Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Those who commit those types of offences do not fall within the remit of Martyn’s law, but they do fall within the remit of other criminal justice legislation. If individuals committing vandalism or intimidation on buildings or staff can be identified, they will face the potential, through the City of London Police, of being taken to court and put in front of a jury. If the jury decides that they are guilty, they will be sentenced and face a penalty for that. It is absolutely right that we condemn those actions. There are democratic ways that people can make protests without damaging buildings and intimidating people.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Further to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, in her Question, Schedule 1 to the Act specifies that halls and hire venues are included in the scope of the duties in the Act. The Home Office guidance published this month states that this includes village halls and community centres. The Minister will be aware from our debates during the legislative process that many village halls are run by volunteers on very tight budgets. Given that they will already be struggling with the Government’s record tax rises, how will the Government ensure that smaller venues such as these are supported, in compliance with the legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, we had full and good exchanges on this when the Bill came before this House and the House of Commons. I explained then, as I will explain now, that the impact assessment assesses that small organisations will face around a £330 charge over a 10-year period to meet the obligations of Martyn’s law and the protection of premises Act. I do not think that a £33 a year cost for potential training or advice is significant when potentially it will help save lives, which is the whole purpose of Martyn’s law.

We had that debate during the passage of the Bill. Both Houses of Parliament agreed it was reasonable. I suggest that the noble Lord accepts that reasonableness and helps us to ensure that the guidance is well understood and implemented across the board.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we return to this highly important matter once again. I know that the Government will not appreciate this, but it is our duty in this House to hold them to account for their promises.

When in opposition, the Labour Party committed to proscribing the IRGC; it has now voted against this six times. On Wednesday, the Minister for Policing and Crime, Sarah Jones, said that

“we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords’ amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/26; col. 398.]

I take particular exception to this. It is wrong and entirely incorrect to claim that this House is somehow acting inappropriately. There is nothing out of the ordinary for this House to insist on an issue as important as this. I remind the Minister how many rounds of ping-pong we had on the safety of Rwanda Bill: this House sent the Bill back to the Commons five times. That is not a criticism but a fact: it is this House’s right to do so. It is not acceptable to have Ministers in this Government seeking to delegitimise the important work of this House. I hope the Government will reflect on that.

There has been a consistent thread of criticism of this amendment from the Government, which I would like to address. Last week, the Minister said

“the Government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription”,—[Official Report, 22/4/26; col. 692.]

but this completely misunderstands the argument. I am not asking the Minister to give a “running commentary” on proscription nor am I asking the Government to air sensitive information in public. All I am asking is for the Government to get on with it and proscribe the IRGC. The Minister does not need to provide a running commentary; he just needs to agree the amendment.

I note that there has been some progress now. The Prime Minister said on Friday that the Government will move to proscribe the IRGC in the new Session, so it seems that he is now willing to give us a running commentary on organisations being considered for proscription. That is good news—providing he remains in post, of course.

I welcome that the Government have finally remembered the promises they made in opposition. It is testament to the determined campaigning on this matter from organisations around the country and opposition parties in this Parliament. However, why has it taken the Government so long? It is an incomprehensible position. They have had ample opportunity, during the passage of the Bill, simply to say what the Prime Minister said on Friday. This is disappointing. Regardless of that, the Government have said that they will now move to proscribe the IRGC, and all that remains is to press the Minister on timelines. This cannot wait for months and months; we are all united in our support for this.

I have sought assurance on when the Government will bring forward the legislation. Unfortunately, they have refused to tell us when. This is completely unacceptable at a time when we need strong and decisive leadership in the national interest. We have a Government and a Prime Minister who take months to make a decision and, once they have made that decision, then cannot commit to even a basic deadline. We have seen this time and time again with the Government: refusal to give Parliament even the most basic of assurances on when they will do things that they have promised to do. It is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and get on with the promises they made. It is with some trepidation that I accept what the Minister said, but he should be sure that we will hold the Government to account.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion or not.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will let the Minister know in a moment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is very gracious. I will keep an eye out for it.

I am pleased that we have made some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his pragmatic approach. I know that he would have liked the Government to go further on the issue of fixed penalty notices. I know he will be holding me to account on the question of statutory guidance and monitoring. But we have achieved some form of settlement and I am grateful to him for agreeing that today.

On the question of proscription, as I said, I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion, but I say to him that the elected House has made its views known by significant majorities on a number of occasions now. It has made its views known, supporting the argument that I have deployed in this House: that we do not give a running commentary on proscription. I point to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said: the Prime Minister said last week that the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly, and we will be looking to bring forward this legislation as soon as we can. By “this legislation” he does not mean a running commentary on proscription under the powers in the 2000 Act; he means legislation on the potential for a revised state threats proscription-like regime, as recommended by Jonathan Fisher KC—

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.”

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the opposition parties for their support, particularly the Liberal Democrats for their unswerving support and appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. I would have preferred to have something more positive from the Minister, and we will hold the Government to account, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion B1 not moved.

Student Visas

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, it is important that we get the first decision right, because it is important for the person who is applying and for the process and the cost, as she mentioned. Student visa decisions are made by trained caseworkers, who apply the Immigration Rules and are supported by clear guidance, quality assurance and oversight. Original performance decisions are kept under continual review. I hope that we can, over time, improve the decision-making process.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, 90% of Pakistanis who claim asylum enter the United Kingdom on a student, work or visit visa, as well as 87% of Bangladeshi nationals and 71% of Indian nationals. This is clearly a major abuse of the system. How will the Government get a grip on this problem and clamp down on the abuse of the visa system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, we have already put a brake on Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan for the very reason that there were high levels of asylum claims from them—470% of their 2021 levels. That is a temporary halt. We keep all options under review and it is important that the student route is not seen as a precursor to an asylum claim.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, regarding Motion A1, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, on disincentivising fining for profit and, importantly, ensuring that contractors found to be profiteering from fixed penalty notices may risk losing their contracts, I have nothing to add to what he said.

On Motions C and C1, to which my noble friend Lady Doocey spoke, it is encouraging that she has accepted the assurances the Government have given on the future guidance on youth diversion orders, but I hope to hear from the Government that they take note of her reference to possible future parliamentary action on this if the guidance does not work.

I turn to the Conservatives’ Motion D1, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, relating to the proscription of Iran-related entities. We accept that, on some readings, the Marshalled List could be taken to suggest that the government and opposition parties are not dramatically far apart on Motions D and D1. Motion D1, the Conservative Motion which we support, calls for a review within one month of whether any organisations related to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed, whereas the Commons Amendment in lieu, in favour of which the Minister spoke, would require only a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State relating to proscription orders. However, those differences mask an important point of constitutional principle.

