Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I do not want to prolong this, but the purpose of this amendment is not to regulate the speed of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on his field. The concern is e-bike riders on pavements, and I suggest that the answer is to ensure that people cannot ride more than a specified speed on the pavements, if at all. Of course, they are not allowed to ride on the pavement at all, so they should not be doing so. The point, surely, is that if there is a specified speed limit, it is already a criminal offence to conspire to provide a battery for the specific purpose of enabling e-bike riders to break the speed limit.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard some jolly clever speeches. It seems to me that the general point of this group of amendments, and indeed the previous one, is to bring this matter of great public concern to the attention of the Government during this debate. We are not now, this afternoon, looking for statutory perfection; we are looking for the Government to pay attention, and every one of us, be it my noble friend Lord Goschen walking here, or my noble friend Lord Hailsham riding at a reasonable speed from King’s Cross to this place, has our own experiences and anecdotal stories to inform the House and this debate.

I really do not think we need to get stuck in the weeds; we just need to get the Government to be a little braver. Yes, they should read out the departmental notes they have in front of them, but they should also realise that this is a matter of real and pressing public concern. The use of e-cycles by drug dealers and others, who wear the stolen uniforms of respectable companies to deliver drugs here, there and everywhere, with no lights on their bikes, wearing balaclavas and dark clothing, at night, placing themselves and other road users in danger, is a matter of deep concern. That is what we need to get across to the Government, and I hope they will take the general point on board, even if they disapprove of the niceties of the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we discussed earlier, we have seen a huge rise in fast food and other deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters across our cities, and of course internationally too. The whole model for these deliveries is based on time— carrying out as many deliveries as possible in as short a time as possible. This constant pressure can lead to riders taking risks that endanger not only themselves but other road users and pedestrians. These risks include installing bigger batteries.

This group of amendments is timely and of the moment, given the rise in these bikes and scooters. However, kits are increasingly being bought online that are used to adapt regular cycles into e-cycles. These are causing not only serious safety issues on our streets but fire safety issues, as we have already heard. Therefore, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, look to tackle both the fire and road safety issues associated with non-compliant lithium-ion batteries. It does feel like there is a loophole in the law whereby unsafe batteries are being sold in the UK and are having a devastating effect. These are important issues, and I hope we hear some clear progress in this area from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

In all the time that I have been arguing for this kind of abuse by psychotherapists or counsellors to be a criminal offence, no one has ever argued that it should not be so, nor that the offence should not be modelled on the Section 76 offence. The time has come to legislate. This kind of abuse by people in a position of trust who cynically set out to ruin the lives of those who trust them, by using falsehood in the guise of therapy to abuse that trust for their own gain, should now be held accountable for what must be seen for what it is: criminal behaviour. I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the wording and effect of Amendment 347, which I co-signed, are self-explanatory, but, if the amendment needed any further elaboration, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has just provided it. I cannot improve on what he said, but now is the moment when Parliament must, after several earlier attempts by the noble Lord and me to legislate, outlaw the quack counsellors who predate on vulnerable people through controlling or coercive behaviour in order to provide some sort of protection to their victims or intended victims.

I have been concerned about these quacks and tried without success to get previous Governments to legislate for some years. More than 10 years ago, I started work with Sir Oliver Letwin, then the Cabinet Office Minister in the Government of our noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and Tom Sackville, a former Home Office Minister, as well as parliamentary counsel and Ministry of Justice officials, with the support and encouragement of my noble friend Lord Cameron, the then Prime Minister, who had a constituency interest in the matter. I spoke about those quacks on Report on the Modern Slavery Bill in November 2014 and the Serious Crime Bill in February 2015 in the other place, in your Lordships’ House on 2 March 2020 in the debate on the unregulated treatment of mental health, and then again on 2 February 2021, with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on the Domestic Abuse Bill. Now, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we have another opportunity to make real progress rather than having a general discussion without resolution.

We have laws to protect children and those under a mental incapacity through intellectual impairment, disability or the effects of old age. We can prosecute those who dishonestly take old and frail people’s money, but we leave unprotected adults who may succumb to pressure exerted on them by others with malevolent intent, because their exploitative activities currently do not come within the criminal law.

For over a decade, I have had in mind the young adult women whose experiences were brought to my attention by their parents and families. In essence, they had been brainwashed or suborned by quack counsellors. They persuaded these young people to break off all contact with their families, infected them with false memories and got them to pay fees for the so-called counselling. Some of those young women were well off and suggestible, but all of them, for no apparent reason, broke off all contact with their families.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, I successfully acted in a libel action for Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Mail, who had exposed the activities of the Unification Church, commonly known as the Moonies, in brainwashing young adults and breaking up families for nefarious financial, political and bogus religious reasons. What the quacks I have in mind are doing is hideously reminiscent of the Moonies’ activities exposed by the Daily Mail over 45 years ago.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has just reminded us, France, Belgium and Luxembourg have laws to criminalise the behaviour of predatory charlatans who exploit others in a state of emotional or psychological weakness for financial or other gain. As he also reminded us, other countries require genuine counsellors to be registered as counsellors. It must be assumed that their laws do not conflict with the articles of the ECHR that protect the right to private life and family life, the right to freedom of expression and association and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

To take the French example, in that jurisdiction it is an offence punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines to abuse the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or of a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, sickness or infirmity due to a psychological or physical disability or to pregnancy is apparent or known to the offender. It is also an offence to abuse a person in a state of physical or psychological dependency resulting from serious or repeated pressure, or from techniques used to affect his judgment in order to induce the minor or other person to act, or to abstain from acting, in a way seriously harmful to him—for “him”, also read “her”.

