House of Lords
Trail-hunting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Leicester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution of trail hunting to the rural economy.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer the House to my interests as a landowner in Norfolk, over which trail-hunting has always taken place legally This includes the Nar Valley Bloodhounds, who come and play “hunt the host”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to enacting a ban on trail-hunting, in line with our manifesto commitment, and will shortly be launching a consultation to seek views on how to deliver an effective, enforceable ban. The responses to that consultation will be used to inform our assessment of the potential impact of a ban on trail-hunting on the rural economy.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and I hope that the consultation will be a fair one. The Hunting Act was the result of 700 hours of debate, and it was what hunting opponents wanted. Hunts adapted and adopted trail-hunting, which is what supporters of the ban said that they should do. A recent socioeconomic survey stated that hunting contributes £100 million to the rural economy each year. A Countryside Alliance survey found that 97% of hunting participants believe the activity to benefit their physical and mental health. A ban on trail-hunting therefore runs contrary to the Government’s missions to promote economic growth and improve health outcomes. Surely further legislation targeting trail-hunting—
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry—this is my first and last Oral Question, if the House will allow me some forbearance. As I was saying, further legislation is not necessary and it should not be a priority for the Government. It would represent yet another attack on the countryside and the many thousands for whom hunts are an integral part of rural life.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the consultation has been designed to be open-handed and fair, so that all concerns, from both sides of the argument, can be heard and fully taken into account as we move forward to design the legislation. As I said, this is a manifesto commitment. It is important to point out that we believe that rural areas offer significant potential for growth and are central to our economy. There are many businesses that we can support within the rural communities to continue to bring forward greater productivity—rural productivity is less than urban productivity. We are doing our utmost to support the rural economy in many areas. One of the key areas in which we can do so is by improving our transport links.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, my family, on our farm, has not allowed fox-hunting across that land for well over 40 years. However, as a student, I occasionally used to run cross-country with a piece of rope and a scented rag, and was pursued by hounds. I can assure the House that no animals were harmed in that process—I was left exhilarated but rather breathless. On an equally serious point, does the Minister agree that a higher priority should be to resource the police to deal with the rapidly rising tide of rural crime, including waste-tipping, theft and hare-coursing, rather than chasing after people who simply like to dress up and ride along a pre-set trail?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I commend the noble Lord on his earlier fitness—I do not know if he still carries it out. It is important to stress that there are no plans to include other activities, such as drag hunting and clean boot hunting, in the ban on trail-hunting. The noble Lord makes a really important point about enforcement. I have asked for a meeting with Home Office Ministers to discuss exactly that, in not just this area but others within Defra, as we feel that we need to work much more closely with the Home Office to ensure the enforcement of the laws that we bring in.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to ensure that any future decision in this area, particularly on trail-hunting, is evidence-led as much as possible and based on assessing whether it causes harm to animal welfare, biodiversity and public confidence in law? The economies of so many rural communities are extremely diverse, with many more people in the countryside participating in, for instance, rambling and orienteering than trail-hunting.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I reassure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that, when I look at future policy and legislation as part of my role as a Minister, it is incredibly important that everything is evidence-led and, where scientific evidence is needed, that we take the most up-to-date scientific evidence into account.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I come from a disadvantaged area where a ban on trail-hunting will be seen as a punch in the stomach by people who have already endured a considerable amount of distress as a result of other government policies. Some 20 years ago, after this House passed the Hunting Act, the then Prime Minister regretted what had happened and particularly regretted having to spend 700 hours of parliamentary time on that legislation instead of on his priorities. He asked, “Why was I not told?” Please can the Minister go back and tell the current Prime Minister the same?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, this is a manifesto commitment and it is my responsibility to deliver it. On the other concerns that my noble friend raised, we will start the consultation soon. I encourage people to look at it and take part, because it will be comprehensive.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, our rural police forces are already overstretched, and banning a harmless country pursuit will simply stretch them further and alienate them from the community they protect. As has been discussed, hunting with dogs has already been banned by Parliament. This has resulted in only 52 convictions for organised hunts, with only one of those based on evidence collected by the police. Rather than now targeting trail-hunting, have the Government considered that laws that cannot be effectively enforced by the police are bad laws?