Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the almost 70 speakers in today’s debate. I start by declaring an interest on my own behalf. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and have been for 46 years. That will obviously have an impact on my view of the measures on shop theft and assaults on shop workers.

I am pleased tonight to have the broad support of HM Opposition and, indeed, the broad support of the Liberal Democrat Benches—with some caveats from both. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s amendments in Committee. I cannot give him a response tonight on those details, but we will have plenty of time to discuss that. In saying that, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Fox of Buckley, and others mentioned the length of time for debate and the size of the Bill. Indeed, so did my noble friend Lord Hacking. We will have time for that, and it will be discussed through the usual channels. I look forward to a full and frank debate on this matter in due course.

The Bill deals with a number of key issues, and Members have talked about a theme in it. There are several themes in this Bill: making our communities safe, strengthening child sexual abuse prevention, tackling anti-social behaviour and knife crime and, dare I say it, supporting free speech—while at the same time ensuring that we have some measures on protests. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Vaizey, and indeed my noble friend Lord Hacking said that there is a mixture in this Bill, that it does not have a theme and that it is very large. It is a government programme, much of it based on a manifesto commitment. As my noble friend Lady Levitt mentioned in her excellent maiden speech from this Front Bench on a Second Reading debate, it is a manifesto commitment from the Government to do most of the things in this Bill, and therefore we are going to do most of the things in it, with the support of this House and the House of Commons.

A lot of issues in the debate have been about legislative proposals, certainly, but we have touched on neighbourhood policing, courts, speeding, police presence, speeding up justice, police numbers, et cetera. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate mentioned that. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, talked about delivery, which is extremely important. Those things are not in the Bill, but they are extremely important matters that are before us today.

I shall concentrate, if I may, on what is actually in the Bill and the points that have been debated by noble Lords today. Let me start with respect orders and youth diversion orders, which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Respect orders are a substantial new power that gives police and authorities effective levers to deal with anti-social behaviour. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made some criticism of them and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, challenges them as well. We believe them to be an effective tool, and we will have a chance to debate that in due course in Committee.

Youth diversion orders are an important measure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, that we will come back to them, but they are designed to help prevent terrorism and prevent people drifting into terrorism.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey, Lady Stowell, Lady Hazarika and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Herbert, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Davies of Gower, all raised the issue of shop theft. Shop theft is extremely important, and something we should not tolerate. That is why we are removing the £200 threshold, are putting a focus on it with policing and have encouraged police forces to tackle it. The measures that we are removing will send a signal. It is still for judicial discretion, but it will send a very strong signal—as will, on the issue of mobile phone theft, giving tracking powers for officers to be able to visit a premise straightaway. I look forward to debating them, but it is important to take action.

The issue closest to my heart in this Bill is that of retail workers and attacks on retail workers. The noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell, Lady Doocey, Lady Thornton, Lady Browning and Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton contributed to this debate. This is a long-standing campaign, which is why I declare my membership of USDAW. When in the House of Commons I moved amendments on this issue over many years, and I appreciate very much the support of my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton and the members of USDAW, along with the businesses—the Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and others—that have raised this issue. The new offence will put in place an obligation to ensure that those who uphold the law—which is what colleagues do in shops on solvent abuse, cigarette sales and alcohol—are also protected by the law. I hope that will have good support.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, will he respond to my question? Why have the Government decided to legislate only for that group of workers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The argument I will put to the noble Baroness now is that shop workers are upholding the law on solvent abuse, alcohol, cigarette sales and other things. There will be representations on other areas, and we will examine those representations, but I really want to get this over the line after a long campaign. I hope that the noble Baroness will support those measures, whatever amendments she may bring forward.

There has been considerable debate around civil liberties from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Doocey and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, my noble friend Lord Cashman and others. We are making some changes, and we will bring some further changes forward, but the principle of this is that we are trying to ensure that we have freedom of speech and the right to protest, but that we also have the right to ensure that protest is managed in an effective way. There are responsibilities in protest as well as the right to protest.

We have looked at the question of the Vagrancy Act; the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned that in particular. The Government have been clear that no one should be criminalised, which is why we are repealing the outdated 1824 Act. We are committed to a repeal of the Vagrancy Act once a replacement can be determined. I hope that clarifies that for him.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, among many other issues that I will come back to in a moment, raised the issue of policing and suicide. We are working closely with the National Police Wellbeing Service to examine that.

There has been a major debate from noble Lords and noble Baronesses on the question of child exploitation, child sexual abuse and the IICSA implementation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Hamwee, Lady Royall, Lady Benjamin, Lady Kidron, Lady Cash and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Faulks, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others all raised and discussed that issue. We are going to have a big debate on this. We are trying to meet the IICSA recommendations. The Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, stretches us a bit further. We will have a discussion around that. I hope that this Bill, at the end of its process in this House, will have achieved an improvement in child protection services as a whole.

We have also had a discussion around the big issue of abortion, raised by many Members: the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman, Lady O’Loan, Lady Coffey, Lady Mattinson, Lady Hazarika, Lady Thornton, Lady Lawlor and Lady Monckton, the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, Lord Jackson, Lord Frost, Lord Farmer and Lord Hampton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. There are different pressures on that: some want that provision taken out and some want it maintained. The Government will remain neutral on this matter and facilitate whatever Parliament agrees and settles on in the end. We will look at those issues, and the Government will have a free vote on that matter as a whole.

The issue of police misconduct and police vetting was raised very strongly by my noble friend Lady Lawrence, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, and others, particularly in the light of the “Panorama” investigation we touched on in Question Time today. There are a number of measures in the Bill to support strengthening police vetting, and I very much welcome those and hope they will be looked at positively in the future.

Knife crime was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Birt, and my noble friend Lady Lawrence. Again, the measures in the Bill are designed to regulate the supply of knives by people who wish to use those knives in a way that is not conducive to good behaviour and that causes death, misery and injury. We have to take those actions, and I think it is important that we do so.

There has been a lot of discussion around the issue of hate crime. First of all, I want to touch on the issue raised by my noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lord Cashman and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green: the aggravated offence. It was a Labour manifesto commitment at the general election. We are carefully considering now how best to amend the law to ensure the protected characteristics have that fairness. We will set out our conclusions later, during the passage of the Bill, but that commitment has been given and we will examine that in due course.

That leads me on to the question, a live issue for noble Lords, of non-crime hate incidents. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, indicated very strongly what has happened in relation to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and I am grateful to him for his support in giving the review on this matter. We have recently had discussions from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and others in the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Young, about this matter, and we are going to have a debate about it, but I am hoping that the review that the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has instigated will help colour whatever amendments are brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned it as well. It is important that we have that debate and discussion, but I want it to be influenced by the review from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, if noble Lords think that is appropriate.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the pornography review, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, in particular for the work she has done on that. The noble Baronesses, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, Lady Kidron and Lady Sugg, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy all made contributions today on the pornography review. We are committed to taking any necessary action following consideration of the noble Baroness’s recommendations. We have committed to criminalising pornography that depicts acts of strangulation and suffocation in this Bill, and we will bring forward an amendment to that effect. Where we can, in relation to the recommendations of the noble Baroness’s report, we will take early action to undertake that as a whole.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned honour-based abuse, and I am grateful to her—I was looking for her, and she was there when we started but has now moved over there. She called for a statutory definition of so-called honour-based abuse, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. We will work closely with the honour-based abuse sector to develop that statutory definition. We have given that commitment. I agree that it is vital that all professionals with safeguarding responsibilities have the right framework to identify victims and perpetrators, and I will be looking at that during the passage of this Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, mentioned spiking. It is an important measure and, again, I will reflect on the points she made in this discussion.

I was pleased by the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for the measures on cuckolding—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Cuckooing, not cuckolding. Sorry, it has been a long day in the Chamber today—apart from a very quick 20-second call of nature, I have been in for the whole day. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for that measure as a whole.

We have also had a range of new ideas for the Bill, and I look forward—honestly—to developing and arguing and having a discussion around the amendments during the passage of the Bill.

I am happy to meet any Members, if I can, who are going to raise those issues. I have firearms and cycling from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Historical weapons were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, takes an interest in that. I have had measures on child abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I have transport issues from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, deceased children from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the chatbot issues. I have new proposals on cyber-digital from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, The noble Lord, Lord Walney, raised a number of issues to do with the terrorism review.

I have universal jurisdiction from my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I have the cumulative impact issues from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. I have facial recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I have vehicle non-compliance from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I have fraud from the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Birt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Coffey. On all those things, I am happy to meet and discuss. Let us look at what is tabled, let us look at what is put down, and the Government will reflect on it. We may disagree at the end, but let us have that discussion as a whole.

On the fraud issue, from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in particular, I am the Government’s first Fraud Minister—Anti-Fraud Minister, really, but is called Fraud Minister for the purposes of the discussion here today. I have a challenge from the Government to produce a new fraud strategy. We are in the process of working on that. By January or February of next year, there will be a three-year fraud strategy, which will cover some of the points that the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Birt, and others mentioned.

I know that facial recognition issues are important to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and I want to ensure that we examine those.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and others made representations about the stalking measures in the Bill. I hope they will welcome those, but we will have a debate around that in due course.

My noble friend Lady Whitaker argued for the repeal of the provisions on encampments in Part 4 of the Police Act. We are aware of the High Court ruling and of the points made there. We will consider how best to respond in due course and will do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, again mentioned the recording of offences of intimate images. I am not sure we are going to agree on some of these issues, but at least I look forward to the amendments in due course if they are brought forward.

I also note the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, which I will reflect on and look at in due course.

This is indeed a very large Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act and the implementation of that for farmers. We are looking now at when we can implement that and trying to bring the necessary regulations later this year—so I can give him the answer and support on that.

Although it is very rushed, I think I have covered every point raised by every Member who has spoken in the debate today. I may not have satisfied every Member, but I hope I have recognised that—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Can I make the briefest of interruptions? That is a terrific to-do list and I congratulate the Minister on a spectacular summation. The one thing that has not really been touched on, which I think almost all of us spoke about, is resources. How are we going to pay for it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, the Bill covers a range of legislative options on a range of matters. In parallel to that, there are two other aspects of work. We will produce a policing White Paper very shortly, which will look at some of the issues in policing and how we can improve efficiencies. With the National Police Chiefs’ Council and colleagues and police and crime commissioners, we will look at how we can get better value and better focus on the key policing issues that Members have talked about today.

The very point that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others have mentioned—about delivery, about use of resources, about focus and about asking what the police do on particular issues—is extremely important. It is absolutely vital that we focus the police on government priorities. Aside from the police White Paper, we have issues with police funding and budgets. We have given £1.2 billion extra this year to policing. There is a challenging settlement, but our job is to get better value out of that. But I think there is commonality between all of us in the Chamber today that the issues that matter to people are anti-social behaviour, shop theft, violence against women and girls and child sexual abuse. Although there are many policing priorities, those are things that this legislation is dealing with. Therefore, we are hoping that the resources and focus will follow the legislation. The work we have done already—putting an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police on the ground and focusing on neighbourhood policing—means that over the next two to three years we try to increase the number of forward-facing neighbourhood police officers on the ground.

Nobody expects that there will be no challenge in all this, but the purpose of this Bill is to give legislative framework to government manifesto commitments. I think it meets a number of important objectives. There will be debate between Members; there will be differences; there will be votes; there may not be a meeting of minds on certain issues. But I am hopeful that, when this process is over, this Bill will pass, that it will be put into effect and that Members of this House and the House of Commons will hold the Home Office to account for making sure that we reduce crime, increase confidence in policing and make sure that there are fewer victims in the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clause 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 55, Schedule 5, Clause 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 65, Schedule 7, Clauses 66 to 72, Schedule 8, Clauses 73 to 84, Schedule 9, Clauses 85 to 96, Schedule 10, Clauses 97 to 117, Schedule 11, Clauses 118 to 122, Schedule 12, Clauses 123 to 127, Schedule 13, Clauses 128 to 136, Schedule 14, Clauses 137 to 139, Schedule 15, Clauses 140 to 145, Schedules 16 to 18, Clauses 146 to 164, Schedule 19, Clauses 165 to 186, Schedule 20, Clause 187, Schedule 21, Clauses 188 to 203, Title.

Motion agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I did want to hear what she had to say, but my enthusiasm to move on overtook me, unfortunately. I must learn to ignore nods from the Government Bench opposite as well.

As I said, the Committee stage will be a long haul, but I hope that we can continue this level of discussion and scrutiny throughout. On these Benches, we are not entirely sure of the need for new anti-social behaviour laws, and the validity of the proposed measure will be touched on more thoroughly in group 3. We feel the focus should be on enforcement first and foremost.

But as this proposal will become law, there are several individual parts of it that would benefit from being amended. I begin with Amendment 2 in my name, which is intended to probe the age at which a person can be given a respect order. The Bill states that this will be 18 and that younger offenders will be subject to a youth injunction. I cannot see why there should be two different powers to deal with the same behaviours. One of the benefits of anti-social behaviour injunctions is that they can apply to any person over the age of 10, rather than having different powers for different age groups.

To set the age minimum at 16 seems like common sense, and I would be surprised if the Minister disagrees with me. It is, after all, his party that believes in treating children of that age as adults. Why should 16 year-olds be allowed to choose the people who create anti-social behaviour laws, but simultaneously be exempt from those laws? Perhaps the Minister can explain the rationale, should he oppose the amendment.

Amendment 6 aims to ensure that an issued respect order does not place excessive restrictions on the recipient. It is similar to Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in seeking to ensure that orders are “necessary and proportionate”. As it stands, respect orders may require the recipient to do anything specified by the court—a power that does not contain any internal safeguards. This could lead to massive judicial overreach. The amendment in my name seeks to ensure that this is not the case. It is fair and proportionate that a recipient may be prohibited from doing anything that may cause a repeat of that which required an order in the first place. Prohibiting those actions is just, but that is where the powers of prohibition should end. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this potential issue with the proposed policy.

Amendment 11 would remove perhaps the most egregious part of this clause: giving the Secretary of State complete discretion not only over which authorities fall under the scope of respect orders, but the definitions that define respect orders themselves. It means that the already strong and limiting orders can be altered and twisted by whichever Home Secretary happens to be in office. I am sure each noble Lord could think of a different set of hands that they would not want this power to reside in. The amendment in my name would prevent that occurring and leave this already forceful power as it is.

Amendments 13 and 14 seek to improve the clarity in the chain of command in issuing orders. In a policy with so many moving parts, efficiency is key. A respect order would currently appoint a supervisor, who would then have the discretion to inform an

“appropriate chief officer of police”

if the offender lives in more than one area. This adds an extra layer of responsibility to a supervisor already charged with monitoring the respect order’s recipient. I can foresee potential mix-ups and miscommunications whereby either no or multiple chief officers believe themselves to be responsible for a recipient. The easy solution would be to specify the relevant chief officer alongside the supervisor, disaggregating the chain of appointments and improving clarity. I hope the Minister considers this point.

Amendment 20 seeks to require that risk assessments are the basis of respect order applications. It seems wrong that, despite being required to carry out a risk assessment, an applicant can apply for a respect order without having to reference it to the court. Respect orders are potentially very freedom-limiting; the court that issues them should be able to reference the risks posed by the recipient as a justification for these sanctions. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on the first day in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill. I feel like I am at base camp at the start of a climb to Mount Everest—but, as ever, Mount Everest has been conquered, as I am sure the Bill will eventually be as well. It feels like we are at the very start of a long, fruitful and productive process.

I will start by outlining a little about respect orders, because it is important to put them into the general context of why the Government are doing what they are doing. There were over 1 million recorded incidents of anti-social behaviour in the last year for which records exist. That is an awful lot of anti-social behaviour and does not include even the underreporting that may well exist.

There is a government manifesto commitment to take action on respect orders. The new orders will enable courts to both ban offenders from engaging in harmful anti-social behaviour, and/or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, noted—impose positive requirements to tackle the root cause of anti-social behaviour. That could be anger management or alcohol or drug awareness courses, which will hopefully tackle the root cause of that anti-social behaviour and stop it occurring.

Unlike existing ASB civil injunctions, breach will be a criminal offence enforceable by arrest and tried in the criminal courts. That goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. This goes to court only if an individual breaches the order put on them—the purpose of the order is to stop the behaviour taking place. Penalties for breach will include community sentences, unlimited fines and potentially prison time for the most serious breaches, but only on a breach. That is a really important point to recognise in our discussions today.

Because there are so many amendments in this group, although it is a slow process I will take the amendments in turn. Amendment 1, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lord Hacking, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, would require a Home Secretary within six months of the Bill becoming law to undertake a review of existing powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, prior to introducing respect orders.

First, the introduction of respect orders was a manifesto commitment, so the Government have put some thought into it. I also assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that the powers to address anti-social behaviour remain effective. As such, they are subject to continuous review. I do not want to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but there will not be a pilot on this, because the Home Office has regularly engaged with front-line practitioners and with the ASB sector to better understand how the powers of the 2014 Act are used and where improvements can be made.

In addition, under the last Government the department launched a public consultation in 2023 to understand how powers could be used more consistently and effectively. That consultation has helped inform the measures in Part 1 of the Bill. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 7 of the Bill, which, to aid this ongoing evaluation process, provides for new requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the Government to help us continually improve and review.

Therefore, the provisions in Clause 1 deliver on the manifesto commitment. We need to press ahead with respect orders as soon as possible to ensure that the police, local authorities and others have the effective powers to tackle the 1 million cases per year. Amendment 1 would require us to have a costly and unnecessary review, and it would slow and cause delay in the rollout. Therefore, with respect, I cannot accept it either today or on Report.

Amendments 2 and 3 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra, seek to lower the age at which respondents can receive a respect order from 18 to 16, or indeed to 14. Again, I hope the noble Lords understand that the Government do not wish to criminalise young people unless it is absolutely necessary, which is why our manifesto was clear that respect orders were aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour perpetrated by adults. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, made some very valid points on that in relation to the potential criminalisation of younger people.

That does not mean there is no provision for the relevant agencies to deal with youth-related anti-social behaviour. The respect order, while replacing the civil injunction for adults, will remain in place for those under the age of 18, renamed as the youth injunction. Importantly, this will enable youth courts to impose behaviour requirements on younger offenders without resulting in criminalisation if they breach the injunction. There is still the potential for those orders to be placed, but it does not involve criminalisation.

Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and others would amend the legal test for issuing a respect order. Amendment 4 would mean that a respect order could be issued only in relation to ASB that a respondent had already engaged in, and not where the respondent had threatened to engage in this behaviour, as is the case with existing civil injunctions.

I stress to the House that respect orders are fundamentally preventive in nature. They are designed to stop bad behaviour by putting in place a restraining order that says, in effect, “Don’t do these particular actions”. If the offender abides by the terms of the order, there will be no further sanctions. That is an important point for the House to understand and grasp from the Government’s perspective. Anti-social behaviour can be insidious and difficult to prove and it can take many forms. We know that the threat of aggressive or anti-social behaviour can often escalate quickly into more serious, violent and criminal behaviour —a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. That is why it is crucial that we retain the ability to issue an order against those threatening to engage in ASB, in order to prevent that harm before it happens.

Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would change the legal test for issuing a respect order, so that that the court would need to find it “necessary and proportionate” to issue the order to prevent the respondent engaging in anti-social behaviour, rather than using the legal test as currently drafted, in which the court must find it “just and convenient” to do so. The current “just and convenient” language mirrors that of the civil injunction and is therefore familiar to the courts.

Let me be clear—this again goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—that the current threshold still requires a judge, with all the relevant legal duties and safeguards that that entails, to be satisfied that the issuing of an order is just, reasonable and fair. Courts will already take the necessity and proportionality of an order into account as a result of their duties under the Human Rights Act. Given these considerations, the benefits of amending the legal test in this way are limited.

Moving on to Amendment 6—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Since the Minister rightly accepts that there is a test of proportionality under the Human Rights Act, would it not be better to put it in the Bill, so that everybody understands—whether they are magistrates, judges, solicitors or counsel—that that is the test? That would provide a great deal of comfort and protection for those who may be subject to the orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have great respect for the noble Lord’s contributions. I have heard what he said, but I believe that this is the right way forward. We can always examine his comments again and I appreciate the way in which he has contributed to the debate.

Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to ensure that any positive requirements placed on the recipient of a respect order are restricted to those which would prevent a future breach of the order. Positive requirements to address the underlying causes of the behaviour are an important aspect of the respect order. That is a key point that I want to impress on noble Lords today. While the legislation sets out a number of restrictions on how positive requirements can be used, it is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive and that courts and agencies should have the discretion to tailor positive requirements to the particular needs of each case.

Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and also spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, would limit the amount of time that a respect order may be in effect to two years. As it stands, there is no limit on the time a respect order might be in effect for, and I think that is the right thing to do. Again, there will be secondary action under the respect order only in the event of a breach taking place. If, for example, someone has previously been a persistent offender and the order puts in place an unlimited time, that would be reasonable until such time as the behaviour is noted. Implementing a two-year time limit might be of some difficulty and would not necessarily tailor against the individual’s behaviour. I come back to the central point that, ultimately, no action is taken against the individual if they do not breach the order.

The duration of a respect order is dependent on the specific circumstances of each case. That will be determined by the courts. I do not expect that every respect order will be imposed for an indefinite period, but that option should be available if there are relentless adult ASB perpetrators. The legislation makes provision for respect orders to be varied or discharged depending on the circumstances of the case.

Amendment 9, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would make it a requirement that an applicant must gain full council approval for all local authority-led applications for a respect order. It is proper quite that, while some councils may seek full council approval for PSPOs, there is no legislative requirement for them to do so. It should be noted that respect orders, unlike PSPOs, are granted by the courts, which provides additional safeguards to ensure that respect orders are used proportionately—this goes back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Whereas PSPOs impose prohibitions on the general public, respect orders will be for individuals who have a history of disruptive, anti-social behaviour.

I return to the fact that, if individuals do not breach an order, the matter will go no further. It is the Government’s view that, given this distinction, it would not be appropriate to require full council approval for all respect orders—which quite honestly is self-evident. I have been a councillor and spent time in council committees, so I know that there is potential for delay. It might take a long time to make an order, which would risk us not taking action quickly and supportively for the benefit of victims and communities at large. The amendment might also require a full public consultation when applying for a respect order, but I do not believe that that is the way to run respect orders or to impact on individuals.

Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to add non-crime hate incidents to the definition of anti-social behaviour. I respectfully say to him that we are going to use the phrase “non-crime hate incidents” during the course of the Bill in relation to a number of amendments, including those tabled by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Young. As I have previously said publicly in the House, the College of Policing—under the chairmanship of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs—will very shortly produce a review of non-crime hate incidents. There has also been discussion by the Metropolitan Police on what it is doing. I hope that the review will help inform later stages of the Bill. At this stage, I believe that, while we should not kick Amendment 10 down the line—we will come back to the subject of the amendment—we should not deal with it in relation to Clause 1.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I may have misheard the Minister, but if I heard him correctly, I want to correct what he said. I do not want to add it to the Bill; I want to add to the Bill a provision that it is not included under prevention orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate that. If I have misunderstood his intention, I apologise. None the less, the principle is still the same for me. There are specific amendments about this downstream. By the time we reach them, I hope that we will have further enlightenment from the College of Policing and that we can determine government policy on non-crime hate incidents in the light of that review. That is what I have said on a number of occasions in response to similar questions. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that Amendment 10 is slightly premature at this stage, and we will discuss that matter in full detail downstream.

Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the provision for the Secretary of State to amend, by regulations, the list of relevant authorities that can apply for a respect order. The Secretary of State needs that power to look at the range of contexts, and a multiagency approach is often needed to tackle anti-social behaviour. To ensure that we have that, I believe that the Secretary of State needs to retain that power—that may be a source of disagreement between us, but that is where I think we stand. The Secretary of State should be able to add an agency to the list. It would not be done unilaterally; new regulations would have to be laid. Those made under new Section B1 of the 2014 Act would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, as such, subject to debate and approval in both Houses. It is not an unfettered power for the Secretary of State.

A number of important issues have been raised in relation to Amendment 12, which seeks to remove the power to exclude a person from their home as part of a respect order in cases of violence or risk of harm. As noble Lords have said, including the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Meston, excluding a person from their home is of course not something that should be taken lightly. However, we know that anti-social behaviour is not always trivial and can escalate into violence. We also know that, sadly, in some cases, anti-social behaviour is accompanied by domestic abuse. The ability to exclude perpetrators from their homes in such scenarios is a valuable safeguard in protecting vulnerable victims and ensuring that they do not face eviction for the wrongs of their perpetrator.

The key point on Amendment 12—this goes to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—is that an exclusion can happen only when there is a significant risk of violence or harm. This will be key for protecting vulnerable victims who live with perpetrators or are in the same building. The applicant for the respect order will be able to make a proper risk assessment; that is the purpose and focus of that. The power to exclude remains a decision for the court and will be used only when it considers it necessary, in order to protect victims from the risk of violence or harm. I do not know whether that satisfies the noble Lord, but that is the Government’s rationale for the discussions we are bringing forward today.

This is a long group of amendments, so I apologise to the Committee for continuing to deal with them. Amendment 13 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to ensure that

“the appropriate chief officer of police”

is specified where a respect order has been issued. The Bill also provides that a supervisor must provide details of the respondent’s compliance with positive requirements to the chief officer of police. While the police are among the agencies that can apply for these orders, the operational responsibility for enforcing requirement lies with the designated supervisor and not with the chief officer of police. It is intended that positive requirements would be managed by those closest to the respondent’s circumstances.

Amendment 14 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to ensure that the supervisor does not make the final decision on who the relevant chief officer of the police would be, where it appears that the respondent lives in more than one police area. Supervisors are directly involved in managing the positive requirements of respect orders. They have first-hand knowledge of the respondent’s living arrangements and which police areas are most impacted by the respondent’s behaviour. Specifying the chief officer of police prior to issuing a respect order could be an unnecessary burden on police forces that have minimal involvement, and therefore it is appropriate that the supervisor makes the final decision on these matters.

Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to remove the provision enabling courts to make interim respect orders. Again, I highlight that interim court orders are not a novel concept; they are generally available to courts in exceptional cases. There is currently the possibility for a civil injunction, and it remains the case for the respect order where it is necessary for the courts to grant an interim respect order to prevent serious harm to victims.

Victims are central to the proposals we are bringing forward. If an interim order has been granted, it is because there has been a case made to a court that victims need some assistance to prevent serious harm to them. An interim respect order can be granted by the court only when all the relevant legal duties and safeguards that that entails are met, and it requires the court to be satisfied that it is just to make an order. That goes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. If that order is placed, it is because the court has determined on the evidence before it that there is a real risk of threat to an individual and therefore that order has to be made.

Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to ensure that a respect order is based on a risk assessment. The introduction of the risk assessment offers a further safeguard in ensuring that respect order applications consider contextual vulnerabilities and agencies take a joint multilateral approach. I hope I can make it clear to the noble Lord that this is a statutory requirement, and all agencies must complete a risk assessment prior to applying for a respect order, so we have met the provisions that he wants in Amendment 20 to date.

Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would place a duty on the Home Secretary to conduct a public consultation before introducing new statutory guidance for practitioners on respect orders. I make it clear to the Committee that any updates or additions to the ASB statutory guidance are already subject to extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders. That will include the front-line practitioners for whom the guidance is intended. This will be the case for statutory guidance on respect orders, and I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. As respect orders partially replace an existing power, the civil injunction, a large portion of the guidance will therefore already be familiar to practitioners.

Finally, Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to add for-profit registered social housing providers to the list of relevant agencies that can apply for a respect order. For-profit social housing providers have grown in prominence since the 2014 Act came into force, and I recognise the importance of the relevant agencies having the powers needed to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why, for example, we are giving both for-profit and non-profit social housing providers the power to apply for and issue closure notices. However, these are powerful tools, and it is also important that further challenges to the agencies that can use the powers, including respect orders, are considered carefully. But the noble Lord has raised some very important issues, and we will consider them carefully. I really appreciate his bringing them to the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I think it is the Matterhorn at this stage, rather than Everest, but we will see. I thank the Minister for his very full reply, and I thank all noble Lords for their support for this set of amendments that I and my noble friend Lady Doocey put forward. The Minister has set out his stall; he is clearly very wedded to the current wording, and that will merit careful consideration. I recognise the point he made about this being a manifesto commitment, but Amendment 1 is not designed to negate respect orders; it is designed to review the existing suite of anti-social behaviour legislation in order to make sure that it is effective.

I recognise the point the Minister made about the 1 million incidents, but we do not know at this stage, other than from the Minister’s assertions, that the respect orders are going to be effective in dealing with those, or, indeed, whether existing powers would have themselves been effective.

The Minister did not really explain why the current legislation is inadequate. He also did not for one second admit that the current regime of PSPOs and CPNs had its faults.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The real difference between this legislation and the existing legislation is that action can be taken immediately. I think I did touch on that point, but if it was not to the noble Lord’s satisfaction, I apologise. We can take action immediately on a breach.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I think we are going to need some more convincing that that is the case, compared to anti-social behaviour injunctions. So, we remain somewhat unconvinced.

We have the common aim across the House of achieving an effective system that is fair and proportionate. The one chink in the Minister’s armour was that he was prepared, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to consider the wording “necessary and proportionate”. I very much hope that he will consider that as a possible amendment to his proposal.

I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that Governments reach for the statute book; we need to consider whether existing legislation is sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, called for a pause. Whether it is a pause or a review, we will definitely want to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I have just a few comments. I am quite concerned that the latest figures show that the magistrates’ courts’ backlog of cases to be heard reached 361,000 as of September 2025, a record high and a significant increase on previous years. In the other place, the Minister said the legal test for respect orders was being kept “broad and flexible” to enable them to be used for a wide range of anti-social behaviours. Again, this suggests significant extra pressure on courts. Jamming up the system further is not going to help victims. Can the Minister say what the Government’s assessment is of the impact on the wider criminal justice system?

Giving evidence in the other place, the Police Federation also pointed to the pressure these orders would put on custody places, saying that infrastructure was needed to make new legislation “effective and believable”. Perhaps the Minister could also address that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their comments. I am sorry: I am just getting my pages in order; it came slightly more quickly than I expected. I thought we would have a few more contributions.

The amendments all relate to the role of the courts in the Government’s new respect orders, and it is fair and proper that they do so. These new orders will enable courts to ban offenders from engaging in formal, harmful anti-social behaviour and—again, as we have discussed—tackle the root cause. Amendments 8 and 16 seek to allow magistrates’ courts to issue respect orders. I have been clear that the respect orders are civil behaviour orders intended to prevent further anti-social behaviour occurring. They also aim to encourage rehabilitation through the positive requirements that I discussed in the previous group of amendments. Because they are civil in nature, applications should be heard in the civil courts, which have the appropriate procedures and expertise for handling these types of orders.

Magistrates’ courts deal primarily with criminal matters and summary offences. Hearing civil applications in a magistrates’ court would risk treating preventive orders as punitive measures, when, actually, as I mentioned, they are designed either to try to stop people undertaking negative behaviour or to encourage people to undertake what I will term positive behaviour, such as anger management or alcohol awareness courses.

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that the interim respect orders are not issued by the courts unless specifically said otherwise, and where an application has been made without notice. Again, anti-social behaviour can escalate quickly and cause great harm, and an interim respect order enables rapid protection in urgent cases involving immediate risk. Judges can make decisions based on the individual facts of the case and ensure that victims receive immediate relief in cases which they deem to be appropriate. On occasion, these will have to be issued without giving notice to the respondent, and it is important that judges retain the ability to do so on or without request from the relevant agency. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the court would be required to apply itself to the question of whether it was appropriate to make an interim order. There is no question of one being made without an express determination to that effect, but speed is still required.

Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that, if an appeal is made against the decision by the courts to refuse an interim respect order, the respondent is duly notified. I reiterate that interim respect orders are designed to provide urgent temporary relief to protect victims and the public from serious harm before a full hearing. If the respondents were notified of an appeal, it could undermine the immediacy and effectiveness of the interim order, and doing so would likely complicate proceedings, prolonging risk to victims and communities. I come back to the fact that all the measures in the Bill are designed to tackle anti-social behaviour at source and provide either interventions to prevent or interventions to encourage positive behaviour. The law allows appeals without notice to maintain speed and efficiency in safeguarding measures.

Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the interim respect orders are made only when the court considers the respondent likely to engage in harassment. Again, I just say to the noble Lord that the definition of anti-social behaviour is broad: it is intended to capture behaviours that may not meet the criminal threshold but which can cause severe harm to victims and communities. As I pointed out, interim respect orders are a necessary thing to provide immediate relief, preventing harmful behaviour from escalating and causing further damage to victims and communities. I would have thought that the noble Lord would have supported that general direction of travel. They are a preventative order, not a punitive order; they are punitive only in the event of a breach. Again, the purpose of the order is not to have that breach in the first place but to send a signal that says, “This behaviour is unacceptable”, or “This support mechanism is required”, and if you do not attend the support mechanism or if you breach the preventive mechanism, you are facing a potential criminal sanction.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Just briefly, because this is a very important aspect of the enforcement of respect orders, I ask whether the Minister is saying that all that is needed is that it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that the respect order has been breached, or does one go back to the original decision on the civil balance of probabilities—the reasons for the respect order? Is it purely that you have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the respect order has been breached, in which case it is still a civil balance of probabilities requirement for the original respect order to be enforced?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is a determination, and I believe the legislation before us today is clear on that matter. We will debate this still further, undoubtedly, but there is essentially a respect order where the court will consider the potential breach and will make a judgment on it, and having examined that, it will determine the issue in relation to that breach. The noble Lord raises that issue now, but as regards Amendment 19 before us today, which is the point I am making now, limiting the scope of where an interim respect order can be issued risks further harm for communities as a whole.

I will just focus on the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned. She covered in the last series of amendments the same issue, in a sense, about capacity, which is important. It will be a matter for discretion of the applicant and the court to determine what requirements will be most suitable in line with the resources and options that are available in a given area. So, again, that discretion is there at a local level to determine; for example, if an alcohol awareness course is required, then self-evidently an alcohol awareness course has to be available for the individual to take up that course. Those judgments will be made at a local level by the local individuals who are determining these matters.

Again, I refer noble Lords to the economic impact assessment that we have published. The ASB package is expected to lead to

“an overall reduction in prison places”.

The respect order replaces the civil injunction, and we are not expecting additional cases per se. Once in a steady state, annual prison places for respect orders will stay more or less the same, and we expect respect orders to have a neutral impact on prison places, given that they are replacing civil injunction powers. So I hope that that again reassures the noble Baroness in relation to the resource question of the additional impact of these matters. With those comments, I respectfully request the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down —I love that expression—can I just check? I think he said that respect orders were not going to be piloted. Is that correct? Diana Johnson, the Policing Minister in the other place, in the third session in Committee, said:

“We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 1/4/25; col. 104.]


So, what has changed between then and now that the Government have changed their mind?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have considered the reflections in another place, and we have now determined that we want to get on with this. Remember that the Bill has 12 days in Committee, and then Report, and we have a long way to go before Royal Assent. The Government want to have a manifesto commitment that they made in July 2024 implemented in good time. Even now, that manifesto commitment will take us potentially nearly two years to put in place. That is a reasonable process, we have consulted widely on the respect orders and that is the Government’s position now.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Can the Minister say whether anything else has changed that we would not be aware of because it has not been written down anywhere?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very wide question, my Lords. Let me say that the purpose of Committee is to provide a significant number of days for Members from all sides of the House—as we have had today, from the government side as well as from the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—to test Ministers and raise points. If the noble Baroness has points she wishes to raise during the passage of the Bill, as ever, I will try to answer them, either on the Floor of this House or in writing afterwards.

The noble Baroness asks whether things have changed. Even today, there are a number of amendments that the Government have brought forward in the groups of amendments that we are deliberating on today. Things move; the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was saying with regard to the immigration Bill that a number of things have changed over the course of time, and things move. It is now 16 months since the King’s Speech which introduced this legislation. We continue to monitor and move; where necessary we bring forward amendments, and I am open to testing on all matters at all times. But I would welcome the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment today.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to those who have contributed. I know we all have the interests of a functioning justice system at heart, and the discussion has reflected that. We must approach this debate with pragmatism as our guiding principle. That means that, when legislating for new crimes, the best outcome is the one that sees offences prosecuted. In a perfect world, perhaps the Crown Courts and the county courts alone would have the capacity to handle these new respect orders. But, as I have outlined, the courts system is incredibly backlogged, and it is therefore necessary to use as many courts as possible to deliver the policy.

Considering the scope of respect orders on top of that, my amendments and the amendments of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie are perfectly reasonable. To consider causing alarm as on the same level as causing harassment, as prosecuting them in the same courts effectively does, defies sense. Making use of magistrates’ courts is both the rational and practical solution to this problem.

Similarly, approaching interim respect orders from a more conservative standpoint would be prudent. They are very illiberal measures and should be used only in the most necessary circumstances. Amendments, such as those tabled in my name, to create presumptions against them and to narrow the preview of their power seek to ensure that this is the case.

I hope that the Minister will agree with the important principles behind these amendments and will perhaps take them away and consider them, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for the discussions that we have had today. I will start by saying something that I hope is helpful and which is meant to be helpful. Respect orders are not something in their own right. They are part of a suite of tools that the Government are looking at to help tackle anti-social behaviour.

I take some issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said about police numbers. I was Police Minister in 2009-10, and immediately after we lost office, the coalition Government reduced police numbers by around 20,000. The figure of 20,000 officers that the noble Lord says are being put on the streets really represents a replacement of ones who were taken off the streets by the very same Government that he supported.

The noble Lord asked whether we have additional police officers on the ground. This year we have put around another 3,000 police officers on the ground, and we are looking at providing around 13,000 extra pairs of boots on the ground—specials, PCSOs and, indeed, direct warranted officers—during this Parliament. That is again a commitment in the manifesto that we are doing. Many of the measures in the Bill that we will come to later around phone theft, the use of anti-social vehicles and all sorts of other measures are still part of the suite of measures to try to tackle anti-social behaviour as a whole.

If I take the challenge from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, head on, I cannot give him a figure as to what the impact is going to be directly on those matters as of now. I will reflect on what he said and see whether I can bring further light to that. The key point is that this legislation before the Committee today—this clause stand part notice that the noble Lord is testing the Committee on—is a measure whereby in the event of a breach of those orders, speedier criminal action can be taken, which is different from where we are currently with other forms of anti-social behaviour legislation.

Again, I reaffirm what I said in earlier contributions: we are not seeking to be punitive; we are seeking to be preventive. I hope that nobody will be sanctioned by the legislation for breaching an order. The whole purpose is to put some behaviour modification in place to stop a poor behaviour or to encourage help and support to overcome the reasons why that poor behaviour has taken place in the first place.

This goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said because, from my perspective, this is part of a suite of measures. That is the point I want to put to the Committee today. We know that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 did not always go far enough to tackle anti-social behaviour and I believe that the whole Committee wants to tackle that anti-social behaviour. It is why the Government committed in our manifesto to introducing the respect order and cracking down on those making our neighbourhoods, town centres and communities unsafe and unwelcome places.

The 1 million police-recorded incidents and over a third of people experiencing or witnessing some form of anti-social behaviour are key issues that any Government should address. The respect order partially replaces civil injunction powers for persons aged 18 or over but, like the civil injunction, will enable courts to set prohibitive conditions by banning disruptive ASB perpetrators from town centres or engaging in a particular behaviour or by providing a rehabilitative, positive requirement, such as attending an anger management course or, potentially, a wider drug or alcohol awareness course to help tackle the root causes of their offending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for responding to my question about projections of the effect of these measures. The purpose of me asking him these questions, just as I did on another Bill, is not just to ask awkward questions and give his officials more work but a genuine focus on performance. We have a very serious issue in the country and we all agree on anti-social behaviour. The price for the Committee, in essence, agreeing to broader powers is some degree of confidence that they are likely to have a significant effect. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to quantify what that effect may be, but some guidance on it would help the Minister’s cause, which is always a cause close to my heart.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that, but it would be fair to say that I would be making promises or guessing about issues that I could not guarantee. But I can guarantee for the noble Viscount that we will monitor the use of this and that the measures that I have already outlined—those in the Bill, those on police numbers and the focus that we are putting on certain police initiatives through central government discussion with the National Police Chiefs’ Council—will make a difference. They will be judged on that.

Self-evidently, a manifesto commitment to reduce and tackle anti-social behaviour requires this Minister, this Government and this Home Secretary to go back to the electorate, at some point, to say, “That is the difference that we have made”. While I cannot give the noble Viscount an aperitif today, I hope I can give him a full-course meal after the discussions have taken place further down stream.

It is important, as we have just heard, that if perpetrators breach an injunction multiple times, the police cannot take action unless they take them to court. Under this measure, there will be a criminal action so police can take action immediately.

I wish to tell the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, for a respect order to be issued, two tests must be satisfied. First, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in or threatened to engage in anti-social behaviour as defined. Secondly, the court must be satisfied that issuing the respect order is just and convenient. A further safeguard introduced is that the relevant authorities carry out risk assessments prior to the respect order being put in place.

These clauses, about which the noble Lord has quite rightly asked questions, are important and I wish to see them retained in the Bill. I am grateful for his overall indication that, when it comes to determining that, he will not oppose these clauses, but I will take away his comments and I hope to continue our discussions in the positive way that we have to date.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful for the contributions made and to the Minister for his response. Of course, I have no intention of opposing the passage of respect orders. They were part of the Government’s election manifesto and, as such, shall become the law of the land. This does not prevent my criticising them. Indeed, simply because they were part of the Government’s manifesto does not mean that they are a good idea that would have a positive impact on the streets of Britain.

I have provided substantive justification for why I believe that respect orders are, simply put, an effort to paint a picture of a Government bearing down on crime and anti-social behaviour when, in reality, they are not. The proof will be in the pudding; we will see whether the Prime Minister’s so-called tough new respect orders have any actual impact, in due course. For now, I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful debate on Clause 4 and associated amendments. The discussion has reflected the balance that must be struck between proportionate enforcement and ensuring that penalties remain effective and fair. As anti-social behaviour seems to be increasingly present on our streets, it is right that the clause is given careful consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised concerns in Amendment 23 about the overuse or inappropriate issuance of fixed penalty notices. Those are indeed legitimate points for consideration, and I am sure that all noble Lords agree that such powers should be exercised carefully and with a proper sense of proportion. Fixed penalty notices are designed and intended to deal swiftly with low-level offending without recourse to the courts, but they must always be used responsibly and in accordance with proper guidance. However, it seems that Clause 4(3) and (4) will help to act as a proper deterrent to anti-social behaviour, as they will play an important part in ensuring that the penalty levels remain meaningful. I look forward to hearing the Government’s thoughts on this matter.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We are grateful to my noble friend for his focus on practical enforcement. His Amendments 24 and 25 seek to strengthen the collection of fines by introducing automatic confiscation provisions and modest administrative charges for non-payment. It is right that those who incur penalties should expect to pay them, and that local authorities are not left to have to chase persistent defaulters at the public’s expense. We therefore view my noble friend’s proposals as a constructive contribution to the debate in order to ensure that enforcement is both efficient and fair.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has given notice of her intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. We respect this view, but we cannot agree to the removal of the clause. Clause 4 contains a number of sensible and proportionate measures that are designed to improve compliance and to strengthen the effectiveness of penalties. Many of these reforms build on the Criminal Justice Bill brought forward by the previous Conservative Government.

This debate has underlined the importance of maintaining confidence in the fixed penalty system, ensuring that it is used appropriately and enforced consistently. The system exists to fulfil the wider aim of upholding law and order in our communities. In these endeavours, we on our Benches will always be supportive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for discussing and tabling Amendment 23, and to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his Amendments 24 and 25. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his broad support for the Government’s approach to the main thrust of the issues, although he, like us, slightly diverges from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which I will come back to in a moment.

I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—I am afraid that is the nature of political life. These offences are used for things such as dog fouling, littering, vandalism and drunken, aggressive behaviour. They are not trivial or low level; they are things that impact on people’s lives, and the abandonment of the clause would mean the abandonment of the people who are victims of those particular instances. The debate for me is around whether £100 or the £500 that we have put in the Bill is a reasonable figure. I argue to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it is practitioners who have said to us that the current £100 limit does not always carry enough weight to stop offenders committing further anti-social behaviour.

I also say to him that, under existing legislation, relevant agencies may already issue fixed penalty notices of up to £500 for environmental offences such as littering, graffiti or fly-posting. We expect that the prospect of a higher fine will act as a stronger deterrent, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has said. These measures were consulted on by the Home Office in 2023, before this Government came to office, and received majority support as an effective deterrent to anti-social behaviour. I do not know offhand whether the Manifesto Club contributed to that consultation, but the point is that a majority in the consultation accepted that the increase was necessary. Increasing the upper limit does not mean that every person breaching an order will receive a fine of £500. The figure could be lower, proportionate to the individual circumstances and the severity of the case.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Hampton, for tabling these amendments and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Ensuring that anti-social behaviour complaints are adequately handled and delivering a just outcome for the complainants and communities affected without being overly burdensome on the relevant authorities are important principles. These amendments are largely in line with that goal.

This group is particularly important, as anti-social behaviour seems to be on the rise in our streets. As such, it is important that we have the right framework not only for dealing with complaints but for self-correcting any potential mistakes made. With an increased volume, local authorities simply do not have the time to be weighed down by bureaucratic procedures.

For that reason, Amendment 27 raises eyebrows. It is important that we provide the necessary support for those who are harmed by criminal behaviour, but it is also true that this clause would require policing bodies to review responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour, in certain instances. It would place an additional level of administration on to these authorities. As it stands, the amendment seems to cast the net too widely on when impact assessments might be necessary; it would therefore add yet more workload to already strained forces. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s opinion on this matter.

Amendments 28 and 31, however, appear to work to the opposite end. It is right that, when we mandate administrative work from our public servants, we should give them clear guidance on where it is necessary. A discretionary threshold has the potential to encourage local authorities to err on the side of caution and thus review cases that do not merit the time required. Adding a statutory threshold for an ASB case review would both streamline the process and create a more regular system across authorities. This is never a bad thing, and I hope the Minister will consider taking it on board.

I am cautious of Amendment 30 for reasons similar to those that I have already discussed. In principle, the amendment is sound, but adding more bureaucracy to the process by publishing the reasons for not reviewing a case has the potential to take time and attention away from cases that do meet the threshold. Additionally, a statutory threshold would be available for all to see and would set out the criteria needed to meet it. This would surely forgo the need to release the reasons why thresholds were not met.

This is a largely sensible set of amendments that have the interests of both complainants and the respective authorities at heart. I hope that the Minister agrees with what I have just said and look forward to what he says in response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his amendments. I also thank the Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, both on the amendments and for her work on this issue over many years. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for the comments on this area from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Clement-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, from His Majesty’s Opposition.

Amendment 27 aims to ensure that all victims of repeat anti-social behaviour are subject to an impact assessment, even where the individual has not requested a case review to be undertaken. The Government believe that there is a more effective response to this issue, in that we can ensure that victims are aware of their rights to request a case review. That has been included in updated statutory guidance for front-line staff, which we published in September. The proposals in the amendment would significantly increase the resources required to review anti-social behaviour incidents. The wording of the amendment would mean that even in cases where the victim is satisfied with the response, the police would be required to conduct an impact assessment.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has approached this by saying he wishes to work with the Government to look at this. I am happy to have further dialogue with him and the responsible policy Minister in the Home Office post Committee. We can return to it then and examine the nuances. I hope that my initial comments give him a flavour of where the Government currently are.

Amendments 28, 29 and 31 look at the anti-social behaviour case review process and mandate the requirement for there to be an independent chair, for victims to be invited to attend their case review, and to reduce the ability for authorities to add additional caveats that reduce the victim’s abilities to request a case review. I am pleased to say—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will accept this and the way that I put it to him—that we have recently updated the statutory guidance to front-line professionals, which already reflects the proposals he has put to the Committee today. I believe that this will create the impact that his amendments intend to bring while still allowing for greater flexibility for circumstances to be treated on an individual basis. Again, if the noble Lord would like further information on the statutory guidance, I am happy to provide that to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, but we think that it meets the objectives of Amendments 28, 29 and 31.

Amendment 30 seeks to require relevant bodies involved in case reviews to publish details on why they have determined that the statutory threshold for a case review was not met. Under existing legislation, it is already a requirement for the relevant bodies to publish the number of times they decided that the review threshold was not met. I highlight to the noble Lord that, through Clause 7, the Government are introducing further requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the Government. That is for the purpose of us understanding how local agencies are using the powers and tools provided by the 2014 Act, including the question of case review.

If the noble Lord looks at Clause 6 in particular—it is buried in the depths of the undergrowth of Clause 6 but I assure him that it is there—he will see that there will be a new duty for police and crime commissioners to set up a route for victims to request a further review where dissatisfied with the outcome of their case review. This includes where the relevant bodies determined that the threshold was not met for the initial case review. I will give further explanation of Clause 6 when we reach it, but I hope that it meets the objectives that the noble Lord has set out in Amendment 30.

The recently updated guidance on case reviews address many of the same points as these amendments and I hope that it will have the opportunity to bed in. I am happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the guidance, if I am able to, and I assure him that we will monitor the effectiveness of that guidance in improving good practice. He has my commitment that, if necessary, we will revisit the issues again in the near future. Until then, I submit that it would be premature to legislate further on case reviews beyond the measures in the Bill. I hope that with those assurances, the invitation to further discussion and the offer of further information, the noble Lord would be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the tenor and content of what he just said. The devil is quite often in the detail, so I, with others, would be happy to sit down with him and try to make sure that we all understand it in the same way and are talking the same language.

I have concerns about guidance that is, in theory, flags up to people in a slightly different and slightly more lurid way what their rights are. In evidence, I would state the experience of the victims’ code, which has been around for a very long time. On numerous occasions, when officers of various agencies who are, in theory, responsible for knowing the contents of the victims’ code are quizzed on it, they no absolutely nothing or very little or get very confused about it. Having guidance does not in itself solve any issue if people do not understand the guidance, are not trained in it and do not have sufficient experience of how to apply that knowledge in a sensible way.

However, I hear what the Minister is saying and I think we are moving in the right direction. I feel strongly that trying to look at, and perhaps reverse-engineer, some of the examples of best practice that are around would be informative and helpful, since we have a habit of reinventing the wheel in our 43 different police forces. Then of course there are all the local authorities and housing associations as well, so there is quite a muddle of people and agencies looking at this and the evidence suggests that we need to pull that together much more coherently and effectively than we are doing at the moment. But I take and accept the Minister’s kind invitation to discuss this issue further, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

32: Schedule 3, page 248, leave out lines 27 to 30
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are technical amendments that affect provisions in the Bill containing data-sharing provisions. Within the relevant clauses and schedule, there are general provisions that bar the disclosure of data if such disclosures would contravene data-protection legislation. These protections against data-protection overrides are now no longer needed within the Bill, as a general provision to the same effect is now made by Section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by Section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That Act came into effect on 20 August and, now that the general provision is in force, the amendments remove the redundant duplicative provisions from the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the amendments are matters of purely technical housekeeping, because they remove provisions that are no longer needed, and that this is caused by the insertion of Section 183A into the Data Protection Act 2018 by Section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. I must confess, having spent time in the salt mines of the then Data (Use and Access) Bill, that this did not come to my attention at the time, but I am sure it is a valuable piece of legislation.

This creates an overarching safeguard, ensuring that new enactments such as this Bill do not automatically override core data protection requirements. However, I must say that the fact that the Government’s intentions are technically sound in this respect does not remove the need for clarification and specific statutory safeguards in certain highly sensitive policy areas, which we will be debating in due course. I thought I would put the Minister on notice that we will be calling for the adoption of additional safeguards ensuring that new powers in the Bill are fair and proportionate: for instance, the DVLA access and facial recognition provisions in Clause 138, which grant powers for regulations concerning police access to DVLA driver licensing information. We remain deeply concerned that the power granted by Clause 138 could be used to create a vast police facial recognition database, and we will be looking for additional safeguards.

On Clauses 192 to 194, concerning international law enforcement information-sharing agreements, the cross-border transfer of data inherent in such agreements presents significant civil liberties concerns, so we will be calling for mandatory privacy impact assessments. That is just a taster.

In conclusion, while the Government’s amendments are technical in nature, we will in due course be using the opportunity to embed specific, robust statutory safeguards for a number of new powers in the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is all too often the case that, when the Government say they are bringing minor and technical amendments to a Bill, those amendments are neither minor nor technical in nature. However, with these amendments, that is genuinely the case. There is, therefore, little for me to say in response to this group of amendments. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 was passed by this House earlier this year and, as far as I am aware, the data protection override in Section 106 of that Act was not queried or opposed by noble Lords during its passage, and no amendment was proposed to that clause. I therefore have no issue with these amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful and all I say in response is that the sooner we get to Clauses 132 and 192, the better.

Amendment 32 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

33: Schedule 3, page 248, leave out lines 33 and 34
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 3, page 248, leave out lines 27 to 30.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

34: Clause 7, page 16, leave out lines 26 to 29
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, as ever, raises a serious and pertinent point with his Amendment 35. Clause 7 permits the Secretary of State, by regulations, to require authorities to provide them with information about anti-social behaviour. Unfortunately, Clause 7 contains rather vague requirements on what information the regulations might contain. It would perhaps be helpful for the Minister to provide the Committee with some concrete examples of what might be included. My noble friend is absolutely right that social media posts should not be included in any of the guidance.

With Amendment 55A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my fear is that the police and the Home Office, already overburdened with creating statistics, will yet again be further burdened. Perhaps this is not the way forward.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for these two amendments.

As the noble Lord explained, Amendment 35 relates to the new power in Clause 7 for the Home Secretary to make regulations requiring relevant authorities, including local councils and social housing providers, to report information on anti-social behaviour. The amendment would mean that those regulations would not be able to request information from the relevant authorities about things that are considered anti-social or indeed anti-social messages. We will come on to the non-crime hate incident issues that the noble Lord has a concern about, but currently Clause 7 would allow information to be requested on reports of anti-social behaviour made to an authority, responses of the authority and anti-social behaviour case reviews carried out by the relevant authority. Anti-social behaviour can come in various forms, and it is important that the regulation-making power can address this.

Information held by central government on anti-social behaviour is in some areas limited. This has led to a significant evidence gap in the national picture of anti-social behaviour. I mentioned the 1 million incidents per year, but there is still an evidence gap in that picture of anti-social behaviour. The new clause will change this to ensure stronger and more comprehensive understanding of ASB incidents and interventions, but we want to make sure that Clause 7 creates a regulation-making power only. Regulations will then be made following the passage of the Bill to specify the information that agencies must provide. Going back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, indicated, this may be information they already have but do not necessarily share.

I assure the noble Lord that regulations are being developed in close consultation with the relevant practitioners, including local authorities and social housing providers, to understand what information is held on anti-social behaviour and the impact that this requirement may have upon them, for the very reasons that the noble Lord mentioned. We will of course make sure that any new requirements are reasonable and proportionate but meet the Government’s objective of having a wider understanding of some of the trends and information.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his usual detailed explanation and courtesy. With particular reference to my rather narrow amendment, does he think it right that we should report on so-called anti-social behaviour that occurs in media posts? Leaving aside the non-crime hate incidents, will local authorities be expected to report on instances of anti-social behaviour in their areas when those incidents have been only on social media, not face to face?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What I can say to the noble Lord is that, again, the Secretary of State has within this clause a regulation-making power and is currently examining—and will do if this power is approved by Parliament—with local councils what information they hold that they can share with the Government. There is a range of issues to go down the road yet, before we get to a stage where we are issuing regulations that demand or require particular types of information, but that will be done in consultation. Of course, it also depends on sharing information that the local authorities or social housing providers hold, not what the Government are asking them to hold, necessarily. We will cross that bridge a little further down the line, if the legislation is passed and receives Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

36: Clause 7, page 17, leave out lines 6 and 7
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 7, page 16, leave out lines 26 to 29.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, when the Underground strike was on, I was coming in on the bus every day from where I stay in Kensington, which was an experience, because they were rammed because there were no trams. A number of people I spoke to on the buses, many of them Americans, said that London streets were the cleanest they had seen—and those comments were unsolicited. So perhaps there is a different view and different parts to this debate. Sometimes it is not about running us down; it is about improving the things that we can do. What we can do, when we work together, can make a difference. It is a small number of people who cause havoc for a lot of people, and that is part of society’s problems. I do not envy the Minister in resolving that, but positive things can be done to make this less of a problem.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Sorry, I thought the noble Lord was gearing up to make further comments.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendments. I agree with him and everybody else who has spoken that fly-tipping, littering and dog fouling are not victimless crimes; they blight our communities. I find it very annoying to see not just dog mess in bushes but stuff thrown out of car windows and stuff left on trains that is not picked up. An important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is that some of this is also about improving behavioural change and encouraging people not to tolerate this. Never mind fines or responsibilities, it is about not tolerating this as a society.

Having said that, the amendments themselves are unnecessary in this case, and I will try to explain why. Local authorities can already issue fixed-penalty notices for littering of up to £500, which is greater than the proposed penalties in the amendment. In addition, local authorities already have the power to issue public space protection orders to tackle persistent anti-social behaviour, including dog fouling. As we have debated, Clause 4 raises the maximum penalty for the breach of PSPOs from £100 to £500, so there is already an upward target in terms of the amount of potential fine. This is not meant as a snide point, but I say to the noble Lord that the Dog (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 has been repealed and replaced; I cannot amend it because it does not exist any more.

The argument I put to the House is that local authorities are best placed to set the level of these penalties in their area, taking into account the characteristics of the community, which might even include ability to pay. Outside of issuing a fixed-penalty notice, those prosecuted for littering can also face, on conviction, a fine of up to £2,500. I do not believe that increasing the fine available to someone who fails to give their name and address to an enforcement officer issuing them a fine is appropriate, with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—currently £1,000—being the appropriate level in these circumstances.

