Violence Against Retail Workers

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, we have. We have highlighted particular areas through the policing assessment of shop theft, and we have identified a number of areas where we have been able to put in resource to do that. We have also, dare I say, increased the number of police officers on the beat. We have a commitment to increase that by a significant number. We have managed 3,100 in the 18 months or so that we have been in office, and we intend to increase that. With our police reforms, we intend to give additional support to look at what the priorities are at a local level, with smaller police forces more focused on neighbourhood policing. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on those measures.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister has mentioned new offences, more resources and more charges. Does he accept that the effect of these welcome measures will be undermined unless offenders are brought to court speedily? Does he accept that, at the moment, the delays in bringing these matters to court are far too great and the deterrent effect is severely undermined?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We take a whole of government approach to this. One of the reasons why we are looking at the range of issues on retail crime implementation is to make sure that we can manage new pressures in the system. The noble Lord is right: it is important from the Home Office’s perspective that we catch them or prevent them, but for the Ministry of Justice and other departments it is important that we have speedy justice and, if need be, imprison them. That is a whole of government approach. The key point I would leave the House with is that this is a really important issue.

Immigration and Asylum: Appeals

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an extremely important point. It is self-evident that we want the individuals who undertake this very serious role to have the required training and support to do it in an effective way. All members of the new independent immigration appeals authority will have the required decision-making expertise to make determinations on appeal cases through a comprehensive training programme and will possess a range of skills and experience. The organisation of that will be down to the new body. The Bill that we are producing tomorrow will establish that body, which is independent of government. The key point I bring the House back to is that we have a backlog of around 151,000. We currently have capacity for around 26,000 extra sittings that we have put in place. It is not possible to end the backlog without significant changes and that is the purpose of this policy.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I quite understand that the Minister cannot give us the details until the Bill is published tomorrow, but he will know that we currently have a body of independent impartial adjudicators who deal with immigration matters. Of course, I understand that we need more of them to deal with the backlog and the delay, but what I do not understand is why, in principle, the Government think that the current arrangements for the appointment of adjudicators are inadequate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I pay tribute to those who are doing this difficult and challenging job. We owe them a debt of support, and this is not critical of the way in which they have approached their role. But given the level of training and support required, and that the time that we can give to get additional judges is not sufficient to be able to meet the objective, we are looking at widening the pool and this is the start of that process. The establishment of the new body will put that revised process in place. We ran a targeted call for evidence from March to May this year and sought input from individuals. We have ensured that the judiciary has been kept fully informed of relevant developments and communications. I am hoping that once the Bill is produced and when it reaches this House—because it will be in the House of Commons first—the noble Lord can put some of those issues to the test.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Yes, I can, I hope, assure the noble Lord on that. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the Government made a number of changes in January 2026 to try to improve the scheme and make sure that people still have access to it in a simpler way. Those changes have also meant, as I said in earlier answers, that 94% of all claims have reached a final decision. We have speeded up the claims from taking four months in 2024 to less than six weeks now. On where there are appeals on those claims and reviews asked for, there have been, for example, 2,656 requests for review of tier 1 decisions, 504 of which resulted in a change of the claim. On tier 2 applications there have been 747 requests, of which 116 resulted in changes, so there is, I hope, a fair and equitable scheme. We want to see people applying for the scheme. We continue to receive around 140 claims a month and there is no end date to the scheme, so we want to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Have the Government actually conducted any research into whether unrepresented claimants receive lower awards than represented claimants, and if so why, to address the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot say to the noble Lord that we have undertaken that research, but I am happy to look at the point he mentions. The key point is that the scheme is designed to be simple. Support is available through a free helpline, and there is now a high level of speedy turnarounds and completed claims, at 94%. I will certainly look at whether there is a factual basis for it; I was simply making the point, to both noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baroness, that there may not be a correlation between legal representation and claim because all claims are judged on their individual circumstances.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the threat picture is complex: it is changing and there are evolving and enduring threats appearing at all times. The Government will continue to look at how and where it can support those in scope, especially small and medium-sized enterprises in the standard tier. For example, we are looking at developing some tools and templates, where appropriate, and looking at what we can do to help support training needs. The guidance I mentioned, to which my noble friend referred, was published. It is designed to assist those who are responsible for premises. Obviously, we will continuously get feedback from organisations before implementation at a date to be determined in the future.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that this law is known as Martyn’s law—that is Martyn with a “y”—in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was one of the victims of the terrible Manchester Arena attack in 2017. When this legislation was enacted, the Government announced that it would take two years before its implementation in 2027. Does that remain the Government’s expectation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We were very clear when the legislation was passed that we needed to have a period of implementation for a number of reasons, not least so that small and medium-sized organisations and others could have the guidance. We are on track to deliver this within a timeframe around, we hope, that two-year period. The statutory guidance, which I published on 15 April, is the first step; that came after extensive consultation with businesses and the private sector. The next step is to ensure that organisations have the ability to examine that guidance and look at it. The final implementation date is still to be determined, but it will certainly not be before two years.

