of intention, causation and moral culpability, and that juries are properly directed to distinguish between meaningful participation and mere presence. However, given the Law Commission's ongoing review of homicide and sentencing, which includes consideration of joint enterprise in light of Jogee, I am cautious about pre-empting that work with a statutory change that may generate further ambiguity.

Reform in this area must be evidence based and coherent. So, my Lords, I welcome the discussion sparked by this amendment and commend the noble and learned Lord for his persistence in pursuing clarity and justice. While I cannot lend the amendment my support today, I hope the government will reflect carefully on the concerns raised and indicate how they intend to ensure that the law on Joint enterprise is both fair and clearly understood.
18:59
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, amendment 406, in the >> My Lords, amendment 406, in the name of the noble and learned Lord Garnier, raises an issue which has long troubled the criminal justice system, and I am very grateful to system, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me sight of his speech in advance. The criminal liability of secondary parties is an important but sometimes controversial concept in the law, and the government acknowledges the anxiety over the consequences for those prosecuted and convicted as a result of the application of the rule.

On the one hand, there are the very real and understandable concerns. First, we recognise the anxiety that this has a disproportionate effect on young people and on those from certain ethnic groups. Secondly, it is a matter of serious concern that the law is widely misunderstood. For example, I pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Fox in relation to her powerful speech. But in fact she said several things that weren't in fact quite right. For example, we have no law of collective responsibility, and mere presence without more is never enough to convict.

Even the lawyers and the judges sometimes struggle with the application of this concept. As any of you who attempted to follow the noble and learned law, Garnier's limpid explanation of the law in this area may well understand. On the other hand, and seriously, it must be remembered that the reason the rule exists is in order to ensure that it is possible to prosecute those who take part in group crimes, often, not always crimes of violence. Please remember that if your son or daughter was attacked by a large group, one of whom may have held the weapon, but others of whom were assisting and encouraging, you would want the entire group to face justice.

More so if, because it was not possible to distinguish which of the many feet was kicking the victim, you would not want, you could not prosecute any of them because you could not show which foot in fact delivered the fatal blow. Amongst the others which contributed to it. This is what, amongst other things, the doctrine of joint enterprise is there to cover. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lords amendment is intended to probe the government's position, and whilst the intention behind the amendment is understandable as drafted, we believe that there are flaws in this amendment, which means that it is not acceptable in certainly in its current form and would not would cause more difficulties than it solved for the courts which have to apply it.

The issues which about which the government has concerns include the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of what would count as significant. For example, is purchasing the weapon or acting as a lookout significant? What about shouting encouragement? What about driving the getaway car? You could not just leave this to a jury to decide, because then there would be a very real risk of unacceptable disparities in decisions made on the same facts in one part of the country, acting as a lookout could mean you were guilty of murder, but in another part, on the same facts, you'd be acquitted.

You could even get this results in courtrooms next door to each other in the same building. This uncertainty would make prosecutions in group violence cases pretty much impossible, as well as leading to verdicts which would not command public confidence. There are further issues, one of which has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord marks, in relation to the Magistrates Court, but also the amendment does not apply to the full range of offences because it does not address how it interacts with other forms of secondary liability, such as encouraging or assisting a crime.

Under the Serious Crime Act 2007. The noble and learned Lords summary of the development of the law pre and post the landmark case of Jogee in 2016 does illustrate, I venture to say, the great complexity of this area, but I would like to reassure your Lordships that the government is listening. Mention has been made of the few important pieces of work that are going on in this area. As the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Garnier has said, the Law Commission's review of homicide offences and sentencing for murder is considering the implications of the current law on joint enterprise.

I note that Lord Garnier has concerns about the length of time, but I should make it clear that the Law Commission is an independent body. In a sense, that's part of the point of it, which decides how to run its projects. It's not looking at joint enterprise on its own, but how joint enterprise is related to homicide offences and sentencing. And one of the things it's considering is whether we should adopt a first and second degree murder in order to reflect the different roles played in sentencing, if not necessarily in conviction for a particular offence.

And as the noble and learned Lord will know, there is a significant interaction between the categorisation of homicide offences, the impact of partial defences and mandatory sentencing requirements, which makes separating out of these aspects of the report more complex. Second, the Law Commission's review of Criminal Appeals is examining if or how historic convictions are considered, and this is a key area of concern for many people. Thirdly, the CPS have been consulting on its policies on gang related prosecutions, and this includes the controversial use of drill and rap music as evidence.