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is also important to stress that, if there is a law, people should obey it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Are the Government aware of how important the supporters’ clubs of hunts are to the local communities? In the part of Devon where I live partly, the local communities in rural villages are very much separated from each other, and they all offer something on one Sunday, Saturday or Friday every week. If there is no supporters’ club, there will be very little for these rural communities to do in the winter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I live in a very rural community and always have done, and we have plenty of options for things to do in the winter that do not involve supporting hunts. If it is a particular concern in the area where the noble and learned Baroness lives, again, I encourage her to take part in the consultation.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister knows the countryside well, and she must know that huge numbers of jobs will be lost if trail-hunting is banned. What is the justification for this when so few people have been prosecuted for illegal hunting? If a couple of Peers behave badly, we get rid of them; we do not get rid of the whole House of Lords—surely she should look at that example.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Do not open that Pandora’s box—that is what I would say to the noble Baroness. More seriously, I know that there are concerns on both sides. This is a polarising debate, with strong feelings on both sides. That is why I am determined to hold a proper, detailed consultation, where everyone has the ability to put forward their concerns, so that we can move forward in a way that delivers our manifesto commitment, while at the same time making sure that we do what we can to mitigate any concerns that are put forward.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
We will hear from the Conservatives next.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
It is nice to be back. I remember just enough of the rules to know that I should declare my interest as a trustee of the Countryside Alliance. I remember only too well how hard it is to bid for legislative time, particularly in Defra, and I am concerned that other priorities will be overtaken if this consultation and legislation go ahead. Does the Minister really not have other things that she would rather do?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I warmly welcome the noble and learned Baroness back to her place—it really is a pleasure to see her. She is absolutely right: pitching for legislation is great fun in every department, I am sure, and certainly in Defra. As I said, the reason this is one of our legislative priorities is that it was a manifesto commitment, but clearly there are also other manifesto commitments. In Defra we are working out a timetable for how we can deliver all of those at the same time as other priorities.
EU Directive: Adequate Minimum Wages
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the EU Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages and the merits of introducing similar provision in the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as with other relevant EU directives, the Department for Business and Trade is monitoring the EU directive on adequate minimum wages. As we are no longer an EU member state, we are not obliged to transpose its directives, but we note their progress. The UK has a long history of minimum wage legislation. Introduced in 1999, the national minimum wage has been a highly effective policy. We remain committed to improving living standards and, as of 2024 among G7 countries, the UK had the second-highest minimum wage relative to the average wages of full-time workers.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that reply, and I welcome this Government’s determination to deepen relations with the EU and ensure that UK workers’ rights do not fall behind those of their EU friends. This new directive has been described as a game-changer in the fight against in-work poverty and as strengthening a social market economy, because it is about promoting collective bargaining. The evidence is clear that the bigger the collective bargaining, the more workplaces are safe, more equal, healthier and more productive. Given that EU member states will now be required, where collective bargaining coverage falls below 80%, to devise with social partners action plans to promote collective bargaining, will my noble friend agree to talk to Ministers about convening a meeting with the CBI and the TUC so that we can devise our own action plan here in the UK?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government agree that a strong voice for workers is a positive for the economy as a whole. We believe the best way of delivering that is to start with implementing the ambitious measures in the Employment Rights Act, including introducing the fair pay agreements in social care, reintroducing the school support staff negotiating body and widening improvements to trade union processes. We do not intend to create an action plan or a specific target for collective bargaining at this point in time. We have consulted the TUC and the CBI on this measure and thank them for their input.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister would acknowledge that an important precursor to people having wages is for them to have a job. I am sure that he would also recognise, perhaps reluctantly, that the number of jobs available, particularly for people at the lowest end of the wage scale, has taken a hit of late. So, can the Minister undertake to visit his friends in the Treasury and explain that their unheralded increase in employer NIC contributions has seriously hit the job prospects of the very people that his party said it was here to help?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I fully acknowledge that businesses face challenges and that micro-businesses operate with narrow margins and encounter real pressures, and these businesses are the ones that employ young people. However, the evidence consistently shows that paying staff fairly strengthens businesses in the long run: higher wages and lower staff turnover boost morale and productivity and help businesses keep experienced workers. Crucially, these wages are then spent within local communities, often in small shops, cafés and services right across the country. A national living wage supports not only workers but the resilience of local communities.