Antisemitic Attacks

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Self-evidently, at times, the Muslim Brotherhood undertakes activity that directs antisemitism. That is not acceptable. I was not a Minister when the report was received from Sir Charles Farr, whom I knew well when I was previously a Minister in the Home Office. We will look at that judgment and examine again what the noble Lord raised today.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister rightly said that it is vital for politicians of all parties to stand up against antisemitism. Does the Minister share my disgust at the comments of the leader of the Green Party, Mr Zack Polanski, who suggested that the problem was a “perception of unsafety” and antisemitism for the Jewish community? He suggested that antisemitism had been “weaponised” against Jeremy Corbyn as the former leader of the Labour Party. Does the Minister share my concern that the Green Party is now providing a home for antisemites?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Antisemitism is not a perception. People have died in Manchester as a result of antisemitism. It is not a perception; it is something that we have to tackle. The leader of the Green Party and the Greens can speak for themselves. I speak for the Labour Party, the Government and, I hope, the whole House when I say that antisemitism has no place in our society, we have to root it out and those who apologise for it are not fit to hold public office.

Student Visas

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend has been a constant advocate of tackling fraud in the system, and I pay tribute to his work on that. We keep this under review at all times. It is in nobody’s interest to have fraudulent applications or for individuals to use a different route and subsequently to apply on a fraudulent basis. That is why we have taken the steps we have with the asylum student brake on the four countries I mentioned and why we have a rigorous process for assessing claims.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that a further problem is that only one in six failed asylum seekers is then returned to their country of origin. What are the Government doing to address this serious problem?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that the Government are taking extremely serious action on the removal of people who do not have the right to be here. That involves several mechanisms. First, we have to speed up the results of asylum claims in the first place. Then, when individuals have failed, we need to ensure that there is an appeal process, if required, that is speedy and efficient. Then, if people’s claims have not been accepted, we need speedy removals. I do not have the figures to date in my head, but there has certainly been an improvement. If the noble Lord will allow, I will write to him with the figures on removals that we have made in the past two years.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, despite everything that the Minister has said on proscription of the IRGC, we are now in something of an Alice in Wonderland world. The Prime Minister has told the media in recent days that the Government propose to introduce further legislation to address state threats. Such legislation has been reported by the BBC, among others, as enabling the Government to ban state-related organisations such as the IRGC. The Prime Minister has said that the King’s Speech next month will commit to such legislation. Yet the Terrorism Act already permits such a ban: Section 1(4) states that terrorist action includes action outside the UK; the public affected includes the public of a country outside the UK; and the Government affected means the Government of another country as well as the Government of the UK. Therefore, terrorism is specifically international. Section 3, as we know, permits the proscription of terrorist organisations without limiting them to UK organisations or UK terrorism.

The Government know this. As we heard last week, the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, and the present Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper—herself a former Home Secretary—specifically called for proscription of the IRGC while in opposition, just as we on these Benches have consistently called for it. Nobody but nobody has said that there has been no power to proscribe the IRGC because it is state-related.

The EU, led by France and Italy, as well as Australia, the United States, Canada and several of the Gulf states, have all proscribed the IRGC. Yet the Government, despite previous Labour policy, have promised Parliament only an anodyne statement about

“the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers under Section 3”.

Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, called that patronising. It is worse than that. Despite their previous policy, the Government rely only on the repeated mantra that they will not give a running commentary on decisions on proscription.

The IRGC is connected, on very substantial evidence, not only to the appalling oppression and murder of protesters in Iran in December and January, but to multiple acts of terrorism in the UK and abroad. There are clear links with antisemitic attacks here and elsewhere in Europe and the world, including on synagogues. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre, responsible for monitoring and assisting international shipping, has reported on large numbers of attacks on cargo ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which are carried out by the IRGC or connected entities.

