Arrangement of Business
Announcement
16:15
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon and welcome to three debates on three statutory instruments. I welcome the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, to her place for what I believe is her first appearance in Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes, but I am glad to say that is highly unlikely. We can therefore proceed accordingly.
Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025
Considered in Grand Committee
16:37
Moved by
16:45
17:00
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised a number of concerns, including whether UEFA would have concerns about the independence of the independent regulator. David Kogan has repeatedly assured the Select Committee and given his assurances in recent Times articles. I know that he has spoken to a number of noble Lords from across the House, and they should be assured that he will be, and is truly committed to being, independent.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, revisited a number of issues that were raised during the debate on the UQ in your Lordships’ House yesterday. It was discussed at length in the House only yesterday and in the other place last week. I do not have a lot further to add, beyond reiterating that it is clear that David Kogan is the outstanding candidate for this role. He has a wealth of expertise from the sport and media industries, having worked across a number of high-profile governing bodies, competition organisers and major media corporations. The plight of clubs, including Sheffield Wednesday, shows why the Government were right to establish the IFR, and it is beyond time that we let the IFR get on with the job, with David Kogan as chair.
On the noble Lord’s continued pursuance of the Prime Minister’s role—or lack of a role—in the chair’s appointment, where an appointment is inextricably linked to the Government’s priorities, of course No. 10 is engaged and updated throughout the appointment process. The process here was no different and follows a precedent set by successive Administrations. The Football Governance Act 2025 is explicit that the IFR chair decision is for DCMS Ministers. The PM made it clear in his letter to the independent adviser that he knew the decision was for the Secretary of State to take, and he replied on the basis that this decision was taken. He also made it clear that, in retrospect, it would have been better if he had not been given the note or confirmed he was content with the appointment. The ethics adviser has welcomed the transparency the PM has demonstrated in this.
The regulator is now fully established as an independent body. It is continuing to consult the industry on its rules and work with relevant stakeholders, so that everyone understands the new requirements. For too long, fans have had to suffer seeing their football clubs mismanaged and their views disregarded. This Government are taking decisive action to protect and preserve our national game.
Motion agreed.
Crime and Policing Bill
Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025
Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (19 Nov 2025)
Wednesday 19th November 2025
(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (19 Nov 2025)
Committee (3rd Day)
Northern Ireland legislative consent granted, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Constitution Committee, 33rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
15:51
Clause 28: Maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons
Amendment 57
Moved by
16:00
Amendment 57 agreed.
16:15
Amendments 58 to 70
Moved by
Amendments 58 to 70 agreed.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed.
Clause 31: Remote sales of knives etc
Amendments 71 to 74 not moved.
Clause 31 agreed.
Amendment 75 not moved.
Amendment 76 not moved.
Amendments 77 to 121 not moved.
Clause 32 agreed.
Amendment 122
Moved by
16:30
I am certain I said then that these new powers would make a huge difference in reducing knife crime, and every Labour and Conservative Government since then have said the same thing as we constantly try to close this stable door, since the bad guys can move faster than we can. We had never heard of zombie knives 20 years ago and, apart from the horrendous murder of PC Blakelock at Broadwater Farm in 1985, machete attacks were rare, not ubiquitous as they are now.
In the Bill, we are trying to crack down on online sales, and I totally support that, but we need to have a good, hard look at how we can slow down and bend the curve on knife crime. I have some pretty tough amendments to follow in another group, relating to machetes, because we have to hit really hard those who attack in the streets using machetes or zombie knives. However, without a concerted effort by lawful authorities, we will not succeed in bending the curve.
When I recently bought a new paring knife, it was wrapped in tough, bulletproof plastic and required one of my trusty old Stanley knives to open it. The girl at the checkout summoned a supervisor before she would sell it to me. I had initially thought that it was because I looked under 18, but it was to check whether the girl had the authority to sell it. I must say to the noble Lord, I am amateur cook: try using a paring knife to cut a Savoy cabbage or a lettuce, or to strip chicken meat off the bone.
No matter what restrictions we impose, the bad guys will find ways around them. They will get their hands on kitchen knives, or seven or nine-inch blades. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is right that a round-ended, blunt-ended knife will not cut through clothing, but it will not cut through an avocado, either. We would be trying to impose unnecessary restrictions, as my noble friend said from the Front Bench. It is too excessive.
In the year ending March 2024, there were around 50,000 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police in England and Wales. Police operations and amnesties regularly remove thousands of knives from the streets. In 2006, an amnesty collected 90,000 knives and, a couple of years ago, 60,000 knives were collected from the streets of England and Wales. However, it is estimated that there are 400,000 kitchen knives in circulation. They would not be handed in in any amnesty if the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, went through—and I bet none of those 400,000 knives is like my paring knife.