When the issue of proscribing the IRGC was considered by this House last Thursday, the Minister said, as he said again today, that the Government would not give a running commentary on proscription—as has been the position of previous Governments—and would keep the issues of proscription under review. The noble Lord’s approach was, and is, that because the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I, and by implication everyone not privy to government intelligence briefings, have not had the intelligence that the Government have received from the intelligence services, it follows that it is the Government’s right to make these judgments, as a Government, on which organisations are proscribed and when. The Minister’s approach was largely echoed by Minister Sarah Jones in the other place on Monday of this week.

We understand the Government’s approach. In particular, we are not seeking a running commentary on ongoing consideration of the proscription of possible organisations. Nevertheless, we contend that the Government’s approach misunderstands the constitutional position. Decisions on orders proscribing organisations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and such orders cannot take effect unless approved by both Houses of Parliament, so they are ultimately decisions for Parliament. If these decisions were for the Executive alone, the requirement for a vote of both Houses would be meaningless and contradictory of the legislation.

Furthermore, the Government’s position would mean, inconsistently, that while parliamentary approval is required to approve a proscription recommended by the Executive, Parliament is not entitled to take a view on the proscription of any organisation that the Government do not recommend for any reason for proscription, whether that reason be good or bad. That is constitutionally unsustainable. Just as a sovereign Parliament would be entitled to legislate to require a proscription so this Parliament is quite entitled to take the far more modest step of insisting on a report—not just about the general principles of proscription to enable us to understand the procedure, as the Minister would have us accept, but on the Government’s reasoning in relation to the IRGC and other organisations related to the Iranian military.

Considerations such as those spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are important for Parliament and government in considering whether to proscribe organisations, just as they might be on a Motion to approve an order laid by the Government for a positive proscription. The noble Baroness referred to David Lammy’s and Yvette Cooper’s support in opposition for proscription of the IRGC, and those are relevant considerations for Parliament. We will vote solidly in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and we commend it to the House.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Motions in his name, and I am pleased to see the government Amendments 11C to 11F to include guidance on evidence collection and the exercise of seizure powers in the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance. We are happy to accept these. But I add that it is over a year ago now that my honourable friend Matt Vickers brought these to the attention of the other place, and they were rejected at that point by the Government. It is regrettable that the Government were against our amendments here, and we have only just arrived at this point as a result of the persistence of this side of the House.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled his Motion. We support this and, if he decides to divide the House, we will be with him. I tabled Motion D1 to disagree with the Commons amendments and to offer my own amendment in lieu, which is only slightly altered from the previous version. The only change I have made is to narrow the language to mention groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, as opposed to focusing on groups linked to the Iranian Government as a whole.

It is peculiar how one’s opinion can change so greatly when one enters government. As was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Labour Party used to stand on this side of the House urging Conservative Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. In fact, on 7 March 2023, during the Report stage debate on the National Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, then the opposition Home Office shadow Minister, moved an amendment with the express purpose of requiring the Government to proscribe the IRGC. The noble Lord stood at this very Dispatch Box and said:

“It is in the national security interests of this country for the IRGC to be proscribed as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, 7/3/23; col. 753.]


That was the view of the Labour Party in 2023, but clearly it no longer believes that that is the case.

Instead, the Government have offered us a Statement within six months outlining the process of proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. When speaking to the Government’s amendment in the House of Commons, the Minister, Sarah Jones MP, said that this was to

“help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 104.]

We do not need to be patronised by this Government. We can all read the conditions in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act. We know what the process is. Our contention is that the Government are not willing to use that process effectively. We can see plainly and clearly that the IRGC meets that threshold. I say to the Minister: put yourselves in our shoes. If he were standing where I am today, would he accept a Statement on the process as sufficient to prevent him pressing this to a Division? I doubt he would.

We should be in no doubt that the IRGC poses a significant threat to our country. When we have seen in 2025 alone more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil, when we have seen numerous antisemitic attacks carried out in Britain, and when we have seen the IRGC ramping up its plots and attacks across the Middle East and beyond, then we know we have a problem. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. Just today, we have seen how it has fired at merchant vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. The United States has banned the IRGC, as have Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the European Union. If they can, why can we not? Surely it is time for the Government to listen to the British people, listen to Parliament and listen to themselves, and proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible.

Before I sit down, I align myself with the comments on the appalling events that led to the death of Stephen Lawrence, which I remember only too well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in this short debate, and I will respond to their comments. On fixed penalty notices, I had genuinely hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would have accepted that we have moved significantly towards his position. Everybody wants to see fixed penalty notices issued fairly and proportionately, and the Government’s amendments would have helped and will help to ensure that this is the case. But we also need to accept that there is a continuing role for external contractors in the enforcement of ASB orders, and I do not believe we should close the door to that, which is what in our assessment the noble Lord’s amendment would do.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not happy. However, before we move to a potential Division on this, I recommit to what I said in my opening remarks: we commit to a passage in the guidance, which I will produce on behalf of the Home Office, that will say:

“Where external contractors are used, private firms should not be able to receive greater revenue or profits just from increasing the volume of penalties”.


I think that meets the noble Lord’s objective. If he remains unhappy, that is the way these things work, so we will have to examine that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

Leave out from “439” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 439E and 439F in lieu—

439E: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, review whether any organisations related to the Iranian Armed Forces should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription).
(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of the review under subsection (1), and this must include the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision.”

439F: Page 232, line 1, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review);””

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to Members who have spoken in support of this Motion. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I do not accept his argument. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

I end with the observation that the Home Office cannot expect either third-sector organisations or, as they generally refer to, local authorities to bear the burden of accommodation changes.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is in a very perceptive mood today. Yes, indeed, in a rare turn of events, I find myself in agreement with most of what the Minister said in this debate, and I join him in supporting these two statutory instruments.

The first instrument, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, amends the 2005 regulations of the same name. It makes a very simple but vital amendment to the 2005 regulations. The change that the Government are making, as the Minister outlined, is to permit the Secretary of State to create a new condition that failed asylum seekers can be subjected to. Under the 2005 regulations, a number of conditions can be placed on a failed asylum seeker who receives asylum support. Although illegal working is a criminal offence, it does not currently constitute a breach of their conditions. This, of course, is plainly wrong, and I am glad that the Government are making this change.

The second statutory instrument relates to the support provided to asylum seekers. At present, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 require the Home Secretary to provide support to an asylum seeker where the Home Secretary believes that the asylum seeker in question meets the conditions in Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The 2005 regulations therefore go further than the original wording in the 1999 Act. Section 95 states only that the Secretary of State may provide such support, and these regulations remove that legal duty on the Home Secretary. This is something that I entirely support.