We recognise, of course, that the Government have a strong view on the Iranian regime, as the Minister rightly said, yet they have said to Parliament that we are not entitled to an explanation of why the IRGC is not to be proscribed but must wait for further legislation targeted at state-related organisations for such proscription. Yet, if indeed the new legislation is to involve the implementation of the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, in his recent report updated in January, that was aimed at improving legislation on state threats under the National Security Act and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act. For the proscription of the IRGC under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act, such new legislation is unnecessary and a red herring.

We should continue to demand a proper and timely explanation of what the Government intend to do and when, subject, we agree of course, to the provision of confidential information being restricted to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We support the Conservative Motion B1, and if the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will vote for his Motion.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the House should take account of two factors. My understanding of the advice from the much-respected Jonathan Hall, the Government’s adviser on terrorism legislation, is that specific new legislation is required to ensure that malign state actors can be proscribed and dealt with.

Secondly, the House should take account of the fact that, on a visit to Kenton synagogue last Thursday—one of the synagogues that has been subjected to a disgraceful firebomb attack—the Prime Minister gave what I understand to be a very clear commitment:

“We go into a new session in a few weeks’ time, and we’ll bring that legislation forward”.


It is true that the Prime Minister has not specifically committed to proscribe the IRGC, but my understanding is that that is because the Government never give advance notice of who they are going to proscribe. If the Government do not carry out these commitments, do not bring forward legislation and do not implement it very speedily, I would regard that as a very serious breach of faith and this House will no doubt have much to say about it.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

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

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the work that she has done on the issues that have been raised in the House about pornography and online harm. I add my thanks to my noble friend and her honourable friend the Minister in the other place for the very competent amendment they have made in Motion W to the pardons on the decriminalisation of abortion.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, thanks should certainly be paid to the Minister for all her hard work in this area, but the House will also wish to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Owen, for their hard work over many years, their persistence, their judgment and their success in a very difficult area of law and society. I suggest that although this House is very often criticised—sometimes with justification—the debates on this issue and the way we have moved the law forward with the very great assistance of the Government show this House working at its very best.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, both noble Baronesses have spoken extremely eloquently today. It has been a privilege, from these Benches, to be part of the cross-party coalition for both their campaigns. I pay tribute, as others have, to both of them for their persistence throughout the passage of the Bill.

In particular, these Benches have strongly supported the comprehensive framework introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, who has tirelessly campaigned on non-consensual intimate images, and we welcome—this is a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt—the Government’s concessions today under Motion G, in particular the move to place the 48-hour take-down requirement firmly into the Bill. We also welcome the Government’s decision in Motion J to include a statutory non-consensual intimate image register. As the South West Grid for Learning and the Revenge Porn Helpline rightly stated this week, embedding this register in law is a “transformative move” and a “hugely important step forward” in protecting victims at scale. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this.

However, although we celebrate this progress, the Government’s amendments will continue to require scrutiny in two crucial areas. First, on the new statutory NCII register, the devil will be in the detail. As the SWGfL has highlighted, key questions remain around how this register will be operated in practice and, most importantly, enforced. Secondly, the Government’s amendments on image deletion orders under Motion H still fall somewhat short. During the debate in the other place on Tuesday, a Government Back-Bencher praised these amendments, believing that they would ensure that

“courts are properly mandated to destroy those intimate images”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/4/26; col. 740.]

However, the Government’s amendment explicitly uses “may”, leaving deletion entirely at the judge’s discretion. Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Baroness has achieved a huge amount through this process. We on these Benches entirely understand why she may choose not to press Motion G1, and she should take the greatest possible pride in what has been achieved so far.

On the second half of this group, on the regulation of online pornography, I likewise pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who has worked tirelessly to expose the appalling loopholes that currently allow commercial pornography platforms to operate with light-touch self-regulation. The Government’s amendments in lieu under Motions K and L may be said to fall short of the robust statutory safeguards that this House originally agreed on. On age and consent verification, the House voted to make it a requirement for platforms to verify the age and permission of everyone featured on their sites. The Government have taken this out, replacing an immediate duty with a

“duty to review and report”

to Parliament within 12 months, followed by unspecified regulating powers. I very much accept that the noble Baroness is somewhat wary, but I accept her view on the way forward.