Amendment 38 makes a very important point about littering on public transport becoming a specific offence. I pay tribute to the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned: the people who go up and down trains, collecting rubbish on behalf of the company. They are also the people who helped protect us last week in the LNER attack. They fulfil a very important function as a whole.

However, the British Transport Police and the railway operators already have the power to enforce the railway by-laws and prevent unacceptable behaviour on both heavy and light railway. That includes fines of up to £1,000. On the noble Lord’s late-night train back, in theory, a £1,000 fine for littering could be issued. By-laws are controlled by each individual devolved area, which will have its own by-laws around littering and enforcement.

That takes me to the other point—I do not mean to be cocky in the way I say this—that the amendments, as proposed, seek to amend the law in Scotland and Wales as well as for England, and they deal with matters that are devolved to Scotland and to the Senedd in Wales. As such, it would not be appropriate to include such measures in the Bill without the consent of the legislatures, which at the moment we do not have and have not sought.

Finally, I think it is of benefit to noble Lords if I briefly outline the steps the Government are taking to reduce littering among our communities. There is a Pride in Place Strategy, which sets out how Government will support local action—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned—by bringing forward statutory enforcement guidance on littering, modernising the code of practice that outlines the cleaning standards expected of local authorities and refreshing best practice guidance on powers available to local councils to force land and building owners to clean up their premises.

Having had the opportunity to debate all these issues, I think that the amendments make an extremely important point, and I am not trying to downgrade the points that have been made by noble Lords. Litter is an extremely important issue, but the approach taken in these amendments is not one that I can support—but not because I am not interested in the issue itself. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and not to move the other amendments, but we can still discuss it further at some point, no doubt on Report.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed and spoken in support of this group of amendments and, indeed, for the Minister’s response, although I was a little disappointed by the scepticism of colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

These matters go to the heart of civic pride and the everyday quality of life that our constituents rightly expect. The present system of penalties is no longer an adequate deterrent, having not been amended for many years. As has been observed, local authorities spend hundreds of millions of pounds every year clearing up after those who show little regard for the public realm. When the maximum fine for littering has remained unchanged since 2018, its real-term value has fallen sharply. Fines are now too often treated as a minor inconvenience rather than a genuine consequence for selfish behaviour. My amendments seek to address that imbalance and ensure that penalties once again reflect the true cost to our communities. Our buses, trains and underground systems are shared spaces used by millions every day. They should be clean spaces, not repositories for discarded coffee cups and beer bottles.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, although awareness of dog fouling has improved, enforcement remains inconsistent and penalties insufficient. It is only fair that those who allow this behaviour to persist should face meaningful consequences, rather than leaving their neighbours and local councils to deal with the aftermath.

These amendments are modest practical steps towards restoring civic responsibility and pride in our shared environment. They are not intended to be punitive; they are about accountability and respect for the public spaces we all enjoy. I hope that the Government will take note of the strength of feeling by travellers and the public at large and will continue to work with local authorities and communities to tackle the persistent blight of dog fouling and littering, especially on public transport. But for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for tabling these amendments. The case he set out seems clear and obvious. His amendment would ensure that the offence of trespassing with intent to commit an offence extended to people’s gardens and grounds, and it goes no further than that. Any intrusion into those grounds or gardens with mal-intent should be reflected in the level of criminal fines.

My noble friend’s amendments simply proceed on the assumption that gardens or grounds, in their simplest terms, should be treated the same in legislation as residences and buildings. Private property does not stop existing once you step out of a physical doorway; the grounds or gardens surrounding buildings are extensions to them, to be bought and sold just as freely. I think the word “curtilage” often appears—certainly in the law, but often more widely—to describe the land or garden around someone’s house. Indeed, there may be even as great a need to create an offence for this as there is for trespassing on a property with intent. I can imagine criminals using back gardens to navigate between houses to commit burglary. I can imagine confrontations taking place not inside a building yet still in the garden or grounds owned by a victim. They are just as serious as entering a property to commit a crime.

However, I acknowledge that there is generally a difference between entering someone’s house and entering their garden. The former is in most cases far more intrusive—a far greater infringement of someone’s right to a private property. It therefore follows that entering a house should regularly carry a harsher sentence than merely entering the grounds, but that can be the case while ensuring that both are offences. We do not have to disapply the latter simply because it might carry a lower fine than the former.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 47B provides for this, as he set out. It seeks to give the court the discretion to alter the fines levied on an offender based on the seriousness of the offence, creating a higher maximum fine to be used for the most serious offences. Additionally, creating a minimum fine will ensure that any form of trespassing with the intent to commit another offence is dealt with to a minimal acceptable standard.

Whatever form it takes, trespassing in order to commit crime is incredibly invasive and often traumatic, and it is right that this is acknowledged in the range of the fine level. I hope the Minister has listened to these points, and I look forward to his response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling the amendments. I hope I can half help him today and, in doing so, assist the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

I confirm that the Government will repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824. In Clauses 10 and 11, the Government are legislating to introduce targeted replacement provisions for certain elements of the 1824 Act, to ensure that the police have the powers they need to keep our communities safe. Those targeted replacement measures include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain, which we will come on to shortly, and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. Both were previously provided for under the 1824 Act, and the police have told us that it would be useful to retain them.

I hope this helps the noble Baroness, because the new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence recreates an offence that is already set out in the 1824 Act. It does not add to it; it recreates it. As is currently the case, it will be an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—meaning any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention to commit an offence, and that is currently in the legislation.

Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to ensure that trespassing in gardens and grounds of a private dwelling is captured by the replacement offence. This is where I think I can half help him by indicating that gardens and grounds would already be included in the definition of “premises” in the 1824 Act, so, in essence, that is covered already.

His Amendment 47B would introduce a minimum level 2 fine and increase the maximum level fine from level 3 to level 4 for this offence. Again, the measure in the Bill replicates entirely—going back to the noble Baroness—the maximum penalties currently set out in the existing legislation that we are repealing, but replacing in part, through the clauses addressed by these amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness on the proportionality of the current level of the fines. I say to the noble Lord what he anticipated I would say to him: sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we need to afford it appropriate discretion. Parliament rarely specifies minimum sentences, and this is not an instance where we should depart from that general principle. I know he anticipated that I would say that—as the good old, former Home Office Minister that he is, I knew he would clock that that was the potential line of defence on his amendment.

It is important to say that the penalties set out in the current legislation, which we are replicating, are considered appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the offence. Therefore, with what I hope was helpful half clarification on grounds and gardens, and with my steady defence on the second amendment, which the noble Lord anticipated, I ask him not to press his amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, half a loaf is better than no bread, of course. All I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is that she has got totally the wrong end of the stick. I will not go into more detail to argue against her, except to say that I too had a footpath right across the middle of my garden in Cumbria, and I had no problem with it at all. However, that is quite separate from the guy who, in 2000, threatened to burn down my house because he did not like my view on hunting. That is quite a different matter. He committed an offence on my driveway, as opposed to the thousands of people who used the footpath, which I built special turnstiles at either end of for them to use.

I accept entirely what the Minister said and am delighted to see that grounds and gardens of public dwellings will be included in the definition—that is the half I am very happy with. I knew he would not accept my amendment on the penalties. He said that it is up to an independent judiciary—I wish we had one, without a Sentencing Council tying its hands, but that is a matter for another debate. With the Minister’s courteous remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

That may be the case in the year the noble Baroness cited, but the fact remains that these provisions have been brought into force, have been effective and have responded to representations from local authorities and members of the public, who have repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of unauthorised encampments on their community. I earnestly believe that repealing these measures entirely would remove essential tools for managing the real and sometimes serious harms experienced by communities across the country. For those reasons, these Benches cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for tabling the amendment. She has obviously secured widespread support—from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

As my noble friend explained, the High Court ruling in May 2024 found that the specific changes made by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 relating to Traveller sites were incompatible with convention rights. This is where I am going to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, because the Government respect the decision of the court. The Government—I hope that this is helpful to my noble friend—are working now on a response to that court judgment. I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the High Court ruling, and the response is needed. I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that I can undertake to update the House ahead of Report on this matter. We are not able to finalise the exact response as yet, but I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.

I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment today, but it is important that we signal to her that this matter is one we have to resolve speedily. In considering the court’s judgment, the Government will carefully balance the rights of individuals to live their private lives without discrimination, while recognising the importance of protecting public spaces and communities affected by unauthorised encampments. That balance will be made, and I hope to be able to resolve that issue by Report, as I have said.

A number of noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the question of the shortage of unauthorised sites available to Gypsies and Travellers, and that is an important point. Local authorities, as Members will know, are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area and must plan to meet that need. These decisions are made locally; they reflect specific circumstances in each area and operate within the national planning policy for Traveller sites, which is set by the Government. We aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of Travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

Does the Minister accept that, aggregated across the country, the effect of lots of local decisions by local authorities is that there is a calamitous shortage of legitimate sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people? If so, what do the Government plan to do about that, rather than simply saying that it is up to each local authority?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The position of the Government is that it is up to each local authority. I understand the right reverend Prelate’s point, but there is overarching guidance in England, provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which basically indicates that local authorities are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area. That is a conflict; there is a shortage, there is always a debate on these matters, there is always opposition, there is always discussion, but, ultimately, local councils have to settle on sites in their areas and I cannot really help the right reverend Prelate more than that. There is guidance and a process to be followed.

Issues around the proportionality of enforcement action were also mentioned in passing today. Again, our laws are designed to address unlawful behaviour such as criminal damage or actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, rather than to criminalise a way of life. This distinction is central to ensuring fair and proportionate policing. Harassment, alarm and distress are well established within our legal framework, so there is a careful balance to be achieved. The response to unauthorised encampments, locally led, involves multi-agency collaboration between local councils, police and relevant services. This approach supports community engagement and ensures that responses are tailored to local needs.

My noble friend’s amendment goes slightly further than the court’s judgment: she seeks to repeal the offence of residing on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, as well as the power for police to direct trespassers away from land where they are there for the purpose of residing there. I just say to my noble friend that those are matters the court did not rule on, and the Government still consider these to be necessary and proportionate police powers, but I give her the undertaking today that I did in my earlier comments, that we hope to be able to bring forward solutions by Report. In the light of that undertaking, I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my cosignatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who spoke tellingly about recent experience. I thank warmly my noble friend the Minister for being the first Minister to offer a way through. The sites issue will, all the same, be pursued, but then there are other routes to pursue that with areas that are not within Home Office responsibility.

I simply make one point: the 1994 Act does give the police powers to remove people when there is damage caused. It is the criminalisation element of Part 4 of the 2022 Act which is so discriminatory, but we shall discuss these aspects before Report, I hope, including the way through that my noble friend the Minister outlined. I hope we shall have the opportunity to talk about that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I listened attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I am inclined to agree with him—in part. I start by declaring my interest as the part owner of a property that has high hedges on both sides of our home. One side is higher than the other: approximately four to five metres high. It may well keep the sun out of our neighbour’s front garden in winter when the sun is low in the sky, but since it is where they park their cars and it is their hedge, they are not that worried. We cut our side of the hedge and bought a special three-legged ladder to ensure that this was conducted safely and my husband did not break his neck. I stress that neither hedge is Leylandii.

The right to light is something that many of us take for granted. However, travelling to Waterloo on the train every day, I can see that many of those who live towards the bottom of high-rise flats have little or no right to light. I understand and sympathise with those who live close to a property which has a high hedge obscuring the sun from their house and garden.

While good hedges and fences make for good neighbours, excessively tall and untidy hedges may not. It is always better if neighbouring properties can come to some accommodation about what is acceptable as the height of a hedge. Where this is not possible and communication has broken down, there must be some recourse for those suffering from being on the wrong side of a very high hedge. In the first instance, this will be the local authority.

Currently, local authorities have the right to enter a property without the owner’s consent to investigate a high hedge complaint. Given the current budget restrictions on local authorities, I cannot imagine that many officers will pitch up unannounced at a property to investigate. They would much rather not have a wasted journey, and hope to solve the problem easily—that is, unless they have previously been threatened when visiting the hedge.

The problem with the hedge will depend on what is growing in it. Leylandii causes a significant problem, being dense and fast-growing, enabling a hedge to reach unsatisfactory heights in a relatively short time. If there is a considerable problem with such a hedge, then just how is it to be resolved if local authorities are not involved in finding a solution? Will one party continue to have the disadvantages of living with the high hedge and all that involves while the owner of the hedge remains intransigent and deaf to their protests?

This is unacceptable. I have sympathy with those who suffer from high hedges and am keen to find a solution. The legislation in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 was introduced not on a whim but in a serious attempt to tackle unpleasant situations arising between neighbours. While the best solution is for difficulties to be sorted out between the interested parties, that is not always possible. In those cases, the local authority should have the power to intervene. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling what he termed a niche amendment today—there is nothing wrong with a niche amendment; it has generated discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said, this puts the focus back not on the legislation or even on the enforcement but on whether, when discussions between parties break down, the local authority should be and is the arbiter of the dispute and, in order to be the arbiter of the dispute, whether the local authority can have access to the property.

It is important to say that, when assessing a complaint or appeal, issuing a remedial notice to an individual or assessing whether an individual has taken the necessary action, entering a property to assess the hedge in question surely is not a niche issue; it is part of the role of the local authority to be able to assess that issue. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to consider unresolved disputes on high hedges; the procedures are set out in national guidance.

On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has mentioned, I note that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 enables local authorities to intervene, as a last resort. It should be for neighbours to try to sort these matters out, but there are opportunities for people who are unhappy with the council’s decision to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in cases in England. The power of local authority officers to enter someone’s property is an important part of ensuring such disputes are resolved and any remedial action is taken.

I assure the noble Lord that the power of entry is a power to enter a “neighbouring land” to carry out functions under Part 8 of the Act. The term “the neighbouring land” means the land on which the high hedge is situated—effectively someone’s garden. A local authority must give 24 hours’ notice of its intended entry and, if the land is unoccupied, leave it as effectively secured as it was found. I stress to the noble Lord that there is clear guidance on GOV.UK for local authorities in exercising their powers. The Government will keep this guidance under review.

In the absence of disputes being resolved by neighbours themselves—as the noble Baroness has said—amicably between the parties, it is possible that there are remedial powers to step in and require the offending property owner to take action. Where they fail to do so, it is also right that the local authority should be able to undertake the remedial work itself and charge the householder concerned. To do this, it is necessary to undertake the niche point of entering someone’s garden to examine the fence or hedge or to erect a platform on the highway to do the same.

If we accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, today, I do not know how local authorities would be able to assess in terms of the legislation under the Act. If he says he does not believe the legislation under the Act is appropriate, and we should not have high hedges legislation, that is a different point. If we do have that legislation, then we need a mechanism whereby the local council can enter a premises. There might well be occasions where the local council must do that because relations have broken down to such an extent that only the local council can resolve it, and therefore it must undertake entry into a person’s garden or erect a platform to assess the issue in the first place. That is not a gross invasion of a householder’s property; it is a sensible resolution by a third party—given the powers to do so under the 2003 Act—to resolve an issue that neighbours have not been able to resolve.

The local council may resolve the complaint in favour of the complainant or in favour of the person with the high hedge; that is a matter for them. But if the council does not have access to the property to do that, then the niche discussion will be about not being able to resolve the problem, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank those in your Lordships’ House who have spoken in this debate. I am delighted to have a degree of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who, as she recounted, has had some personal experience of this issue. I reiterate to the Minister that it seems entirely disproportionate for local authorities to be able to enter a person’s private property without their consent to investigate this issue—that is what underpins this amendment. I do not want to beat around the bush any more, and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his Amendment 53, which, as he explained, would introduce a new offence of nuisance begging and permit a constable to move on a person engaging in this behaviour. Failure to comply with the notice would constitute a criminal offence. I note also Amendments 53A and 53B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seek to further extend what constitutes nuisance begging under the proposed new offence.

I start by saying to noble Lords that the Government do not wish to target or criminalise individuals who are begging to sustain themselves or rough sleeping because they have nowhere else to go. That is why we are committed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, to repealing the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, and why we will not be introducing measures that target or recriminalise begging and rough sleeping. It is also—for the very reason the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned—why the Government have invested more than £1 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year, which is up £316 million compared to last year. So there is an increase in support to tackle the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned.

However, we are legislating in the Bill to introduce targeted replacement measures for certain elements of the 1824 Act to ensure—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will welcome this—that police retain the powers they need to keep our communities safe. These targeted replacement measures, in Clauses 10 and 11, include a new offence of facilitating begging for gain and an offence of trespassing with the intention of committing a crime, both of which were previously provided for under the 1824 Act.

As noble Lords mentioned, begging is itself a complex issue, it can cause significant harm or distress to communities and local areas need appropriate tools to maintain community safety. But where I come back to in this debate is that there are powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which many police forces use effectively to tackle anti-social behaviour in the context of begging and rough sleeping—for example, the very point the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned, where an individual may be harassing members of the public on a persistent basis, including potentially outside their own home, as in his amendment.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides for current statutory guidance. I hope that it partly answers the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to say that we will update that anti-social behaviour statutory guidance. This will ensure that it is clear to agencies how ASB powers can be used in the context of harassment and this type of begging, if an individual’s behaviour reaches a threshold that will be set in the ASB statutory guidance.

Existing criminal offences can also be applied where the behaviour crosses the current criminal threshold. I expect the updating of the guidance to take place very shortly after Royal Assent is given to the legislation passing through the House of Lords. In the light of the assurances that we take this issue seriously, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will not press his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is somewhat mollified that there are powers in place to deal with the issues that he has raised.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful for what the Minister said. I admire his style at the Dispatch Box; he is courteous and thorough in giving his answers. In view of his assurances that this is really covered by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the contributions we have heard demonstrate the seriousness of the issue and highlight why communities and victims need reassurance that persistent anti-social behaviour will be confronted robustly and effectively. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward these amendments. They provide a welcome opportunity to examine whether the current response to repeat breaches of injunctions is sufficient.

It goes without saying that ongoing and persistent anti-social behaviour has a profound impact on the lives of ordinary residents, including the feeling of individual safety and a wider sense of cohesion in our neighbourhoods. Amendment 54 seeks to provide that if someone under 18 breaches three injunctions of supervision orders, they must be given a detention order. It seems likely, to me at least, that someone who has broken three such injunctions is plainly on the path to becoming an habitual offender. Repeated breaches should not simply be met with ineffective sanctions—communities have to know that the law has teeth and that those who repeatedly defy court orders will face meaningful consequences. The amendment seeks to reinforce that principle and to signal clearly that a cycle of breach, warning and further breach is unacceptable.

I hope that the Government give the amendment the thought and time that it deserves, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for Amendment 54 and for fessing up to Amendment 55, which we will accept as an honest mistake. I welcome his honesty in raising the issue.

There is a recognition that Amendment 54 still wants to provide for minimum sentences for persistent breaches of youth injunctions. I emphasise that the Government do not want to criminalise children unnecessarily, an aspiration we share with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That is why the new respect order in the Bill will not apply to those under 18. However, we know that in many cases the behaviour of offenders under 18 requires a more formal deterrent and intervention. That is why we have retained the civil injunction as is for those under 18. Practitioners have told us that it is a particularly helpful and useful tool to tackle youth anti-social behaviour and to ensure that their rights and the safety of the community are upheld.

Youth injunctions are civil orders and fundamentally preventive in nature, which again goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. It is more important to intervene to prevent than it is to punish afterwards, particularly when young people are the individuals who are causing those challenges in the first place.

The important point about youth injunctions, which, again, goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, is that if the respondent abides by the terms of the order, they will not be liable for any penalties but, self-evidently, where a respondent does breach an order there needs to be some action. The noble Lord has suggested one course of action. I say to him that the courts already have a range of responses, including supervision orders, electronic tagging, curfews and, in the most serious cases, detention orders for up to three months for 14 to 17 year-olds.

I hope there is a common theme across the Committee that detention of children should be used only when absolutely necessary, and that courts should consider the child’s welfare and other risks before imposing such a response. This should be on a case-by-case basis, and the prescribing of a mandatory minimum sentence, even for repeat offenders, would both undermine the ability of the independent judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence and potentially be disproportionate. There is a place in our sentencing framework for mandatory minimum sentences, but I submit that this is not it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is quite right again that one of the best preventive measures we can have is to have large numbers of boots on the ground in neighbourhood policing. She will know that the Government have a manifesto commitment to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground during this Parliament. In this first year or so, the Government have put an extra 3,000 in place. We intend, where we can, to increase the number of specials, PCSOs and warranted officers to replace those who were lost between 2010 and 2017. When I was Police Minister in 2009-10, we had 20,000 more officers than we had up to around 2017. That is because they were hollowed out and taken out by the two Governments who ran the Home Office between 2010 and 2017.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that visible neighbourhood policing is critical to tackling anti-social behaviour, but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to provide minimum sentences, which I do not think will achieve his objective. It does not have my support either. I hope he will withdraw the amendment, having listened to the argument.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, once again, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous and detailed answer. I did not realise that electronic tagging was already an option and it is very important that it is applied in appropriate cases. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not creating a new criminal offence here. The power of detention already exists to be used by the court when it thinks fit.

On the general principle of minimum sentences, why do we fetter a judge’s discretion by having a maximum sentence? If we want proper judicial discretion, we should say that the judge can sentence anything he likes, but we do not—and I am glad we do not. We say that Parliament cannot set a minimum. Why is it appropriate, in a democracy, for Parliament to set a maximum sentence but not a minimum? I knew that the Minister, in his courteous way, would say that we would fetter judicial discretion, but I have suggested three breaches of injunctions. When can a court say, “You’ve done six now”, or, “You’ve done 10, Johnny”, and impose a sentence of detention for continued breaches of injunctions? As a democracy, it is perfectly legitimate for us as parliamentarians—and Members in the other House, whose constituents are suffering—to say that judges will have a discretion to impose orders of detention up to a certain level, but once the breaches of injunctions go past a certain threshold, Parliament demands that they impose a level of detention, whatever that level may be.

I have made my point. The Minister will probably hear me make a similar point about minimum sentences at various other points in the Bill but, in view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, nearly half the murders in the UK over the last three years are due to knife crime, so we recognise the vital importance of equipping police with the necessary tools to intervene when there is clear evidence of intent to commit serious violence. We give Clause 27 our full backing.

Before I turn to the amendment, I want to make a couple of points around the new offence. Will the Government ensure that robust guidance and oversight are in place to prevent unjustified or discriminatory use of this power? That needs to be accompanied by improved training for police and judiciary. The reality is that young black men are already significantly overrepresented in knife crime prosecutions, and we must be careful not to compound that position. Discrimination and justice are opposites.

I hope this may also help stem the rising number of incidents in which people suffer life-changing injuries after being attacked with acid or other corrosive substances. Reports of such offences increased by 75% in 2023, including 454 physical attacks. Half these victims were women, with attacks often occurring in a domestic abuse context, but only 8% of these cases resulted in a charge or summons, partly due to the victim’s fear of reprisal. The hope is that this new offence may allow prosecutions to be brought before harm is inflicted, since proving intent would not necessarily require the victim to testify. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the offence to this end?

On Amendment 56, the Liberal Democrats agree with Jonathan Hall that four years in prison in insufficient when there is clear evidence of the intention to cause mass fatalities. The court must have the full weight of the law behind it in the hopefully rare cases in which a lengthy sentence is thought necessary for public prosecution. I would expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidance around how to categorise levels of seriousness, and I hope this will guard against sentence inflation. Nevertheless, we are minded to support this amendment and I urge the Government to look again at the maximum penalty.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his amendment, which, as noble Lords will know, increases the maximum penalty to 14 years for possessing a weapon with intent. I happen to think that sentences should be proportionate to the offence, and that is why the maximum sentence for this offence has been set at four years. This is in line with other weapons offence penalties, such as that for possession of a bladed article. To set the sentence for this offence at 14 years would be disproportionate.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked legitimate questions about the difference between existing offences and this new proposed offence. It is already an offence to carry a bladed article in public without good reason. It is also an offence to then threaten a person with a bladed article or weapon. Under Section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, it is an offence to intentionally threaten someone with an offensive weapon in public or in private.

The introduction of this new offence bridges a gap, which I believe is there, between being in possession of a knife or other offensive weapon in public or on education premises, and it being used to threaten or harm anyone. This offence will target those who equip themselves with bladed articles with the intention to endanger life, cause serious harm or fear or violence, but are intercepted by the police before they have had the chance to carry out any attack on the intended victim. It will therefore empower the police to bring charges against those individuals, which, in my view, is a differentiation which I hope has been clarified for the noble Viscount. He shakes his head.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

The issue is not the Minister’s explanations. I will have to think carefully about this. If the police can already stop someone and already have an easier test to make an arrest and prosecute that individual for the carrying of a knife, how does the carrying of the knife with the intent to commit harm make that easier to do? Surely, it makes it more difficult, because not only do you have to show that the person was carrying the knife, but you also have to prove their intent. I am not criticising the Minister’s intention here; I just do not understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Viscount can examine Hansard tomorrow. The maximum sentence is the same, but the intention will be reflected in the courts being able to give a penalty close to the top end of the range, whereas a simple possession offence is likely to attract a sentence close to the bottom end of the range. Therefore, again, this is for judicial interpretation, but it gives a flexibility within the proposed clause that allows for a potentially different level of maximum sentence within the four-year range that we have.

We believe that 14 years is disproportionate, which is where we have a difference with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I cannot support that amendment for this reason. However, we have introduced this new power, which will be of additional benefit for police forces to examine and work with at a local level.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned the report by Jonathan Hall, KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which followed the Southport attack in July 2024. He has indicated that he wants us to examine creating a new offence, proposed by the independent reviewer. He said in his report:

“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill”.


We are currently considering his recommendations and examining them with operational partners. We want to look at how we can close that gap, but, as yet, we are not in a position to make a further announcement on this issue. However, as I have said, the maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment is consistent with maximum penalties on other knife-related possession offences. To answer the noble Viscount’s point, it gives greater flexibility to police forces to take action under Clause 27, if the Bill becomes law in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, took a wide view, perfectly legitimately, on the issue of knife crime. We have a clear government objective to reduce knife crime—to halve it—and we are trying to do that. There is an awful lot of work going on with my colleagues in the policing side of the Home Office on how to ensure we tackle some of that disproportionality, focusing on young black men particularly. Ultimately, we want to focus on all individuals who are victims of knife crime. There is a range of public education work being done at the moment, and a range of new resilience measures are being talked about, as well as support for neighbourhood policing. This is part of the back-up we will have to support individuals through highly visible policing, looking at issues such as stop and search, which are still valuable in identifying and collecting weapons.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

57: Clause 28, page 32, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “12”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement with the Scottish Government and relevant Northern Ireland departments since the Bill’s introduction, which is why we have tabled so many amendments today. That has happened since February.

In each case, we are bringing forward these amendments at the request of the devolved Governments. The amendments unavoidably cover a significant number of pages of the Marshalled List, but I assure noble Lords that, importantly, in general they do not import new policy into the Bill. The amendments all relate to the offensive weapons provisions in Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Bill. These will contribute to our safer streets mission to halve knife crime in a decade. I am pleased to report that, even now, in the latest crime survey, figures for the year to the end of June show a 5% reduction in knife-enabled offences. This is to be welcomed, but of course there is much more to do.

Clause 28 amends Sections 141 and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It increases the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons from six months to two years imprisonment. This includes the offence of manufacturing, selling, hiring, offering for hire, lending or possessing in private any prohibited offensive weapon as detailed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Also covered here is the offence of selling a knife or bladed article to anyone under the age of 18.

Amendments 57 to 70 to Clause 28 simply extend the increase of the maximum penalty for those offences to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Government. Existing legislation in England and Wales provides that anyone over 18 years of age found guilty of any of these offences will face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. We believe that the maximum penalty does not reflect the seriousness of these offences and should be increased in line with the current offence of unlawful marketing of knives, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. This will align the maximum penalties for the offences in relation to the sale of knives.

In Clauses 31 and 32 we are introducing a stricter two-step age-verification check for the sale and delivery of knives bought online. These provisions will require at the point of sale specific checks of a photographic identity document and a current photograph of the buyer, as well as photographic identity checks at the point of delivery, be it a residential address or a collection point. In addition, we are providing for a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife to someone other than the buyer if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company, so that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours. These are both welcome measures.

Amendments 71, 72 and 74 confirm that, under Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where a passport or driving licence is used as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, it is required to be a copy of a physical version. We are, however, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations—subject to affirmative procedure, so that this House and the Commons have the opportunity to debate them further—so that alternative means of age verification such as digital ID, including digital passports and digital driving licences, can be used. These amendments are required to ensure that the appropriate digital proofs can be used as evidence of identity in place of a physical document, and that the necessary safeguards can be attached to their use.

It is clear that many consumers already expect to be able to use digital forms of ID, rather than just the physical version, to prove to a seller they are aged 18 or over in order to purchase knives or crossbows. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 lays the foundation for trusted digital verification services that are already widely used across the economy. Digital versions of government-issued documents such as driving licences and veteran cards will become available soon. For both consumers who buy and businesses that sell knives or crossbows, it is also important to provide consistency with the existing position across different sectors where digital age verification is used or soon will be—for example, in the purchase of other age-restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco, or for gambling.

The other amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 extend the provisions made by these clauses for England and Wales to Scotland, and the additional clause makes provision for Northern Ireland. This is at the request of both devolved Governments.

I apologise for the length of the discussion on the amendments in this group. The amendments to Clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Crossbows Act 1987, which requires that crossbows, or parts of a crossbow, can only be sold or let on hire to someone aged 18 or over. Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the same stricter two-step age-verification checks for the sale and letting on hire of crossbows, or parts of crossbows bought or let on hire online, that have been introduced for the sale and delivery of knives bought online.

Government Amendments 124 to 189 extend the provisions in Clauses 33 to 35 to Scotland—again, at the request of the Scottish Government—and Amendments 190 to 192 insert new clauses that amend the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order to ensure that stricter age-verification checks for the sale, letting on hire and delivery of crossbows also apply to Northern Ireland. It is important that there is a cross-UK approach on these significant issues.

Finally, Clause 36 provides for the mandatory reporting of the bulk sale of knives. Clause 36 defines reportable sales as the purchase of six knives in a single transaction in England and Wales, or when made over two or more occasions in a 30-day period. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or up to two or more persons where these are to be delivered to the same residential address. As noble Lords probably know, there are exemptions for business sales and for sales of cutlery knives without a sharp point, safety razor blades, and pocketknives with a cutting edge that does not exceed 3 inches.

There will also be exemptions for qualifying sets of knives, such as kitchen knife blocks. These will be sets of at least three knives that are each of a different size or shape, no matter how many knives the set contains—we are all very familiar with that type of kitchen equipment. The purchase of multiple sets of knives, or the purchase of a single set alongside individual knives where these combinations lead to a total purchase of at least six knives, will also be reportable.

That is what is currently in the Bill. Amendments 193 to 209 extend these provisions to Scotland, and similar provisions are also being introduced for Northern Ireland, so, again, there is consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are various consequential and drafting amendments at the back of the Bill relating to the power to make consequential amendments. But, in essence, the policy positions in the Bill, through these Government amendments, are being replicated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It is a Home Office-approved document and is widely used. Maybe he said it and I missed it—we were going at quite a pace—but could he confirm that the physical proof of age card is still acceptable for these purposes?

We are expecting the mandatory conditions for digital proof of age to be published before Christmas, possibly. Is the noble Lord able to confirm that the Government are still on track to publish these changes so that sales of alcohol and other proof of age purposes can be done by a digital proof of age card as well as by a physical card?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I can say yes to both those points. If I cannot, I shall revert to her shortly.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we support the intent behind this blizzard of government amendments. Of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and, in certain cases, Northern Ireland.

It would be extremely useful if the Minister could say whether the law in each of the home nations is the same. I assume that is the effect of all these different amendments—that the UK should be on exactly the same footing, however and wherever you commit that offence. Even though I understand that it was at the request, in the first instance, of the Scottish Government.

We very much support the way in which the amendments reflect the gravity of the kinds of violence that plague our communities from these offensive weapons and that the manufacture, supply and possession of these articles will be met with the full force of the law. We welcome not only the amendments but the original provisions of the Bill, but we need to think of not just penalties but prevention. I hope some of those provisions will make individuals accountable with the digital identity, which we also support.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like an answer to the question of whether the analogue identity provision will continue. Otherwise, that could lead to forms of digital exclusion, which I do not think that we or the Minister would welcome.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that digital passports or driving licences can be approved documents. There is a power by regulation to add other documents; at the moment, the PASS card is not added to that as a form of identification, but obviously it potentially can be in due course, if Governments decide to add that. That will again be subject to regulation. I apologise, but the noble Baroness asked me a question and I gave her the answer in good faith, but it is best that we clarify that point now.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties for the offence in Clause 28 in Scotland, and for extending the provision in Clauses 31, 32 and 35 to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I have no issue with the government amendments about the bulk sale of knives.

I do, however, take issue with government Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 110, 111, 129, 130, 141, 142, 170, 171, 185, 186, 187 and 188. These amend the Bill to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying further forms of identification that can be used for age-verification purposes relating to the online sale and the delivery of knives and crossbows. That might seem innocuous at first, but all it takes is to look at the explanatory statements to realise what these amendments are really about. The explanatory statement for Amendment 71 says that the amendment

“allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID)”.

That is the point.

What is happening here is that the Government are attempting perhaps to sneak in provisions permitting digital ID by the backdoor. I say that the Government are sneaking these in, because they have not only tabled amendments to change clauses already in the Bill but included the regulation-making power permitting digital ID in the drafting of the new clauses that extend provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland. On top of that, they have lumped these amendments together with all the others in this enormous group. I can only assume that the Government hoped that perhaps no one would notice their attempts to take the very first step towards legislating for mandatory digital ID. That is why we cannot support these amendments.

The Government will perhaps attempt to play this off as a small and practical change to allow Ministers to retain flexibility by allowing new age-verification processes, but that is a red herring. Digital ID is an affront to our rights, and the Government have repeatedly stated that it will not be mandatory, that it is no big deal and that it will simply make things easier. Yet here we are with the Government seeking to insert provisions for digital ID into the Crime and Policing Bill. They have not even enacted the policy, yet they are already trying to expand its purpose. Does this not tell us all we need to know? They say that it will not be mandatory, but how can we ever be sure of that?

We notified the Government of our opposition to these amendments in advance to let them know that we would not accept any amendments to this Bill, or for that matter any Bill, that enables digital ID. It is in that spirit that I tabled my Amendments 72A, 72B, 87A and 131A to remove provisions in the Bill that permit the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify other identity documents. My Amendments 75A, 75B, 75C, 76A, 76B, 76C, 190A, 190B, 191A and 191B amend the government amendments for that same purpose. If the Government accept these proposed changes to their amendments—that is, if they accept that there can be no power to specify digital ID for the purposes of these clauses—I have no further concerns with them. However, if they do not want to accept my changes to their amendments to remove the ability to specify digital ID for age-verification purposes here, then we will not be able to support them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has done it. We are in the 21st century; digital ID is becoming a commonplace issue. I understand that we are going to have steps to have age verification, such as acceptable digital ID, as the norm in future.

As I set out earlier, it is to allow different forms of digital ID to be used to verify purchasers’ identity information. When changes to the acceptable proofs of identity, digital or otherwise, are proposed, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would have been an opportunity for the noble Lord, and in both Houses, to oppose or question at that time, but I understand where he is coming from. I am of the view that as technology progresses, there will be different types of digital ID which might be acceptable. It is not an attempt by the Government to speed up or usurp the process; it is just future-proofing, because there may be digital ID on a range of issues.

As an example, I have a digital and a hard copy of my railcard. I show both at different times, depending on which one is easiest to get to. Digital ID is progressing, and it will continue to do so. There are potentially new digital documents, such as the recently announced digital ID card, coming downstream. As with any new legislation, that is still a matter for Parliament to consider, but if a Bill comes before the House—after the outcome of a consultation, it might be in the next few weeks—that is something we are trying to future-proof accordingly.

I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord is prepared to support all the amendments, but I guess that he will not—that is a reasonable position for him to take and one we must look at. To help him today, in a genuine spirit of trying to help, if the noble Lord remains unpersuaded, which I think he is—he confirms that he is—I will move only Amendments 57 to 70 and Amendments 193 to 209 to Clauses 28 and 29, respectively. I will not move Amendment 210A, which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland to that contained in Clause 36 and, in due course, the related consequential and drafting amendments to the Bill, so that we can look at these matters on Report and not have that debate and discussion today. At this stage, I will not move the amendments to Clauses 31 to 35 and the associated back-of-the-Bill consequential amendments. The Committee should rest assured that I will bring them back on Report, and if the noble Lord has his disagreements then, we will test the House. If the House votes one way, we accept it; if it votes the other way, we potentially test the House again. That is a matter for discussion and debate downstream.

There is nothing to fear from the proposals for someone having a digital ID and showing it when receiving a knife or weapon through the post. That is not something to be afraid of. We are in the 21st century —I am in the 21st century at least, let us put it that way. We will go from there.

I also assure the noble Lord that paper documents such as passports and driving licences will be acceptable as forms of ID, as well as potentially any digital versions of those in due course. I hope that satisfies his question.

I welcome, in a spirit of co-operation and consensus, the agreement from both Front Benches to the provisions for Northern Ireland and Scotland, so that in those areas there is a United Kingdom response from the three Administrations who deal with these matters in a devolved or non-devolved way. I commend the amendments I said I would move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance, whatever is prescribed by the Secretary of State, is an alternative form of identification—wholly convincing, but if we must come back on Report and debate this at length, so be it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a date at the moment, but I will reflect on that with colleagues and return to her, because there are a number of other departmental interests as well.

Amendment 57 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

58: Clause 28, page 32, line 8, leave out “level 5 on the standard scale” and insert “the statutory maximum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for these amendments, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing his front-line experience of the tragedy in the school in which he currently works. I am also grateful for the comments of other noble Lords and I will try to respond to those in due course. I note the broad support from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for the amendments before the Committee today.

I want to start with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I accept that there have been numerous attempts by numerous Governments to take numerous courses of action to reduce knife crime and that this is another one. But I just say to him that it is still worth trying, and it is still worth examining how we can best reduce the level of knife crime. The measures in the Bill before the Committee today are an honest attempt by the Government to put further obstacles in the way of individuals who might use those knives for nefarious purposes. I simply say it is worth trying, and we are seeking to do that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained, Amendment 122 would require the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of Clauses 31 and 32 in preventing sales to under-18s within two years of those clauses coming into force. I agree in principle that we should have to keep under review the impact of those measures, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned: to look at what works and what has not worked.

The Government are providing £1.75 million of funding for a new national police co-ordination unit to tackle the online sale of knives, and the police will be responsible for enforcing this legislation. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about enforcement but it is for the police to understand the legislation’s effectiveness and what more can be done to tackle knife crime. I will return to the other points that she mentioned in due course.

It is standard practice—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that all measures in the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. This scrutiny will consider the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill; self-evidently, that includes Clauses 31 and 32. The noble Lord is asking for a two-year review; it will be undertaken within three to five years. I hope that reassures him that the measures will be reviewed in a timely and appropriate way—and, again, to learn the lessons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned that we need to examine.

Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would require the Government to consult on regulating the sale of sharp-tipped knives and provide a report to Parliament. The design of knives is also addressed in Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: bladed articles with pointed ends have legitimate uses. They are often needed for a wide range of purposes: they are used as tools in work, and for farming, fishing and cooking. The Government are keen to try to strike the right balance between allowing access to knives for legitimate reasons, which the noble Viscount ably outlined, and the need to protect the public from dangerous weapons.

If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Government are actively exploring options for how we can strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, including consulting on a licensing scheme for all knife sellers in the future. I hope that the noble Lord can accept that as I progress the discussion today.

Amendment 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require regulations relating to the reporting of remote sales of knives to ensure that such reporting takes place as soon as possible following a bulk sale. I am sympathetic to the overall aim of the amendment. Clause 36 provides for a duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. It makes it mandatory for online sellers to report bulk sales. It defines those bulk sales as purchases of six or more knives, two or more qualifying sets of knives or one qualifying set or five knives, in a single transaction or made over two or more occasions within a 30-day period. That is set out in Clause 36. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person or two or more persons where they are believed to be delivered to the same residential address.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

193: Clause 36, page 55, line 9, leave out “England and Wales”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

195: Clause 36, page 55, line 26, leave out “England or Wales” and insert “the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

210A: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland(1) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 54A insert—“54B Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk(1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in an order made by the Department of Justice, report to the person specified in the order any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles.(2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in paragraph (4), sells—(a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles;(b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles; (c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set.(3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others.(4) The ways are—(a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in the United Kingdom, or(b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days—(i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in the United Kingdom, or(ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in the United Kingdom.(5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller is not in the presence of the person (“the buyer”) to whom the bladed articles are sold at the time of the sale.(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5) the seller is not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale if—(a) where the seller is an individual, the seller or a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time;(b) where the seller is not an individual, a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time.(7) A sale is not reportable if the buyer—(a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and(b) is—(i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or(ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006.(8) A person who fails to comply with paragraph (1) commits an offence.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this Article if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(11) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(12) In this section—(a) “bladed article” means an article to which Article 54 applies, other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food;(b) “residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes).(13) An order made by the Department of Justice under paragraph (1) may in particular include requirements about—(a) how reports are to be made,(b) when reports to be made, and(c) the information reports must include. (14) The Department of Justice may by order amend—(a) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(a);(b) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(b);(c) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(c);(d) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(c);(e) the period specified in paragraph (4)(b).”.(3) In Article 57 (rules and orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) in that paragraph for “or 54(3)(c)” substitute “, 54(3)(c) or 54B(1)”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“(2) An order may not be made under Article 54B(14) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”(4) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(3) (guidance by Department of Justice) after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) Article 54B of that Order (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 36.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of interesting amendments regarding knife crime. As we have already heard, my noble friend comes to this debate with the experience of some time in the Home Office—a real experience at the sharp end. Although the rates of knife crime have fallen a little over recent years, any victim of a crime, particularly one caused by knives, is a victim too many. Just recently, we heard of the terrible incident on fireworks night a year or so ago and the trial, which finished in the Old Bailey earlier this autumn; 16 year- olds were involved, and one of them died, and it all happened very quickly. So, knives are a real problem. The Government pledged in their manifesto to halve knife crime by 2030. If they wish to make good on that premise, it is imperative that they really do something to reduce it.

My noble friend’s amendments are a welcome practical measure in that direction but are subject to a number of reservations. I begin with schools. Amendment 214B introduces an important clarification to the law in respect of defences for carrying a knife in school premises. It makes plain that the only justification for someone having a knife at school can be in relation to educational services. It is also right that, in turn, this justification should apply only to teachers or those holding a position of authority. There is no plausible reason why a student should come on to the school premises carrying a knife. We welcome the amendment as an important step to ensure that both pupils and teachers are safe from knives at school, and we hope that the Government look at this and consider the amendment seriously.

We also thank my noble friend for his Amendments 214C to 214E. As we have heard, these seek to create a special category of particularly dangerous weapons: machetes, zombie knives, cleavers, swords and cutlasses. The merit is in identifying particular weapons by name. That will strike a chord with the public and with those who might otherwise carry them. They will know that, if they carry one of these weapons, just having it in their possession risks a very heavy prison sentence. Just having existing powers of sentencing does not, it seems, carry that resonance with those who most need to hear it, so we have got to do something.

Given the substantial increase in the use of machetes in recent years—we heard from my noble friend about the increase in their use in particular—something has to be done which identifies them, singles them out and curbs their circulation and use. In 2024, there were 18 machete homicides, an increase from 14 in 2023. Amendments 214D and 214E similarly ensure that manufacturing, selling, ownership and possession of these dangerous weapons will be regarded as a specific new offence.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham was right to point out that the drafting causes problems, and there are people, in the countryside in particular, who may have a legitimate use for machetes. But we are not in the jungle of Belize; we are in the United Kingdom. Sickles and scythes can be used, of course, but if there is going to be a use for something such as a machete, there should be specific clarity to make sure that we do not allow it to be put forward as a specious defence.

To call these amendments bizarre would, in my submission, go too far. If we take this matter seriously, as we all should, we will know full well that this really is an important mischief which has to be addressed, named and called out. My noble friend has raised an important issue, and the Government, if they are serious about cutting knife crime—and not just knife crime but the use of these appalling tools and weapons—must work to bridge the drafting gap so that the sorts of things which we have seen and heard about in the last few years are heavily reduced and people can walk and live in safety, particularly in our big cities.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I confess that despite preparing for the debate on these amendments, I did not expect to venture into Glasgow razor crime in the 1950s, the use of Waterloo swords or, indeed, the brambles of Lincolnshire, but this has been an enjoyable debate on a very serious subject and I welcome the contributions from across the Committee today.

Amendment 214B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asks whether existing defences to possession of a bladed article—that is, a knife—should be removed in educational establishments. I am of the view that the defences listed under Section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are appropriate and in line with similar defences that already exist for the offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place.

The defence for educational purposes, for example, which Amendment 214B seeks to remove, would cover instances where both the teacher and the student may need to use a knife in the classroom or for educational purposes on the premises, such as in craftmanship or cookery lessons, or others. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made common cause with the view that there is a need for certain uses of knives in schools under strictly controlled circumstances.

The issue of prevention, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, is important, and I endorse the idea that we need to look at how we prevent the use of knives. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that in Amendment 214B his withdrawal of those definitions would cause some difficulties in educational matters.

The religious reasons defence takes into account the need sometimes to carry a knife for religious reasons. The noble Lord and others have mentioned the position of individuals of the Sikh faith. The Government are not aware of any cases where this or any other existing defence has been abused in educational establishments by members of that faith.

Again, it is appropriate to put on record that educational establishments can introduce their own rules and regulations, and, of course, if someone brings a knife into an educational establishment or uses a knife already in the establishment to cause harm, even if they have a defence such as for work purposes, they will have a committed a serious criminal offence under existing legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

And the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Indeed. On reflection, I think I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that his dirk is a dagger and therefore does not fall within the remit of the legislation proposed—I think that information was considered by my noble friend Lord Katz but it was not able to be deployed at the time. However, we can return to that at some point.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am greatly relieved.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord is relieved about that.

The serious point here is that getting the defences and exemptions under which weapons may be legal to own, import or sell under certain limited circumstances right also requires consultation—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, acknowledged that. In the absence of such consultation, I suggest that the Bill is not the right place to legislate on a specific category of knives and weapons, and we risk not taking account of some important matters if we have not consulted first.

In any event, it would be possible to give effect to these proposals for further restrictions through existing regulation-making powers provided for since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so, again, they would be subject to debate in and approval by both Houses of Parliament.

We have debated the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2 which introduce new measures to provide the police with the power to require social media marketplaces and search services to take down online illegal content. I understand the honest, genuine motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in tabling these amendments, but just a casual listen to the debate today shows that there are a number of issues that we need to consider, and I believe that the existing powers that we have, the actions that we have taken and the measures under the Bill will be sufficient. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, some mildly in support of my amendments and others liking the concept but pointing out the serious drafting flaws in them. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham; he is right that the drafting is flawed. Any future amendments I make would need to include “legitimate and lawful use”. He pointed out that he would need to go on to the high street or to another public place to use his machete. I would have to do the same myself, with a buddleia overgrowing the road. If I had a machete, I would have to go on to the pavement to use it. Instead, I have an electric trimmer, which my wife can use. There are legitimate flaws in my drafting.

I suspect that many of my noble friends from a hereditary background have houses stuffed full of dangerous, sharp weapons—from pikes to swords—as well as armour and all the other accoutrements acquired over centuries in this great and noble land of ours, where tremendous battles have been fought to secure our freedoms since 1066. Of course they are not for public display; I accept that this too is an error in my drafting. They are there because they are owned by the family, who should not be penalised for having them.

My concept is right. There is a problem here, and I hope that if we come back to some elements of this amendment on Report, my noble friend Lord Hailsham will help me in the drafting. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that a dirk is not included in my definition. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier hit the nail on the head: tough sentences are required, though that may not require some of the amendments that I have suggested. I am so grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for pointing out that with the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it was tough sentences that cracked down in Scotland. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he said that there was then full judicial discretion. We did not have the Sentencing Council, which to me ties the hands of our judges—judges who should have full discretion to sentence as they see fit.

In some of those cases in the last few months which I quoted, people got a minimum term of 24 years or 30 years for an appalling murder, but hundreds of others who attacked people who did not die received much lesser sentences. Machete attacks have now become endemic. It is the weapon of choice for bad guys, for youths who want to commit crimes or terrorise their opponents in other gangs. We need unique and specialised exemplary action.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not calling for children to be criminalised. I referred to three instances, and I was wrong in suggesting removing educational uses. But I can see no justification for maintaining a religious exception and a national dress exception allowing kids to bring such knives to school. The Government are wrong to stick to that.

Introducing this has been worth while. I do not mind that my noble friend Lord Hailsham called some of it “bizarre”. What is happening on the streets of London and elsewhere in England today is bizarre. If, 20 years ago, we had said that we would see these gangs fighting on the streets outside Starbucks with machetes, we would have said, “Don’t be fanciful; it’s barking mad; it’s never going to happen”. It is happening day in, day out on our streets. It is not only bizarre; it is obscene and dangerous. Therefore, we need to take special action, exemplary action, to deal with this problem. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 214B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward Amendments 214F and 214G, which address a gap in the protections afforded to retail workers under Clause 37. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.

The amendments seek to ensure that delivery drivers who are employed as part of the retail and distribution process are fully included in the scope of the proposed offences against retail workers, and that delivery vehicles themselves are recognised as an extension of the retail premises. We understand and support the underlying principle behind these proposals. Delivery drivers in many cases are the face and point of contact between businesses and consumers and they often work alone, sometimes at unsociable hours and in circumstances where they may be exposed to heightened vulnerability and increasing levels of aggression and abuse.

The safety of delivery drivers should not depend on whether they are standing behind a shop counter or stepping out of a branded van. The rise of home delivery as a core component of modern retail means that this work is an integral part of the sector, and it is only right that the law reflects that reality. It is regrettable to read that certain major supermarkets have rolled out bodycams for their delivery drivers in an effort to protect them. I therefore hope the Government will consider carefully how these protections might sensibly be extended to those whose job it is to ensure that goods reach the customer.

Turning to Amendment 351 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I fully understand the principle and intent behind this amendment. It raises significant questions about whether the current scope of legal protection is sufficiently broad. The question of whether other public-facing workers, such as in transport, hospitality or civic buildings, face similar risks is one worth raising and discussing. Many of those workers play a crucial role in maintaining order, ensuring safety and supporting essential public functions in spaces accessible to the public.

I similarly thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 214FA. This would include premises used by the hospitality industry for the supply of food or drink as part of the definition of retail premises for the purposes of this offence. This is also an important question to pose to the Government, and I hope they consider it with care.

The issues raised by this group of amendments deserve serious consideration. They invite the Government to reflect on whether extra provisions are needed to protect certain public-facing roles and, if so, which roles specifically need to be highlighted. The question that needs to be answered in response to all the amendments in this group is why only retail workers should be afforded a special criminal offence. Does the A&E receptionist not face the threat of violence and intimidation too? What about the bar staff at a nightclub? A wide range of people are at higher risk of assault during the course of their work. If we are to create a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, it would make sense to expand this. I hope that the Government will give this careful thought and return the clarity in how they intend to address the concerns expressed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their amendments. I should note—if not declare an interest—that I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 46 years now. That is a long time. I think it is worth noting that I have an interest in this matter. Indeed, I spent many years trying to raise this very issue when a Member of Parliament and outside Parliament before coming to this House.

I should also say at the outset that I am meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to discuss this matter, and am very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as well. I had a request from my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton to meet him and the USDAW general secretary, Joanne Thomas. I am also happy to do that between now and Report; it may not be immediately.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I would be very happy to join a group meeting rather than the Minister having to have several meetings with each of us. If there were to be third parties involved in a meeting, such as USDAW, I wonder whether he would also consider including the Institute of Customer Service. It is in a unique position—and I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Customer Service—as it looks at this across the board, and the letter it organised included signatories from a range of different industries.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will reflect on that. It is a helpful suggestion, if colleagues are happy to have a joint meeting. I would also like to involve the Policing Minister, who has an interest in this matter as a whole.

I want to place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton. They have campaigned very strongly as representatives of the supermarkets, in this case Tesco, and the workforce. My noble friend has campaigned for many years on this issue. Freedom from Fear is a campaign that Paddy Lillis, the previous general secretary, Joanne Thomas, the current general secretary, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, the general secretary before Paddy Lillis, worked on for a long time. It has been brought to them by members of the union as an important issue. It is worth putting that on record, and we can examine how we organise the discussion and consultation in due course.

Assault on anyone, including delivery drivers and transport staff, is wholly unacceptable. Everyone should be protected from assault. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, common assault has a maximum sentence of six months in prison and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers serious violence, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm.

I come back to the reason why I have campaigned on this issue for many years. Retail workers have been at the forefront of upholding much of the legislation. They uphold legislation on solvent abuse sales, tobacco sales, knife sales, drink sales and a range of other issues. They are also very much the first port of call on shop theft and the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. USDAW figures show that 10% of staff have reported a physical attack on them in the last year alone; that seems to me to be a very strong reason why the Government have brought forward this amendment. There is a wealth of evidence to back the position that there is a significant problem specific to retail workers because of the nature of that work.

Clauses 37 and 38 provide for the bespoke offence of assaulting a retail worker. They also place a duty on the courts when sentencing an offender to make a criminal behaviour order; shop theft may often be linked to drug and alcohol abuse issues as a whole. Our definition of a retail worker is intentionally narrow, given the vital need to provide legal clarity and ensure there is no ambiguity for courts in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker when impacted by their job.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the hospitality sector. This sector is specifically excluded, but if he looks at the definition of retail premises in Clause 37(3), he can see that it would be open to a judge to determine what might be included. For example, cafes might have stalls inside the shop, so that could be potentially defined as a retail premise as well. There is no specific offence, and I would not wish to extend it to the hospitality sector, but a judge could potentially interpret some aspects of hospitality being within the retail sector under Clause 37(3).

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I think the Minister’s remarks make quite a telling case. In particular, I was struck by the point that retail workers, because of the things they sell—cigarettes and tobacco—are more on the front line than people serving chicken nuggets, or whatever. I accept that there is a very good point that the retail sector needs to be guarded specifically, possibly differently from the hospitality sector. I shall look carefully at what he said.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles and therefore including them could potentially cause an issue with definition and therefore with the courts using the legislation. Again, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have put that case. I am happy to meet them, and we can examine and discuss and hear what they have to say outside the Committee.

With regard to public-facing workers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, also mentioned, the previous Government—again to their credit—introduced a statutory aggravating factor for assault against any public-facing worker via Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I am advised that that would include, for example, train staff, and the aggravating factor would apply in assault cases when an offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty, or providing a service to the public. There may be areas of definition, but I hope that the issue that the noble Baroness has raised ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence and will send a clear message that violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker will not be tolerated.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for introducing this large group of amendments. As noble Lords will appreciate, many of the amendments before us today concern matters of clarification or technical improvement to ensure consistency across the Bill and the amendments tabled so far.

We on these Benches are broadly supportive of these changes, particularly when they strengthen child safeguarding protections and improve clarity, which we hope will eventually result in more seamless practical implementation. In this regard, we welcome amendments extending the scope of child criminal exploitation prevention orders to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those clarifying procedural matters, such as the form of notification requirements when oral notification may not be practicable. These are sensible adjustments that contribute to ensuring that the Bill operates coherently across the four nations and in real-world enforcement scenarios.

I briefly draw attention to Amendment 235ZA in my name, which would remove Clause 43(3)(a). That subsection currently requires that, when a court makes a criminal exploitation prevention order, the terms of the order must avoid

“conflict with any religious beliefs of the defendant”.

Although religious beliefs are, of course, an important individual right, the purpose of these orders is to protect children from very serious criminal harm. It is, therefore, my view that safeguarding and public protection must take precedence over all other concerns and that no such exemption should hinder appropriate and proportionate restrictions when a court considers them necessary. I hope the Government consider the matter carefully and take the recommendation on board.

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing forward Amendment 235A, which would give the courts an explicit ability to impose a prevention order to protect a child from being threatened, intimidated or coerced into criminal exploitation. The intention behind the amendment—to intervene earlier and more effectively to safeguard children at risk—is one that I hope all sides of the Committee can support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification of how the Bill will ensure that those protections are fully delivered. These are complex issues, but our shared objective is simple: to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and that those who exploit them face firm consequences. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the points that have been raised here today.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Committee will allow me, I will begin by detailing the government amendments in this group. We know that criminal gangs conducting activity such as county lines drug dealing do not stop at internal UK borders, and children are criminally exploited across the UK. To go to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, this is why—at the request of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice—we are making provision in the Bill for child criminal exploitation prevention orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is at their request, and I hope that also answers the point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Since the Bill covers England and Wales, this means that the offence of child criminal exploitation will now apply UK-wide. These amendments have been tabled because, since the Bill was published, we have had those discussions and this is a way of making sure that we have a UK-wide approach.

These orders will give the police and courts across the whole of the United Kingdom powers to prevent child criminal exploitation happening in the first place, or happening again, by putting prohibitions and requirements on an adult who poses a risk of criminally exploiting a child. As I have mentioned, these provisions have been drafted in collaboration with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments and consequential amendments are therefore required for England and Wales to ensure that the orders function smoothly across the United Kingdom.

Finally, we have tabled some other amendments to put beyond doubt that assessment of whether an individual has engaged in child criminal exploitation, or associated conduct, in an application for, or imposition of, a child criminal exploitation prevention order is to be determined by the court on the basis of the civil standard of proof; that is, the balance of probabilities. This is appropriate given that there are civil rather than criminal proceedings in this case. The application of the civil standard of proof is well precedented in many similar preventive orders across the statute book and is important to ensure that an order can intervene earlier in the course of a child’s exploitation so that it can be prevented. I hope that I have wide support across the Committee for those measures—I think I do.