The problem here is that, although Section 95 of the 1999 Act states that support may be provided if an asylum seeker is destitute, we know that this is not the reality. There are some who may be tempted to take the language in the Act at face value and criticise the Government’s plan for taking away support from those who cannot support themselves. This would be a wholly incorrect misinterpretation; in reality, the Government have a duty to provide support for virtually every single asylum seeker, regardless of whether they can support themselves. There is also a tranche of people who deliberately make themselves destitute so as to game the system and receive the generous, taxpayer-funded support.

It is also important to note that this is a Brexit benefit. The regulations that introduced the mandatory duty were passed in 2005 to implement EU law. The Government’s asylum White Paper acknowledges this. Can I say how welcome it is to see the Government making full use of the advantages of Brexit, even while they are trying to undermine it in some other areas? I have one observation, however: this change would make sense if the Government were adopting the Conservatives’ plans to deport all illegal migrants within a week, regardless of whether they have claimed asylum. If they were implementing that policy then those asylum seekers would not require any support from the Home Office, as they would have been detained and then deported. Unless the Minister has suddenly had a change of heart, which I doubt, there are some questions that need answering. If the Government are not going to start deporting all these illegal migrants but will be withdrawing support from them, what do they believe will happen? I would welcome some greater clarity on this from the Minister.

It would also not be right if I gave the impression that I am praising the Government for somehow solving the illegal migration crisis. The Government still refuse to establish a third-country removal centre to act as a deterrent; they still refuse to ban illegal migrants from claiming asylum; and they still refuse to take action to end the scam illegal industry around the asylum system. Where the Government have taken action, we will commend them. As such, I welcome these two statutory instruments, but the Government really still have a long way to go to truly get to grips with this problem. They need to introduce a strong deterrent and to dramatically ramp up deportations. It is my firm opinion that until that happens and until we leave the ECHR, the boats will not stop and this crisis will not end.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who I remind the House had stewardship of this challenge and problem with his Government—including the noble Lord, Lord Murray, whose support I welcome —until 5 July 2024. Since that date, we have tried to make some progress on the 400-plus hotels that were operational at the cost of billions of pounds; with a backlog of asylum claims; with, in my view—I know this is debateable and is not the noble Lord’s view—very little action on the question of small boat crossings; and with obvious abuses on overstaying visas and asylum claims.

Since July 2024, we have tried to put in place a number of steps to speed up claims for asylum, to support people who have a right to be here and remove those who do not, to reduce the level of hotel use, which we have now done, from 400 down to around 200, and to try to end some of the abuses that we believe exist. It is an ongoing challenge and an ongoing process, but we are trying to do that in a context of published documents, published papers, an approach of fairness and meeting our international obligations.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

I hope, too, that the Minister can update us on the progress the Permanent Secretary has made with their investigations, and whether any further action is being taken. It may be that this is a purely isolated problem, but we need a real commitment from the department to learn all the lessons, and I hope that is what we will hear in due course from the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these two draft instruments, which together update the framework governing drug precursor chemicals. On these Benches, we support the objectives of these measures. Drug precursors play a critical role in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances, and it is right that the law keeps pace with international developments and the evolving methods of criminal networks. Strengthening controls and closing loopholes is therefore both necessary and welcome.

The draft statutory instruments will bring the UK into closer alignment with its obligations under the 1988 UN convention by updating the list of substances that it is a criminal offence to supply or manufacture where there is knowledge or suspicion of illicit use. They also seek to address deficiencies in the current regime by aligning the list of controlled substances with those subject to criminal sanctions.

While the substance of these changes is sensible and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has observed, not in itself controversial, the context in which they arise warrants some reflection. The committee has pointed to delays in updating domestic legislation to reflect changes to international obligations and to the time taken to resolve discrepancies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the end of the implementation period. There are also concerns about the clarity of the statutory basis for certain authorisations and fees. Although these issues are now being addressed, they underline the importance of ensuring that regulatory frameworks remain up to date, coherent and legally robust. The House is entitled to expect that such matters are identified and acted upon in a timely and consistent way.

In conclusion, we support these instruments and the improvements they make to the enforcement framework. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing these draft instruments to the House today, and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the comments that have been made and I understand the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concerns. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that the Government came into office in July 2024 and, as soon as we identified the challenges posed in terms of orders not having been implemented previously, we took action to try to bring this back into some sort of order. There have been, self-evidently, challenges in relation to a number of issues. I cannot ultimately comment on what happened under previous Governments, but I can confirm that we took action on this issue as soon as it was identified.

I can also confirm to the noble Baroness that officials have reviewed electronic records to seek to understand why the Act was not updated earlier. Those records did not indicate the reason for these omissions. That is a fault that we are looking to review. It may be that, since the UN controlled no DPCs between 2000 and 2014, awareness of the need to update the Act when it started doing so was lost within the department. To help mitigate against that in future, we have now created a log of drugs legislation to ensure this does not happen again. Through the order we are debating today, we are trying to put those omissions right.

As the Minister for Policing and Crime set out in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 23 March, the Government understand the committee’s concerns about record-keeping, which has likely contributed to the delay in including the 12 DPCs and the 16 other elements in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. As a result, as I have said, drugs legislation logs have been created. The Government consider that the gap in knowledge is unlikely to have had wider implications across the Home Office, but I can assure noble Lords that the Minister for Policing and Crime has raised this issue with the Permanent Secretary. She has asked him to ascertain what Home Office legislation is dependent on or affected by international obligations and how we monitor those international obligations to ensure that any changes are reflected in UK law.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I know that charging and the authorisation of fees being paid was an important issue. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at the issue of plans for fees which were previously charged. I am happy to confirm today that we will be offering refunds to those who have been affected. The total sum is only around £3,000, but it is still an important issue. We will be looking at how we can manage that in due course and I will certainly be examining that with my colleagues in future.

We are where we are. The Government have tried to make some changes with both these instruments brought forward today to ensure that there is a United Kingdom approach and those regulations are now in order. I commend both to the House.

Motion agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Motions C, D and E relate to the several amendments on fly-tipping the Conservatives tabled on Report. I thank the Government for their amendment on points on licences for fly-tipping offences. Although our previous arguments in support of this policy were opposed by the Government, I welcome their Amendments 10A and 10B, even if it has taken us some time to get to this point. I also thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for his Amendment 12. We on these Benches wholly agree with the principle that it should be the responsibility of and the burden on the offenders who fly-tip to clean up the waste they deposit.

I was disappointed to see the Government tabling Amendment D opposing the amendment that provides police the powers to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping offences. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out on Report that this is a business. That is why we need to disrupt the business model by confiscating the means to conduct this criminality. I simply cannot understand why the Government remain reluctant to take firm and decisive action on fly-tipping. They were reluctant to impose penalty points for the offence until they were defeated on Report. It is deeply disappointing that it is their intention to resist my amendment which would put into statute powers for the police to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping. If the Government oppose my Motion D1, I will test the opinion of the House.

