Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Walney]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 311.”

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government directed their Members in the Commons to vote down Amendment 311, which would have created a limited power for the Government to designate as an extreme criminal protest group organisations that attempt to influence public policy through a limited number of offences, including criminal damage, without labelling them as terrorists or criminalising simple expressions of support, such as holding up signs.

I am grateful for the time that the Minister has taken to meet me directly on this matter on a number of occasions, as he said. He has characterised the Government’s objections in two areas. The first is the observations made by the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, which were published on 31 March and the second is the review of public order legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which he assures me is due to report shortly.

I shall deal with both those issues briefly. Jonathan Hall makes important points that we should all reflect on. He summarises his objections as: first, that the power potentially overlaps with terrorism proscription, but the relationship is unclear; secondly, that the existence of the new power will be used to undermine terrorist proscription; and, thirdly, that it is doubtful whether new offences are suitable for groups operating below the national security threshold. I shall take these three objections in turn.

On the first point, if that is a genuine concern to the point that the Government believe that there is genuine potential for a proscribed group to be able legally to contest the proportionality of a full terrorism proscription because of the existence of a lower form of designation, then it is surely within the Government’s power to insist that the one does not preclude the other. That is a safeguard that could be put into legislation that the Government bring forward.

On the second point—the idea that this will be used to undermine terrorist proscription—it is important to make the point that we are dealing with a narrow and quite unusual form of proscription here that uses the part of the definition of terrorism that relates to economic damage. A group that is to be designated as terrorist because it used violent methods to target individuals or groups to kill has never been under the scope of this extreme criminal protest group designation. We are dealing with the relatively narrow issue of a group that uses methods such as Palestine Action has used, where there has been a level of violence that the Government have asserted as part of its proscription, but it is undoubted that the main part of what it has done has been intimidation and attempts to influence public policy through criminal damage. Jonathan Hall suggests that, if you move the goalposts, these groups would find new ways to break the law proportionately; even if that were not holding up signs, they would find a new way to do that. That is, of course, a possibility. We could never devise legislation that could guarantee against people performatively trying to clog up the court system in the way that is happening at the moment with the Palestine Action protesters. The key point here is that, while there will always be a hard core of people who are determined to contest this, what has made Palestine Action’s terrorist proscription so controversial is not that people agree with what it is doing but the fact of labelling it as terrorism.

I agreed with the proscription of Palestine Action, which I know is not universal in the House. I hope that the Government’s appeal against the High Court judgment is successful. Nevertheless, it cannot be seen as good public policy and it cannot be seen that this framework is working if the Government took five years to reach the judgment that the sustained campaign of criminal damage and vandalism that was carried out by Palestine Action reached the terrorism threshold. This measure would enable faster action to deal with that. I know that the Minister will not say that the Government would be deterred from designating another group that eventually reached the terrorism threshold primarily through criminal damage. They will not admit that, but I suggest that they would be highly wary of repeating this with the next Palestine Action group because of the level of controversy that this has generated. Therefore, there is a gap in the legislative framework that is not being filled.

That leads to the third point, where Jonathan Hall says that he contests whether the powers are appropriate, given that they are relatively severe. They are significantly less severe than terrorist proscription but still relatively severe. I respectfully disagree with him on that point. I hope that he, and the Government, will reflect, given the nature and severity of the problem of extreme protest groups using criminal damage in a systematic way, which is causing huge amounts of economic damage and damage to the public realm.

That ties into the second of the Government’s objections, which is, as the Minister has stated a number of times and again today, my noble friend Lord Macdonald’s upcoming review. We are all looking forward to that, and I hope that I am able to persuade my noble friend Lord Macdonald of the merits of this, but the fact is that the Government have acted ahead of this review in other areas and could do so now. There is a need to do so now, rather than to wait for when the next legislative opportunity comes along, which may be years down the track.

There is a growing epidemic of these tactics being used to frighten the public and try to deter businesses from carrying out legitimate, lawful activity. I had a meeting with a major insurance supplier yesterday, which does not want at this point to be public because of the fear of further reprisals. It spelled out that because of being tangential—at one, two or three removes from—to a defence company that may have some relationship with Israel’s conflict in Gaza, though that is highly debatable, it is repeatedly attacked. Its windows are being smashed, red paint is being daubed over its offices and its employees are frightened to go to work. It is spending literally millions of pounds per year on preventive measures and the clean-up operations. That is one single insurer, and this is spreading. It is completely unacceptable that the defence industry is being subjected to this, but it is spreading far beyond the defence industry into the insurance and financial sectors, and other sectors.

The framework we have is not adequate to deal with this. It would not be disproportionate to put in place this limited measure to be able to restrict the activities of such organisations and send a message of greater deterrence, to protect businesses, workers and the public from this sustained intimidation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, Motion S1 is in my name. On Report, your Lordships supported Amendment 342 for one overriding reason: to make sure that the tragic failures of the past are not built into future law.

Three days ago, the Fulford report into the Southport tragedy was published. I had hoped that it might lead to a change of heart by the Government, but, regrettably, it has not. Fulford’s findings are stark: the tragedy was not caused by a lack of powers but by systemic failure. Risk information was mishandled, lost or watered down as it passed between agencies. No one was responsible for pulling the full picture together. Referrals went unanswered. Officers often acted without knowing what help or interventions were available, and some decisions were taken outside the bounds of what could reasonably be expected because the system had failed them.