Amendment 232B is in the name of my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown. I welcome her moving her first amendment in such a positive way. She has secured the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which is a fairly impressive bunch on a first amendment, so I say well done to her on that. Her amendment seeks to create a further definition of child criminal exploitation.

I say to my noble friend—and I think that this was anticipated by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—that “child criminal exploitation” is already defined in Clause 40 by the description of conduct amounting to an offence. It is where an adult

“engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of … causing the child to”

engage in criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised a number of issues for which I am not accountable, but which my noble friend may wish to respond to. That is the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 40. Clause 40 captures activity online, through the use of technology and whether or not it is seemingly consensual. This definition also operates for the purposes of the child criminal exploitation prevention orders.

My noble friend has made a very strong case, through personal experience as a constituency MP in east London for almost 20 years, on the impact of county lines gangs on young people. I fully accept, understand and appreciate where she is coming from on those issues. That is why the Government introduced Clause 40 in the first place. It is also why the Government are introducing a bespoke stand-alone offence of CCE, along with the CCE prevention orders, to signal unequivocally that using a child to commit crime is against the law and that those children are victims of a crime. I also agree that any apparent consent of the child to involvement is irrelevant to whether they have been criminally exploited, and that criminal exploitation can occur online and through the use of technology. I understand my noble friend’s amendment, but these points are captured by the definition of CCE in Clause 40, which does not include a child’s consent and captures adults’ conduct by means of any method or control.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Obviously, I correctly anticipated the response that was coming, but I would be grateful if my noble friend would deal with this point about “enabling”, which is a substantive point of difference in the two definitions. Enabling is easier to prove than causing. “Causing” is closer to a child being used, which is reflected in my noble friend Lady Brown’s definition, but I do not think that “enabling” is in the Clause 40 definition as it stands.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. If she will bear with me, I will come on to that point in a moment. I am doing this in a structured order to try to address the points that are before the Committee today.

I say to my noble friend Lady Brown that, within the Bill, we are also taking the power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend have looked at that, and I will return to it in a moment. The guidance will include a descriptive definition of CCE, setting out in lay person’s terms the conduct captured by the offence, and will provide practical guidance on how the CCE offence and orders should be applied.

An important point, to go particularly to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, is that in Clause 60—which we will come to in later considerations—the Secretary of State has power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers of police about the exercise of their functions in connection with the prevention, detection and investigation of CCE offences and CCE prevention orders. I hope that the Committee will recognise that, importantly, the relevant police officers will be under a legal duty to have due regard to that statutory guidance when exercising functions in relation to the CCE offences and the CCE prevention orders. On the question of the statutory guidance, which my noble friend and others have touched on, the guidance has not been issued yet because the relevant legislation has not yet received the consent of this House or indeed Royal Assent. On the applicability of both of those conditions, statutory guidance under Clause 60 will be issued, which will place a legal duty on police officers to adhere to it.

My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned a very important point. There is a clear difference in what my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown has put forward, supported by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I hope this helps: the forms of conduct that are likely to enable a child to commit criminality are expected in most cases to also meet the test of conduct by an adult intended to cause, or facilitate the causing of, a child to commit a future crime. The nature of the offence, which is broad and large, will ensure that it captures offenders who will use children for crime. I believe that that is the right format. Both my noble friends have said that “enable” is a critical word. I believe that a separate definition is unnecessary, as it would have no legal impact over and above what is already in the Bill. It could cause confusion among police and prosecutors about which definition they should be applying.

The statutory guidance, which I emphasise will gave a legal bass and will be issued under Clause 60, is the appropriate place to provide the extra detail to understand proposals that are covered by the amendment, but which are already in scope of the clear and simple legal terms of Clause 40. I know that that is the defence that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti expected me to use, but it is the defence: Clause 40 is what it is, and the guidance will also be statutory.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

While statutory guidance is welcome, this particular case has similarities to other areas of the criminal law where the motivations and behaviours are complex, such as stalking and various areas of domestic abuse. In every case where regulation has been put in such a way that it becomes statutory, unless that goes hand in hand with appropriate and quite intensive training, you can have as many regulations as you like, as legally watertight as you like, but if the officials who are charged with implementing it do not understand the complexity that they are dealing with and cannot define and understand exactly how to apply the regulations, you are going to have confusion. We have a lot of history of that not happening. Good intentions are one thing; what actually happens when you put it out there and expect that everybody will understand and comply with it is another, and that is a concern that a lot of us have.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a valid point. I have considered with officials how we ensure enforcement of the guidance. I simply put it to the noble Earl—and we can debate this outside the Bill—that the statutory guidance is issued to chief constables of police forces under Clause 60 and they have a legal duty to ensure that statutory guidance is implemented, and officers have a legal duty to support and interpret that at a local level when they are faced with incidents of child exploitation as defined by the Bill. That requires a whole shift of culture and of training—I understand that. I will take from this comment and from the Committee generally that my colleagues in the Home Office need to look not just at the guidance but at its implementation. Ultimately, it has a statutory footing, and that is the key point for the Committee.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Will the Minister take on board the fact that countless inspections of police training, including by HMICFRS, have said that there has not been an independent assessment of police training since 2018, despite the fact that so many of the policing bodies themselves have asked for it? Taking the point, will he now say that there will be an independent assessment, so that police training can be much more appropriate and police will know exactly what they are supposed to be doing when we sit in this House and make legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will sound like I am repeating myself from Question Time, but, very shortly, we anticipate bringing forward a policing White Paper looking at a whole range of mechanisms to improve police performance. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will wait for further detail on the policing White Paper, which I have already said to the House will be published before Christmas, to allow for further discussion on a range of efficiency and improvement matters for policing. The point she makes is worthy of consideration, but I will park it until a later date in the parliamentary calendar.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his detailed response, but will he reflect on the potential distinction between “enabling” and “causing”? Will he go back to parliamentary counsel and be clear that enablers will always meet this threshold of causation? I am really concerned about that. I understand that my noble friend has rejected the idea of a separate free-standing definition and is worried about confusion between the offence definition and a general definition, but in blending the intentions of the Government and those of my noble friend Lady Brown, it would be helpful to know that that language of “causing”, without specific mention of enabling, is watertight.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for further pressing me on the issue. I have tried to explain to the Committee where the Government are on this. We always reflect on debates in Committee, because there are always opportunities for my noble friend and others to bring matters back on Report. I am giving the Committee today the Government’s view that the definition in Clause 40, plus the guidance issued under Clause 60, will be sufficient to cover the objective of ensuring that we have this offence on the statute book and monitored and enforced by authorities.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I have just remembered that we will have further discussions on police training in later groups in Committee today, but the White Paper will deal with a whole range of matters on improving police performance.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

If the Minister can bear one more intervention, would he be good enough to take back the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown? I cannot quite understand why that amendment is not listed nearer to Clause 40, because it would have been helpful to look at the two together, as has not been done to any great extent. I say politely to the Minister that I prefer the noble Baroness’s interpretation of exploitation.

The other point I want to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right—it is a point I have not made, but I am well aware of it—that at the age of 18, people who may have been victims become perpetrators. Some of them become perpetrators because they have no choice, but others—the young thugs she spoke about—are genuine perpetrators. Therefore, to specify the age of 18 in Clause 40 may be misleading.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the further pressure on this issue from the Cross Benches. My job is to set out to the Committee the Government’s view on these amendments, which I am trying to do. The measures in Clause 40 and the guidance in Clause 60 are sufficient to meet the objectives of my noble friend and, at the same time, to ensure—let us not forget this—that this offence goes on to the statute book for the first time. It will have a big impact on county line gangs and on defining further criminal child exploitation. I have put the Government’s view; we will obviously reflect on what my noble friend has said and I am happy to meet her, with other colleagues, outside the Committee to discuss that explanation further. I recognise the great motivation my noble friend had in bringing this to the Committee. I hope she will reflect on what I have said and withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

I believe I get another chance to speak. I am grateful to all contributors to my amendment today. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I tried, but obviously not impactfully enough, to talk about the complexities involved and the differences between an abused child and a perpetrator, and how difficult it is for the criminal courts—and all of us—to understand the distinction.

I say gently to my noble friend the Minister that given that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—if I might pray her in aid—are all pressing on this issue, it would be a good idea for the Government to reflect properly on it.

I knew that the argument was going to be that my amendment is unnecessary. With 20 years’ experience in Parliament, I know that there have been many unnecessary clauses in Bills, and indeed that some Bills have become Acts that some people believe are unnecessary. I cheekily ask what harm it could do. It would be fabulous if my noble friend the Minister could humour us and bung it in. I genuinely believe that this is an important part of the protection of our children in the future. In hope, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

233: Clause 42, page 62, line 5, after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

236: Clause 48, page 65, line 25, leave out from “made” to “giving” in line 28 and insert “—
(a) by attending at an appropriate police station and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my first amendment to clause 48, page 65, line 29.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

241: Clause 51, page 68, line 12, leave out “a CCE prevention order” and insert “an order mentioned in subsection (1A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment inserting a new subsection (1A) into clause 51, makes the offence in this clause cover breaches of CCE prevention orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

245: Clause 54, page 69, line 36, after “order””, in the first place it occurs, insert “, except in paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 51(1A),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 51.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

246: After Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“CCE prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland
Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland(1) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland. (2) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a new clause which introduces Schedules with provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for bringing forward this important amendment. It speaks to an issue that has been much discussed during the Bill’s passage: the urgent need to protect children who are coerced or manipulated into criminal activity by those who exploit them for profit and control.

Amendment 247 proposes a new clause to establish a criminal exploitation protection order. This would be aimed directly at safeguarding children who have already been subjected to criminal exploitation, preventing further harm. As the noble Baroness has eloquently explained, these children deserve support and a clear pathway out of exploitation. Undoubtedly, there is merit in exploring whether a new bespoke order focused on the safety and welfare of the exploited child could complement the existing prevention orders in the Bill which target the adult perpetrators. We recognise the intention behind ensuring that prohibitions and requirements are carefully balanced so as not to interfere unnecessarily with education, family life or existing legal orders. From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment.

We recognise that introducing new regimes raises practical considerations that must be considered. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to further discussion as the Bill progresses. Protecting children from exploitation must be central to this legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued leadership on this issue.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Armstrong for Amendment 247. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their support for the amendment, and for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I am sorry to have elevated the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—obviously, I was transfixed by the “Liverpool” part of his title. I appreciate his gentle chiding of me for that rookie error, which I still occasionally make after 15 months in this place. I apologise for that.

I hope I can reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling the criminal exploitation of children and to supporting children who are victims of criminal exploitation. There are a number of comprehensive provisions in the Bill. In early December, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is meeting the Policing Minister in the Home Office to discuss these issues. I am grateful for her expertise and for the discussions that my noble friend Lady Armstrong has had with Action for Children and colleagues outside of the House.

I fully understand and agree with the desire to safeguard children from the horrific consequences of criminal exploitation. That is why the Government are delivering on the manifesto commitment to bring forward this order, under the clauses that we have discussed, and go after the gangs that are luring young people into violence and crime. Additionally, as the Committee will know, through Clauses 42 to 55 and Schedule 5 to the Bill, the Government’s criminal exploitation prevention orders will place prohibitions and requirements on adults who pose a risk of exploiting children into criminality.

This brings me to the central point of the amendment before us. The Government have considered the position but feel that the most effective way to manage the behaviour of those who have criminally exploited children, or who are at risk of doing so, and to protect children from being criminally exploited are the measures in the Bill. We should be restricting the conduct of the adult perpetrator rather than of the child victim.

I simply say to my noble friend—this is an important point—that for legislation to be effective, there needs to be a consequence for non-compliance. If the measure that she has brought forward was put into legislation, we would be focusing on the child victim and their behaviour. In the event of non-compliance, unless there is a consequence to that—and I am not quite sure what that consequence would be—the proposal would have no legal effect. If a child breaches the prohibition or requirements in an order, the first response could be a further narrowing of the prohibitions or requirements, or varying them. Ultimately, a breach of the order would require a consequence, and I am not sure that we have considered that matter in full.

The Government believe that the measures we are introducing in the Bill will create greater awareness of child criminal exploitation and increase identification of victims, and will ensure that we assist victims in receiving appropriate support. When victims are identified, practitioners will be encouraged to recognise vulnerability, first and foremost, and, I hope, to clearly signal that the children who are used by adults to commit crime are victims of abuse.

I hear what noble Lords have said. Everybody who has spoken has broadly supported the direction of travel. We want to draw on that wealth of experience and insight, which is why my colleagues, the Policing Minister and the Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office, are hosting a round table with experts before Christmas to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and look at how we can better support children who are victims of crime and potentially perpetrators of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

It seems fairly obvious to me that if the order were breached by the child, the child would end up in the family proceedings court preferably, rather than the family criminal court. That could be done by an order, and it might not do any harm for the child. There could be some innovative thinking in the Home Office as to other ways of dealing with this. The real point being made today, if I might remind Minister, is about helping the parents. At the moment, I do not see what else can help the parents. I would be very grateful to know what the Minister thinks about that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience, brings forward one potential output of a breach of an order, and I accept that that is a potential output. The point I am making to my noble friend is that we want to discuss what happens to the child and the range of consequences. That is why my honourable friend the Policing Minister and my honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Safeguarding Minister, are meeting agencies in this field to look at what is going to happen. That is planned for before Christmas. There is a separate meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Although the noble and learned Baroness has brought forward one consequence, I want to look at all the issues. I am not able to accept the amendment before us because that is one of the issues that is not resolved. Therefore, although I understand the desire behind this, I ask that my noble friend withdraws her amendment today and allows for reflection to occur.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am most grateful to the Minister and look forward to the meeting. To pick up the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I wonder whether the Minister, in tackling this, recognises that many times, the so-called parents will be someone who has legal responsibility but who actually may not be helping the child. One of the issues with an order such as this would potentially be making sure that those who have legal responsibility for a child also have a duty to try to enforce the protection of that child. That may mean a change in their own behaviours. It is a complicated issue. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and to the Home Office for recognising that somehow, something has to be done. This might not be perfect, but we cannot leave a big gap there.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept and understand that young children will be impacted by the potential behaviour of the parent, or indeed the lack of behaviour by the parent. The suggestion of the order may be a contributing factor which might assist with that. I have tried to point out to the Committee that there are a number of issues. First, this would be an order against the child, which is a big issue. Secondly, there would have to be a consequence for a breach. Thirdly, the Government’s focus in the Bill is on action on adults. Those are three issues that I put on the table for the Committee and which lead me to ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

However, the engagement and discussions, both with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and with the coalition of groups that have a concern about this, will continue before Christmas. That will obviously give the mover of the amendment an opportunity to reflect upon it. But in the meantime, I urge her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and to the previous one.

This is complex and we all want to have good outcomes. I appreciate that the Minister is saying that we need more discussion and to make sure that we address this issue in a way that safeguards children and young people but also deals with perpetrators and potential perpetrators and makes sure that the families of the children and young people are engaged in the way that we sort things out. The real problem is that it is much more than just Home Office business, which I appreciate. However, Members of this House have made great strides in at least beginning to identify the issues, reflecting our discussions and experiences from outside. That is important. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Government and the Minister in the next period of time so that we can come up with something that people will have confidence in. In that spirit, I therefore seek to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

Before my noble friend rises to reply, I want to emphasise, as someone who has practised at the Bar over many decades, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, the importance of our recognising in the course of these discussions that, while we are dealing here with a spate of offences clearly committed by gangs of Pakistani men, this is not confined to Pakistani men. The Epstein case has told us quite clearly that upper-class white men with power can abuse and groom and commit these crimes. I have seen it since my early years at the Bar. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, sitting there, and we acted in cases involving East End gangs who passed around girls who were part and parcel of that world. Nowadays, in the drugs world, pass-around girls, who are often underage, are part and parcel of that world. So we must not become fixated on the idea that this happens only in certain communities. I just want that to be emphasised.

[The Minister of State, Home Office ( Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to all those who have spoken in what I think everybody in the Committee will accept is a very wide set of amendments, covering a large number of issues. I shall try my best to summarise and respond on behalf of the Government as a whole.

I start by saying that the horror of the events that have led to the discussions that we have had today need to be recognised, and I need to say from the Government Front Bench that we wish to ensure that we prevent those events happening in future. I just remind the Committee that the Government have been in office for 17 months so far, and the Bill before the Committee today includes a wide range of measures that have arisen out of reports published before the Government came to office, including the IICSA report under Alexis Jay, and are starting to look at some of the issues that have come out of the inquiries and discussions that we have had on issues, including the audit from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on group-based child sexual abuse.

I also place on record, and remind the Committee, that the Government accept all the recommendations that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has made, and are seeking to put those recommendations into practice. I accept today that there are a number of amendments down and discussion points pressing the Government on a range of issues, but I hope that we all have the same objective in mind, which is to prevent further similar horrors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Why, then, was it legitimate to pass the War Crimes Act, bringing to justice someone who committed crimes, not even in this country, 50 years ago?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has made his case. I have put my view. If he wishes to examine it further, we can do so in due course. I understand that he wants to bring people to justice. So do I, but the approach we want to take is different from his, and we will have to accept that.

Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would give effect to recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that the law should be changed so that adults penetrating a child aged under 16 are charged with rape. As I have said, the Government have accepted this recommendation and have committed to changing the law. I reassure noble Lords that we are working fast to consider how that law change should be made. We are discussing this. I met the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as part of that work and I will update Parliament soon about our proposed approach but, at the moment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that we are committed to that legislation and will table it as soon as time allows.

Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would mean that someone suspected of or charged with a sexual offence against a child that involved penetration would be described as having committed rape, whether the penetration was penile or non-penile, and regardless of what the offence is actually called in legislation. It would also mean that a wide range of other non-penetrative offending behaviour would be referred to simply as sexual assault. I do not think that that meets the intention of the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as it would not substantially change criminal law. Additionally, the difference in how offences are labelled in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and mandating how enforcement agencies then refer to those offences could lead to operational confusion, which I hope the noble Lord would seek to avoid.

Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which I have already mentioned, would create a new offence of rape which would apply when an adult penetrates with their penis the vagina, anus or mouth of a child aged 13 to 15. The offence would not require proof of an absence of consent or reasonable belief. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who spoke to it on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that the Government are committed to making this change in law. We have accepted the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and we strongly agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, we are also aware of the need to ensure a robust framework of sexual offences, which must work effectively across all types of child sexual abuse. This will be a significant change to the framework and, as such, if the noble Lord will allow me, we need to discuss it with the police and prosecutors to make sure that they have the tools needed to bring abusers to justice. When we have done that and taken those considerations into account, we will change the law, and we will update Parliament when we do that. I hope he can accept that intention.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her Amendments 288A and 288B. These overlap with the provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 5, which provide for a duty to report, which we will come on to later; she noted and accepted that. We believe, after extensive consultation with the relevant sectors, that the model in that chapter is the appropriate one to adopt. Again, we can debate that later, and I am sure we will, but that is the Government’s view at the moment.

Amendment 288B seeks to create a criminal offence specifically in respect of concealment by public officials. I am mindful that the type of offence proposed by this amendment may overlap with existing statutory provision, including obstruction of justice offences. Later, we will come on to consider the offence of preventing or deterring a reporter from carrying out their duty in Clause 79, and it will be part of the appropriate way forward at that stage.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, also tabled Amendments 288C and 288D, which are about the collection of the ethnicity and nationality data of child sexual abuse offenders and victims. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said. The recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is to work alongside the police to establish improvements which are required to assist the collection and publication of this data. We have accepted that recommendation. This includes reviewing and improving the existing data that the police collect, as well as considering future legislative measures if required. The objective the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has set is one that we have accepted. We are working through that at the moment and, although it may not be satisfactory today, it is an objective to which she and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can hold us to account.

This is an important debate. I think we are at one on these things, but it is the Government’s firm view that most of the amendments are not the way forward or need further refinement along the lines that I have already outlined to the Committee. As I have said, the Government are committed to changing the law in relation to rape. We will take away amendments and consider this further for Report.

Given these caveats, let us go back to where we started on this wide-ranging group, which is whether we should have a statutory timescale for the inquiry. Going back to the lead amendment in this group, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, will withdraw her amendment because we are trying to do this as speedily as possible. The converse impact of her amendment may well be to create a further delay to a process that the Government are determined to get down as quickly as possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, to land the inquiry and get further recommendations to tighten up areas in which we need to reduce—and, we hope, stop—the number of further victims of these awful crimes.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing my amendment and the others in such detail, and my noble friends Baroness Cash and Lord Blencathra for adding their support.

Even though the Minister has not accepted my amendment and stated that the others do not fit with the Government’s plans, I welcome the agreement across the Committee that we all support the principle of the work that is happening. However, I make no apologies for standing up and saying that the system is still not adequate in many ways. I am sure that the Minister can recognise some of this. I remember sitting in the Home Office in 2021-22, when I was a Minister there, and asking for the data about ethnicity and whether there was any connection. I was told, “No, Minister, there is none”. We all know now that that was not the case. I wish to God we had known that then so we could have done more for the victims. Collectively, we have all let them down; this is not a party-political issue, but one in which we should feel ashamed about what has happened to those vulnerable girls in our country.

I accept the Minister’s point about the timeline and the passage of the Bill, and that, were he to accept my amendment, it would potentially be delayed further than any of us would wish. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

248: Schedule 5, page 253, line 13, after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

257: After Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleCCE prevention orders: ScotlandPower to make CCE prevention order
1 (1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland, in accordance with paragraph 3, makes an application to a sheriff for a CCE prevention order in respect of a person,(b) the Sheriff Appeal Court or the High Court allows a person’s appeal against a conviction for any offence,(c) a person is acquitted of any offence by or before a court by reason of the special defence set out in section 51A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,(d) a court finds under section 53F of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that a person is unfit for trial and has done the act charged against them in respect of any offence, or(e) a court deals with a person convicted of an offence for that offence.(2) The court may make an order under paragraph 2 (a “CCE prevention order”) in respect of the person (“the adult”) if they are aged 18 or over and the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) are met.(3) The first condition is that—(a) in any case, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the adult has engaged in child criminal exploitation or in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation, or (b) in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1), the offence in question is an offence under section 40.(4) The second condition is that the court considers that there is a risk that the adult will engage in child criminal exploitation.(5) The third condition is that the court considers that it is necessary to make the order to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) In sub-paragraph (3)—(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to engaging in anything includes engaging in it before (as well as after) the time when this paragraph comes into force;(b) paragraph (b) applies in relation to findings made in respect of conduct occurring before (as well as after) that time.(7) In this paragraph—(a) a reference to an adult “engaging in child criminal exploitation” is to the adult—(i) doing anything that constitutes an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland), or(ii) doing anything in England and Wales or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland) if done in Scotland;(b) a reference to an adult “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” is to the adult doing anything, in any part of the United Kingdom, that is associated with the doing of anything within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).CCE prevention orders
2 (1) A CCE prevention order is an order which—(a) prohibits the adult from doing anything described in the order;(b) requires that adult to do anything described in the order.The order may in particular require the adult to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing the adult from engaging, or reducing the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(3) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the adult;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the adult normally works or attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or interdict to which the adult is subject.(4) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(5) A CCE prevention order must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, which must be at least two years, or(b) state that it has effect until further order.(6) Where, in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e)—(a) the adult has been remanded in custody by an order of a court, or(b) a custodial sentence has been imposed on the adult or the adult is serving or otherwise subject to a such a sentence, a CCE prevention order may provide that it does not take effect until the adult is released from custody.(7) A CCE prevention order may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CCE prevention order in respect of a person who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Applications for CCE prevention orders
3 (1) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may make an application for a CCE prevention order.(2) An application under this paragraph must be made to the sheriff in whose sheriffdom—(a) the adult lives, or(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland believes that adult is in or is intending to come to.Interim CCE prevention orders
4 (1) This paragraph applies where the sheriff adjourns the hearing of an application for a CCE prevention order made under paragraph 3.(2) The sheriff may, if they consider it necessary to do so, make a CCE prevention order lasting for a fixed period or until the determination of the application (an “interim CCE prevention order”).Paragraph 2(5) does not apply in relation to an interim CCE prevention order.(3) The only requirement that may be imposed by an interim CCE prevention order on the adult is a requirement to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(4) Subject to that, the sheriff has the same powers in relation to an interim CCE prevention order as in relation to an order made at a final hearing.(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) prevents the variation of the duration of an interim CCE prevention order, or the discharge of such an order, under paragraph 7.CCE prevention orders in criminal proceedings: procedural powers
5 (1) This paragraph applies in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The court may make a CCE prevention order—(a) at its own instance, or(b) on the motion of the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (or any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a CCE prevention order, the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the adult.(4) It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings giving rise to the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(5) The court may adjourn any proceedings relating to the making of a CCE prevention order.(6) If the adult does not appear for any adjourned proceedings, the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the adult’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(7) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(b) only if satisfied that the adult has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings. (8) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(c) only if satisfied that the adult—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the adult does not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(9) Nothing in this paragraph limits any other powers of the court.Notification requirements
6 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires the adult to comply with this paragraph.(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a CCE prevention order requiring the adult to comply with this paragraph is first served, the adult must notify to the police—(a) the adult's name and, where the adult uses one or more other names, each of those names, and(b) the adult's home address.(3) If, while the adult is required to comply with this paragraph, the adult—(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order, or(b) changes home address,the adult must notify, to the police, the new name or the new home address.(4) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the adult uses the name or changes home address.(5) A notification under this paragraph must be made—(a) by attending at a police station for the time being specified in the document published under sub-paragraph (6) and giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station, or(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.(6) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must publish, in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit, a document containing the name and address of each police station at which a person may give a notification under this paragraph.(7) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must keep under review a document published under this paragraph and may, from time to time, publish a revised version of the document in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit.(8) A notification under this paragraph must be acknowledged in writing.(9) In this paragraph “home address” means—(a) the address of the adult’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or(b) where the adult has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the adult can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the adult may select.(10) In determining the period of three days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the adult is—(a) lawfully detained or otherwise lawfully deprived of their liberty, in the United Kingdom, or(b) outside the United Kingdom.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application
7 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to the appropriate sheriff for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1(1)(a).(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.(3) On the application, the appropriate sheriff may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the appropriate sheriff considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement;(b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The appropriate sheriff may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if they consider that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The appropriate sheriff may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “the appropriate sheriff” means—(a) the sheriff who made the order,(b) a sheriff in the sheriffdom of that sheriff, or(c) a sheriff in the sheriffdom—(i) in which the adult is resident at the time of the application,(ii) in which the chief constable believes that adult to be, or(iii) to which the chief constable believes that adult intends to come.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings
8 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to a relevant court for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (and any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) On the application, the court may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the court considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement; (b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The court may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “relevant court” means—(a) where the High Court made the order, that court;(b) where the sheriff made the order, the sheriff.Appeals
9 (1) The adult or the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may appeal to the relevant court against a decision made—(a) on an application under paragraph 3 (applications for CCE prevention orders);(b) under paragraph 4 (interim CCE prevention orders);(c) on an application under paragraph 7 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application);(d) on an application under paragraph 8 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings).(2) In this paragraph“relevant court” means—(a) in the case of a decision of a sheriff court, the Sheriff Appeal Court;(b) in the case of a decision of the High Court, the High Court.(3) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) the relevant court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and(b) such incidental and consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(4) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1, the order is taken to be a sentence for the purposes of any appeal.(5) Where a CCE prevention order is made on appeal, for the purposes of this Schedule (other than this paragraph) the order is to be treated as made by the court from which the appeal was made.Offence of breaching CCE prevention order
10 (1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) commits an offence.(2) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order;(b) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 1 of Part 4 (CCE prevention orders on application or acquittal etc. in England and Wales);(c) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 2A of Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (CCE prevention orders on conviction in England and Wales); (d) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) (CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland).(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (2) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(5) In proceedings for an offence under this paragraph, a copy of the original order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.(6) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland which appears to the Scottish Ministers to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.Offences relating to notifications
11 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires a person to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) The person commits an offence if—(a) without reasonable excuse, they fail to comply with that paragraph, or(b) in purported compliance with that paragraph, they notify to the police any information which they know to be false.(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) A person commits an offence under sub-paragraph (2)(a) on the day on which they first fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with paragraph 6.(5) The person continues to commit the offence throughout any period during which the failure continues.(6) But the person may not be prosecuted more than once in respect of the same failure.(7) Paragraph 10(5) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.Interpretation
12 In this Schedule—“adult” has the meaning given by paragraph 1;“CCE prevention order”, except in paragraph 10(2)(b) to (d), means an order under paragraph 2 (and accordingly includes an interim order made by virtue of paragraph 4);“engaging in child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly);“High Court” means the High Court of Justiciary.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not think I have ever given an indication the noble Lord could not speak, but there was a 13-minute contribution on a 10-minute latitude.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson; I was not referring to him. It was the Government Whip who was getting very agitated about my comments. I could have spoken for a lot longer if I had degrouped my amendments, but I am not going to do that.

Quite simply, Clause 56 lists all the crimes in Part 1 of Schedule 6 that are relevant to convicting someone of controlling another person’s home for criminal purposes. Schedule 6 is about two pages of big issues—very large crimes—which are completely inappropriate for a summary trial. This is about hijacking someone else’s home, where the homeowner is kept prisoner. That is such big stuff that it should not be triable by summary but only in a Crown Court.

I beg to move—after one minute and 21 seconds.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

259: Schedule 6, page 262, line 6, leave out from “under” to end and insert “any of the following provisions of this Act—
(a) section 40 (child criminal exploitation);(b) section 59 (causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of causing internal concealment of an item for a criminal purpose, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in England and Wales for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

262: Clause 57, page 71, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) The circumstances in which A exercises control over B’s dwelling include circumstances where—(a) A arranges for another person (C) to exercise control over B’s dwelling (including by exercising control over any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)), and(b) C does exercise that control.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that control over another’s dwelling may be via another person, for the purposes of the offence in clause 56.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

264: Clause 61, page 75, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) CCE prevention orders under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives a power to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the new CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

265: Clause 63, page 79, line 36, leave out “or” and insert “and”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to further amendments later. I just want to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his kind words before he goes. My reputation is ruined, but there we go. I thank him anyway.

The government amendments in this group and the clauses to which they relate are vital in safeguarding the public from some of the gravest harms emerging from the digital age. All the amendments in this group of government amendments, starting with Amendments 295A and 295B, pertain to the introduction of a defence for authorised persons to test and investigate technologies for child sexual abuse material, extreme pornography and non-consensual intimate imagery capabilities. These are abhorrent crimes and we must ensure that our laws keep pace with them.

Noble Lords will know that the rapid advancement and prevalence of AI technologies without adequate guardrails has increased the volume of AI-generated abuse imagery circulating online. These harms fall disproportionately on women and children. We must get ahead of these risks. At present, AI developers and public safety organisations seeking to test for these risks face significant legal jeopardy from testing. These legal blocks mean that testers could be liable to prosecution if they create illegal images during testing. We want to support government and public safety organisations in their commitment to research internet safety. If we are serious about AI safety, it is essential that we support continuous and rigorous testing so that testers can be confident that models are safe to use and support our ambition to drive down CSAM online.

This defence could give a technology company the ability to understand the capabilities of its models, identify weaknesses and design out harmful outputs. Amendment 295A introduces a power by regulations to create new testing defences. The Secretary of State will authorise persons to carry out technology testing subject to rigorous conditions. I confirm that any regulations that are brought forward will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and testing will be subject to rigorous oversight and strict mandatory operational safeguards. The regulation-making power will also extend to making provision for the enforcement of any breaches of conditions and may include creating criminal offences.

Amendment 295B lists the offences to which this defence applies. The Secretary of State will have the power to amend this list of offences as the law evolves. This will ensure that the defence remains fit for purpose. I hope the Committee welcomes that the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice want this defence to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The offences listed may be amended, as appropriate, for England and Wales as well as for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making any regulations that would affect the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Clause 63 criminalises artificial intelligence image generators, which are used by offenders to create child sexual abuse imagery. Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal. However, these fine-tuned models that facilitate the creation of child sexual abuse material currently are not. Therefore, the Government are making it illegal to possess, make, adapt, supply or offer to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

Government Amendments 267 and 268 ensure that we take a unified approach across the United Kingdom. This is why we are creating equivalent offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 64 amends Section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to criminalise the possession of advice or guidance on using artificial intelligence to create child abuse imagery. Sadly, there are so-called paedophile manuals that contain guidance for offenders on how to abuse children sexually and how to create indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs—which are illegal under the existing offence in the Serious Crime Act 2015. However, this offence does not include guidance for offenders about how to use AI to create illegal images of children and is applicable only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 269 extends the offence, as amended by Clause 64, to Scotland, ensuring that these vile manuals can be tackled across the whole of the United Kingdom. The other amendments in this group are consequential on the main amendments that I have described.

Together, these government amendments will enhance the protection of women and children, prevent criminal use of AI technologies and improve long-term safety by design and the resilience of future AI development. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, if I could intervene for a moment, the Bill is going at a fine pace through the House, but I am a little concerned about Amendment 263. The problems of modern slavery that I have raised in the House are very severe.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I know. I am just asking for some assistance with this—does the proposed new clause in Amendment 263 still stand?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Committee has considered that amendment. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me on any details, I will certainly write back to him, but, in the interests of progress, it would be better if that was dealt with outside the Chamber, given that we have debated those matters already.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, the government amendments set out the devolution arrangements to ensure that criminals cannot exploit differences between the four nations, and we are very happy to support them.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important issue that I know there is cross-party support for, and I am largely supportive of the intentions behind the amendments in this group.

The first of the Minister’s amendments acts largely to tidy up the drafting of the Bill and ensure its thoroughness. I agree with this. Expanding the scope for technology testing regarding child sexual abuse materials is welcome.

Similarly, extending provisions to ensure that they are the same in all parts of the union is a minor but important amendment. Consistency across our internal borders is the best way to ensure that children are protected equally everywhere. It should help with cross-border co-ordination between authorities, and I therefore welcome it.

I see the logic behind government Amendments 295A and 295B. It is the right approach that, if the Government want to crack down on technology, they should first do so at the source. That means discovering which technologies are being used to create unlawful content, which requires people to test them. This would also, I hope, have the additional effect of not blanket banning content for people without nuance, instead targeting the specific pieces of software responsible. So long as the individuals able to use this as a defence remain strictly authorised by the Secretary of State, I appreciate the amendment’s aim.

This should go hand in hand with an initiative similar to the one suggested by my noble friend Lord Nash. If the Government can identify the technology used, they should attempt to shut it down. Unfortunately, this is often outside the Government’s jurisdiction and therefore some form of software to prevent the distribution of child sexual abuse material might be the next best approach. I hope that the Minister can confirm that they are perhaps looking at this.

As I said, this is a non-partisan issue. We all want to reduce child sexual abuse, online or offline, and these amendments should work to help the Bill achieve the former. I hope that the Minister can, in due course—perhaps at a later stage—fully outline how this new technology will be implemented and applied consistently, and will consider my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I broadly support the approach.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on what he said and give him a fuller briefing on the detail of how we are approaching the AI issue. Obviously, we will come on to further amendments in the next group, which I will respond to once they have been moved.

Amendment 265 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this extremely important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Nash for their continued efforts on the protection of children online.

This group should unite the whole Committee. We can be in no doubt about the need to safeguard children in an environment where technology is evolving at unprecedented speed and where the risk of harm, including the creation and dissemination of child sexual abuse material, is escalating. It is a sad truth that, historically, Governments have been unable to keep pace with evolving technology. As a consequence, this can mean legislation coming far too late.

Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of online services, including generative AI systems, to conduct risk assessments on the potential use of their platforms to create child sexual abuse images. The Committee has heard compelling arguments about the need for meaningful responsibilities to be placed on platforms and developers, particularly where systems are capable of misuse at scale. We recognise the seriousness of the challenge that she has outlined, and I very much look forward to what the Government have to say in response.

On my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, we are particularly sympathetic to the concerns that underpin his proposal. His amendment would mandate the installation of tamper-proof software on relevant devices to prevent the creation, viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material. My noble friend has made a powerful case that prevention at source must form part of the comprehensive strategy to protect children. While there are practical questions that will require careful examination, his amendment adds real value to the discussion. I am grateful for his determined focus on this issue, and I hope the Government also take this amendment very seriously.

Similarly, Amendments 479 and 480, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, speak to the responsibilities of AI search tools and AI chatbots. The risk of such technologies being co-opted for abusive purposes is not theoretical; these threats are emerging rapidly and require a response proportionate to the harm.

From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives across this group of amendments and look forward to the Government’s detailed response and continuing cross-party work to ensure the strongest protections for children in an online world. As has been said several times throughout Committee, protecting children must remain our highest priority. I hope the Government take these amendments very seriously.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the way she introduced this group of amendments and for her tireless work to protect children online. I say on behalf of all noble Lords that the support she has received today across the Committee shows that her work is vital, especially in the face of emerging technologies, such as generative AI, which present opportunities but, sadly, also have a darker side with new risks for criminal misuse.

She has received the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Cotes, Lady Boycott, Lady Bertin and Lady Doocey, my noble friends Lady Berger, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Hacking, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Hampton and Lord Davies of Gower, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others to whom I will refer later. That is quite an array of colleagues in this House. It is my job to respond to this on behalf of the Government, and I will try to be as helpful as I can to the noble Baroness.

The Government share her desire to protect the public, especially children, online, and are committed to protecting all users from illegal online content. We will continue to act to keep citizens safe. Amendment 266 seeks to create a new duty on online service providers—including those already regulated under the Online Safety Act—to assess and report to Ofcom or the National Crime Agency on the risk that their services could be used to create or facilitate the generation of AI child sexual abuse material. The amendment would also require online service providers to implement measures to mitigate and manage the risks identified.

I say to the noble Baroness that UK law is already clear: creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated by AI, is already illegal, regardless of whether they depict a real child or not. Child sexual abuse material offences are priority offences under the Online Safety Act. The Act requires in-scope services to take proactive steps to prevent such material from appearing on their services and to remove it swiftly if it does.

As she will know, the Government have gone even further to tackle these appalling crimes through the measures in the Bill. I very much welcome her support for Clause 63. We are introducing a world-leading offence criminalising the possession, adaptation and supply of, or offer to supply, an AI model that has been fine-tuned by offenders to create child sexual abuse material. As I mentioned earlier, we are also extending the existing paedophile manual offence to cover advice on how to abuse AI to create child sexual abuse material.

We have also introduced measures that reflect the critical role that AI developers play in ensuring their systems are not misused. To support the crucial work of the Government’s AI Security Institute, we have just debated and agreed a series of amendments in the previous group to provide authorised bodies with the powers to legally test commercial AI models for extreme pornography and other child sexual abuse material. That is essential to allow experts to safely test measures, and I am pleased that we received the Committee’s support earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

If it is beyond the remit of the National Crime Agency and Ofcom to do anything about this, perhaps the Minister will tell us who is going to take responsibility and actually enforce what the noble Baroness is trying to persuade the Government to do in the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

All chatbots are regulated under the Online Safety Act. If there is harmful or illegal content or advice in relation to children, it is up to Ofcom to take action on those matters. Many of these issues are for DSIT Ministers and Ofcom. I am a Home Office Minister. The noble Baroness has requested a meeting and I will put that to my DSIT ministerial colleagues. I hope they will be able to meet her to reflect upon these issues. Although I am answering for the Bill today, some of these issues are DSIT matters, and it is important that she has an opportunity to raise them with DSIT.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I was stimulated to rise by something that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. She was speaking to the reply that had been given by the Minister, and it made me think that what has to be looked at here is the law and its inadequacies in dealing with those who are not human—that is the nature of a robot. The law is constructed around the mental element of mens rea to convict people of a crime. Surely it should be possible for us, in the limited area of dealing with robots, to be able to say that that mental element need not be present in dealing with this kind of offending and that one should be able to construct something that leads back to those who are creatively responsible for bringing them into being.

It reminds me of the argument that is made in the United States about not bothering to restrict guns because it is not guns that kill people but the people using the guns who are responsible. In fact, those who manufacture them might be looked at for the responsibility that they bear for some of this. We should be looking much more creatively at the law. There should be an opportunity for lawyers to look at whether, in this instance with this development—which is so out of the ordinary experience of humankind—we should think about legally changing the rule on mens rea when it comes to robots.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are a number of issues before the Committee today and the Government will reflect on all the points that have been mentioned. However, the view at the moment is that these amendments would risk creating significant legal uncertainty by duplicating and potentially undermining aspects of the Online Safety Act.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that all chatbots are captured by the Online Safety Act; that is very good news indeed. Can he reassure us that Ofcom will confirm that in writing to the House? I appreciate that he is a Home Office Minister, but he speaks on behalf of all of government. I think it is fair, given the nature of the Bill, that he seeks an answer from Ofcom in this matter.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My assessment is that the vast majority of chatbots are captured—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Many AI chatbots that enable users to share content with each other or search live websites for information are within the scope of the Online Safety Act’s duties. Providers of those services—

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I want to repeat what I said in my speech. There are some chatbots, such as Replika, that do not have user-to-user functionality. They are created for just one user, and that user cannot pass it on to any other users. There is concern that the law does not cover that and that Ofcom does not regulate it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I may, I will take away those comments. I am responsible for many things in this House, including the Bill, but some of those areas fall within other ministerial departments. I am listening to what noble Lords and noble Baronesses are saying today.

Currently, through Online Safety Act duties, providers of those services are required to undertake appropriate risk assessments and, under the Act’s illegal content duties, platforms must implement robust and timely measures to prevent illegal content appearing on their services. All in-scope providers are expected to have effective systems and processes in place to ensure that the risks of their platform being used for the types of offending mentioned today are appropriately reduced.

Ofcom currently has a role that is focused on civil enforcement of duties on providers to assess and mitigate the risks posed by illegal content. Where Ofcom may bring prosecutions in some circumstances, it will do so only in relation to regulatory matters where civil enforcement is insufficient. The proposed approach is not in line with the enforcement regime under the Act at the moment, which is the responsibility of Ofcom and DSIT.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My noble friend is making really important comments in this regard, but on the specific issue of Ofcom, perhaps fuelling much of the concern across the Committee are the comments we have heard from Ofcom. I refer to a briefing from the Molly Rose Foundation, which I am sure other noble Lords have received, which says that uncertainty has been “actively fuelled” by the regulator Ofcom, which has told the Molly Rose Foundation that it intends to maintain “tactical ambiguity” about how the Act applies. That is the very issue that unites us in our concern.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that and for her contribution to the debate and the experiences she has brought. The monitoring and evaluation of the online safety regime is a responsibility of DSIT and Ofcom, and they have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate core outcomes. This monitoring and evaluation is currently tracking the effect of the online safety regime and feeding into a post-implementation review of the 2023 Act. Where there is evidence of a need to go further to keep children safe online, including from AI-enabled harms, the Government will not hesitate to act.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will allow DSIT and Ofcom to look at those matters, I will make sure that DSIT Ministers are apprised of the discussion that we have had today. It is in this Bill, which is a Home Office Bill, but it is important that DSIT Ministers reflect on what has been said. I will ensure that we try to arrange that meeting for the noble Baroness in due course.

I want also to talk about Amendments 271A and 497ZA from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which propose that smartphone and tablet manufacturers, importers and distributors are required to ensure that any device they have is preinstalled with technology that prevents the recording and viewing of child sexual abuse material or similar material accordingly. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s very valid intention concerning child safety and protection, and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. To that end, there is a shared agreement with the Government on the need to strengthen our already world-leading online safety regime wherever necessary.

I put to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on his comments in support, that if nudity detection technology could be effectively deployed at scale, there could be a significant limiting impact on the production and sharing of child sexual abuse material. I accept that, but we must get this right. Application of detection technology that detects and blocks all nudity, adult and child, but which is primarily targeted at children, would be an effective intervention. I and colleagues across government want to gather evidence about the application of such technology and its effectiveness and impact. However, our assessment is that further work is needed to understand the accuracy of such tools and how they may be implemented.

We must also consider the risks that could arise from accepting this amendment, including legitimate questions about user privacy and data security. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Nash, we will continue to assess the effect of detection tools on the performance of mobile device so that we can see how easy it is to circumvent them, how effective they are and a range of other matters accordingly. The Government’s focus is on protective measures within the Online Safety Act, but we are actively considering the potential benefits of the technology that the noble Lord has mentioned and others like it in parallel. There will be further future government interventions but they must be proportionate and driven by evidence. At the moment, we do not have sufficient evidence to ensure that we could accept the amendment from the noble Lord, but the direction of travel is one that we would support.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

Will the Minister meet me and representatives from software companies to explain why they say this technology works?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very happy to arrange a meeting with an appropriate Minister. I would be very happy to sit in on it. Other Ministers may wish to take the lead on this, because there are technology issues as well. I have Home Office responsibilities across the board, but I have never refused a meeting with a Member of this House in my 16 months here and I am not going to start now, so the answer to that question is yes. The basic presumption at the moment is that we are not convinced that the technology is yet at the stage that the noble Lord believes it to be, but that is a matter for future operation. I again give him the assurance that, in the event that the technology proves to be successful, the Government will wish to examine it in some detail.

I have absolutely no doubt that we will revisit these matters but, for the moment, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his amendment and his fierce following of this issue, and for bringing it to our attention. I recognise that this is a Home Office Bill and that some of these things cross to DSIT, but we are also witnessing crime. The Home Office must understand that not everything can be pushed to DSIT.

Your Lordships have just met the tech Lords. These are incredibly informed people from all over the Chamber who share a view that we want a technological world that puts kids front and centre. We are united in that and, as the Minister has suggested, we will be back.

I have three very quick points. First, legal challenges, operational difficulties and the capacity of the NCA and Ofcom were the exact same reasons why Clause 63 was not in the Online Safety Bill or the Data (Use and Access) Bill. It is unacceptable for officials to always answer with those general things. Many noble Lords said, “It’s so difficult”, and, “This is new”, with the Online Safety Bill. It is not new: we raised these issues before. If we had acted three or four years ago, we would not be in this situation. I urge this Government to get on the front foot, because we know what is coming.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

267: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland(1) In the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)), after Article 42 insert—“Creation of CSA material
42A Child sexual abuse image-generators(1) It is an offence for a person to make, adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image-generator.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing a CSA image-generator to prove that the person—(a) was sent the CSA image-generator without any request having been made for it (by or on behalf of the person), and(b) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing, supplying or offering to supply a CSA image-generator to prove that the person did not know, and did not have cause to suspect, that the thing possessed, supplied or offered to be supplied was a CSA image-generator.(4) For further defences, see Article 42B.(5) A person who commits an offence under this Article is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) In this Article—(a) “CSA image-generator” means anything (including any program and any information in electronic form) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) “CSA image” means—(i) an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, within the meaning of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17));(ii) a prohibited image of a child, within the meaning of section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, that is not an excluded image within the meaning of section 63 of that Act;(c) a reference to making a CSA image-generator includes adapting anything that is not a CSA image-generator in such a way that it becomes a CSA image-generator. 42B Article 42A: supplementary(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 42A—(a) to prove that the person made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,(b) to prove that the person was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”) and made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body, or(c) to prove that the person—(i) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(ii) made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions.(2) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(3) The references in paragraph (2) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(4) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within paragraph (5), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(5) The matters within this paragraph are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(6) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if— (a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(7) Article 76(1) applies in relation to an act which, if done in Northern Ireland, would constitute an offence under Article 42A as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.(8) Article 42A(6) applies for the purposes of this Article.(9) In this Article—(a) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994;(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications;(c) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023;(d) “internet service provider” means a provider of—(i) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(ii) a service that provides access to the internet;(e) “user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.42C Liability for an offence under Article 42A committed by a body(1) This Article applies where an offence under Article 42A is committed by a body.(2) If the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of—(a) a relevant person in relation to the body, or(b) a person purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant person in relation to the body,the person (as well as the body) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) In this Article—“body” means a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association other than a partnership;“relevant person” , in relation to a body, means—(a) in the case of a body corporate other than one whose affairs are managed by its members, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body;(b) in the case of a limited liability partnership or other body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, a member who exercises functions of management with respect to it;(c) in the case of a limited partnership, a general partner (within the meaning given by section 3 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907);(d) in the case of any other partnership, a partner;(e) in the case of an unincorporated association other than a partnership, a person who exercises functions of management with respect to it.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 92O insert— “92OA An offence under Article 42A of that Order (child sexual abuse image-generators) if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made by clause 63 for England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

269: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland(1) In Part 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 after section 41 insert—“41A Possession of advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images(1) It is an offence to be in possession of any item that contains advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images.(2) “Abusing children sexually or creating CSA images” means doing anything that constitutes—(a) an offence under section 52 or 52D of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;(b) an offence under section 1, 2 or 7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1995 against a person under the age of 18;(c) an offence under section 10 of that Act;(d) an offence under section 1, or any of sections 9 to 12, of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;(e) an offence under Part 1 or section 46 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 against a person under the age of 18;(f) an offence under Part 4 or section 42 of that Act;(g) an offence under section 1 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 against a person under the age of 18 that is committed with a view to exploitation that consists of or includes behaviour within section 3(3), (4) or (5) of that Act (prostitution and sexual exploitation), or doing anything outside Scotland that would constitute such an offence if done in Scotland.(3) It is a defence for a person (D) charged with an offence under this section—(a) to prove that D had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the item;(b) to prove that—(i) D had not read, viewed or (as appropriate) listened to the item, and(ii) D did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that it contained advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images; or(c) to prove that—(i) the item was sent to D without any request made by D or on D’s behalf, and(ii) D did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both.(5) In this section “item” includes anything in which information of any description is recorded.41B Section 41A: supplementary provision(1) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or (c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) In this section—(a) “service provider” means a person providing an information society service;(b) “information society service” means a service normally provided—(i) for remuneration,(ii) at a distance,(iii) by electronic means, and(iv) at the individual request of a user of the services;(c) “user” , in relation to a service provider, means a user of a service provided by the service provider.(7) In subsection (6)(b)—(a) “at a distance” means that the service is provided without the parties being simultaneously present;(b) “by electronic means” means that the service is—(i) sent initially and received at its destination by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and(ii) entirely transmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means;(c) “at the individual request of a user of the services” means that the service is provided through the transmission of data on individual request.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 59ZJ insert—“59ZJA An offence under section 41A of that Act (possession of paedophile manual) if the offender—(a) was 18 or over, and(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales and Northern Ireland by section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, as amended by clause 64.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

270: Schedule 7, page 267, line 4, leave out “and 52A” and insert “, 52A and 52D”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, as was clear from our debate, this is a very important group of amendments, which seek to clarify and improve a necessary measure in the Bill. When we discussed the fourth group today, we heard about the horrific crimes committed against some children in this country: the industrial-scale abuse of young, white, working-class girls over the past four decades, as well as abuse of other groups. This happened —and is still happening—because the people who commit these crimes are among the most depraved in our society. However, it has also happened because people familiar with the abuse, or even those who had mere suspicions, turned a blind eye or simply did not look at what was in front of them.

The victims were failed by everyone, from the police to the authorities, their teachers and community leaders. Too often, they were treated with a blind negligence that bordered on positively enabling the crimes that were occurring. We have heard many powerful speeches today; I cannot list them all, but I remind the Minister of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.

I think we all now agree that safeguarding needs to be supported by sanctions. How else can we put a stop to bureaucratic failure to report? The difficult and important question is around striking the balance when doing that, to make certain that it is effective but that it does not have unintended, unhappy consequences. It is important also to make non-reporting a criminal offence, but, again, exactly how that is phrased will need considerable care. Many ideas have been canvassed today, and it would be dangerous for me to try to draft on the hoof at the Dispatch Box.

There was force in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as to why there should be an exception for what is learned in confession, and that was also important. I am not urging that there should be an exception, but it should be looked at. We have had arguments on both sides. What is the evidence? What are likely to be the benefits of opening that up? Personally, I think it should be opened up, but it should be looked at with care.

We heard earlier today from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, all about the grooming gangs, so I will not go back to that, but they are an incredibly striking example of why we need a duty to report suspected child sex offences in general and why it is important that the clause is properly drafted.

One important oversight, which was spotted by noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns the reference to Wales. As has been established, it is necessary to correct an oversight in the drafting. As things stand, local authorities and police forces in Wales will have to be informed of crimes, but only if they are considered crimes in England. That must be redrafted, and I hope the Minister will agree to that come Report stage.

Amendment 283A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash—which was not moved, but it is sensible to make the point—would implement another recommendation of the Casey review, adding child criminal exploitation to the crimes for which there is a duty to report. It is important to look at all these points when drafting the obligations.

We on this side are largely supportive of the principles behind the several amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Leaving out subsections (5) and (6) raises an interesting point. It is obviously better to be safe than sorry. We will have to look very carefully at what removing those subsections would actually do.

We on this side worry about removing defences in cases where an individual genuinely fears for the safety of the victim or believes that someone else has definitely submitted a report. That must be looked at, too. Perhaps the Minister can guide us on how to ensure that genuine defences with merit will remain available without providing a route to or excuse for shirking responsibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, raised an interesting point about the bureaucratic burden on faith schools. Government obviously must look at that. It should not be a let-out; equally, we on this side would not support any extra unnecessary burden being imposed. However, it must be done properly.

My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 286A raises important considerations. It is worth noting that he is supported by Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations with great specialist expertise and knowledge—and not just anecdotal knowledge; they really know what is going on. He is looking to prevent the intentional concealment of child sex offences. That must be the absolute minimum. My noble friend Lord Bethell was supportive of that amendment, and he was right to caution us about going too far, so that it has the unintended consequence of not achieving what we all want to achieve. His words of caution should be heeded.

As to Amendment 274 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, we are rather hesitant in our support. Ensuring that a report goes straight to the local authority, which then has a duty to inform the police, might risk slowing down a response that is often needed quickly. Indeed, it might never reach the police. If a child is in imminent danger of being abused, it is not the local authority which should know first; it must be the police, who have to respond. There should be a simultaneous notification, because it can be, in effect, simultaneous.

With this amendment, it seems that someone who reported child abuse to the police would be criminalised for not going to the local authority. That cannot be right. Leaving it to the discretion of the individual which authority to report to, while requiring that there be a duty to do so, seems to us to be the right thing. People will know generally where to go but they must go to one or the other, and not automatically to the local authority first.

I think I have addressed the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Walmsley. These are all interesting points. The Government and those behind the Minister must look at this very carefully. It is really important to get the drafting right.

Amendments 283 and 286A seek to create and expand the specific crime of preventing or concealing reports of abuse. These are largely in line with the amendments addressed in the group in which we debated grooming gangs, so we support the intentions behind them.

As I have said, this is a group of amendments that have been tabled with the best of intentions. The issue in question should be entirely non-partisan; it is simply a question of how best to manage it and get it right, making certain that children and young people in this country are not allowed to suffer in the way in which they have for the last 30 years. I hope that the Minister will take away the points which are being made and, not least, add Wales to the list of jurisdictions. That is all I need to say at this stage tonight.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to colleagues who have spoken this evening. This has been a valuable debate on Chapter 2, Part 5. As noble Lords will know, introducing a statutory duty delivers the intention of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I am confident that the measures we have brought forward strike the balance that we need.

A number of amendments have been tabled, and I am sorry that Amendment 271F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, was not moved. However, it is important to put on record that the reason the duty relates to the Welsh Government is that they have declined to legislate for a mandatory reporting duty in their own response to the independent inquiry. Therefore, we are respecting the devolution settlement by not including that legislation in the Bill. It is a devolved matter which requires the consent of the Senedd.

There are a number of other amendments which I will try to speak to. We know that child sexual abuse continues to go unreported. The reasons for this are complex, including fear, stigma and lack of awareness. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester covered some of those points in relation to the performance of the Church of England.

The unique nature of child sexual abuse as a type of harm requires the introduction of this new duty. I want to be clear that the introduction of the new duty establishes a floor, not a ceiling, and does not change or interfere with in any way the existing expectations set by government that all children at risk of harm should be referred to the appropriate authority for guidance and advice.