On the issue of knife crime, Amendment 15 increased the maximum term of imprisonment for the new offence of possession of a bladed article with intent to use unlawful violence from four to 10 years. As I explained in Committee and on Report, the offence of simple possession of a bladed article under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 carries four years, so it did not make sense to create a new, more serious offence of possessing an article with the intent to do harm to another that carried the same maximum sentence. For both offences to carry the same maximum sentence would be entirely inconsistent with how the criminal law has always approached the issue of intent. That is why we sought, successfully, to amend the maximum term of imprisonment on Report. However, since then the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to harm another to seven years. I thank the Minister for recognising the arguments that the Conservatives made both in Committee and on Report.

I thank my noble friend Lady Buscombe for tabling her amendment regarding closure notices on Report. Recent investigations have exposed businesses that plague our high streets, selling counterfeit and illegal goods as well as unregulated products. In doing so, she has raised important issues which have clearly resonated with your Lordships. It is therefore welcome to see that, despite opposing my noble friend’s amendment on Report, the Government now recognise the importance of this issue, and their amendment in lieu would give the Secretary of State powers to change the maximum duration of closure orders, as well as the maximum period for which such an order may be extended. They also recognise that different provisions may be required for different circumstances, such as whether a building is commercial or residential, so I thank the Government for their Amendment 333A in lieu and I look forward to when the Secretary of State uses the powers conferred by this amendment to lay regulations on closure notices.

As previously stated, if the Government oppose my Motion D1 concerning seizure of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, I will test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in response to this group of amendments, both those in lieu from the Government and the amendments tabled by Members here today. I stress that the Government agree with the sentiments behind the amendments in this group. On Amendments 2D and 2E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I assure the noble Lord that while the amendments say that the statutory guidance “may” include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices, it is our firm intention to issue such guidance. Indeed, I will be happy to share a copy of the guidance in draft form with the noble Lord at an appropriate time when it is ready.

The issue of fly-tipping has permeated through the discussions we have had in the last half an hour or so and I understand the strength of feeling on all sides of your Lordships’ House. That is why we have tabled the amendments in lieu to introduce penalty points for fly-tippers and I emphasise again to noble Lords that, in relation to Amendments 6 to 11, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and courts can already impose cost orders on those convicted of fly-tipping. I should add, if I may, that Defra, with the support of the Home Office, is going to explore how the Environment Agency’s powers to address waste crime can be bolstered. We are going to consider how additional measures within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and other relevant legislation could achieve this. This work will ensure that the Environment Agency has much stronger powers and tools to bring criminals to justice, intervene earlier and disrupt criminal finances undermining the waste system.

Again, I am sympathetic to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I understand and welcome the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the Waste Crime Action Plan. We are looking at how we improve enforcement around fly-tipping. However, as I have mentioned and as I think the noble Viscount acknowledged, the amendment breached Commons financial privilege, and I thank him for accepting those arguments and not pursuing the amendments further.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for accepting Amendment 15A in lieu.

On Amendment 333, it is right that the Government fully consult on any changes to closure powers before making significant changes, and our amendment in lieu does that. Again, I thank the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their pressure in raising these issues, because it is important. I confirm what I have said to the noble Viscount already, which is that the issue is not how but when we strengthen those closure powers.

I hope I have been able to offer reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his. I suspect that I may not have done to the extent that they would wish, but I can only try. We have moved significantly on some of the areas in this group. I welcome the support for the changes that we have made, but I do hope that, in moving Motion A, noble Lords will listen to my wise counsel and not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

[Lord Davies of Gower]

Moved by

leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 11.”

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, fly-tipping is a scourge on our society. We on these Benches recognise it, the public recognises it and landowners recognise it. We consider that the addition of vehicle seizure is an important one, so I beg to move Motion D1 and test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

We cannot let the best be the enemy of the good. Let us make no mistake: these amendments to the Bill are a huge victory for the noble Baroness and all victims and campaigners in this field. I very much hope that the noble Baroness receives the assurances from the Government that she is seeking.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Owen and Lady Bertin, on behalf of all noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, for their sustained efforts on these important issues. Their work and amendments will surely help to protect women and girls, whether through legislation on the taking down of intimate images or greater protection for age verification in pornographic content. I also thank the Government, particularly the Minister, for their continued engagement on these topics. These Motions are evidence of what this Chamber can achieve through collaborative and productive dialogue.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions not just today but during the passage of this Bill, and for the thoughtful and constructive way in which everybody has engaged with these issues.

I shall be brief and address only one or two of the points that were raised. The first is in relation to Motion G1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. Motion G strengthens accountability where platforms fail to comply with their duties to deal with non-consensual intimate images. Regarding Motion G1, we recognise the noble Baroness’s concern and want transparency beyond just the biggest platforms. That is why every regulated user-to-user service must be clear with users about how it is meeting the 48-hour takedown duty, while Ofcom can require detailed reporting where it will make the biggest difference. Through Schedule 8, the Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to require detailed information about how providers identify, deal with and take down illegal content. We will amend this through regulations to make it clear that these requirements cover compliance with the new NCII takedown duty, including average takedown times.

Turning to the verification of age, again the Government recognise the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. We are not intentionally delaying these important changes for the sake of it. I think that the noble Baroness recognises that we all agree that this issue is important, but we cannot shy away from the complex legal and practical issues that it presents. These considerations must be made alongside and flowing from the existing six-month review into parity, closing the gap between regulation of online and offline pornography. For this reason, the 12 months is needed to ensure that we get it right. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for supporting this approach.

On the issue of adults role-playing as children and the question of step-incest, in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as to the differential in age, it is to ensure that the online offences mirror the underlying offline criminal offences so that there is parity between the two. I should stress that for both these offences, adult role-playing and the extension to step-incest offences, this is a first step. The provisions in this Bill create significant changes already in the criminal law and the parity work to which we have all referred will build on this to address the grey areas where it is illegal offline but difficult to address online via the criminal law.

It remains for me only to thank once again the two noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Owen. I genuinely look forward to continuing to work with them in future.

--- Later in debate ---

Certainly, the British Government’s position, which we support, is that we oppose the war in Iran because it is illegal. Certainly, we take the view that the position taken by the US Administration is inconsistent, misconceived, and entirely and dangerously wrong. However, those are not legitimate reasons for voting in a way that appears to condone the behaviour of the Iranian IRGC-supported regime. We have plenty of good reasons for disagreeing with the United States on Iran. I do not see why, in this Parliament, we should refuse to take a step showing our position on the IRGC and its associated organisations. By doing so, we would further antagonise the US needlessly and for no good reason, when we have plenty of other reasons for disagreeing with the President of the United States and his Administration.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for returning with her amendment. I understand the Government are offering to include alternative interventions in youth diversion order guidance, but I agree with the noble Baroness that these considerations should be consistently applied to ensure proportionality. We therefore support the original measure.