Furthermore, the Government’s amendments dilute the ban on step-incest pornography. They have caveated the offence so that it applies only to depictions of step-incest where one of the persons is portrayed to be under the age of 18. This misses the point of establishing parity with the offline Sexual Offences Act, where sexual relations between stepparents and stepchildren are illegal regardless of age due to the inherent power imbalances.

The Government have also failed to match the ambition of Amendment 505, which brings us to Motion Y. In the other place on Tuesday, the Minister claimed that Amendment 505 was unnecessary. She argued that the Government’s new offence of “supplying” nudification tools, combined with future powers to regulate chatbots via Ofcom, is sufficient, but a promise to eventually introduce secondary legislation to tell search engines to reduce the visibility of these apps does nothing to stop individuals possessing, downloading and using these tools to abuse women right now.

Great weight is being placed on the “sprint” delivery plan within six months of Royal Assent to achieve greater parity between the regulation of online and offline pornography. We very much hope that this will bear fruit in due course. On the mimicking of children, as the noble Baroness has indicated, this has been quite a battle with government. She has settled on the criminalisation of the depiction of children under 16. I know that she would have preferred that it was 18, but the Government have claimed that widening it is operationally difficult and would put too much pressure on law enforcement. However, they have promised that they will commit, on the Floor of the House, to address this in the parity work via regulation but not the criminal law.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the House to insist on this amendment, which would retain the statutory protections that we previously agreed. To disregard the lessons of Southport now that the Fulford report is before us would be a profound dereliction of duty. We are legislating to prevent future tragedies; we must not pass a law that risks repeating them.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in relation to Motion N1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on extreme criminal protest groups. The House should be thanking the noble Lord for his enormous efforts and dedication in relation to this important subject over many years.

There is no doubt about the gravity of the mischief that the United Kingdom is facing. There are extreme criminal protest groups and, sadly, people who believe that the way to advance their political views—to which they are perfectly entitled—about Gaza, Israel and other subjects is impermissibly to use violence against people and to smash up property. It is disgraceful, and the law needs to deal with these people powerfully and effectively. It is symptomatic of a malaise in our society: we saw this the other night at Finchley Reform Synagogue, and with the setting fire to ambulances in north-west London. It is all disgraceful, and every effort must be made by the law to ensure that this type of action can be addressed and remedied.

I supported the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in his amendment on Report, which has now been considered by the Commons. However, I understand—and hope it is the case—that he will not be pressing his Motion today to divide the House. I am sure that is right, and it is right for the reasons the Minister gave.

Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has made some powerful points that need to be considered carefully in relation to how we deal with extreme criminal protest groups. We have heard that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will be reporting next month.

There is also the appeal relating to the proscription of Palestine Action, which will be heard in the Court of Appeal the week after next. I very much hope—it is a matter for the court, of course—that the Court of Appeal will give judgment before the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, issues his report. He will obviously wish to take account of that judgment, as will the Home Office.

It is important to stress that there are two important issues raised by the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney. The first is whether the law is at its most effective if it requires that, before proscription can occur, a particular body has to be labelled as terrorist. I entirely understand that the actions of Palestine Action have been recognised by the Government to fall within the statutory definition of a terrorist group. The Divisional Court judgment, which has been much criticised, accepts that Palestine Action is indeed a terrorist group. However, there is a real issue here: does it undermine the efficacy of proscription for a body such as Palestine Action to be labelled as terrorist given that, for most people, terrorism has a connotation that many people would not regard as satisfied by a protest group, objectional and damaging though it is? That is something the Home Office needs to give further thought to.

Secondly, the other point which the noble Lord, Lord Walney, emphasised in his Motion—it is a real point—is that the current law does not just proscribe organisations such as Palestine Action; it makes it unlawful for people to stand in a public place and say, “I support Palestine Action”. That has led to hundreds of otherwise law-abiding individuals being arrested, which poses real problems for the administration of justice in this country. It may be better to have a proscription law that does not criminalise the mere expression of support for a body such as Palestine Action, however objectional and unlawful the conduct of that organisation is. Perhaps we should confine the illegality to those who organise such a group, finance it and do more by way of support than simply sitting in a public place saying that they sympathise with that organisation. Those are difficult questions. Jonathan Hall has made some powerful points in relation to them. I am simply saying that I hope the Home Office will give further thought to these matters. I am sure it will.