This amendment is clearly different but just as useful. One way of considering whether the proposed offence and defence in Amendment 347 would work is to ask oneself the following questions. Would the offence be prosecutable in theory and in practice? Could each of the elements of the offence be proved in a real-life example? Would the measure deal with the mischief that was identified, and would it catch no one else? I suggest that the answer to those questions is yes. How would it affect partners, husbands, wives, teachers, gurus, salesmen, priests and employers, all of whom are likely to have power and influence? It need not do so. Would it allow the mentally capable who want to give away their fortunes and leave their families to do so? Of course it would. Would it make sufficiently clear what was criminal behaviour and what was not? Would it comply with the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes, I suggest it would. What effect would it have on religious freedom or freedom of expression or association? In my view, it would have none. Is the proposed defence just and workable? Yes, it is. It would place the burden of disproving the defence on the prosecution.

The victims of these bogus therapists have been waiting far too long for Parliament to help them. The amendment, I suggest, is humane and practical and has nothing whatever to do with party politics or, as I have recently been asked, anything to do with youngsters or their parents caught in the maelstrom of the current transsexual controversies. If the laws of France, Belgium and Luxembourg can protect the people this amendment seeks to protect, the law of England can and ought to do so as well. We have, if I may say so, had enough of sophistry and feeble opposition based on a lack of courage, decency and drafting niceties. Too often we have heard it is the wrong day, it is the wrong Bill, this is the wrong way to approach this particular problem. Amendment 347 or something like it should be added to the Bill and I urge the Government to do that. If the Government will not do that, we must return to this on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the Government would be happy to consider evidence following today’s debate. I would certainly put that forward to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, as part of that examination of regulation. That is a productive way forward, without many of the pitfalls I have tried to describe that might occur if the legislative route was accepted in the amendments proposed today.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to criticise the Minister’s intentions and motives, but what he has just said is reminiscent of what I have heard on previous occasions from Ministers of my party and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, probably heard from Ministers in the Tony Blair Government back in 2001. We need to ratchet up the urgency here. Having further reviews is really a delightful departmental way of saying, “Not today, thanks, and possibly not even tomorrow”. We need to grip this. Calls for evidence are fine, so long as they are not calls for further delay or a “can’t be bothered” attitude. I know from my own knowledge of the Minister that he does not belong to the “can’t be bothered” department. If my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others who agree with him on this amendment are to be persuaded that we are not just being brushed off then we need to see some real action. That could mean the Minister, or a Health Minister, agreeing to meet with us, with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who has some views about the drafting, and with other Members of this House to have a very serious round-table discussion early in the new year. Otherwise, this will dribble away as it did under the previous Government, and I know that the Minister does not want that to happen.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a case to be made that if, on several occasions, members of the Conservative Party have used the same argument in government, my noble friends in the Labour Party have used the same argument in previous Governments, and I myself use the same argument, then maybe that same argument has some validity. I put that to the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

That is a logical fallacy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. I have tried to tell the Committee that the Department of Health and Social Care is taking forward a programme of reform to professional regulation and legislative frameworks for healthcare professionals. Responsibility for that lies with the Department of Health. On this Bill, I speak in response to the amendments on behalf of the Home Office. I am arguing, and I have done so previously, that legislation would not be the appropriate route forward. There may be a common thread with previous Ministers there, but that is the argument that I am putting to the Committee.

I am happy to reflect with colleague as to whether I can ask my colleague Ministers to examine the issues that the noble and learned Lord has put to the Committee, but it is ultimately for them to consider the evidence provided. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, thinks that that is a brush-off. I hope it is not, but he can judge that in reflecting on what I have said today. If he wishes to then there is the opportunity to raise this issue on Report; the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has already shown his tenacity in doing so on several occasions.

I am happy to try to facilitate for a Minister of Health to examine the issues put before the Committee, and I think it is reasonable that I draw this debate to the attention of the appropriate Minister for Health, including the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which test the assumptions of the proposed new clause as well. Ultimately, however, I am standing here on behalf of the Government and the Home Office, and speaking for all these matters now. The legislative route is not one that we consider appropriate. I have said what I have said, and I would be very happy, if the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment, to draw the attention of the appropriate Health Minister to this debate, including the noble Lord’s comments and those of other Members. I have heard the request for a meeting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and I will draw that request to the attention of the appropriate Health Minister. If Members remain unhappy after that process then there are a number of options open to them; they are experienced parliamentarians and no doubt they will exercise them.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 337A, which is about consistency and common sense. The same standard of protection should apply wherever a child is taught, whether in a classroom, online or in their own home. Parents assume that safeguards already exist, and they are shocked when they learn that someone barred from working with children can still legally offer tuition. In my experience, the vast majority of parents do not know this. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, this is a huge loophole, and something needs to be done about it as a matter of urgency.