This is no criticism whatever of the current Government, nor past ones I served in or supported; none of us has the answer to knife crime. Yes, we are tightening things up in the Bill, as we have done in every other Bill since I have been in Parliament over the last 40 years, but we still do not have the answer. Therefore, there might be some merit in some sort of review. We might not get the answers we want, but at least we might be asking the right questions.
16:45
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to make it a requirement to report those in real time or as soon as is reasonably practical. Clause 36 already provides that regulations will be made to specify how and when reports should be made and what the details of those reports should be—including the detail of regulation to allow future changes of reporting requirements through secondary legislation. We are working very closely with the police to ensure that the regulations set out appropriate information and that all reporting systems are ready as soon as possible. We continue to work with stakeholders, including the police, to develop those regulations to ensure that their reports are received within appropriate timescales.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the reports have to be of value to the police in preventing knife crime and therefore need to be received and actioned in a timely manner. There is little benefit if the reports are made days or weeks after the remote sale has taken place. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot commit today to the formula of the timelines of the report because we need to consult the police and others. The points that he has raised today are well made. I will take them into account when we examine those regulations again. I hope that the regulations and the comments that I have made today are helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned improved data collection. She is right that improved data collection was a recommendation of Commander Clayman in his end-to-end review of online knife sales. We have implemented the majority and most pressing of the review’s recommendations under Ronan’s law, which includes measures such as stricter rules for online sellers. We are also considering the other recommendations in the review. I will be able to return to those, I hope, at some point in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also raised the valid question of what happens about knives imported from outside the United Kingdom. Products from overseas sellers will be subject to the same age checks on delivery if they are marked as containing a knife, as part of the verification checks that are in the legislation. I refer her to page 43 of the Bill. There she will see in new Section 42A, “Delivery of bladed articles sold by non-UK seller to premises: England and Wales”, a number of issues which will cover, I hope to her satisfaction, the issue of imported knives. If she can look at those at her leisure, there will be opportunities to test them again on Report if she feels unhappy about them.
These issues in relation to knives are extremely important. I say finally to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we are actively exploring options to strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, particularly in relation to the pointed ends of knives. That will form part of the discussions that we have. I say to both noble Lords that this is a work in progress. We will consult still further. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 122 withdrawn.
Amendment 123 not moved.
Clause 32 agreed.
Clause 33: Remote sale and letting of crossbows
Amendments 124 to 131 not moved.
Amendments 132 and 133 not moved.
Clause 33 agreed.
Clause 34: Delivery of crossbows
Amendments 134 to 182 not moved.
Clause 34 agreed.
Clause 35: Sale and delivery of crossbows: supplementary provision
Amendments 183 to 189 not moved.
Clause 35 agreed.
Amendments 190 not moved.
Amendment 191 not moved.
Amendment 192 not moved.
Clause 36: Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales
Amendment 193
Moved by
Amendment 193 agreed.
Amendment 194 not moved.
Amendments 195 to 209
Moved by
Amendments 195 to 209 agreed.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed.
Amendment 210 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
Amendment 210A
Moved by
Amendment 210A agreed.
Amendment 211
Moved by
17:00
My Amendment 212 is about the removal of the prohibition of straight truncheons. My Amendment 213 would exclude agricultural tools from the curved bladed sword definition. I also think that we should review the items in sub-paragraphs 1(q) and 1(r) of the Schedule to the 1988 Act: straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheons and curved swords. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was intended to prohibit weapons of a more serious nature. As one or two of us will know, the bobbies’ truncheon of “Heartbeat”, which we carried at the beginning of our careers, hardly passed the test of being a very dangerous weapon.
In fact, I think that, in all the time I had mine, I never used it. I threatened one or two people with it but I never hit anybody. It broke a few windows. It was not a particularly effective weapon, even at the time. In fact, they are similar to everyday objects such as baseball bats, which are often longer and can be more dangerous. In the 20 years since they were included in the Schedule, many thousands have been sold in auctions and antique venues, with no apparent appearance of them on the street. Many hundreds have even been presented by police forces to retiring officers, of which there may be at least two in this Chamber. Some notable presentations have been to Members of this House and to Queen Elizabeth II.
Batons with side handles, martial arts weapons known as tonfa and friction-lock truncheons will remain prohibited, but the law on straight truncheons does not appear to have been actively enforced for many decades. It follows that the removal of the straight truncheon from the restrictions of Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 presents no additional risk to society; we should consider providing an exemption. Someone carrying a straight-edged truncheon in public as an offensive weapon—or, indeed, a baseball bat, or even a branch pruned from a tree—could still be charged with an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which says that, as some of us remember, anything that is made, intended or adapted to cause injury to a person can be an offensive weapon. It may be made, such as a dagger, or intended, which is whatever you pick up in your hand; something can be made from a stick that has been sharpened, for example.