I want to first touch on Amendments 274 and 276, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which seek to require that reports under the duty are made to local authorities only, removing, with minor exceptions, the option to notify the police. Allowing reports to be made to either the local authority or the police, as recommended by the independent inquiry, ensures that reporters can act swiftly, so I cannot accept that amendment.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and others, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought to introduce a criminal offence for those who conceal or fail to report abuse. The Government do not consider this type of sanction, which risks creating fear and apprehension among those with reporting responsibilities, to be proportionate or effectively targeted. That is why we are empowering reporters by focusing the criminal sanctions in this Bill on anyone who seeks to interfere with them carrying out their duty, rather than on the reporters themselves. This issue has been carefully considered by a number of agencies and has the support of, among others, the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, Barnardo’s, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Children’s Commissioner, so I cannot support the amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—via the noble Lord, Lord Meston—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen seek to extend the duty to a number of additional contexts. The purpose of the duty is to report and place a clear requirement on those most likely to encounter information relating to sexual abuse. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the right reverend Prelate that this does include members of the clergy. Proposals to extend the ambit of a reporting duty to those who do not personally come into contact with children would introduce another layer of procedural complexity.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

295A: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Obscenity etc offences: technology testing defence(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide defences to relevant offences for persons who are authorised by the Secretary of State to carry out technology testing activities.(2) “Technology testing activities” means activities which are carried out in the course of, or in connection with, testing technology for the purposes of—(a) investigating whether it may have been made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, prohibited material, or(b) testing whether it may be used to create, or facilitate the creation of, prohibited material.(3) “Prohibited material” means anything in relation to which a relevant offence may be committed.(4) The regulations may make provision about authorisations by the Secretary of State to carry out technology testing activities, including provision—(a) for authorisations to be subject to conditions (which may be specified in the regulations or determined by the Secretary of State);(b) for the variation, suspension, or withdrawal of authorisations and conditions;(c) for the enforcement of any breaches of conditions (which may include provision creating criminal offences punishable with a fine);(d) for fees to be payable to the Secretary of State, as a means of recovering costs incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising functions under the regulations.(5) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under this section containing provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament. (6) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making regulations under this section containing provision that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause creates a power to make regulations providing a defence to certain offences which may be committed in the course of technology testing, where the technology testing is authorised by the Secretary of State.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

308: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Disregarding convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In the heading of Chapter 4, omit “for buggery etc.”(3) For the italic heading before section 92, substitute “Sexual activity between persons of the same sex”. (4) After section 94 insert—“Loitering or soliciting: under 18s
94A Automatic disregard of convictions or cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) A conviction or caution is a disregarded conviction or caution if—(a) it was for an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution), and(b) the offender was aged under 18 at the time of the offence.(2) Sections 95 to 98 explain the effect of a conviction or caution being a disregarded conviction or caution.”.(5) In section 95 (effect of disregard on police and other records)—(a) before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) Subsections (1) to (4) apply in respect of a conviction or caution disregarded under section 92.”;(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A relevant data controller must delete from relevant official records, as soon as reasonably practicable, any details of which they are aware of a conviction or caution disregarded under section 94A.”(6) In section 99 (appeal against refusal to disregard convictions or cautions)—(a) in the heading, at the end insert “for sexual activity between persons of the same sex”;(b) in paragraph (a), after “application” insert “made under section 92”.(7) In section 100 (advisers)—(a) in the heading, at the end insert “on applications under section 92”;(b) in subsection (1), after “case” insert “under section 92”.(8) In section 101 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “disregarded caution”, after “which” insert “is or”;(b) in the definition of “disregarded conviction”, after “which” insert “is or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a conviction or caution for loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, where the offender was under 18 at the time of the offence, to be disregarded.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 308 and 309 are closely bound with Amendment 313 tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie. If the Committee will allow me, I will ask my noble friend Lady Ritchie to speak to her amendments and on behalf of our noble friend Lady Goudie, who is unable to be here tonight. That being the case, I will then respond to both the Opposition Front Bench and any comments made by my noble friends, given that the lead amendment is mine but is very much tied up with a range of amendments. In that case, I will sit down and allow the proceedings to continue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendments in my own name, Amendments 316A and 316B, relating to prostitution, and Amendments 310 to 313 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister.

Like my noble friend Lady Goudie, I wish to address the exploitation of women and girls. As she has outlined in the amendments, which have also been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, women and girls are trafficked, exploited and routinely abused in prostitution for the profit of others. I fully support all her amendments, which would finally bring laws in England and Wales into alignment with those in Northern Ireland following the work of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, when he was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie are clearly needed, as they shift the burden of criminality from vulnerable women on to the men who buy sex, the traffickers, the pimps and the platforms that facilitate and profit from prostitution. Quite simply, my noble friend Lady Goudie has my full support.

I move on to address Amendments 316A and 316B in my name. Commercial sexual exploitation is a continuum. Women move from one form of prostitution to another. For example, a women may be involved in pornography production but moves to selling sex in person or vice versa. Women often go from in-person stripping to online camming sites. I hasten to add that I do not have any particular knowledge of this issue, but I am aware of it. I thought I would add that piece of information. While the location or act may change, what rarely changes is the exploitation of the women involved.

I will focus on just one aspect of this: online sexual exploitation via camming sites. These are websites where someone is requested to perform sexual activities in front of a webcam for paying subscribers. These content creators, as they are known—although I am reluctant to use the phrase, as it diminishes the exploitation—are usually women, and the subscribers are usually men; in other words, women sell sex, and men buy it. These sites come with their own specific dangers and types of exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl for that question. I have made the position of the Front Bench clear and think it is now for the Minister to answer such a testing question.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick for commencing this discussion and debate. A number of views have been expressed in Committee today and some go wider than the amendments that are before us. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised a number of issues which go beyond what is before us. My noble friend Lady Ritchie also touched on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. It is clear that there are differing views in the Committee—from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on the Front Bench opposite—which tells me that this is a truly complex area where there are very different legislative options open and where the Government need to consider very carefully what needs to be done.

The Government are absolutely committed to tackling the harms associated with prostitution and sexual exploitation, including where it takes place online. This is an important part of our work on tackling violence against women and girls which, as colleagues in the Committee will know, is a top government priority, and about which we will be saying more shortly. But we need to look at the evidence. We have limited evidence as to what will most effectively reduce demand for prostitution and disrupt exploitation without—and this is the key point that came out of some of the contributions—unintentionally causing harm to victims and survivors and making life more difficult for those who choose that lifestyle. I say to my noble friend that the Government are not in a position to accept the amendments today, but I want to make it absolutely clear that we are in the business of taking steps to tackle sexual exploitation and to gather evidence to inform further interventions in the future.

Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie would make it an offence to assist, facilitate, or control the prostitution of another person, regardless of whether the individual secures any personal gain from this facilitation. The broad wording of this offence could—and again this echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said—have an adverse consequence for people who choose to be engaged in prostitution, for example, by criminalising professionals such as healthcare support workers, charities which provide sexually transmitted infections testing or those providing contraception or safety planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made a compelling case around some of the issues that the Government have reflected on in relation to that amendment. My noble friend Lady Goudie’s amendment would also make it a criminal offence to operate a website hosting adverts for prostitution, and I will come back to that again in a moment, if I may.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie, in Amendments 316A and 316B, would introduce new criminal offences to tackle the sale of personalised sexual content online, including audiovisual and visual content. Amendment 316A would make it an offence to own, manage or facilitate one of these online platforms, while Amendment 316B would create an offence of causing or inciting an individual to sell personalised sexual content on these platforms. It would also introduce a duty on the online platform to remove personalised sexual content within 24 hours if an individual is convicted of the offence and if an individual who is incited to sell the content has requested its removal.

The Government recognise very strongly that we need to take action to tackle these websites. The so-called pimping websites need to be addressed and tackled. However, I would argue that criminalising those websites may have safety implications for people who sell sex and may result in displacement to on-street prostitution, which is more dangerous for individuals. It may also disrupt policing operations. The police can scan adult service websites for signs of vulnerability and exploitation and to gain data to support criminal investigations.

I accept that members of the Committee might want government Ministers to say that, but Changing Lives, an organisation supporting people who have been sexually exploited, also advocates against criminalising adult service websites. Instead, it is calling for stronger regulation, more referral mechanisms and more funding to support people affected by exploitation.

Amendment 311 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie would make it an offence for an individual to pay for or attempt to pay for sex either for themselves or on behalf of others. The Government have looked in detail at this approach in other countries which have taken it and have seen indications that the law can be misused to harass and victimise people engaged in prostitution. Again, that is a matter for debate and discussion, but that is the view the Government currently take.

Amendment 312, in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie, would repeal the offence in Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 which criminalises a person aged 18 or over who persistently loiters or solicits

“in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution”.

Amendment 313 would disregard prior convictions and cautions. There may be some common ground here, because I absolutely recognise the concern that this offence may criminalise vulnerable individuals and restrict their opportunities for employment. However, I am also mindful that on-street prostitution can have an impact on local communities, and it is important that we consider their views.

My noble friend Lady Goudie, were she able to be here, would say that the criminal law rightly evolved in 2015 to make it clear that children cannot be prostitutes and that any child who is paid in exchange for sex is clearly a victim of child sexual exploitation. Therefore, I would argue that it is long overdue that individuals issued cautions or convictions for the offence in Section 1 of the Street Offences Act before 2015 have their criminal records expunged.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked for details. I simply repeat: children cannot be prostitutes. Children who are paid in exchange for sex are clearly victims of sexual exploitation. The records currently in place provide significant barriers to the employment and psychological rehabilitation of those who are now adults. It is important that we look at the long-term consequences of those incidences and help support them in rebuilding their lives. That is why we have tabled government Amendment 308, which will disregard convictions and cautions for Section 1 offences issued to under 18s. Amendment 309 will provide pardons for such convictions and cautions.

In each case, what we have tried to do—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will reflect on this—is to ensure that the disregard and pardon are automatic. We do not want to retraumatise victims and survivors of childhood abuse by requiring them to go through an application process. I asked today in our internal Home Office discussions how many individuals this could impact. We have looked at the figures for the last 30 years and assess that 350 to 352 individuals would fall under the auspices of that. Someone aged under 18 30 years ago is now approaching their 50s. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that for that person an offence committed as a child would still be on their record. Something they maybe did not have responsibility for at the time would therefore impact upon their employment and life chances. Therefore, I would welcome his support for that repeal.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I entirely support what the Minister is putting forward. Is it the intention of the Home Office to track down these 350 or so individuals and notify them of the consequences of this legislation when it is enacted?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will reflect on that, but, as I said, the disregard and pardon will be automatic, so it will happen if the Bill receives the support of both Houses and Royal Assent. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said, because there may be an opportunity to consider that. However, I do not want to commit to it today, because we do not necessarily know where someone who was that age in 1995 is now—the address, contact details and so on might all be different. The key point is that this is an automatic disregard for those individuals, so if publicity is given to this new clause and the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will potentially lift a burden for those who were under 18 at the time.

The Government cannot share in the support for repeal of the Section 1 offence for those over 18, and I can give reasons for that. We will consider in future, if the Section 1 offence is repealed in its entirety, whether the disregard and pardon should be extended to adults, because that is a separate issue. However, today I wanted to focus on those under 18.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

Will the Minister consider separating the disregard and the pardon?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am trying to think how that would impact upon the issue we are talking about today. In effect, the disregard and pardon will be automatic for people under the age of 18. I will look at what the noble Earl said and discuss it with Home Office colleagues in that context.

As I have rejected the amendments in the name of my noble friend, I reassure her that there is a range of ongoing work to tackle sexual exploitation, and our intention is to continue working with the police, charities and those affected to ensure that we take action. It is important that we draw attention—as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, did—to online platforms’ legal duties under the Online Safety Act 2023, which came into play on 17 March. That Act sets out priority offences that platforms must take additional steps to tackle. In addition, I hope it will help my noble friend Lady Ritchie to know that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to cause, incite or control prostitution for gain. Those offences, together with human trafficking offences, are priority offences under the 2023 Act.

As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, indicated, platforms should now already be completing risk assessments and implementing measures to mitigate against the risk of their services being used for illegal activity and having illegal content present. Ofcom is providing recommended measures for compliance through the illegal content codes, and platforms must be able to demonstrate the measures they have taken to comply with their duties. Very significant fines of 10% of global revenue are in place, or, in extreme cases, business disruption measures.

To show that we are not ignoring the issues my noble friend has raised, I also point out that we have introduced provisions in Schedule 13 that will enable law enforcement agencies to apply to the courts to temporarily suspend for up to 12 months IP and domain names used for serious crimes such as sexual exploitation. We are also working closely with the police and other law enforcement partners to ensure that the laws we already have are effectively enforced.

Through our law enforcement partners, we are running a pilot whereby adverts are referred to the Home Office- funded Tackling Organised Exploitation Programme to consider if offences have been committed on adult service websites. In addition, as my noble friend has mentioned, our law enforcement partners are working closely with Ofcom on the issue of adult service websites to ensure that the right measures are put in place to identify and remove illegal content and safeguard people from sexual exploitation.

It may help my noble friend to know that we are providing £450,000 to the National Police Chiefs’ Council this year to pilot a national law enforcement intelligence and investigation hub for sexual exploitation, collating information on victims and perpetrators. We are also providing £475,000 to Changing Lives to provide support to those affected by sexual exploitation.

I hope the Committee can reflect on this difficult and challenging topic. I commend Amendments 308 and 309 to the Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Picking up what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about licensing sex workers, I wonder whether the Minister knows what goes on in Holland, where each individual woman is licensed as an individual business. I walked through the red-light district of a small town and saw women in all the windows, and I was told by a local Dutch councillor that all of them had pimps. They were either on the phone to their pimp or the curtains were pulled. So I suggest that licensing does not stop pimping.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that. As I said, the Home Office has examined and looked at a range of alternative methods of regulation and legislation from other countries. The issue of licensing is outside these amendments and the legislative proposals in the Bill, so I do not wish to go down that route today. But obviously we look at all experiences. Our main objective is to ensure that we support, and protect the safety of, individuals who choose to involve themselves in this work, and at the same time to ensure that no harm comes to wider society as a result of those actions. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this today, but it is not an issue that I can explore at this moment, for the reasons I have outlined.

Amendment 308 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

309: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Pardons for convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.(2) After section 165 insert—“165A Pardons for convictions etc for loitering or soliciting when under 18: England and Wales(1) Subsection (2) applies in respect of a person (whether living or deceased) who—(a) was convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution), and(b) was aged under 18 at the time of the offence.(2) The person is pardoned for the offence.(3) Expressions used in this section or section 167(1) (so far as relating to this section) and in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have the same meaning in this section or (as the case may be) section 167(1) as in that Chapter (see section 101 of that Act).”.(3) In section 167 (sections 164 to 166: supplementary)—(a) in subsection (1) for “or 165” substitute “, 165 or 165A”;(b) in subsection (2) for “or 165” substitute “, 165 or 165A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for pardons for persons convicted of or cautioned for loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution when they were under 18.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for moving this amendment, which, as she says, seeks to accelerate the commencement of the 2023 Act. The intention behind the amendment is clear and wholly understandable: to ensure that victims of sex-based harassment benefit from protections that Parliament has already approved, and to do so without further delay.

Without doubt, there is a shared desire across this House to see individuals, particularly women and girls, better protected from harassment in public spaces, and while I entirely understand that commencement provisions often involve important practical and operational considerations, including the readiness of policing and guidance frameworks, and that there has to be an explanation of the implications of altering the timetable set out in the original Act, we on these Benches recognise the motivation behind the amendment and the concerns that it seeks to address.

If the Government do not agree with the amendment, we look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress there has been towards commencement and whether the approach proposed here would assist the effective implementation of the Act’s provisions.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising the important issue of public sexual harassment. As has been discussed, Amendment 315 seeks to automatically commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. I remind the Committee that this Government have been responsible for periods of activity since July 2024, not for two years. As members of the Committee will know, tackling public sexual harassment is an important part of the Government’s mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls in a decade.

As the Committee knows, and as I have said on numerous occasions, including today, the new violence against women and girls strategy is to be produced as soon as possible. It will include a range of actions to tackle sexual harassment. I reassure the noble Baroness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, that the measures we are developing within this to address sex-based harassment include options for commencement of the 2023 Act.

I echo fully the sentiments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and agree that timely implementation of legislation is an important principle to follow. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that, if we pass legislation, we must look to introduce it. The Government have heard what noble Lords have said: namely, that we need to set a timeline for the commencement of the 2023 Act. It is important to fully consider the issues of implementation of the new offence, including engagement with the police and operational partners. We want to ensure that, when the offence comes into force, it is used often and well.

I assure all noble Lords who have spoken today that the Government intend to commence this offence as soon as is reasonably practicable. By bringing the provisions of the 2023 Act into force through the usual commencement regulations, we can ensure that this can be timed so that the police and others are ready. Accordingly, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to be patient and wait for our violence against women and girls strategy, which will appear in short order. In the meantime, I hope she is content to withdraw the amendment.

I say that because we are looking at options to commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023. We believe that it will tackle this issue and ensure that women feel safer on our streets. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as with all primary legislation, we need a preparatory period, but my officials in the Home Office, along with my ministerial colleagues, are working through the next steps. We are taking the time to get this right. I assure noble Lords that we will provide an update in due course and that they will not have too long to wait.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am struggling to get what I have just heard right. Earlier this evening, we discussed a number of amendments in which we were not supported because we expect to see the strategy on violence against women and girls. This is completely different. There is legislation that is on the books but has not been commenced. Can the Minister explain why it cannot be commenced now? It is a completely different issue from what is going to be in the strategy, where there may be surprises. The Minister has told us that it will be commenced. What is the delay?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are looking with police and other partners at the stage at which we wish to commence the legislation. We have been in office since July last year; my honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Minister for Safeguarding, is undertaking a considerable amount of work to pull together the strategy, which we expect to be able to announce in very short order. As part of that strategy, we are looking at a range of measures, including harassment. I accept that that is on the statute book now, but it is important that we produce a package of measures that is whole and includes a range of things, which I am not at liberty to talk about today but are in genesis for the violence against women and girls strategy that we will publish shortly.

We are now in Committee. Report will happen at a later stage in this Session. I very much expect that by then we will have published our violence against women and girls strategy, and I hope that at that stage the noble Baroness will not need to look at pressing this amendment further. For the time being, I ask her to give us time to consult further, make sure we implement this correctly and allow the violence against women and girls strategy to be published. I would be grateful if she would not push her amendment at this stage but reflect on what I have said. If not, we will return to this in due course.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, beginning with the amendments that regulate the name changes of sex offenders, I am glad that Members across your Lordships’ House agree on the necessity of regulations. Clause 87 is a sensible measure from the Government, and the amendments that build on its principle are similarly prudent. An individual who commits a crime as intrusive and offensive as a sexual offence demonstrates that they are a threat to public order and safety. After all, that is the reason why we have a sex offender register. Criminals who have proven that they pose a risk should be monitored by the authorities, and the authorities should have the necessary details to monitor and manage them.

Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would ensure that those who change their name by deed poll are legally required to alert the police of this change. The amendments in the name of the Minister extend the provision restricting the granting of driving licences in a new name to Northern Ireland. All these amendments seek to consolidate the existing legislation to ensure that there are no gaps there or in the Government’s new law, and we support the principle behind them.

The most consequential of the amendments in this group is that tabled by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. It would serve to bar those who commit sexual offences from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This is a very necessary measure. I am glad that the Government have not yet granted an exemption for sex-offending transgender criminals, which would allow them to attend a prison different from their biological sex. Hailing from north of the border—where, as others have commented, there have been several incidents of that happening—I believe that it is a very worrying scenario indeed.

The Government have still not implemented the Supreme Court’s judgment in the For Women Scotland case, neither in statute nor in guidance. There is still the chance that those who commit sexual offences can end up in the wrong prison through obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I am not remotely suggesting that the Government would wilfully do this, but I hope that, given their record on prisoner administration, the Minister can understand our concerns.

No safeguards currently exist outside of ministerial discretion. A way to guarantee that this does not happen would be to bar sex offenders from obtaining a certificate in the first place; it is a bare minimum. In sending such people to prison, we are admitting that they are not trustworthy among the public; why, then, should we risk the safety of prisoners of the opposite sex? For those reasons, I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister can too.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch. There are also a number of amendments in my name, which I will formally move and explain what they mean in a moment.

Clause 94, which we will come to in more detail later, provides for the police to restrict changes of name on registered sex offenders’ identity documents. Where the police consider it necessary to prevent sexual harm, they will be able to issue a notice to a registered sex offender, which may require them to apply for the police’s authorisation to change their name on specified documents. This will ensure that registered sex offenders who are deemed to be at risk of using a name change to commit sexual harm are unable to continue offending under a new name and pass under the radar of law enforcement. I am grateful for noble Lords’ broad support for the Government’s general direction of travel on these points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Does that mean that if somebody changes a name and does not inform the police, the new name can be put on the sex offenders register?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is my understanding of the position. I hope that helps the noble and learned Baroness. That is the principle behind what we are proposing here today. Again, I say to the whole Committee that this is, ultimately, management based on risk, not on gender.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

May I press the Minister on one specific point? I understand what he is saying about management of risk, but would it be possible for a convicted sex offender—a serious sex offender or rapist—to be prevented, on the basis of risk, from obtaining a gender recognition certificate, should they wish to do so? Would it be possible for that to be barred in a specific case, should that individual be assessed as posing a risk to public safety?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 ensures that convicted sex offenders are already subject to post-conviction controls. They are managed according to their risk, and the sex offenders register is about looking at the position with regard to the individual having the risk on the basis of their actions. It would not be possible to stop someone applying for a gender recognition certificate. Ultimately, they would be placed on the sex offenders register based on their risk, not on their gender. With that, I hope that the noble Lords will not press the amendments.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, may I also ask a question for clarification? It is not really about GRC but about the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made about name change. I know that the Minister covered that in his comments, but I am still left a little confused. Can a person who is a convicted sex offender and on the sex offenders register change their name by deed poll and have their new name omitted, therefore, from the sex offenders register? Surely, as soon as a sex offender changes their name, if they are changing their name from a male name to a female name, that needs to be updated on the sex offenders register.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My understanding of the position is that the individual is on the sex offenders register, regardless of the name that they are currently providing. The risk is around the individual. If a registered sex offender seeks to change their name, the provisions in the Bill will apply, as proposed in the Bill here today.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

On a final clarification—possibly the Minister will write to us, because there is some confusion—I have always said that it is about managing risk and that it has nothing to do with gender. When I have raised this issue in the past, my concern has been that once gender is added into the mix, risk somehow gets forgotten slightly.

First, the point of the sex offenders register is not just for the authorities to know that they are there but for all sorts of institutions to know. I have been told in the past that an enhanced privacy privilege is given to those who change gender. Is that not true? Therefore, even probing that means that we will leave it well alone.

Secondly, in relation to DBS checks and so on, a change of gender, a change of identity—forget the politics of it—can mean that nobody knows that you are the person on the sex offenders register. If the DBS check is in one name, there is no way of knowing that you are the same person who is the rapist. That was why I used the Clive Bundy-Claire Fox example—Clive Bundy, as Claire Fox, would not show up on DBS checks or be on the sex offenders register if they went to work with children. That cannot be right or what the Government intend.

Maybe I have got it all wrong, but nobody from the Government has reassured me. By the way, my questions and amendments in the past were to the previous Government, so this is not having a go at this Government. This has been an unholy mess over two Governments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It may help the Committee if I say that both the original name and the new name would be recorded. For clarity, where a DBS check applicant has changed their names, they are required to state all names that they have been previously known by on the application form. In submitting that form, applicants sign a legal declaration declaring that they have not knowingly provided false information. Failure to disclose previous names and deliberately avoiding detection of previous convictions would lead to an individual being liable for prosecution. I hope that helps to clarify the position with regard to the amendments. I invite the noble Lords not to press them at this stage.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am on the “how to change your name” government website, which says that if you are a sex offender, violent offender or terrorist offender, you must go to your local prescribed police station where you are known within three days of changing your name. It is a criminal offence if you do not tell the police straightaway. There will be probation and other things going on in the background as well.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is worth clarifying that this group of people are not necessarily the kind of people I trust. This idea that a local sex offender—or terrorist, since we have been talking about Bondi Beach—thinks, “God, it would be against the law if I didn’t declare that I’ve changed my name”, and would be frightened by the possibility that they would be breaking the law, seems a tad naive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the Committee that the position of any of these individuals—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned in her initial contribution—will be subject to consistently heavy management. These are serious offenders. There is a Probation Service. There is a MAPPA process. There is the registration. I have given the assurance that both names will be included in that registration.

Every piece of legislation that any House of Commons and House of Lords passes is subject to people breaking it. That happens, but there will be significant consequences in the event of that occurring. I am simply saying to the noble Baroness who has proposed this amendment, and to the proposals in the Bill that are genuinely welcome across the Committee, that there is significant supervision of sex offenders, and the requirements are as I have outlined to the Committee already. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am glad he focused on risk mitigation, and I think we got there in the final few paragraphs of his response. We need to take very seriously what he said, and I hope that if anything he said needs qualification, he will write to us subsequently, because this is a really important area.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

318: Clause 89, page 104, line 17, after “46,” insert “46A,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

320: Clause 94, page 120, line 20, leave out “driving licence” and insert “licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 16, makes it possible for the regulations made by the Secretary of State to prevent a relevant offender getting a British driving licence in a new name as a replacement for a previous driving licence issued in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

326: Schedule 10, page 285, line 39, at end insert—
“15A In section 136 (Part 2: Northern Ireland), in subsection (11), after “sections” insert “86B, 87A, 93A, 93H,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the term “Secretary of State” is not read, in relation to Northern Ireland, as meaning the Department of Justice in provisions inserted into Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where there is different provision about Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems an awful long time since my cycling proficiency test. We can debate whether standards have slipped in the 50-plus years since I took my test, but I think it is a common experience of all noble Lords who have spoken that a small minority of cyclists’ reckless actions potentially put people at risk. As a temporary resident of London during the week, I regularly see cyclists on pavements and going through red lights. I can report that, on crossing a zebra crossing one evening, I myself was almost hit by a cyclist, who was then pulled over by a police car not 100 metres later, much to my satisfaction. So it is possible for enforcement to happen.

I want to start with enforcement, because it is a thread that has run through a number of noble Lords’ contributions. It is right that strict legislation is already in place for cyclists, and the police do have the power to prosecute if these laws are broken. Cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible way that is reflected in the highway code. The Road Traffic Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, imposes a fine of £2,500 for dangerous cycling and of £1,000 for careless cycling. The Road Traffic Act 1988 also makes it an offence to ride a bike if a person is unfit to do so due to drink or drugs. A considerable amount of activity is undertaken by the police to enforce these potential breaches of legislation. In fact, the Government themselves have pledged £2.7 million for each of the next three years to support police enforcement action on road traffic offences in the form of Operation Topaz, which is a strategic partnership between the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

I was pleased also to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the City of London Police, who I know have taken this matter extremely seriously. They have cycling police officers who can catch offenders who have gone off-road into areas where vehicles or police officers on foot could not catch them, so it is important we recognise that. We have had contributions today from the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Hogan-Howe, and Lord Blencathra, who introduced amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have also heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Pidgeon and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All have touched on the issues of enforcement and whether the legislation is significant enough.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to Clause 106, which is where these amendments are coming from. Clause 106 underlines the Government’s determination that cyclists who cause death or serious injury should face the full force of the law, as if that were done by a motor vehicle. The criminal justice system should not fail fully to hold to account the small minority of cyclists whose reckless actions lead to tragic consequences. A number of contributors to the debate have mentioned their personal experiences and have also witnessed incidents. There is a whole cohort of cyclists who obey the law and who perform well, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would anticipate me saying, there is a health benefit to cycling that should be recognised and encouraged. However, there is certainly a holding to account of death and serious injury, and that is where the Government are coming from as a starting point to the debate today.

A wide group of amendments has been put forward, and I will try to touch on each amendment in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I spoke to him before he went on his short, I hope, leave of absence from the House and discussed these amendments with him briefly. I wish him well for his speedy recovery and thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing the amendments on his behalf.

Amendments 330, 338, 339, 340 and 342 would allow persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Again, let us not forget that Clause 106 contains the penalty of significant jail time, and potentially a life sentence with significant jail time added to it. I agree that dangerous or careless cyclists are a serious risk to others, but disqualification would pose significant challenges. This may touch on other, later amendments, but self-evidently, cyclists are not currently required to have licences, and the only obvious way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system. However, such a system would be complicated, costly and, I would argue, potentially disproportionate, in that it would be created solely to enforce offences perpetrated by a small minority of people. Again, I do not think the noble Lord intended his amendment to serve as a barrier to cycling, but my concern is that it would risk implementation of this and would not really be workable.

In his own right, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, introduced Amendments 337B and 337F. Again, these would introduce greater criminal penalties for cyclists riding heavier, faster e-bikes. I do understand that, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, it is e-bikes that have been illegally modified for greater speed that represent an inherently greater risk to other road users. There is no longer any weight limit, following enactment of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983, but they do specify that the electrically assisted speed for e-bikes is limited to 15.5 miles per hour. E-bikes that can achieve greater speeds would not be compliant with these regulations and therefore would be classed as motor vehicles. Because they are motor vehicles, a person using such could already be prosecuted under the existing offences in the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death or serious injury, which carry the same penalties as proposed in the new cycling offences: a life sentence with a 14-year potential sentence.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Just for clarification, the Minister said that they will be classed as motor vehicles. Does that mean they are still motor vehicles, even though they might not be registered or insured?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

They are classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of the legislation if they can travel above 15.5 miles per hour; but they are not, self-evidently, for the reasons I have already outlined, subject to the licensing arrangements that we have to date.

Mandatory uplifts based on specific vehicle type would be a novel but also an inconsistent approach to sentencing. Sentencing should always reflect the facts of the case and the level of culpability. Introducing rigid statutory additions could undermine the principle of proportionality, create inconsistency and risk setting an undesirable precedent. On the noble Lord’s amendments on changing the “careless and inconsiderate” cycling definition, I understand his desire to put beyond doubt that cycling on a pavement or in an area intended only for pedestrians should be considered as cycling without due care and attention. However, cycling on pavements is already an offence in its own right, as set out in Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, which is an awfully long time ago and has stood the test of time. It is also an offence under Section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Given that these offences are still in place, I would suggest that, along with those in the Bill for serious offences, that provides a sufficient deterrent.

Amendment 337F would insert the definition of a cycle. Again, I come back to Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which already defines cycles, and this definition includes compliant electrically assisted pedal cycles. As I said earlier, an e-bike that does not comply with the relevant legislation is a motor vehicle for the purposes of the legislation, not a cycle.

I turn to a series of amendments—341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which propose that a person could receive up to 12 points on their driving licence upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Reaching 12 points on their driving licence would, of course, disqualify them from driving a motor vehicle.

As I have mentioned already, cyclists do not require any form of licence to cycle, therefore the noble Lord proposes points on a driving licence as an alternative penalty. In the Sentencing Bill, which is currently before your Lordships’ House, there is already a new driving prohibition requirement that the court can impose when giving a community or suspended sentence order. This prohibition will allow a court to take a more flexible and tailored approach to punishment than a driving disqualification, and it will be available irrespective of the offence that has been committed. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that the provision in the Sentencing Bill goes some way towards meeting his objective.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 346A and 498A seek to create a registration scheme for the purposes of enforcing the new offences in Clause 106—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, on the point about the prohibition that might come from the Sentencing Bill, is the danger that unless the sentencing guidelines shift to reflect that new piece of legislation, you will end up with a very inconsistent approach in at least 43 police force areas as applied by the magistrates in those areas? If it is just a random event, they might lose their driving licence because of anti-social behaviour, some of which might be on a cycle. I understand the principal point that the Minister makes but I am not convinced that it will lead to a radical change in the way that cyclists are called to account through their driving licence.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is ultimately for the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the Sentencing Bill, to look at sentencing guideline issues later. I cannot give assurances on those points today. However, the Sentencing Bill is currently before this House and it is trying to look at those issues as a whole. When it is law, my noble friend Lady Levitt and others will look at guidelines and those potential enforcement issues as a matter of some urgency. The Sentencing Bill proposes, in some way, one of the issues that the noble Lord seeks to achieve.

Again, self-evidently, a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier. The absence of a registration scheme does not make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry that are open to them by examining other evidence before them at the time of any potential incident.

As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, the House must accept that the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists would mean, for example—this was mentioned in one of the contributions today—that all cycle owners, including children and those making new purchases, would have to submit their information to a central database. That central database would be required to keep the information and the ownership up to date, and some form of registration plate would need to be affixed to a cycle. To give the noble Lord one statistic, the Bicycle Association has estimated that nearly 1.5 million new cycles were sold in 2024. That is a big undertaking. I know that the noble Lord understands that, but the enforceability of the existing legislation is the key, and the work that we are doing, which I have opened my remarks with, would be key to that and would counterbalance the potential cost to the public purse of establishing the registration scheme.

Amendment 346B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks for e-bikes, which are currently faster and more powerful, to be treated as motorbikes or mopeds for policing purposes. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 mean that e-bikes which do not comply with existing regulations will be treated as motor vehicles for policing purposes. The Department for Transport, which has overall responsibility for these areas, has published fact sheets explaining that e-bikes which do not comply with regulations will be treated as motor vehicles.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled Amendments 341, 343 and 344, which seek to reduce the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from life imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment. We have taken the view—I am pleased with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this—that the offences in the Bill bring into line this behaviour so that it is subject to maximum penalties equivalent to those already in place for dangerous driving offences, which is life imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister referred in a debate last week to a Bill currently before the House with micromobility provisions. It would be interesting to know whether the consultation has already taken place before that aspect of the Bill. I am sure that it is in his notes, but I cannot for the life of me remember what Bill it was. Also, the amount of funding from the Home Office that the department has announced is an operational matter. It is very welcome, but how will he ensure that each individual force such as the Met will use that money and implement enforcement?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are operational issues. We put the money into Operation Topaz for all police forces to examine them, and ultimately it is for the forces to determine. The City of London Police has determined who is a problem in the City of London. There is a strong argument for parts of the country to face further enforcement measures because self-evidently there are problems. There will be public consultation before any new regulations come into force. It is a Department for Transport matter, so I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to reflect on that with regard to when the consultation is. I will get back to her as a matter of course.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 344 seeks to require reporting annually on cycling offences. We already publish annual statistics on those killed and seriously injured—in fact, a number of noble Lords and Ladies have quoted those in the debate today. Therefore, I suggest that this is already covered.

Amendment 346, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to make it an offence to tamper with an e-bike. I accept that some people may well tamper with or modify their e-bikes to increase their speed, but as I already mentioned, this is already an offence under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Should the police issue a fixed penalty notice, this would result in a £300 fine and six penalty points, and should the case go to court, it could result in an unlimited fine and driving disqualification.

I have tried to cover a number of points; I apologise for not referring individually to every point made by every noble Lord. The broad thrust is that there is a problem—we recognise that. There should be enforcement—we are trying to address that. There is a new measure in the Bill, Clause 106, to increase the level of penalty for causing death and serious injury by dangerous cycling. We recognise that and I welcome the support of the House. A range of discussion points and measures have been brought forward today around lifting, increasing or changing the penalties accordingly. We may well revisit those on Report, but the Government are right in recognising the problem, putting some money into enforcement and making dangerous cycling and causing death by cycling further offences with serious consequences.

I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw and not to press his amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am sorry that I could not be here at the beginning of this group. My noble friend has given a very encouraging response to the many amendments—

[Lord in waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has gone over time, but in any case the noble Lord needed to be here at the start of the group to be able to intervene during the debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful. This Minister would not have gone over time had he not given way, but he now has gone over time and so will sit down. I commend the course of action that I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his decency in replying as fully as he possibly could. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there are many more groups to go on cycling, and I think he will have a chance of input there.

The general thrust that the Minister detected is one thing, but, if I may say so, my forecast was right. I said at the beginning that the general thrust I would detect was that Peers from all sides would be highly critical that not enough is being done. Clause 106 is okay as far as it goes, but there is a much wider problem out there, as articulated by nine other Peers from all sides, in addition to me. My noble friends LadyMcIntosh of Pickering and Lady Stowell asked why this never-ending consultation is taking place. Someone said that, as this is a Home Office Bill, why does it not just get on with it? It may be a Home Office Bill, but it is the Department for Transport’s policy, and that is where the rot lies.

Those who criticised the last Government were absolutely right to do so. I condemn in no uncertain terms the Department for Transport under the leadership from 2019 to 2022 of Mr Grant Shapps, who was obsessed with getting more and more e-bikes and e-scooters on the road. The reason the consultations were extended was, in my view, and in what was tipped off to me, that he wanted to get so many more e-bikes out there that it would be impossible to pull back on them. It is like the police saying that everybody is shoplifting and so there is nothing they can do about it. Mr Shapps wanted to say, “Everyone has got e-bikes now, so we cannot put in a registration system and we cannot control them”.

If noble Lords want further evidence of the Department for Transport’s attitude, in February 2024 it went out to consultation again. The consultation was to double the size of the electric motor from 250 watts to 500 watts and to introduce an additional speeding system. There were 2,100 responses; the vast majority of professionals—police forces and others—totally condemned it, and the Department for Transport had to pull that back, and rightly so. But mark my words, it will try it on again and again.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very good point: why should cyclists have a right to a healthy life but not the pedestrians who are getting mowed down? He tabled some good amendments that would be excellent. He made the point that although everyone has called for more enforcement, you cannot have more enforcement if you do not know the bike and the identity of the person riding it.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that the amendments just do not go far enough. She used the term Wild West. I assume she was quoting the press release—I have it here—from the Mayor of London, Mr Sadiq Khan, who said that very thing last month: London is now a Wild West for e-bikes.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made an absolutely excellent speech, and I commend him for it. He is right to say that we have boosted cycling, which is a good thing, but have not boosted the safety protocols. He is right about cyclists jumping red lights. You do not have to go far to see that; go to our prison gates at the Peers’ entrance and stand there and look at the pedestrian crossing and the lights. Last week, when the lights changed to red for the cars, I was halfway across when a cyclist tried to come through. I stopped and said: “Get back! Get back!” He did actually stop and move back a bit. That happens all the time. They use the red lights as an excuse; when cars stop, the cyclists belt through.

My noble friend Lord Goschen made the point that there is no enforcement at all. He wondered why anyone would bother to buy a moped or a small motorbike, when you have to have an MOT and insurance and pass a test, when they can buy an e-bike which goes 70 miles an hour and does everything you want, and you do not have to do anything to register or insure it, and no one will stop you when you break the law.

My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made the comment, rightly so, that there is a threat to disabled people. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, welcomed my definition of cycles. It is possible that that was the only thing she agreed with me on, but I will take any little crumbs of comfort. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel supported most of my amendments, as I fully support his. I did ask for tougher penalties, but I am now content that the penalties are okay.

The Minister, in his speech, which was as courteous as usual, said that only a small minority break the law. He is right, I think, when that applies to the conventional cyclists and not e-bikes. In the past, it was my experience that it was a tiny minority of Lycra louts—the ones with their heads down between the handlebars and their backsides up in the air, belting through lights. I submit that I am certain that the majority of e-bike riders are breaking the law one way or another, either by excessive speed or by riding through lights or on the pavement. I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the food delivery drivers are breaking the law, but more of that in another group. I disagree with the Minister that we cannot have a simple presumption that if people are riding a bike on the pavement then it is automatically, per se, and without any other judgment needed, seen as driving without due care and attention.

I simply say this again. I always come in with slightly more trenchant views than many other colleagues in the House, but we have had support today from colleagues with much more moderate amendments than mine. I am fairly certain we will see that when we come to the other groups. The Minister has to go back to the Department for Transport and tell it to get off its high horse and on to its bike. We must have proper amendments to toughen up the law and deal with all the other abuses of e-bikes, particularly in London. In those circumstances, on the assumption that we will be doing more work on this, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 330.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, stalking is an offence which constitutes severe harassment and can instil grave fear into victims, as we have just heard. It is absolutely right that the law bears down on perpetrators of stalking. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 gave magistrates’ courts the power to impose stalking protection orders on application by the chief officer of police. Clause 97 extends this power so that a Crown Court can impose such an order where a person has been acquitted of any other offence.

The Government will no doubt argue that they are taking the necessary action to further prevent cases of stalking through this part of the Bill, but let us not forget another Bill they are currently taking through your Lordships’ House. The Sentencing Bill will suspend sentences for anyone charged with the offence of stalking. Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that a person found guilty of stalking is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to 51 weeks—less than the 12-month time limit for the presumption of a suspended sentence order.

Furthermore, the offence of breaking a stalking protection order is also likely to lead to a suspended sentence under the Sentencing Bill. Although a custodial sentence of up to five years can theoretically be imposed on conviction on indictment, the Sentencing Council’s guidelines state that in most cases of culpability and severity the starting point will be one year’s custody, and the ranges can go down to 12 weeks in custody and even a community order. This may very well be proportionate for low-level stalking offences, but the fact is that a person with a high degree of culpability and a medium to high level of harm will fall into the range that will mean their sentence is highly likely to be suspended.

If the Government are serious about bearing down on stalking, I suggest that letting anyone convicted of that offence walk free is not a good move for the safety of the victim. The Minister might try to rebut this argument by talking about the stalking protection orders, but I gently say to him that there is no good in letting a stalker roam the streets just because they have an order slapped on them. Given the falling police numbers, what is the likelihood of a person who violates their order actually being arrested? I also suggest that victims of stalking will not feel safer simply because their stalker has been given a court order.

What makes this even worse is that there is a very real possibility that a person who breaks the terms of their suspended sentence order will still not receive a custodial sentence. Although the automatic presumption will not apply in that case, the Government have opposed Conservative amendments to explicitly exempt people with a history of non-compliance from suspended sentences. They have also resisted our amendments to exempt repeat offenders from being handed suspended sentences.

Under this Government’s legislation, there is a very real possibility that a stalker could continually stalk their victim, break their stalking protection order and their suspended sentence order and never face jail time. That is not protecting victims. Against this backdrop, I suggest that it does not matter what we do in this place regarding stalking; we can table all the amendments we like to toughen up the protection orders, but they will not protect victims or prevent stalkers if the Government let than walk free. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, did not have much to say about what is in this Bill. He has opportunities to talk about another Bill; let him do that at another time. I am talking about this Bill. He never mentioned what was going on in this Bill, the measures within it or, indeed, the amendments before us in his opening contribution—not a single word. Maybe he should reflect on that, because he has not endeared himself to me in these discussions.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Do I ever?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks, “Do I ever?”—he does occasionally, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I was not really impressed that he did not say one single word about what is currently before the Committee. Let us have a discussion about the Sentencing Bill with my noble friends Lady Levitt and Lord Timpson another time. That is being completed. Anyway, let us leave that to one side.

I hope to be helpful in part to the noble Baronesses and others who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for bringing their experience, their views and their passion for this subject to this debate. A number of amendments are before the Committee. As I said, I hope to be helpful in part on some of them.

Amendments 330A, 330AZA, 330AA, 330AB, 330B and 330C all relate to stalking protection orders, which, as Members know, are civil orders introduced in 2020 to protect victims of stalking. Amendment 330A in the name of my noble friend Lady Royall seeks to reference explicitly the required civil burden of proof—that is, on the balance of probabilities—for determining whether the behaviour of a person to be made subject to a stalking protection order amounts to acts associated with stalking. Currently, statutory guidance for the police published by the Home Office references that it is likely the courts will apply the civil burden of proof when considering stalking protection orders, but I agree with my noble friend that there could be a case for making this clearer. I therefore undertake to consider her proposals in Amendment 330A ahead of the next stage on the Bill. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who also spoke on this matter and my noble friend.

I am grateful for Amendment 330AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am particularly grateful to her for drawing her personal experience to the attention of the Committee. I had not realised the traumas that she had had in the run up to the 2010 election, but I had a quick chance to google those matters while she was speaking. It looks like it was an appalling experience. I am grateful to her for bringing it to the attention of the Committee.

The noble Baroness’s proposal in Amendment 330AA would remove the requirement for the restrictions in SPOs to avoid, where possible, conflict with the defendant’s religious beliefs and interference with their attendance at work or at an educational establishment. On this occasion, I understand the noble Baroness’s view that this could be brought out in statutory guidance, but it is our view in the Home Office that it is important to retain this within primary legislation, particularly regarding an individual’s rights through the European Convention on Human Rights, especially Article 9 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, so I am afraid I cannot help her on that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will certainly discuss those suggestions and points with colleagues from the police. The current statutory guidance for police on SPOs includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions, many of which could align with Amendment 330AZA. For example, the guidance could include prohibitions on contacting the victim or referring to the victim on social media, either directly or indirectly. Similarly, the statutory guidance for the police on DAPOs also includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions. It may well be that the points the noble Lord has mentioned are covered in that, but I will happily reflect on what he said.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend is correct that it is, or should be, covered in guidance, but patently the judge looking at the case that I mentioned was not aware of this and said the fact that the victim had been contacted via LinkedIn was not something he could take a view on. He did not know that this was something he could take a view on. I am grateful to my noble friend for ensuring that the guidance is properly looked at.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful again to my noble friend for referring to the LinkedIn experience. My assessment, having discussed this with officials and with my colleague Ministers, is that the statutory guidance for police includes prohibitions on contacting the victim by any means, including social media. If my noble friend will let me, I will reflect on what she has said today, and I will discuss again with officials whether the guidance in its current format is sufficient to cover that point. That is my understanding, and I think it is a reasonable understanding to put before the Committee today.

Amendment 330C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would replace the power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking with a duty to do so. This would align the provision on guidance with the Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, supported the general direction of travel that the noble Baroness brought forward in her amendment. I agree that it is important, where appropriate, to ensure that legislative provisions tackling violence against women and girls are consistent. Accordingly, this is an amendment that I am happy to take away for further consideration and to discuss with officials.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I think the key question is why it is acceptable that there are different rules for “may” and “must” between this and domestic abuse protection orders.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness will allow me, we have agreed that we will take Amendment 330C away and have a look at it. That is not a guarantee that we will do something with it, but it is an opportunity to reflect on it. She can examine what, if anything, the Government do, and she can determine whether to table it again on Report.

Amendment 330B, again tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall, would introduce a stalking protection notice that could be imposed by a police superintendent. I think my noble friend’s motivation is to ensure that swift action can be taken. However, on reflection we view that introducing such a notice would potentially put further complexity into the legislative framework without significantly improving protection for victims. We also need to consider the proportionality of a police-issued notice backed by a criminal offence of breach that denies the respondent the opportunity to argue their case before an independent judicial tribunal. Failure to comply with a police-issued domestic abuse protection notice is not a criminal offence for this reason.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, tabled Amendment 331, which would provide a statutory review of the effectiveness of two stalking offences, and Amendment 332, which seeks to provide a statutory review of stalking awareness guidance. I hope the noble Baroness can accept—this goes to points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend have also mentioned—that work is currently being undertaken on both these issues. In December 2024 we announced six new measures to tackle stalking, including a commitment to review the criminal law on stalking contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As a number of speakers have referenced, we have already appointed Richard Wright KC to lead the review. It is intended to be completed by the end of March 2026. We have given a timetable. I do not think it is right and proper that we change that timetable now, as a number of noble Lords suggested. The review will consider measures to achieve clarity in the legislation. On completion of the review, the Home Secretary will consider the findings and recommendations before determining next steps, potentially including further legislation. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

There are a number of government amendments to the provisions in Clause 99. We have done this with guidance from stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Government Amendments 330AZB to 330AZE and 330AE clarify the process for appealing the making of a stalking order. Our Amendments 330AC and 330AD provide for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order and avoid applications having to be heard by a higher court. Amendments 330BA, 330D, 522A and 547A extend the provisions in Clauses 97, 98 and 100 to Northern Ireland to allow the courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders. They have been introduced in conjunction with the Department of Justice and allow it to issue guidance to the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The changes have been brought forward in amendment form at the request of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland.

I hope I have been able to assist in part my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell—and Lady Doocey. I undertake to examine Amendments 330A and 330C further ahead of the next stage. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330AZB: Clause 97, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (1)(a) after “order” insert “by a magistrates’ court, a youth court or the Crown Court””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the cases in which an appeal against the making of a stalking protection order can be brought under section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330AC: Clause 98, page 127, line 20, leave out from “by” to “a” in line 23
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to inserted section 364D of the Sentencing Code, together with my amendment to clause 98, page 127, line 35, provides for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order made by any court other than a magistrates’ or youth court to be made to the Crown Court.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330BA: After Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
“Stalking protection orders: Northern Ireland(1) The Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) is amended as follows.(2) In section 6 (meaning of act associated with stalking and risk associated with stalking), in subsection (1) for “7” substitute “6A”.(3) After section 6 insert—“Meaning of “stalking protection order”(1) In this Act “stalking protection order” means an order under this Act which, for the purpose of preventing a person from carrying out acts associated with stalking—(a) prohibits the person from doing anything described in the order, or(b) requires the person to do anything described in the order.(2) This Act provides for the making of a stalking protection order—(a) on an application under section 7, or(b) where a person is acquitted of an offence, successfully appeals against a conviction for an offence, is dealt with in respect of certain findings or is convicted of an offence (see section 8(1)).”(4) In section 7 (applications for orders) omit subsection (1).(5) In section 8 (power to make orders)—(a) for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) This section applies in respect of a person (“D”) where—(a) the Chief Constable has applied under section 7 to a court of summary jurisdiction for a stalking protection order against D,(b) D is acquitted of an offence by or before a court,(c) a court allows D’s appeal against a conviction for an offence,(d) a court deals with D in respect of a finding that—(i) D is not guilty of an offence by reason of insanity, or(ii) D is under a disability and has done the act charged against D in respect of an offence, or(e) D has been convicted of an offence and a court deals with D for the offence.”;(b) in subsection (2), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the order” substitute “a stalking protection order”. (6) In section 10 (variations, renewals and discharges)—(a) in subsection (1), for “a court of summary jurisdiction” substitute “an appropriate court”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In subsection (1) “appropriate court” means—(a) where the stalking protection order was made by a court of summary jurisdiction other than a youth court, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(b) where the stalking protection order was made by a youth court—(i) if the defendant is under the age of 18 when the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a youth court;(ii) if the defendant is aged 18 or over at the time the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(c) where the stalking protection order was made by any other court, the Crown Court.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) a stalking protection order made by a court on an appeal is to be treated as made by the court whose decision was appealed against;(b) a stalking protection order that is confirmed, varied or renewed on an appeal remains an order of the court that first made it (or, if it was made on an appeal, the court that is treated as having made it under paragraph (a)).”(7) In section 11 (interim stalking protection orders), in subsection (2), after “application” in the first place it occurs insert “under section 7”.(8) In section 12 (procedure)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) An application to the Crown Court under section 10 is to be made in accordance with Crown Court rules.”;(b) in subsection (5) omit “10 or”.(9) After section 12 insert—“Appeals(1) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(b), (c) or (d), D may appeal against the making of the order as if—(a) D had been convicted of the offence and,(b) the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order,(if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(2) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(e), D may appeal against the making of the order as if the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order (if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(3) The following may appeal against a decision under section 10 made by the Crown Court—(a) the person against whom the stalking protection order in question was made;(b) the Chief Constable.(4) An appeal under subsection (3) is to be made to the Court of Appeal, and may be made only with the permission of that court.(5) On an appeal under this section, the court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and (b) such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(6) For appeals against decisions of a court of summary jurisdiction on an application under section 7, 10 or 11, see Article 143 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26) (appeal to county court against proceedings on complaint).”(10) In section 21 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “stalking protection order”, for “section 7(1)” substitute “section 6A(1)”;(b) at the end insert—““youth court” has the meaning given by section 12.”(11) In section 20(3) (report on the operation of Act)—(a) in paragraph (b) omit “and the number of orders made under section 8”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the number of stalking protection orders made under each paragraph of section 8(1);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision extending the power of courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders at the end of criminal proceedings, similar to the provision made for England and Wales by clauses 97 and 98.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

330D: After Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance about disclosure of information by police: Northern IrelandIn the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)), in section 17—(a) in subsection (2) for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The Department must issue guidance to the Chief Constable about the disclosure of police information for the purpose of protecting persons from risks associated with stalking.(2B) The Chief Constable must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (2A).”;(c) in subsection (3) for “subsection (1)” substitute “this section”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause requires the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about disclosure of police information about stalking.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Of course it matters. It is quite a serious matter, in my opinion.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree: it does matter. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Clause 106.

I will bring the debate back to what Clause 106 is about, which is ensuring that every road user complies with road traffic law in the interests of their safety and that of other road users. This includes cyclists, which is clear in the Highway Code. Clause 106 should stand part of the Bill. We put the clause in so that there is parity between cars and cyclists in the event of death and serious injury. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for that. If I accepted the recommendation that the clause should not stand part, we would not have that provision before the Committee today.

It is important that we agree to the clause for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that over the past 10 years an average of three pedestrians have been killed by cyclists per year. In total, there were 603 pedestrian injuries following a collision with a pedal cycle in Great Britain in 2023, which was a quite considerable rise on 2014.

In the earlier debate, we heard concern around cyclists riding on pavements and going through red lights and zebra crossings. This is not about putting cyclists in prison for serious offences; it is about trying to change behaviour. It is about ensuring that people recognise that there is a penalty for poor behaviour. If somebody is killed or seriously injured as a result of someone cycling badly, it is absolutely right that we take action with Clause 106.

The Government do not believe that the current offences for cyclists who exhibit dangerous or careless behaviour have appropriate penalties, particularly when it results in death or serious injury. That is why we are introducing the new dangerous cycling offences here in Clause 106. That will bring equality before the law. It will make sure that there is parity with motoring offences. If somebody is killed because of the poor performance of a road user, that road user should ultimately face a penalty whether they are on a bike or in a car.

I say again: this should be about trying to make cyclists aware that their vehicle is dangerous, even though it is a bike, and that it can lead to death or to serious injury. At the same time, we want to ensure, as we are doing, that we get the huge health and environmental benefits of cycling. The Government have committed £600 million in the spending review for new cycling and walking infrastructure, and that is the right thing to do.

I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on these matters. She has asked two specific questions, about insurance and about defining the type of vehicle involved. They are both amendments to the clause, in effect, but I accept the discussion. The question is about the clause and its implementation, but the clause is not about insurance or about defining. Any change to insurance requirements would require some very careful consideration, as it could put people off cycling and have adverse effects on health and congestion. It might well stop people cycling; they would use cars for short journeys instead. It might involve an enforcement regime, which we have talked about earlier, being examined again. Some cyclists have third-party insurance and that is good.

This is predominantly a Department for Transport matter. I will examine both the issues, on insurance and on definition, that the noble Baroness raised and discuss them with the Department for Transport. Ultimately, Clause 106 is about prevention of death or serious injury by cycling. It should stay part of the Bill and should not be deleted. That is why I hope the noble Baroness will not take that option at an appropriate moment, if not today. I hope she reflects on what I said, and I will certainly reflect on what she said.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord replied on the definition.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect, I am very happy to look at that. Essentially, there is a Home Office aspect to this clause, which is death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, but the issues the noble Baroness raised about insurance and the definition are for the Department for Transport. I will take those issues away and make sure that my noble friend Lord Hendy examines them, but it is not for me to look at issues that I have not thought through because they are Department for Transport issues. We have thought through this Bill and the clause before us, and it is about death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, not the two issues that the noble Baroness raised.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for responding. There will be another opportunity in the other Bill to do this. I tried to table an amendment on insurance, but we were told it was out of scope. However, it is a corollary of creating the offences, and we welcome the creation of the offences.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister rises, could I ask a simple question? It would seem to me that, under the definition of emergency workers in Section 3(1)(j) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, an emergency worker is

“a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide ... NHS health services, or … services in the support of the provision of NHS health services”.

I think we all support the words of the Secretary of State for Health, but is he in danger of falling into the trap of criticising the BMJ for the action it has taken?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I will come back to that point in a moment. I think the noble Lord is trying to inject a slight bit of topicality into a different argument, but I respect his opportunities in trying to raise those issues.

I say at the outset that I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on this, which is why we brought this forward. I am grateful to her for standing up and supporting the objectives of the Government in her contribution. I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I cannot and will not support their approach to delete these clauses from the Bill.

Emergency workers, as the noble Baroness has said, risk their safety every day to protect the public. They deserve robust protection through legislation, especially against abuse directed towards them because of their protected characteristics, which is not only harmful but erodes the principle of respect and public service, which are core values of this democracy.

As the noble Baroness rightly said, when emergency workers walk through a door of a private dwelling, they are faced with the circumstances in that private dwelling; they cannot walk away. They are there because of an emergency—perhaps medical, police or fire—and, if they face abuse in that private dwelling, then they deserve our support, just as they have our support if they face abuse on the street for a racially aggravated reason. If somebody does something at the end of their path on a street in Acacia Avenue and abuses them, they will find themselves under the course of the law on those matters.

I believe—and this is what these clauses are about—that, if the emergency worker is racially abused in the property, then they deserve that protection. It is critical for sectors such as health, fire and policing to have that legal support. We cannot leave them, as the noble Baroness rightly said, to be abused. The law must recognise this and make sure we have proper protection.

Currently, as has been mentioned, the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provide important safeguards in public spaces. It is not acceptable to call somebody a racially abusive name in a public space, so why is it to call them that name in a place of a private dwelling? It is not acceptable, so we are going to bring those clauses into play.

The noble Lord asks why we do this. We do this because Sergeant Candice Gill of Surrey Police, supported by the deputy chief constable—and, may I just say, by the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Surrey—has campaigned for this change in the law, having personally experienced racial abuse in a private home. It is not a sort of technical matter that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have mentioned; it is a real issue of racial abuse in a private dwelling to a police officer—who is doing her job, serving and trying to protect and support the public, and is being racially abused with no consequence whatsoever. Sergeant Candice Gill, after whom I would be proud to call this legislation Candice’s law, is campaigning and has campaigned to make this an amendment to the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked why we brought it forward in the House of Commons as an amendment. I will tell him why: it was brought to our attention, it is an action we do not support, and it is an area where we think action needs to be taken. That is why we have brought it. I do not think it is fair that people are racially abused in homes. Sergeant Candice Gill has campaigned on this and has brought it to the attention of the Government; we brought an amendment forward in the House of Commons which is now before this House, and I believe it should have support.

Clauses 107 to 109 will close that legislative loophole. The removal of the dwelling exception will make racially or religiously aggravated abuse of an emergency worker in a private dwelling an offence. The change will ensure that offenders prosecuted under Clause 107 face a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The offence in Clause 108 will be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4. As I have said, Lisa Townsend, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Surrey, said:

“This long-overdue change to the law would never have happened without Sgt Gill’s courage and determination”.


I think we owe this to Sergeant Gill and any other officer, health worker, fire service worker or police officer who has been racially abused in a home where they have gone to help support individuals. They deserve our support.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I think we need to put it on record that everyone deprecates racially aggravated abuse of hard-working, decent emergency workers—that is taken as read. But the noble Lord is asking us to consider legislation when we already have a situation, under Section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which permits a court to consider any offence that has been racially or religiously aggravated. Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for a separate offence where a person commits an offence under Sections 4, 4A or 5 of the Public Order Act.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Much as I would love to be intervened on by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who I believe will be supporting my amendment later on, I am intervening on the Minister, and we are not allowed to intervene on interventions.

If I may beg the Committee’s indulgence, I finally say to the Minister that the Select Committee on the Constitution specifically said:

“Clause 107 criminalises ‘insults’ and clause 108 introduces the term ‘distress’. This potentially leaves people open to criminal sanction on a subjective basis”.