I thank the Minister because he has laboured hard on this Bill, which covers so many areas. He has responded with sensitivity, tact and courtesy to a wide range of subjects, for which he has all our thanks. He will no doubt be pleased to know that it is absolutely inevitable that these subjects will return to the House. We very much look forward to hearing his further comments under future legislation.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I sincerely apologise to the Minister for not being here for the beginning of his speech. He will be glad to know my athleticism, as I was running down the corridor, allowed for me to be in time for his reference to Motion T, which I will speak to briefly. It deals with the glorification of terrorism. I thank all those who supported the amendment on Report. I believe that, in doing so, we have collectively underlined the importance of dealing with this issue, which is becoming a gateway to extremism and, worse, terrorism.

I thank the Minister in particular for his engagement and that of his officials, and for the constructive way in which they have engaged around the whole issue. As a result, I will not push Motion T1 to a vote today but look forward to engaging in the review that will be put in place after the Bill becomes law. I particularly welcome the opportunity to engage around the review’s terms of reference. I hope it will take the approach of engaging widely to ascertain how a narrative is taking hold in our society here in the UK that it is somehow acceptable to glorify terrorism to effect change, and look at the real damage it can cause to society.

I also hope the review will take note of the fact that there has not been a single prosecution in Northern Ireland, despite the obvious ongoing glorification of terrorism there. I know that the Minister, and many in this House, recognise that this is a growing issue. If there is any doubt that it is very much a real and live issue, a brief glimpse at my social media feeds following Report in this House will confirm this to be the case. One particularly brazen poster said that he wished

“the provos had killed your da when they attacked him. Up the Ra”.

That is a reference to the attempted murder of my father by the IRA in 1979. Of course, that is something that I have become quite resilient to, but it is entirely unacceptable that people can glorify terrorism as a way to make change happen.

Over Easter, when many of us were relaxing with our friends and family, some of those who are content to glorify the actions of the IRA broke into a Church of Ireland Sunday school in a village near to where I live and ransacked it. We know that they were supporters of the IRA because they wrote “Up the Ra” over the 10 commandments. I was pleased to see the local Roman Catholic community condemn that vandalism, but there was complete silence from the political wing of the IRA—in other words, Sinn Féin—and nothing from its local representatives or the self-appointed “First Minister for all”.

As we have said throughout this debate, this is not just a Northern Ireland issue. Here in London, just yesterday, Finchley Reform Synagogue endured what police are calling an antisemitic hate crime, when the shul was attacked in an attempted break-in and firebombing incident. This shul is not only a place of worship for the Jewish community; it also hosts a nursery, a homeless shelter and a safe place for refugees to gather.

Those are two attacks that happened very recently in two different parts of the United Kingdom, in two different faith buildings, both motivated by hate. As Sarah Sackman, the MP for Finchley and Golders Green, said yesterday, we cannot

“allow this to become the ‘new normal’”.

There is a definite need to deal with the glorification of terrorism. It has real consequences for young people being led into extremism and thinking that terrorism is somehow cool and edgy, rather than learning about the fact that it leads to division, pain and hurt, mostly to their neighbours. The radicalisation of children should concern us all in this House.

I thank again all noble Lords who supported the amendment on Report, for highlighting the issue. I thank the Government for responding positively with the announcement of the review led by Jonathan Hall; I look forward to engaging with him. Therefore, I will not move Motion T1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

I stress that the Deputy Speaker made it clear that people who arrive late for the debate are not allowed to speak. I think it is difficult for the noble Lord, having heard the explanation and the discussion, to stand up and speak. I am sorry.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

We are a self-governing House. If it is the will of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, speak briefly from the Front Bench, I suggest that we should hear him.

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

My Lords, I hope I will be permitted to speak briefly. I have followed the arguments on all these matters throughout these proceedings.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. As ever, she has spoken fantastically convincingly to her amendments, which sit in a broader set of aims that we have heard in Committee and on Report—at many stages. While recognising that the Government have moved considerably, I believe that we are debating this again in the context of a flood of women coming forward as survivors of non-consensual image abuse. As the harms are ever increasing, I am putting my faith in the noble Baroness’s interpretation of what is still necessary. Her amendments do something really important. I have spoken about this before and will do so on a later Bill this afternoon, but we need to tackle the issue of enforcement.

