Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I have not taken part in this Bill before, but I do so now because I have been closely connected with someone who was treated by a so-called psychotherapist and removed from her family as a result. These people do something almost inconceivable. They get inside people’s minds and teach them totally false memories, so they begin to imagine that their parents have abused them and behaved in appalling ways which are entirely untrue. They believe it and as long as they go on with the so-called therapy, they are imprisoned by these wicked people.

This is done for two reasons: money and control. I very much agree with what has just been said, but I do not wish that to be yet another excuse for not accepting this amendment. There are far too many people in this country being destroyed for money and power by wicked people, and our law does not protect them. We have now discussed this so often, so long and so convincingly that frankly, I want to beg the Minister: please do not be another Minister who finds a reason for not doing this. Because if so, he allows yet more young people to have their lives destroyed by some of the most evil people I have ever come across.

I think my contribution was worth while, not just because I have personal and direct connection with someone who was in this condition, but because I want to assure the House that there is no need to worry on a religious ground. I think I am known to have very strong religious views, and I do not think this is going to cause problems for any legitimate religious organisation. There may be some problems from some pretty illegitimate religious organisations such as the Moonies and the Scientologists, but the truth is these people work on their own. They are individuals and they do this for money. I beg the Minister not to let this chance go to protect the most vulnerable young people.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the other speakers have established that there is a very real mischief here. My concern is about the width of this amendment. If it is going to be brought back on Report, either by the Minister or by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, it really needs to be more specific. It is very broad in the concepts it uses, such as the concept of “psychological harm” and whether

“the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable”.

It seems to me that the mischief here is people who provide psychotherapy or counselling services in bad faith or dishonestly, and we need to have an amendment which more specifically addresses that mischief. The French legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred was much more specific and tailored than what we have here.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I am a bit taken aback by what I have just heard. I shall be travelling to the United States shortly, and I carry with me not only my phone but an iPad. Those two hold virtually everything that matters in my life, apart from my address book: everybody I know, and so on. The “keyhole surgery” offered by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, seems extraordinarily sensible. The idea, currently under this Bill, that the police could hold information for years and years seems absolutely unacceptable. If the Government do not accept this very modest intervention, they really have to do something else. Otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, privacy goes out of the window.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I rise for two reasons. First, I think it is dangerous to leave lawyers to talk about these matters without the intervention of non-lawyers. Secondly, although I can claim no legal background, I am a historian, and what really worries me is that the whole of history shows how often we make mistakes in the heat of dealing with a very real issue. That is my concern. We have a very real issue of terrorism. We know that our enemies are using every possible mechanism to interfere with everything, from our elections to the way in which our motor cars are driven. We know that and, therefore, we want to protect ourselves as much as possible. But very often, when we do that, we go two steps too far, and I believe we have done so here. Indeed, if I have a complaint about these amendments, it is that I am not sure that this “keyhole surgery” will entirely dig out all the fetid wrongness in this decision. We need to go further.

I would ask that this Committee remembers that one of the roles of this House is to bring to bear long experience, and it should be the long experience of this House that it is always dangerous to legislate on things like terrorism without thinking extremely carefully about how far we are going. I believe that part of the reason why people accept the rule of law generally in Britain is that they are not afraid of the kind of intervention which this makes possible. There are two things that we have to put right. First, in the circumstances of no suspicion, it is simply not good enough to say that a constable should have his own view about the national security situation, and that that should inform a decision so certain and important as this.