Not only do we already have existing legislation, but the language in this new legislation is sufficiently loose that it will give rise, I think, to unintended consequences.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord will accept that I am not indicating that he or anybody else would accept that language, but the point is that we have to define and be clearer about the definition in relation to racially aggravated insults. The reason that we brought this forward is that, on the back of police representations from senior officers in Surrey Police—and from Sergeant Candice Gill, who was herself racially abused—and with the support of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, having examined this internally, we believe that the law needs to be clarified, which is why we have brought this legislation forward.

The noble Lord also asked me to examine why it is covering only race and religion, why we do not cover protected characteristics of sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability, and why the Government have not tabled such an amendment. He will know that the Law Commission is already examining its review of hate crime laws. It is a complex area, and it is important we get the changes right. I will tell him this: we are considering that and have given a manifesto commitment to do so, and, ensuring that we do that, we will bring forward conclusions at Report stage in this House to give effect to those manifesto commitments on sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability to extend the proposals still further. I give him notice of that now so that he does not accuse me of pulling a fast one on Report. We will do that, but we will have to bring forward the details of it in due course.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Briefly, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is quite right that I have long shared some concerns about the rubric and precise drafting of concepts of alarm and distress—we are coming to them later—so of course I have concerns about them being adopted into the precise drafting of the offence. But, on the basic principle, is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that there is no point in citing provisions on racially aggravated offences if the conduct is not an offence and that the justification for taking the serious step of applying Public Order Act principles to a domestic dwelling is that these emergency workers have no choice but to be in that dwelling, sometimes putting themselves in harm’s way as part of their service to the public? On the principle of having an offence such as this, I wonder whether my noble friend agrees.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do agree with my noble friend. As I said in my introductory remarks and as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, when an emergency worker turns up at a house and enters that property for a health reason concerning an individual in the property, a criminal justice reason involving activity that is causing threat and alarm and/or fire service duties, they do so to fulfil a duty. They have to stay in that property. If they are abused on the street before they enter the property, that is a punishable offence, yet unless this law change is accepted, when they enter the property that abuse is considered a principal part of the job that they have to just take on the chin. I do not accept that. That is why we included Clauses 107 to 109.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am inordinately grateful to the Minister for giving away, but he will know, because he was a diligent and assiduous constituency MP, that many of the people who go into clinical settings—for instance, A&E—are very distressed, discombobulated and upset about their condition, do not quite know what is going on and will sometimes say things they regret. I am not saying that is right. Some of them are not culturally sensitive, for instance. That may or may not reach a criminal threshold.

My main point—if we accept the principle that we need new legislation—is that, frankly, those people are in a very difficult position, and if we have loose and opaque language in primary legislation, we will have a situation where people who are not reaching the criminal threshold, or are doing so very marginally, are criminalised and are liable to go to prison for up to two years. Surely that is not something the Government are keen to encourage.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are keen to discourage racial abuse against individuals who are doing their job, and that is what Clauses 107 to 109 do. The clauses set out in legislation a broad thrust of definitions. Ultimately, in these cases, police and health workers usually have body-worn cameras on and the police will judge evidential material to determine whether they wish to refer it to the CPS. The CPS will review the incident that has led to the potential referral and determine whether it meets the evidential threshold and is worthy of prosecution. Then, if it comes before a court, it will be for that court to determine whether that criminal threshold has been crossed.

With all that, it is not a simple matter of us passing the legislation; it is also a matter of the judgment of police officers, CPS officials and ultimately a judge or jury in determining the outcome of those cases. As with most legislation, I want none of this to go to court. I want it to change the behaviour of people who are looking at a charge of using racially abusive language not on the street but in their home. I hope it sets a minimum standard, which is what this Parliament should be about, in saying that we will not tolerate this. That is why I support the inclusion of the clauses.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister is making a very strong case as to the principle behind these clauses, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. But will he address the specific concern of the Constitution Committee that the language used in these provisions—the concepts of “insulting” and “distress”—is too broad?

As he knows, the Constitution Committee concluded:

“These clauses should be drawn more narrowly and the Government should more clearly define the terminology within the Bill”.


Will the Government reflect on that before Report and come back with a more precise definition in these provisions?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As ever, we will reflect on what has been said. The judgment we have made is as in the clauses before this House, as introduced and supported by the House of Commons. There will be opportunity, if the noble Lord so wishes, to table amendments on Report to reflect any view that he has, but this is the judgment we have made.

The principle of today’s discussion is that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, believes we should strike out these clauses. That is not a principle I can accept—I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on that. Whatever reflection takes place on this, our principle is that we have included these clauses for a purpose, which I hope I have articulated, and I wish for the Committee to support that principle.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Nobody here is going against the principle that we should not racially or religiously insult, harass or be vile to people. We are talking about changing the criminal law and ensuring that the concerns of the Constitution Committee—not mine or those of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, or anyone else—are looked at again, so that the “real life” that the Minister referred to in justifying this reflects the fact that in many instances emergency workers are called when people are at the height of distress. I appreciate that people will, can and do say all sorts of things, but I am concerned that that distress will be that much more aggravated, and a toxic atmosphere created, if people can too loosely start saying, “I’m going to call the police on you”, when somebody subjectively interprets behaviour as insulting.

It is reasonable for us to raise this in Committee. Instead of saying that he disagrees with us on principle, is the Minister prepared to look at what the Constitution Committee has said, and what is being reflected on here, to see whether, in order to keep to his principle, the wording of criminal law can be tightly drawn so that we do not criminalise ordinary people in distress who say things that somebody might subjectively see as insulting? That is dangerous, illiberal, potentially threatening behaviour from a Government to the public.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not think I am being illiberal, although I accept that the noble Baroness may have a different view on that. Later in the consideration of amendments, we will come to those of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that seek to further define some of the aspects of Clause 109. I am happy to look at the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but the judgment we have made is that these clauses should remain part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has asked that they be removed. That is a clear difference between us. I have explained why they should be included; he has explained why he believes they should not. If he wishes to take that stance on Report, we can have a discussion about that.

For ease of recall, I have just been passed a copy of a long letter about the Bill and these clauses, which I have been reminded that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on 12 November. The letter answers some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised. I do not know whether this four-page letter has been made public, but I am happy to place a copy of it in the Library for the noble Lord and anybody else to examine.

Obviously, there will be the opportunity on Report for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to again table his clause stand part notices and/or for any Member of the House, once they have had an opportunity to look at the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to table amendments to meet the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has mentioned. We support these clauses, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will reflect on that and not seek to remove them.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to this debate. I spent 32 years as a police officer and an emergency worker, and I am still not persuaded by these clauses. As I established in my opening speech, all scenarios for criminalising racially or religiously aggravated abuse of emergency workers are already covered by the criminal law, and this is mere repetition. There exists a raft of legislation which permits the prosecution of a person who commits such conduct. The Sentencing Code already provides for any offence to be aggravated by racial or religious hostility. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creates a specific criminal offence for using racially or religiously hostile language. The Public Order Act 1986 also contains such provisions. It is absolutely not correct to claim that emergency workers need further protection under the law when it comes to abusive language.

The Bill therefore creates duplicate offences with different thresholds and different maximum penalties, all while leaving the existing offences untouched. How is this meant to improve enforcement? How are police officers supposed to choose which offence fits which circumstance? The Government have not offered an answer, I am afraid. By creating new stand-alone offences that replicate existing ones, the Government risk producing confusion rather than clarity. Police officers, paramedics and other emergency workers deserve a legal framework that is simple, enforceable and unambiguous.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have said this already in my responses to the noble Lord in Committee, but I think it is important that I comment on what I said in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to re-emphasises the point. The offences under the Public Order Act 1986 have been interpreted by the law over the years, but, essentially, they do not relate to private dwellings. The clauses in the Bill are about private dwellings and give greater clarification. That is the point I put to the noble Lord. In the four-page letter to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which I will happily put in the Library, that is one of the key points that I make, as I have in this debate. I re-emphasise that in response to the noble Lord’s closing remarks.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful for that. Perhaps it would be easier to amend the original law on this, rather than introduce it in these clauses.

As I said, police officers, paramedics and other emergency workers deserve a legal framework that is simple, enforceable and unambiguous, and what is before us is none of those things. Given the poor defence offered by the Government, I think this may be an issue that we have to return to on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for tabling this considered amendment. Controlling or coercive behaviour is currently legislated against if the offender is or has been

“in an intimate or family relationship”

with the victim. This amendment uses the framework of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 and applies it to offenders providing psychotherapeutic or counselling services.

I understand the reasoning behind the noble Lord’s amendment. The original offence is in place because being in an intimate or familial relationship puts both parties in a unique position of proximity. These positions of trust carry a heightened risk of becoming exploitative, and thus legislation exists to recognize this. Psychotherapy and counselling services carry a similar risk; they put patients in extremely open and often vulnerable positions as they entrust the provider with their confidence. Controlling or coercive behaviour becomes more likely given the power dynamics in these relationships and I see no reason why, in principle, the law should not extend past protecting familial or intimate relationships to encompass certain intimate services.

This conclusion is backed up by recent research into mental health services. Earlier this year, the University of Hertfordshire found more than 750 incidents of violence and coercion by staff. These include instances of verbal abuse, intentional neglect and even cases of physical violence. I do not intend to extrapolate from that study and make it seem as if it represents the entirety of our mental health services—I hope it does not. This is an under-investigated area and we do not yet know the scale of neglect in our services, but the most serious conclusion that can be drawn from it is the fact that, of these 750 offences, only four official complaints were made and, of those four complaints, a single one was upheld. Whether the reason for that was ignorance of reporting mechanisms, intimidation by staff or the inexistence of the legal means, it represents a failure of the system.

The least we should do as legislators is promise to further examine the reasons behind those failings: something I hope the Minister can assure us the Government will do. If the Government conclude there is a gap in the law, and that vulnerable people attending psychotherapy or counselling services are being controlled or coerced without the legal means to get justice, I hope that they will consider the amendment in question.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for returning to this issue. I give him credit for his persistence. I welcome the support for these measures from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for sharing his personal experiences and to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for reminding us that this issue was raised even back as far as 2001. I am also grateful for my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark making a guest appearance in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marks; it is always helpful to see that, as I am speaking for the Government on this occasion. I am also grateful for the constructive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, with regard to these issues.

Amendment 347, as we are clear, seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients, by replicating the coercive or controlling behaviour offence under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has previously shared concerns—he has repeated them today—about unscrupulous therapists taking advantage of their clients’ vulnerabilities by supplanting parents and families in the affections and minds of their clients, for the purposes of turning them against their friends and family through the process called transference. I entirely agree with him that this is a serious issue that deserves careful consideration. Again, I reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in that regard. However, the question for the Committee is whether there is an argument to legislate at this time or whether there are other means to examine the outcomes that the noble Lord seeks. I suggest that for the moment that, for reasons I will explain, legislation would not necessarily be the way forward in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken movingly and persuasively in favour of our amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for giving the added suggestion in relation to spiritual abuse. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for the support for our amendment from the Opposition Benches. I am bound to say that I am disappointed by the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, on behalf of the Government, for a number of reasons.

First, I have the greatest respect for the way that the noble Lord has handled matters in this House since becoming a Minister, but I have never heard him make a brush-off or an excuse quite as specious as the one that he just made, when he said that the fact that the same excuse made by him had been made by the Conservative Government gave it validity. It does not. There is no validity to such an excuse and, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, the excuses really do have to stop now, because we raise a very real issue.

Secondly, I will consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whom I count as a friend as well as a very wise lawyer. If he has doubts about the drafting then those are something we will discuss, and no doubt can discuss with the Government. I also agree with the points made by those noble Lords who said that regulation is desperately needed for psycho- therapists and therapists. Of course it is, but the fact that we need regulation does not mean that we do not also need the help of the criminal law for those who are unscrupulous enough to use quack psychotherapy and false counselling to dupe people into parting with money and ruining their lives in the process. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he will get the Department of Health involved. We heard that from the Conservative Government, and it is not enough. This is a Crime and Policing Bill that introduces new offences: the protection of victims and vulnerable people, and the visiting of penalties upon unscrupulous and criminal behaviour, is what the criminal law is and ought to be about. The time has come to deal with it.

We have heard about the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to regulation. He has worked on that for many years. He wanted to be here this evening, but I am afraid that he was stuck in traffic in south Oxfordshire—something that happens to many of us, even in south Oxfordshire. The noble Lord has also supported the proposition that this behaviour ought to be criminal, and he supports it now. I suggest that the Government need to take that very seriously indeed.

I do not accept that the wording of the offence is so broad that it does not penalise the correct behaviour. The way that it is phrased in subsection 1(a) is that A commits an offence if

“A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person”.


The point taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—that there may be other people who need regulating—does not count. The number of counsellors that he described would all be caught by this.

This should not now be the subject for an excuse. It is a time for action. We need to legislate now. I would like to meet the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and anybody else who is interested. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who has also co-signed this amendment, for which I am very grateful, has worked on this for years and so has the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. If we can have a meeting, work out between now and Report how to get the drafting right, and produce a criminal offence that will work and will outlaw this behaviour then that is something that I would very much like to do, and I will have achieved the end that I seek. I invite the Minister—indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, put it, I beg him—to take this seriously and end this scourge once and for all with this Crime and Policing Bill. With that said, and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will come back to it on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, we understand the intention behind the amendments before us, particularly the focus on prevention in the workplace. I hope the Minister will respond to these points and set out how the Government intend to ensure that workplace protections sit within a broader, effective strategy for tackling gender-based violence in all its forms.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for tabling the amendments and explaining them, and for the support given to her by my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on the Front Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

The Government’s concerns about the amendment do not reflect those expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Fox. They made valid points, but they are not ones I will deploy in the argument against the contributions in the debate. I am grateful also for the comments on the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the violence against women and girls strategy will be published tomorrow, as has been recognised. It is ambitious. It sets a target to reduce violence against women and girls per se over a 10-year period, and I am grateful to my noble friend for her endorsement of that approach.

I hope I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in deploying some of these arguments, because I was not party to the arguments in previous Bills, but I will explain to the Committee where the Government are coming from in relation to the points the noble Baroness made. It is important and absolutely right that we reduce violence against women and girls in the workplace, as well as in domestic or public settings. This may reflect some of the arguments that the noble Lord may have heard before, but under existing health and safety at work legislation—the 1974 Act and its related secondary legislation—employers have a clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. They are required, under the legislation from 1974— which was passed by a previous Labour Government 51 years ago but is still relevant today—to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce those risks.

The 1974 Act, along with a range of related regulations, further mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risks of workplace violence. As part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999—again, a measure from a Labour Government some 26 years ago—requires employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and take suitable action to reduce or eliminate those risks. The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, which are both responsible for enforcing the 1974 Act, implement proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers comply with their duties, which my noble friend Lady O’Grady will be aware of from her previous life experience. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate controls to protect their workforce, and anyone else affected by their work, from workplace violence. The Health and Safety Executive has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations.

I heard what my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, but Amendment 349, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, would require the HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on illegal violence and harassment in the workplace. As I have set out, employers already have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to manage such risks, including violence and aggression. Although workplace harassment could be addressed under the 1974 Act, as has been mentioned, the HSE does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation applies.

Harassment offences in the workplace are covered under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which, again, was passed by my predecessors in office. Additionally, the Equality and Human Rights Commission can act under the Equality Act 2010, which was also passed by my party’s predecessors in office. Recent amendments to the Equality Act 2010, which came into force in October 2024, require employers to take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. This provision is enforced by the EHRC. In the VAWG strategy, which will be published tomorrow—so I am not able to divulge every aspect—there are measures on stalking and on domestic violence protection orders, as well as a whole range of things, including measures in the Bill.

I therefore reassure the noble Baroness that there is a legal framework, which is both robust and comprehensive, for addressing illegal violence and harassment in the workplace. The Government remain committed to raising awareness of this issue and want to examine, as they are doing now, how to apply the violence against women and girls strategy to reduce violence against women and girls across the piece. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, because the proposals in the VAWG strategy tomorrow and the outline I have given of the performance of the Health and Safety Executive are, I hope, sufficient to show that we take this issue seriously and that the Government will not tolerate violence in the workplace.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

It is very clear, from what we have heard in this debate, that the status quo is not working, so what does the Minister propose that the Government actually do to improve this? As we have heard, the Minister has listed all these pieces of legislation, which are clearly not working because so many women still face these issues in the workplace.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that, and I hope I can give her assurance. My honourable friend Jess Phillips is the Minister directly responsible for the violence against women and girls strategy, although I obviously account to this House for it. She has a history of ensuring that we focus on the reduction of violence against women and girls. The strategy she will publish tomorrow is a strategy for across the piece; it is not just, as we have discussed today, for domestic or public violence against women and girls but a comprehensive strategy. I hope the noble Baroness will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt that she shares the view to reduce and eliminate domestic violence or violence in a workplace setting against women and girls. I speak for the Government in expressing that view.

I therefore hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and examine in detail the strategy which will be published tomorrow. I will make sure my honourable friend Jess Phillips sees the debate we have had and looks at the points made by noble Lords from across the Committee on how the Health and Safety Executive operates, particularly on the personal basis that has been discussed today.

I hope, with those reassurances, that the noble Baroness will know that this Government are committed to taking action to reduce violence against women and girls by half over a decade. The points she has raised about the workplace are valid but we believe the measures are there to ensure enforcement takes place. I am sure we can reflect with colleague Ministers on how the Health and Safety Executive operates its responsibilities to help achieve the objectives the Government have set in the VAWG strategy.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I say in response to the Minister that I welcome the publication of the VAWG strategy tomorrow and will look in detail for anything which addresses the workplace.

I turn back to this debate. These specific probing amendments have set out a clear objective and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. It is clear that the Committee agrees with the objective these amendments are trying to achieve, yet they perhaps need more work in terms of the wording.

I will respond to a few of the comments made by noble Lords. The reminder by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of just how much time individuals spend in the workplace highlights how we cannot achieve the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls within this decade by ignoring the workplace and how important it is.

In response to the point from the Conservative Front Bench on employers, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised an interesting point about how having a framework of this kind can help protect employers. That is a positive. Having more guidance, a framework and risk assessments also protects employers’ liability in the future. There were a few points raised there—

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling Amendment 352. It is welcome to see such a cross-party collection of noble Lords supporting it: the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, are not names always seen together on an amendment.

The amendment proposes to remove “alarm” from Sections 4A and 5 of the 1986 Act, as we have heard. As others have said, alarm is a word that denotes impression, mood and temperament. It is a word that allows the criminal law to stray beyond the prevention of genuine disorder and into the policing of irritation, discomfort or unease. Several legal cases have shown where this can lead. In a case called DPP v Orum in 1989, a conviction was upheld under Section 5 for shouting abuse at police officers. The court accepted that even trained officers, accustomed as they might be to a degree of verbal abuse, could none the less be persons likely to be caused “harassment, alarm or distress”. Although that may be understandable up to a point, it demonstrates how low the threshold has been set. If professionals whose job it is to face confrontation can be alarmed by rude language, one begins to wonder who cannot be.

Another case is called Norwood v DPP in 2003, in which a man was convicted for displaying a poster saying “Islam out of Britain” in his window. The reasoning again rested partly on the likelihood of causing alarm. Whatever one thinks of the views expressed—many of us would deplore them—the case illustrates how “alarm” can operate as a gateway through which deeply subjective reactions become the basis for criminal liability. It seems that these cases represent symptoms of a statutory provision that has no clear boundary. “Alarm” does not mean “fear of violence”—it does not require intimidation; it does not even require serious upset. It has been stretched to cover being offended, unsettled or merely uncomfortable. I suggest that is not a sound basis for criminal liability.

As others have said, the law retains and contains safeguards where genuine harm arises: “harassment” would remain in the wording of the statute, “distress” would remain in the wording of the provision, and Section 4 remains available for

“Fear or provocation of violence”.


Other statutes address stalking, threats and coercive conduct. My noble friend’s amendment would remove nothing that is truly necessary to protect the public. It would restore a measure of seriousness to public order law. Criminal offences should address conduct that is objectively wrongful, not speech or behaviour that happens to alarm someone whose threshold for alarm may be very low. This amendment has our wholehearted support, and I hope that it has the support of the Minister too.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I confess that when I woke up this morning I did not anticipate having a discussion about Thames Valley Police and a gay horse. Such is political life on the Government Front Bench. Nor did I anticipate talking about the Prime Minister’s private parts, referred to by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.

On a more serious note, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his amendment. I begin by confirming what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, which is that the right to express views, even those that may be unpopular, is a vital part of our democratic society, and freedom of expression is vital. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti have argued to remove “alarm” from Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for giving some balance to the argument and coming to a conclusion that I share. To remove from these offences behaviour that causes alarm would mean that behaviour that frightens or unsettles someone but which does not amount to harassment or distress would no longer be covered. Why does that matter? It matters because it would narrow the scope of the law and reduce the police’s ability to intervene early in potentially volatile situations. An example was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in relation to activity on a train, late at night, by an individual with too many beers in their body. That is a valuable cause of alarm.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that these provisions have been in place for many years: in fact, they were passed under the Government of Mrs Thatcher, which is not usually a thing I pray in aid when discussing legislation in this House. Removing “alarm” at this stage —this goes to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—would affect how offences operate in practice, including the thresholds that have developed through case law. It would impact on the existing legal framework, which already ensures that enforcement decisions are made proportionately and in line with human rights obligations. This includes the important right, as my noble friend said, to freedom of expression.

The balance that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, struck is the one that I would strike as well. It is a long-standing, 39 year-old piece of legislation that has held up and has been interpreted in a sensible way by those who have legal powers to use it, both police officers and the CPS. Ultimately, we should ensure that the alarm element remains.

Having said all of that, noble Lords will be aware that the Home Secretary has commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, KC, is considering. He will consider the thresholds relating to public order and hate crime legislation, whether they remain fit for purpose, if legislative changes are required and if we could have more consistent approaches to the offence of inciting hatred. He will also consider how we ensure offence thresholds do not interfere with free speech and how we deal with the type of issues that the noble Lord has mentioned.

I believe we should stay where we are for the reasons I have outlined, but a review is ongoing. It is important that we allow that review to conclude, which it will do by spring next year. The Government will consider and respond to whatever recommendations come forward. We do not know what those recommendations might be, but they are there to be done, and that is one of the reasons the Home Secretary commissioned the review. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but I hope I have put a defence of why we should maintain where we are. In the light of the potential review, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his typically thoughtful and considered response. I think he would concede that this has been a very interesting and intelligent debate. I thank all noble Lords who took part, particularly my noble friend Lady Lawlor, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, who was hoping to take part in the debate but, because this Committee has overrun somewhat, was not able to be here. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, touched upon the fact that the real meaning of alarm is a fine judgment. I take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. However, it is important to look in the context of the advice and guidance that the police are given on the use of Section 4A and Section 5 of the Public Order Act. For instance, to breach Section 5, a person needs to act in either a threatening or abusive manner. He also needs to intend his words or behaviour to be threatening or abusive, or be aware that they may be threatening or abusive. I would say that alarm is a lower standard of criminality—a lower bar—than that.

According to police guidance, Section 4A is designed to deal with:

“More serious, planned and malicious incidents of insulting behaviour”.


You are more likely to be accused of a Section 4A offence in relation to a comment directed to a particular individual—for example, publicly singling out someone in a crowd. I think those are the differences, and we will have a different view as to the appropriateness of whether alarm is apposite for dealing with these offences.

Having said all that, we may come back to this. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on this—it is very unusual, but it is a seasonal phenomenon that we agree from time to time. I even agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, from time to time. On the basis of Christmas spirit and all that, and the fact that we will no doubt return to this on Report, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this group of amendments, each of which addresses the issue of safety on our public transport networks, whether of passengers, workers or those tasked with policing them. The amendments before us reflect genuine concern about how effectively our current frameworks protect people from violence, intimidation and abuse in transport settings, and they deserve careful consideration from the Minister.

I begin with Amendment 356A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Morgan, which would place a duty on the British Transport Police to

“take all reasonable steps to prevent violence against women and girls on trains”.

Violence against women and girls remains an appalling and persistent problem. Just yesterday, the Government and Liberal Democrats joined together to defeat a Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would have exempted sexual offenders and domestic abusers from the automatic presumption of a suspended sentence. For victims of sexual assault or domestic abuse, the distinction between a custodial sentence and a suspended sentence is not an abstract policy question; it is the difference between knowing that their abuser has been removed from the community, and knowing that they remain at liberty.

That point is reinforced by the Government’s recent recognition of the scale of the problem. Violence against women and girls has been described by the Home Secretary as a “national emergency”. The Government have trialled domestic abuse protection orders to track domestic abusers. But the most effective way to protect victims is to ensure that offenders face custodial sentences for their crimes. A Government who oppose that principle are not a Government who can claim to hold violence against women and girls as a priority.

In the year ending 2024, police recorded more than 106,000 sexual offences in England and Wales—an increase of around 10% on the previous year. Women continue to report feeling unsafe on public transport, particularly during off-peak hours and at night. This amendment recognises that prevention must go beyond enforcement alone. Its emphasis on data sharing and engagement with train design reflects the reality that safety is shaped by visibility and co-ordination. These are practical, forward-looking measures that deserve serious engagement from the Government. I hope the Minister considers them carefully.

Amendment 356F, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, proposes a new offence of assaulting a public transport worker. Abuse and violence directed at front-line transport staff has increased markedly in recent years, with British Transport Police data showing a significant rise in assaults on railway employees. Public transport workers perform an essential public service, often in challenging circumstances, and they should be able to do so without fear of violence or intimidation.

Amendment 399, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, addresses a long-standing operational problem: inconsistent and delayed access to railway CCTV footage. Timely access to high-quality CCTV is often critical to identifying suspects, supporting victims and securing prosecutions. Establishing clear legal requirements for accessibility and technical standards would help to remove the barriers that currently frustrate investigations and undermine confidence.

Taken together, these amendments highlight a broader concern. Although the Government have articulated ambitions around tackling violence against women and girls and improving safety on public transport, there remains a gap between aspiration and implementation. Too often, victims, police and front-line workers encounter fragmented responsibilities, inconsistent standards and slow operational responses. What is needed is clear leadership, stronger co-ordination between agencies and a willingness to embed prevention into the everyday operation of our transport networks.

We on these Benches are clear that public transport must be safe and accessible for all, and that violence, whether against women passengers or workers, must be actively prevented, not merely responded to after the fact. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that the objectives reflected in these amendments are delivered in practice and how they will translate stated commitments into real-world safety improvements.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for Amendment 356A, and I am glad we have reached it today. We hoped to reach it prior to Christmas, but time did not permit. I know that she has championed this issue in the House before, and I welcome her contribution pressing the Government today. I also welcome the slight widening of the debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester to look at metro services.

I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the terrible case of Claudia Lawrence. She has written to me separately on that. I have already instigated with my colleagues in the Home Office a response to the issues that she has raised. I hope she will forgive me if I concentrate on other matters today, but that is not off my agenda.

I know the whole Committee will support the fact that the Government have taken action on violence against women and girls, which is intolerable anywhere, including on the railway. The noble Baroness referenced the Government’s strategy on halving violence against women and girls, which was published in the House of Commons on the last day before Christmas. The Statement repeat has not happened in this House because the Opposition did not want it. That is fine—I understand that—but the commitment from the Government is very clear, and the recently published strategy to halve violence against women and girls is vital.

I also take the points on behaviour made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which is an encouraging comment as part of that because the points he made are valid, and I accept them. The British Transport Police is essential in helping us to deliver that objective of halving violence against women and girls, alongside police counterparts in Home Office forces. It may be helpful to the Committee to say that the British Transport Police, as the police force for the railway, is already required to prevent crime, and that includes the offences set out in the amendment. The British Transport Police undertakes activities across the railway to encourage victims and bystanders to report offences, and indeed poor behaviour, and will relentlessly pursue offenders. In BTP Policing Plan 2025-27, it has given specific commitments to prevent violence against women and girls through:

“Effective and sensitive investigation and robust offender management”,


and:

“Targeted activity to identify and apprehend those intent on offending”.


If it helps the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, I am very happy to provide, through my colleagues in the Department for Transport, a further meeting for her to look at that work and understand it at first hand.

The noble Baroness also mentioned rolling stock companies and the manufacture and leasing of trains to train operating companies. The design of trains is defined not by the rolling stock company but by the train operating company. Therefore, the proposal that the British Transport Police shares data on violence against women and girls with rolling stock companies would not lead to improvements in the design of train carriages, but I take her point. The British Transport Police already shares crime data with train operating companies, which can feed into the British Transport Police policing plans.

The noble Baroness will also, I hope, be aware that the Rail Safety and Standards Board already publishes key train requirement guidance that is used by train operating companies when ordering new trains. This helps detail the features that are to be included in the specification. The content of the document is prepared by a group of rolling stock experts representing train operating companies, manufacturers, leasing companies, industry bodies and the Department for Transport. Following input from security experts in the Department for Transport and BTP, new content has recently been prepared that includes additional measures to do exactly what the noble Baroness wishes, to enhance personal security, including those that seek to reduce violence against women and girls. The content has been included in a draft of the document that will be submitted for consultation with the rail industry. The intention— I hope this is helpful for the noble Baroness—is that it will be published in spring 2026. While it is not the legislative back-up that she is seeking in the amendment, I hope it meets the objective of the very valid points she has made today.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned sentencing. We had a full debate yesterday on the Sentencing Bill and the House made its decisions on it. There is a difference between us on that, but I want to see offenders brought to justice and people caught. That is an important part of our proposals regarding the prevention measures and the performance of the British Transport Police on these issues.

Amendment 356F in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy includes the introduction of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a public transport worker. Before I refer to what he has said, I will address the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. First, I confirm that we are having a meeting. It is in the plan; it will be sorted and is coming down the line very quickly. She referred to Clause 37 and the stand-alone offence on retail workers. We have taken the view that there should be a stand-alone offence because retail workers are upholding the law for the state on sales of alcohol, drugs, knives, cigarettes and a range of other matters. But I agree with her that it is essential that transport workers feel safe going about their job. There is no place for abuse and assault of any worker, and I know we will all agree with that.

The attack in Huntingdon in early November shocked and horrified us all. Tributes were paid at the time to the railway staff who stood in the way of alleged attackers and did their duty, and those matters will come to court in due course. But I must stress the important point—this goes to the heart of what my noble friend said—that if a public transport worker suffers violence or abuse at work, it is essential that they report it to the police so it can be investigated. We take that seriously in the police, the transport police and the railway, and elsewhere in the Home Office. As the dedicated police service for the railway, the British Transport Police is able to provide further reassurance to rail staff that it is there to protect them and will arrest offenders quickly.

The key point I want to make to my noble friend is that transport workers are already protected in legislation, as the noble Baroness touched on. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 makes offences against public-facing workers, in which transport workers would be included, an aggravating factor that the courts must consider in sentencing. As I said earlier in Committee, everybody is protected from assault. It is criminalised under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and that long-standing piece of legislation, the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The key point in this case is that transport workers are covered by that legislation, whereas—to return to Clause 37—retail workers were not covered in the way that public-facing workers are in relation to police and others. They are still covered by the main offences of the Criminal Justice Act, but the aggravating factor that we are introducing under Clause 37 deals with retail workers specifically. I am happy to discuss Clause 37 with the noble Baroness when we have the opportunity to meet very shortly regarding her concerns about the legislation.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and I look forward to us discussing that at that time. I am not an expert in the law in this area, but I am genuinely surprised by what he has just said about the current legal provisions and protections for retail workers and the need for that which has been included in the Bill on the grounds that he has argued. If, as a result of this short debate, there is any need for him to clarify that further, that would be really helpful.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are in danger of the Committee revisiting Clause 37. I have an opportunity to meet the noble Baroness, and we can discuss those issues then. I am saying to my noble friend, in relation to his amendment, that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 makes offences against public-facing workers an aggravating offence. We are strengthening that for retail workers in the context of Clause 37, but we will revisit that when we have our further discussion.

Amendment 399, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, would introduce a requirement that all CCTV camera images on the railway are made immediately accessible to BTP and to the relevant Home Office police force. I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that I welcome the aims of the amendment, as historically the lack of immediate access to railway CCTV images has been a significant issue for BTP that can reduce its ability to investigate crimes quickly.

However, and this is where we may differ, I do not believe that legislation is necessary to address this issue. The noble Lord rightly said in his contribution that the Department for Transport has secured £17 million in funding to implement a system to provide more remote immediate access to station CCTV to the British Transport Police and the railway industry, and he welcomed that. I can say to him today that the Department for Transport will be funding Network Rail on behalf of the rail industry to deliver the project, which will cover the whole of the railway in England, Scotland and Wales, and prioritise stations where there are most passenger journeys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Will the Minister take this idea to the British Transport Police? By the time one has done a three-hour journey, one is heartily sick of hearing, for the 20th time, “See it. Say it. Sorted”. Could it possibly intersperse between those announcements something like: “This coach has video recording. We will take action against any passengers who harass or cause trouble for others”? That may not be the right wording, but something warning about that might be helpful.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give consideration to that with my colleagues in the Department for Transport. As somebody who travels every week on the train to this House, “See it. Say it. Sorted” appears on my journey on a number of occasions—in my case, in both English and Welsh. The noble Lord makes a valid point: there should be an acceptance and acknowledgment that the type of antisocial behaviour which he has referred to, at a low level, can be intimidating for individuals. The ability to undertake physical violence in the extreme form that allegedly took place in Huntingdon—I have to use the word “allegedly”—and the low-level abuse that might occur are significant issues. Transport staff on railways, from whichever railway company, and the teams that are operating require the support of the state to give them that back-up.

Under the current legislation, I believe that my noble friend’s amendment is not necessary. However, the general principle that we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and other speakers, including my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, via the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, is absolutely valid and was well worth raising. I hope that I have been able to give assurances on that and that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could find time in his busy timetable to see me and the RMT about this, because I did not quite understand what the distinction was between the creation of an offence of assaulting a retail worker at work, in Clause 37, and assaulting a transport worker at work, as in my amendment. I take the point about an aggravating factor in sentencing but the question is really about the creation of an offence. It seemed that there might be room for further discussion outside the Chamber.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend mentioned his noble kinsman, my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who is the Transport Minister. The British Transport Police are the responsibility of and answer to the Department for Transport. My other noble friend Lord Hendy is the Minister responsible for transport. If I may, I will refer that request to the Minister directly responsible for that policy in this Bill, so that they can consider what my noble friend has just said.

There is a distinction between the existing legislation that I have mentioned, which provides security against attack for public-facing workers, and the Clause 37 issue, which we have already debated. We may undoubtedly return to this on Report in several forms but, in the meantime, I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It is one of those that shows the Chamber at its finest, when there is a genuine discussion of some important issues. This was a deliberately narrow amendment, but I welcome the comments that have been made across the Committee on how it could be widened. I particularly welcome that of my noble friend Lady McIntosh about public spaces more broadly, but also the suggestion relating to other forms of public transport, especially trams. I expect that we could apply this to the Underground, not just in London but in other cities too.

I welcome the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about behaviour on trains. The list of offences in proposed new subsection (2) is not exhaustive, and I fully take his point. There is an irony to debating this amendment at a rather more civilised time of the day than we might otherwise have done, had we reached it in December. One reason why I wanted to know whether we were going to reach the debate was that, because we sat late previously, I had to get a 10.30 pm train home to Leicestershire. I would describe myself as being rather robust, but I do not want to travel at half past 10 at night and get home to a deserted car park at nearly midnight. I do not think that anybody wants to do that, nor should we ask members of the House staff to do so. However, I will leave that debate about sitting hours for a very different set of noble Lords to consider.

I thank the Minister for his very helpful and constructive comments on my amendment. The Committee has identified that this is an issue about prevention of violence against women and girls, not just enforcement after the event. He rightly took the point that it is not just about British Transport Police but about working with the train operating companies, as he mentioned. I would very much like to take up his offer of a meeting, whether with Department for Transport officials or with the Rail Safety and Standards Board; he mentioned its forthcoming consultation. I think that we will return to this issue in the Railways Bill, so he can let the other noble Lord, Lord Hendy, know to expect such a debate. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for speaking to this group. On his Amendment 358, I agree that the Government should look to make provisions that account for all forms of SIM cards used in SIM farms. As the noble Lord stated, the current drafting of Clause 114 does not encompass eSIM cards in the devices used for SIM farming. Given the number of mobile phones that now use eSIMs, this really should be amended.

This speaks to the larger issue of defining provisions ahead of legislation coming into force. When changes are being made to the legality of certain products, suppliers and consumers should be made aware well in advance; behaviours will have to change with reform. This is a case of not just courtesy but constitutional propriety. That is the reasoning behind my Amendments 358A and 538A.

Legislating for the criminalisation of specific devices and software related to fraud should not be done on a whim. Individuals should not wake up one day and possess an illegal device or software that was considered legal a day before, with no warning of the coming change. Some notice must be given. Currently, the Bill simply permits Ministers to specify a device whenever they wish. There is no requirement for those regulations to come into force before the new offences of possession and supply come into force. My amendments would ensure, in the interests of fairness and the rule of law, that the new offences could not come into force until at least three months had passed from the making of the regulations defining the articles.

I believe that a period of three months before the possession and supply of certain articles becomes illegal is sufficient for people to change their habits and businesses to change their models. We in this House would be doing the public a disservice if we did not provide them with the necessary time to adapt. I hope the Minister agrees with this reasoning. I hope he will consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and, as always, I look forward very much to hearing his reply.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I first give my appreciation to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in producing their report on this matter. It was during my enforced sabbatical from Parliament, so I was not party to the discussions at that stage. It is useful to have that continuum of discussion, and the previous Government’s initial intentions have been carried forward by this Government as a whole.

Amendment 358, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, mentioned, would expand the definition of SIM cards. To be clear, the Government’s consultation and evidence gathering as part of the preparation for this Bill focused on physical SIM cards, which are where the current and most significant threats arise and what these clauses seek to address. The provisions in the Bill are designed to tackle the misuse of physical SIM farms, which are widely used for criminal purposes such as fraud and spam. We are all aware of how that manifests on our phones and those of people we know and work with.

Virtual SIM technology is developing, but it is not currently presenting the same scale of risk, and the evidence we have from the consultation does not support extending the ban at this time. Physical SIM farms pose a significant and immediate threat because they enable large-scale criminal activity. Unlike virtual SIMs, physical SIM cards are harder to trace, as they are not inherently linked to a specific handset or verified identity. Their anonymity makes them ideal for fraud, phishing and mass spam campaigns.

Furthermore, the trade in physical SIM cards creates a black market where thousands of cards can be bought and sold with minimal or no oversight. This flow of unregistered SIMs fuels organised crime, facilitates money laundering and undermines law enforcement efforts. Virtual SIM technology, by contrast, is generally more secure and traceable because it requires integration with the device software and often involves stronger identity checks. At present, I say again, there is no evidence of virtual SIMs being exploited at scale for criminal purposes. Our focus therefore remains on the tangible and proven harm caused by physical SIM cards.

--- Later in debate ---

There exists an unsystematic set of laws and regulations that might cover online identity fraud, but I can see why this is undesirable and how certain offences may slip through the cracks. If possible, the Government should be seeking to bring all these offences under a single offence. It is a crime that will only get worse, and, as such, we should attempt to minimise negative externalities and prevent cases going unprosecuted. I believe that the noble Lord’s amendment would begin to do this. That being said, this is an important issue, and therefore it should at least have government support, and probably be government-led. Attaching it as an amendment to an existing Bill is not the most desirable approach. Perhaps the Minister will be able to set out the Government’s position. As always, I look forward to hearing from him.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling the amendment, which would introduce a bespoke criminal offence of digital identity theft. I know that he has tabled similar amendments—he was persistent on these matters during the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I heard the support from the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Fuller and Lord Blencathra, and note that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, put forward a number of caveats to his broad support. These are caveats I share.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether I would read out a number of amendments to previous legislation. I may disappoint him by reaffirming those issues, as he would expect. Although digital identity theft is not a stand-alone offence, there are, as he recognises, several criminal offences already in existence to cover the behaviour targeted by his amendment. The Fraud Act 2006 made it a criminal offence to gain from the use of another person’s fraud. Cases where accounts or databases are hacked into are criminalised under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. I could read him the offences captured in Sections 2 and 6 of the Fraud Act, Sections 1 and 2 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and Section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018. All apply to the online sphere.

My argument, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, might have some sympathy with, is that to create a new criminal offence could be unnecessary duplication. The Fraud Act 2006 captures cases where someone uses another person’s identity and there is an equivalent common-law offence in Scotland. The Fraud Act establishes the offence of someone having in their possession or control an article which includes data or programmes in electronic form. The Computer Misuse Act criminalises unauthorised access and Section 170 of the Data Protection Act covers the deliberate or reckless obtaining, disclosing and procuring of personal data.

That is not to downplay the issue that the noble Lord mentioned. It is important and I recognise the concerns he raised. I hope that the Government will act decisively on these matters. We are currently in the process of transitioning from the Action Fraud service to a new, upgraded platform that will provide a better reporting tool for victims, stronger intelligence flows for police forces and enhanced support for victims. We are looking at doing what the noble Lord wants and upskilling police officers. We have completed a full review of police skills and the recommendations are being delivered through updated police training on this important matter. He will know that this Government have made sure that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has now updated the strategic police requirement. That will be published this year and will drive forces to upskill their staff on wider police reform on fraud matters. We want to try to upscale and upskill capability, to ensure the police keep pace with the challenges that the noble Lord has rightly identified.

It is important to take on board the points that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned in his supportive critique of the proposals in the amendment. The Home Office has commissioned an independent review into disclosure and fraud offences. Part 1 of the review, which addressed disclosure, has been conducted; part 2, with Jonathan Fisher KC leading for the Government, will examine whether the current fraud offences are fit for purpose, and specifically whether they meet the challenges of investigating and prosecuting fraud, and whether existing penalties remain proportionate. I am awaiting that report, which may cover the areas that the noble Lord has mentioned. It is important that we have proper examination of that, and that is currently ongoing.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Without wishing to interrupt the Minister, could he give us an idea of the timescale? Would it be deliriously possibly to see this report before Report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I should have tattooed on my forehead the words, “due course”. As ever, the commitment I can give is that it will be produced in due course. Report on the Bill will be some significant time away. We have another five days of Committee, with a gap for recess, and we will have a statutory gap before our consideration on Report after Committee has finished. It is some while away. The noble Lord is very adept at tabling further amendments on Report, should he so wish.

Part 2 of the report is being considered by the Government; we want to examine that and will publish in due course. I expect that, in the very near future, we will be producing the newly updated fraud strategy, which will address the evolving threat of fraud, including the harm caused by identity theft. Before the noble Lord intervenes, I cannot yet give him a date for that either, but I will try to help the Committee by saying that it will be soon. I will bring the fraud strategy to the House in due course, which will potentially cover some of the areas that the noble Lord has mentioned.

There is a lot going on, but there is existing legislation. I anticipate and understand that this is a genuine issue, and I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lord has brought it before us. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, he will—today, at least—withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and I will respond in a second.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for agreeing with the thrust of the amendment, in his words, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his in principle support. I entirely accept the points that he made—indeed, if the additions are not there, they should be. Any amendment that is brought back on Report should definitely take heed of the reservations he raised.

For the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I was anticipating that, in a sense, there might be too much continuity. During the Data (Use and Access) Bill, his colleagues pushed back on the idea of a digital identity theft offence in rather more adamant terms than the Minister has today. I am grateful for his in principle support, with all the reservations that he had.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, encapsulated quite a lot of this. As we move into the world of digital ID, having your digital identity stolen is an issue of digital and financial exclusion. It is going to be increasingly important. I was very interested that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, dug out the figures on this; the scale of digital identity theft is huge, so the number of people affected by what is effectively financial and digital exclusion is only going to grow.

However, I did take some comfort. There was a glimmer of light coming out of the Home Office, and I am not always used to that. I celebrate that, particularly in view of the fact that a review is taking place that may well report in the near future. Whatever the Minister has stamped on his forehead, I am sure he is impatient to see it, given his specific role as the Fraud Minister.

I agree with the Minister about the need for the police to have specific powers and skills. I welcome what he said about the upgraded platform in terms of understanding the evidence that is going to be under- pinning any move towards creating an offence. I think, almost inevitably, I am going to come back with something more refined on Report in the hope that the Home Office review of current fraud offences will come up with the goods. I live in hope, but often where the Home Office is concerned my hopes are only too frequently dashed. I live in hope, and I beg to withdraw Amendment 359.

--- Later in debate ---

I shall end on a positive note and say that I support the principle behind my noble friend’s Amendment 363. The amendment clarifies the territorial scope of the original Act, making its extraterritorial application clearer and more rigorous, especially as we now exist in an era with heightened computer-related fraud and crime—so this is welcome. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister shares my view and to hearing the noble Lord’s closing remarks.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for raising this topic in the amendments today. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for bringing her vast experience in this area to the debate.

I can say genuinely to all the noble Lords that they have a point. It is a point that the Government have recognised today: that we need to ensure that we update the Act accordingly. There is no doubt that UK cyber security professionals contribute greatly to enhancing and protecting the country’s security, and supporting them is vital. The figures that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, gave in terms of growth since the original Act took place are absolutely valid and understood. He mentioned, rightly, that the previous Government—at ministerial or official level; I am not party to how that worked—commissioned the review in 2021. We are now in 2026, and this Government have had custody of this issue since July 2024. It is a reasonable presumption that we need to come to some conclusions on the review.

The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, mentioned my colleague Dan Jarvis, who is the Minister directly responsible for these areas. They have listened to the concerns and have over the past year made real progress in developing a proposal for a limited defence to the offence at Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act; namely, unauthorised access to computer material. Crucially, this includes safeguards to prevent misuse. However—and this is where my caveat comes in—this is an immensely complex area. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, have pointed to that complexity, but engagement is under way, including with the cyber security industry, to refine the approach, and I hope that we shall be able to provide an update at some point.

Further work is required to consider the safeguards that would be needed to accompany any introduction of statutory defences, and my colleagues at official level in the Home Office are working with the National Cyber Security Centre, law enforcement and the industry on this issue to try to come to some conclusions. The Home Office is actively considering wider changes to the Computer Misuse Act. As part of the review that we are undertaking, we are scoping several proposals to update the Act, including the very point that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, which is on the Act’s extraterritorial provisions and the maximum penalties that were introduced.

In relation to proposals to increase maximum penalties for computer misuse offences, the Act already provides for a range of penalties, including life imprisonment for offences that cause or create a significant risk of serious damage to human welfare or national security. While the Government share the noble Lord’s concern regarding appropriate sentencing and are considering this as part of the wider review of the 1990 Act, we do not consider the proposal to update the majority of offences and uplift them under the Act to 14 years to be proportionate. However—and I hope this is accepted —and as I have said in a number of areas today, this Government are still just over 18 months into office. A review is being undertaken and I hope it will come to some conclusion on those issues, but at the moment those complexities are still under consideration.

Amendment 364 would introduce personal criminal liability for directors and managers who failed to prevent or otherwise consented to offending under the Computer Misuse Act. Again, I recognise the intent to strengthen accountability. Our current view is that it is unnecessary, given the existing offences applicable to persons who enable or facilitate offending. I know that this will be entirely unsatisfactory to noble Lords, both to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and to the supporters who have spoken in this debate today, but while this review of the 1990 Act is ongoing, I am limited in regard to what I can say about the Government’s plans to reform the Act, but I hope that I have acknowledged that the points that have been raised are absolutely valid.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

Is the Minister able to clarify whether the review is still ongoing, or are the Government currently reviewing the review?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord—and I hope that he takes this in the way in which I respond—that the review commenced in 2021, and it is now 2026. That is a long time for a review, and I would want to ensure that we come to some conclusions on the 1990 Act. However, at this stage, I cannot give him a timescale for the reasons that I have mentioned, about the complexity of this matter. I along with Minister Jarvis have had custody in the Home Office of these issues since July 2024; that is still three years into a review that was commissioned in 2021. I cannot give him a definitive timescale today, but I hope that the House can accept that there is active consideration of these very important matters raised by Members and that the Home Office plans to reform the Act. I hope that I will demonstrate that we are progressing this work at pace, but we need to get it right. Sadly, we are not going to be able to legislate in this Bill, but there is scope to examine issues at a later date. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, unusually, light is flooding through the windows of the Home Office, and I thank the Minister, but I shall come back to what he had to say. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for her support. As the Minister said, her huge experience in this area is valuable, and it is really valuable to have her support in those circumstances.

I also say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who thinks these things through in a very eloquent fashion. He more or less reminded me that, back in 1990, the thing that I was using was a dial-up Apple Mac Classic—probably a Classic II—which just shows how long ago the Act was.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not wish to disturb the noble Lord in full flow, but I have just remembered that I missed an important point for the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who requested a meeting with either me or another appropriate Minister. I will take that request away and get back to the noble Lord in due course about a meeting with me or my colleague, Minister Dan Jarvis—or both of us—and anybody the noble Lord wishes to bring with him.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

That is a very useful offer for those who are involved in or have an interest in pushing this agenda forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, also emphasised following the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, it is not just about being out of date; it is positively harmful. The Home Office appears to be aware of that, despite the stately progress on the review. The fact that the Minister has said there is a recognition of the need to update the Act is very helpful. He said that they have made progress in formulating a limited defence, but I am not quite so sure about that—let us see when it arrives. I am sure that he has engraved across his forehead the phrase “an update at some point”. That is not quite as good as “shortly”, but it is perhaps better than “in due course”. One has to take away the crumbs of comfort that one can.

What I take most comfort from is the fact that we have a cyber security and resilience Bill, which will come to this House after hitting the Commons, where it had its Second Reading yesterday. If the Home Office picks up a bit of pace, there might well be the opportunity to produce a clause there to provide the kind of defence that we are talking about today. I understand that the Minister has a rather Trappist vow at this point, in terms of being limited in what can be said, but we very much hope that he can be let loose at some stage in the future. We look forward to that but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling these excellent amendments, and to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for moving Amendment 366 on his behalf.

This amendment is driven by a simple proposition: if we are to bear down on the scourge of phone theft, we must remove the profit motive, because it is precisely this incentive to profit that drives the vast industry behind phone theft. Too often, the criminal justice system is left trying to deal with the consequences of crime after the event, rather than addressing the incentives that fuel it in the first place. Phone theft is now a high-volume, high-impact crime, particularly in our cities, and it causes not only financial loss but real fear and disruption to victims’ lives.

What this amendment seeks to do is eminently practical. It asks cloud service providers, which already control the digital lifeline that makes a smartphone valuable, to take responsible and timely steps to deny access to those services once a device is verified as lost or stolen. A phone that cannot access cloud backups, app stores, authentication, service or updates rapidly becomes worthless on the secondary market, whether at home or abroad.

This is not a novel idea nor an untested one. As many noble Lords will know, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has examined this issue in detail. In its recent correspondence with Ministers and technology companies, the committee highlighted both the scale of the problem and the frustrating gap between what is technically possible and what is currently being done. The committee made it clear that voluntary action has been uneven, that existing measures are inconsistently applied across platforms, and that stronger co-ordination, potentially underpinned by legislation, may be required if we are serious about prevention. This amendment directly reflects that evidence-based work and gives effect to its central recommendations.

Importantly, the amendment builds in safeguards for users to appeal or reverse a block where a mistake has been made or a device is recovered. It leaves the detailed technical standards, timelines and sanctions to secondary legislation, allowing flexibility and proper consultation with industry, and it recognises the importance of law enforcement by requiring prompt notification to the National Crime Agency and local police, strengthening intelligence and disruption efforts. Fundamentally, if we can force cloud service providers to implement this provision, we can break the cycle of phone theft. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for taking up the cudgels on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I thought I had got away with it when I did not see him in the Chamber, but the noble Baroness turned up at the last minute, like the cavalry, and charged in to raise this very important issue, which I appreciate her doing. She is right to do so because, self-evidently, mobile phone theft is unacceptable. It is a significant criminal operation—as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, it involves overseas criminal gangs—and a great inconvenience, cost and discomfort to many people. We need collectively to take action to support the reduction of mobile phone theft.

Amendment 366, moved by the noble Baroness on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require technology companies which offer cloud-based services to use technical measures, such as cloud-based blocking, to prevent access to cloud-based services after a device by a registered user has been lost or stolen. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Blencathra—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition—expressed support for that principle and indicated that it is one method of tackling the scourge of mobile phone theft.

I share the noble Baroness’s concern about the theft of mobile phones and other devices that host cloud-based services. The number of thefts is too high and we are determined to get it down. I agree that urgent action is required to make sure that the companies which design these devices—to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—play their part and do absolutely everything they can to ensure that a stolen mobile phone is not a valuable commodity and therefore not worth stealing.

I share the intent to reduce mobile phone theft, but I suggest to the noble Baroness that there are a number of potential practical challenges in the proposed approach that I am uncertain whether we would currently be able to overcome. Many apps on mobile phone devices have some element of cloud access, so the range of companies in scope of the provision would appear to be extremely broad. In addition, disabling all cloud services could, for example, stop tracking and recovery of mobile phones, especially if the tracking function relies on cloud connectivity. That would impede law enforcement’s ability to identify locations to which stolen devices are taken.

As noble Lords will note, there is a measure in the Bill to ensure that tracking of mobile phones is dealt with in a much speedier and more effective way without the need for warrants. The Government are working with industry and law enforcement partners on the delivery of practical and effective measures. As the noble Baroness said, there was a very productive round table in February which brought together police, technology companies and others to look at how we can do what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, recommended: break the business model of mobile phone theft.

The summit resulted in clear commitments from attendees, including data sharing on mobile phone theft to get a comprehensive picture. There was also a range of other measures, including the police stepping up their operational response. Members will have seen this particularly in London, where the Metropolitan Police—I also pay tribute to the City of London Police—has targeted high areas of that activity as an operational response to catching criminals responsible for these crimes. As I have mentioned, the Bill gives police powers to enter premises to search for and seize stolen items, which would be negated if the tracking element was not allowed. That will help in seriously tackling this issue by enabling the tracking down of stolen mobile phones to particular properties.

As a result of the summit, technology companies and policing partners have continued to work together and there have been a number of working groups looking collectively at tech, operational issues of street action by police forces and other issues, although the main committee has not been reconvened. We have had a change of Home Secretary since the summit took place, so I will go back to the Home Secretary’s office about the potential for reconvening the major group, because it is important that that is done and seen through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I acknowledge that the Minister is trying hard to give a positive response, but I wonder whether he wants to challenge the reasons being offered when he goes back to the Home Office.

For most of these mobile phones, if the thieves have any sense they will turn them off, because the risk of being tracked is not insignificant, although clearly they do not always. That could be managed in two ways. First, there could be a time limit before the phone is blocked, such as 48 hours—the owner will not be looking for this phone for the next six years. Secondly, and probably more importantly, this is a bit Catch-22; if we argue, as I think the Government accept, that it is valuable because it can still connect to the network, once the thief knows it will not be connected to the network there will be no need to track it when it is stolen, because nobody will be stealing it. I know this will not be perfect, but if you could reduce it by 90%, that would have a massive impact.

I accept that the point on tracking is well intended, but if we made this difference, the device would not be reconnected and there would be no need for tracking. If there is a need, perhaps we should just time-limit it. I accept the advice the Minister has been given, but there is a way round that argument.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am content, with the noble Lord’s experience of how these matters can be dealt with, to reflect on what he has said, but it does not get away from the fact that the problems I have outlined with the amendment as drafted would still be present. I cannot accept the amendment today but, in principle, we are all looking for solutions to stopping mobile phones being stolen, either by effective police action on the ground or by use of neighbourhood policing targeting hotspot areas with high levels of mobile phone theft. The noble Lord mentioned Tube exits, for example.

I cannot accept the amendment in this form because the reasons I have given need to be thought through. The noble Lord’s contribution points to another area where thought can be given. In light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment for now, but not the general concern of this Committee and this Government that we need to take action on this issue.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his constructive response to this important amendment, and all those who took part in the debate. The powerful combination of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hogan-Howe, my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower and the Minister himself represent a lot of expertise in this area and concern to tackle this criminal activity. I am very grateful for that.

The former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, was absolutely right to convene interested parties to try to tackle the appalling damage being done to victims of this criminal activity. Theft of phones and their onward sale overseas is a very profitable business. The theft statistics probably understate the problem, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the providers do not at present have an incentive to solve it. It is highly regrettable but, as a result, not enough has been done.

I am not convinced that tracking, data sharing and hotspot enforcement, of which I am very supportive and have spoken in favour of to the Minister before, are quite enough. I am glad to hear that working groups are continuing, and the undertaking to have a further meeting of the Home Secretary’s group is very valuable.

I hope the Minister will also reflect on the debate, think what can be done and perhaps come back with a government amendment or undertakings as to what can be done. But failing that, and probably in any event, I think we will wish to return to this important issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it was quite difficult to sit here and listen to that, but I will come to that. I very strongly support Amendment 369, and I do so with a real sense of fury that we are in this position, that we actually have to do this, and that it is not obvious to any Government that in a democracy we need the right to protest to be protected. To engage in peaceful protest means irritating other people. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but, unfortunately, what he said just now was complete and utter nonsense.

Over recent years, we have seen a real erosion of protest rights through one Bill after another. I sat here and watched it all and protested at every single move. Each was justified on a narrow, technical or operational point but, taken together, they amounted to a clear political direction—making protests harder, riskier and much easier to shut down.

Amendment 369 does not invent new rights. It states in clear and accessible language that peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right and that public authorities have a duty to respect, protect and facilitate that right.