And they are also improving data collection on joint enterprise cases. And as a number of your Lordships have referred to. In September of last year, the CPS published their first annual data report on Joint Enterprise homicide and attempted homicide cases. The government also recognises the important work of the all party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice and the Westminster Commission, in which the noble and learned Lord is involved. I need not remind him that they are in the process of taking evidence and considering reform of joint enterprise, and we look forward to their report.

So whilst the government recognises that the concerns about joint enterprise and there is work that is underway to address these issues for the reasons I have given, we cannot support this amendment today and I invite the noble and learned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to withdraw his amendment. The noble Lady finally sits down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady finally sits down. I just ask her to reconsider or at least explain her argument that it least explain her argument that it is significant in this regard that different juries might receive, might come to different conclusions on the same or similar facts in different parts of the country, or on one day or another. Because on one day or another. Because isn't that the experience which she must share as a judge of that being an everyday event? And of course, that's one of the reasons why we.

Or does she consider that's not one of the reasons why juries do not give reasons and are not asked for their reasons, for any given decision that they make? Because it's a fact of life that we all accept.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You are one of the criticisms that sometimes made of jury trials. that sometimes made of jury trials. In the government's view, the wider and broader concept in the current law of an act of assistance or encouragement, combined with the intention to assist or encourage, intention to assist or encourage, gives a broad enough scope to allow juries to look at the conditions in juries to look at the conditions in every different case. Whereas when you're saying a significant contribution, it will be a matter of value judgement for particular juries as to whether they thought that a lookout was a significant contribution or not.

For that reason, we think it would introduce significant uncertainty and significant risk of disparity in verdicts.
19:07
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It's been a, for me, an interesting and educational 55 minutes, and I hope that the government will have found it so as well, because although of course, the Law Commission is an independent body, I dare say it, it might be sent a copy of this evening's debate, and it might encourage them to accelerate the way in which they are looking at this admittedly difficult and complicated question.

I don't think any of us who have spoken this evening thinks it's an easy question, but I do want to thank the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby. I want to thank the noble Lady, Lady Fox, the noble Lady, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, and my noble friend on the front bench, Lord Davies of Gower for their thoughtful and useful. And I don't mean useful in a in a. In a sort of demeaning way. I mean, I genuinely mean it their useful contributions to this, this debate, because it is, as I've said, difficult.

And the noble Lady, the Minister was, I think, the first to accept that she and I and may well be others I don't the noble Lord Lord Marks perhaps she and I will have summed up to juries, directed juries on the question of joint enterprise in one case or another, and I daresay at Snaresbrook Crown Court there were probably quite a lot of difficult cases that had to be dealt with. But I don't accept from her. I don't accept because I accept from her.

I don't accept her suggestion that juries would find it difficult, or it would create other sorts of difficulties to work out what significant contribution means. Juries can work out following a proper direction from a judge, how to deal with actions taken in self-defence, and you could get a different set of facts which would allow the defence to run, whereas in other cases it wouldn't. And so significant contribution is not a difficult concept, and it's not a concept that 12 members of the jury, when properly directed by the judge and having heard arguments before them from the lawyers for the respective parties, the prosecution and the defence could not grapple with.

They could. One only has to think now, not just about significant contribution, but let us work out what does no contribution mean? What does insignificant contribution mean? And it strikes me that by simply posing those questions, one should not be frightened of the significant contribution question. As I say, I understand the public policy, I understand the politics. I understand my government in the past and now this government are worried about being seen to be weak on crime.

And for goodness sake, we've we've had that record played year in, year out. But I do hope that and I'm, I do hope that this evening's short discussion will encourage others outside Parliament to keep pressing their arguments, both in court and academically. I do hope that those who have taken part in this debate will continue to press for reform in this area, and I do hope that the Law Commission, if it's listening, will accelerate its process. It's now nearly a 7:15 on a Thursday, and that is almost a capital offence to talk in a Committee stage of a bill on a Thursday at this hour.

So I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by finally repeating my thanks to all those who've taken part and beg leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment. Your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawal. We come now to amendment 486A Lord Cromwell.
19:12
19:12
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
speaking at all. We few, we happy few. I'll be as quick as I can. I'd like to start by thanking the noble Lord, the Minister Hanson, and the noble Lord Minister Hendy, for their kind assistance in their kind assistance in considering this amendment, and the former's very helpful letter to me of the 29th of January. My Lords, of the 29th of January. My Lords, drone technology has transformed many aspects of life, and it would be foolish to suppose that it would be foolish to suppose that it would not be used by criminals as part of their activities across the world.