The targeted change would simply ensure that the law reflects modern patterns of learning and closes an indefensible gap without adding either bureaucracy or cost. It would strengthen public confidence in the DBS system and in the integrity of child protection as a whole. Tutoring is now a central part of many children’s education, especially those who are already vulnerable or struggling, and the law really does need to keep pace with this reality. By backing the amendment, the Government can demonstrate that safeguarding principles are applied consistently across all settings, formal and informal alike, and that known risks will never again be allowed to fall between the cracks of overlapping regulations. It is a modest step, but one entirely consistent with our shared commitment to protect every child from exploitation and harm. In the end, it is simply a test of resolve. If we know where the danger lies, we have a duty to act before another child is placed at risk.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, just to demonstrate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, this is a cross-party matter and he has my support. I would be interested—he may or may not know—in the number of children affected by the failure of the regime to make sure that these tutors and so forth are properly registered. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a common-sense measure and needs to be brought in as soon as possible.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, one area that is of great concern to me is private music tuition. I have had some pretty horrendous safeguarding cases to deal with in churches, where a church musician who has committed some serious offences has gone on to privately tutor underage pupils. That particular form of tuition—which is very often done privately, arranged by parents who see an advertisement on the internet or in a newspaper—needs to be included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I understand the point that is made, but the system is about evaluating, classifying and giving information—in the current case to institutions—about the worthiness of the individual to work with children or with anybody in a safeguarding situation. We are levelling the playing field so that anybody who wants to engage someone in that capacity can do that and have the same knowledge and security that they are engaging with somebody who is—

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is doing his best and this is not meant to be a controversial debate, but surely the paramount concern must be the welfare of the children. Sharing information is not just a mechanical exercise. It requires trust by the parent who is employing the music teacher in a private space that they are approved—that they are permitted to engage in one-to-one teaching activity in somebody’s home. The parent could be downstairs or in the next room, but I know that music teachers can get up to all sorts of tricks while the parent is in the next room. We need to be a little bit more robust in ensuring that this regime is there to protect children and not simply to make life easy for bureaucrats.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

This supposes that a parent has the wherewithal, time and skill to interrogate this list. It is not making a level playing field. I have been a governor of many schools. We have people who are employed specifically to do these things. I have never met a parent who has done them. We should be sending a message to people who are deliberately trying to trick parents that they will be held directly responsible, not that the parent will have to catch them out. It only takes one predator to get lucky once to devastate a child’s life, whereas a parent will have to be lucky every single time to stop this. The emphasis is in the wrong place.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

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

Machetes are my particular concern, but so, too, are cleavers, defined in this amendment. We need to understand that both have legitimate purposes. The fact is clearly recognised in the exemptions contained in proposed new subsection (6) in Amendment 214E, where the fact that they have legitimate purposes is fully recognised.

I have a number of machetes. I have used them all my life and I still do. They are essential for clearing brambles and thorns when you cannot get at them with a strimmer or another mechanical instrument. I have not actually got a cleaver, but I know that people interested in cooking—not me—use them. Butchers certainly use them, as do gamekeepers and gillies when preparing carcasses from animals shot on the estate. Let us face it: these things have legitimate use. It is in that context that we must come to the detail with which we have been provided.

Proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 214D states that any person marketing or selling, et cetera, any of these instruments is committing an offence. That means that any hardware store in my former constituency which happened to be selling a machete would be committing an absolute offence. That is a very bizarre proposition. It means that any decent catering shop that sells cleavers is committing an absolute offence.

In proposed new subsection (2) these are absolute offences—no mens rea whatever. Then in proposed new subsection (3), anybody guilty of any of those offences faces imprisonment for up to 10 years. Proposed new subsection (4), the most bizarre of all, states that the police or the National Crime Agency can come into a private house to see whether there are any machetes or cleavers in it. That is all very bizarre stuff.

We then come to an even more interesting set of propositions in Amendment 214E.

“Any person over the age of 18”,


that is me,

“in possession of … a machete … in a public place is guilty of an offence”.

I have brambles and thorns in the adjoining fields to which I have to get access to cut—armed with my machete —by going along the footpath, which happens to be a public way, or by crossing the street, which happens to be a public way. In doing so I would be committing an absolute offence. That, I regret to say, is absurd.

I notice in proposed new subsection (3) that the police can come into my house to find these offensive weapons which I have had all my life. That is absurd. Proposed new subsection (4) states:

“It is assumed that the possession or carrying of”,


these things,

“is for the purposes of unlawful violence”.

When I am going along the footpath or crossing the street to cut down some brambles or thorns, it is to be presumed that I am intending some act of unlawful violence. Is that really sensible?

Proposed new subsection (5) on zombie knives is acceptable. However, proposed new subsection (6) deals with the “Hacking” point, if I may so call it. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, possesses a dirk. I do not know how long the dirk is, but I can imagine that it is of a length to make it a sword. If this amendment is accepted by your Lordships, should the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, go for a stroll on Whitehall carrying his dirk, he will be committing an absolute offence, and it will be assumed that he is intending some violence to third parties. Let us assume it is a sword. What happens if he stores it at home? Is it displayed for historical purposes? I rather doubt that; I do not suppose it is hanging on the wall to be shown to the public. Is it worn by uniformed personnel, as part of their uniform? Well, I am looking forward to seeing the noble Lord in his uniform, but I fancy that the answer to that is also no.

The truth is in a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in an earlier debate. If you go to any country house like mine, my friends’ or my neighbours’, they are stuffed full of these things, like swords from previous campaigns, that their great-great-grandfather carried at Waterloo, or that their great-grandfather carried at the Boer war, or whatever. These are not displayed for historical purposes; they are family possessions, and it is an absurdity to say that the police can come into my house and take these things. Oh no, no, no—this will not do at all.