Amendments 369ZA and 369ZB seek to qualify that right by reference to whether members of the public are “hindered”, experience “inconvenience” or are able to go about “their daily business”. These amendments fundamentally misunderstand the nature of protest. Almost all meaningful protest causes some degree of hindrance or inconvenience. If it does not, it is very easy to ignore. From the suffragettes to trade unionists to civil rights campaigners, protest has always disrupted business as usual, precisely because that is how attention is drawn to injustice. For example, proscribing Palestine Action was such a stupid move by the Government and has caused more problems for them and the police than if they had just left it alone and arrested its members for criminal damage and similar.

I come back to these embarrassing amendments. It is not just the problem of their intent, which I disagree very strongly with, but their vagueness. Terms such as “hindered” and “inconvenience” are entirely undefined. Being delayed by five minutes could be an inconvenience. Noise could be an inconvenience. Simply being reminded of a cause that one disagrees with could, for some, be considered an inconvenience. If those concepts become legal thresholds for restricting protest, the right itself becomes meaningless.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, used the phrase “in the real world”. I live in the real world, and I understand what protest does and why it is needed. Under these amendments, any protest that is visible, noisy or effective could be banned on the basis that someone somewhere was inconvenienced. Democracy is by its nature sometimes noisy, disruptive and inconvenient. It is very inconvenient being here at night debating these issues, quite honestly, in a moderately cold Chamber.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

Moderately?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

All right, in a cold Chamber.

If we prioritise convenience over conscience, we should not be surprised when people feel shut out of political decision-making altogether. For those reasons, I support Amendments 369 and 371. In essence, protest law is a terrible mess, and we have got here by a long series of government decisions and government weirdnesses. The whole thing is confusing for the police, as we have been told by senior police officers. It means that police officers make mistakes based on their own judgment. That is a terrible thing to happen in a democracy. Let us get this into the Bill to make clear exactly what a democracy looks like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for bringing forward these amendments. The importance of peaceful protest in a free and democratic society is of course a principle supported by all noble Lords. I want to be clear at the outset that no one on the Benches on this side questions either the legitimacy or the constitutional right to protest.

I first turn to Amendment 369, which seeks to place an express statutory right to protest into the Public Order Act 1986. This amendment risks solving a problem that does not exist. That is our belief. The right to protest is already deeply embedded in our constitutional and legal framework, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has so carefully explained. It is recognised in common law, it long predates our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and it has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts as a fundamental freedom in our democratic tradition. Crucially, this right has never been absolute. Historically, it has always existed alongside the equally important duties of the state to maintain public order, protect public safety and safeguard the rights and freedoms of others. That careful balance has evolved over centuries through common law and legislation. It is not at all clear that reinstating the right to protest in statutory form would add meaningful protection beyond what already exists.

There is a real risk that codifying such a broad and long-standing right in statue could have unintended consequences. By setting out open-ended duties on public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate protest, the amendment would inevitably invite further litigation and judicial interpretation. Decisions about the proper balance between protest rights and competing public interests, such as disruption to essential services or public safety, could increasingly be determined in the courts rather than by Parliament or accountable Ministers. That risks further frustrating the will of the Executive and of Parliament. I do not believe that placing an express right to protest into statute is either necessary or desirable. Our system has functioned for generations without such a provision and it is not evident that this long-standing settlement is now deficient.

I turn to Amendment 371, which would require an independent review of the existing legislative framework governing protest. We on these Benches are unconvinced of the case for such a review. The Acts listed have been subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny and their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights has been debated at length in both Houses. We do not support proposed new subsection (5) in this amendment, which would require the review to have regard to the impacts of legislation on the exercise of rights under the ECHR. The ECHR is already subject to unwelcome litigation which brings about perverse outcomes that were never intended at its commencement: there are plenty of examples of that. An additional independent review would be unnecessarily burdensome and duplicative, consuming time and public resources without a clear or compelling purpose. For these reasons, we on these Benches do not support either amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to further discussion of how best to uphold both the right to protest and the rule of law in a balanced and proportionate way.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope it does not surprise noble Lords if I confess that I have been on the odd protest in my time. I have quite enjoyed the freedom to have a protest. I have protested against the apartheid Government, against the National Front and, if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will bear with me, against his Government when he served as a Minister.

The right to peaceful protest is an important part of our democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and demonstrate their views, provided they do so within the law. This Government are committed to protecting and preserving that right. I hope that that gives some succour to the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Strasburger, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and indeed others who have spoken in favour.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, set out his case for the two amendments on public order. Amendment 369 seeks to introduce a statutory right to protest into the Public Order Act 1986, along with a duty on public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate that right. I understand the concerns that he has put and I accept and appreciate those concerns, but, as has been said, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, these protections are already firmly established in UK law. Public authorities are required under the Human Rights Act 1998, passed by a previous Government in which I was pleased to serve, to act in accordance with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly set out in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, as has been said by a number of noble Lords today, including the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies of Gower, and as set out in the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, these rights are qualified. This point is illustrated by Amendments 369ZA and 369ZB, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. On that qualification, I am not going to get into the argument between the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Blencathra, but for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and others who have argued for the amendment today, the key point is that that right, as has been said, can be restricted only where restriction is lawful, proportionate and justified. The right to peaceful protest is also recognised under the common law and creating a separate statutory provision risks duplicating existing protections, which could lead to confusion in how the law is interpreted and applied. It might also complicate operational policing without offering any additional legal safeguards.

I have to say that I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, that there is a fundamental right to protest. But I respectfully submit, as I think he argued in his contribution, that the amendment would not strengthen that commitments and might indeed introduce uncertainty into the law. That is a very valid and important point, because existing legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Articles 10 and 11, qualified rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, set out the issues that again were ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the right to protest exists: it is one that I cherish and have exercised myself and may even exercise myself again in the future, who knows? It is an important right, but his amendment would cause confusion and water down the ability to provide that security of protest under the existing legislation. Therefore, I ask him ultimately to not press it further.

I turn to Amendment 371, which would require the Government to commission an independent review of the existing protest legislation within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said that the Government called the review post the tabling of this amendment. We proposed the review on 5 October last year. The Home Secretary announced an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation on 5 October last year and I suggest that Amendment 371, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would essentially be what the Government have already ordered and would, if agreed today, negate the purpose of what the Government have already ordered and extend the review that we have already ordered still further by establishing that review in law.

We announced the review on 5 October because of the very issues that all noble Lords have mentioned about balancing the right to peaceful protest and the right to enjoy non-harassment, the right to potentially go to a synagogue, or the right to go about your daily business. Those issues are extremely important, which is why the Home Secretary has appointed the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, KC, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, as one of the people to undertake the review. His independence and expertise will ensure a rigorous, impartial review. He will have the help and support of former assistant chief constable Owen Weatherill, who brings operational experience from his role with the National Police Chiefs’ Council as lead for civil contingencies and national mobilisation. That independent review reaffirms this Government’s ongoing commitment to keep public order legislation under review.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I am sorry to intervene so late. Could the Minister please confirm whether the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will consider the issue I was raising, which was the incoherence and overlap between the various pieces of legislation on protest?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The terms of the noble Lord’s review have been published and they are available to the Committee now. The review will examine whether current public order legislation is fit for purpose in the light of contemporary protest tactics, community impacts and the need to safeguard democracy. It will examine how effectively police are using the powers available to them. It will consider whether further measures are needed to reassure the communities who are most affected by current tensions, while respecting the right to protest. Those are all important issues. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, expects to submit the review to the Home Secretary by spring 2026 and, in doing so, will give an overview of all the legislation that is in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, commented on Palestine Action and the right to protest of Palestine Action. I want to reaffirm that both the House of Commons and this House had an opportunity to vote in favour or against that legislation. Both the House of Commons and this House voted in favour of the legislation, which is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, police officers are implementing the legislation that was passed by both Houses. As I recall, although I cannot remember the exact figures, a number of Members of this House voted against that order, including Members from my own side. It was a difficult debate in July. It was a free vote; many Members voted against it in the Commons and this House, but both measures were passed in both Houses.

It is not illegal for anybody to go outside now and campaign against the Israeli Government or any actions by the Israeli Government, or to campaign in favour of the Palestine organisations that are seeking to change the status quo in that part of the Middle East. What is illegal is to show support for an organisation that I, Ministers and the Government, on advice from the security services and others, determined was engaged in activities that crossed the threshold of the Terrorism Act. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is well aware of the complexities of that, as a former adviser, but that was the advice we got.

If an organisation is breaching the threshold for terrorism, it is the duty of this Government to act, and that is what we did in those circumstances. So I want to place on record again, for clarity, that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, can go outside tonight and campaign for a Palestine state and against the Israeli Government, and no police will arrest him or, as he mentioned, any grandparent, teacher or professional. But if he goes out and supports Palestine Action, which has been determined to have crossed the threshold of the Terrorism Act, he will face the full force of the law. If he does not like the law, he can try to change it, but that is the law passed by both Houses and therefore the police have a duty to uphold it. It does not stop peaceful protest.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would love to reopen the Palestine Action debate, because I was the person who pushed for the vote and, as we exited the Chamber, several Peers said to me, “This is going to cause trouble”. So people knew.

However, on the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, can the Minister say whether the noble Lord set the time limit or whether the Government did, because it seems a lot of work for such a short time?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always try to be helpful to the House. I was not directly party to the issue with the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, about the time limit, so I cannot say with any certainty whether the Home Secretary said to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to do it by April, or the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that he will deliver it by April. If the noble Baroness wants me to write to her to make that point, I will do so.

The key thing at the heart of Amendment 371 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is that it provides for the review to be undertaken within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the review we are doing currently will have been completed by April 2026.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

Many of us in this Committee would be absolutely amazed if the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, stuck to his timetable of being able to publish something next month. He does not need to take four years, as I did, but it is a ferociously tight timetable.

If you follow the logic of those arguing that people who were protesting in support of Palestine Action should not face legal charge, is it not the case that they would then have to say that support for any terrorist organisation, if it was so-called peaceful, should be allowed—so you should be able to peacefully give your support for Hamas or any violent organisation? If that is their argument they need to properly say it, because many people would have problems with that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on that point. The right to free speech is extremely important, and there is no stopping the right to free speech about the issue of Palestine in any way, shape or form. If a determination is made under the Terrorism Act 2000 that an organisation has crossed that threshold, the Government have a duty to act on that, which is what we have done in this case. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, I just did not want to allow the comments he made to colour the position on a protest around Palestine. He can protest around that, but he cannot support an organisation that still has some outstanding court cases and has undertaken some severe action to date.

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

May I press the Minister on that? I quite understand his analysis of the law: that the Palestine Action group became a proscribed organisation when Parliament said it should and, as a result of that, it follows from the terms of the Terrorism Act that there were and are continuing to be prosecutions of people who express support by perhaps sitting wearing a placard, or by wearing an item of clothing that expresses such support.

The proscription is of course the subject of challenge in the courts here and may well be the subject of challenge in the European Court of Human Rights, so I will say nothing further about that. But subject to that, have the Government not had any concern about the fact that because of the way the Terrorism Act works, the proscription of any organisation means that any expression of support, as the noble Lord said —however peaceable or however others might regard it as simply peaceable protest—renders it illegal and renders the person expressing such support liable to being prosecuted? Do the Government not feel that this is a reason for having a review of the validity and sense of the law in this area, where the Terrorism Act carries, as it stands, that unfortunate consequence?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have strayed, with due respect to all noble Lords, slightly wider than the amendment. I just wanted to make the point about Palestine Action because the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, mentioned it.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is looking at all aspects of prosecution and all aspects relating to legislation. We keep all matters under review at all times.

The 2000 Act sets down certain criteria. That threshold was passed and crossed in this case. I defended that in this House, and the House supported it on a cross-party basis. That is political life. The noble Lord can move an amendment at any time to strike that legislation down, if he wishes to.

I hope that the noble Lords will not press the amendments before us today. The right to peaceful protest is vital. The Government support it. The Government are making changes still to allow that right but also to try to get a fair balance so that communities and others can also enjoy life when a protest occurs. We have the wider review from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which will report in due course and which will colour, no doubt, further discussions. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

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

My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I welcome his support for the principle of Amendment 369, but our amendment does fully respect the rights and freedoms of others and does so expressly in proposed new subsection (3)(c). That does not mean that any inconvenience to citizens should be accepted as a reason for restricting the right to protest. I make the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others have made: that nearly all protests cause some inconvenience and noise without unduly infringing the rights of others. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that, certainly as they are framed, his amendments smack of intolerance in their failure to countenance any inconvenience.

All noble Lords have accepted that the rights of neither side of the argument are absolute—the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Goodman, made the same point. I believe, along with others, that the toleration of some inconvenience is the price of the democratic right to protest.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is absolutely right that we have the ECHR rights, and he knows that I regard them as of critical importance. He makes the point—supported by the others, and it would be echoed by me—that Amendment 369, in part, duplicates the ECHR rights; I am bound to say that I do not regard it as likely that there will be satellite litigation about the difference between the two sets of rights. One point that bears on his argument is that the statement in domestic legislation that directly bears on the right to protest—whereas the Article 10 and Article 11 rights do bear on it but not as directly as our amendment —is of great importance. But that is only part of the picture.

I am also absolutely clear that I am not criticising and have at no stage criticised the police for enforcing the law. Indeed, as it happens, I take the contrary view. I do not believe that the police should have discretion not to enforce the law except on quite serious grounds of convenience.

I criticise the fact—I say it is relevant, when the Minister said it was not relevant—that the need for reconsideration of the Terrorism Act in the light of what has happened, and it has left us in the position that peaceful protest can lead to prosecutions that are unintended, means that a full review is necessary. I, of course, welcome the review of noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and I welcome the fact that the Government have put that in train, but a further full review over a longer period is necessary.

However, the absolutely crucial point about the need for Amendment 369 is the one the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made: it would impose an express statutory duty on public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest, which is not anywhere in the ECHR. There may be resource implications to that, but it only reflects the importance we place on preserving democracy and the right to protest along with it.

For the time being, I will of course seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I will reconsider the position between now and Report, having regard to the support I have received from some quarters around the House, but not universally.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these stand part notices. However, we on these Benches are unable to support her as we have general support for Clauses 118 to 120.

The clauses address a very real and increasingly familiar problem in modern protest policing: the deliberate concealment of identity to frustrate lawful policing and avoid accountability for criminal acts. I am sure that all noble Lords have seen videos circulating on the news and online of protests where large groups of people arrive masked or disguising their identity. Often, the only reason for that is to embolden themselves and each other to commit offences, knowing that their identification and subsequent prosecution will be next to impossible. This undermines both public confidence and the rule of law.

Clause 118 creates a relatively tightly drawn offence that would apply only where a locality has been designated by the police because there is a reasonable belief that a protest is likely to involve, or has involved, criminality. It is not a blanket ban on face coverings. Rather, the clause provides clear statutory defences for those wearing items for health reasons, religious observance or work-related purposes. I do not have concerns that these defences may be abused, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide some assurances as to how he intends that this will not be the practical reality.

Clauses 119 and 120 provide for necessary safeguards and structures relating to the powers of Clause 118. They stipulate that designation must be time limited, based on a reasonable belief and authorised at an appropriate level. There are explicit requirements to notify the public of the designation, the nature of the offence and the period for which it applies. These safeguards are consistent with other provisions of the Public Order Act that relate to police powers to impose conditions on assemblies and processions.

Removing these clauses would make policing protests even more difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined. Offenders who attend protests with the primary intent to commit crimes, whether related to the protest topic or not, will be able to evade justice more easily. The vast majority of peaceful protesters are unfairly associated with disorder that they did not cause. Effective policing protects the right to protest by isolating and deterring criminal behaviour within it. For those reasons, we cannot support the stand part notices in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling her intention to remove Clauses 118 to 120. The Committee is aware of the purpose of those clauses. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Blencathra, for the broad principle of the clauses.

I start by referring the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to the front page of the Bill. She will see that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint—which is me—has made the statement that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, which answers the first point that she put to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am so grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. I am glad to hear him restate his commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. He will know that that statement at the beginning of any Bill is not a certificate of compliance but a belief in the compliance of the contents of the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend could help me understand whether there has been any assessment in the department of measures such as this in the hands of a future Government who do not share his commitment to human rights and how such powers might be used.

On the issue of having powers to limit expression when offences are taking place, as my noble friend said a couple of moments ago, I remind him that in Clause 119, which is the mechanism for designation, the test is not that offences are taking place; it includes preventing the possibility of offences. In relation to compliance, he will know that any limits on convention rights must be proportionate, yet the test for designation in Clause 119 is not proportionality but expedience. Can my noble friend help the Committee understand why the human rights language of proportionality has been substituted for the test of expedience?

Finally, can my noble friend say why protest has been singled out in this way and not, for example, carnivals, religious prayer vigils or other gatherings of people where they might conceal their identity?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There were a number of points there. If my noble friend will allow me, I intend to answer the points made during the course of the debate. I say to her straightaway that we have published our analysis of the ECHR obligations; I can refer her to it. I will ensure that if she does not have it to hand, I will send it to her. It is published and is available for that.

As I will come on to in a moment, the rights that we are seeking in this piece of legislation for protesters, the community, the Government and police forces are measured in a way that I believe is acceptable. In recent years, policing large-scale protests has posed significant challenges; the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to that. While most participants exercise their rights peacefully and lawfully, a small minority have engaged in criminal acts while concealing their identity. It is because the police have highlighted this issue with existing powers to identify those committing offences during protests that we have brought these issues forward. It is essential that the police can identify those committing offences during protests, not only to ensure accountability and justice but to protect peaceful demonstrators and the wider public from harm.

As a whole, Clauses 118 to 120 strike a careful balance. This will not apply to all protests. It applies only to protests that have been designated by a senior police officer of inspector rank or above. In addition, as was mentioned by a number of contributors to the debate, although the police currently have powers to remove face coverings in designated areas, they themselves have said to us—this goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—that those measures are not always effective in the context of managing protests. People often comply but then replace a face covering later, which is difficult to monitor in large gatherings. The new offence addresses this by making it unlawful to wear a face covering once a locality has been designated by a police officer—not by a Minister or by the Government—in the light of upholding rights as a whole.

That senior police officer, who will be at least of the rank of inspector, must reasonably believe that a protest is likely to occur, that it is likely to lead to criminal behaviour—that is the critical point, which comes to the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and others—and that it is necessary to act to prevent or reduce such offences. That is an important caveat, not the Nineteen Eighty-Four dystopia that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seems to—

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

My Lords—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In a moment. It is not a Nineteen Eighty-Four dystopia, me becoming Orwellian or the Government becoming Big Brother and being all-seeing. It is about potential criminal activity where a police officer—not the Government, this House or the House of Commons—determines that this action should be taken. If a police officer determines that that designation needs to occur at that space and time, that is a reasonable thing, allowing protests but also stopping criminal behaviour.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I simply want to ask him this question: how far have the Government stress-tested these clauses against the test posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti? Under the auspices of a future Government less benign than this Labour Government—whom I respect, and he knows that—to what extent has that stress-testing tested, for instance, how far the promotion of police officers to the rank of inspector may produce benign results, or how far the results could be Orwellian? I do not suggest that this Government are Orwellian. My suggestion is that there is potential, in these clauses as drawn, for bad consequences.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will say two things to the noble Lord in our defence. His presumption assumes that a police force in five years’ time will be dominated by right-wing Conservatives, Reform members or Socialist Workers Party members, who instruct the police force to instigate that designated area. I happen to believe— I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would agree with me—that the police are independent of government, they have integrity, and they determine policies based on legislation.

This does not give a police officer the power to be a political commissar, whether of right or left, but gives the police the power to say, “There is potentially criminal action in this designated space; therefore, in this space we need to ensure that we can remove face coverings”. If there is another Government who he fears in the future—all of us may fear different Governments of different authoritarian natures—I guess that they will have won an election and will have 400 or so Members of Parliament, and they can pass what the heck they like anyway.

Therefore, there is an argument to say to the noble Lord that his fears are undermining the integrity and the independence of the police force, and all I am doing in this legislation is giving the police the power to take action should they, as the police, determine that they want to do it.

The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, mentioned that it does not require someone to know they are committing the offence. Clause 119(2) requires the police to notify in writing that the designation has been made, the nature of the offence, the locality to which the designation applies and the period for which it applies. So it could even be a designation in writing for a limited time and in a limited place, but it is important that we do so.

A number of noble colleagues have raised religious and medical exemptions and further loopholes. The purpose of the new offence is, as I have said, to prevent protesters concealing their identity in order to avoid conviction for criminal activity in the designated place.

The measure does provide a reverse legal burden on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they wore a face covering for work purposes, or religious or health reasons. But, as with any charge, that is a defence in the Bill, in the future Act, in law, that allows people to say, “I am a paint sprayer”, or that they were seeking to prevent illness that might cause further illness if they did not wear a mask, or that, potentially, they had a religious reason to wear a mask. That is a defence in the event of any charge being made. But, again, it is a defence at the time when the police officer might well say to an individual that that mask needs to be removed.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

Be that as it may, what does the Minister say to people in all the other categories which are not mentioned in the clause as exemptions? People who have work reasons or marital reasons or whatever are not mentioned as exemptions; what do you say to them about attending protests? Are they just to avoid protests on that basis?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are designations that we have set down in law and there are designations that are not set down in law, but the measure is a proportionate one that the police can undertake, and in the event of an individual knowing that that is happening, they can accordingly take their own measures and decide to either protest or not protest. That does not curtail the right to protest.

The measure does not ban face coverings at every protest. An individual can go to a protest; they can wear a face covering for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, has outlined, and only if the police believe that criminal actions could be taken is that area designated. Then it is a matter for the individual, and I believe a majority of peaceful, legitimate protests will not be captured by this legislation, and the police must take great—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister is making a very powerful case but I ask him to focus on the defences which he has recognised. I do not understand why it is a defence for me to show that I wore a face mask because of my religion, but it is not a defence for me to prove, the onus being on me, that I wore a face mask because I was protesting against the Iranian regime and I have family in Iran.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes. We have drawn a line in the defences. I come back to the principle that the power to be used by the police officer, not the Government, is to determine this in the event of suspected criminality occurring.

There may not be, in the case that the noble Lord has mentioned, the need for that designation, because the police may make a judgment, which is their judgment to make, that a protest outside the Iranian embassy, for example, would not lead to potential criminal activity. That is the judgment that we are making. That is the line that we have drawn. I see the point that he has made, but that is the defence that I can put to him today. Because—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I very much support what the Minister is saying. The only question is: will the police have the power not to require this person to take his mask off if they accept his view that that would cause some danger to him or his family in Iran?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The exemptions in the Bill are very clear, and I have already talked about those that relate to religious, work or health reasons. Police officers will make a judgment on those issues on the ground and, as in the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, they have a significantly difficult job to do at any demonstration.

If I can give any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, all the offences under the Bill are currently under review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, as part of the review that he is undertaking, to be completed by spring 2026. I have no doubt that he will pay close attention to the comments that are made in this debate and make an assessment to government about whether the points made by noble Lords are ones that he should reflect on. I would say to the Committee—

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I am astonished by that statement. Is the Minister saying that we should knowingly pass faulty legislation because we know that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will pick it up and sort it out later?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord opposes the clauses; I do not. We have a difference of opinion on that. This is what Parliament is about. On Report we may have a vote on it. I have heard the support of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Blencathra, and others. I will seek their support in a Division and the House will determine what the House of Commons has already determined, which is whether those clauses are right or wrong for inclusion.

What I am saying is that, on all occasions, there are things that can be looked at and examined. If the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are worthy of consideration, we will have opportunities to have those reviewed, because the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is going to produce a report for the Home Secretary on protest generally. I cannot say what he is going to say or what recommendations he is going to make, or whether we will accept those recommendations. I simply say to the noble Lord today that I believe Clauses 118, 119 and 120 should stand. He does not. I believe that they are right and proper and effective and give powers to the police to do business in a co-ordinated way to prevent crime. There are points that have been made today which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will reflect on. He may make recommendations to government accordingly, and we may make issues later on. But I say to him now, and to anybody else in the Committee, that these powers are ones that the police have asked for to ensure better policing to prevent crime. They are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, in my view. They are proportionate and they provide a mechanism to ensure that people at a protest who commit crimes do not commit those crimes without any understanding.

I will make one final point before giving way to my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, also talked about facial recognition. He will know that, later on in this Bill, we will deal with issues to do with facial recognition. He will also know that the Government are currently undertaking a consultation on facial recognition, pending comments from anybody who wishes to make them and pending, therefore, better regulation of how any facial recognition is utilised in later legislation at some future point post this Bill. So, whatever concerns the noble Lord has on facial recognition, I believe it is still a valuable tool for policing, but we can examine them at some point downstream and there will be an opportunity to test his views versus the House’s at some point.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his detailed responses and for his patience in taking interventions. Could he in a moment deal with my point about why the word “expedient” has been used in Clause 119 rather than “proportionate”? He himself has talked of proportionality many times, and of course he will know that the test for lawful interference with convention rights is proportionality rather than expedience. And, in the light of comments made in this Committee by noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who does not oppose the provision outright, would he consider, between now and Report, adding an additional defence of fear of reprisal to the health provision, for example?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The wording in the Bill is the wording the Government have agreed. That is the position that we have taken. We may have a disagreement on that. If my noble friend wishes to put an amendment down on Report to change that wording, that is a matter for her. She has made a further suggestion about a further defence. Those are matters that I suggest should be considered by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. If she wishes to expediate that quickly, she has the opportunity along with anybody else to table an amendment on Report. But the Government have given serious consideration to this and Clauses 118, 119 and 120 are the result of those considerations. They are at the request of the police, they are proportionate, and they are, in my view, compliant with human rights. I commend them to the House and in a gentle way urge the noble Baroness, either today or in the future, not to seek to withdraw them.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I happen to support these clauses, but I have the same concern as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this has been drawn rather too narrowly and there may be areas that may have to be considered.

Secondly, the noble Lord is quite right: the clauses give this power to the police to prevent crimes being committed. What happens if the police get it wrong? We all know what happened with the sus law and reasonable grounds to suspect: they suspected and stopped people again and again, and nothing was actually worth suspecting. I do not want an answer; I want the possibility of considering what will happen if the police get it wrong. We have the Birmingham question still; I do not want to talk about it, because there are inquiries going on. What measures does the noble Lord want to address the particular conundrum that is there?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I add this, to save time. I know people are trying to expand the number of conditions, but I would like us not to run away with the assumption that the work face mask makes sense. Intuitively, it does, but I do not understand the paint sprayer who is at a protest wearing their mask. They are either at the protest or at work; I am not sure why they are wearing the mask at the protest. I do not understand that juxtaposition, and it may be for the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to consider as well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, time is pressing for the response, but that is largely due to interventions. I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that the main objective of the police in this process will be to ensure that there is a peaceful demonstration, with no trouble for the community at large. If the police overpolice an issue, that is potentially an area where trouble can commence. So I give the judgment to the police to do this in a proper and effective way.

A number of comments have been made, and we will always reflect on those comments, but I stick, particularly because of time, to the contention that the clauses should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I cannot tell you how much energy and self-control it has taken to stay seated, with all these interventions and comments. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his very kind comments and the photographs, which have obviously brought back a lot of very nice, happy memories. I thank him for that. The other aspect to my having to exercise loads of self- control in staying sitting down is that I get very agitated —very irritated, in fact—and I scribble all over the papers I have in front of me, which sometimes makes it difficult to reply fully. I am going to do my best, and I beg the patience of the House in allowing me to go through all my scribbles.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger and Lord Marks, for their support. I am very grateful. Obviously, this is a day that will go in my diary: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, actually agreed with something I said. That is quite rare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to respond to what has been a wide but, at the same time, restricted debate, if that makes sense.

The amendments deal principally with the reasonable excuse defences applicable to various public order and criminal damage-related offences. Amendments 369A and 369B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and others, would exclude a political belief from being considered a reasonable excuse or good reason under the new offences in Clauses 121 and 122.

My view is that this would narrow the scope of the statutory defences and reduce flexibility for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to consider individual circumstances, particularly given that political belief is a broad and loosely defined concept and not a term commonly used in legislation. The lack of clarity could create uncertainty in its application.

The amendments would also have wider operational implications. By prescribing what cannot constitute a defence, the amendments limit the discretion of the courts, the CPS and the police to make case-by-case judgments. This is important because it could restrict the operational independence of the police, the prosecutors and the judiciary, which must weigh factors such as motive and proportionality when deciding to take enforcement action or to prosecute. That goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s amendments, but the Government consider that the current provisions are sufficient and proportionate, and the defences, as drafted, ensure that enforcement and prosecution decisions are made proportionally and in line with the important human rights legislation and obligations that we adopt and accept.

Amendment 369AA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—and I thank him for his comments—would remove the good reason defence in Clause 122. I say to the noble Lord simply that this defence is intended to cover circumstances which are also important. For example, it could be that someone needs to climb on a specified memorial to repair or clean it. We should not be criminalising people in such circumstances, but the acceptance of that amendment would mean that could, in theory, be the case.

Amendment 382D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to remove the reasonable excuse defence available to individuals charged with specific offences under the Public Order Act 2023 and Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. These offences include locking on to an object, tunnelling, or interfering with key national infrastructure. Again, the Government are of the view that the reasonable excuse defence is necessary in these instances to ensure an appropriate balance between protecting the wider community and the right to protest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord did not take my comments in that vein. It is completely unacceptable for individuals to have their lives disrupted by that level of protest, but it is for the police on site to determine. I was not there on the night; I did not witness the protest. I read about the concerns prior to today, and during the course of this debate I have examined again the reports that have occurred. But it is for a police officer on site to determine. Under existing legislation, there are offences of harassment, of inciting violence and other offences and, as the noble Lord knows, because we have debated this at Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill to ensure that people can, with the police, determine a protest route and the regularity of a protest as part of the proposals in this legislation. I am not ducking the question; it is important that people have the right to live their lives in freedom, and to enjoy a restaurant meal. But I cannot be the police on the night, determining whether the offences that are potentially covered currently by law are exercised by the police. I hope the noble Lord will accept the comments that I have made. With that, I invite the noble Lord not to press the proposed amendments, and to revisit them should he so wish.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, to those who have supported my amendments and even to noble Lords who disagreed with them, because this discussion has laid down the real issue before us: who decides where the limits of protest lie —Parliament or the courts?

Much of the criticism rests on the claim that removing reasonable excuse defences is somehow draconian. I profoundly disagree. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that peaceful protest remains fully protected. These amendments address not expression but coercion, not persuasion but disruption, not dissent but deliberate law-breaking carried out in the expectation that the courts will excuse it after the fact.

That expectation is not hypothetical. It is precisely what flowed from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ziegler. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his interpretation of the law as it stands, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, for his further clarification. The Ziegler decision has encouraged protesters to view arrest as a tactical step, confident that they can later invoke proportionality, sincerity of belief and human rights arguments to defeat prosecution. We saw this with a recent case, whereby Just Stop Oil protesters threw powder paint at the historic Stonehenge. They were acquitted, of course, on all counts. The result is uncertainty for the police, frustration for the public and an erosion of respect for the law.

Noble Lords may agree that the answer lies in better guidance or more nuanced drafting, but we have been down that road. The debates on the Public Order Act 2023, particularly those led by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, were an earnest attempt to clarify the law while retaining reasonable excuse defences, but Labour denied the opportunity to do so. The outcome has been complexity layered upon complexity, and still the courts are left to decide case by case whether obstruction, damage, or intimidation was worth it, given the cause advanced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his Amendment 370 seeking to update public order legislation. For the benefit of any doubt, let me echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, that this is a serious disruption to key infrastructure caused by protest tactics, and I understand the difficulties and challenges met by those types of protests. The amendment seeks to criminalise acts that cause serious disruption to road transport infrastructure. I say gently to the noble Lord that our view is that, under Section 6 of the Public Order Act 2023, there is an offence already on the statute book of obstructing major transport works, and Section 7 makes it an offence to interfere with key national infrastructure, including roads and other transport infrastructure, as defined by Section 8 of that Act. Introducing a new offence that closely mirrors existing provisions risks unnecessary duplication. It could create confusion for police and prosecutors and it could add complexity where clarity is needed. That does not take away the disruption that can be caused, even the occasional minimal disruption where an individual might be stopped by an ambulance, for example. Those are real key issues, but I suggest that existing legislation covers those proposals.

Amendment 382A seeks to amend Section 13 of the Public Order Act to enable a chief officer of police to consider serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, and the demands on police resources when determining whether to apply for an order prohibiting public processions. Section 13 of the 1986 Act already rightly sets a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. It is one thing to place conditions on protests, as provided by elements of the 1986 Act, to enable them to take place peacefully and with minimum disruption; it is quite another to ban processions altogether. I find myself at one with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, on these matters. On occasion, I can reach out with the hand of friendship to him, as well as to other Members of the House.

It is important that all public order legislation continues to be compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, and Section 13 of the 1986 Act allows for the banning of a protest only where it is necessary to prevent serious public disorder. Widening the scope of the power to include taking into account police resources would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest and the legislation becoming incompatible with the obligations that we seek to maintain under the ECHR.

Finally, on Amendment 382C, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, takes this in the best way possible, but I agree with him again on the matter of the requirement to increase the notice period for a protest from six days to 28 days. Six days is an adequate time for the police to be able to determine whether a protest should occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said, there are occasions where protests flare up because of incidents that have occurred. Guidance to police already provides the necessary operational flexibility to allow forces to work with organisers planning protests to ensure that the conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. I say regretfully to the noble Lord that I believe increasing the statutory notice period is unnecessary, and the following is an important point. Sometimes I come to the House and say that the police have requested matters and that is why I am bringing them forward. We have had no requests from the police to look at increasing the number of days from six to 28.

Having said all that again—and I know the House will become tired of the record that I am playing this evening—all matters of public order legislation fall within the terms of reference of the review from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. If his review brings forward issues that need to be examined, we will examine them and consider the findings and recommendations very carefully. But, at the moment, with regret, because he has been so supportive this evening on some other matters, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I cannot accept his amendments tonight, although I do understand his references and those of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to the disruption these matters can cause. We believe it is covered by existing legislation and I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have been in your Lordships’ House for 33 years. I have lost count of the number of times that Ministers have said that an amendment is unnecessary, and I have used the same argument myself. That being the case, how is it that we saw the M25 being blocked?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have had 30 years in Parliament, not all in this House, and I have used it occasionally and had it used against me occasionally. It is unnecessary given that we have had the legislation on the statute book to date. The noble Earl asks the quite reasonable question of how the M25 gets blocked. I put it to him that this House, this Government, this Parliament and any other parliament passes legislation. It is not for Ministers to implement that: it is for the local police, at a local level, to take a judgment on the legislation at that time. In the cases where there is legislation on the statute book, the police could exercise that legislation. They may or may not choose to do so, because it may inflame the situation or not. It is a matter for judgment by the local police. I simply say to him that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are already in place. For that reason, I ask him to not to press them.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, raised the issue of facilitating protest, which is often cited. It made me think, “I don’t know where that is”. I have just had a quick look, and I do not think it exists. I think Article 11 of the ECHR suggests that the police should not inhibit public protests and certainly should not try to intimidate protesters; that is different from making it sound as though they are there to market protest or to be the arrangers of protests so that they achieve their aim. The trouble is that the police have got into that mindset. They would have to do everything to protect the protester and, if they are not careful, forget the rest. That is why I challenge the Minister, not because I think it is badly intended but because I do not think it is accurate in terms of the ECHR.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will take that as a comment for me and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, to reflect on, but I maintain the position. The police have a difficult job. Legislation is in place currently, and the proposals brought forward would replicate that. I am trying to sit down, but I see the noble Lord, Lord Harper, so once again I will take an intervention.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Very briefly, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, and in answering my noble friend Lord Attlee, one of the things that was very helpful in my time at the Department for Transport was that National Highways sought a pre-emptive injunction to set out certain behaviours that should be prohibited and was successful in getting that, which was very effective at giving the necessary tools to the police to keep the motorway open.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. I add that into the mix of the debate today, but I still come to the conclusion that existing legislation, however it is interpreted, covers this. Therefore—for the last time, I hope—I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short debate, but I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed and to my noble friend Lord Attlee for supporting my amendments.

The police are charged not only with facilitating lawful protest but with protecting the safety and liberties of all citizens, yet the current legal framework, I suggest, often leaves officers with insufficient tools to intervene meaningfully before disruption becomes entrenched. Amendment 382A strikes at the core of this problem by allowing chief officers to seek prohibition in defined circumstances, including where marches are likely to cause serious disorder, damage or disruption or to place undue demand on limited policing resources. We align the law with operational reality and public expectations.

What do the public expect? Polling shows that large majorities support police intervention in protest scenarios that go beyond peaceful lawful conduct. They reveal a public who very much distinguish between legitimate expression and conduct that crosses into intimidation and disorder. Similarly, extending the notice period to 28 days is a common-sense enhancement that gives police and local authorities the time needed to prepare for large and potentially complex processions. This is about ensuring the responsible ordering of protest in a way that protects public safety, minimises disruption and allows ordinary citizens to go about their lives.

These amendments are a measured, evidence-based response to the challenge of protest policing in the 21st century. I hear what the Minister says, but I hope the Government can give them some serious consideration. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

372: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—
“Public processions and assemblies: duty to take account of cumulative disruption(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.(2) In section 12 (power to impose conditions on public processions), after subsection (2B) insert—“(2BA) In considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community, a senior police officer must take into account any relevant cumulative disruption.(2BB) In subsection (2BA) “relevant cumulative disruption” means the cumulative disruption to the life of the community resulting from—(a) the procession,(b) any other public procession in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the procession mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under subsection (1) in relation to that other procession), and(c) any public assembly in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the procession mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under section 14(1A) in relation to that assembly),and it does not matter whether or not the procession mentioned in paragraph (a) and any procession or assembly within paragraph (b) or (c) are organised by the same person, are attended by any of the same persons or are held or are intended to be held at the same time.(2BC) In subsection (2BB) “area”, in relation to a public procession or public assembly, means such area as the senior police officer considers appropriate, having regard to the nature and extent of the disruption that may result from the procession or assembly.”.(3) In section 14 (power to impose conditions on public assemblies) after subsection (2B) insert—“(2BA) In considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a public assembly in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community, a senior police officer must take into account any relevant cumulative disruption.(2BB) In subsection (2BA) “relevant cumulative disruption” means the cumulative disruption to the life of the community resulting from—(a) the assembly,(b) any other public assembly in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the assembly mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under subsection (1A) in relation to that other assembly), and(c) any public procession in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the assembly mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under section 12(1) in relation to that procession),and it does not matter whether or not the assembly mentioned in paragraph (a) and any assembly or procession within paragraph (b) or (c) are organised by the same person, are attended by any of the same persons or are held or are intended to be held at the same time.(2BC) In subsection (2BB) “area”, in relation to a public assembly or public procession, means such area as the senior police officer considers appropriate, having regard to the nature and extent of the disruption that may result from the assembly or procession.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause amends sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to require police officers, when deciding whether the serious disruption to the life of the community threshold is met in England and Wales, to take account of the cumulative effect of processions and assemblies in the same area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments touches on how the police should deal with modern threats and how we balance civil liberties with the clear duty of the state to protect the public.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, when she introduced her Amendment 379, which, as she said, would prevent the police using live facial recognition when imposing conditions on public processions or assemblies under the relevant provisions of the Public Order Act, unless and until a new statutory code of practice had been approved. If we accept—as we on these Benches and, I think, others in your Lordships’ House do—that live facial recognition can be a legitimate and valuable policing tool in preventing crime, identifying suspects and protecting the public, it is difficult to justify singling out its use in this specific context for an additional and likely onerous layer of bureaucracy. The police already operate within an extensive framework of legal safeguards, such as data protection law. To require a further code of practice, subject to affirmative approval by both Houses of Parliament, risks delaying or deterring the deployment of technology precisely where it may be most needed. So, regretfully, we cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 471, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, goes further in seeking to affect the Government’s ability to use live facial recognition technology. It would restrict the circumstances in which live facial recognition could be used; it would require prior judicial authorisation in the specific circumstances of its use; and it would create an extensive new enforcement and oversight architecture. Public order situations are often fast-moving and unpredictable. Senior officers must be able to make operational decisions quickly, based on risk and intelligence on the ground. Introducing additional procedural hurdles at the point of use risks undermining that agility. We should focus on rolling out effective technology at pace to combat crime and disorder, while ensuring robust safeguards and scrutiny.

In particular, the requirement for prior judicial authorisation is, in our view, particularly problematic. One of the principal advantages of live facial recognition is its speed and flexibility. It can be deployed rapidly in response to emerging intelligence, acute threats or serious risks to public safety, and requiring prior judicial approval risks rendering the technology ineffective in precisely the circumstances where it could prevent serious harm. In dynamic operational scenarios, such as events of violent disorder, knife crime hot spots or rapidly evolving threats, delay can mean failure.

I was particularly taken by the speech of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who spoke about the position in New York, where, because of there being fewer police on the streets, the technology had to take over. He was right to say that.

We on these Benches are concerned by the attempt to narrow the scope of live facial recognition to a tightly defined set of purposes, because, if Parliament accepts the use of this technology in principle, it makes little sense to confine it to only a small number of scenarios. Crime does not present itself neatly within statutory categories. Policing requires judgment and discretion. Artificially restricting the use of a tool that has demonstrated value risks depriving the police of one of the most effective capabilities available to them.

We of course recognise the need for appropriate safeguards to be implemented in the use of this technology. This new and expanded use of people’s data, even if to facilitate an objective that we support, must be enacted with transparency and proportionality. But these amendments would constrain the police’s operations and weaken our ability to respond to modern threats. At a time when criminals are increasingly sophisticated and technologically adept, Parliament should be empowering the police to use lawful, proportionate and effective tools rather than tying their hands.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling the amendments and starting this important debate. Facial recognition is an increasingly important tool that helps the police, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Hogan-Howe. I was particularly struck by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, on gait and movement, which point to why this is valuable.

Currently, facial recognition technology is used to identify those suspected of committing crime, those who may be in breach of a court order and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones said, those who are missing persons and could be found. To put some context to it, for example, there were 127 people arrested following the use of facial technology during the disturbances in the summer of 2024 around asylum protests. According to the Metropolitan Police’s figures, between January 2024 and September 2025, 1,300 people were arrested for offences including rape, robbery and GBH, and, in that period, 100 sex offenders were arrested for breaching their conditions: that is, going to an area where they should not have gone. That is quite a valuable action, tool and resource. But that does not mean—which goes to the heart of the amendment the noble Baroness moved—that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Baroness herself and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench are not ones that need to be examined.

Noble Lords will be aware that, currently, the use of facial recognition technology is already subject to safeguards, including the Human Rights Act and Data Protection Act. The Government accept that there is a need to consider whether a bespoke legislative framework is needed. We need to get it right. We need to balance the need to protect communities from crime and disorder with the need to safeguard individual rights.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, will know, and as has been referenced in this debate, on 4 December, the Government launched a consultation: I have a copy available for the House. It is a 10-week consultation on a new framework for the enforcement of the use of facial recognition and similar technologies. The consultation explores when and how these technologies should be used, what safeguards are required to protect the issues that noble Lords and Baronesses have raised today and how to ensure that their use is proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed.

I refer the Committee to page 5 of the summary to the consultation:

“The government is therefore committed to developing and introducing a new legal framework that sets out rules for the overt use of facial recognition by law enforcement organisations”.


That is a clear government objective. The consultation is about how we achieve that government objective. It runs until 12 February and I encourage all those who have spoken to submit their views.

I take Amendment 471 as a positive contribution to the consultation. Some aspects would cause difficulties, but it is a fair point to put to the Committee today. I hope noble Lords will accept that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, which runs until 12 February. However, the clear objective, which I have read out, is to find the framework that noble Lords are seeking. We will need legislation to put in place the new legal framework, and that will come when parliamentary time allows.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

The Minister says that he cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but surely Clause 125 already pre-empts the outcome of the consultation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not think that it does. We will leave it at that. There is a proper and full consultation document, a copy of which is, I am sure, available in the House for Members to look at.

I revert to my starting point. For the reasons that have been laid out by a number of Members in the Committee today, across the political divide and none, it is a valuable tool. Do the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who raised this have an objection to automatic number plate recognition? Under current regulations, every vehicle that goes past a camera at the side of the road is an “innocent” vehicle but some of those number plates will lead to crime being solved or individuals being caught. The principle is there. If they object to the principle then we will not find common ground on this. We need regulation—I have accepted that. We are bringing forward the consultation, but, ultimately it is a valuable tool to stop and prevent crime and to catch criminals.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Minister cannot compare cars with people—that is a completely false comparison. I do not know whether the Minister has been in a van with a camera looking at number plates. There is no mistaking number plates; there is a lot of mistaking human faces.

The Minister earlier used the word “proportionately”. There is a significant distinction between proportionately and expediently. The test for lawful interference with ECHR rights is proportionality rather than expediency. We have covered this before, but it has come up again now. Having expediency in the Bill gives police the powers beyond what is reasonable for human rights. We are not sitting here for hours into the night doing this for fun—we can all agree that this is not fun. We are doing this because we believe that the Bill is wrong.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am doing it because I believe that we need to catch criminals and reduce crime. That is a fair disagreement between us. That is why I am doing this Bill and that is what this Bill is about. We may disagree, but facial recognition technology is an important mechanism to prevent crime and to reduce crime. I can tell the noble Baroness that we have agreed to bring forward regulations and are consulting on what those will include. I hope she will submit some views. I remain convinced that the type of technology that we have is valid and useful.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I do not normally disagree with the Minister, although we might be on different sides of an argument, but I found that last comment very bad. We are all on the same side—we all want to catch criminals and prevent crime. That needs to go on the record. From what he just said, it was almost as though he was suggesting that he is on the side of that but we are not. To make it clear, we are not sitting here for the sake of it; we are here because we genuinely believe in this and we want to catch criminals and prevent crime.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let us put out the hand of friendship and make common cause on those issues.

To respond to the noble Baroness’s amendment, I simply say that the consultation is there. Amendment 471 would go quite a long way beyond even that which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, brought forward. I believe this to be a potential future crime-fighting tool. It needs regulation around it and that is what the Government are intending to do. We are very clear about that on page 5 of the consultation. How it is regulated and what is regulated, and how this is approached, is what the consultation is about, but I agree with the basic principle of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Therefore, I ask her to withdraw it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I would like that in writing.

I thank the Minister for his response and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Minister mentioned the consultation, and I am pleased that the Government will legislate, but I hope Parliament will be very much involved, because, like anything, the devil will be in the detail. Whatever comes out of that will be very important.

Can the Minister tell me what happens if, in response to the consultation, the public say that they do not want the police to access particular databases? Will the Government then take those clauses out of the Bill? Perhaps he could just clarify that.

I have a concern that, even before the consultation began, the Home Office was saying that it hoped the process would pave the way for wider rollout. That does not really inspire confidence that Ministers are keeping an open mind. A consultation should not be used as a rubber stamp; it should be the start of a genuine national conversation about the limits that a free society wants to place on mass biometric data surveillance. For that conversation to mean anything, the public need to know the full picture, how accurate the systems are, and where and when they are being used. Right now, that transparency is not there.

We have heard that the Home Office thinks that:

“Any new laws informed by the consultation would take about two years to be passed by Parliament”.


That is far too slow, given the pace of technological change, and that comment was made in December 2025. All we are asking is that Parliament sets the rules before the technology sets them for us. I hope Parliament will be involved in setting those rules. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Precisely what form that medicine takes is a different question. Today, my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea has set out his proposed solution. I know the Government have commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to review the state of public order and hate crime legislation, and we await that review with bated breath. However, it is not enough for the Government to simply instigate a review and then refuse to give an indication of their direction of travel. I hope the Minister will be able to say a little more than simply, “We must wait for the outcome of the review”. I have to say to the Minister that it is an excuse that is beginning to wear a little thin.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, for the way in which he put his arguments. I fully accept his contention that they are not designed to include his belief in racism or discrimination and the fair and open way in which he made his points. The same comments apply to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young of Acton. I understand their motivation and where they are coming from, but I have to say straightaway to the Committee that I do not agree with the direction of travel. We will resist it and I will explain why in my comments.

Before I do so, let me say that—and I hope this is helpful for the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—on the issues he raised around non-crime hate incidents, we are going to come to those in a later debate on Amendment 416E. The College of Policing is producing a report and review, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, as the chair of the College of Policing. I commit to the Committee that that review will come forward before Report on this Bill, and we intend to look at it as a Government and respond to it. The points that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, mentioned are probably more relevant when we have the debate on Amendment 416E, if he accepts my comments. We will revisit that in due course.

Amendment 382F proposes to repeal to the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and make significant changes to the Communications Act 2003 and the Public Order Act 1986. I understand the motivation for the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to bring them forward, but they include removing key provisions that have been in place for many years, were passed under different Governments of political complexity and have been consistently applied in case law.

The terms the noble Lord seeks to omit from the Public Order Act 1986 are understood by the police and the CPS, and there is case law interpreted by the courts. These provisions provide police with proportionate tools to manage low-level public disorder and protect the public from threatening or abusive behaviour, as well from those who seek to stir up racial hatred. The existing legal framework already ensures that enforcement decisions are made proportionately and in line with human rights obligations, including the right to freedom of expression.

I emphasise to the Committee that the personal example cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, shows that these laws are here for a purpose. Her comments have highlighted the question: how would each of us like to be on the receiving end of an abusive or insulting comment or phrase about a personal characteristic of our lives that we cannot change? Attack me for my politics by all means, because that is the view I have taken, but attacking individuals, or showing insulting or offensive behaviour towards individuals for characteristics they cannot change, is a step that we need to consider very carefully.

Let us look at what Amendment 382F from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeks to remove. The amendment would repeal the Malicious Communications Act 1988, including the offence of sending a

“letter, electronic communication or article”

to someone

“which is indecent or grossly offensive”,

if the purpose of sending it is to

“cause distress or anxiety to the recipient”.

That is quite a heavy protection for people that the noble Lord is seeking to remove.

The amendment also seeks to remove Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, including the offence of sending, or causing to be sent,

“by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive … indecent, obscene or menacing”.

Again, those protections are included in the 2003 Act to protect individuals from grossly offensive, obscene, indecent or menacing communication, yet the noble Lord seeks to remove that today, for the reasons he outlined to the Committee.

The amendment also seeks to repeal Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, including the offences of causing:

“Intentional harassment, alarm, or distress”,


or harassment, alarm or distress without intent. The amendment would remove, from the same Act, “abusive or insulting” from the following offences:

“Fear or provocation of violence … Use of words or behaviour … written … to stir up racial hatred … Publishing or distributing written material … to stir up racial hatred”,


and public performances of a play intended to stir up racial hatred. I want to protect free speech—protecting free speech is absolutely right—but we also have to protect the rights of individuals to enjoy a life free from “grossly offensive” insults, “intentional harassment”, and “abusive or insulting” material.

The noble Lord seeks to repeal “abusive or insulting” from Section 21 of the Public Order Act:

“Distributing … or playing a recording … to stir up racial hatred”.


The amendment, it appears, intends to strengthen protections for free speech. I understand where the noble Lord wishes to come from on that—that is a fair and open debate between us—but it does so by decriminalising behaviour that is, in the law and under all those Acts, “abusive and insulting”. I am sorry, in this Committee I am not going to accept that approach on behalf of the Government.

As we know, we will have the review from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who will look at the wider issues of hate crime legislation and the independent review of public order. I take the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that we cannot stick everything into the review, but we also have the review from the College of Policing—which I will refer to again; I have already done so in response to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—which is looking at those issues.

I still think, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, that there is a basic floor from which society needs to protect individuals from abuse and insulting behaviour. The existing offences are not just used to put that floor in place; they are also used—this is a really important point which I hope the noble Lord will accept—to ensure that the police have the ability to intervene early in public order situations where they could support the protection of vulnerable people, who may be alarmed by abusive or insulting conduct, which has a disproportionate impact. The existing offences are used to manage public order and racial hatred and provide the police with proportionate tools to respond to a range of behaviours.

The offence thresholds should not and do not interfere with free speech. The review is going to conclude very shortly and the Government will consider and respond to those recommendations afterwards.

I simply say to the noble Lord that I hope that he thinks very carefully—as I know he has already; I do not want to be patronising—about the content of the debate we have had today, the comments that I have put to him about why those legislation aspects have been passed by a Thatcher Government and a Blair Government, and why there is a need to protect individuals, along the lines of the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which she mentioned. They are there for a purpose and I believe that the Committee should ask the noble Lord, having heard the debate, to withdraw his amendment and, I hope, not visit it on Report.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for what I hope everybody felt was a stimulating and useful debate, with a great number of differing views expressed by different noble Lords. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her eloquent support of the amendment. It was so depressing to hear her point out that we, the original home of free speech, are now seen around the world as one of the worst countries in suppressing it.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra presented the case for the amendment rather more eloquently than I was able to and, equally, with eloquent personal experience, which I felt was interesting, as indeed—I will talk about this in a minute—did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. My noble friend Lord Young, again in far more eloquent terms than I, gave stark evidence of the dysfunctionality of the law, with the huge numbers of interventions by the police. Some 12,183 arrests was one statistic he quoted, in one year alone for just one act.

I add to the various mentions of where the police were forced to pay £10,000 or £20,000 in compensation that we should remember that that is not police money; it is our money. I would rather like to see that money spent in better ways and police time to be spent in better ways.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, for his brief intervention and move on to the very affecting speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She was talking about how hate material should be legislated against. I will address that in the next amendment, which comes immediately after this. By the way, I can assure her that I played no part in the degrouping of my amendments from those of my noble friend Lord Young. I was deeply sorry to hear of that awful and appalling incident that the noble Baroness had to suffer at the railway station. I entirely agree that the people there should have intervened and supported her. It must have been just dreadful to have been sitting there with no support—until, of course, after the event, when there was plenty of it.

The noble Baroness may want to look at Hansard tomorrow, but my amendment would leave in place the ability of the police to go after that dreadful person who abused her because she was threatening imminent violence with that kick. Whether it was accurately placed or not, that was violence. I agree with that law, which should have gone after her. Facial recognition might have helped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Before my noble friend the Minister stands up, I will briefly intervene to say that at Second Reading, I counted 44 previous statutes that were being amended by the Bill. I just counted five in Amendment 382G. I do not know whether they join the 44 statutes in the Bill itself or whether they stand alone, but the Bill is extremely complex. In the word I used at Second Reading, it is, in this sense, a “monster” of a Bill, not because of the many provisions in it and the other provisions that noble Lords have brought out in it: that is not my point. My point is just on the complexity of the Bill. I beg that there may be a change of mind by Governments and parliamentary draftsmen and that they do not inflict Bills like this on the House.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Follow that, my Lords.

I appreciate the measured approach of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, to the significant measures that he proposes in his amendments, and I appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in support of the measured way in which he brought forward his amendments. Having said that, I stand with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green and Lady Brinton, in saying that I cannot and would not wish to accept those amendments. Hate crime legislation exists because offences motivated by prejudice inflict deep harm on victims and on entire communities. These crimes target people for who they are, undermining social cohesion and spreading fear. It is my view that repeal would not just send a wrong signal but say that identity-based hostility is no more serious an offence than any other offence, and I am afraid that it is. Our laws rightly recognise its heightened impact and ensure that justice outcomes reflect that gravity.

Despite the fact that the noble Lord and others have mentioned and prayed in aid figures that have risen, hate crime laws deter abuse. They uphold the shared values of society. The noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, made the very good point that they provide a measure of awareness and of the potential for those offences. Ultimately, they protect victims with protected characteristics that they cannot change. It is really important to remember that they are being attacked, or preyed on in many ways, for characteristics that they cannot change.

Let us be clear, because the noble Lord has been measured and clear, that this amendment would remove offences of stirring up racial hatred. It would abolish—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, it took me a few seconds to react to and think about what the Minister said. For the information of the House, I think it would be fair to recognise that several of the nine protected characteristics are not immutable and are capable of change. Gender identity is one; marriage and civil partnership is another. Let us be clear: some are immutable, but others are capable of change. I am not expressing an opinion on this proposed new clause, but in general it is fair to say that protected characteristics socially evolve and develop over time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let what the noble Baroness has said stand. I am making the point that disability, transgender identity—in my view—sexual orientation and race are things that you have and that are part of you. If the offences proposed for removal are removed by this House, that would send a signal to society that we are happy for people to stir up hatred on the grounds of those characteristics. That is not acceptable to me and I hope the noble Lord recognises that I cannot accept those amendments today, although I accept the way they have been put.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

Surely the signal that scrapping hate crime from British law would send is not that we do not care about vulnerable groups but that we think they should enjoy the same legal protections as everyone else, and that everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a view, but not one that I share. There are protections in the Public Order Act 1986 against stirring up hatred on racial or religious grounds because, yes, I am equal under the law if I have that hatred against me, but that hatred may be generated because I happen to have a racial or religious characteristic that is subject to attack. So, we are not equal under the law, because if I did not have that racial or religious characteristic I would not have been attacked. For me, that is therefore an aggravating factor and a reason why we should maintain those offences.

I go back to what I was saying a moment ago. This would remove offences of stirring up hatred under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. It would abolish racial and religiously aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act and delete aggravating factors of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity from the Sentencing Code. At the very time when Jewish people are being attacked for being Jewish and transgender people are being attacked for being transgender, that is not acceptable. I am not saying that either noble Lord wishes to encourage or support that type of activity—I recognise from the measured way in which they put their arguments that they do not. They have an honestly held opinion that removing that legislation would be of benefit to society. I happen to disagree and I am trying to put the reason why. If there is clear water between us, that is the nature of political life. I am not imputing any characteristics to the noble Lord for bringing this measure forward.

However, the effect of this would be to compromise the ability of the courts to reflect the greater harm—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, said—to undermine deterrence and clarity for police and prosecutors and to signal that those crimes are no more serious when they are motivated by hostility toward protected characteristics, contrary to long-standing principle. It would also risk eroding public confidence, particularly among people with those protected characteristics. The underreporting that the noble Baroness mentioned would absolutely nosedive if these provisions were taken away, because people would think that society had not put that down as a benchmark by which people should be judged. I am therefore afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.

