Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government directed their Members in the Commons to vote down Amendment 311, which would have created a limited power for the Government to designate as an extreme criminal protest group organisations that attempt to influence public policy through a limited number of offences, including criminal damage, without labelling them as terrorists or criminalising simple expressions of support, such as holding up signs.

I am grateful for the time that the Minister has taken to meet me directly on this matter on a number of occasions, as he said. He has characterised the Government’s objections in two areas. The first is the observations made by the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, which were published on 31 March and the second is the review of public order legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which he assures me is due to report shortly.

I shall deal with both those issues briefly. Jonathan Hall makes important points that we should all reflect on. He summarises his objections as: first, that the power potentially overlaps with terrorism proscription, but the relationship is unclear; secondly, that the existence of the new power will be used to undermine terrorist proscription; and, thirdly, that it is doubtful whether new offences are suitable for groups operating below the national security threshold. I shall take these three objections in turn.

On the first point, if that is a genuine concern to the point that the Government believe that there is genuine potential for a proscribed group to be able legally to contest the proportionality of a full terrorism proscription because of the existence of a lower form of designation, then it is surely within the Government’s power to insist that the one does not preclude the other. That is a safeguard that could be put into legislation that the Government bring forward.

On the second point—the idea that this will be used to undermine terrorist proscription—it is important to make the point that we are dealing with a narrow and quite unusual form of proscription here that uses the part of the definition of terrorism that relates to economic damage. A group that is to be designated as terrorist because it used violent methods to target individuals or groups to kill has never been under the scope of this extreme criminal protest group designation. We are dealing with the relatively narrow issue of a group that uses methods such as Palestine Action has used, where there has been a level of violence that the Government have asserted as part of its proscription, but it is undoubted that the main part of what it has done has been intimidation and attempts to influence public policy through criminal damage. Jonathan Hall suggests that, if you move the goalposts, these groups would find new ways to break the law proportionately; even if that were not holding up signs, they would find a new way to do that. That is, of course, a possibility. We could never devise legislation that could guarantee against people performatively trying to clog up the court system in the way that is happening at the moment with the Palestine Action protesters. The key point here is that, while there will always be a hard core of people who are determined to contest this, what has made Palestine Action’s terrorist proscription so controversial is not that people agree with what it is doing but the fact of labelling it as terrorism.

I agreed with the proscription of Palestine Action, which I know is not universal in the House. I hope that the Government’s appeal against the High Court judgment is successful. Nevertheless, it cannot be seen as good public policy and it cannot be seen that this framework is working if the Government took five years to reach the judgment that the sustained campaign of criminal damage and vandalism that was carried out by Palestine Action reached the terrorism threshold. This measure would enable faster action to deal with that. I know that the Minister will not say that the Government would be deterred from designating another group that eventually reached the terrorism threshold primarily through criminal damage. They will not admit that, but I suggest that they would be highly wary of repeating this with the next Palestine Action group because of the level of controversy that this has generated. Therefore, there is a gap in the legislative framework that is not being filled.

That leads to the third point, where Jonathan Hall says that he contests whether the powers are appropriate, given that they are relatively severe. They are significantly less severe than terrorist proscription but still relatively severe. I respectfully disagree with him on that point. I hope that he, and the Government, will reflect, given the nature and severity of the problem of extreme protest groups using criminal damage in a systematic way, which is causing huge amounts of economic damage and damage to the public realm.

That ties into the second of the Government’s objections, which is, as the Minister has stated a number of times and again today, my noble friend Lord Macdonald’s upcoming review. We are all looking forward to that, and I hope that I am able to persuade my noble friend Lord Macdonald of the merits of this, but the fact is that the Government have acted ahead of this review in other areas and could do so now. There is a need to do so now, rather than to wait for when the next legislative opportunity comes along, which may be years down the track.

There is a growing epidemic of these tactics being used to frighten the public and try to deter businesses from carrying out legitimate, lawful activity. I had a meeting with a major insurance supplier yesterday, which does not want at this point to be public because of the fear of further reprisals. It spelled out that because of being tangential—at one, two or three removes from—to a defence company that may have some relationship with Israel’s conflict in Gaza, though that is highly debatable, it is repeatedly attacked. Its windows are being smashed, red paint is being daubed over its offices and its employees are frightened to go to work. It is spending literally millions of pounds per year on preventive measures and the clean-up operations. That is one single insurer, and this is spreading. It is completely unacceptable that the defence industry is being subjected to this, but it is spreading far beyond the defence industry into the insurance and financial sectors, and other sectors.

The framework we have is not adequate to deal with this. It would not be disproportionate to put in place this limited measure to be able to restrict the activities of such organisations and send a message of greater deterrence, to protect businesses, workers and the public from this sustained intimidation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, Motion S1 is in my name. On Report, your Lordships supported Amendment 342 for one overriding reason: to make sure that the tragic failures of the past are not built into future law.

Three days ago, the Fulford report into the Southport tragedy was published. I had hoped that it might lead to a change of heart by the Government, but, regrettably, it has not. Fulford’s findings are stark: the tragedy was not caused by a lack of powers but by systemic failure. Risk information was mishandled, lost or watered down as it passed between agencies. No one was responsible for pulling the full picture together. Referrals went unanswered. Officers often acted without knowing what help or interventions were available, and some decisions were taken outside the bounds of what could reasonably be expected because the system had failed them.

These failures cost lives. Fulford makes it clear that, unless the way agencies share and account for risk is strengthened, such failures will happen again. These were not one-off mistakes; they were the result of weak information management and an absence of co-ordinated leadership. The danger was not properly recognised because no one joined up the information and acted upon it. That is precisely the gap which my amendment is designed to close.

The Government tell us that this should be left to guidance. They say that a statutory duty for multi-agency consultation would make the law too rigid and prevent judges exercising discretion. Surely that gets things the wrong way round. Judges can use their discretion properly only if they have had all the relevant information before them. A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the police have a duty to consult, and they do, but that duty is narrow. It is limited to the youth offending team. It leaves out the schools, health professionals and social services who often know the child best. Amendment S1 would not reduce discretion; it would support informed decision-making and, as a result, better public protection.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Doocey]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 342.”

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I move Motion S1, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.