The technology continues to evolve, to become autonomous and to be coupled with AI, and legislation, almost by definition, cannot keep pace with such evolving technologies. While noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to till today, I windmills. Tonight I put down this amendment to highlight the abuse of drones for criminal purposes, just for reconnaissance and for illegal illegal deliveries. I've been on the receiving end of the former, finding drones buzzing around business premises to scope out what machinery or products are stored there, which they can later return to steal.

I understand that drones are similarly used along railways, for example, to look for copper wiring to steal the noble, the noble Lord. The Minister's letter of the 29th of January argues that necessary law is on paper largely there, and that the real challenge lies in practical enforcement. His letter explains that while technically it may be possible to show that someone is under the Theft Act 1968, committing the offence of going equipped for stealing, reconnaissance as such is nevertheless not a criminal offence, essentially because it's very hard to prove intent.

I entirely accept this, and also the Minister's point that it would not be practical or proportionate to create no fly zones over every possible target of theft. But I do worry about people who feel unprotected when drones are routinely flown over domestic, commercial or public property in a way that is plainly intrusive and potentially preparatory to crime. It seems that nothing can be done. They and the police must stand off and wait until an act of criminality under existing laws is committed.

I suspect, my Lords, that we may, in that case, see people start to take the law into their own hands. As regards the use of drones as a means of delivery, they are used to get drugs and other items into prisons is already well known. But my Lords, there's also a growing and wider use of drones as a delivery service for illegal items elsewhere. I was recently told about a delivery drone seen regularly flying back and forth between a drug dealer's hilltop house and the settlement below the noble Lord.

The minister's letter, encouragingly points out that new regulations now require drones to be equipped with what is called direct remote identification, which works like a digital number plate that can be detected, apparently, by anybody with a smartphone who can then report this to the police. That is a significant and welcome step forward. But I ask the noble Lord, the Minister answering tonight to consider two things. First, many are terrestrial crime is carried out with, for example, masks, stolen vehicles, false or cloned number plates or other ways of avoiding detection.

And he won't take anyone armed with a pair of pliers or a screwdriver long to figure out how to disable or bypass the technology, and then tell their associates via the dark web or elsewhere. And second, that Ministers will also need to ensure that the police have the tools, training and capacity both to exploit any detection system and to deal with its inevitable circumvention. In conclusion, I certainly do not argue with the noble or the Minister's position that I quote. Drones represent a serious and growing threat, growing set of opportunities for illegal activity.

And I also accept that existing legislation may cover the crimes in which drones are involved. I am concerned, however, by what his letter calls, I quote limitations on the practical enforcement tools available. I very much hope that the government can stay ahead of the technological curve, or at least not be left chasing across the land, rather like the Keystone Cops after unidentified drones as they disappear whizzing over the horizon. I beg to move.
19:16
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 196. Insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> The Home Secretary observed in the recent White Paper, policing the recent White Paper, policing has not always kept pace with a rapidly changing world. Airspace has indeed become a new frontier for both opportunistic and organised crime. Drones are now being used by burglars and organised gangs as near-silent scouts, identifying empty homes, weak locks or high value items through windows. The law can of course address the burglary that follows, but it struggles to capture the preceding act of reconnaissance.

This is particularly relevant to rural crime, where drones are acting as the advance guard for the theft and export of GPS equipment. In our prisons, drones are described by residents as almost routine, delivering drugs, phones and weapons straight into exercise yards. Ministry of justice data shows that more than 1700 drone incidents in a single year that fuels violence and instability across the state. But as the Justice Committee pointed out last October, the problem is not only the drones, but the conditions that allow them in broken windows, unmaintained netting and faulty CCTV.

Creating a new offence may have value, but it cannot by itself remedy years of underinvestment in the prison system. I want to raise two further concerns. First, the operational one with core capital grants under severe strain, how can we realistically expect overstretched forces to invest in drone detection and counter surveillance technology? And second, until national integration plans are fully delivered, data on drone incursions will remain largely trapped in 43 police silos, leaving us blind to the wider intelligence picture.
19:18
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Cromwell for tabling his amendment. We entirely understand the intention behind his amendment and support its aim in government. We gave police forces the power to intercept or seize drones suspected of being used to break the law, and those that attempt to smuggle drugs or weapons into prisons. And before the 2024 election, we announced our intention to implement no fly zones around prisons, extending the current provisions over airports. The Lords.