Motion U1, standing in my name, returns once again to the issue of proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. I am sure that the Minister will once again attempt to use the fact that the last Government did not proscribe the IRGC as a justification for this Government’s position, and I recognise that fact. But the international situation is radically different now from that when we left government. Before this war even started, it was clear that the Iranian regime was ramping up its aggressive activities. At home, it wilfully oversaw the murder of over 40,000 protestors. Overseas, it continued to extend its influence through its backing of terrorist cells. In the UK alone, in 2025, security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots.

This threat has only been exacerbated following the outbreak of war. Just last month, an Iranian man suspected of being a regime spy was arrested for attempting to break into a nuclear naval base in Scotland. We have seen the streets of our capital city filled with regime apologists on so-called Al-Quds day, leading to 12 arrests and countless lost police hours. Proscribing the IRGC would not only give the police more powers to counteract these actions but would send a signal that we do not bow to pressure from oppressive and authoritarian regimes.

I once again anticipate that the response from the Minister will be that this is constantly kept under review—but that is now not good enough. We know what this group is capable of, especially when it has the apparatus of an OPEC state behind it, and now with the current war, we must strengthen our resolve further. The Iranian regime is blocking the Strait of Hormuz, erratically attacking neighbours and, most importantly, influencing—if not sanctioning—potential attacks on British soil.

Quite independently of our national approach to the United States, this Iranian regime is one for which we should have no regard and no tolerance. The Government must now be pragmatic. Their policy must now reflect the international situation—they must undertake this review and proscribe the IRGC. If the Minister still does not agree with this conclusion, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the discussion we have had to date on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks—for those who heard them, at least—the Government cannot accept Amendment 311 as drafted. I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on these issues, but as I have set out to the House already, and as I set out to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in particular, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing proscription regime. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also recognised that, and I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this was the position. With the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, coming forward, it is right that this amendment not be accepted today. I particularly welcome the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, of that. That is not to undermine the arguments he has made, but we are where we are at the moment.

On Amendment 359, I stress that both this and previous Governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for proscription. As I mentioned in my opening remarks—for those who heard them—we have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, so we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have also put them in the foreign influence registration scheme.

If I may say so, I take objection to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our not proscribing the IRGC somehow supports the Iranian regime—it does not. I will not accept that we should give a running commentary on proscription. With due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, they have not had intelligence in front of them on these issues from the intelligence services. We are making judgments as a Government, and we are not going to give a running commentary on what and when we proscribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.

I remind the House—without commenting on the IRGC in particular—that any eventual proscription order on anybody is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. I am not in a position today to give a running commentary on the possible proscription of the IRGC, nor will I accept in principle the fact that both Opposition Front Benches think it right to do so. That may be their view, but the Government have to take a view on these matters in due course. It is not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. I say that to the House as a whole.

I stress again that I understand and accept the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, put before the House today. We will make it clear in statutory guidance that authorities must consider a range of options and interventions before deciding whether to apply for a youth diversion order. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, also stressed that it was important to do so. I stress to both noble Baronesses that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency youth offending teams, which comprise health, education, probation and police services. I am happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Baroness in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work on her amendment on glorifying terrorism, and for giving her own personal experiences. It is very difficult to do that, and I understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on glorification in general. On the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned today, individuals are under arrest and in custody for the alleged offence. We should obviously allow the police to do their job and determine whether charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. None the less, that type of incident—whether or not the individuals under arrest are responsible—is simply not acceptable. The Government and others should stand with the community as a whole.

I was pleased to hear and welcomed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I cannot accept the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I ask—in anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement—that they be content not to press their Motions. In the meantime, I beg to move my Motion N, and I hope the House will agree to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, has set out his reasons for insisting on his Motion Q1, which would delete records that the police hold non-crime hate incidents in certain circumstances which he outlined, even when the police had a concern about the pattern of behaviour and that it might lead to a crime.

I take issue with the comments that the noble Lord has made in that the whole Motion talks only about this very narrow area of what should be held and reviewed. The concerns that we have from these Benches are about the repetition of proposed new subsections (1) and (2), which say that non-crime hate incidents

“must not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom”,

and that:

“No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a NCHI”.


Noble Lords will remember that we were lucky enough to have the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, with us after the College of Policing report was published, and he pointed out that there is a balance between free speech and the targeting of vulnerable people. Other noble Lords spoke movingly about this balance too, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, from her and her family’s own experience. So from these Benches, we were pleased when the Government laid their amendments on Report, which set out that balance between freedom of speech, which must be protected, and threats to vulnerable people. Their proposal to use anti-social behaviour mechanisms to record in the future is understandable and appropriate, and we hope that it will work out well. We will wait and see whether it really works.

We on these Benches believe that the combination of the Government’s amendment that is now in the Bill and the new guidance in the College of Policing report provide the balance that is needed to ensure that there is freedom of speech. However, the police will have the capability under the anti-social behaviour legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our community, especially if they are targeted by someone whose behaviour is escalating and the course of that pattern of behaviour could in itself become a crime such as harassment or, even worse, just progress more severely into an actual crime.

If there was nothing on any records up to the moment that a crime was committed, the police would not have been involved. For many vulnerable people who have harassment and other things going on, waiting that long deters and delays police action. There is a difference between that and passing the information on about the files. I believe that the Government’s amendments have dealt with that. On these grounds, we will not support Motion Q1.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for returning to the important issue of NCHIs. Our position as a party has not changed. With 60,000 annual police hours and a quarter of a million cases recorded, which is over 65 a day, this is the extent to which our police forces are having to go to record non-crimes.

The Government have stated that they are not accepting my noble friend’s amendment, as the College of Policing has now published its review into the instrument, complete with recommendations. I welcome this review and that the Government have accepted its conclusions, but it bears no requirements for action. Similarly, while the statutory code of practice addressing the recording of NCHIs has been revoked, there is little reassurance that this will be replaced by a more satisfactory system. This amendment seeks to commit the Government to necessary action now. This measure needs to be on the statute book. Should my noble friend wish to test the opinion of the House, we will wholly support him.

My Amendment 339B in lieu is a redrafted version of the amendment that I tabled on Report concerning the investigation of police officers for misconduct. I thank the IOPC for its engagement with me concerning this amendment. The version before your Lordships now is a more comprehensive drafting, but the underlying point remains the same. Where police officers are acquitted of criminal charges, all misconduct proceedings concerning that specific offence should be dropped.