My Amendment 213 follows the inappropriate seizure on occasions by the police of sickles from garden sheds as being curved-blade swords, which I suggest was never the intention of the law. I believe that this item requires an exemption from the traditional tools grouping because it is used in agricultural work, conservation and, of course, gardening.
In Amendment 214, although I fully appreciate that defences for flick-knives are difficult to consider, we should all be very careful before we change anything there because they continue to be a problem. Six deaths were associated with flick-knives in the year commencing April 2023. The purpose of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 was to target the cheap, foreign flick-knives of the “Teddy boy” era. Not all of the defences in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act are appropriate to copy, but there are three sections that, over the past 65 years, have a proven track record of not giving rise to crime and have been treated with a common-sense, Lord Nelson-type approach by enforcement officers.
The first concerns an exemption for Crown forces, visiting forces and visiting emergency services. Some museums, such as the Metropolitan Police’s Crime Museum, hold flick-knives. However, the public are not allowed access, so such museums do not have an exemption to hold those knives; you might think that that is ironic, but it does make their possession illegal. That museum holds old flick-knives from notorious historic criminals, but the lack of access to the public means that they cannot afford themselves the defence that is available in law.
ROWA Clause 1(7) does not apply to them. Some of our NATO allies and our Ukrainian friends, who we train in this country, issue gravity and flick-knives for paratroopers and airmen for use in self-rescue during parachuting mishaps. They are also used in Poland, Germany and the USA, and appear in the NATO stock-numbering store system, which allows any member of the UK Armed Forces to draw them. An overseas air person on joint exercise in the UK would be at risk of being picked up and prosecuted should they have them in public or even be in possession of them.
Secondly, there is the question of the film industry, which in this country contributed about £5.6 billion to our economy in 2024. By and large, film directors want their close-up shots to be authentic in terms of the look, sound and heft of real weapons. Clearly, these must be used in secure conditions, but we allow heavy machine guns, assault rifles and similar items to be used in films made in this country under conditions of strict control. There are licensed armourers who supply such weapons for dramatic performances and films. It does not seem to me that people who are trusted with such weapons should not be trusted with weapons prohibited under ROWA. They have appeared in half a dozen Bond movies over the decades, and to remove one from the script of the next film in the franchise would seem a little odd. I cannot see that by allowing an exemption for film and performance we are doing anything more dangerous than we allow for other weapons. This is a direction in which we should feel comfortable moving.
Thirdly, the same applies to antique weapons. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 included a revision to the flick-knife definition, which had inadvertently included 18th-century and 19th-century flintlock and percussion firearms with spring-operated bayonets. These items are exempt from firearms legislation and have not been involved in acts of violence for a couple of centuries now. They should not be prohibited merely because they also have the flick-knife mechanism blade. They are not very practical street weapons of the modern era.
Many of our parents—at least in this House—were heavily involved in the Second World War. There are many items used in that war that were issued to members of the Special Forces or captured from German troops that are very properly considered collectible now. They are part of our national history, but they are not so unique that the British museums would want to end up with large collections of them. Perhaps we ought to allow these items, as we allow other weapons, to be part of collections. We allow old swords and other very dangerous weapons to be collected, so why not the weapons that we are now prohibiting under ROWA, as long as they are antiques?
I think 1945 is a convenient time to end the definition of antique, especially for the purpose of this Act. This is mostly because steel became contaminated with radioactive elements shortly thereafter, following the aerial atomic-bomb test in Japan, and in other parts of the world where tests were carried out, as well as when bombs were dropped as a weapon of war. We can distinguish old steel from new post 1945. Designs also changed a good deal after the war, and there was a long period when some countries did not produce; 1945, therefore, is a convenient cut-off point. We can tell what is pre-1945 and what is later. That is also where this intense period of history ends, when the world was at war and weapons were so prevalent. It might be sensible to allow us all to possess the memories or mementoes from the last world war and to prohibit weapons produced after it. Apart from anything else, in previous times these antique weapons have gone for a considerable price and have been viewed by enforcement officers as extremely low risk of being the cause of crime.
Those are my amendments. I turn at the end to the issue of delivering pointed items and weapons by post. One of the indirect consequences of some of the legislation passed with good intent over the past few years is that more and more restrictions have been placed on the delivery—quite properly—of these items by post, usually by courier. This means that the courier on delivery has to do far more; this Act expects more in proving age and authenticating that whoever made the order is the same person to whom the delivery is made.