The truth is that if somebody wishes to walk down Whitehall waving a machete, I am not surprised that the police get upset, but if they come to Lincolnshire—Kettlethorpe in particular—and find me crossing the street to cut down brambles and thorns with a machete I have owned for 50 years, I shall be passing annoyed. My noble friend’s purpose may be splendid, but his drafting is defective.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, there have been two things which were splendid. First of all were the intentions behind the proposals of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and secondly, the content and tone of the speech of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Blencathra is essentially saying that there needs to be greater attention paid by the public authorities—I include legislators as a public authority for this purpose—to the increase in the incidence of machete and cleaver crime, and that we need to make sure there is less of it. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said, there is some deficiency here. I think he was making what we used to call a pleading point, but let us leave it there.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

It was more than a pleading point.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

There we are. Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, I suggest that the answer to this is a sentencing question. My noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out that, in some of the particularly nasty cases he referred to, very lengthy sentences were awarded for the people who committed these crimes with these particular weapons. As I said at Second Reading, I have a horror of legislating to create new offences which are already offences. It is already an offence to do something criminal with one of these weapons, no matter what it is called. Although I entirely understand my noble friend’s motives, the better way is to consider whether the sentencers have sufficient powers to deal very seriously with these very serious crimes. By the sound of it, they already do, but the Government may want to look to see whether the criminal courts should be given greater powers of sentencing when dealing with crimes committed with these particular weapons.

I come back to my points. I understand my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s motives; I equally understand my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s enthusiasm for the points he has made. But, essentially, we are here dealing with a matter of sensible sentencing for particularly vicious crimes. If we concentrated on that, we would not clutter up the already over-lengthy legislation with yet more provisions.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee is undertaking its statutory duties to look at these issues. Of course the Government will co-operate fully with the Intelligence and Security Committee and give information on whatever issues are requested.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the problem for the Government is not the collapse of the spy trial, embarrassing though that may be, but the fact that this story keeps dribbling on from day to day and the Government do not seem to be able to get off the hook.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It dribbles on from day to day because Members continue to ask similar questions to those being covered, which they are entirely within their rights to do. He will know that the trial collapsed because the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service deemed that the evidence they had was not sufficient to secure a conviction. That was their decision, made independently of the Government. They made that decision, and that is why the trial has collapsed. Members of both Houses seek to press the Government still further on a range of issues around that, which is their absolute right, but the basic facts are that that is what happened.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, yet again we are being asked to digest a lengthy criminal justice Bill which covers far too many diverse areas of conduct. Churchill might have said that this Bill has no theme. Before the Bill began its progress through the other place, the Government proclaimed that it contained 35 headline measures. Andy Slaughter, the chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said the Bill introduced 27 new criminal offences. I think he was congratulating the Government.

Had I been discussing the Criminal Justice Bill—that is to say, the Bill that my noble friend Lord Davies referred to, which fell at the last election—I would have said of that what I now say of this Bill. It covers too many subjects. It makes criminal activities that are already criminal. It has 430 pages, 203 clauses and 21 schedules. Just look at it: it is like a telephone book. It is a catalogue, in my view, of Early Day Motions rather than a practical answer to the problems it seeks to identify. It reminds me of the Criminal Justice Act 2009, which included provisions for, among other things, the appointment of senior police officers, prostitution and lap dancing, the supply of alcohol to children, gang-related violence, aviation security, border controls and extradition, and more besides.

I am sure that many of the measures in this Bill are, on their face, worthy, and, assuming they are not already criminal offences, no doubt good measures are taken from the Criminal Justice Bill. But passing laws is not of itself a solution to an actual or perceived problem. Movement is not productivity. Too often, Governments of all political persuasions think that sounding vigorous is a substitute for action.

Between 1815 and 1914, remarkably few laws—about 15 or 20 statutes—were passed that affected the criminal law. Several of them are still in force, in whole or in part. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, between 1997 and 2007, more than 50 criminal law statutes were enacted. The Criminal Justice Act 2003—another doorstop of a Bill—even repealed earlier sections of earlier Acts of Parliament passed after 1997 that had not even been implemented. I tabled Written Questions in the other place, asking how many criminal law provisions had been implemented, how many had been repealed before implementation, and how many had been brought into force. The answer I used to get was roughly one-third had been implemented, one-third had not been implemented and one-third had been repealed before implementation or soon afterwards. I am not making a politically antagonistic point: I am simply pointing out that the early 21st century legislative equivalent of Dreadnought building is ineffective unless the Government—any Government—do more than pass laws and pat themselves on the back.

The court system is under strain. The police are under strain. Our prisons are under strain. Yet we blithely pile more and often repetitive legislation on them for political effect, without calculating whether the new provisions already exist or can be managed within the present creaking criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor recently promised 1,250 new Crown Court sitting days. With the Crown Court trial backlog leading to serious criminal trials now being scheduled for 2028 or 2029, and with literally hundreds of courtrooms unused, 1,250 additional days is insignificant. A senior Crown Court judge recently told me that he could use those days in just his own court centre.

The Home Secretary’s Second Reading speech in the other place in March amounted to empty jargon interrupted by loyal Back-Benchers reading out interventions drafted by her spads or by Government Whips, and by the Opposition complaining that she was ignoring the previous Government’s achievements or claiming that they were her own. This is not a satisfactory way to amend the law, still less to create new law.

Of course, this Bill will—either in this version or some other version of it—pass into law, and the Government will proclaim its enactment as one of their great achievements at the next election. In the meanwhile, the IPP scandal continues, despite the heroic efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and other noble Lords from across the House to release the ghastly grip of its talons around the lives and hopes of those hundreds of prisoners still in prison well beyond their tariff. Governments and Ministers say a lot. The voters watch carefully and remember what they actually do.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 184 resumed.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I will continue where other noble Lords left off. In particular, I commend the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who gave a very perceptive analysis of the problems that the noble Baroness’s amendment revealed. As he said, the amendment is legally coherent, and I also note that it is well motivated.