We therefore entirely support the aim of prohibiting drone use for criminal ends, using drone technology as a reconnaissance tool for a crime is itself is self-evidently wrong, and should be reflected as such in the law. Similarly, using drones to carry drugs, stolen goods, weapons, harmful substances or anything similar must be tackled by the police and for the police to do so, they must be given the means. When Lords. Nowhere is this more evident than in prisons where drugs and weapons are being transported in by drones in order to run lucrative illegal businesses.

Reports suggest that some offenders are deliberately breaking probation terms in order to sell drugs in jail, where they can make more money, and anything that enables this must be stamped out. If drones are indeed a means of transport for many of these drugs, then we should target those who operate the drones and play a part in and play a part in criminal enterprises. So I hope the Minister also recognises this problem and will agree with me that this amendment is entirely correct in its aims.
19:20
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear all these? case for his amendment? And I know that he wrote to my noble friend, as he said in moving the amendment, he wrote to my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint and to and also my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill at the Department for transport on the issue. And firstly, I think we all across the committee share the same concerns. I want to stress the government takes EU you takes the issue of the use of drones to facilitate illegal activity extremely seriously.

However, as set out in my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint set out in his letter to the noble Lord, the challenges of responding to these are not gaps in our criminal law, so much as rather limitations on the practical enforcement tools available and regulation to improve the visibility and compliance of drones. We are working to address these issues by supporting the development of counter-drone technologies and operational approaches, and ensuring regulations are in place that enable the legitimate use of drones, whilst assisting operational responders in identifying illegitimate users.

Turning to the detail of amendment 46, this seeks to criminalise use of drones for criminal reconnaissance and the carrying of illicit substances. Firstly, the act of criminal reconnaissance is not in itself currently an offence as proving intent prior to an act being committed or without substantive additional evidence would be extremely difficult for prosecutors. Criminal reconnaissance using a drone encounters the same issue. It would be impractical and disproportionate to arrest anyone taking photos of a property or site, or for piloting a drone.

In both instances, the act of reconnaissance would not be practically distinguishable from a legitimate everyday actions, making the proposed offence effectively unenforceable. Where intent could be proven, it is likely that such acts could be prosecuted under existing legislation. For example, the offence of going equipped for stealing at the section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. Secondly, the carrying of illicit materials, whether it's into, in and out of prisons or elsewhere at large, is already an offence. Regardless of Lord Jones involvement, there is already a comprehensive regime of offences relating to the possession and supply of drugs, weapons and other illicit materials.

I do not think the amendment addresses any gaps in the criminal law. The government has already made. Excuse me. The government has already made changes to the unmanned aircraft regulations to require drones to be equipped as as the noble Lord Lord Cromwell set out with direct remote identification, which will improve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drones. This is. This system will allow drones to broadcast identification and location information in flight, and will help identify drone and will help identify drone operators who may be acting suspiciously or breaking the law. Nearly there again, I don't I do share the sentiment of the noble share the sentiment of the noble Lord and indeed the whole committee. In seeking to curtail the use of drones for criminal purposes. However, for the reasons.
19:23
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Outlined above, I hope this amendment and lets me sit down. >> My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part. I'm not going to name check everybody. You know who name check everybody. You know who you are. I think it would be an act of cruelty to encourage the Minister to say anything further. I was tempted to ask him to go into a lot more detail, but I don't think that's a good idea. My Lords, I suspect we may need to come back to this issue as the drone technology continues to advance, and I cannot resist mentioning that we more locally have the large giraffe fence that is erected in front of this building will be absolutely no defence against a drone attack, so let's hope it doesn't come with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. I withdraw my amendment. This amendment be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 46 be Lord Walney not Amendment 46 be Lord Walney not moved. Amendment for its IICSA Lord Winston not move. Amendment 46 Lord Carter of Haslemere not moved. We come now to clause 197, government come now to clause 197, government amendments 47 to 4 to 489. Move. Formally, the question is these amendments be agreed en bloc as many without opinion will say content contrary not content, the contents have it. Amendments 499491 withdrawn government amendments 4922496 moved.

Formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. En bloc as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content the contents have it. The question is at clause 137, as amended, stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 198. Government amendment 497 move formally question is that this amendment be agreed. That opinion will say content contrary not content. The contents have it 1497ZA not moved amendment 497A government amendment move formally question is that this amendment be agreed.

That opinion will say content not content The contents have it amendment 498 Lord Lucas not moved. Amendment 498A Lord Hogan-Howe not moved. Amendments four nine 9 to 501 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendment 401A Lord Walney not moved 402502 Earl Attlee not moved. Amendment 502A Baroness Maclean not moved. Amendment 503 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendments 504 to 505. Lord Jackson not moved. Amendment 506 Lord Bailey not moved. The question is that clause 198, as amended, stand part of the bill, as amended.

That opinion will say content contrary, not content. The The contents have it clause 159 government amendments 507 to 508 move formally. Question is these amendments be agreed? That opinion will say content contrary, not content. The the contents have it we now come to amendment 508A Lord Hanson of Flint.
19:26
19:26
19:27
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
>> Lord. This is a short and uncontroversial amendment. Can I say that the 15 days of committee we've had in this bill have been we've had in this bill have been very long, but I must say important process, and I thank all the noble Lords on the front bench opposite for the many hours dedicated bill so far. The amendment makes a an amendment to the regulation making powers for Welsh Ministers in consequence of the legislation procedure publication repeals Wales Act 2025. And for that reason I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have no objection. Formally question is this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally question is this amendment be agreed? That opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it content The contents have it government amendments 508 B to 509 move formally question is these move formally question is these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many will say content not content The contents have it question is at clause 199, as amended, stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content not content. The contents have it in clause 200.

Amendments five one 0 to 5 one two, a move formally question is these amendments be agreed as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendment 1513. Withdrawn amendments five one 4 to 5 one six move formally question as these amendments be agreed, as amended. Content contrary, not content The contents have it amendments 517 and 518 withdrawn. Amendment 519 move formally amendment proposed, page 3933. After the words last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List, as many of that opinion will say.

Content contrary, not content, the contents have it. Amendment 520 move formally question this amendment be agreed as many that opinion will say content contrary not content The contents have it amendment 521 move formally amendment proposed page 230 line 33. After the words last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it amendment 522 move formally. Amendment proposed, page 230. Line 33. After the words last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List, as many of that opinion will say.

Content not content. The contents have it amendments 522 to 5 two have it amendments 522 to 5 two three amendments move formally questions these amendments be agreed. That opinion will say content for withdrawn amendment 525 amendment move formally, the question is that this amendment be agreed as many that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content The contents have it amendment 526 moved formally amendment proposed page 230. Line 35. After the words last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List, as many that have been will say.

Content contrary, not content. The contents have it members five two 7 to 5 two eight. Move formally question is that those amendments be agreed as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendments five, two nine and 530. Withdrawn amendments five three 1 to 5 three five. Government amendments move formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed amended. That opinion will say content contrary, not content the contents have it. The question is that clause 200, as amended, stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say.

Content, content, content. The contents have it in clause 201 amendment 535A not moved 535B not moved 536. Not moved. Government amendments five three 7 to 5 three seven moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed? That opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have amendment 538 not moved. Amendment 538A Lord Davis not moved. Amendment 539 withdrawn. Amendments 540 and 541 moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed? That opinion will say content contrary, not content.

The contents have it 55542 and 543. Withdrawn amendments five four 4 to 5 five one. Move. Formally question is that these amendments be agreed. That opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendments 552553. Withdrawn government amendments 555 move formally question is that this amendment be agreed? That opinion will say content, not content The contents have it amendment 555 moved formally formally amendment propose page 232. Line 34. After the words last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List, as many that have been the say content, not content.

The contents. Habit. Amendments five five 6 to 5 six one move formally question is that these amendments be agreed as many that opinion content contrary not content the contents have it amendment five six 2 to 5 six three not moved. Amendment 564 move formally. Question is that this amendment be agreed? That opinion will say content contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 201 as amended, stand part of the bill. As many that have been, say, content contrary not content, the contents have it.

The question is that clauses 202 and 203 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content, content, content, the contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill, as many of that opinion will say, contempt contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, that concludes the committee's proceedings. The the committee's proceedings. The House will now resume. My Lords, the Committee of the whole House, to which the Crime and Policing Bill was committed, has gone through the same and has directed me to report it to your Lordships with amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.
10:30
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page