This means that the courier has to spend longer there and, consequently, the couriers involved are not wanting to carry this type of weapon. Probably as important is that they do not want to carry pointed items. We are now down to only two courier companies being prepared to do this. While I am not suggesting this is an item for legislation, it might be something we collectively need to consider. If the industry that produces cookery knives cannot easily have those items delivered, that would have a significant effect, and it clearly is an unintended consequence of well-motivated legislation. I beg to move.
17:15
Amendment 211 withdrawn.
Amendments 212 to 214 not moved.
Amendment 214A
Moved by
17:30
Amendment 214A withdrawn.
Amendment 214B
Moved by
17:45
Finally, my last proposed new clause, in Amendment 214E, is a key provision, but I can be relatively brief. I have outlined some recent horrific killings with machetes and the dramatic increase in their use, leading some commentators to say that London is awash with machete attacks. Looking at the numbers, the convictions and the photos we have seen, I, unfortunately, do not think anyone can say that that is an exaggeration.
When we get a new criminal phenomenon, the only way to stop it is to hit it hard with exemplary action. I have identified the weapons which need special treatment, and I have suggested a range of high penalties for importers, manufacturers and sellers. Now we need very tough penalties for the users. I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in his place, because he can, I hope, confirm the veracity of what I am about to say.
In the 1950s and early 1960s, Glasgow was awash with violent knife crime—actually, cutthroat razors. There was a sick joke in which a razor blade-carrying thug would say to someone, “Can your mother sew? Well, stitch that,” as he slashed the other person’s throat with the razor. This was known as the “Glasgow kiss”. So, what did Scotland do? After the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which made it an offence to carry a knife in a public place, the Scottish judges got together and implemented a policy of stern sentencing to deter knife crime. A judge from the High Court of Justiciary—the Scottish equivalent of the Crown Court—Lord John Carmont was particularly known for his severe sentences, with “copping a Carmont” becoming a term for receiving a harsh penalty from him. In one instance in 1954, he sentenced eight men to a combined total of 52 years in prison for each carrying a cutthroat razor. It worked: the Scottish action killed off the epidemic of knife crime or razor crime in Scotland. I dearly hope that our judges in England will adopt this same strategy and policy, but that may be a false hope.
Therefore, in this proposed new clause, I suggest up to 10 years for anyone aged over 18 found in a public place with any of these particularly dangerous offensive weapons. There is no excuse for them, and we can assume that, if someone is carrying one of these in the street—a machete, a zombie knife or any of these things—then their purpose is for criminal intent. For 14 to 18 year-olds, I suggest up to five years in an appropriate young person’s detention centre. That may sound harsh for juveniles, but let us not look at under-18 year-olds through rose-tinted spectacles. They are now the main users of machetes, and we have to deal firmly with them too. There is no excuse to have a zombie knife anywhere in the world.
Naturally, I have built in defences for machetes used for horticultural purposes, cleavers used for meat butchery or cooking, and cutlasses used for historical purposes or as part of a museum. I appreciate, and I am very grateful, to my noble friend Lord Hailsham for tipping me off that the drafting here is not perfect and I have failed to cover legitimate uses. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say, and I hope he may work with me to improve the drafting. I have, of course, put in powers for the Secretary of State to amend the defences and issue guidance.
I make no apology for setting out in detail my new clauses since the issues I address are of crucial importance in trying a more radical approach to halt the horrific increase in machete murders and attacks.
I am almost finished, noble Lords will be delighted to hear. I conclude by acknowledging that these weapons are already covered as offensive weapons in current legislation. However, machete attacks are rising out of control. We must stop them to prevent dozens more young men from being murdered and hundreds injured. It will no longer work to just use the current laws on knives; we need to single out these weapons as especially dangerous and take exceptional punitive action to stop them, stop the attacks and stop all our youths being murdered.
18:00
18:15
That brings me to the other amendments the noble Lord has tabled. Amendments 214C to 214E seek to create a separate category of particularly dangerous weapons that would attract tougher penalties. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and indeed to the author of those amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that the Government have taken strong action in this area in the past 12 months. I have taken through measures on behalf of the Home Office—the Government have done so across the board, in the House of Commons and in this Chamber—that have implemented a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, which came into effect in September 2024, and we banned ninja swords in August this year. So there is a real measure of examining and differentiating, dare I say, the legitimate uses of certain types of offensive weapon—going to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—and banning them through legislation passed with support from the Opposition in this House and in the House of Commons.
Furthermore, new restrictions in relation to bladed articles and offensive weapons require consultation, for all the reasons that have been mentioned in the discussion today. Getting the descriptions of knives and weapons right for legislation requires consultation. I greatly enjoyed the contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on his legitimate use of certain weapons that would fall under the remit of the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Amendment 214B withdrawn.