I add only this. We have adhered to the convention since 1951 or thereabouts, and it has not been domesticated into our law, as the European Convention on Human Rights has been, through the Human Rights Act 1998. I recall, when I was on the Opposition Front Bench in the other place, when discussing the Human Rights Bill, as it then was, and the then Government’s proposals to domesticate that convention into our jurisdiction, that one of the points I made was that one could be entirely in favour of our membership of the European convention—and I remain in favour of it—without necessarily supporting bringing it within the British domestic legal system.

I say in relation to the 1951 convention that one could be entirely in favour of our remaining a member of it without introducing the problems that are caused when these international treaties become part of domestic law. I said in 1998 that by bringing the European convention into our law and permitting British courts to adjudicate on cases which had to do with disputes under the convention would introduce a dangerous political element into the deliberations of our courts. I do not think I was wrong to say that. The last 25 or 30 years or so have demonstrated that a number of highly political cases have found their way through the courts, both at the lower court level, but also right the way up to the Supreme Court. Whether that has been to the advantage of the litigants or to the development of justice policy and to the development of the law in this country is a matter of debate, but it has created inconveniences, and it has created clashes between Parliament and the courts, and that is not to be wished for.

I gently urge the noble Baroness, when she comes to consider the good sense of her amendment and whether to push it, that she might find it better to leave things as they are. We have adhered faithfully, I think it is fair to say, to the 1951 convention since we ratified it, and there have been immigration and asylum statutes passed by Governments of both parties—the Labour Party and the Conservative Party—since, which have not, in my view, been unfaithful to the convention, either in its spirit or its implementation. I leave it there. I urge her to think carefully about what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and others have said, and perhaps to allow the convention to exist as a convention and to allow Parliament, this Government and any future Government to make up its or their own mind about the way in which it should be implemented on the local stage.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reiterate what I said to the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Bench: we condemn this action. We have also seen the reports of letters being delivered to neighbours. We are trying to verify the source of those reports and of that information, but the police are certainly looking into this matter and are liaising with those who are in receipt of the letters. The police will assess, independently of government, whether action needs to be taken under any legislation we have to date.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord that, in the event of the circumstances he has described, the police and the Home Office would investigate whether illegal acts have been undertaken. It would be for the police, not the Home Office, to investigate independently in that event. I hope that our representations have been made very forcefully, and that the Chinese authorities will recognise them. We will monitor that situation accordingly.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I fully understand the balance that there has to be between protecting British citizens under British law and the need for good diplomatic and trading relations with China. It is a difficult balance and sometimes it leads to uncomfortable conclusions. However, in the event that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has indicated, Chinese diplomats break the law and then hide behind diplomatic immunity, will this Government, through either the Home Office or the Foreign Office, make it abundantly clear to the Chinese Government not only that their behaviour is wholly unacceptable but that they will be publicly condemned by our Government so that our citizens know how much we disapprove of it, and that the individual diplomats from the Chinese embassy who misbehave will be promptly expelled?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is tempting me to look at scenarios that may or may not occur. Any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass and harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This Government will reflect on any actions like that, over and above the representations we have already made.

Rural Crime: NFU Mutual Report

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He may not know that I served on the Metal Theft (Prevention) Bill Committee in Opposition in 2013. We pressed that very strongly. In co-operation with the then Government, we reduced metal theft by 50% over that period. More legislation and security allowed thefts to be tracked down through scrapyards and known routes of criminal activity. It was a really effective piece of cross-party legislation: we amended it in Opposition, the Government accepted it and improvements were made. Of course I will happily meet with him. There is downward pressure and there will continue to be downward pressure, but if he and his all-party group have suggestions, we will happily look at them and consider them.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will understand that it is not just crimes of acquisition and anti-social behaviour that affect rural areas. They are also affected by fraud offences. Does the Minister have any idea when Section 199 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which provides for an offence of failure to prevent fraud offences, will be implemented? It cannot be implemented under the Act until six months after the publication of Home Office guidance. We have been waiting for the Home Office guidance. Does the Minister have any idea at what stage the consideration of that guidance is within the Home Office?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned gentleman. I have been tasked by both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to be the Minister responsible for fraud. This week, I met with officials and I will be meeting with stakeholders. We have a potential examination of a future fraud strategy based on the work of the previous Government. The points that the noble and learned Lord makes are a part of our reflection on that strategy. I will certainly go away and inform myself of what happened under the previous Government in relation to that delay, and how I can expedite this as a matter of some urgency.

King’s Speech

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I gladly follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I could have made exactly the same speech that he has just made when we came into government in 2010. I spent quite a time as shadow Prisons Minister studying the state of our prisons in the period from 2005 to 2008, and I wrote a paper called Prisons for a Purpose. I suggest the noble Lord reads it; he will find a lot of what he has just said in it.

Before reading the Henley report into the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s conduct in the Andrew Malkinson case, I had intended to speak about prisons and indeterminate sentences for public protection. But I will now concentrate on the CCRC and rely on other noble Lords to say what needs to be said on those subjects —save to say that I reject the new Lord Chancellor’s assertion that the current state of our prisons is all the fault of the last Conservative Government. As I indicated to the noble Lord so politely, the Blair-Brown Government still have plenty to answer for, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, knows that as well as I do because he was the Minister for Prisons for part of that period. That said, I genuinely welcome him to your Lordships’ House. I shadowed him in the other place when he was Minister for Prisons and he was an honest and hard-working opponent for whom I have and had the greatest of respect. I know that he will bring his skill and determination to his work in the Home Office.

