Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

I have met the officer involved in the Chris Kaba case. The experience his family had over the years that he was under inquiry was pretty awful. They had to move out for a while and had to decide whether to permanently move home. We all say, “Well, actually, this is just a point of principle and a legal issue”, but it is not to them; this is their life. I understand why the media make the argument and why it is a legal issue that must be debated properly, but I think this is a minor measure that might give some comfort to a brave group of people whom we rely upon.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for reminding us of his late-night work the other night, and I look forward to discussing that subject when we come back to it on Report. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing a practical police view to this very difficult debate. I come at this from a position essentially in favour of these clauses not standing part, for the reasons so far advanced by my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Black, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.

This is a difficult question. Unquestionably, it is a difficult question. If it were not, we would not be here. We have, as parliamentarians, as legislators, to work out where the balance should lie between the desire for anonymity for police officers in these circumstances and the desire for openness, open justice and the ability of the public—not just the press but the public as a whole—to see what is being done in their name in the court system.

I hope I shall not go on too long merely repeating what others have already said, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the courts work on the basis of open justice. The public are entitled to watch, to read and to comment about trials, and to know who has been charged and prosecuted and with what result. There are exceptions to protect national security, vulnerable witnesses, victims of sexual offences and children. We have a regime for, first of all, providing for reporting restrictions; secondly, for restricting public access to the courtroom and for holding all or part of some trials in private; and, thirdly, for withholding the name of witnesses—for example, under a witness order under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. But a witness order under that provision is a special measure of the last practical resort, and requires the court to be vigorous in its consideration of the statutory hurdles that have to be overcome and to ensure that the defendant is not irreparably disadvantaged or denied a fair trial. Fourthly, we have within that regime provision for anonymity in investigations—for example, when considering fatal gang crimes involving the use of guns and knives by those aged 11 to 30.

Police officers are human—I underline the word “human”. They are a human example of state power—and I underline the word “state”. We respect and we admire them for their often dangerous and selfless work. We know from our own work here in Parliament how vital police officers are for our own protection. I was not far away from the scene of PC Palmer’s murder in March 2017. He was unarmed and later awarded a posthumous George Medal, but there were armed officers there who had to kill PC Palmer’s murderer. I heard those shots as I walked along the colonnade in New Palace Yard from my office in Portcullis House to take part in a Division in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, may well have gone through the same experience. I was grateful then, as I am to this day, to the police men and women on duty that day who ushered me and other Members of the other place to safety, regardless of their own.

But it is, in the final analysis, a matter of judgment on which side of this argument we need to come down—on the side of anonymity or on that of open justice. I bear in mind the need for armed police officers and their families to be protected from reprisals, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. I bear in mind the operational need not to discourage volunteers suitably qualified to become armed response officers or armed officers. We have been reminded this morning of the case of Martyn Blake, which created, I think, the genesis of these clauses.

However, I also bear in mind the constitutional and public policy demands. I would not describe this as a constitutional outrage; it is a perfectly rational debate about which side of a difficult line one wishes to land. It is not a constitutional outrage to do one thing or the other. It is just advancing an argument. But I bear in mind the constitutional and public policy demands for open justice, for public trust and for transparency in a justice system that applies to us all without creating different categories of defendant as a question of blanket rule. Blanket rules of the sort envisaged by Clauses 152 to 155 are, I suggest, best avoided where a stronger, focused case-by-case approval approach can be achieved—and it is, in my experience, already achieved under our current system.

In the last few days, we have seen the ICE officer shoot that woman driving her car in Minnesota. Of course I have only seen the news footage, but I suggest that, here, that ICE officer would be prosecuted for murder, subject to any defence he could advance. That case aside, we face the problem of some lawyers and campaigners using every police shooting as the basis of an anti-police pile-on, or for some other political campaign that they happen to support. In short, if we are, as I hope we will be, sceptical about Clauses 152 to 155 standing part of the Bill, we must prevent the appalling hunting parties against the police. Let us then pause and reflect before agreeing to these clauses.