Amendments 214C to 214E not moved.
Clause 37: Assault of retail worker
Amendment 214F
Moved by
18:30
18:45
Many of these shop workers are female and most of them are earning less than the minimum wage, ethnically diverse and working late at night and early in the morning. It must be terrifying going into work and thinking that at any stage people can just come in and clear your shelves and there is nothing you can do about it. The new offence sends out the right signal that something should be done, and we fully support it.
I understand the concerns raised and I share many of them. The proposals tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would ensure that delivery drivers received the same protection as their colleagues in the physical store, and this can only be right. We on these Benches have repeatedly urged the Government to follow the Scottish example on this and to extend the meaning of “retail worker” to cover delivery drivers, because they deserve equal protection and should not be left exposed.
Amendment 351 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, concerns extending that protection to other front-line workers. She made a powerful case for us to be careful that there are not unintended consequences from making sure that retail workers are protected and not protecting other workers who are also in customer-facing roles. I know that some workers in other sectors are concerned that creating this new offence may send the wrong message, potentially leaving those outside retail who engage directly with the public on a daily basis feeling less protected.
Have the Government carried out an assessment of the potential impact on the criminal justice system—which, as we know, is working at 98% of capacity at the moment —if a similar offence were extended to all public-facing workers, including those employed on public transport? The British Transport Police, as we all know, do a vital job preventing abuse across the transport network and protecting staff and customers alike, and the Government must ensure that they have the resources and staff required to meet that challenge.
In closing, I say that I do not disagree with anything that noble Lords have said, but we must be particularly careful that we do not just choose some people to protect while unintentionally giving the impression that we do not really care about others.
19:00
I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the general offence. She asked whether assessments had been made regarding the impact of the offences. The offences in Clause 37 of the Bill have cross-government support, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on any other aspect of the criminal justice system. We have not made a formal, published assessment of the extension of those potential offences. I visited a major supermarket last week and asked about the number of delivery drivers who had had incidences of this. They could not supply that information, so there is no expansion of assessment of the general problem in that field.
I understand the additional pressure for delivery drivers. I hope that I have clarified the points on public-facing and hospitality workers. I am grateful for the support across the House and I want to grab the opportunity of a long-standing campaign—from the people who are at the front face of retail violence—for this offence to be implemented. I am proud to stand here today and speak to that offence in Clause 37. I hope that we can settle on it, and have discussions with other colleagues around other matters outside the Committee today. I hope that, on the back of today’s discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will withdraw her amendment. The other amendments could not as yet be pushed. Between now and Report, we will have an opportunity for discussion, with the groupings that I will try to pull together with the help of my officials. I welcome, however, this long-standing campaign from USDAW, and the fact that the Freedom From Fear campaign has been successful. I hope, on that positive note, that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 214F withdrawn.
Amendment 214FA not moved.
Amendment 214G not moved.
Clause 37 agreed.
Clause 38 agreed.
Clause 39: Theft from shop triable either way irrespective of value of goods
Debate on whether Clause 39 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 agreed.
Amendment 215
Moved by
19:15
Shoplifting is not a victimless crime. It affects small family businesses and major retailers alike. It drives up costs, erodes public confidence and contributes to the sense of disorder on our high streets. The British Retail Consortium estimates millions of pounds in losses each year, with many retailers reporting that the same individuals commit offence after offence. Yet, as things stand, even repeat offenders may receive community disposals that lack the structure, monitoring or restrictions necessary either to protect the public or to encourage rehabilitation.
This amendment seeks not to remove judicial discretion —indeed, I shall return to that point in a moment—but to ensure that, where an adult offender has already been sentenced twice for shoplifting, a third or subsequent conviction resulting in a community order or a suspended sentence order should, as a norm, carry a meaningful and enforceable requirement. The new clause we propose would therefore require courts, save in exceptional circumstances, to impose at least one of three measures: a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement, or electronic whereabouts monitoring. Each of these is already well established within the Sentencing Code. This amendment does not invent new powers but would ensure that they are applied where they are most needed.
Persistent offending demands a persistent response. A curfew can provide stability and reduce opportunities for offending. An exclusion order can prevent an offender returning to the very location where they have repeatedly caused harm. Electronic monitoring can give both authorities and the community greater reassurance that restrictions are being observed. Crucially, judicial discretion is preserved. If there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender that make such a requirement inappropriate, the court may depart from the presumption. Likewise, where electronic monitoring cannot lawfully or practically be imposed, the requirement falls away. The amendment is therefore both firm and flexible. It sets a clear expectation without creating an inflexible straitjacket.