I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, the former chairman of the Prison Reform Trust, of which, as I said in earlier business, I am a trustee. He has spent his adult life and fortune thinking constructively about caring for the welfare of prisoners and former prisoners. I congratulate him on his appointment and the Prime Minister on making that appointment. I also congratulate him on his fine maiden speech this afternoon. I urge him to achieve direct access to the Prime Minister on prisons policy, as he must be seen to be speaking with the direct authority of the Prime Minister. Without it, he could well be lost in the quagmire that is Whitehall. For far too long, under Conservative and Labour Governments alike, prisons policy has been delegated to Ministers without adequate political power—as a job to fill, rather than a central part of the conduct of good government. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, needs no welcome, but I congratulate him on his appointment within the Government.

The Henley report opens to urgent public examination a state of affairs that those in charge of the CCRC should be ashamed of. It should lead them to consider their positions. In 2023, the Court of Appeal quashed Andrew Malkinson’s rape conviction. In 2004, he had been sentenced to life imprisonment, and he spent 17 years in prison before he was released, with a further three on probation. Throughout that time, he steadfastly maintained his innocence, but it took 20 years and two Court of Appeal hearings for his conviction to be overturned. He made three applications to the CCRC in 2009, 2018 and 2021 to refer his case to the Court of Appeal. The first two were refused, and the third resulted in a successful appeal hearing in July 2023.

From 2021 to 2022, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and I co-chaired the Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice. We were set up to review the work of the CCRC after 25 years of operation. It can refer a case to the Court of Appeal if it considers that there is a real possibility that the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence in the case. It receives over 1,000 applications every year.

Our report was written in ignorance of the Malkinson case and before the 2023 Court of Appeal decision. We recommended that the roles of the chair and commissioners should be strengthened and that the processes for their appointments should be reviewed. We also found that the CCRC was underfunded, a problem exacerbated by the financial restrictions on the public provision of advice and representation for applicants. But one has only to read the 2024 Henley report on the Malkinson case to see that, even without the hideous facts of that case, we reached very similar conclusions.

We urge that the test for the CCRC should be altered to something less predictable. It should refer a case if it considers that the conviction rate may be unsafe, that the sentence may be manifestly excessive or wrong in law, or that it is in the interests of justice to make a referral. That would encourage a more independent mindset. The CCRC is presently too deferential to the Court of Appeal. It needs bold and determined leadership. It is my experience, having read the Henley report, that it is simply not getting it.

After the 2023 Court of Appeal decision, I publicly criticised the chair of the CCRC, not least because she said nothing in public to recognise what had happened to Mr Malkinson or to atone for the CCRC’s failures. I met her so that she could explain her position, but I came away from that meeting even more convinced that the CCRC needed new leadership. Had the Westminster commission known in 2022 what Mr Henley now tells us, we would have been less kind.

Having read the Henley report, it is now my view—in this I agree with the new Justice Secretary—that the CCRC unquestionably needs new leadership. If the chair and the chief executive will not resign immediately, they should be replaced. The CCRC cannot move forward with them in post. We need a full-time executive chair, with at least the standing of a High Court judge, and full-time salaried commissioners rather than the current part-timers. It needs better and better-resourced case managers. The CCRC, as presently organised and managed, is moribund.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Garnier]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 151A, do not insist on its Amendments 151B and 151C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 151D, and do propose Amendments 151E and 151F in lieu—

151E: As an amendment to Lords Amendment 151, in subsection (1), after first “body” insert “which is not a small organisation or which is a large organisation (see sections (Section (Failure to prevent fraud): small organisations), (Section (Failure to prevent fraud): large organisations) and (Large organisations: parent undertakings))”

151F: After Clause 180, insert the following new Clause—
“Section (Failure to prevent fraud): small organisations
(1) For the purposes of section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1) a relevant body is a “small organisation” only if the body satisfied two or more of the following conditions in the financial year of the body (“year P”) that precedes the year of the fraud offence—

Turnover	Not more than £10.2 million
Balance sheet total	Not more than £5.1 million
Number of employees	Not more than 50.

(2) For a period that is a relevant body’s financial year but not in fact a year, the figure for turnover must be proportionately adjusted.
(3) In subsection (1) the “number of employees” means the average number of persons employed by the relevant body in year P, determined as follows—
(a) find for each month in year P the number of persons employed under contracts of service by the relevant body in that month (whether throughout the month or not),
(b) add together the monthly totals, and
(c) divide by the number of months in year P.
(4) In this section—
“balance sheet total”, in relation to a relevant body and a financial year—
(a) means the aggregate of the amounts shown as assets in its balance sheet at the end of the financial year, or
(b) where the body has no balance sheet for the financial year, has a corresponding meaning;
“turnover”—
(a) in relation to a UK company, has the same meaning as in Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 (see section 474 of that Act);
(b) in relation to any other relevant body, has a corresponding meaning;
“year of the fraud offence” is to be interpreted in accordance with section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1).
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify this section (other than this subsection and subsections (6) and (8)) for the purpose of altering the meaning of “small organisation” in section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1).
(6) The Secretary of State may (whether or not the power in subsection (5) has been exercised) by regulations—
(a) omit the words “which is not a small organisation or” in section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1), and
(b) make any modifications of this section (other than this subsection) that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in consequence of provision made under paragraph (a).
(7) Before making regulations under subsection (5) or (6) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(8) Regulations under subsection (5) or (6) may make consequential amendments of section (Failure to prevent fraud: minor definitions).””

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the cracked record is up and at it yet again, but I make no apology because, although I fully understand the timetabling difficulties that the Government face—namely, that they would like to see this Bill receive Royal Assent before the close of the Session—I think we all ought to agree that it is better that, if we are to give this Bill a route through to Royal Assent, it should be a good Bill.