I must also give notice to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, who made a very helpful plea that we should not bring forward further protected characteristics. I regret to inform him that, on Report, I will be very proud to stand here and move an amendment which puts transgender and disability as protected characteristics, in line with the manifesto on which my party stood and won an election in July 2024. We will be bringing forward amendments in the Crime and Policing Bill on Report to give effect to this change. We can have that debate openly and honestly, but I say to the Committee that society has some basic principles of respect that it should enshrine in law. The legislation that the noble Lord is seeking to remove would undermine that principle and I will not support it.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I have listened carefully to this debate and the previous one without intervening. I have a lot of sympathy with the Minister, as he knows, on many of the measures in the Bill, but I am a little surprised at his unequivocal rejection of several of these kinds of amendments, only because we have the Macdonald review going on. Will he accept that, if it comes up with recommendations while the Bill is not yet an Act, he will accept amendments to take on board those recommendations?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me say two things in response to that. We have commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, to look at a review of protests and a range of matters to do with that legislation. However—and this is where I accept what the noble Baroness said—we will have to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, brings forward and the Government will have to take political decisions on whether we accept it.

I am defending a principle here today. The noble Lord will be looking at potential issues around implementation, tweaks, et cetera, but the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, has made a well-measured assault on legislative tenets. I cannot ever see this Government accepting the removal of those legislative tenets, but we will always accept the recommendations being looked at. Going back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, on how we can improve the monitoring, policing and understanding of these issues, it is a complex area, as the noble Baroness knows through her experience and recent appointments.

We will also be bringing forward on Report offences relating to transgender and disability, which was in our manifesto commitment. That is another complex area, which is why it has taken time for us to get to the stage of bringing forward the amendment. When we do so, we will have to look at it in the context of the whole package that the noble Baroness has worked on, that this Committee is looking at now and on which the noble Lord made his comments.

From this Dispatch Box today, I simply say that I cannot accept his amendments. I think he knew that before he introduced them. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, hinted as much in his contribution, but I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. If he revisits this on Report, we will have that discussion again in a fair, open and measured way, as we have today.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Perhaps I might ask one important question. I understand that the report from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is going to be produced before Report. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it should be made available to us before we settle into Report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is expected to produce a report at some point during the next couple of months. I cannot give a definitive time for that, but I can tell the Committee that we will obviously make sure that it is published. There are likely to be Statements or an Urgent Question in this House on the report. We will first look at how we as a Government consider the recommendations and, secondly, if we need legislation, what mechanism that would be and when it would be brought forward. I can tell my noble friend that there will be a full discussion on the report when it comes. I cannot, as yet, constrain the discussion from the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, by answering the question my noble friend posed.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that too was a great debate and that the Minister managed to articulate very clearly that there is clear water between two opposing groups of thought on these matters. I am gagging to launch into a half-hour speech to attempt to respond to what he and others said, but I am mindful of the earlier admonitions from the noble Lord, Lord Katz. I merely thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox, Lady Hunt and Lady Brinton, my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Davies, and the Minister for their contributions.

I believe that it is time to call an end to this hate crime law experiment. The criminalisation of hate speech and hate crime was overambitious. It punishes ideas and motives, as opposed to actions. As I have shown, I believe it is choking up the justice system and shutting down free speech. I will close by slightly misquoting Samuel Johnson:

“How small, of all that human hearts endure,

That part which laws ”—

or Lords—“can cause or cure”. Having said that, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

389A: Clause 132, page 161, line 29, column 2, after “Navy” insert “Police”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with my other amendments to clause 132, correct references to members of the service police forces.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments build on Clauses 130 to 137, which confer powers on law enforcement agencies to extract information from online accounts as part of their investigations into immigration crime and sexual abuse cases, and to protect national security and our borders. Taken together, Amendments 441 to 444, 452, 393 and 394 ensure that the police can access information held in the online accounts of individuals subject to national security-related civil orders. These include terrorism and state threat prevention and investigation measures, as well as youth diversion orders, which are being introduced by clauses earlier in this Bill.

It is increasingly common for individuals to store data in the cloud for various reasons, such as to free up space on devices and, increasingly, because of the way devices or applications are designed, but also, regrettably, in some cases deliberately to make it less accessible to law enforcement. This is particularly the case with young people: police operational experience has shown that this cohort will regularly store data in online accounts. This data can be critical in supporting law enforcement to manage terrorist and broader national security risks. The increasing reliance on cloud data means that the police are likely to have an increased need to access cloud data as part of compliance checks where an individual—this is the important thing for the Committee—is subject to online restrictions as part of a civil order, such as the youth diversion order. These amendments will provide a clear statutory basis for officers to access cloud data when conducting a compliance check for an individual—again, this is the important point—who is subject to either a youth diversion order or a terrorism, state threat prevention or investigation measures order.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 contains a provision allowing for the extraction of information from electronic devices in cases where the user has died. Amendment 392 will clarify that this power also now applies to online information, as long as the authorised person is satisfied that the power is proportionate and there is no other practical way of obtaining the information.

Lastly, Amendments 389A to 389F are small but important drafting changes to Clause 132. The clause before the Committee identifies which senior officers may authorise the use of a power in Clause 130, which provides for a general extraction power for law enforcement agencies to obtain online information. Currently, the table refers to “Navy”, “Military” and “Force” but does not explicitly mention the police. I think noble Lords would wish the police to be mentioned, and therefore the amendments insert the term “Police” after each of those references to correct the omission. I hope that is clear to the Committee. This is in the specific circumstances that I have outlined in my speech, and I hope that noble Lords can accept the amendments at the appropriate time.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this grouping deals with the complex landscape of remotely stored electronic data, or what is commonly known as cloud access. Government amendments in this group, such as Amendments 393, 394 and 441, significantly expand the ability of the state to inspect online accounts through seized devices, including the interception of authentication codes. We acknowledge that, as evidence shifts from hardware to the cloud, the law must evolve. However, we remain deeply concerned by the widened scope for investigation, which carries an inherent risk of excessive prying.

These powers go beyond merely searching a phone. They allow law enforcement to walk through the digital doors of a person’s entire life—their private communications, financial history and medical records. As the Minister said, under Clause 169 these intrusive inspections can now be included as conditions of a youth diversion order. While the Government maintain that these are necessary to identify harmful online activity early, we must ensure that they are used only when strictly necessary and proportionate to protect the public from serious harm.

I ask the Minister to clarify the oversight mechanisms for these powers. We cannot allow the inspection of a child’s entire digital history to rest on a subjective belief, rather than a rigorous, objective assessment of risk. The digital ecosystem must not be a safe haven for perpetrators, but neither can it become a borderless opportunity for state surveillance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can answer the questions from the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Opposition Front Bench. I can say to them, on the amendments we have brought forward today, that the measures in them apply only to the terrorism and state threats prevention and investigation measures, as well as the new youth diversion orders. There are safeguards on what type of data the police are allowed to access. For example, there are limitations on accessing information which might include legally privileged material.

In a similar way to accessing local data on a device, nothing in this legislation changes the existing duties on the police imposed by the Data Protection Act 2018. UK legislation offers important safeguards for law enforcement in processing that personal data. That includes the requirement not to retain personal data longer than necessary. It also includes that the police may come across information that is not directly relevant to their investigation and, in such circumstances, the police aim to mitigate the risks of collateral intrusion on people’s privacy, by focusing on the information. There will be a similar approach adopted for the measures that I put down in the amendment today.

We are also working with the police on plans to implement those new youth diversion orders. As part of that, the police will have their own operational procedures and data protection impact assessments. As I said already, the legislation does not affect any existing duty on police forces that is a fundamental part of the Data Protection Act 2018. I hope that will help the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Davies of Gower. Again, I just remind the Committee that it is only in the specific cases of the two types of order—youth diversion and, effectively, the TPIM-type order that we have under existing legislation—so it is a relatively small number. I hope that, with those protections, the noble Lords can allow the Committee to agree the amendments today.

Amendment 389A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for attempting keyhole surgery at this late stage. I suspect that some noble Lords want to go a little further in the surgery than keyhole, but I will try to assuage those fears as part of the response to the debate that we have had.

In answer initially to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 are important national security powers available at the UK border. They already allow a counterterrorism police officer to stop, question, search and detain a person travelling through a port or the border area in Northern Ireland to determine whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism or hostile activity. These powers do not require an examining officer to have any degree of suspicion to use them. They are already in place and have been since 2000, so they are not new powers.

This clause introduces a power for law enforcement agencies to extract information from online accounts—the cloud, wherever that cloud currently exists—that are accessible via a device examined under existing powers that allow suspicionless stop and search at ports for national security purposes. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has rightly said, this responds directly to a long-standing concern raised by the independent reviewer, who noted that current legislation does not adequately address cloud access. I hope that, to some extent, this assuages the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on these matters. I accept and understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, are concerned about these issues and ensuring that we have enhanced safeguards around these powers; notably, that the retention of this cloud data for counterterrorism purposes must be reviewed after three months and that it can be retained only where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is involved in terrorism.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 391 builds on this. In respect of the information retained, it looks to put in an objective test for assessing necessity of retention. Let me just say, including to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the Government fully recognise the need for robust safeguards. I accept the points that have been made around the Committee on that. We need to have robust safeguards when exercising powers to extract or retain information from electronic devices under Schedules 7 and 3. However—this is normal practice, and I hope it will assuage the Committee’s concern—normally, and, I strongly believe, in this case, the statutory codes of practice for examining officers are the appropriate place to set out the detailed operational safeguards. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and other noble Lords who have spoken, we are seeking to address the concerns raised by updating the code of practice that already exists to include the measures in the Bill to provide the safeguards of the requirements that have been mentioned by noble Lords in their contributions today.

Codes of practice are a long-standing approach that allows the Government to update protections flexibly and promptly and ensures that they can remain fit for purpose as operational needs and legal standards evolve. I hope I can help all those who have spoken on this and who have requested keyhole surgery on the legislation. The codes of practice are subject to parliamentary approval, so in order to take this matter forward, in the event that the Bill and these clauses become law, the clauses themselves are not brought into effect until such time as the codes of practice have received parliamentary scrutiny of an affirmative nature. We would not seek to implement the clause until the codes of practice were approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is the normal practice that, following Royal Assent, there would be consultation on what the code of practice could potentially involve before it was passed by both Houses.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Why should something as significant as this, raised by the Supreme Court and by the very man the Government speak to about how counterterrorism should be dealt with, not be in the Bill, rather than in statutory guidance?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I am sorry, I must be missing something here. There is a provision to conduct a really draconian intervention on a traveller as they pass through an airport, but it is not on the basis of suspicion. On what basis does the constable, or whatever he or she is, choose that traveller rather than another traveller, if there is no suspicion involved?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can help the noble Lord. The Schedule 7 and Schedule 3 powers are exercised at pace. Some investigations, particularly those involving complex or sensitive matters, could well extend beyond three months. Evidence often emerges gradually and may be fragmented.

Statutory codes of practice provide a flexible and responsive mechanism for setting out detailed safeguards and allow for timely updates on operational and legal contexts. If we embed such details in primary legislation, with due respect to the noble and learned Baroness, that would create inflexibility and mean that we may not keep pace with changing threats or operational realities. The codes are subject to parliamentary scrutiny; they can be revised as needed and ensure robust protection. That is why I have put that argument before the Committee. If it feels that that argument is not acceptable, we will have to have that discussion later on. That is my defence against having keyhole surgery at this time.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will respond shortly, but I am sure the Minister realises that he cannot sit down quite yet. He talked about the process, the statutory guidance and so on, but does he accept the substance of the amendments and has he given an assurance to the Committee that, if it were agreed hypothetically that the statutory code guidance was an acceptable way forward, the substance of these amendments would be incorporated into it? Does he accept the case made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I have said that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, are worthy of reflection, but we will put the discussion ultimately into the code of practice. The final settlement will be a consultation on the code of practice. I have heard what has been said today. There will be a consultation and an opportunity for the noble Lord, with his former hat on and his position in this House, and others to comment on it. That is the case I am making and I hope I have convinced the Committee. If not, methods are available. Given the late hour and the amendment target we are trying to reach, I will rest my case.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this excellent debate. Frankly, I am overwhelmed by the quality and quantity of the interventions. With the exception of the noble Lord who signed the amendment, I have not approached any noble Lords who spoke or even notified them that this debate was coming up. It is remarkable that so many spoke so strongly in support. I single out the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for whom we all have enormous respect as a former police officer. I hope that his approval in principle for these amendments will be heard on the Government Front Bench.

These amendments are operationally perfectly simple. Nobody has suggested that this would be a great burden on the police or any bureaucratic impediment to them doing their job. If they had been, I would have been very reluctant to propose them. Although they are operationally simple, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, they are of constitutional importance. They may look technical, but they are important.

On that theme, I will address the Minister’s remarks on the code of practice and the consultation on it. That really is not enough. If the law says it is enough for a constable to have a subjective belief that the economic well-being of the United Kingdom is being harmed, it will avail nobody to complain that there was no objective evidence or reasonable suspicion. The Minister perhaps heard an indication from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, of what the reaction of the courts might be to an argument of that kind. I thank him for his offer, but I am afraid it is simply a deflection. This issue pre-eminently needs to be addressed in the Bill.

I end with two further thoughts for the Minister to consider. First, for most of the last decade, Schedule 7 was the most controversial aspect of our counterterrorism laws. One reason is that it potentially affects a lot of people; a lot of people used to be stopped and questioned at airports. It took over from the old “no suspicion stop and search power”, which was repealed when Theresa May was Home Secretary in 2011 or 2012 and defused as an issue of major public concern because of some sensible but quite minor changes made to it. For example, nine hours of detention were taken down to six, alongside several other technical changes. People who were upset by Schedule 7 and saw it as targeted at them and their community were reassured that Parliament was looking at it and prepared to respond to some of their concerns.

Although this may look very technical on the pages of the Bill, I ask the Minister to remember that we have reached a sort of equilibrium on Schedule 7, but it is a very delicate one. If you are going to increase the powers in this manner, it is really important to think about safeguards as well.

I ask the Minister to reflect on a second point. He may not accept my arguments, but I put the pragmatic case to him that these arguments have been put not only by me and previous independent reviewers—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was also a great reformer of Schedule 7—but by the Supreme Court, which felt strongly enough about this issue to single it out for comment in a case in which the issue did not arise. As a lawyer and a member of the brotherhood of the law, I am delighted by anything that could produce more excuses for litigation. However, at such little cost, administratively or otherwise, the Minister has it in his power to do what the Supreme Court suggested and neutralise a lengthy, and one might almost say pointless, bout of litigation.

I know the Minister has a lot on his plate, but in view of the way this debate has gone and the points that have been made right around the House, I hope the Minister will find time to meet with me and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others if they want to come, and discuss this properly. I was sorry to hear him say he had a defence against keyhole surgery. Keyhole surgery is designed to help; it is not the sort of thing one should have to defend against. He should count himself lucky he is meeting surgeons and not butchers. However, we are very keen to meet him and I hope he might agree. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

392: Schedule 14, page 312, line 1, at end insert—
“(7A) In subsection (6), after “the power” insert “in subsection (1) or (1A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a further consequential amendment to section 41 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

393: Clause 137, page 169, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert “—
(i) has been authorised under a relevant power to access one or more online accounts, or(ii) is entitled by virtue of a relevant requirement to access one or more online accounts, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this clause, authorise the interception of certain communications which are carried out for the purpose of accessing certain online accounts further to a prevention and investigation measure or youth diversion order.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

394A: Clause 138, page 171, line 11, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make driver information regulations in relation to Northern Ireland authorised persons without the consent of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.(5B) “Northern Ireland authorised persons” means authorised persons who—(a) are under the direction and control of—(i) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,(ii) the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, or(iii) Belfast International Airport Limited, or(b) are officers of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may not make driver information regulations in relation to the Northern Ireland police without the consent of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I can be brief with these amendments because they are relatively straightforward. Clause 138 enables the Secretary of State to make driver information regulations about access to the driver licensing information held by the DVLA, the police and other law enforcement agencies. The provision applies UK-wide and, in so far as it applies to Northern Ireland, relates to a mix of reserved and transferred matters.

We have had discussions with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and Amendment 394A provides that the Secretary of State may only make the driver information regulations, in so far as they relate to devolved policing agencies in Northern Ireland, in particular the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with the consent of the Department of Justice. The Northern Ireland Executive are taking forward a legislative consent motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly on this basis, and I hope the Committee can support that proposal.

Amendments 397A and 397B are technical amendments that simply clarify the period covered by the first annual report on the use of driver licensing information. Under Clause 138 as drafted, that period begins with the commencement day, which is the day on which Clause 138 comes into force. However, there will be not a single day for Clause 138 coming into force, as Clause 210 partially brings Clause 138 into force on Royal Assent for the purpose of making regulations.

With these amendments, the first annual report will cover the period beginning with the date that Clause 138 comes into force and ending on 31 December of the year in question. That is relatively straightforward. We have had discussions with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, which respects the devolution settlement as it applies to Northern Ireland; I commend to the Committee the amendments that tidy that up.

I will make two points about Amendment 396 from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to help inform her contribution. First, Clause 138 is intended only to tidy up existing legislation to ensure that all those who need access to DVLA driving licence data have clear legal powers to do so. Secondly, as she is aware—we have discussed it before—a new legal framework is being developed for law enforcement use of facial recognition and similar technologies. I will not repeat what I said earlier, but I encourage her and other noble Lords to submit their views to the consultation by 12 February. I hope that that has been helpful, but I am happy to hear what the noble Baroness has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

Taken together, this group highlights the importance of embracing innovation in policing while maintaining public trust with the safeguards already built into the Bill. We believe the balance can be rightly struck. As always, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this topic.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation on the comments and I am grateful for the general acceptance of the government amendments, which just tidy up where we are to date.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness on the concerns that she expressed in Amendment 396. First, I am clear that Clause 138 is intended only to tidy up existing legislation to ensure that all those who need access to DVLA driving licence data have a clear legal basis to do so. The police currently use automatically accessed DVLA data for Road Traffic Act enforcement, but are unable to use such data when investigating serious crime. The Bill, together with future regulations and a code of practice, will allow wider use of data obtained automatically.

I want to be absolutely clear for the noble Baroness that the aim is to allow the DVLA to provide information to the police. It is not designed to allow the police to send an image to the DVLA and for the DVLA to search its database for the identity of an unknown person. I hope that that gives some clarity.

I say to all three noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches who have spoken that the code of practice and future regulations that we are producing under Clause 138 will be tabled under the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament. I say to the noble Baroness that this is only tidying up and the revised legislation will be under the affirmative procedure.

I hope that I gave a considerable amount of detail on facial recognition in our previous discussions. We have a consultation, which closes on 12 February. We want to provide strong regulation of facial recognition and, as I said previously in Committee, I hope to have a useful, constructive dialogue on that going forward. Based on those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment and I commend the amendments in my name on the Marshalled List.

Amendment 394A agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

395: Clause 138, page 171, leave out lines 12 to 16
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

397: Clause 138, page 171, leave out lines 19 and 20
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 138, page 171, leave out lines 12 to 16.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful that we are trying to make some progress—it is really good news—and I look forward to even more progress as we carry on today, but if the noble Lord will allow me, I will respond to the debate first.

The noble Lord has made some points that I accept, and he had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. However, I hope I can persuade him that the amendment is not necessary, for the reasons that I will outline in a moment.

Stop and search remains a vital tool in our efforts to reduce knife crime and protect communities. The Government fully support its use, but, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said, it has to be done in a fair and effective manner. We want officers to have confidence in exercising those powers, but also for the community to have confidence as well.

The amendment concerns Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which, as was outlined, allows senior officers to authorise searches for offensive weapons without reasonable suspicion for a limited time in a defined area where serious violence has occurred or is anticipated. The powers are purposely tightly framed and tightly targeted. Section 60 is intended for exceptional circumstances where serious violence is anticipated or has occurred. As this is a power to search for offensive weapons such as knives, “serious violence” remains the appropriate threshold. It would not be appropriate, in my view, to reduce that threshold in response to what might be minor scuffles, which is what the noble Lord’s amendment would in practice achieve.

There is no legal evidence that the threshold is an undue barrier to use this power. In 2008-09, under the same rules, police conducted over 150,000 Section 60 searches, while last year there were 5,288, which is a significant drop. That shows that the law has not changed in that period of time, but the issue is really one of proportionality, targeting and police practice. That is the best way forward, which helps give confidence when it is needed but also gives confidence to communities at large; the noble Lord’s amendment would widen the scope considerably. I have to say to the noble Lord that that does not mean that we are not interested in tackling knife crime.

The noble Lord, Lord Bailey—he has gone now; no, he is back, so I will let him resume his place—made a number of points about what we need to do on knife crime. I say to him and to other noble Lords who have raised issues today that the use of smarter policing through hotspot patrols, the strong partnership with communities, and prevention initiatives such as Young Futures panels are all ways in which we can help prevent knife crime without necessarily scaling down the amount of stop and search that happens and making it more available. We can already see that those approaches we have taken have worked: knife homicides are down 20%; overall, knife crime has fallen for the first time in four years; and hospital admissions for knife crime have dropped by 10%. That progress suggests that changes to existing stop and search Section 60 powers would not necessarily make progress on knife crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister could help us. I listened carefully to his remarks but I am not sure that I really understood the difference, as the Government define it, between “violence” and “serious violence”. We all perhaps have some ideas in our minds, and it has been a balanced and considered debate on both sides, but could the Minister help the Committee by helping us to define rather more clearly the difference between “violence” and “serious violence”, and how that might affect the use of these powers? I would be very much obliged if he did that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Section 60 powers are in operation and have been there for some significant time. As I shared with the Committee a moment ago, the use of those powers by police officers was significantly higher in the mid to late 2000s than it is now. That is because we are trying to ensure that there is operational guidance—not ministerial guidance—on the use of stop and search powers. Stop and search is seen by the police as a tool of last resort in an area where there is serious violence. I am not going to speculate for the noble Viscount on what that serious violence barrier is; that is an operational decision for the police at a local level in a particular circumstance.

The legislation is clear. The level of use has dropped because the police recognise that this is a tool of last resort which has to have the confidence of the community. I cannot differentiate between levels of violence in a way that may help the noble Viscount today, but the level of violence must be deemed at the time by a local senior police officer on the ground to be sufficiently worrying that he or she determines an area in which stop and search powers will operate. That may not answer the point, but I hope it is of some help to the noble Viscount.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

On that issue, notwithstanding the fact that these powers have to be sanctioned by a police inspector, they are often accompanied by a public information initiative from the police force concerned, and their time limit is 24 hours. If this amendment were accepted, would it not give the police the opportunity to use these powers at football matches, at which there is a chance not of serious violence but of public disorder leading to lower-level violence? In the last year or so, they have used them 357 times. Therefore, they would not necessarily use the more draconian dispersal orders which are sometimes used at football matches. What this side is asking for is more flexibility not just in respect of knife crime but of public order-related events such as football matches.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say this as best I can to the Committee: to my knowledge, there has been no request from the police for that reduction in threshold to allow them to exercise further stop and search powers. Indeed, as has been shown over the last 15 or 16 years, the use of stop and search has significantly decreased to around the 5,000 figure, as I mentioned earlier. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that the police themselves want to exercise that power to control crowds at football matches. I will leave it at that, if I may.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me on this issue? I think he does, because he said earlier, when the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was momentarily not with us, that minor scuffles are not serious violence and that stabbings and so on clearly are. To my own mind, a common assault between people outside the pub on a Friday night probably does not meet the threshold of serious violence, but knife robbery et cetera does.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I did indicate that minor scuffles would not be seen as serious violence. I am not trying to determine from this Dispatch Box the use of a Section 60 power by a police officer on the ground because of the level of violence the police have witnessed and wish to act upon. If we look at the figure 16 years ago, it was significantly higher than in the 12 months prior to now, at just over 5,000. The law has not changed but, going back to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, police practice and police assessments have meant that they do not need to use that power. In parallel with that, the Government believe that if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall. With that, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has become an even more interesting debate, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.

I say to the Minister and to noble Lords that this amendment is intended to help the Government. Regardless of our politics, everyone would like to see a reduction in violent offences, and increasing police use of stop and search is an incredibly powerful tool to do just that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that there is nothing wrong with stop and search. Stop and search is one of the most useful tools in the box. Having spent 32 years on front-line policing in London, I know that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, it is an issue of training and adherence to the codes of practice. There is no question about that in my mind. That is what police need to be concentrating on when it comes to the issues around stop and search.

Lowering the threshold to the likelihood of violence would enable officers to intervene earlier to prevent harm, protect the public and de-escalate potentially dangerous situations before they result in injury or worse, and before becoming serious violence cases. I know full well that officers often face rapidly evolving situations in which it is difficult to draw a clear line between violence and serious violence. I hope that the Government take this away and reflect, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing forward Amendment 416A. While I recognise the intention to ensure that policing is subject to effective scrutiny and that regulatory bodies have the tools they need to drive improvement, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, nor do I think it would represent a proportionate or effective use of time and resources. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services already plays a well-established role in ensuring accountability. It has extensive powers to inspect, report and make recommendations, and these reports are published and robust. They are laid before Parliament and used by the Home Office and policing bodies to drive reform. Where forces fall short, the existing framework already enables escalation, follow-up inspections and external pressure.

I was also worried that this amendment risks duplicating work already being carried out within existing structures. The policing oversight landscape includes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, police and crime commissioners and parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees. Co-ordination between these bodies is important, and I suggest it would be more constructive to ensure the better use of these mechanisms rather than create a new independent commission.

It is also worth noting the practical burden imposed by this amendment. It would require the Government to establish a commission, set detailed terms of reference, run a comparative review across multiple regulators, and timetable parliamentary debates in both Houses within a very tight timeframe. That is a significant undertaking that may not be justified, given the absence of clear evidence that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services lacks the necessary authority to fulfil its core function. For those reasons, while I very much respect the motivation behind the amendment, I do not believe it necessary or proportionate and therefore cannot support it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendment 416A. It gives me an opportunity, if nothing else, to pay tribute to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services for the work it does; she was right to point out its professionalism. Moreover, I want to pay tribute to the current chief inspector, Sir Andy Cooke, who has announced his intention to retire in March. He has served as chief inspector with distinction, has 40 years of service to policing and was Chief Constable of Merseyside. I hope that your Lordships’ House will join me in thanking Sir Andy for his dedicated service.

The Police Act 1996 requires His Majesty’s inspectorate to publish an inspection programme and an inspection framework which, following consultation, are laid before Parliament. The latest versions of these were put before the House on 4 March 2025. As part of its work, HMICFRS inspects every police force as part of its Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy programme, and gives the force a grading on a series of indicators. All these findings are published and are available to chief constables, local policing bodies, the PCC, the public and, importantly, Ministers. HMICFRS also publishes a number of thematic reports covering every aspect of policing, and these form a useful tool for the policing sector to drive performance.

I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that recommendations made by HMICFRS do not just sit on the shelf, are taken seriously and are implemented, and that those affected make sure that the public are receiving the best possible service as a whole. It is important that the three points she mentioned are examined: inspection findings, closer co-operation, and lessons learned. She quoted to the Committee the manifesto, in which we did say we would give HMICFRS new powers to intervene with failing forces. She is right to point to the fact that there is a police White Paper, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, which is expected to be published shortly. By shortly—I know this is always a topic of interest to the Committee— I do mean shortly in this case. I encourage your Lordships to study that document carefully when it is published, because it contains a wide-ranging set of proposals for improving policing in England and Wales. I hope it will go some way toward shining a light, at least, on the three questions the noble Baroness has put to the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Will the White Paper deal with action rather than consultation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The White Paper will set out a number of proposals that the Government intend to bring forward in policy, legislation or executive action. There are a number of areas around police efficiency—what is done centrally and what is done locally, how it is done centrally and how it is done locally—that will form part of the wider debate on the police White Paper. The noble and learned Baroness will not have long to wait for the police White Paper. When it does come, undoubtedly there will be a Statement in the House of Commons and, as ever, I will have to repeat the Statement here in this House. There will be an opportunity to look at that direction of travel and how, importantly, we are going to implement the measures that we are putting in the White Paper, which, again, will be produced very shortly. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Baroness any more comfort than that.

I share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that the proposal in the amendment would kick this matter of efficiency, co-ordination, performance and implementation further down the line than is already planned with our police White Paper proposals very shortly. So I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on the basis of those comments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I take to heart the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Of course I want fast action. I want it all and I want it now—that is my motto for life. It seems that this Committee is always hearing, “Oh, it’s all right, the Government’s dealing with this but you can have it shortly”. It does not matter whether it is talking about protest law or this particular point about accountability and action; there is always a White Paper coming along and we are going to have to wait for that, and why are we doing this Bill now if we do not have all the information we need? Anyway, I do note the Minister’s good intentions, I very much hope to see them put into action, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this very important amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Young. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs.

The status quo is untenable. It undermines free speech, diverts police resources from real crime and risks criminalising people for behaviour that is lawful and should remain outside the criminal justice system. We on these Benches firmly support the abolition of non-crime hate incidents. Non-crime hate incidents in essence are reports of conduct perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a protected characteristic which do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. Under current law, police forces record and retain personal data about those incidents, even though no crime has occurred and no legal breach has been established. That alone is problematic but, in practice, the effects are far worse. Current figures estimate that around 13,000 non-crime hate incidents are logged annually, consuming an estimated 60,000-plus hours of police time that could be better directed to tackling burglary, serious violence, organised crime and other priority areas.

Recording an incident and retaining personal data about motives that are merely perceived rather than proven also has a detrimental and unwelcome effect on free speech. People who express lawful opinions, engage in robust debate or even make clumsy social media posts can find themselves on a police database, not because they have committed a crime but because someone has taken offence to those remarks.

This is not a hypothetical shortcoming of policy: there have been cases where almost trivial or schoolyard remarks became the subject of police records. In one high-profile instance, the arrest of a public figure over a social media post was initially associated with a non-crime hate incident, sparking national debate about policing speech and proportionality. It is no surprise, then, that police leaders and independent watchdogs are reassessing the value of non-crime hate incidents. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary has publicly stated that non-crime hate incidents should not be recorded by police because they risk conflating the offensive with the criminal, diminishing public trust and harming legitimate free expression.

Similarly, the Metropolitan Police recently announced that it will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents, recognising the difficulty that officers face when drawn into matters that are not criminal by definition. The Government’s response to date has been to commission yet another review, with the suggestion that policy decisions should wait until later in the year. But on an issue that so directly impacts both civil liberties and police effectiveness, delay is not a defensible option.

Amendment 416E would go further than reviews. It would abolish the concept of non-crime hate incidents entirely, prohibit any police authority from recording or processing related personal data and require the deletion of existing records. In doing so, it draws a clear distinction between criminal behaviour, which it is right that the police investigate, and lawful expression or debate that should not be subject to police recording or sanction.

We cannot allow a system that treats controversial yet lawful speech as if it were a matter for the criminal justice system. This amendment is a sensible and necessary step to realign policing with its once core mission of protecting people from crime and harm, not policing speech or perceptions. Therefore, we on these Benches very much support this amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for tabling this amendment. This has been a useful debate, and I hope that we can at least look at the common direction of travel on this matter: the need for reform.

I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, through the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I have also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Herbert of South Downs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss. They have raised a range of issues that, in essence, point to the need for change in this system.

I think it is fair to say, and I hope that the Committee will accept, that the current Government have held office since July 2024. There has been a lot of discussion on the issues caused by, and effect of, non-crime hate incidents since the guidance was published in 2014. I do not want to lose the principle, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Herbert of South Downs, that the non-crime hate incident regime had its genesis in the Macpherson report, and in trying to anticipate and examine where crimes were being committed, potentially in the future, and monitor a range of abuses that were present.

However, I say to the Committee—and I think this was recognised by Members in their contributions today —that how the police should respond to hate incidents that fall below the criminal threshold is a complex and sensitive issue. That is precisely why the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Normanton, and the current Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Shabana Mahmood, the Member for Ladywood, have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to conduct a thorough review into non-crime hate incidents.

The review is examining whether the current approach is proportionate, consistent and compatible with the fundamental right to free expression—which goes to very point that was made. As the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said, the review is being led by policing experts and is expected to conclude, in his words, “shortly”. The publication date is one for the College of Policing. We have had the interim report, which has said that there are significant concerns in the way non-crime hate incidents are operating.

Given the points that have been made today, and given that the Government have commissioned a review, seen the interim report and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, expect to receive the final report shortly, I would again ask the Committee to bear with us—I know that I have asked for this on a number of occasions—to examine what professional police officers and the College of Policing are recommending on non-crime hate incidents.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, rightly asked some significant questions. What is happening to database logging of anti-social behaviour incidents? What is happening to people who have previously had non-crime hate incidents put against their name? What is happening with regard to non-disclosure? What is happening in terms of the publication of the report and the Government’s response? Those are all fair and legitimate questions.

However, I say to the noble Lord and the Committee that the current Government have come in, recognised that there is an issue, commissioned the College of Policing to look at that issue and have received an independent report, and we expect a full report on how we can deal with those issues and tweak the regime so that we do not lose the very good things that have sometimes been brought out of non-crime hate incidents and we do not throw everything out immediately. I do not know what the final report is going to say.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said:

“The review has found that the current approach and use of non-crime hate incidents is not fit for purpose, and there is a need for broad reform to ensure that policing can focus on genuine harm and risk within communities. The recording of hurt feelings and differing views should not continue”.—[Official Report, 16/10/25; col. 406.]


That is a very clear statement. However, in moving from that in the interim report to whatever the new regime might be, it is incumbent on the Government to reflect on what the final report says. I am not ducking the amendment that the noble Lord has brought forward, nor his challenge that we need to make some changes. As he says, there is an open door. If we did not want this to be reviewed, we would not have asked the College of Policing and the Police Chiefs’ Council to review the incidence of non-crime hate incidents. Self-evidently, some of the examples given today are not what the original purpose of that legislation and approach was meant to be.

Going back to the Macpherson report, there was a serious element as to how assessments have been made. In Committee today, Members have talked about anti- semitism, racism and a range of incidents where the collection of information might give a bigger intelligence picture that requires a policing response, but which may or may not be a policing response that requires individuals to have their names put against them.

The concerns of everybody, from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, through to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, are legitimate, and the Government want to look at and address them. I hope that this can be examined. However, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and await the outcome of the police review, so that any reforms are grounded in both robust evidence and a consensus.

Ultimately, the Government must and will take some decisions, and we will be held to account in the House of Commons and in this House as well. In the absence of that detailed response, I am not sure that I can come to this Committee and say, “This is what we will do”, because we need to examine that in detail.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his customary courtesy. I can accept his point that, since the Home Office has not yet received the final report, and Report may start in two or three-weeks’ time, it may not be possible to bring forward detailed primary legislation on Report. However, it seems to me—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Herbert can confirm this—that many of the changes may be administrative matters for the police and may not require legislation. What may require legislation may therefore be quite small. This Government, like the last one, love Henry VIII clauses. So would it not be possible for the Government to accept a simple Henry VIII clause so that, where legislation is required on this, a proper regulation can be brought in in the future, once the Government have consulted on what is required, to implement any of the legal changes necessary to give effect to my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in the nicest possible way, that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has given strict instructions to Government Ministers on Henry VIII clauses, and the various statutory instrument committees in this House and in the House of Commons have also expressed a grave view on them.

I put it to the Committee—and I hope that the Committee will accept this in good faith, as I am trying to do it in good faith—that the Government have recognised that there is a problem, and the Government have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to examine that problem. The Government have received an interim report, which the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, referred to at Second Reading. The Government are awaiting the final report, which the noble Lord has said is coming shortly. I have not seen the final report. There may be things in it that maintain, change or revoke altogether the issues that have, quite rightly, been raised. But, if the Government had not realised that there was a problem, we would not have asked for solutions to be brought forward.

I know that I occasionally say, “Something will be happening very shortly”, but I say, in genuine help and support for the Committee, that we know that there is a problem. We want to change that problem, but we are trying to make sure that we get sufficiently robust professional advice to be able to make some political decisions based on the advice that we receive. With that, I have tried to help the noble Lord and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minster as he was getting towards the end of his speech. I have just one point: whatever advice the college gives, there will need to be a litmus test for whether the Government will support it. Whatever advice is given, I encourage the Government to make sure that it is clear, so that officers on the street understand it. If we end up with another series of 20 conditions, that will not simplify things. We must have a litmus test. For me, it might be, “If the officer acted in good faith and within the law as they believed it, we will support them”. I am not saying that that is the answer in this case, but it should be something simple.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned that the cops have gone a bit woke—that is my term. They went woke because they were coming under political pressure to go woke. They did not create it themselves. We are all responsible for that—I am not blaming any Government. We have to create a political climate that encourages them to do the right thing, not what we all agree has not gone well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, brings great experience to this. In his initial contribution, and in these comments, he gives food for thought as to how we implement the decisions of any review and how Ministers ultimately give guidance to police, which chief constables then put in place for police officers on the ground to deal with. We will look at that. The whole purpose of the review is to simplify this procedure, looking at what is necessary and helpful, and to get the police to focus on the things that really matter. Some of the examples that have been given today are things that the police should not be focusing on because they do not matter at all.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it is important that we look at what the regulations and the review say. We can act administratively on much of what happens. I have no doubt that the Government will do so, once we receive the final review.

I simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for the moment, to withdraw the amendment. He has the right to bring his amendments back on Report. We will have a clearer picture at some point in the very near future. I hope this has been a helpful debate.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his gracious response. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for co-sponsoring the amendment and for his excellent contributions to this debate. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a speedy recovery. I thank my noble friends Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that the police, under very difficult circumstances, do an excellent job on the whole and I admire what they do. But I think he is right that having to record and investigate non-crime hate incidents is as unpopular with ordinary police officers on the front line as it is with free speech campaigners. They do not want to be wasting their time in this way. Many of them have reached out to me to tell me that and to support this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution.

If you look at proposed new subsection (4), you will find that nothing in the amendment would prevent the police recording information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motive in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. I am sceptical whether the police should be allowed to record incidents that clearly do not meet the threshold of being crimes for intelligence-gathering purposes, not least because there is very little persuasive evidence that that is helpful when it comes to preventing crimes, and I am generally suspicious of the concept of pre-crime—of trying to nip potential crimes in the bud by monitoring carefully incidents that do not quite meet the threshold of criminal offences. However, I am not going to die in a ditch and say that the police should never, under any circumstances, be able to record incidents that do not meet the threshold of being a criminal offence for intelligence-gathering purposes, provided that the recording of those incidents has no adverse consequences for the people they are recorded against.

That brings me to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which, on the whole, were very welcome. I am pleased that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council recognise that NCHIs are not fit for purpose and that the regime should be scrapped and replaced with something much better, but I want to respond briefly to two points made by my noble friend.

First, my noble friend acknowledged, I think, that the recording threshold for NCHIs is currently too low, and that when the regime is replaced by another, such as the anti-social behaviour incident regime, the threshold as to what incidents should be recorded will be higher. The implicit acknowledgement that the threshold has hitherto been too low strikes me as a persuasive argument for scrapping those incidents that have been recorded under the lower threshold. If the threshold was too low, that is an acknowledgement that the incidents should not have been recorded. That is a good argument for why they should be deleted once this system has been overhauled.

Secondly, my noble friend Lord Herbert maintains that, even though chief constables have the discretion to disclose NCHIs when responding to enhanced DBS checks, the College of Policing could not find a single example of chief constables having done that. If that is the case then there is no cost to the Home Office agreeing that, henceforth, under the new regime, anti-social behaviour incidents—if that is what we are going to call them—should not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. The fear that they might be—that, not having committed a crime, that is recorded against your name and could stop you getting a job or volunteering at a school or for a charity—is why the current regime has had such a chilling effect on free speech. If none has been disclosed, why not go that one small step further and say that, henceforth, they will not be disclosed?

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments in this group, and all noble Lords who spoke.

Amendments 417 and 419, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, would provide courts with the power to make public interest compensation orders during the sentencing of certain offences. He made a typically eloquent and compelling case for these amendments. He has consistently and powerfully campaigned, especially on Ukraine and the proceeds of sanctions, and I pay tribute to him for that.

Public interest compensation orders would grant the courts the ability to compel offenders to pay money to approved international or public interest bodies that support victims of serious human rights violations, such as torture or aggression. The courts would have to consider relevant factors, such as the broader human rights impact of the crime and the need to prioritise direct victims where relevant.

The amendment also lists relevant eligible recipient organisations with powers for the Secretary of State to update them, creating a structured mechanism for using the proceeds of sanctions-related crime in reparative funding for victims in the wider public interest. The amendment proposes a reasonable and practical process through which courts could divert illegally obtained funds to support victims, and I hope that the Government consider it very carefully. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendment 418 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, similarly proposes a mechanism through which the courts could direct a portion of confiscated proceeds for public interest or social purposes. It is very similar in nature to Amendment 417; it differs slightly in that it specifically requires the courts to consider whether the crime in question

“involved serious human rights violations, mass atrocity crimes, or grand corruption”.

But like Amendment 417, it raises very important issues as well as a broader question: if we are to make public compensation orders, what crimes should they apply to? I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on that matter too.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his amendments. He has had a wide level of support today from, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Kempsell, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lady Goudie. They have all spoken well on this series of amendments. I will try to address the amendments, self-evidently, but I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in particular, that I know how committed he is to Ukraine. He has my support in addressing the viciousness of the Russian regime and the international crimes that it has committed by invading Ukraine. There are obviously a number of consequences to that, but the principles that he puts forward today could apply to a number of other regimes as well.

The amendments seek to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to enable courts to issue public interest compensation orders. These orders would be for public interest or social purposes to support those who may be impacted by offences under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, including victims of human rights violations, as well as other offences added by the Secretary of State via secondary legislation. I recognise the intentions behind these amendments and affirm the Government’s support for victims of human rights abuses and our commitment to tackling economic crime.

On Amendment 417, courts already have the power to impose a compensation order on an offender, which would require them to make financial reparation to a direct victim of a specific offence for any resulting personal injury, loss or damage. Therefore, in seeking to amend the Sentencing Act to allow courts to award compensation orders for public interest or social purposes, there is a danger that it would undermine the current victim-centred approach of the legislation to date.

In passing, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that I know he is seeking a meeting with my noble friend Lady Levitt. It may be my fault that it has not happened, because of a diary clash, but we are agreeing to examine that, and either my noble friend’s office or mine will get back to him with regard to a meeting on those issues.

I recognise the critical importance of supporting victims of crime. As noble Lords will know, the victim surcharge is imposed on offenders by the court in the public interest to ensure that they hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses. The revenue raised from this surcharge is currently used to fund victim services through the victims and witnesses general fund, so the principle has been established.

The UK provides support for victims of human rights and sanctions violations worldwide. Noble Lords may wish to know that we have committed to provide £22 billion of funding to Ukraine. The Government are currently exploring further avenues—such as the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan to Ukraine—alongside our colleagues in the G7 and the EU. This has seen a $50 billion loan to Ukraine, which—this goes to the heart of the amendments tabled—is to be serviced and repaid by future profits generated from frozen Russian sovereign assets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, if ever there was a pertinent time to debate this matter, it is now. The mechanism by which chief constables can be removed has faced significant scrutiny, given the very controversial actions taken by West Midlands Police in the Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Nick Timothy MP for his tenacity in pursuing the truth of that matter. I think it is now axiomatic that the former chief constable of West Midlands Police failed in his professional duties, and it is welcome that he has now accepted that his position is no longer tenable and has announced his retirement. It is against this backdrop that we discuss the amendments in this group.

On Amendment 421, I am of course aware of the Government’s indication that they will abolish PCCs in due course; that is important context to this amendment. For the time being, of course, they remain in place. I am not entirely convinced about the necessity of Amendment 421. With the Maccabi Tel Aviv affair, it was evident for quite some time that the PCC for the West Midlands should have dismissed the chief constable. As it happens, he did not, but I am not sure that consulting His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services beforehand would have had any bearing on the PCC’s decision. Furthermore, if the PCC was required by statute to consult the inspectorate, would that not have provided further delays to any decision?

Amendment 438EC seeks to grant the Home Secretary the power to remove chief constables. In her Statement to the other place on the 14 January, the Home Secretary said that until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. On the face of it, that is correct. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 repealed the direct power of the Home Secretary to remove the chief constable of a police force, and Section 38 of that Act grants the power of dismissal to the PCC of the police area. However, the Home Secretary has the power to give directions in relation to police forces and local policing bodies under Sections 40 and 40A of the Police Act 1996. If, for instance, it was clear that West Midlands Police was failing to discharge its functions in an effective manner, the appropriate measure to remedy that failure would have been the removal of the chief constable. Therefore, according to those sections, the Secretary of State has perhaps an indirect ability to remove chief constables.

In her Statement to the other place, the Home Secretary also said that the Government are going to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. Does the Minister have a timeline for when the police reform White Paper might be published, and, if he does not have precise date, can he give us an indication of its rough progress? Will any change in the law be brought forward in time for Report on this Bill, or will we have to wait until the next Session for another policing Bill?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment, which concerns the process by which police and crime commissioners may call on a chief constable to resign or retire. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has mentioned, the Government’s intention is to replace police and crime commissioners with a mayoral model or, in some cases in which the mayoral model is inappropriate, with a policing board made up of local councillors, and that will be brought forward in due course. Further details will be set out again in the policing White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, asked me when that would be produced. I say again to him the time-honoured phrase of “shortly”, but by shortly I do mean shortly; I hope he will not have too long to wait for the report be published as a White Paper. Self-evidently, it is a very complex document with lots of discussion items in it. Again, any legislative proposals in it will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I am not trying to short-change him, but we will give that detail in the near future.

As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of her amendment is to ensure that, before taking steps to dismiss a chief constable, a police and crime commissioner must first seek the views of HMICFRS. I agree that this is a desirable approach, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that this is already in place as a requirement. The noble Baroness should know, and I hope that it is helpful to her, that under Section 38(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs may call upon the relevant chief constable to resign or retire. Before exercising this power, and under regulation 11A of the Police Regulations 2003, police and crime commissioners are required to seek the views of HM inspectorate in writing and provide them to the chief constable and the relevant police and crime panel, alongside their rationale for why the PCC is proposing to call for retirement or resignation. I appreciate that it is a confusing landscape to have regulations under the Act and under police regulations. However, the position currently is there in black and white, and what her amendment seeks to do is already enshrined in law.

The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is not in his place so I will not say too much now, if anything, about Amendment 438EC. However, because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, I want to place on record for the Committee the fact that the Home Secretary has already announced the Government’s intention to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to remove chief constables. It has been a difficult few weeks in the West Midlands and, following the changes that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, it has highlighted the absence of such a power allowing the Home Secretary to act. We believe that action is needed, and I can assure your Lordships that this is high on the Government’s agenda. The White Paper is due in very short order. It will set out exactly the Government’s intentions in this regard and will be followed by legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, because we need to make changes on a range of matters, not least the abolition of PCCs. I look forward to debating this with noble Lords across the House. However, if the noble Baroness accepts that, difficult though they are to find, the regulations and the requirement are there, I hope she will be able to withdraw her amendment for the moment. I look forward to further discussion when the other matters come before the House at some future point.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

In view of what the Minister has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for tabling his Amendment 422A and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for ably stepping into the breach to allow it to be debated. It is a very important matter and I am glad we have had a chance to debate it.

I am very sympathetic to the amendment’s goals. It aims to set a 12-month time limit for misconduct and gross misconduct investigations within police forces. As others have said, timely legal restitution is the only way that justice is effectively served. That applies both to those in the police who are under investigation and, obviously, to victims who are let down by delays that are needlessly, but often, the result of administrative workload. Applying a strict deadline for remedies, excepted under only extraordinary circumstances, is an easy way by which institutions can be encouraged to proceed with investigations in a timely fashion.

That said, I am a little wary of fully endorsing a blanket time limit on police forces for investigations. Although in some cases, perhaps even most, misconduct investigations can and should be sped up, it would be heedless to assume that all forces are simply being inefficient in the time that investigations take. There is a vast disparity between forces’ capacity to deal with their primary function of investigating crime, let alone with administrative internal matters, such as misconduct matters. Certain forces’ ability to spare the resources to source, for instance, legally qualified adjudicators should not, therefore, be assumed. Officer numbers are down, crime is up, and we should be careful about placing additional requirements on police forces that expedited conduct investigations might entail.

Of course, we support the aim of increasing efficiency and ensuring justice is delivered. I thank my noble friend for his amendment and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Committee, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for moving the amendment. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, he stayed here very late—until the end—on the previous day on this. I am sorry that he is not able to be in his place today. He was here to move the amendment when we pulled stumps on Tuesday night at gone 11 pm.

Having said that, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to introduce a new system of independent legal adjudicators with powers to close down investigations. I think I can agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that delays in investigations are in nobody’s interests—of police officers who subsequently are proved innocent, of victims, or of speedy justice for those who have strayed and committed potential offences. Lengthy delays risk impacting the confidence of complainants and the welfare of the police officers involved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

424: Clause 166, page 204, leave out lines 15 to 20
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 425 and 426 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, relate to the criminal sentencing of serving or retired police officers. We on this side of the Committee cannot support them. These amendments are well intentioned, and we understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but we believe they will cause more problems than the issues they are trying to address. I do not see, for example, that they would have had any impact on the behaviour of the officer in the Everard murder or in other cases of police misconduct.

Amendment 425 would create a rebuttable presumption that current or former police officers should have their service as a police officer treated as an aggravating factor when being sentenced for a criminal offence. We, like the noble Baroness, believe that police officers should be held to a high standard. Abuses of power should be treated with the utmost seriousness, but the amendment is far too wide and risks creating unintended outcomes. Sentencing should, as far as is reasonably possible, be a specific exercise based on the facts of the case before the court.

At present, the courts already have the ability to treat an abusive position of trust or authority as an aggravating factor where relevant. This will allow for judges to distinguish between offences that may have been connected to an individual’s role as a police officer and those that are completely independent of it. They should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 425 would apply regardless of whether the offence had any connection to police service, resulting in the inclusion of offences that were wholly unconnected to an officer’s professional role and committed perhaps many years after the officer had retired or left the force.

Introducing such a provision, even as a rebuttable presumption, risks introducing an unnecessary and inappropriate counterproductive legal complexity. In practice, judges reflect on the defendant’s status and whether it is an aggravating factor. Furthermore, it would require the court to judge a person by their job and quite possibly what they were doing many years before. It could be 20 years before the commission of the offence and wholly unconnected with their service.

Similarly, we have significant concerns about Amendment 426. Pensions are deferred pay. They have been earned by service. I appreciate that issues arise where, while being so paid, the officer embarks on perhaps corrupt behaviour, but the police service will have to think about how it addresses that. It requires careful consideration of terms of service. If the police service wishes to include appropriate terms to address that sort of conduct, it is a matter for careful and balanced drafting, not for the relative sledgehammer—I mean that politely—proposed here. Once money has been earned and transferred to the relevant individual, that money is now their property. This amendment would undermine that principle and give the courts the power to deprive someone of money that may be entirely unrelated to the crime of which they are being convicted. It is potentially a large mandatory fine on top of any other sentence. We all know that police officers who go to prison face undoubted unpleasantness and very often have to be offered solitary confinement and protection. That in itself is a very substantial penalty.

We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about the risks of these amendments and the steps that should equally be taken to improve the way in which the police service operates. But the forfeiture of pension rights for just any criminal offence, especially in cases distinct from instances of abuse of police powers, could lead to disproportionate unintended consequences. We recognise that maintaining public confidence in policing is essential, but that confidence must be upheld through clear standards and conviction when things go wrong, then more effective punishment if needed; and, if necessary, by revision of the terms of service, but done by a matter of the terms of service, not by this rather blunt instrument. We look to the Minister for assurances on those points.

Relevant penalties must be imposed on the basis of conduct, not just status, so we cannot support the amendments. The context in which the sentence is passed is the fact of service; that would be relevant, but it is relevant only if that particular case comes before the court.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti indicated that this was a probing amendment and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these points.

I start by saying to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Doocey, and my noble friend that this Labour Government are committed to making improvements in police standards. That is why we have introduced significant reforms to strengthen police vetting and to act on misconduct and performance systems. This includes placing a duty on officers to hold and maintain vetting clearances and introducing a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct. There are a number of measures in the Bill, but also in secondary legislation—and I trail the White Paper on police reform, shortly to be produced—that will show that this Labour Government, to answer the noble Baroness’s point, are committed to upholding standards and improving them, particularly in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard and the conviction of police officers for simply heinous crimes. I put that on the record as a starting point because, with due respect, I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position that we are not doing anything on these matters.

I also support my noble friend’s broader position on strengthening accountability in the police service. I wish to see that happen but, in probing these amendments, I ask her to consider whether they are proportionate, fair or necessary. I take up and share some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made in his contribution.

Amendment 425 would make an individual’s current or former service as a police officer a statutory aggravating factor when sentencing them for any criminal offence. It is right that an officer’s service should be an aggravating factor where an offence has been committed in connection with their service, particularly where officers have abused their position of trust. It cannot be right that individuals should be sentenced more harshly than other members of the public based on their occupation or, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said, their former occupation. That is why the existing sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council must be followed by the courts, unless it is not in the interest of justice to do so, and make clear that abuse of power or position is an aggravating factor in sentencing. My noble friend knows that, because she mentioned it in her contribution. Introducing a statutory provision is therefore unnecessary. I submit to my noble friend that there is no gap in law or practice, and it would be neither fair nor proportionate to presume that a person’s current or previous service as a police officer was an aggravating factor in all cases.

Amendment 426 would give powers to the Crown Court to make decisions on the forfeiture of police officers’ pensions where an officer has been convicted of a criminal offence. As I have mentioned already, I am sympathetic to strengthening accountability in the police service, but responsibility for the forfeiture of a police officer’s pension is already set out in legislation. I know that my noble friend knows this, because she referred to it. In most cases, the matter is in the hands of elected police and crime commissioners. Police and crime commissioners are not only the pension supervising authority for police officers but the locally elected officials designed to represent the public and local communities. I therefore contend to my noble friend that they are clearly well positioned to consider the impact of such offending on public confidence in policing.

However, it is also worth mentioning to the Committee that the Home Secretary has a role in this matter. Pension forfeiture cannot happen without a conviction having been first certified by the Home Secretary as being gravely injurious to the interests of the state or liable to lead to serious loss of confidence. While the Crown Court has an existing role as the relevant appeal body following a forfeiture decision, the process of considering whether to pursue and apply for pension forfeiture is not, I suggest, properly the responsibility of the criminal courts, especially given that they have an appeal role in that process and that there is no mechanism in the amendment that would allow the Home Secretary to make submissions to the Crown Court on public interest factors that should be considered.

I know that my noble friend has probed in this amendment, and I know she knows this because she referenced it in her speech: those two mechanisms are available. We are trying to look at the key issue, which in my view is sorting out vetting issues and standards and making sure that we maintain those standards. That is what we are doing in the Bill, and in the White Paper that will shortly be before the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I therefore ask my noble friend, at least on this occasion, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I did not hear an answer to my question about why a judge should not hear about pension forfeiture in an open court. The forfeiting of pensions does happen, but it happens outside the court in closed rooms, and we never really understand the reasons given. Why not allow it to happen in court in front of a judge?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I just said, it can be done in court in front of a judge on appeal. The decisions are taken by the police and crime commissioner and/or the Home Secretary, who is accountable for those matters, and the Government intend to hold to that position. It may not satisfy the noble Baroness, as ever, but I look forward to her support on the key issue, which is improving vetting to make sure that we do not have those significant bad apples in the police force in the first place. That is our key focus in the White Paper and the measures in the Bill.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I said these were probing amendments because I thought it was important that we discussed in Committee on this Bill the issues of police standards, discipline and public confidence, as well as all the other measures that we are constantly debating to do with additional police powers. I am so grateful.

I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that in his response to the pension forfeiture provision he spoke as if this was not already an established principle. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, got it right when she said the issue here is about how you will inspire most public confidence when forfeiture proceedings are happening. Would there not be some benefit in this being part of the sentence and therefore being given greater publicity because it has been announced in an open Crown Court? I think that is really the only difference between us.

I am grasping at any straw of how we might try to improve confidence in policing in this country, where, year on year, this is not happening. I was particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister for, in a sense, responding to the provocation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to talk about what he plans with the White Paper and so on. I am sure we all look forward to engaging with all that. For the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The Mental Health Act 2025 has sought deliberately to reduce the role of the police in mental health detentions. This reinforces that police cells are not the places of safety and that health services must take greater responsibility. In that context, we must be careful not to blur the lines of responsibility or risk turning police officers into quasi-social workers by default. It is essential that any training framework complements rather than undermines the Right Care, Right Person approach, with clear duties placed on the appropriate health and social care professionals. These thoughtful amendments, supported by the thoughtful observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raise important issues about capability and clarity in policing. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government are already supporting high-quality training and how they intend to strike the right balance between preparedness and proper division of responsibilities.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for raising these issues. I know she feels strongly about them. We have an interchangeable Front Bench here between the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Brinton. It is always of interest to me that we have a good dual ability between the two noble Baronesses on these matters; I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, from the Front Bench/Back Bench.

The noble Baroness is right that training and support are vital. Police officers do a difficult job. They need to identify and have that support. I am grateful to her for shining a light on this in the amendment today. She knows—I just want to put this on the record again—that the College of Policing currently sets standards for police training and development, including the national policing curriculum, to support initial learning for new recruits, and standards and an accreditation for those who work in high-risk or specialist roles. The College of Policing also works strongly with police forces to support standards and to look at ongoing training and development. Again, our White Paper, which will appear in very short order, will consider the future workforce and will set out reform proposals on leadership and on culture to ensure that the Government’s safer streets and other projects and the mission that we have is equipped with support to achieve those objectives.