This amendment also carefully defines adult shoplifting and ensures consistency across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It contains proper safeguards; for example, by providing for cases in which previous convictions were later quashed and ensuring that appeals remain possible in such circumstances. What we propose is modest, proportionate and targeted. It will help retailers, support communities and provide offenders with structure—often the very thing that is lacking in the lives of those who fall into serial offending.
The Government’s rhetoric must be met with practical measures. This amendment offers one such measure. It would not overload the courts. It would simply ensure that, where an offender has persistently exploited the leniency of the system, the system responds with firmness, clarity and consequence. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment. It would strengthen public protection, reinforce judicial tools already at the court’s disposal and send a clear message that persistent shop theft will not be tolerated. I beg to move.
19:30
Turning now to Amendment 216, we absolutely share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to see the police take more, and more effective, action against shoplifters, but I am going to give three reasons why the Government do not feel that this amendment is needed. First, the College of Policing has already published guidance on tackling retail crime. That said, we appreciate the need to ensure that this guidance is up to date, and I know that Home Office Ministers will continue to work with the police to make sure that that happens. Secondly, training for police on tackling retail crime already exists. This was produced by the Police Crime Prevention Academy, with funding from the Home Office. In addition, the Government are providing £100,000 of funding in this financial year for the National Police Chiefs’ Council to give further training to police and retailers on prevention tactics.
Thirdly, tackling retail crime requires a partnership approach between policing and business. The previous Minister for Crime and Policing launched the Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy, which was jointly developed by the police and the industry with the aim of providing a collaborative and evidence-based approach to preventing retail crime. This Government want to go further and faster, which is why the Home Secretary announced a “winter of action”. This winter, police forces across England and Wales will again form partnerships with local businesses and authorities to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season.
I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that—
Amendment 215 withdrawn.
Amendment 216 not moved.
House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.14 pm.
Gaza and Sudan
Statement
19:35
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 18 November.
“I want to update the House on two of the world’s gravest conflicts—in Gaza and in Sudan—following recent resolutions in the UN and discussions at the G7, and on the action that the UK Government are taking to pursue peace.
First, I turn to Gaza. After two years of the most horrendous suffering, the ceasefire agreement led by President Trump with the support of Qatar, Egypt and Türkiye has been in place for six weeks. Twenty hostages are now home with their loved ones, and the remains of 25 more have been returned so their families can grieve. More aid trucks are entering Gaza. But the ceasefire is highly fragile, and there is still a long journey ahead to implement the commitments made at Sharm el-Sheikh and to get to a lasting peace.
Last night, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2803. The UK voted for this important resolution, which authorises the establishment of an international stabilisation force for Gaza, and transitional arrangements including the board of peace and a Palestinian committee. It underscores the essential need for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, and points the way to a path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. Crucially, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority, and Arab and Muslim partners in the region and beyond. The resolution is a critical staging post that sustains the unity around President Trump’s 20-point plan.
Momentum must now be maintained. It is essential that an international stabilisation force and trained Palestinian police can be deployed quickly to support the ceasefire and to avoid a vacuum being left that Hamas can exploit. We will also need the urgent formation of a Palestinian committee alongside the board of peace. As we made clear at the UN last night, these transitional arrangements must be implemented in accordance with international law, and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination. They should strengthen the unity of Gaza and the West Bank, and empower Palestinian institutions to enable a reformed Palestinian Authority to resume governance in Gaza, because Palestine must be run by Palestinians.
The work to implement the first phase of the ceasefire agreement must continue. That means work so that Hamas releases the bodies of the remaining three hostages taken in the terrorist attack on 7 October, so that their families can properly grieve. We urgently need a major increase in humanitarian aid, because aid into Gaza is still a trickle rather than a flood. Two weeks ago, I visited warehouses in Jordan holding UK aid for Gaza, including one run by the World Food Programme with enough wheat to feed 700,000 people for a month; yet it still sits there because the Jordanian route into Gaza is still closed. People there told me that there were 30 more warehouses nearby, with food, shelter kits, tents and medical supplies—less than 100 miles from Gaza but still not getting in.
I welcome the very recent improvements in aid flows, and that one more border crossing, Zikim, is now partially open. But it is not nearly enough. We need all land crossings open—including the Rafah border with Egypt—with longer and consistent hours, and urgent work is needed immediately in all parts of Gaza to rebuild basic public services and to provide shelter as winter draws in. Medical staff must be allowed to enter and leave Gaza freely, and international non-governmental organisations need certainty that they can continue to operate. I spoke to the King of Jordan and to doctors in Amman about a maternity and neonatal field hospital unit that stands ready to be moved into Gaza—but, again, they cannot yet get it in. The Israeli Government can and must remove the restrictions and uncertainty now.