I want to be clear about how this amendment would operate in practice. It would not mean that acquittal would shield an officer from any potential misconduct proceedings. For example, if the police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, he could still be liable for misconduct proceedings if due process was not followed on a related procedural matter such as filling in correct paperwork concerning the incident. However, the amendment would mean that the police officer, where he is acquitted of criminal charges concerning the use of force, could not then be subject to misconduct proceedings on that same question. As I said on Report, it is wrong that in the absence of my amendment, police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted only then to be reinvestigated. If it is the Minister’s intention to oppose this amendment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I moved Motion Q at the beginning of the debate but was, I confess, slow out of the blocks. I should have spoken to Motion Q before Motion Q1 was moved, but I was concentrating on the Marshalled List and missed my opportunity. But the principles are the same.

The Government cannot support Motion Q1 but will support Motion Q, because there has been careful consideration on the recording of non-crime hate incidents since Report. I have appreciated the opportunity to engage formally and informally with the noble Lord. However, he will know that since your Lordships’ House last considered this matter on 31 March, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published their joint review of non-crime hate incidents, a review that was commissioned by the UK Government as well. The review recommended ending the current system and replacing it with a new national standard for incident recording and assessment. Under that approach, non-crime hate incidents would no longer exist as a stand-alone category. Instead, hate-related behaviour short of the criminal threshold would be recorded only where there are clear policing purposes within the established anti-social behaviour framework. The threshold for recording would be higher, more tightly defined and supported by trained police assessment and triage practices.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 339B in lieu—

339B: After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause—
“IOPC investigations where officer acquitted
(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
(2) In section 13B—
(a) in subsection (1), at end insert—
“but this is subject to the exception in section 13BA.”;
(b) in subsection (2), at beginning, for “The” substitute “Unless the exception in section 13BA applies, the”.
(3) After section 13B, insert—
“13BA No re-investigation on acquittal for the same conduct
(1) Where this section applies, the Director-General may not make a determination under section 13B(2) to re-investigate the complaint, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter.
(2) This section applies where—
(a) the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be) has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4G) of Schedule 3,
(b) as a result of the determination mentioned in paragraph (a), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and
(c) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(3) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply only if—
(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.
(7) In this section—
(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the investigation related;
(b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be).”
(4) After paragraph 24C of Schedule 3, insert—
“Investigation where person acquitted in criminal proceedings
24D(1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) an investigation of a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter (“the index investigation”) under paragraphs 16, 18 or 19 has concluded,
(b) the final report has been submitted to the relevant authority under paragraph 22,
(c) the relevant authority has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4F),
(d) as a result of the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and
(e) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(2) In this paragraph—
(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the index investigation related;
(b) “relevant authority” means the Director General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be).
(3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant authority may not—
(a) initiate a new investigation,
(b) re-open an investigation,
(c) continue an investigation, or
(d) order a re-investigation under paragraph 25,
against the relevant person in relation to the same complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter that was the subject of the index investigation.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply only if—
(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”
(5) In paragraph 25—
(a) after sub-paragraph (4D) insert—
“(4DA) The Director-General may not direct that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4C)(b) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to that investigation.”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (4E) insert—
“(4EA) The local policing body may not make a recommendation to the appropriate authority that the complaint be re-investigated if paragraph 24D applies in relation to the conduct to which the investigation related.”
(6) The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 are amended in accordance with subsections
(7) to (10).
(7) In regulation 23 (referral of case to misconduct proceedings)—
(a) in paragraph (3)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (b), for “(whatever the outcome of those proceedings)”, substitute “and the officer concerned has been found guilty”;
(ii) before second “regulation” insert “regulation 23A,”;
(b) in paragraph (9), after “10(3)” insert “and regulation 23A”.
(8) After regulation 23, insert—
“Prohibition on misconduct proceedings where officer has been acquitted
23A.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a) the appropriate authority has made a determination that misconduct proceedings should be brought against the officer concerned under regulation 23(1)(b), (2)(c) or (3),
(b) the misconduct proceedings have been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),
(c) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and
(d) the officer concerned has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(2) This regulation also applies where—
(a) the Director General has given the appropriate authority a direction to bring misconduct proceedings against a person under paragraph 23(5A)(e) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act,
(b) the appropriate authority has brought misconduct proceedings against the officer concerned in compliance with the direction mentioned in sub-paragraph (a),
(c) those misconduct proceedings have been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),
(d) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and
(e) the officer concerned has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(3) Where this regulation applies—
(a) regulations 23(3) and (9) do not apply,
(b) the Director General must withdraw the direction to the appropriate authority to bring misconduct proceedings against the officer concerned, and
(c) the appropriate authority must direct that the misconduct proceedings be withdrawn.
(4) The Director General must withdraw the direction to bring misconduct proceedings under paragraph (3)(b) as soon as the Director General receives notification that the officer concerned has been acquitted in any criminal proceedings.
(5) The appropriate authority must terminate the misconduct proceedings under paragraph (3)(c) as soon as the Director General receives notification that the officer concerned has been acquitted in any criminal proceedings.
(6) Paragraph (3) does not apply only if—
(a) the appropriate authority or the Director General has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the appropriate authority or the Director General is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(7) In paragraph (6)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;
(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(9) For the purposes of paragraph (6), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”
(9) In regulation 49 (referral of case to accelerated misconduct hearing)—
(a) in paragraph (3)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (b), omit “(whatever the outcome)”,
(ii) after “determination,” insert “subject to regulation 49A”;
(b) in paragraph (4), after “10(3)”, insert “and 49A”.
(10) After regulation 49, insert—
“Prohibition on referral of case to accelerated hearing where officer acquitted
49A.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a) the appropriate authority has made a determination that is within paragraph (2),
(b) the appropriate authority has referred the case to an accelerated misconduct hearing under regulation 49(4) or (7),
(c) the accelerated misconduct hearing has been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),
(d) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and
(e) the officer concerned in those criminal proceedings has been acquitted.
(2) A determination is within this paragraph if—
(a) it is a determination that the special conditions are satisfied under regulation 49(1), or
(b) it is a further determination that the special conditions are satisfied under regulation 49(3).
(3) Where this regulation applies—
(a) regulations 49(3) and (7) do not apply, and
(b) the appropriate authority must withdraw the referral of the case to accelerated misconduct proceedings.
(4) Paragraph (3) does not apply only if—
(a) the appropriate authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the appropriate authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(5) In paragraph (4)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(7) For the purposes of paragraphs (4) to (6), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”””

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move and test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 359.”

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say about the intelligence that the Government have, but I think the evidence has been very clear, on our news channels, about the terror that the IRGC has caused in its own country. The threat to the UK from the IRGC is evident to all but the Government, it seems, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 439.”

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Motion X1 is consequential.

Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X) agreed.