The noble Baroness will also know that my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is currently the chair of the College of Policing, have been appointed to review police leadership in a new commission, which the Government support. I expect that that will include looking at the wider training issues that the noble Baroness has made reference to today. I do not want to pre-empt that work, but it is important that we just recognise that. The request for the Home Secretary to commission as independent review, as Amendment 427 suggests, would potentially duplicate or pre-empt what is already being undertaken by the White Paper and by the two colleagues from this House.

Amendment 428 would ensure that police officers are equipped to deal with people suffering a mental health crisis. It is an extremely important issue. It is important that our police have the training and skills to not just be able to identify when a person is vulnerable but to understand how to intervene appropriately when people are experiencing a mental health crisis. For the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has given, very often officers will be the first port of call when mental health crises happen, because they are the first port of call in every circumstance. It is important that officers are equipped to make appropriate decisions in that range of circumstances and to treat people fairly, with humanity, and understand the issues accordingly.

Evidence shows that they are doing a reasonable job. The Mental Health Act review by Professor Sir Simon Wessely noted that

“numerous examples of police treating those with mental health problems with kindness and compassion”

were identified. That is what the public can expect, and that is what we want to see.

I say to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, that the College of Policing sets relevant standards, guidance and training on these operational matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that she tried to find examples of that. The College of Policing currently has a mental health learning programme available via College Learn. It has programme specification and training guides which are updated and have been updated very recently—in the last few years. There are module titles on mental health and the police, providing a first response to mental health incidents, responding to suicide, providing specialist support at incidents of mental health and developing a strategic response to mental health.

With operational support from chief constables, who are independent of government, how they use that resource is a matter for the police. Different police forces will face different challenges and pressures and have different ways of doing it. But there is a level of support, which the outcomes of the police White Paper and the reviews by the two noble Lords I have mentioned will assist and support. It is important that we recognise that work is ongoing.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I think I was making a very slightly different point. I am aware of these courses, but my argument was that what the military has achieved has been through culture change within the entire organisation, rather than just sending people on a course to get a qualification.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important to do that, but I also say to the noble Baroness that the police are not mental health experts, nor should we expect them to be. At the end of the day, they will be the first responders who have to identify and support people. The work on the Right Care, Right Person project over the last two years by police and health partners, to ensure that people who are in mental health crisis get the right response from the right person with the right training and skills at the right time, is important. That work has shown a decrease in unwarranted police intervention in mental health pathways. We want people with a mental health challenge to have support. The police are dealing with the crisis in the moment, and perhaps the consequential behaviour of the crisis, rather than the underlying long-term trends.

There will always be a role for police in dealing with mental health calls where there is a risk of serious harm. It is important that police have access to relevant health information and use their police powers to do that.

Importantly, as I have mentioned already, there is an important set of training material available, which goes to points that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned. The College of Police’s mental health training is for all new officers to go through. There is an additional suite of training material I have referred to that provide, I hope, the approach to the culture change that the noble Baroness is seeking. This training provides officers with knowledge to recognise what mental health challenges there are and to communicate with and support people exhibiting such indicators.

I think this is a worthwhile discussion, but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that it would be helpful to withdraw the amendment now, and we will reflect on the outcome of the White Paper in due course.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and my noble friend Lady Brinton for her summing up, which I thought was excellent. I just want to make a couple of quick points.

I am very much aware that the College of Policing determines what training should be provided for police officers. However, the point I was making—perhaps not strongly enough—is that the training does not work. The training is inappropriate; every police chief will tell you that. HMICFRS, which is the inspectorate, has said on multiple occasions and in multiple reports that the training is inadequate and there need to be changes, and nothing has happened. I honestly think that, whatever happens, there has to be an independent national audit of police training because there has not been one since 2012. The last one was a PEEL inspection, which examined individual forces but not the national picture.

I am so looking forward to the Minister’s White Paper. I cannot even begin to describe how excited I am about it. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister has referred to it—that it will solve all our problems—in almost every topic we have ever discussed. My only concern is that, if it contains as many subjects and if it is going to solve as many problems as the Minister suggests, it will probably be more like an encyclopaedia than a White Paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

We are more sympathetic to the introduction of proposals that would require a minimum level of neighbourhood policing, such as Amendment 430 would provide for. The amendment would allow for a more decentralised approach, in which branches would be able to co-ordinate their approaches to neighbourhood policing. We support this principle, and I hope the Minister does too. I look forward to hearing his response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendments. I start, however, with the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who prayed in aid the great Conservative, as he said, Robert Peel. From my recollection, Robert Peel was certainly not in charge of the police force during the 14 years of the previous Government, under which the noble Lord served. I was Police Minister in 2009-10 and know that we lost 20,000 police officers—I repeat, 20,000—in the first years of the Conservative Government. I think Sir Robert Peel had gone walkabout during that period and was not serving as a neighbourhood police officer under the Conservative Government’s watch at that particular time.

There was a lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing between 2010 and the last election. This Government have delivered on our commitment in the election to restore neighbourhood policing. We have already announced that police forces will be supported to deliver an increase of 13,000 officers for neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. In the previous six months, we have delivered 80% of our year-one target, with nearly 2,400 additional neighbourhood officers in post. We remain on track to reach a full 3,000 uplift by April this year, which goes to the heart of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We backed that with £200 million of additional investment in the current financial year, as part of a total funding settlement to police forces of £17.6 billion. Total funding will again rise next year, 2026-27, by £746 million, taking the total funding for police forces up to £18.3 billion next year. That is a major level of investment in policing that this Government have brought forward, and I argue that it meets the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment.

It is because of our neighbourhood policing guarantee that every neighbourhood across England and Wales now has named and contactable officers. These neighbourhood teams are dedicated to engaging with communities, gathering intelligence, and preventing crime and anti-social behaviour. Forces are ensuring that regular beat meetings take place, providing local people and businesses with a direct platform to shape policing priorities. We have more visible patrols, and officers and PCSOs have started to complete the new neighbourhood policing programme. There is career pathway training, launched in June 2025. There are designated leads for anti-social behaviour in every police force and a commitment to 72-hour response times to neighbourhood queries. These are all measures that I am sure Robert Peel would have welcomed had he been in charge for the previous 14 years—but he was not, and it did not happen, but it is now.

The new police standards and performance improvement unit will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of the unit is going to reinforce our commitment to transparency and, for the noble Baroness, I pray in aid the upcoming White Paper on police reform—she will not have too long to wait for it now. It will detail how wider reforms will support the Government’s pledge to rebuild neighbourhood policing.

The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, are absolutely in the right direction of travel. The question is whether she wants to constrain chief constables with the demands that she seeks to put centrally. I argue that the Government will continue to bolster neighbourhood policing and have reversed the cuts imposed by the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seems to have had a memory blank around what happened over that time. The Government have set clear standards of local policing, and will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and others. We are heading in the direction of the noble Baroness’s amendment, without the need to legislate.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Could the Minister say something about the Police Federation’s attitude to the list of changes to enforcement that he has laid out?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government work closely with the Police Federation and will always listen and gauge the situation with them. I have met the chair of the Police Federation on a number of occasions, and other Ministers in government do the same. We will engage with that body. Like other federations or any form of trade union—although it is not a trade union—there will on occasion be differences between the organisation, the police chiefs and the Government, as is perfectly natural. I believe that we are investing in supporting police officers on the ground to do a better job in what they are trying to do and ensuring that the Government undertake a focus on neighbourhood policing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks. On that basis, I urge her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think that we are miles and miles apart. To be clear, I would never do anything that I thought chief constables would not be very much in favour of. They do a fantastic and astonishing job, and I would never do anything that I thought would be operationally wrong for them.

Our amendments are designed to complement what the Government are trying to do, but our aim is to ensure that all communities receive a guaranteed minimum level of visible local policing attached to the funding that makes that happen. I look forward to discussing in further detail with the Minister how that can happen. We are not miles apart and I am sure that when we see this mythical White Paper it will give us all the answers that we require. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I cannot answer that from the Dispatch Box, I am afraid; nor do I have many staff.

Policing and youth justice are not isolated administrative functions. They sit at the heart of a single, integrated criminal justice system spanning England and Wales. Police forces operate across borders daily; so too with the criminal justice system. Intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and serious organised crime and public order policing all rely on consistent legal frameworks, operational standards and accountability structures. Fragmenting those arrangements would introduce complexity, duplication and risk at precisely the moment when policing faces unprecedented pressures.

Policing in Wales is already delivered locally, is locally accountable and is responsible to Welsh communities. Police and crime commissioners in Wales set priorities based on local need. Chief constables in Wales are not directed from Whitehall on day-to-day policing. What is proposed is not so much localism but the creation of a new layer of political control over policing.

The amendments ask your Lordships’ House to place policing and youth justice under the control of the Welsh Government. This has been run by Labour continuously since devolution began. It is therefore legitimate to ask what that Government’s track record tells us about their capacity to take on these serious responsibilities. In area after area of devolved public policy, Labour-run Wales has failed to deliver. Educational outcomes in Wales have fallen behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom on many international measures. Health waiting times are persistently worse than in England. Major infrastructure projects have been delayed or mismanaged. Those are not ideological assertions; they are documented outcomes of more than two decades of one-party dominance and failure.

When systems fail in devolved areas, the response of the Welsh Government has often been to blame Westminster rather than to reflect on their own actions or inactions. If policing and youth justice were devolved, who would be blamed if and when crime rose, youth reoffending increased or serious failures occurred? Experience suggests that accountability would become more opaque, not clearer and more robust. Constitutional change should be driven by clear evidence of benefit, not by political symbolism. It has not yet been demonstrated how these proposals would reduce crime, improve public confidence or deliver better outcomes for young offenders; nor has it been shown that fragmentation would be avoided and how cross-border crime would be tackled more effectively, or failures remedied. For these reasons, we cannot support the amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Hain for tabling these amendments. I speak as Home Office Minister but also as a resident of Wales, a Member of Parliament for Wales for 28 years, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales who helped bring in devolution, and a Welsh Whip who took it through the House of Commons, so I am a supporter of devolution and know my way around this patch. However, I say to the noble Baroness that the Government cannot support in full the direction of travel that she has proposed.

I recognise again the great contribution that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has made on this issue and in his reports, but the view of the Government remains that devolving police and youth justice would require extensive institutional change and carry major operational and financial implications. Devolving policing in particular would undermine the UK Government’s ability to deliver crime prevention and the safer streets mission in Wales.

The noble Baroness raised finance. The position she mentioned in Wales is no different from that across the border in Cheshire. Taxpayers there have a burden of funding carried forward, with UK central support. That is a common issue. The noble Baroness does not have too long to wait, as the police settlement for England and Wales will be issued by the Home Office very shortly. I expect that—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The noble Lord commented about it not being the right time for Wales, but does this mean that the Labour Government are changing their view about police devolution in Scotland? It works perfectly well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are significant differences between the positions in Scotland and Wales. Scotland has its own legal system, prison system and policing system; it has had that for some time. In Wales, we have a very integrated England and Wales court system and a cross-border, east-west relationship. For example, the regional organised crime centre that services the area of north Wales where I live is a cross-border co-operation on a cross-border issue.

We have looked at the noble and learned Lord’s points and reports and, from my perspective, attempting to separate elements of the offender management system from the wider criminal justice system would in practice be extremely complicated. It would lose some of the economies of scale that we have in the current arrangements, and it would put a jagged edge on an entirely new and complex interface. I know that the noble and learned Lord has looked at those issues, but that is the view of the UK Government. The UK Government recognise the importance of Welsh partnership structures such as the Policing Partnership Board for Wales and the Police Liaison Unit, but ultimately the Government have no plans to devolve policing in Wales at this moment.

Noble Lords mentioned the decision announced on 13 November last year to abolish police and crime commissioners. We have put in that plan, and it will require legislation at some point to give effect to those proposals. There will be further discussion in the forthcoming White Paper on them, but we have committed to work with the Welsh Government and other stakeholders to ensure that new arrangements provide strong and effective police governance for Wales, while recognising the unique nature of those Welsh arrangements.

Having said that, on the Labour Government’s commitment that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned, we are working with the Welsh Government to undertake a programme of work on the Labour Government’s 2024 manifesto commitments around youth justice, which goes to the heart of one of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. In light of the manifesto commitment, we are trying to ensure that the youth justice system delivers effectively for the people of Wales. We are undertaking a programme of work to meet that aspect of the manifesto commitment, which meets in part the objectives of the noble Lords who spoke to these amendments.

I am conscious of time, and I am sorry that this is a speedy debate pending the debate that is due any moment now. We can return to this on Report, as the noble Baroness may do, but the view of the Government to date is as I have outlined.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

First, I do not want the Minister to answer this now, but I would be very grateful if he would look again at the funding for the police in Wales. Unless I am mistaken, Manchester and London do not have a Government who make a grant to policing as the Welsh Government do. Secondly, the argument has been put forward, but the arguments that we have put contrary to all this have never been answered—and I hope they will be answered in the police White Paper. If the argument is a good argument, it stands or falls by its strength. The Government in London have never had the courage—and those who seek political advantage have stood behind that lack of courage in failing to answer independent views that have been expressed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government will answer those questions, and they can make a very robust case for why devolution of policing should not happen. As I have said, we are exploring the issue of devolution of youth justice with the Welsh Senedd and the Welsh Government, and in the forthcoming police White Paper we will look at what the governance systems should be in consultation with the Welsh Senedd, police and crime commissioners and the police chiefs in Wales. That is a further debate. The noble Baroness has opportunities on Report to table amendments to get a fuller debate, and there will have to be legislation capacity at some point around the objectives set in the announcement on 13 November and in the forthcoming White Paper, which is coming very shortly. In the light of all that, and given the time that we have now, which is far too short to debate this in full—and I would like to do that at some point with the noble Baroness—I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although I admit that I am quite disappointed with the position expressed by the Government. I certainly do not agree that it is too complicated to devolve policing to Wales when apparently it is not too complicated to abolish PCCs and create a brand-new structure—so I do not accept that argument. But today we have a debate to come after this one, so I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I do not think that we have resolved the argument over how the policing will be governed after the abolition of PCCs. I hope that the police reform White Paper includes detailed proposals in relation to that issue.

The Minister mentioned some positive steps on youth justice, and it would be good to have further discussions on the details between Committee and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee. The noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, and I know all too well the stresses and strains of policing. It is vital that more is done to support our officers. I approach these amendments from the fact that it is impossible to address what we do not measure and, at this moment, policing has almost no reliable national mechanism for measuring accurately the total number of police suicides.

Data from the Police Federation of England and Wales shows that more than 100 police officers and staff have died by suicide between 2022 and 2025, with at least 70 officer deaths and over 200 attempted suicides in that period. Those figures are likely undercounts because there is no statutory requirement for forces to record such events. The federation has also revealed troubling trends in how these incidents are linked with organisational stresses—notably, that 47 of 70 suicides and 173 of 236 attempted suicides that it has identified between 2022 and 2025 involved officers under investigation for misconduct or criminal allegations. That is not simply a statistic; it is a human tragedy that echoes through families, colleagues and communities.

As has been said, police forces are not required to record suicide or attempted suicide, meaning that the true scale of the problem is hidden from view and national suicide statistics do not treat policing as a risk occupation, as they should. Without a statutory duty to record and report, we are asking police leaders to act in good faith alone, with widely inconsistent results. Two of the largest police forces in England and Wales reportedly could not provide their own figures when the federation asked. The amendments would end that inconsistency by placing responsibility for data collection and publication on a statutory footing.

The amendments are not a step taken in isolation from policing leadership. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing are already committed to suicide prevention across the service. They have jointly endorsed a national consensus statement on working together to prevent suicide in the police service in England and Wales, acknowledging the importance of reducing stigma and improving well-being. The College of Policing also leads on national suicide prevention guidance and professional practice, emphasising the duty of forces to recognise inherent risk factors associated with police work and to promote supportive interventions. However, guidance and consensus alone cannot ensure consistent national reporting or create the accountability that comes from an annual report, laid before Parliament, which analyses trends, contributory factors and the effectiveness of support mechanisms under the police covenant.

Requiring chief constables to certify compliance and linking non-compliance to inspection through HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will ensure that this is not simply a bureaucratic exercise but a real driver for change. However, without consistent mandatory data, these efforts lack the firm foundation needed to evaluate progress and target interventions where they are most needed. We on these Benches fully support the amendments.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for highlighting the amendments that he has put before the Committee today and to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, although he is not in his place, who tabled two of the amendments.

The importance of collecting accurate and consistent data for police officer and staff suicide is certainly relevant. I note particularly that the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Bach have a significant senior level of experience in these areas. I am grateful also for the comments of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and I recognise and note the strong support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from the Opposition Benches for the proposals in the amendments.

Every life lost to suicide is a tremendous tragedy and, when that person is part of our police workforce, that loss is even deeper because those officers, as has been said, walk towards danger and see things that everyday citizens do not see. It is only fair that we support them with the same care and commitment that they show to us.

It may help the Committee to know that last year I met the Police Federation chair, Tiff Lynch, when she raised these matters with me. I have to say that this is an issue. We must do our utmost to protect and support police officers and this Government agree that understanding the scale and nature of the problem is essential. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, it is important that we understand whether any levels of suicide are linked specifically to a policing role or linked to factors outside of policing that policing may or may not exacerbate, as well as what measures can be taken, as in any walk of life, to help to support and encourage individuals who have mental health challenges or experiences that drive them to suicide. That is why we as a Government are actively considering the best options for achieving that, both in legislation and via non-legislative routes, so that we can deliver meaningful and sustainable improvements without creating unnecessary burdens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling her two amendments. I begin with Amendment 436, co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I strongly support my noble friend’s efforts to ensure that release statistics are as rigorous and useful as possible. These releases are pivotal to both the police and the public—the police so that they are aware of the types of crimes they are likely to encounter, and the public so that they can judge the performance of police forces for themselves.

As it stands, there is not a standard, reliable measurement of crime rates and statistics. The current accredited metric used by the Office for National Statistics is the Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is helpful in giving an indication of certain crime rates but cannot be described as a foolproof operational tool. It uses an interviewer-administered face-to-face survey, which immediately makes the recounting of crime a choice on behalf of the victim, who may, for whatever reason, decide not to disclose it. It reports only crimes committed against over-16s and excludes crimes against the general public, the state, tourists and residents of institutions.

I understand that this is done so that the survey is unaffected by police reporting or recording changes, but it also creates a crime reporting system deeply affected by human discretion that can similarly not serve as a trustworthy basis. The least we can do is ask that the police are required to record data on the enforcement of offences simultaneously to the Crime Survey for England and Wales releases. It would provide a metric to judge police performance, as it would demonstrate the estimated number of crimes committed compared with those investigated by police forces.

This leads me to my noble friend’s second amendment, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Investigations into committed crimes must lead to prosecutions, or else there is little point in maintaining a justice system. Between 2020 and 2024, more than 30,000 prosecutions collapsed. A large proportion of these came from the mishandling or loss of evidence by police. The storage and retention of evidence is an area in desperate need of modernising. It has been described as overwhelming by serving officers and has too often resulted in injustice for victims. The first step in solving this issue is a thorough review of the system as it currently exists before setting out a blueprint of reform. The amendment in question would provide for this, so I wholly support it and I hope the Minister does too. I look forward to his reply.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her continued interest in improving transparency and accountability in policing. She will know that I am outcome-focused myself, and that I try to ensure that we get outcomes. I note the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Davies of Gower, for Amendment 436.

The Government have taken significant steps to improve the visibility of police performance. I draw noble Baroness’s attention to the newly established police performance framework. That framework, supported by the Home Office’s police performance unit, provides a robust mechanism for monitoring enforcement activities across all 43 current police forces in England and Wales. This includes the priority offences that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as shoplifting, knife crime and theft.

The noble Baroness mentioned the White Paper; I will respond by trailing some of the announcements that were made in the White Paper yesterday. A key one was that the Home Office will this year introduce an initial sector-facing police performance dashboard that will enable chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse the transparent, high quality and operationally significant data that all three Back-Bench speakers sought. This will empower forces to deliver improvements through strengthening their understanding of where they are performing well and where they can learn from practice in other forces to improve. The framework has been designed to be flexible, and there will be a midpoint review in middle of 2027-28 to allow for the inclusion of any new priorities that might be brought forward. The Government believe that this is an appropriate mechanism for considering additional offence categories, rather than—with due respect to the noble Baroness— mandating them in primary legislation.

I took to heart the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that requiring police forces to publish enforcement data on a fixed list of offences might add burdens and administrative duplication, particularly when many of these offences are already captured through a range of other mechanisms, and contradict the later amendments to reduce police bureaucracy. That is an important factor to bear in mind when we consider this proposal.

Furthermore, the police and the CPS are required to comply with the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance on charging, which applies to all offences where a criminal charge may be instituted. This guidance ensures that investigations meet evidential and public interest tests before prosecution. Compliance for that is monitored through an internal assessment framework between the police and the CPS that is crime agnostic and used only for management purposes. A statutory duty to publish enforcement data for selected offences might duplicate those arrangements and divert resources from front-line policing.

In summary on Amendment 436, yes, we need to improve, but we have put in place some mechanisms. We will monitor those mechanisms and, I hope, return to them in due course, without the legislative requirement proposed by the noble Baroness.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 437 goes to the heart of the core issue of productive use of police time. I again note the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for this amendment. The 2023 Police Activity Survey, provided by the Home Office, gave us significant insights into how police time is used. We are planning to repeat that survey this year, and I hope it will again help us to understand a bit more about the policing landscape.

The 2023 productivity review, sponsored by the College of Policing’s Centre for Police Productivity, prioritised the rollout of productivity-enhancing capabilities, such as the use of AI and robotic process automation, to reduce the time spent on administration. I know that there are concerns about AI, and I have heard them raised today in Committee. However, when properly used, AI can reduce bureaucracy. In Autumn 2024, we launched the Police Efficiency and Collaboration Programme to explore how we can improve productivity and efficiency savings.

Yesterday, the Government published the policing White Paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing—I have a copy to hand for ease of reference. In that White Paper is a comprehensive package of reforms that address the issues in the noble Baroness’s amendment. I refer her to paragraph 91, which says:

“Another area of extensive paperwork in policing comes from the requirements of the criminal justice system. In the months ahead we will work with the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service (alongside the Attorney General’s Office) to examine changes that could reduce the burden on policing. As part of this work, we will look at a number of areas including the disclosure regime and redaction, the use of out of court resolutions, charging and joint police-prosecution performance metrics. We will do this alongside consideration of any new or emerging evidence, such as the implications of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations for criminal court reform”.


We therefore recognise that that is an important issue.

I also refer the noble Baroness to paragraph 293, which says:

“It is expected that in its first year Police.AI will focus on some of the biggest administrative burdens facing policing – including disclosure, analysis of CCTV footage, production of case files, crime recording and classification and translating and transcribing documents. This will free up 6 million policing hours each year”.


The Government are therefore focused on those issues, so I am not convinced that we need a legislative solution to deal with them. With this having been put in the White Paper—it is a brand-new document, and Members will want to have a chance to reflect upon it—the direction of travel is self-evidently there. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the core issues on which she is calling for a review are addressed in the document that I have just referred to the Committee.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am old enough to remember the last time that we looked at regional police forces. That was under the Minister’s erstwhile colleague, the right honourable Charles Clarke, I think, in 2008-09. There is some merit in the argument for amalgamating large forces. However, will the Minister confirm that AI is also important in supporting hyper-local community policing? A burglary takes place in the Met area every 11 minutes, and, tragically, a rape takes place every 54 minutes. There are big discrepancies between, say, Bexley, Richmond, Kingston and central London. Will the Minister ensure that Ministers are cognisant of the need to use AI to reinforce community policing, as well as the mergers of police forces at a very large level?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I refer him to the first line of paragraph 281 of the policing White Paper, which says:

“In policing, getting the right information into the right hands at the right time can mean the difference between life and death”.


That is absolutely right, as is the point that the noble Lord made. AI, particularly how it develops over the next few years, will be critical in distilling information that can be used by police to investigate, capture and understand crime performance in any area. We have some significant expertise in the Home Office that is looking at those issues, and the direction of travel has been set in the White Paper.

In addition to the forces of good using AI, criminals are themselves looking at how they can use AI to better defraud people, so we need to be ahead of the game on that as well. In the White Paper, we are looking at AI in respect of both challenges. We are looking at how it is used by bad actors, and at how we can reduce, collect and analyse information and dissect trends in a much speedier way and take out physical paperwork. The noble Lord makes a very valid point about how that can be used at a local level, as well as on a national trend basis.

The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is making are very valid. When I was last doing the job of Police Minister in 2009-10, which was a long time ago, we had a review at the Police Federation’s urging. We have tried to reduce paperwork, because it is critical. Police officers should use technology to amass information on how we can prevent crime, bring prosecutions through the CPS and understand trends in local areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has said. That is the direction of travel in the White Paper. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for mentioning those things. I am not quite sure what the questions are, but I can say quite clearly that I do not see a direct line between the public sector equality duty and Black Lives Matter. What I have seen with Black Lives Matter is black people being treated very poorly and some being killed because it was not working properly. The fact that it was not working properly was not because it existed; it was not working properly because the police were not avoiding and fighting discrimination.

On the point about the increase in HR, those of us who are perhaps behind on our fire safety assessments might be concerned about that. Each organisation must assess what it needs to do for all its members of staff. I keep saying to the Minister, “Please don’t just train specialist staff in things like violence against women and girls; it has to be throughout”. Why does it have to be throughout? Because of the equality issues and all the points that were raised by noble Lords who have spoken and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, earlier on, about women being much more likely to be victims of serious crime. That is why we need it: because it is absolutely underpinning everything the police do.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to support the public sector equality duty in legislation and to say to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that there are times when you know before anybody has even spoken that you are not going to agree with the premise of the argument. This is one of those occasions. I am not going to agree with the premise of the argument, but I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said. I will only in part repeat part what she said by referring to what Section 149, the public sector equality duty, is.

It says:

“A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to … eliminate discrimination”—


or should the police not be looking at making sure that they eliminate discrimination in their dealings? On harassment, should the police not be ensuring that they are not involved in harassment in their dealings? On victimisation, should the police not be involved in ensuring that they do not victimise in their dealings? It goes on to refer to

“any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act”.

It says in this Section, which the noble Lord wishes to remove from legislation, that the police or any public authority should

“foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”.

Section 149(5) says:

“Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to … tackle prejudice, and … promote understanding”.


Does the noble Lord think that the police should not have a role in tackling prejudice and promoting understanding? That is what he is saying by seeking to remove this piece of legislation. The section goes on to say:

“The relevant protected characteristics are—age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation”.


Does the noble Lord believe—he obviously does, since he has tabled the amendment—that those protected characteristics should not be ones that the police seek to take into account when dealing with these matters?

The noble Lord has put a perfectly fair argument, but it does not take my listening to it in detail to know, as I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it is not on my core values list or my core approach to how we deal with policing, and it is not how the public sector equality duty is designed. It is designed to embed day-to-day work in all our public authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, that leads to better outcomes for individuals and for communities. For policing, the duty is vital to maintain public trust and legitimacy. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterson and Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Peelite principles mean that the police police with the consent of the community. If they did not take into account the duty not to discriminate, victimise or harass then I am sorry, but that is not a police service that would secure the support of the community in its policing.

Compliance with this duty is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a practical tool, but one with a moral under- pinning, for better decision-making and accountability. Removing the duty would risk undermining confidence in policing, particularly among those communities that are in the protected characteristic list in Section 149 of the Equality Act.

There are times when we can have a debate, have an argument and, potentially, listen to areas where we will have some movement from either the Opposition or the Government. This is not one of those times. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment now but, if he brings it back on Report, I will take great pleasure in asking every Member of this House to vote it down.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will allow the Minister to dismount from his high horse on this. The fact of the matter, as he knows very well, is that between the election of the Labour Government in 1997 and 2010, when the Equality Act came in, there was still a concern, based on a moral underpinning by the then Labour Government, to improve equality in the workplace and elsewhere. My party brought forward, for instance, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which tackled discrimination. The Minister’s party, very rightly, brought forward the Race Relations Act 1976. It is not a moral imperative solely for the Labour Party and this particular Government. There is, however, an argument to be made about bureaucracy and whether the focus is too much on EDI, which prevents senior management and officers at the operational level concentrating on keeping people safe and tackling crime. That is the point that we are making, not that we on this side do not care about people being treated fairly and equally in the workplace and elsewhere.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

From my high position on my horse, I say to the noble Lord that we will take a different view on that. From the position of a very high horse, I think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would be damaging to community relations, to community cohesion, and to the police’s ability to police effectively. It would give carte blanche to the type of events that have happened in certain police stations in London in the last few weeks. It would also, dare I say it, remove the floor from the policing principle that we do not tolerate those things.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says that certain things have not happened; he mentioned, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that some standards have not been raised in the time of the Equality Act. I remind him that there will be somebody speeding today, and somebody stealing from a shop today. There might even be a murder today. It does not mean that people would not break the law because we did not have that legislation.

The key point is that, with the Equality Act, we are trying to set a public duty that public authorities act with fairness irrespective of the protected characteristics listed in that Act. I think the police would want to—never mind should—be held to that level of account. That is why I have come to the judgment that I cannot support the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. That is a fair political disagreement between us. I have not done that in a way that says anything bad about the noble Lord’s motives. It is simply that, for me, there is a difference. There is blue/red water between us on this. I am happy to say that I hope he withdraws the amendment today; however, if he does not, we are willing to make those arguments on Report. I hope that, with the support of the Liberal Democrats and others, my noble friends and I would stand up for what we think is right about the Equality Act 2010.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Would the noble Lord comment on the High Court judgment that said that police impartiality was, in fact, compromised in the example I gave relating to Northumbria Police? That situation directly speaks to this. Will he also reflect or comment on whether he feels that fairness and anti-discrimination has been guaranteed to all by the public sector equality duty when we consider the events and protests that happened around the Sarah Everard case and the, frankly, inexplicable one-sided policing, in many instances, at demonstrations around Palestine, at the expense of Jewish people and Jewish citizens of this country? The argument that the public sector equality duty is a bureaucratic exercise that box-ticks your way to suggesting that everything is fine in the world, whereas some of us are rather more concerned that the status quo is not adequate or good enough in the fight against racism, for women’s rights or, indeed, for equality.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness looks at aspects of the Bill before us today and earlier in Committee, and at what we said in the policing White Paper yesterday, she will know that the Government do not accept that standards do not need to be raised. We want raised standards, better vetting of police officers, better performance and speedy dismissal if police officers have done wrong. We want to improve those standards. However, the Equality Act is about basic principles underpinning how public services interact with people in our community. In the policing sense, I argue, as I did a moment ago, that those Equality Act provisions underpin what the police want to do, which is to police with the consent of the community. I cannot agree with her; that is an honest disagreement between us. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; it has been short but stimulating. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for their support.

When considering this matter, there is a question that I would like all noble Lords to keep in mind: what do we want the police to prioritise? Surely the answer is public safety, crime prevention, and the fair and firm enforcement of the law. As I have said, and as the legal framework makes clear, policing is already tightly regulated. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, codes of practice, judicial review, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the courts all ensure that police powers are exercised lawfully and proportionately. None of those protections would be removed by this amendment. The entire purpose of the amendment is to remove a layer of bureaucratic obligation that is ill suited to operational policing and increasingly counterproductive. It would allow officers to make decisions based on intelligence, behaviour and risk, rather than the fear of breaching abstract equality issues—but perhaps I am guilty of looking at this from an operational perspective.

If we want the police to be active on our streets rather than passive observers and to intervene early rather than apologise later, and if we want public confidence rebuilt through effectiveness rather than process then we must give them the clarity and confidence to do their job. We must recognise that effective policing is itself a public good and that the most equal outcome of all is a society in which the law is enforced without fear or favour. With that, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, for his amendments, which have generated some interesting discussion and points. I will try to respond to those in some detail.

It is accepted across the Committee that counterextremism is a deeply challenging and complex area, and that the Government have a duty to protect their citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. The approach we are trying to take to counterterrorism is something that the Home Secretary, the Security Minister and I take extremely seriously. It is not appropriate that any citizen should be made fearful for their safety or should be excluded from public or political life on the basis of hateful prejudice. There is already legislation on the statute book to deal with these matters. Our society also rightly rejects those who preach, promote or espouse hatred, and as such everyone has both a right and a responsibility to challenge extremist narratives. I hope there is agreement on what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. The Government will continue to uphold and promote those values across the board.

I will look at the amendments in detail, starting with Amendment 438E, which, in the noble Lord’s words, seeks to require every police force to publish a report on strategies to tackle non-violent extremism within three months of this Act passing. I understand the intention behind the amendment and the need to tackle non-violent extremism. However—I think this again echoes a point the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, made—police forces already work within national frameworks and report through existing channels and imposing a statutory deadline would risk diverting resources from front-line activity and might lead to incomplete or inconsistent reporting. The measure potentially duplicates existing accountability mechanisms and could, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, add bureaucracy rather than improving security outcomes.

Amendment 438EA seeks to impose an annual reporting duty on the 43 forces to report meetings with religious leaders and faith communities. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to others who mentioned it—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox and Lady Foster, have talked around these issues—that the impact of what happened in Birmingham resulted in the chief constable of the West Midlands losing his post and it will result in an examination of the practices around that.

However, if we take the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at face value, I am not convinced that such a requirement would improve policing outcomes or community safety. Publishing who met who, when and how, could potentially deter some of the candid dialogue that is sometimes needed behind the scenes to ensure that community cohesion is taken into account. I also do not wish to expose sensitive protective security or safeguarding interactions with places of worship. There may even be some faith communities that do not wish to be seen in their community to be engaging with the police. It is possible, but I want to still encourage the police and those faith community leaders to have meetings. If that engagement is catalogued and publicised, it could undermine some of the problem-solving partnerships that I know the noble Lord wishes to foster.

Amendment 438F proposes including non-violent extremism in scope of the youth diversion order, which we will come on to in due course in Clause 167. That clause reflects the intended scope of that order, which seeks to implement a recommendation of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. That was a very specific recommendation to introduce a new diversionary civil order to better manage terrorist risk from young people. Including non-violent extremism in the scope of that potential order would go beyond the original design and intent that was suggested to the Government.

During policy development, officials have engaged with operational partners and the independent reviewer themselves. In essence, the youth diversion order is not a counterextremism tool for young people who hold divisive, extremist or hateful views but do not pose a risk. That is the key. It would not be proportionate to impose a counterterrorism risk-management tool on a young person who was simply assessed as holding extremist views. There are ways in which we can deal with that. There is the Prevent mechanism generally. There is a range of educational mechanisms that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to for ensuring that we tackle these long-term issues in a much more productive way. I say to the noble Lord that the youth diversion order would not be the specific tool for the type of activity that he seeks to discuss today with his amendment.

In addition, I say to the Committee that there is no statutory definition of or consensus on what would include extremism. This would represent a level of interference with and intrusion on the rights of young people that is not yet even available in adult cases. In practice, the amendment would increase the scope of the order and would overlap with the remit of Prevent, which is designed to deal with individuals who are moving into extremist views but have not yet reached the terrorist threshold.

The Home Office is undertaking extensive counter- extremism work in collaboration with local government departments and the Commission for Countering Extremism. On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I know from my devolved responsibilities in the department that we are discussing those issues with the devolved Administrations.

Turing to Amendment 454A, I agree that transparency is important. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has pushed for this transparency and has supported the amendment. I say this in the hope of being helpful to the Committee but, if documents such as the rapid analytical sprint on counterextremism were put into public domain, it could, for example, undermine policy development. It might impact upon the integrity of how policy is developed, because we would know that such documents were going to be put into the public domain. It would prevent disclosures, which would undermine the policymaking process, and less robust, well-considered or effective policies may well result.

However, through a range of mechanisms—this is the important point for the noble Lord and his amendment —the Home Office is accountable to Parliament for its counterterrorism policies and the rapid analytical sprint. Members here can debate, as we are now; they can table Questions, as they do; they can table Written Questions, as they do; I can appear before Select Committees, as I did at the European Affairs Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, only last week; I can be answerable for Statements; and I can be answerable in debates. Home Office Ministers can appear in private before the Intelligence and Security Committee, where a private discussion between Members of this House, Members of the Commons and Government Ministers on the conclusions can be done in a way that does not compromise security information. It is absolutely right we are held to account for that. Equally, is it absolutely right that, on some occasions, it is done behind a shielded door, where privacy can help with better policy development. Further, we have just submitted written evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into combatting new forms of extremism. My colleague Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, gave oral evidence to that committee only last week.

There are definitely ways in which we are held accountable to Parliament. However, even if we accepted Amendment 454A and published all those documents, what goes into those documents means that there is a further wall behind them, and so we would not be able to put in them the things that we wanted to.

Amendment 454B, also from the noble Lord, seeks to mandate that, within three months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must appoint a dedicated counter- extremism commissioner. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his question the other week. That aspect of policy is not my direct responsibility in the Home Office; I answer for it here, but it is not my direct responsibility, so I was not aware at that time of the status of the Commissioner for Countering Extremism. I thought my letter had helped clarify the matter, but apparently it has not.

To clarify, the previous commissioner, Robin Simcox, left in July last year. As I said in my letter to the noble Lord on 9 January:

“We are currently reviewing the roles and remits of various bodies to ensure our resources are best placed to meet current challenges”.


That means that we are looking at a number of arm’s-length bodies, for which I have overall responsibility, to see whether we need them, whether we can rationalise them and whether we can make cost savings in them. The Commissioner for Countering Extremism is subject to that review. The Home Office has been asked by the Cabinet Office to do that as part of a Cabinet Office-led arm’s length bodies review. We are looking at the roles and remits of various bodies. I do not think that I have spent a single year of my now 30 years in either House without somebody asking why we are not reducing the number of quangos that are operational in departments. That is what the Cabinet Office is trying to do; we are looking at the arm’s-length bodies that we have. That is a general demand, and not to say that I know what the outcome of that review is going to be.

If Amendment 454B, from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, was passed, it would mean that we would have to appoint a dedicated counterextremism commissioner. We may well do that, or we may not, but these issues are under review. I welcome the work that Robin Simcox has done. I cannot accept this amendment, given that we are still working through the outcome of the review.

I have tried to answer each of the amendments in turn. I am sorry that, in answering them, I cannot accept any of them. However, I hope that I have given legitimate answers as to why we are where we are. I hope that the noble Lord can reflect on those and, in due course, withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

439: Clause 167, page 205, line 27, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offence within paragraph (a),(c) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (England and Wales and Northern Ireland: encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to an offence within paragraph (a),(d) an offence under the law of Scotland of inciting the commission of an offence within paragraph (a), or(e) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence within paragraph (a).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change (aligning the approach taken in relation to inchoate offences with that taken in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11).

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 439 and 446 in my name are technical in nature and provide changes to the provisions concerning the youth diversion orders.

Government Amendment 439 relates to the definition of ancillary offences in Clause 167(3). Clause 167(1) provides that a court may make a youth diversion order if satisfied, among other things, that the respondent has committed a terrorism offence. The definition of “terrorism offence” includes ancillary offences such as aiding or abetting the commission of an offence. This technical amendment ensures that the definition of an ancillary offence operates as it should—I know that the noble Lord will appreciate this—in the context of the Scottish legal system and also aligns the drafting of the legislation with that in Schedule 11 to the Bill for consistency.

Government Amendment 446 relates to Clause 182(2). This disapplies the six-month time limit for a complaint to a magistrates’ court in England and Wales so that an application for a youth diversion order may be made at a later date where necessary. The amendment similarly disapplies the six-month time limit in Northern Ireland. I know that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, also has two amendments in this group. I will respond to those after hearing his representations. I beg to move government Amendment 439.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 440 and 445. Amendment 440 would require the respondent to receive citizenship education in British values, and Amendment 445 sets out what those values are. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has also added his name to these amendments. He very much regrets that he is unable to speak this evening due to a commitment chairing a police commission that he is not able to change.

I will make two preliminary points to avoid misunderstandings. First, these amendments are not about personal values or lifestyles. They are about the fundamental political values on which our whole society is founded. Secondly, these values are not a kind of innovation in our law; they already have to be taught in our schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation given of the Government’s amendments.

We recognise the principle that underpins Amendments 440 and 445 tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. Youth diversion orders are intended not simply to punish but to steer young people away from future offending and towards constructive participation in society. The idea that citizen education might play a role in that process is an interesting one. However, we feel that a number of practical and conceptual questions arise from those amendments.

First is the issue of delivery. Citizenship education of the kind envisaged here would require properly trained providers, appropriate materials, sufficient time, et cetera, to have any meaningful impact, and we should be cautious about placing new statutory requirements on the Secretary of State without a clear sense of how they would work on the ground or whether they would be consistently available across different areas.

Secondly, the amendment sets out a detailed definition of British values—or, as the amendment would have it, “values of British citizenship”—built around five specified pillars further defined within the amendment. The noble and right reverend Lord mentioned the Prevent strategy of 2011, which set out four basic values, as a matter of government policy rather than in legislation. I think we all recognise the importance of democracy, the rule of law, freedom and equal respect, but it is fair to ask whether we should enshrine those in legislation and, further, whether this is the right place to attempt such a definition, particularly in the context of youth diversion. Plainly, there may be disagreements about what might be included, as we have heard, how these concepts should be framed and whether a fixed statutory list risks being either too narrow or too prescriptive.

More broadly, we should also consider whether youth diversion orders are the most appropriate vehicle for this kind of civic education or whether those objectives are better pursued through schools, families or community-based interventions that can engage young people in a more sustained and holistic way. But I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for the arguments he made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, with his Amendments 440 and 445 has commenced a wider debate on the provisions of youth diversion orders. Through the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have had a wider discussion about the purpose of these orders, a point also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

The requirements that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has tried to seek for the Committee to add would require, as part of the youth diversion order, the Secretary of State to design a package of citizenship education that can be imposed on a mandatory basis. I recognise that there is a positive intention in that, and I do not mean to argue against that positive intention, but I point the Committee to Clause 169(1)(a) and (b). There is no exhaustive list of requirements and restrictions that can be imposed through the youth diversion order. Clause 169(1)(b) says a youth diversion order may

“require the respondent to do anything described in the order”.

So the order can include a range of measures. Although later on there is a list of potential activities under Clause 169(3), it is also intended that the order is flexible so that the court can impose any requirement or restriction that is considered necessary for mitigating a risk of terrorism or serious harm. There is no restriction on imposing any type of educational requirements on a respondent, provided that they are necessary and proportionate for mitigating the risk.

I come back to the purpose of the order, which is to look at individuals who are not yet at a significantly high threshold to look at how, with police and youth justice services, we can offer interventions on a voluntary basis rather than potentially also as a mandatory requirement. I understand the intention of the amendments, but, again, I take what the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has mentioned: there is no definition of the element that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is trying to bring into play.

I argue that a youth diversion order seeks to reduce terrorist risk and actively diverts respondents away from further contact with the criminal justice system but is not as specific or restrictive as the noble and right reverend Lord seeks in his amendment. Police and youth justice services may seek to provide supportive interventions on a voluntary basis, and that could include education. It may well include some wider education about the importance of Britishness or personal development programmes. However, as I have said, supportive interventions may also be imposed on a mandatory basis if the court agrees that is necessary for the purposes of protecting the public. That could be, for example, mandating to attend appointments such as those offered through Prevent, including ideological or practical mentoring. The point that I come back to with the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendments is that they would add a level of prescription that I would not wish to see in relation to the potential court’s activity.

A number of noble Lords asked whether the Government intend to pilot youth diversion orders. The answer is no, not at this moment. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will look at having it as an order that is available to the courts and would have the sole purpose, under Clause 169, of prohibiting the respondent from doing anything described in the order or requiring them to do anything described in the order. That could include the very points that the noble and right reverend Lord has brought forward, but I do not wish to restrict the process by being too prescriptive in Clause 169.

With those comments, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I ask the noble and right reverend Lord to reflect on the points that I have made and, I hope, not move his amendment.

Amendment 439 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

441: Clause 169, page 207, line 19, at end insert—
“(da) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendments to this clause, provide that a youth diversion order may include conditions relating to the inspection of an online account accessed by means of an electronic communication device the use of which is restricted under the order.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

446: Clause 182, page 216, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The following do not apply to a complaint under this Chapter—(a) section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for complaints etc);(b) Article 78(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26)) (time limit for complaints).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the time limit for applications to a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland (as well as in England and Wales).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a vigorous and wide-ranging debate, dealing with very difficult questions. I thank my noble friend Lord Hailsham for his amendments. Regretfully and unfortunately, I have to disappoint him by stating that I cannot support them because I believe they would significantly weaken the effectiveness of our counterterrorism legislative framework at a time when the threat we face is persistent and evolving. In the words of my noble friend Lord Goodman, there is a darkening context.

The amendments would insert an intent requirement, where Parliament has deliberately chosen not to do so. Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 created offences that were crafted to disrupt terrorism at an early stage to prevent radicalisation and normalisation, and to give practical assistance long before violence is carried out. That preventive purpose would be undermined if the prosecution were required, in every case, to prove a specific intent to encourage or to enable a terrorist act.

It is also important to be clear that the current law already contains safeguards, especially in the court process. Prosecutorial discretion, a public interest test and judicial oversight all ensure that these offences are not applied casually or indiscriminately. I entirely accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that these must be applied consistently. The suggestion that individuals are routinely prosecuted and tried without regard to context or fairness is not borne out.

On a different note, I support Amendment 450 from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. The glorification of terrorism, in all cases, is abhorrent. We have seen such glorification, from certain quarters, of the IRA and Hamas, which serves only to normalise such atrocities. I simply cannot add to the power of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and indeed by other noble Lords who spoke in favour of her amendment, which I simply cannot add more to, except to say that I support it and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, beginning with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

Proscription is one of the most powerful counterterrorism tools that we have. The UK’s proscription regime was established through the Terrorism Act 2000, which noble Lords are aware of, and there is a statutory process for it. Under that Act, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned with terrorism. An organisation may be concerned with terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Decisions to proscribe an organisation are not taken on a whim; they are taken on advice from the security services and significant intervention from Home Office officials to examine the case. They are not taken lightly. They are ideologically neutral. They judge an organisation on its actions and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause.

I say neutrally that Palestine Action was deemed to be over the threshold of the 2000 Act and, on advice to the Home Secretary, to be an organisation concerned with terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed—this House and the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported that proscription—it is an offence to be a member of it, to invite support for it, to make supportive statements, to encourage others to join or support it, to arrange or address meetings to support it in furthering its activities, and to display, carry or wear articles in a way that would arouse suspicion that one is a member or supporter of it.

Amendments 447 and 448 from the noble Viscount would apply to the offences concerning support and the display of articles under Sections 12 and 13. For the same reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has given, these amendments would ultimately limit these important offences in such a way that they would become largely unusable in practice. I do not believe that that is his intention, but that would be the practical outcome. In relation to the offence of inviting support, it is already established that the offence requires a knowing, deliberate invitation to support. The changes proposed in the amendment would mean an additional burden for the prosecution to overcome.

I have heard comments, including from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that belief in or support for Palestine Action should not cross that threshold. Amendment 447 would import a further mental element, requiring intention. That goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that it is at odds with the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person intended to encourage, incite, facilitate or otherwise an act of terrorism. To provide a defence similar to the effect for the prosecution to disprove would again undermine the core element of the offence.

Section 13 is currently a strict liability offence, meaning that there is no requirement to evidence the intent behind the conduct, again as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, mentioned. It is important that we say to the Committee that free speech is important. The right to criticise the State of Israel and to support Palestine is important. It is also quite right that, if people wish to say that they do not wish to see Palestine Action proscribed, that is also within the legal framework. It is a matter for the police, who are operationally independent, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to decide whether a crime has been committed. In particular, the CPS will want to consider, in charging an individual as opposed to arresting them, whether the prosecution is in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is a vital safeguard that prevents prosecutions from going ahead which are not in the public interest.

I have previously defended in this House the proscription of Palestine Action. The decision was not taken lightly. The police and the CPS have independent action, but I suggest that the noble Viscount’s amendment would, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, undermine the purpose of that. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, that those actions have been taken for a purpose. The threshold has been crossed and I suspect that, for those concerned with Palestine Action, more information will come to light as potential future prosecutions continue, which I think will show why those decisions were taken. We have a court case ongoing at the moment. I put that to one side, but that is my defence in relation to the noble Viscount’s proposals.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but very interesting debate. Amendments 449 and 454 concern the important and sensitive process by which organisations are proscribed under the 2000 Act.

Amendment 449 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham raises a legitimate question about parliamentary involvement and scrutiny in the proscription process. As we have heard, the ISC has deep expertise, access to classified material and a well-established role in scrutinising national security matters. There is therefore an understandable attraction in ensuring that it has sight of and can report on the reasons for a proposed proscription before an order is made, except in cases of genuine urgency.

It may be, though, that the ISC would be receiving the same advice on issues of proscription from the same organisations, be they the police or the security services, as the Government, so there might be an issue of duplication. It is also important to recognise that proscription decisions often need to be taken swiftly in response to fast-moving threats. The Executive have to retain the operational flexibility to act decisively to protect public safety. I accept that the amendment recognises this through its “urgency” exception, but we need to consider very carefully where the balance should lie between enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and the need for speed and discretion in matters of national security. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on whether the existing framework already strikes the right balance. If there is scope for a greater formal role for the ISC, that cannot impede operational effectiveness.

Amendment 454, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, addresses another important aspect of the proscription regime. As we have heard, it would require each proscription order to relate to a single organisation only. It seeks to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I can understand the argument presented, as usual, so eloquently by the noble Baroness, but I also recognise that these are ultimately matters for the Executive and not the legislature. I await with anticipation the views of the Minister on both amendments.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for tabling Amendment 449 and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling Amendment 454. I will try to answer the points raised on both those amendments.

The amendment from the noble Viscount would require engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee in advance of proscription orders being made. As somebody who served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for five years, I know that it is a trustworthy vehicle which does not leak, and which deals with security service issues from both Houses in a responsible manner. In the light of that, the noble Viscount will be aware that my right honourable friend the Security Minister, following the Palestine Action discussion we had, has written to the Intelligence and Security Committee and expressed his intention to write to the committee ahead of future proscription orders being laid in Parliament and, if the committee wishes it, to give a privileged briefing on the reasons why the proscription is being laid so that the committee can, in confidence, have that detailed information before it. I think that meets the objectives of the noble Viscount’s amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. That is indeed a good step forward but it falls slightly short, in that I do not think he is telling your Lordships’ Committee that the committee will be making a report to Parliament.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The time gap between informing and debate would be for the Security Minister to determine. In most cases, I would expect—without wanting to put a burden on my noble friend Lord Beamish as the chair of the committee—that the chair would probably want to contribute to that debate and would be able to inform the House if they felt there were issues they wished to draw to the attention of the House. Although my noble friend Lord Beamish is the chair who sits in this House, there will be a senior Member from the House of Commons who would also be able to answer to the Commons on any issue. So the noble Viscount is right, but the spirit of his amendment is met—though obviously that is for him to make a judgment on.

Amendment 454 had support across the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked for proscription orders to include one single organisation at a time. Historically, proscription orders have come in groups on many occasions. At the beginning of 2001, some 20 groups were proscribed in one order that took effect under the first statutory instrument made under that order. Four more organisations were proscribed on 1 November 2002, 15 were prescribed on 14 October 2005, and so on. In the interests of parliamentary time and the speed and flexibility needed to put those orders down, that was the case then and it was the case when we tabled the order with three organisations in June and July last year in this House and, at the same time, in the House of Commons. Security issues sometimes require a speedy response, and those issues were dealt with in that way for that reason.

I will give my noble friend one more reason, which she may want to reflect on. There is a threshold for proscription under the 2000 Act. Whether noble Lords like it or not, the decision of the Government was that the three organisations bundled together in the debate in July of last year had all met that threshold. I was available, as was the Security Minister in the House of Commons, to answer questions about each and all those organisations. The advice from the security services and officials, and ministerial examination and judgment of that advice, was that all those organisations crossed the threshold. Individuals might have wanted to vote against each one individually, but if they had, they would have been voting against exactly the same principle in each case—that the organisation had crossed the threshold.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister as always for his patience, fortitude and engagement but, with respect, the historical precedent does not answer the constitutional question: would it not be better for Parliament to have an up-and-down vote? Given that Parliament has already decided that it has a role in approving these proscriptions, would it not be a more meaningful approval if it was one organisation per order? Multiple orders can be drafted and signed on the same day. I say this having worked as a Home Office lawyer, including on terrorism matters.

Finally, I say to my noble friend, who I respect so much: this is not about him and it is not about the current Home Secretary. This is about the future and about the checks and balances that noble Lords opposite spoke about so passionately.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I just say to her that the fact that there were three organisations bundled together in July last year did not stop a significant number of Members of Parliament, nor a significant number of Peers, voting against the order. They may have voted against it because they did not like Palestine Action, but I put to my noble friend again that Palestine Action had crossed exactly the same threshold as the two other organisations in that order. The judgment is not a judgment about Palestine Action. It is a judgment about the intents of Palestine Action, in line with the intents of the other two organisations in that order, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to, and which gave an explanation of their actions.

I was accountable at this Dispatch Box to say that those three organisations had crossed the threshold. Here was an order that we put together for speed and efficiency—accept my logic or do not. Both Houses accepted the logic. Some people voted against, maybe because of Palestine Action, but in voting against Palestine Action the logic was that they were voting against exactly the same tests that had been put against the other two organisations. That is the point. I give way.

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

I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, the procedure that he has described involves an executive decision that the organisations had crossed the threshold and an executive decision that they ought to be proscribed. That is not a parliamentary decision; far from it. If you are going to give Members of Parliament a meaningful vote, they have to have an opportunity to express a view on each of those proscriptions. That is the first question.

The second question is rather simpler. We have a parliamentary service of unparalleled quality. It would not be beyond the wit of that service, or generally, to devise a system of degrouping whereby, if either one or a number of MPs or Peers wanted the orders to be drawn up separately, they could be drawn up separately. If everybody was content that a bundle of 24, 15 or three orders could be dealt with together, they could be dealt with together. That would involve minimal consultation and a slight procedural adjustment, but it would involve the importation of fairness and good sense into a procedure.

Certainly, those people I know who voted against the proscription of the three had nothing against the proscription of the other two but were concerned that they were being told they had to vote against all three if they wished to argue against the proscription of the Palestine Action group. I ask the Minister to accept that that is unfair and a denial of parliamentary democracy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I give way also to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the Minister can take all the questions in one go. The threshold may be the same, but there are three separate decisions and each decision is based on different evidence. We are dealing analytically with three distinct decisions, and that is the reason why there should be three different orders.

I suspect that the historical examples to which the Minister referred—I am not certain; perhaps he can explain—were cases in which all the various organisations were in the same context, whether it was organisations related to Afghanistan, ISIS or al-Qaeda. What we had in the case of Palestine Action was the lumping together of very different organisations: a British extreme movement and two white supremacist Russian movements. They have nothing to do with each other, and the evidence is different. Does the Minister accept that, in those circumstances in particular, where we are dealing with very different decisions based on different evidence, there should be an order per organisation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Verdirame, have made fair and reasonable points. We group them for speed and efficiency, and historically they have been grouped because we want to clear a number of proscription orders at the same time. However, I put this point on the table for the Committee: if, in the light of the advice of the security services of officials, ministerial interrogation of that and, now, the added locus of the Intelligence and Security Committee having sight of and being able to be briefed on those orders, we brought three orders into one order, the threshold remains the same, and that threshold will have been crossed by those organisations. It might be that its members have a sympathy for the Palestinian cause rather than the Russian nationalist cause, but the threshold decided by ministerial jurisdiction, on advice from officials and the security services, is the same: they have crossed the threshold of the 2000 Act for a terrorist organisation. Making them separate orders would still mean that Members of both Houses would have to vote and say, “We do not accept that they have crossed the threshold”. That is a different decision.

I am conscious of time. Those points have been made. I hope I have put the Government’s case with the response I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and with my “take it or leave it” explanation of the points on disambiguation of the orders. Members can reflect on it. In the meantime, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious that the Committee wants to make progress, so I will be brief. I hope the Minister realises that we are not revolutionaries here; we are all parliamentarians. He refers to the threshold, but the truth is that Parliament never knows the detailed reasons. It is because we do not know the detailed reasons that we want to involve the ISC to a greater extent than the Minister has suggested. I would like to push him to say that there will be a report whenever possible, more than just a statement from the chairman.

As to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it is difficult to see any disadvantage to what she suggests. All in or all out is not a good way forward. The Minister talks about efficiency and speed, in his charming way. However, the truth is that we could lay three orders in one day, each with a separate object; that would be a proper way forward. That said, with your Lordships’ permission, I withdraw Amendment 449.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

452: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Prevention and investigation measures: online information(1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (terrorism prevention and investigation measures: electronic communication devices) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (4), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”. (3) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The “inspection” of a device, or an online account accessed by means of a device, includes—(a) accessing the device or the online account,(b) examining information held on the device or accessed by means of the online account, and(c) extracting such information.”.(4) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(7) An “online account” means an account by means of which information held on a service provided by means of the internet is made accessible.(8) The reference in this paragraph to “extracting” information includes reproducing it in any form.”.(5) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 to the National Security Act 2023 (prevention and investigation measures: electronic communication devices) is amended as follows.(6) In sub-paragraph (4), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the inspection of any online account accessed by means of a device;”.(7) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The “inspection” of a device, or an online account accessed by means of a device, includes—(a) accessing the device or the online account,(b) examining information held on the device or accessed by means of the online account, and(c) extracting such information.”.(8) After sub-paragraph (6)—“(7) An “online account” means an account by means of which information held on a service provided by means of the internet is made accessible.(8) The reference in this paragraph to “extracting” information includes reproducing it in any form.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a measure imposed under Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 or Schedule 7 to National Security Act 2023 may include conditions relating to the inspection of an online account accessed by means of an electronic communication device the use of which is restricted under the measure.