These failures cost lives. Fulford makes it clear that, unless the way agencies share and account for risk is strengthened, such failures will happen again. These were not one-off mistakes; they were the result of weak information management and an absence of co-ordinated leadership. The danger was not properly recognised because no one joined up the information and acted upon it. That is precisely the gap which my amendment is designed to close.

The Government tell us that this should be left to guidance. They say that a statutory duty for multi-agency consultation would make the law too rigid and prevent judges exercising discretion. Surely that gets things the wrong way round. Judges can use their discretion properly only if they have had all the relevant information before them. A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the police have a duty to consult, and they do, but that duty is narrow. It is limited to the youth offending team. It leaves out the schools, health professionals and social services who often know the child best. Amendment S1 would not reduce discretion; it would support informed decision-making and, as a result, better public protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, my understanding of the Companion is that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is correct in what he said: if it wishes, the House can set aside the Companion and hear from a noble Lord, but in that case a Motion has to be put and voted upon.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I do not know whether this is helpful in any way—probably not—but as the proposer of the Motion, I really would appreciate hearing what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has to say on it.

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

My Lords, on that basis, unless I am stopped, I will speak briefly.

On the first Motion I was going to address, that of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, we have a great deal of sympathy for his proposal. Indeed, we would go so far as to say that it seems like a good idea. Its principal appeal is that it would permit a step falling short of proscription of an organisation, which would not involve anyone peacefully expressing support for that organisation at a demonstration or a protest being arrested, charged and possibly convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act. In that, I fully agree with the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, does not intend to press his Motion to a vote, and we on these Benches think he is right in that because our reservations remain. We abstained on Report, and our principal reason for doing so was that the amendment leaves in place the present law on proscription and does not oblige the Government to make a designation of a group as an extreme criminal protest group where the existing threshold for proscription is met, so we would be left with the position that the Government would have two alternative designations as options: one with consequences that we consider to be undesirable, far too severe and damaging; and the other with far less serious consequences. We think that risks introducing an element of muddle and a lack of clarity into this very difficult but important area of the law. It is important for civil liberties and the rights of the citizen, and important for the control of terrorism and of public criminal behaviour more generally.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, we await the decision of the Court of Appeal and any possible appeal to the Supreme Court on the proscription of Palestine Action, and we also await the review of public order law by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. We are not persuaded that it would be sensible now to introduce a compromise that would address a very real difficulty with the Terrorism Act as it stands but would leave the law uncertain. It is better by far, we suggest, to wait and trust that a more comprehensive and credible solution to the difficulties presented by the present law can be found that does not involve leaving the law unamended and available on proscription alongside an alternative system introduced as a partial answer only to the weaknesses of the law as it stands. We applaud the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for the work he has done on this and we think he has a sensible way forward, but it needs further work and we agree that it should not be pressed at this stage.

On Motion S1, I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend Lady Doocey, except that these Benches are fully behind everything she said in approving of her Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the discussion we have had to date on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks—for those who heard them, at least—the Government cannot accept Amendment 311 as drafted. I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on these issues, but as I have set out to the House already, and as I set out to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in particular, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing proscription regime. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also recognised that, and I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this was the position. With the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, coming forward, it is right that this amendment not be accepted today. I particularly welcome the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, of that. That is not to undermine the arguments he has made, but we are where we are at the moment.

On Amendment 359, I stress that both this and previous Governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for proscription. As I mentioned in my opening remarks—for those who heard them—we have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, so we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have also put them in the foreign influence registration scheme.

If I may say so, I take objection to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our not proscribing the IRGC somehow supports the Iranian regime—it does not. I will not accept that we should give a running commentary on proscription. With due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, they have not had intelligence in front of them on these issues from the intelligence services. We are making judgments as a Government, and we are not going to give a running commentary on what and when we proscribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.

I remind the House—without commenting on the IRGC in particular—that any eventual proscription order on anybody is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. I am not in a position today to give a running commentary on the possible proscription of the IRGC, nor will I accept in principle the fact that both Opposition Front Benches think it right to do so. That may be their view, but the Government have to take a view on these matters in due course. It is not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. I say that to the House as a whole.

I stress again that I understand and accept the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, put before the House today. We will make it clear in statutory guidance that authorities must consider a range of options and interventions before deciding whether to apply for a youth diversion order. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, also stressed that it was important to do so. I stress to both noble Baronesses that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency youth offending teams, which comprise health, education, probation and police services. I am happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Baroness in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work on her amendment on glorifying terrorism, and for giving her own personal experiences. It is very difficult to do that, and I understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on glorification in general. On the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned today, individuals are under arrest and in custody for the alleged offence. We should obviously allow the police to do their job and determine whether charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. None the less, that type of incident—whether or not the individuals under arrest are responsible—is simply not acceptable. The Government and others should stand with the community as a whole.

I was pleased to hear and welcomed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I cannot accept the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I ask—in anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement—that they be content not to press their Motions. In the meantime, I beg to move my Motion N, and I hope the House will agree to it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their insight on and support for the principle behind this matter, which is that urgent action is needed. In the light of what has been said, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my Motion. In doing so, I will leave the Minister with two thoughts.

First, this will not go away. I hope the Minister will take away the urgent need to deal with this matter and bring forward a solution—this debate has shown that that is possible—in order to address the concerns set out in this Chamber and outside it. Secondly, I hope he will agree to meet with me and others to look in the meantime at an array of protections for the affected businesses, in advance of any legislative change. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion NI withdrawn.