We cannot keep on adding duties to the Online Safety Act and expecting something to be different at the other end. In fact, we are adding a burden for people without giving them the tools by which that burden could be alleviated. The noble Baroness’s amendments have sought to create a more streamlined and agile system by allowing for fines every 24 hours in which an image is not removed. We have to find an incentive for tech to come to terms with the regulator, and the noble Baroness is doing just that. Unless we put a ticking clock on online services for failing to respond to harms to children and women, we cannot hope that women and children will be safe.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, puts her finger on it: enforcement is key here, and it is key because we all know that without serious enforcement, these companies, which will be acting in breach of the law, will simply not comply. What will make them comply are substantial fines to hit them in the pocketbook. That is the only thing that will make them comply, and that is why I support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I point out briefly that the essence of where the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is coming from is that she speaks directly from the experience of the victims who have suffered from this. It is the victims themselves who have been struggling with the existing system, often in vain and with huge amounts of frustration. It is the victims who have been looking at the Government’s well-intended amendment, and on the basis of their own experience and knowledge, bitterly won, they feel strongly that it does not go far enough. They want others who are being abused at the moment, and trying to get some sort of redress, not to go through the same agony and pain that they have. I implore the Government to listen carefully, because this is the victims speaking directly to them. It is not the regulator; these are the victims, and the victims who are coming through the pipeline should be prioritised above all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

It reveals a Government unequal to the great task of governing the nation with which the electorate has entrusted it.

I particularly regret it because it brings disgrace to the Mother of Parliaments and, indirectly, to a country which, although it had no hand in the matter, could always hold its head high when its neighbours suffered instability, revolution and dictatorship. They could take comfort because, as has so often rightly been said, we have a constitutional way of solving our differences.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I know the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor and Lady O’Loan, feel very strongly about this matter, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. But we debated this at length in Committee: we had four hours-worth of debate then. We debated it for two hours last week on Report. Both noble Baronesses expressed their views very powerfully and at length, but the House did not agree with them. The House voted for this clause and I respectfully suggest that it is entirely inappropriate for us to debate it again.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Taken together, these amendments would introduce basic, evidence-based safeguards. They are about ensuring that youth diversion orders, if they are to exist, are tailored, workable and fair to the child. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, will press her amendment to a vote, because I strongly support it. I would like to force a vote on mine as well but, obviously, the House is going to be very tired by the end of this Bill, so I will not—she said bitterly.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am saddened by the attack from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the Ministers, because they have sat through hours of debate on the Bill and listened most patiently. I have not always agreed with them, but they have responded with the utmost courtesy. They should be thanked, rather than criticised, for their efforts.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. We accept the Minister’s amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.

I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. However, we believe that they are somewhat misguided. Youth diversion orders, whatever one may think of them, will be implemented as a means of dealing with some of the most serious offences committed by people of the age of criminal responsibility. We should not be making concessions to people who have committed or intend to commit terrorism offences. We believe that engaging in these acts forfeits any right to the conditions of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 409H as a primary consideration.

Similarly, regarding Amendment 409J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I entirely understand and acknowledge the issue she is trying to grapple with. Our position, however, is simple: court proceedings should be carried out in the language of the land. That said, the Government do offer translation services, and I ask the Minister to set out measures that are already in place to ensure that offenders understand orders that are made by the courts.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, youth diversion orders must be underpinned by the principle of proportionality. Amendment 417A would ensure that they are being used in this expected manner. We particularly support the intention behind Amendment 409G—that youth diversion orders will be a serious step to take, and that ensuring that multi-agency evidence backs up the decision to issue an order is therefore incredibly important. Similarly, the sharing of data on terrorists and terrorism networks is becoming an increasingly urgent need. Any step that improves the efficiency of the sourcing and sharing of information between authorities is welcome, so we also support this amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

In some ways I can see the problem. I do not know that this amendment will tackle it. It could bring into scope a whole range of activities that are superficially offensive, and undoubtedly hurtful to anyone who has been a victim of terrorism, but mean that we do not do what we need to do, which is a much harder job—have these arguments out in public regularly and call it out, as it were. Arresting them and carting them away just turns them into a new kind of martyr, in my mind, and we do not want to give anything to their martyr status. I can see the aim, but I do not think this is the method.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that this amendment is not going to solve all problems in this area, but it is going to make a significant contribution. She is concerned about hard cases, and she identifies some of the possible hard cases. My answer to that is that the CPS will prosecute only in a case where it believes there is a more than 50% chance of a conviction and it is in the public interest. Many of the examples that she gives are most unlikely to satisfy those criteria.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, if noble Lords in this House do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is giving the answer to a problem that is a reality within our society, then I hope that the Minister, if he is not accepting this, will tell us what the answer is. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about going into the campuses and talking to these young people. You will never shame the likes of Gerry Adams, so just trying to talk them away is not going to solve the problem.