The second thing we should have in mind is that we live in a world in which people do not want to share with everyone their perfectly reasonable and perfectly decent information. I believe that we have a right to privacy. It is not just because people might have an unfortunate interaction with other people that happens to be found, or that they have looked at something which perhaps would have been better not looked at, or any of those things. That is not what I am concerned about; I am concerned about the way in which human beings in this country think of the law. They believe that the law protects their personal integrity and their right to privacy. Therefore, what I want to say to the Minister, for whom, as he knows, I have great respect, is that this is not just about not going too far because of the fight against terrorism; it is also about remembering constantly what maintains our respect for the rule of law. We only have to have one example of this being used in a ridiculous manner to find people much more widely criticising the way in which the law works. Therefore, I beg of him to look rather carefully at this and see how he can meet what is an obvious problem.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak extremely briefly, because, compared to the expertise of my noble friends on the Cross Benches who have spoken thus far, I would probably merit nothing like the status of a keyhole surgeon—more like a butcher, really—in terms of legal matters. But I would just say that what I have heard is very convincing, coming from people with such expertise. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reasons for rejecting the amendment, if that is what he feels he must do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Because there is already statutory guidance in relation to the operation of the 2000 legislation. The purpose of the revised codes of practice is that it is normal practice to have a code of practice approved by Parliament for how the Act is implemented by officers on the ground at the port of entry. The code of practice is approved or not approved by both Houses, it is subject to consultation, and I have given a commitment from this Dispatch Box that that code of practice and this clause, if the Bill is enacted, will not be introduced until the code of practice has achieved the assent of both Houses.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The noble Lord explained that I should be happy because this had been requested by those who knew. Those who knew also requested that in the document itself, in the actual Act, there should be these changes. I do not understand why it is reasonable to accept their advice to put this in, but not reasonable to accept equally sensible advice to have the restrictions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have made the case and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others can accept that case or not. If he believes that keyhole surgery is still required, he has a mechanism to begin the operation. I hope the Committee can accept the assurances I have given, based on the fact that this is an amendment to the 2000 Act. The normal practice already in place is to have codes of practice, and I am proposing, via the discussion, to have revised codes of practice, subject to parliamentary affirmative scrutiny, and that the clauses will not be implemented until such a time as both Houses give their assent to those measures. I hope that assuages the noble Lord; if it does not, he knows what to do.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I love these amendments and wish I had tabled them myself. They are excellent. Water companies dumping sewage into rivers has been illegal for years: it is just this and the previous Government’s refusal to act that has let it continue without serious consequences.

The legislation allows Ministers to set a bar of what is acceptable behaviour and, so far, every politician in charge has refused to say what is and is not a major failure. The result of this political cowardice is that water companies continue to make a profit out of polluting our waterways and beaches, and the people in charge continue to collect their big pay cheques and bonuses.

Regulators such as Ofwat have been in bed with the water industry bosses, and the Environment Agency has lost staff and legitimacy. Labour are wedded to private ownership of water and refuse to consider public ownership, even though it would be the most popular legislation they could enact this Parliament. I keep making suggestions about how Labour can get some voters back, but it is not listening.

These companies are fleecing bill payers with the excuse that they need to carry out the investment they have failed to do for decades. They have taken the public’s money and given it directly to shareholders. They have run up debts to pay even higher dividends and the bill payers are now paying for those debts. What is going to stop them doing this all again?

These amendments take a direct route to stopping pollution by making this personal to the people at the top. If they do not spend the money to invest and reduce pollution, then that is a crime. They are taking the public’s money and failing to improve. My own preference would be to put them on long-term community service cleaning up the sewage from our beaches, waterways and riverbanks. I would probably put them in special uniforms so that everybody passing by would know exactly who they are. I would also put a complete ban on dividend and bonus payments.

I am happy—she says, through gritted teeth—to support this more moderate suggestion, as being something the Minister might accept. I would not give them three years to turn it around either, but setting some sort of firm deadline would be preferable to the inaction of this, and the last, Government.

Finally, the best way of stopping the crime of water companies dumping sewage in our rivers is to take them into public ownership. Reduce bills by reducing the money wasted on debt repayments and replace the current set of overpaid bosses with people who can do the job and care about our environment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a historic connection with the water industry in the sense that I was the chairman of a water-only company more than 10 years ago, but it means I know a bit about the water industry and perhaps that is helpful after the last intervention, because the truth of the matter is that this is not just a problem of the water companies.