I dare say we will not make a decision today, other than that the issue advanced by my noble friend Lord Black will be withdrawn. But we all have a little time between now and Report—we come here with the best of intentions and good will—to think a little more carefully about the practical solution to this, and whether we need to use the blunderbuss of legislation or whether we can still rely on judicial discretion, vigorously applied and well argued for in each separate case, to see where justice can be found.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him this? I respect his opinion, for obvious reasons, but one issue he did not address—it was one of my arguments for why these clauses should stand part—is the difficulty of proving the threat at the beginning of an investigation. It is not straightforward. We have to say that someone out there is going to kill this officer or try to attack them—that there is a threat to them in some way. Of course we all make our best attempts to assess whether that is accurate or not. He describes the present system as a blanket arrangement, but actually there is only an assumption, which can be removed, and in the Kaba case was removed. That leaves the officer at risk of that decision being automatic—that is, to be named if they cannot prove otherwise. Why should they bear the risk of being named, when the reverse could allow, first, an assumption they would not be named, and if later that changed, they could be named. What we can never do is name someone, then introduce anonymity—so it is a one-way valve that surely the law might help to respect.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

The matter that the noble Lord is bringing up is the very sort of discussion that ought to be had in front of the judge. Presumably, no prosecutor, and no one acting on behalf of a police officer who wished to maintain his anonymity, would advance an argument unless there were some basis for it. If someone went in front of the judge and said, “I’m generally fearful that, just because he’s a police officer who bears arms, he is likely to be the victim of reprisal”, I think they would probably need to do a bit better than that. I suspect nobody would go in front of the judge and make that argument unless they had something better than that.

I suspect that, in the usual run of things, there will be information. It may not be information that the court would wish the world at large to know about. It could be intelligence evidence. It could be other information that both the applicant—the applicant police officer or the applicant prosecutor—and the judge would agree should be kept private. That surely can be done now. We have all sorts of national security cases where evidence is not disclosed to the world at large. All I ask is: let us just think a little bit further. It may well be that, at the end of the day, we shall come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and as the Government do in their clauses. But I have yet to be persuaded that we have got to the right answer today.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

These are probing amendments that meet the challenge delivered to Parliament by the independent reviewer. They ask a fundamental question: in our rush for operational convenience, are we prepared to declare, in effect, that privacy is dead? We must ensure that these intrusive techniques are attended by safeguards that reflect the severity of the privacy breach involved.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly because the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Clement-Jones, have set out with great clarity the thinking behind their two amendments, and I am very convinced by them. I am convinced by them particularly because this applies to without-suspicion seizure, which is, from my point of view, the nub of the argument that they have deployed. Although they have said on a number of occasions that these are probing amendments, they go deep into the heart of our constitutional arrangements. I need to say no more than that I hope that the Government when they come to respond to the noble Lords do so with a very probing response, because these arguments bear considerable scrutiny. From my experience of both noble Lords on the Government Front Bench, I know that they will give these amendments the due attention that they require and indeed that I would hope this Committee demands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on tabling these important amendments, on working so hard on this clause over many years and on speaking so persuasively about it tonight. I have added my name to Amendment 413, as has his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who unfortunately cannot be here today.

A sector that makes particular use of abnormal load road movements is that of our heritage railways. I remind the Committee of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways, whether historic steam or diesel locomotives or vintage carriages, is undertaken by road on low-loaders. Most commonly, this takes place in connection with gala events featuring visiting locomotives, but it also occurs when items of rolling stock are transported for specialist maintenance or overhaul.

Such road movements, classified as abnormal loads, are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors, sometimes accompanied by an escort vehicle. A number of police forces, though not all, as the noble Earl explained, but particularly the Staffordshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire forces, now make charges for escorting abnormal loads within their constabulary area. These are typically between £2,500 and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and exceed the haulier’s charges, with some charges in excess of £7,000. Charges are also levied in Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland. This is seriously disrupting the business activities of heritage railways and adding significantly to their costs in an already challenging economic and business climate.