As well as working with the US and others, we are drawing on distinct UK strengths to support a lasting peace. We are providing expertise on weapons decommissioning and ceasefire monitoring, based on the Northern Ireland experience. We are supporting action on demining and unexploded ordnance, including with £4 million of new UK funding for the United Nations Mine Action Service, and we are funding to surge in experts, including from British organisations such as the HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group, whose impressive work I recently saw at first hand. On civil-military co-ordination, we have UK deployments into a dedicated US-led hub for Gaza stabilisation efforts.
Beyond Gaza, stability in the West Bank is essential to any sustainable peace, and I am concerned that the PA faces an economic crisis induced by Israeli restrictions that are strangling the Palestinian economy. The Netanyahu Government should be extending, not threatening to end, the arrangements between Israeli and Palestinian banks—arrangements that are crucial to the everyday economy for Palestinians. This is crucial for stability, which is in Israel’s interests too.
The pace of illegal settlement building continues. We have seen further appalling incidents of settler violence during the olive harvest. While I welcome Israeli President Herzog’s expression of concern, the response of the Israeli authorities is still completely insufficient—practically and legally. Tackling settlement expansion and settler violence is vital to protecting a two-state solution, in line with the UK’s historic decision to recognise the State of Palestine.
Let me turn now to Sudan, where the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century is still unfolding, right now. The UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, who has just visited the area, has described it as
‘the epicentre of suffering in the world’
and he is right. Over 30 million people need life-saving aid. Twelve million have been forced from their homes. Famine is spreading. Cholera and preventable disease are rampant. In El Fasher, following advances by the Rapid Support Forces, there are horrifying scenes of atrocities, with mass executions, starvation, and the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war—horrors so appalling they can be seen from space.
As the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has put it, El Fasher is a crime scene. Satellite pictures show discolouration of sand consistent with pools of blood, multiple clusters of objects consistent with piles of human bodies, and the apparent burning of bodies and operations to dispose of bodies in mass graves. Further horrors will yet unfold unless greater action is taken.
A year ago, Britain tabled a resolution at the UN Security Council demanding humanitarian access and civilian protection, but it was shamefully vetoed by Russia. Six months ago, at our London Sudan Conference, the UK brought together international partners and secured £800 million in funding, but the situation continues to deteriorate, including with North Kordofan now under threat and fighting moving to El Obeid.
We need a complete step change in efforts to alleviate the suffering and bring about peace. That means more aid to those in need. The UK has committed over £125 million this year alone, delivering life-saving support to over 650,000 people—treating children with severe malnutrition, providing water and medicine, and supporting survivors of rape—but the challenge is still access.
The RSF still refuses safe passage to aid organisations around El Fasher. The Sudanese Armed Forces are bringing in new restrictions that stand to hinder aid. Both sides must allow unhindered passage for humanitarian workers, supplies and trapped civilians. We are urgently pressing for a three-month humanitarian truce to open routes for life-saving supplies, but aid will not resolve a conflict wilfully driven by the warring parties, so we desperately need a lasting ceasefire underpinned by a serious political process.
At the Manama dialogue conference in Bahrain two weeks ago, I called for the same intense international efforts to address the crisis in Sudan as we have seen around Gaza. At Niagara last week, I joined our G7 partners in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, for the unimpeded access of humanitarian aid, and for external actors to contribute to the restoration of peace and security. We are engaging intensively with the Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States—which have now together called for an immediate humanitarian truce, and an end to external support and arms that are fuelling conflict. I strongly support Secretary Rubio’s latest comments regarding the need to end the weapons and support that the RSF is getting from outside Sudan.
Last Friday, the UK called a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which a UK-drafted resolution was passed, securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events. We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan.
The UK will play its full part to ensure that it is the Sudanese people, not any warring party, that determines Sudan’s future. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause untold harm to civilians; they radiate instability, undermine the security of neighbouring states, and lead migrants to embark on dangerous journeys. We are striving to meet those urgent humanitarian needs, and striving to secure not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of lasting peace. From Gaza to Sudan that can only be done through international co-operation, and through countries coming together for peace. I commend this Statement to the House”.
19:59
Crime and Policing Bill
Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)
20:18
Amendment 216A
Moved by
20:30
I asked the guard what he was playing at, and he said they were trained not to intervene and that he just had to let them get away with it. Why should the innocent public pay for useless dodos who are told by the shops just to ignore shop thieves? My proposed new clause would make a difference, giving them the security to arrest and detain, provided they complied with all my provisions to do it properly and legitimately.