I am speaking for those in Northern Ireland who went through 30 years of terrorism. Every day you went out, your loved one went to the gate and watched you get into the car, believing it was the last time they would see you. Society cannot live under that. It should not be asked to live under that. Therefore, if the Minister says this is not the answer to the problem, I respectfully ask him to give us the answer and not close his eyes to reality. We have to deal with it, and we need to deal with it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name. Like many noble Lords, I was surprised by the decision of the High Court that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was unlawful, in view of her detailed description of its terrorist activities in her House of Commons Statement on 23 June 2025.

In reading the High Court judgment, I was struck by the inconsistency of the arguments of the learned judges. At the beginning of the judgment, they set out the details of Palestine Action’s Underground Manual, which is standard textbook terrorist stuff: guidance to form small autonomous secret cells and to recruit only trusted participants. Then there is operational terrorist tradecraft: instructions to use secure email and VPNs, to conduct reconnaissance, and to pick targets based on complicity with the Israeli arms industry. It then has a section on targeting and tactics, with lists of defence firms, universities, financial firms and government buildings, and practical advice aimed at serious property damage to disrupt those targets.

The court then concludes that proscribing the organisation was “disproportionate” and that the Home Secretary did not follow her own policy, even though it said that

“the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary given that she has both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety”.

I submit that the Home Secretary must have the absolute right to proscribe an organisation based on the advice that she has received from our advisory bodies.

In coming to her decision, the Home Secretary sought copious advice on the terrorist nature of Palestine Action. As all noble Lords know, the Home Office and the FCDO do not proscribe organisations willy-nilly. We all complained about their failure to proscribe the IRGC. The Home Secretary had reports from a proscription review group, a cross-departmental group including counterterrorism policing, which encompasses specialist police officers from many police forces. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the CTP gave their reports.

The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre produced its assessment. JTAC comprises counterterrorism experts from United Kingdom intelligence agencies, police forces and government departments. Its report is very significant and was summarised as having concluded:

“Although most of its activity could not be classified as terrorism within the definition in Section 1 of the 2000 Act … Palestine Action had ‘commit[ted] or participate[d] in acts of terrorism to the extent of the attacks at Thales, Glasgow … at Instro Precision (a subsidiary of Elbit) in Kent … and at Elbit in Bristol … JTAC noted that those participating in the Bristol attack had ‘entered the [Elbit] warehouse, using weapons including sledgehammers, axes and whips’ and ‘during the attack two responding police officers and a security guard were assaulted and suffered injuries. One police officer had been assaulted with a sledgehammer and sustained a serious back injury’.


JTAC noted that Palestine Action had cleverly issued videos of the damage to property but not its violence against the responders.

We now come to the crucial question of proportionality. From reading the evidence, I am certain that the Home Secretary’s proscription of Palestine Action was lawful and proportionate, and a necessary response to an escalating campaign that threatened critical national infrastructure. The statutory test, the court admits, was satisfied. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 permits proscription where an organisation

“commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.

The Home Secretary concluded that Palestine Action met that test and laid an order, which was approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Operational intelligence supported that decision. The JTAC assessment concluded that the group had conducted incidents resulting in serious property damage and that the Underground Manual provides

“practical advice and advocates for serious property damage”.

That assessment links the manual and the recorded actions to the statutory definition of property damage designed to influence government. The High Court judgment itself accepted that three of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to terrorist offences, which strengthens the factual basis for proscription.

The proscription was proportionate because of the severity and escalation of conduct. The pattern of over 300 direct actions with increasing frequency and severity, including attacks on defence suppliers and critical infrastructure, supports a conclusion that ordinary criminal law and targeted prosecutions were insufficient to address the systemic risk. It was proportionate because of the targeting of national security supply chains. Where actions against defence firms and related infrastructure create heightened national security risks, proscription is a legitimate, proportionate tool to protect those interests where the conduct is political and aimed at influence.