First, it is the problem of those people who controlled the water companies. The way in which it was operated was a great mistake. There were two regulators and the Environment Agency was almost always overturned by Ofwat. Ofwat was leaned on by successive Governments to keep down the price of water. So I start by saying that we must have a system in which we are paying for the big changes that we know about—and, because I have been around for such a long time, I remember why privatisation took place. It was not anything to do with Mrs Thatcher wanting to privatise. It was because, when it had been public ownership, both municipal and national, there had never been investment. It is all right for the noble Baroness to say that that is what we want; if you look at the history, it is about the worst history of public investment that we ever had. We had Surfers Against Sewage and the filthiest water: the worst water in northern Europe. When we signed up to the water directive, as we did when were sensibly in the European Union, it was quite clear that we did not meet the standards. The Daily Telegraph used to say, “Oh well, of course our water is better than anywhere else because they drink bottled water in France”. The truth was that our water did not meet the standards of the whole of Europe.

The privatisation took place to get private money into the water industry, to make the changes that were necessary—and, for a bit, it worked. I was the Minister responsible after that had been done and it was murder to try to deal with it. As these companies brought new technology and the rest into it, they had to charge more and therefore we had all the arguments about keeping the water price down. Unfortunately, we have to recognise that water is not cheap and it is going to be more and more expensive. For example, Essex & Suffolk Water—which is about 200 to 300 yards outside Anglia, where I am affected, so I do not have a direct connection—has announced that it cannot provide new water for any new or extended industry until 2036. That is the effect of climate change and of not having the water we need.

We have to be frank about our problem: we are going to have to spend a lot more money on water, make it much more efficient, use new technology and do that through the privatised system that we have. There is no point in arguing about it; it is not going to be nationalised. The Government have made that quite clear and nobody else is going to nationalise it. So let us see how we can make this work. That is why I have come to be semi-supportive of this amendment: the reality is that we have not been able properly to regulate water and we need to do so. Directors of companies in these areas need to be personally responsible when, for a period, they have clearly not done the job which they are supposed to do.

The noble Baroness wanted us not to have three years. Frankly, you have got to have a period in which you can see whether this a persistent problem or a one-off. We are going to have lots of one-off problems. I know it bores the Committee for me constantly to talk about climate change, but the point about climate change is that it is really climate disruption. It means that we have very significant changes in weather which we cannot predict in advance and therefore we can have real problems, with so much water that we cannot deal with it or not enough water so we cannot provide for people. That does not mean to say that the people of Tunbridge Wells do not have a very considerable complaint about the fact that, yet again, they have not been able to have the water that they ought to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is very brave of the noble Lord to say categorically that this Government will not put the water companies into public hands, because they are famous for their U-turns, so who knows what is going to happen next week? Secondly, all these bonuses and huge payouts surely show a level of incompetence. They had the money to do the investment and they gave it instead to shareholders.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am sorry, the second part of the noble Baroness’s comments are ones she makes about everybody who is in the private sector. That is what she thinks about the private sector and I do not agree with her. The Polanski mechanisms of this world are devastating politically and economically and, really, I am not going to answer that because I just think it is not true and is nonsense.

However, the first part is actually quite important. The reason the Government do not want to nationalise the water companies is that it would cost a great deal of money that we ought to use for other things—and it does not necessarily end up with a better system. I am a historian: I always like to look at what happened before. When it was in the public sector and was run by municipalities, we did not spend the money. That was the problem. And we still would not do so, because there is always something better to spend the money on immediately. We are politicians; you do it for what the next moment is. The trouble with investment in water is that it is crucial, but it is long term.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

First, I do not want to get into a spat with the noble Lord but could he not mention people by name in this Chamber? That is quite rude. Secondly, I am an archaeologist and I know exactly how these things start. The fact is, it may be that public ownership did not help but private ownership has made it much worse—and it is not true that I condemn all private businesses.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

We are straying away from the amendment and strolling into a bigger debate. If we can get back to the amendment, that will be fantastic.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

On the personal attack, Mr Polanski is the leader of a party. If he cannot be referred to in this House, I wonder what on earth we are coming to.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I will follow the strictures just put on us to stay with the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as he still came back for another bite, that as someone who sat on the Industry and Regulators Committee that looked into the water industry in detail, I know that the Victorian system reached its capacity in 1960, and public and private ownership both failed in different ways for the simple reason that he gave: short-termism. That is the problem we face: the multiple billions that have to be spent over a long period, and no Government looking to get re-elected for the next five years will ever spend it.