The reasons for the escort charges do not appear to have ever been explained and there is widespread inconsistency, with some forces making charges and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on weight—say, a gross weight of 80 to 100-plus tonnes—though some determine it on length: for example, 28 metres from the front to the rear of a lorry. Crucially, no national policy or framework regulates how or when police forces may charge for escorting or authorising these essential movements. This inconsistency results in these arbitrary and often excessive fees in certain police force areas. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles to a county boundary, with the rest of the journey then being unescorted. To avoid charges, some hauliers are now having to take massive detours around a police force area, which of course adds mileage and cost, and increases the negative environmental impact.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has issued guidance that, while intended to provide consistency and clarification, still leaves decisions on the provision of escorts and charging to individual forces, as police forces are autonomous bodies. Several heritage railways and their haulage contractors have written to those police forces that make charges, but no changes to their charging regimes have been forthcoming. I could quote many examples but, given the lateness of the hour, I do not intend to mention more than one.

This is evidence from Noel Hartley, the operations manager of the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway. He says:

“The KWVR is suffering significantly from movements out of Ingrow—


that is the intermediate station on the line—

“in West Yorkshire and is deciding not to run certain events or we are no longer able to make enthusiast events a gold standard because we simply can’t justify the charges … For a return movement of a visiting loco it’s nearly costing five and a half thousand pounds on top of the movement costs. For an event with gross revenue of £80 or £90,000 it just isn’t feasible to stand these sort of costs which can wipe out a significant amount of the profit … In addition to the facts of police charges, the hauliers are trying to mitigate the costs of charges by avoiding the routes where they are charging—

which I referred to a moment ago. He continues:

“This means that some lorries can be diverted up to 100 miles to avoid these areas. This means that the police charges are avoided but there is still an impact on costs due to additional fuel required”.

West Midlands Police, about which we have heard a lot from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—and a force which is much in the news this week for other reasons—is the main culprit, which hauliers avoid, because it charges for escorts on so-called straight-line routes.

Mr Hartley points out that the areas particularly affected are railways in West Yorkshire and the Midlands —that includes Kidderminster, Burton, Ecclesbourne and Chesterfield—but south Wales and east Lancashire are also affected by having to make huge detours to avoid travelling within the territory of the least helpful and most expensive police forces.

The lengths to which hauliers are having to go to in order to avoid charges mean that there is an impact on the amount of emissions produced from road transport. This could be avoided; it amounts to thousands of additional and unnecessary miles per year.

At a time when the heritage railway sector is struggling with increases in costs, not only from general utility increases and staff costs—plus the tripling of the cost of coal—these police escort charges are compounding the problem and sometimes making it impossible for railways to provide that unique visitor experience for which our country is admired all over the world.

Overall, these excessive and inconsistent charges create uncertainty, delays and significant financial pressure for heritage railways, which, as I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, are a key part of the UK’s visitor economy and in many cases are the primary, anchor tourist attractions within their areas, generating significant economic and employment benefits for their regions. I congratulate the noble Earl, and I support his amendment.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Attlee spent about 15 seconds talking about; that is, his Amendment 414. At the outset of his remarks, I was worried that he might be positively going to support his own amendment, but he very quickly said that he hoped that the Minister would not accept it, and so do I.

If one looks at the draft of Amendment 414, one sees that it is designed to allow chief officers of police to set and vary any fee payable for shotguns and firearms. It is not quite clear from the draft of the proposed new clause whether this would, if enacted, cover just England and Wales, or whether it would cover England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the latter, that would be 45 separate chief officers of police who may well decide to set separate fees for each of the 45 police territorial areas; if it is only England and Wales, there would be 43, and that is bad enough.

I declare an interest as a holder of a shotgun certificate. While I admire, in every possible way, the chief constable of my own police area, I do not wish him to have the ability to set the level of the firearm certificate fee. It is a tax, and if it is not a tax, it is a fee that should be set by one person who is accountable to Parliament; namely, the Secretary of State. I think I need to say no more, not least because my noble friend Lord Attlee encouraged me greatly by saying precisely very little about the amendment himself.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the only purpose of Amendment 414 is to stop the Minister saying it is an operational matter for the police. If police charges for abnormal load escorts are operational matters for the police, surely firearms licensing charges are. We have been screwing down the cost of a firearms certificate, which means that police forces are not able to do as good a job as they would like. The cost of a firearms certificate is less than the cost of the visit to the dentist.

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.