Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

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

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I am absolutely astonished. Until 10 minutes ago, I had no idea that these provisions existed—that a constable without suspicion could seize a person’s devices, interrogate their data and hold on to them more or less indefinitely. Could somebody, perhaps a Minister, tell me in what circumstances suspicionless search like this is justified?

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I find it hard to comprehend any reason why anybody on the Labour Benches could possibly contemplate not voting for these amendments. On Amendment 273, if the argument is, “Oh, leave it with us”, that is not convincing. The Labour Party has some problems with young women voters and problems with women voters; it has problems with all voters actually at the moment. There has to be more than “Leave it with us” as a response.

I say to male Labour Party members—I am speaking to the Labour Party, but I want to emphasise the point —that I have no intention of going back to my daughters and granddaughters without this, or something equivalent or better, going through. If the Labour Party thinks that it can stop that, it is a moment of some crisis.

That is not necessarily what I am hearing from the Minister’s opening remarks, but I have no intention of doing anything that would stop this, in this form or a better one, becoming law. I think I once met the Minister in her former life, but I have not had the pleasure of meeting her since she has been a Minister here. I found it refreshing that she had already made a number of—“concessions” is the wrong word—discussed and thought-through changes, having been prepared to listen. I thought that was refreshing; we are not hearing or seeing enough of Ministers who are prepared to do that. It is a weakness in all Governments in recent times, so it is very refreshing.

I hope to hear how we are going to accept these changes, because there is not a case to answer, in relation to Amendment 273, that this should be stopped. I am looking forward to a continuity of the very welcome approach, which will make my remarks totally redundant by showing that there is a new spirit emerging in how we work to get the best possible legislation that we can all be proud of.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I will add just one small point, and in doing so congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, who I regard as a friend. It is a great thing that these amendments are not gender specific, by which I mean that men have also been targeted in this way. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that what she intends would cover people of both sexes if they are the victims of this horrible exposure.

We all know how difficult it is to change something that has been said, or an image. Therefore, anything in the law that helps us to take down things that are offensive or, as the noble Lord said, disgusting, is welcome. These things very often just lodge in the mind; that is why it is so psychologically damaging to think, “Somebody has seen this and now it is so difficult to take it down”. So I completely support these amendments.

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, I also completely support these amendments, noble Lords will be unsurprised to hear. I have just a couple of points, because so many have been made very well already. I can feel the exhaustion of victims, still, in all this. The idea that you have to chase around all the different websites and service providers, and take it on trust, is just not acceptable: no way.

The Government have to be really careful when they make big announcements that get a lot of coverage like “One and done” or “A nudification tech ban is done”, which we will come on to later, because that leaves victims with a false sense of hope because, if we discover that that is not the case, that is just not good.

But obviously I want to thank the Minister for listening; that was a powerful point that was made before. I certainly will be backing these amendments.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

It is for the Government, really, to come to the House and say how we address this and defeat it, and how we can encourage the police to deal with intimidating masked thieves riding vehicles that are unregistered but have the performance of a moped or similar. It has been an interesting debate and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord Jackson, especially around people stealing mobile phones. However, when I read proposed new subsection (2), about people covering their face to stop identification, I thought that the problem about that was the same as my noble friend Lord Pannick mentioned. I used to cycle a great deal and I always wore a scarf, partly because of fumes, as he said, but because I seemed to be ingesting a vast number of insects and found this really rather objectionable, whether I had had lunch or not. For that reason, I am rather worried about this amendment.

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

My Lords, Amendment 385 is the face covering amendment, in which I note that motorcyclists strangely are not covered but scooter riders are. I am not sure I see the need for a new general stand-alone police power to require someone to stop, and I see real dangers in requiring someone to remove a face covering.

The police already have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, a discretionary power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require any motorist or anybody propelling a mechanical vehicle or a cycle to stop—and a mechanical vehicle would include motor scooters and motorcycles. That power is very wide. It is generally considered to be directed to enable the police to conduct traffic checks. That is perceived as part of the compact between Governments and road users: if you use the roads, the corollary is that police officers can require you to stop as part of performing their function of regulating the traffic. An extra power to stop is entirely unnecessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has rightly drawn attention to the specific case of mobile phone theft, reckless riding, riding on the pavements and so forth, but his amendment does not refer to the need for a reasonable suspicion that anyone required to remove a face covering is committing a crime. It seems to me that that was the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and ought to be an essential part of any new offence. As has been pointed out inventively, lots of people wear face coverings on cycles or scooters. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the need to keep warm, and others referred to the need to avoid fumes.

In terms of wearing helmets which conceal identity, there is the safety aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, considered the avoidance of germs, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, had additional and inventive reasons for wearing face coverings, including the avoidance of ingesting insects. However, the serious point is that there can be dangers and there can be fear caused by people nefariously covering their faces. If there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, then that may be a reason for taking action. Without that, this amendment is hopeless. For my part, I am not happy when delivery drivers call at people’s homes completely covered up, because you never know whether their purposes are honest or not. At least a home owner can refuse ingress, but I would not support a general power to prevent people from wearing face coverings or a power to stop that was specifically directed at that.

On Amendment 386, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, it may have surprised some of us that police officers do not have a power to ensure that keys are taken out of ignitions, and that this amendment was directed at keyless or driverless cars. I should have thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it was sensible for police officers to ask people to get out of cars if they think that the cars that they have already stopped under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act ought to be vacated in the interests of public safety and the avoidance of crime. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that sometimes it is sensible not to get them to get out of the car if they look particularly big or threatening; nevertheless, I see the reason for this amendment, but I would have thought it goes wider than driverless or keyless cars.

As to Amendment 387A from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I suspect that the whole House has a great deal of sympathy with her speech about organised criminal networks and driving unacceptable businesses from our streets, villages and towns—she even covered the quiet lanes in our villages—but her amendment, on which I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not directed to anything that would necessarily achieve a great deal in respect of driving that kind of illegitimate or non-tax-paying business from our streets. The amendment is limited to extending the existing periods of closure notices and closure orders. For my part, before that amendment could be approved, I would want to see serious evidence that it would have some impact on these offences. I would also like to hear the Government’s view. At the moment, there is very little evidence as to why the existing periods for closure notices and closure orders are insufficient.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I rise again to support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as I did the other day. It says on her Wikipedia page that she is

“an advocate for children’s rights in the digital world”.

She is right, and I hope that all Members across the House who have actually heard the debate will support her in the Lobby.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, many noble Lords who have spoken today also spoke quite vehemently about the dangers of the theft of copyright in AI. We were asking to shut the stable door before the horse bolted. Today we heard from the Government, and it is very welcome news that they are looking again at the theft of copyright and seeing if they can protect artists, musicians and writers still further. I say once again, let us move with my noble friend’s amendment before the horse bolts and let us shut the stable door now.