Southport Inquiry: Prevent Programme

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the recommendations from Sir Adrian was on assessing the parents of the individual who is, I remind the House, now serving 52 years as a minimum sentence in prison for the assault. The failure of the parents to understand, establish and report the behaviour of the individual was a critical factor, so Sir Adrian has made a number of recommendations in that area. We received the recommendations on Monday; it is important to give them due consideration. We will report back to the House by the summer, but those are key areas where we need to look at what interventions can be made where there are difficult young people involved in activity that can escalate to the incident that happened in Southport.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we touched on a number of issues yesterday during the Government’s Statement on the dreadful events at Southport, including the Mental Health Act. This was of course expressly designed for the purpose of limiting the extent to which autistic people can be detained and treated. Given that one of the contributing factors to both Rudakubana’s behaviour and the authorities’ failure to intervene was his autism diagnosis, will the new national autism strategy now look to change this approach? Can the Minister outline when we can expect to see that strategy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the recommendations said the issue of autism was a potential contributing factor but not the sole contributing factor. As I mentioned on the Statement last night, it is anticipated that a revised autism strategy being produced by other parts of government will be done in relatively short order. I cannot give the noble Lord a timescale from the Dispatch Box because it is not my direct departmental responsibility, but I will look into that and report back to him by letter.

Knife Crime

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

She is right, and we must and will do everything in our power to make those words a reality in every part of our country. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we meet at a time when too many people in this country still feel less safe in their streets and less confident in the criminal justice system. We know the threat of knife crime; in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we on this side of the House pointed out that, in the year ending March 2025, there were 528,582 stop and searches in England and Wales, including 5,572 under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In the year ending June 2025, there were 51,527 knife offences, and 1.1 million incidents of violence, with or without injury, recorded by the police.

The Government now say that they will halve knife crime in a decade, and we all want that, but targets without a clear plan are not enough. Can the Minister say how they are going to empower police to tackle knife crime with confidence? If the Government want officers to act decisively to prevent violence, they must also ensure that officers who act lawfully and proportionately feel properly backed. That is why we must prevent the Independent Office for Police Conduct from reopening an investigation into the same conduct after a police officer has been prosecuted and acquitted, unless there is substantial new evidence. We have made that argument forcefully in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill, and we will revisit that tomorrow.

The Government must not undermine police confidence when we need more proactive policing. Although the Government speak of neighbourhood policing expansion, the fact is that overall police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300 since the Government took office, including particularly sharp falls in the Metropolitan Police when knife crime is at its worst in London. What impact has the fall in police numbers had on overall crime levels and on perceptions of safety in communities? What steps are Ministers taking to expand the numbers of police officers, and when will they deliver on their manifesto commitment to recruit more police?

In Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we proposed lowering the threshold for Section 60 from “anticipated serious violence” to “anticipated violence”. Unfortunately, the Government declined. What was their answer? The Minister said in response that

“if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 150.]

I can say with confidence that hotspot policing and targeted funds are all very well but hotspots cannot police themselves, and the Government have still not gone far enough in strengthening police powers or in giving forces the numbers they need.

We need stronger controls on dangerous weapons and tougher restrictions on knife sales. In government, we Conservatives banned zombie knives. Can the Minister tell the House what impact in measurable terms the new ban on ninja swords has had on knife crime? Disappointingly, the Government have also opposed a Conservative amendment that would have increased the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. Of course prevention matters, but it is complementary to, not a replacement for, a tough sentencing policy.

That brings me to youth hubs, youth centres and the wider youth offer. We want there to be investment in youth outreach and early intervention. How will the money be spent, how will success be measured and how will resources be redirected if schemes do not work?

This matters all the more because the Government’s broader economic policy risks undermining the very stability that they claim to be building. Young men do not drift into gang culture and street violence in a vacuum. Where there are few opportunities to prosper, young people are more vulnerable to exploitation and more likely to join illegal gangs. That is why it is entirely proper for this House to ask whether the Government’s wider tax-and-spend choices are making matters worse. If you make it more expensive to hire and to take a chance on a younger worker, it is entry- level jobs that disappear first, and the vulnerable young person finds legitimate work just out of reach. Gangs do not recruit in prosperous conditions; they recruit where the formal economy has receded and the illicit economy looks, to a teenager, like the only market left.

I am not claiming that every unemployed young person turns to crime—that is not true; far from it—nor do I diminish the individual’s responsibility for their actions, but a weaker youth labour market creates more fertile ground for exploitation, including by county lines gangs and organised criminal networks. Indeed, we have consistently challenged Ministers directly on youth unemployment and the effect of the Government’s economic choices on hiring. The public deserve better and I believe this Government have some way to go yet.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s new strategy in broad terms. It is the right direction of travel. There is much in Protecting Lives, Building Hope to support the focus on prevention, early intervention and joined-up local action. These are principles that the Liberal Democrats have long championed, and it is good to see them reflected in national policy.

Knife crime continues to harm too many lives and too many communities. Many areas still feel the effects of reduced youth services and local support. Rebuilding these networks must be central, and I am encouraged that the strategy recognises that. The principle behind the plan is sound. If delivered well it can do lasting good, but success depends on sustained funding. Prevention cannot be turned on and off with budget cycles. Youth work and early intervention succeed only when they are steady and trusted.

Resources should be directed where fear and harm are greatest. Knife crime shapes how young people move about their area, how safe they feel and where they go. A data-driven approach is sensible, provided that it is used carefully and does not erode trust or concentrate suspicion unfairly. Real neighbourhood policing, visible, consistent and rooted in local knowledge, remains the best safeguard against that.

Technology and crime mapping can help, but that is not the whole answer. Ours is already one of the most surveilled countries in the world and London alone is the most heavily monitored city in Europe. Knife crime, however, is a human problem requiring human connection. Innovation should complement proper front-line presence and strong community partnerships but never replace them, and we must guard against technology that subtly changes the nature of society or erodes rights and freedoms.

The strategy rightly points to the role of social media in glamorising violence, spreading fear and helping criminal networks to recruit and communicate. But we have reached the stage where policing online platforms requires more than new laws and rhetoric; it demands sustained, visible enforcement. The Online Safety Act provides for serious criminal penalties. What the public want to know now is how often these powers are used.

One area which needs clarity is the future of serious violence reduction orders, which allow stop and search of known offenders without suspicion. The Liberal Democrats have long had concerns about their proportionality and impact on public confidence. Can the Minister confirm whether they will continue and when Parliament will see the pilot evaluation? If they are not to be extended, we should understand why, and if future use is being considered, the evidence should be published in full.

This strategy contains many of the right elements. The challenge now is delivery and ensuring that those commitments lead to genuine, lasting change on the ground. The Liberal Democrats will support that ambition and work constructively to make it happen.