Most of the Bill is good, but this particular provision in relation to failure to prevent fraud offences falls down. I will not make the same speech that I made on 11 September, nor the same speech that I made in July, nor the same speech that I made in the spring, nor the same speech that I have made probably half a dozen times since I came into this House and probably a dozen times when I was a Member of the other place. Suffice to say that nothing I have heard from the Government, and nothing I have heard from those representing the Government in the other place, has come anywhere near meeting the case that has to be met.

First, it seems to me as a matter of straightforward principle that the criminal law should be uniform. It should apply to all in exactly the same way, and any defence that is available to a criminal offence should also be the same and applied to all uniformly. Of course, it will be up to the prosecuting authorities to consider the evidence and whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution on the evidence available, but we should not leave this Bill in a position where there is a different failure to prevent fraud offence for most companies than there is for 0.5% of the corporate and partnership economy.

I add this. There should be a form of consistency between each of the Government’s Bills dealing with failure to prevent. The Bribery Act 2010 has a failure to prevent bribery offence. The Criminal Finances Act 2017 has a failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion offences. Neither of those two failure to prevent offences is limited in its scope, in so far as neither of those Acts of Parliament provide an exemption for anybody, still less for 99.5% of the corporate economy. For some extraordinary reason which is yet to be explained this Bill provides that only 0.5% of the corporate and partnership economy should remain liable for any failure to prevent fraud offences. I have yet to find an answer.

I read in Hansard the House of Commons debate of 11 September which overturned my successful amendment. My right honourable friend Mr Kit Malthouse said that, clearly, I do not understand anything since I have never run a business. Well, he is wrong about that, quite apart from being offensive, because I have run my own business as a self-employed barrister for nearly 50 years. Furthermore, I have been a head of a set of chambers, which is, if I may say so, quite a respectable business to run.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

If one wants to learn anything from the speeches made in the House of Commons, I suggest that my noble friends on the Front Bench— and other noble Lords if they have a moment—read those of Sir Robert Buckland and Sir Jeremy Wright, two former law officers. They agree with my remarks of 11 September and find it puzzling that their own Government, a Government who are in favour of producing cogent and cohesive criminal law, have come up with this dog’s dinner.

I have done my best to be accommodating. It is not an accusation that is often levelled at me, but on this occasion, I think that it can be, justly. I have done my best to meet some of the Government’s less organised thinking. As I said at the outset, as a matter of principle. I cannot understand why there should be an exemption for anyone from the proposed criminal law, just as there is not under the Bribery Act and the Criminal Finances Act. However, to make life easier for the Government, on the last occasion I suggested that microbusinesses should be exempted from the failure to prevent fraud offences provision. I abandoned my provisions relating to the failure to prevent money laundering. The Government did not find that attractive, even though I tried to explain my abandoning of the principle on the basis that just as we have an age limit for criminal responsibility—10—we could perhaps also, by a rather clumsy analogy, exempt microbusinesses from criminal responsibility under the failure to prevent provision. That did not seem to go down very well with the Government—certainly not with Mr Kit Malthouse.

I have now moved a little further towards the Government. You may say, “Well, that’s a bit wet. If you’ve got any principles, why not stick to them?” Well, okay, accuse me of being wet, but I am doing my best to help the Government get out of an unnecessarily sticky hole. I have amended my proposal so that rather than microbusinesses being exempted, “small” businesses should be exempted—I define a small business on page 5 of the amendment paper, which states that, for the purposes of this provision,

“a relevant body is a ‘small organisation’ only if the body satisfied two or more of the following conditions in the financial year of the body … that precedes the year of the fraud offence”.

Those conditions are that the turnover of the business should be

“Not more than £10.2 million”,

the balance sheet should be

“Not more than £5.1 million”

and the number of employees should be “Not more than 50”.

In speaking against my own case, I rather wish that I had not put that down, but I have because I am trying to assist my noble friend on the Front Bench in getting his Bill enacted before the end of this Session.

I repeat that the criminal law should be uniform. Defences to the criminal law should be uniform. We should not have exemptions based on the size of the business. The Theft Act applies to all suspects—I am seeing whether my noble friend still enjoys my old joke about the six feet six burglar—regardless of whether they are six feet six or five feet six. We do not exempt people on the basis that they are small people or do not fit a particular height, so why are we doing it here? I have yet to find out. I am afraid that unless the Government move a little closer to me, I will invite your Lordships to join me in the Division Lobby.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Motion B1, as an amendment to Motion B, which is being debated within this group. It would

“leave out from ‘House’ to end and insert ‘do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 161A, do not insist on its Amendment 161B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 161C, and do propose Amendment 161D in lieu’”.

That is very clear.

We return to what has been described as a cost-capping amendment. Since this is not the first time that we have had the debate, I will try to be brief. This Bill has been a welcome, if late, addition to the government agencies in their fight to combat fraud. The scrutiny of the Bill through your Lordships’ House has been thorough and constructive. It has also been non-party political. I do not think that either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, or I would consider ourselves to be natural rebels.

All noble Lords have participated in this debate—and I very much include the Ministers in this—with a common purpose: to make this legislation as effective as it can be. Two themes emerged during the many debates. The first was the scale of the problem. The Government estimate, for example, that £100 billion was laundered through the United Kingdom last year, and yet under the Proceeds of Crime Act assets of only £345 million were recovered: that is 0.3%. The second theme was the frequent imbalance that exists between the resources available to enforcement agencies and those of the fraudsters, who may well employ expensive lawyers and have significant resources to enable them to do so. This modest amendment tries to do a little to restore that balance. I would have liked the enforcement agencies to have had complete protection against costs orders in the event that they lost a recovery claim, but in the course of ping-pong I have had to compromise somewhat, hence the form of the current amendment before your Lordships’ House.