Finally, I turn to conspiracy to steal, and to steal a lot. We are talking here about organised crime gangs. Bicester Village Outlet was and still is a favourite target for organised criminal theft gangs. Thames Valley Police has had some success, but it is a constant battle.
I congratulate the Home Office on increasing funding for Operation Opal, which has had considerable success in tackling organised crime in shops. It is no surprise that the majority are eastern European-run gangs, bringing in women illegally as prostitutes and filling the van on the way back home with high-value stolen goods.
Opal has identified 23 highly organised gangs with over 200 professional and violent criminals operating. One Romanian thief called Dima was caught with £60,000 worth of goods stolen from Boots. Perhaps he was the guy I chased—but I think not, this was down in Pontypridd. He got four years as an individual thief. However, he was part of an organised gang. My proposed new clause would have permitted a sentence of up to 10 years where five or more persons were acting in concert or conspiracy.
We cannot wipe out organised and massive crime gangs thieving from our shops with the current law on shoplifting and shoplifting penalties, when we have real, massive shop theft. Big crime deserves big sentences.
In conclusion, I know that the Government want to do more to tackle shop crime, and I am pleased at the steps they are taking, and the steps the previous Government took, to tackle shop crime and violence against shop workers. I support all of that, but we need to go further. Shop theft is absolutely massive, and it is way out of control. That is not the fault of the Government. Only exemplary measures, as in my proposed new clauses, have a hope of slowing it down and possibly reducing it. I beg to move.
20:45
The noble Lord’s Amendment 216B relates to the powers of shop security staff to arrest and detain persons suspected of shop theft under Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That already allows any person, including a security guard, to make a citizen’s arrest of anyone they have reasonable grounds to suspect has committed or is in the process of committing an indictable offence. The power of arrest is subject to certain necessary criteria but essentially, that power of arrest, in addition to Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, allows also for reasonable force in the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting a lawful arrest.
We have put in place the Security Industry Authority, which is the regulator for the private security industry. It is setting training standards for licence-linked qualifications and as part of that training, security guards learn physical intervention skills, how to perform a citizen’s arrest, the law on use of force, and how to de-escalate areas of conflict. Individual businesses can and do determine their own policy on the arrest of shoplifters by licensed security guards, in compliance with UK law, but it is a valuable area of work, and giving security guards wider powers of arrest would create potential difficulties. It would require even more specialist training and oversight of the use of detention powers. As described in the amendment, it would entail significant training requirements and a significant cost to business, and it would open up issues of public accountability for the exercise of coercive powers.
Amendment 216A withdrawn.
Amendments 216B and 216C not moved.
Clause 40: Child criminal exploitation
Amendment 217
Moved by
21:00
21:15
I think Charles Dickens and Charles Booth would recognise the same forms of criminality and the same ability of some adults to use childhood as a training ground for extending their criminal activities in a way that is unconscionable but, when done efficiently, I suspect is highly profitable. The fact that it has a potentially lifelong effect on the children who are being drawn into this is, for the perpetrators, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, some of us were able to attend a meeting in your Lordships’ House organised by Action for Children, and Professor Jay herself was there. It is perhaps important for the Government and Minister to understand that, in the case of the amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, has spoken to and which we will talk about in future groups, Professor Jay herself has said how important she thinks they are. They deal with parts of the review that she went into in detail. From her point of view, while she and I think all of us are extremely pleased and grateful for the Government taking on board so much of what Professor Jay was trying to illustrate needed to be done, there are some tidying-up bits around the edge, and it is felt by those who have the most knowledge of this form of criminality that it will be extremely important to try to make this legislation as effective and watertight as it can be. For those reasons, I fully support those amendments.
Amendment 217 agreed.
21:30
Amendments 218 and 219 not moved.
Amendments 220 and 221
Moved by
Amendments 220 and 221 agreed.
Amendments 222 and 222A not moved.
Amendments 223 and 224
Moved by
Amendments 223 and 224 agreed.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed.
Clause 41: Proving an offence under section 40
Amendments 225 to 231
Moved by
21:45
Similarly, Amendments 232A and 262A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seek to provide a statutory defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who are compelled into committing offences. We support the principle that the law should distinguish between those who willingly commit crimes and those who do so under coercion or fear. These amendments raise legitimate questions about how the proposed law will operate in practice and whether vulnerable individuals are adequately protected. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing these issues before the Committee and again we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections.
Amendment 263 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, probes whether the Modern Slavery Act definition of exploitation should explicitly incorporate defences relating to child criminal exploitation and cuckooing. That proposal has clear merit in principle. We understand the concerns that the law must evolve to meet new forms of organised criminality. We hope that the Government will give this careful and serious consideration.
Amendment 232 withdrawn.
Amendment 232A not moved.
House resumed.