Proscription was also proportionate because policy and process safeguards were engaged. The Home Office relied on PRG and JTAC operational inputs and then laid the order before Parliament—steps that reflect the five policy safeguards that the Secretary of State must consider after concluding that it satisfies the terrorism test: the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities, the threat to the UK, its presence in UK, and the threat to British nationals overseas.

Of course proscription interferes with Article 10 and 11 rights to peaceful free association and expression, but it is narrowly aimed at an organisation which has been shown to promote or prepare acts meeting the statutory terrorism definition. Where evidence shows a real risk to infrastructure, violence and public safety, the interference with Article 10 and 11 rights is justified and necessary in a democratic society. Indeed, the court said:

“We do not consider that the proscription of Palestine Action is likely to result in any general impact on expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or even opposition to Elbit. This provides some support for a conclusion that the proscription was proportionate”.


Nevertheless, the court concluded that the Home Secretary was in breach of convention rights because there might be some supporters of Palestine Action who are not advocating destruction and violence but general support for the organisation. However, if these people want to protest about Israel or Gaza or anything else, then they can do so, but not under the umbrella of an organisation advocating violence and damage and terrorism.

The court went on to say:

“Real weight must attach to the fact that Palestine Action has organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism as defined at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act. Those actions are small in number but they are still significant and it is also significant that these actions have happened in the United Kingdom … It is significant that Palestine Action has not suggested that its actions that have been assessed to comprise terrorism were either a mistake or an aberration”.


Indeed, Palestine Action has lauded those who took part in the actions.

The court said:

“It is, further, significant that the contents of the Underground Manual provide good evidence of Palestine Action’s continuing intention to promote the use of violence regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public”.


Let me just repeat that last sentence. The court concluded that Palestine Action intends to continue with terrorist activities

“to promote the use of violence, regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public”.

But then the court makes an extraordinary statement:

“Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was disproportionate. At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act”.


So that is all right, then. The court has decided that three terrorist actions were not enough to justify the Home Secretary’s decision. How many does it want? Five actions, 10 actions, 15 terrorist actions, or to wait until persons—innocent people—are killed?

The Home Secretary has a duty to protect the public, not the court, and she should not be second-guessed in this way on the facts when there is clear evidence of terrorist activity. Even if it is only three serious incidents, there was the danger of escalation. The court said:

“When striking the balance between issues such as these, the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary given that she has both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety”.


I agree about the latitude and my Amendment 422 seeks to ensure that only the Secretary of State can make that judgment based on the advice of all the anti-terrorist organisations at her disposal, and at her own discretion. She is the one who answers to Parliament, to us, on the rightness and wrongness of her decision. My Amendment 422 seeks to ensure that supporters of any proscribed group who were arrested after that group was proscribed and before it was de-proscribed can be prosecuted for such an offence.

Of course, my amendments will be technically flawed, and my noble friend on the Front Bench will object on principle, with perhaps good reason, but I believe the concept is right. I hope that the Minister will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to implement what I am advocating here. If he will not, will he tell the House what he proposes to do to reverse this perverse decision?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the House, that the judgment in Palestine Action to which he objects is under appeal and the Court of Appeal, in due course, will pronounce on the wisdom or otherwise of the High Court decision and the legality of the Home Secretary’s decision. These criticisms, with some of which I certainly agree, are premature. What matters is not what the noble Lord thinks or what I think, but what the Court of Appeal says and, if necessary, what the Supreme Court says on such an important matter.

In any event, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is a noted constitutionalist, that it is in principle wrong to seek to remove the power of the courts to assess the legality of judgments of the Home Secretary. Surely, it is a very valuable protection of the rule of law in this country that the courts pronounce on legality and Parliament does not remove the power of the courts to do so.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I have no objection to the court pronouncing on a point of law. However, on this occasion, it was not pronouncing on a point of law but making a judgment on the facts of the case and disagreeing with the Home Secretary on the facts.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am not defending the Divisional Court’s judgment, but it would say that it was intervening on a point of law, because a point of law covers whether the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to form the conclusion that she did in the circumstances. However, as I say, this is all highly premature.