The amendment does not prevent a judge from doing what is fair on costs in any particular case, but it is a nudge towards him or her to take into account the reasonableness of the agency bringing proceedings at all and the potential impact on its ability to carry out its functions if left with a substantial costs order. I struggle to understand the Government’s objection to this amendment and its predecessors; they seem, with respect, to be adopting a somewhat tender approach to fraudsters.

There is a clear precedent for this sort of amendment: when your Lordships’ House introduced a provision concerning the much-underused unexplained wealth orders. If it loses a case, the enforcement authority will have to pay costs only if it has acted unreasonably. As to the objection that it offends the “loser pays” principle, that is a misconceived argument. Judges regularly, in ordinary cases, make orders that each side bear their own costs, or make issue-based costs orders, or other orders which reflect the justice of the individual case. Parliament has legislated in ways that depart from this so-called principle: for example, QOCS—that is Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting—in personal injury litigation; or by Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act; or in relation to unexplained wealth orders. This amendment is intended to reduce the possibility of an agency saying to itself, “We cannot afford the risk to the budget if we lose a case, even when we’ve got good evidence to bring it”.

Spotlight on Corruption suggests that a number of cases are in the pipeline which bear costs risks. These are said to include over 60 cases being reviewed by one agency, and close to £1 billion in assets frozen by an enforcement body.

Another advantage to this amendment is that those defendants or respondents to an application who defend these cases will know that, even if their legal strategy prevails, they may not recover their costs. This may mean that they are keener to reach a compromise.

The amendment has the support of all those bodies that are concerned with anti-corruption. Incidentally, it also has the support of Bill Browder, who regards it as one of the most significant potential improvements to the Bill. Let us please not kick this into touch and have yet another report, which is the Government’s suggestion. If necessary, I will move Motion B1 and test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, I am in danger of sounding like a cracked record on this subject, so I will keep my remarks brief. I reassure my noble and learned friend that I still find his joke funny and I am glad he keeps making it. I thank him for being incredibly gracious although we continue to disagree on these matters. I have to say I do not believe the Bill is a dog’s dinner or that these arguments are dog’s-dinnery. We are not in a sticky hole on this; it is a difference of opinion, and I will make a couple of the arguments that I have rehearsed before in support of that.

I shall deal with my noble and learned friend’s amendment by first reminding him and the House that this may be a relatively small number of companies but, as I have said many times before from this Dispatch Box, they account for 50% of economic output in this country. The heart of the argument comes down to why there is a threshold for this offence but not for the offences of failing to prevent bribery or the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. As I have reminded the House on numerous occasions, the Law Commission has identified the disparity here: it is easier to prosecute smaller organisations under the current law, which this failure to prevent offence will address. The new offence is less necessary for smaller firms, where it is easier to prosecute individuals and businesses for the substantive fraud offence. The Government therefore believe it would be disproportionate to impose the same burden on them. The fact is that this is not an exemption from the law; the law applies in a different way to these smaller companies, as we have tried to explain on a number of occasions. I think I will leave that there.

On Motion B1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I do not think that this represents a tender approach to fraudsters. As we have said and made the case on a number of occasions, fundamental changes are being proposed here, and the review that we have proposed seems like a fair way of assessing precisely the implications of making those changes.

I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for highlighting some of the complexities in this area in his particularly acute legal way, which I am not equipped to follow. However, I can perhaps answer the question about the difference in introducing the cost protection amendment for civil recovery compared with unexplained wealth orders. This issue has come up in previous debates as well. The fact is that the difference between the changes made to the unexplained wealth order regime by the first Economic Crime Act last year and what is proposed in this amendment is that unexplained wealth orders are an investigatory tool that do not directly result in the permanent deprivation of assets, whereas the civil recovery cases covered by the amendment could do so. There could therefore be a host of serious unintended consequences of such a change to the wider civil recovery regime, so the Government cannot support the amendment. A review is the appropriate way to look at this issue. As I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, that may well be a very good idea, but we would like to be convinced of that and to do the work before we actually accept it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for generously accepting that we have made significant improvements to the Bill through its passage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we have engaged extensively with all noble Lords in this House on the Bill. I thank him for his explanation of how he believes a revising Chamber should operate. The fact is that we are not sufficiently persuaded of the arguments against this, so there is a genuine difference of opinion. I do not think the noble Lord would mean to imply that this House should necessarily have a veto where there is such a difference of opinion. I think that is a fairly straightforward argument and a perfectly respectable one.

Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have worked hard to ensure the right balance between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. The Motions tabled by the Government today achieve that balanced and proportionate approach. I therefore urge all noble Lords to support them.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I will make one point in total agreement with my noble friend the Minister—we are not having a row, we are having an argument. He and I have a different view about the merits of our respective arguments. If the House listens to no other speeches, and if it wishes to forget mine, I urge noble Lords to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and my noble friend Lord Agnew said. From both sides of this House, they perfectly summed up the lacuna in the Government’s case.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Despite the fact that this is not an argument about party politics—it has nothing whatever to do with the Salisbury convention—I regret that I am insufficiently persuaded by my noble friend the Minister that he has quite got the point. I must therefore ask the House if it will join me in agreeing with my Motion by testing the opinion of the House.