Southport Inquiry

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator, but there was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator’s parents knew the risk that he posed but did not co-operate with the authorities. There is also responsibility on the state, and on all of us here, to learn the lessons from failures, wherever they occurred. That lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure that we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths that would never have happened had the state—and those who work within it—acted differently. That is our task. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for today’s Statement. There are many things to learn but our foremost concern must be with the victims and their families. This report is littered with evidence of institutional failure. Time and again, public bodies were presented with the evidence and given the chance to intercept Rudakubana, and yet they failed to act. It is, in retrospect, unfathomable that Rudakubana was referred to Prevent three times and each time the referral was closed. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now updated their Prevent assessment framework and that oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened. That basis must now be built upon, beginning by reviewing Sir Adrian Fulford’s Prevent recommendations. The importance of investigating online activity and ensuring that neurodivergence has a place within practitioner training must now be prioritised. When can this House expect an update from the new Prevent commissioner on incorporating these suggestions into the system?

There is also evidence that shortfalls in information sharing between agencies represented one of the key failures among public services, particularly on behalf of the police. Sir Adrian has outlined that the police should have progressed Rudakubana to the multi-agency Channel programme and has made several other important suggestions on general police practice. Given that the Secretary of State acknowledges that this step should have been taken, can the Minister offer a timescale in which we can expect to see measures to ensure that guidance on Channel referrals is followed consistently?

It was also noted that Rudakubana’s autism was a key factor in the police not taking action on early warning signs. Following a report by his parents in 2021, the police concluded that the

“suspect suffers with autism and it is not in [the] public interest to prosecute”.

The report found that Lancashire Constabulary, despite responding appropriately to calls, did so

“without any real consideration or understanding of what”

his autism

“might mean for his criminal responsibility or risk”.

This approach was mirrored by the social services. The child and youth justice service reduced its contact time with Rudakubana and later began to accept his attendance at school as qualifying contact time due to his autism. This was despite the fact that he had failed to adequately engage with his social worker.

It is clear that there exists an institutionalised practice to defer to disabilities as an explanation for misconduct and to focus on the individual’s vulnerability over the risk they may pose. In this case, inaction on behalf of the authorities was in part caused by the attacker’s autism diagnosis. Can the Minister say whether, in the light of this report, the Government are now reviewing their position on sectioning and whether there are lessons to be learned that should be applied to our approach relating to neurodivergent people more generally?

Another important revelation of this report—one that was missing from the Home Secretary’s Statement—was a similarly institutionalised practice to consider race as an important factor in agency work. Rudakubana’s head teacher, Joanne Hodson, was encouraged to water down his education, health and care plan by both his father and social services. His social worker at the time even went so far as to accuse Mrs Hodson of “racially stereotyping” Axel Rudakubana as

“a black boy with a knife”.

This is becoming a worrying trend. The same practices were made apparent in the inquiry into the tragic murders in Nottingham in 2023. Mental health care professionals had not sectioned Valdo Calocane due to the concern they placed on the “over-representation” of young Black men in detention. This mindset within institutions filters through into the public conscience. A security guard present at the Manchester Arena suicide bombing avoided confronting Salman Abedi for fear of being called a racist, despite having a “bad feeling” about the soon-to-be suicide bomber.

The institutional obsession with ethnic or racial parity must end. Immutable identity cannot play a role in agency work concerned with protecting the public. Public bodies must act if and when there is ample evidence to suggest a risk to the individual or to the public, as was the case with Rudakubana, regardless of who they are. If that leads to disproportionality then so be it. If outcomes suggest an overrepresentation of this or that community then I am afraid the responsibility must lie with the individuals in question, not the public bodies reacting to their actions. We cannot continue with this current mindset; the consequences are far too dire. That much has been made tragically clear. I hope the Minister can agree on this specific point.

I hope that, in the light of these findings, the relevant agencies will now be spurred on to making the necessary changes to their operations to ensure that an atrocity like this will not result from their failings again. In particular, information-sharing must be made a priority. I hope the Minister will make this assurance today.

I also acknowledge the monumental shortcomings of the attacker’s parents. Past the failure to seek adequate help regarding Rudakubana’s behaviour, the refusal to alert the police of his purchase of weapons and the lack of accountability that Sir Adrian Fulford highlighted in their testimonies, their actions in the week leading up to the attack are unforgivable. The report leaves no doubt that the parents had the express knowledge that Rudakubana was planning to commit an attack, yet they did nothing to prevent it. It will do little to prompt criminal proceedings, nor will it offer much comfort to the families of the victims, but it is an important point to place on the record.

This report must serve as an inflection point. We owe it to the victims, survivors, families and communities affected by this atrocity. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the Statement made in the other place. Our thoughts remain with the families of Elsie Dot, Bebe and Alice, and with those still living with the physical and psychological scars of Southport.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the first phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s inquiry. Its findings are indeed unsparing but, tragically, not unsurprising. How often have we stood here after inquests and inquiries, hearing once again of the same systemic failures, poor information sharing and missed opportunities?

The report describes the state’s failure as belonging to everyone and therefore to no one. In the five years before the attack, the perpetrator came into contact with almost every arm of the state: mental health services, children’s social care, three schools, Lancashire Police and the Prevent programme, three times. No comprehensive risk assessment was ever made and each agency assumed someone else would take the lead. This was a failure not only to join up the dots but to share life-saving information. As Sir Adrian warns, that culture must end—because until it does, tragedies like this will happen again.

The Government now say that they will legislate to strengthen accountability between agencies. This is welcome, but it is hard to understand why they are overlooking an opportunity already before them in the Crime and Policing Bill—a Bill which, ironically, could help deliver exactly what the inquiry calls for. The Bill proposes youth diversion orders to support young people who pose a risk of serious violence or radicalisation—precisely the cohort at the centre of this inquiry. Properly framed, these orders could address the very gap Sir Adrian identifies.

When the police apply for an order, the court should be able to see all the relevant information, from schools, social care, health services and the police, to build a complete picture of the child’s needs and risks. However, as drafted in the Bill, that will not happen. The police will consult only the youth offending team. There will be no legal duty to involve schools, health professionals or social services, and no guarantee that the court will ever hear from them. Judges will not see the full picture that could mean the difference between prevention and disaster. That is why I tabled an amendment to introduce a clear multi-agency consultation duty, which would build exactly the structured accountability that Sir Adrian said is essential.

Had such a duty existed before the Southport attack, the perpetrator’s autism might not have been repeatedly misunderstood as an explanation for his behaviour. The police might have known more about the support available, and agencies might have felt obliged to share vital information. I made these points on Report, but the Government resisted the amendment, preferring to rely on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all, but we risk once again seeing fine words followed by inaction.

It is not too late. The Bill will return to this House tomorrow. I urge Ministers to look again, in the light of the inquiry’s finding, and to act swiftly to ensure that the law reflects what Sir Adrian has so clearly set out: lives depend on joined up responsibility and real accountability.