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we have been lucky enough to have a 30-year run of structurally low unemployment, which is now coming to an end, especially with younger workers—partly because of the national insurance rise that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just raised; partly because of the general economic situation; partly because of the Employment Rights Act; but also partly because of these huge recent rises in the minimum wage, which have especially hit the hospitality industry. Does the Minister see the danger that as we have more and more workers’ rights, we have fewer and fewer workers?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord would not expect me to agree with him, and I do not. As I mentioned in yesterday’s debate on the regret amendment, and I shall share it again, Confucius reminds us that harmony among people is the best foundation for great achievement, and when we work together, success belongs to all. We have to address this issue of disparity between workers who are paid less and less in the overall scheme of things and the average wage in the country. We need to balance that up to two-thirds of the median wage.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, given the Minister’s background as a successful entrepreneur, does he agree that, whether coming from the EU or from here, minimum wage directives are not economically sustainable unless they reflect the employer or the state’s ability to pay out of revenues rather than increased borrowing?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I also gently remind noble Lords that the minimum wage is carefully considered by the independent Low Pay Commission, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which examines the economic conditions, labour market data and evidence from employers and other stakeholders. The Government’s aim remains to set a wage floor that maintains living standards while protecting employment opportunities. Recent rises mean that the national living wage now makes up a historically high proportion of median earnings, supporting millions of low-paid workers right across the country. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that paying workers well is good for the economy.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the 80% minimum collective bargaining coverage in the directive curiously mirrors the 80% coverage achieved in Britain from 1945 until 1980, mandatorily through the wages councils and voluntarily by the joint industrial councils. The Government have made a good start with their adult social care negotiating body and the other body for school support staff. What further steps will they take to achieve sector-wide collective bargaining across British industry?
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, let me say that collective bargaining is not a dirty word. The Government recognise the important role that collective bargaining can play in supporting good workplace relations. However, the United Kingdom has traditionally taken a flexible, decentralised approach to setting wages. Our focus remains on securing a strong statutory minimum wage through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, guided by the independent Low Pay Commission. Alongside that, we continue to support fair work practices and to promote constructive engagement between employers and workers across all sectors.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the number of young people not in education, employment or training is approaching 1 million. What an utterly devastating waste of human potential. The Government have announced a £3,000 taxpayer-funded subsidy for hiring eligible 18 to 24 year-olds. In saying that, are they not admitting to employers, “We will now subsidise you to hire the very people you could not otherwise afford to take on because we put up employers’ national insurance”? Will the Minister at last admit that this proposal is an admission of abject failure by this Government?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, backing young people is one of the most important investments that we can make in the country’s future. We are determined to tackle the rise in youth unemployment, which has been constantly rising for the past 10 years or so, by expanding practical routes into work, boosting apprenticeships and giving employers the clarity that they need. We are very proud to say that the youth guarantee scheme is unblocking thousands of jobs. We are investing more than £1 billion and unlocking 200,000 jobs and apprenticeship opportunities by reducing the cost of hiring for business. This Government are determined to get young people back into work.
High Streets and Towns: Regeneration
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government recognise the very real pressures facing high streets and town centres, from long-term vacancy and rising costs to crime and changes in how people use town centres. That is why we are backing councils with long-term investment through the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme, and with new powers such as high street rental auctions to tackle vacancy and shape high street uses, strengthened community right to buy, and bringing forward a cross-government high street strategy later this year, backed by at least £150 million. Together, these measures give councils the funding, powers and flexibility that they need to drive regeneration locally and restore pride in place.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Pride in Place is a programme delivering to 300 communities over the next 10 years. In those next 10 years, what financial support will be available to those hundreds or maybe thousands of communities across this country that are not included in the scheme but whose high streets are also struggling, mainly due to the Government’s policies, taxes and national insurance increases?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think that might be more due to 14 years of letting high streets sink into decline. However, the places that are subject to Pride in Place funding will also be joined by the new cross-government high street strategy, which will look at all high streets. This will be backed by £150 million of targeted support, which will help to tackle some of the structural issues holding high streets back and the challenges facing retail, leisure and hospitality. We will align policy across government and strengthen our councils’ roles as leaders of place-based regeneration. We will develop that with councils, businesses and communities. We recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all for high streets, and this builds on our commitment to pride in place everywhere.
Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the executive chairman of Iceland Foods. Does the Minister accept that it is retail businesses which are the catalyst that make a high street thrive? Yet many fail to survive because of the outdated Victorian taxation system of business rates, which are simply too high. Although the recent reduction in the multiplier is welcome, the balance between bricks and mortar retailers and online giants remains badly out of kilter. Will the Minister do all that she can to speed up the rollout of a new, fairer system that we promised in our manifesto and consider including an online sales tax? I say that as one of the biggest online retailers in the UK.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was tempted to ask whether my noble friend wanted to answer the Question rather than me; I am sure he knows a great deal about high streets. I thank him for his support for the new business rates multipliers announced at the Budget. The new multipliers replace the temporary relief that has been winding down since the pandemic. Unlike RHL relief, the new rates are permanent, giving businesses certainty and stability. There will be no cap, meaning that all qualifying properties on high streets across England will benefit. The Government are introducing a higher rate on the most valuable properties, which he rightly pointed out should and will include large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online giants. The high-value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties. We are carefully considering representations to the call for evidence, which asks for much more detailed evidence on how the business rates system influences investment decisions. I hope that will result in some movement on business rates.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware—obviously, because it has been discussed already—that pubs are a vital part of the high street. Is she also aware that, since Labour came to power, on average one pub per day has closed? A total of 10,000 jobs have been lost in pubs and hospitality. This Government came in on an agenda for and a commitment to growth. What has gone wrong?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We do have an agenda for growth, but we are having to tidy up the mess that was left behind before we can achieve it. We are introducing the hospitality support fund, which has been more than doubled to £10 million over three years, helping over 1,000 pubs to diversify, boost productivity and support people into hospitality jobs. Those measures sit alongside business rates support and the wider planning and licensing reform that we have introduced.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, initiatives such as “health on the high street” in Doncaster, where the NHS uses buildings in the city centre to provide scans, blood tests and physiotherapy, are a very good way of drawing people into the city centre and regenerating the area. Will my noble friend the Minister talk with the NHS and other departments about how initiatives such as this can be spread to other areas and help with overall regeneration?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. One thing that happened as a result of Covid was seeing vaccination centres, for example, introduced into high streets. In my own regeneration scheme, part of the plan was to have a healthy hub in the middle of the town centre so that people could come and get their health treatment there. I absolutely understand the point that she is making. I talked about the high street strategy, which will be a cross-departmental strategy. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is determined to have neighbourhood health hubs and I am sure that our discussions will consider how we can incorporate those into high streets.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, will the Government look at implementing a commercial landlord levy, which would help small businesses by moving the cost from them on to commercial landlords? It would also have the benefit of ensuring that landlords have an incentive to fill vacant units.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are very keen to make sure that vacant units get filled. We have introduced lots of powers to enable councils to do that, but we also recognise upward rent pressures. Many landlords have upwards-only rent reviews now, so we are bringing in a step in the English devolution Bill to make sure that there are no more upwards-only rent review clauses by which rents can only stay the same or rise. We are legislating to ban those in order to help smaller retailers have more stability in their outgoings.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I hate to be a killjoy, but will the Minister accept that she has no hope of regenerating our high streets unless she works closely with the Minister from the Home Office to sort out the ever-increasing infection of streets full of county lines drugs and drug dealing? The shops that call themselves Turkish barbers, vape shops and everything else are cash only and have no interest in business rates. They are not paying business rates. They are destroying our high streets and our way of life. What is she doing to work with the Home Office to change this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not share the noble Baroness’s pessimism about high streets. It is perfectly possible to re-energise our high streets. We are already working with the Home Office, and one of the things we are doing is stopping the shoplifters’ charter, introduced by the last Government, of discounting or decriminalising thefts worth under £200. We are also providing over £7 million to support the police in tackling retail crime, including continued funding for a specialist policing team to tackle organised retail crime gangs and identify more offenders. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we will scrap that failure to prosecute shop thefts worth under £200. We are also introducing more training for the police to identify illegal trading and fraudulent shops, and supporting trading standards officers through more funding to local government.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, although the 10-year Pride in Place funding is a welcome step towards longer-term investment, and there are other funds available for town centre regeneration, some towns in Nottinghamshire, such as Mansfield and Newark, continue to face increasing vacancy rates, declining footfall and concerns about safety in the town centres. What assessment have the Government made of the role of churches and other community groups using vacant shops to set up services that create social capital locally? Will the Minister reassure the House that faith communities and charities are enabled to apply for the various funds?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. Meanwhile uses in our shops can often help regenerate whole areas, because they bring footfall into those areas. Junction 7 Creatives has been a very successful project in my town centre. We are taking steps to allow communities to take back control of some of those vacant shops and give them the power either to purchase valued local assets, such as shops, pubs and community centres, or to take them over as meanwhile uses.
Strait of Hormuz
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to take steps to help keep the Strait of Hormuz open for shipping.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I hope the House will understand why it is being asked.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
Iran’s reckless actions in the Strait of Hormuz are having damaging consequences for the global economy and putting the lives of those aboard civilian vessels in danger. As the Prime Minister said, we are working with our allies and partners on a viable collective plan to return freedom of navigation to the region as quickly as possible and ease the economic impacts. That is not a simple task, but the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened to ensure stability in the market.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The House knows how the closure of the Strait of Hormuz poses a real risk to the world economy, not only because one-fifth of global oil supplies cannot be moved but because of the growing risk of fertiliser shortages and the effects on food supply and food and energy prices. Does my noble friend agree that this difficult and complex problem is going to require us to work with our strategic partners in the region and to make use of innovative technology, such as drones, to keep the waterway open and enable trade to resume? Does she also agree with the words of the Prime Minister earlier today:
“The best way forward is a negotiated settlement”,
rather than the continuation of this war?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend and I thank him for putting it that way. All these situations ultimately end in resolution through dialogue and negotiation, but this is an urgent situation and the United Kingdom will work very closely with our allies and partners across Europe, the GCC and elsewhere to support the resolution of this.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, those of us who were privileged to hear President Zelensky yesterday were not only inspired by his courage but immensely impressed by Ukraine’s resilience and the development of digital technology which has put IT and inexpensive drones at the forefront of warfare. How do the United Kingdom Government propose to utilise and capitalise on that innovation? May I make a helpful suggestion to the Minister: why do we not get President Zelensky to write our defence investment plan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It was fantastic to see President Zelensky welcomed so warmly here in London in a cross-party way, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and her colleagues for their steadfast support for Ukraine, both in office and since. She is right to remind us of the tremendous innovation that has come about as a result of the dreadful war in Ukraine. There have been some remarkable developments. I do not know how directly applicable they would be to the current situation, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will be looking very closely at this.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, when will the Minister and her Government end this air of detachment in relation to Iran? Some of us have just come from a presentation of a most comprehensive report by the historian, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, setting out the horrors of October 7. Hamas carried that out; Iran funded, and still funds, Hamas, which has decided that when it can, it will do the same massacre again. It involved British citizens, who have complained that the Government did nothing to help them at all, at the time or after. This is a case of anticipatory self-defence. We have a moral duty to understand what is going on in Iran and the threat it poses to this country.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not accept the premise that the noble Baroness began with, which was about detachment. The positions that we have taken are ones in which we feel there is consistency with international law. Before you involve yourself in a conflict of this nature, history—and history from not even that long ago—teaches us that you must have a clear plan and support your allies and partners. That is how we will proceed. I agree with her on the abhorrent nature of the Iranian regime and its activities in the region that have cost the lives of many people we care about deeply, and its activities on the streets of the United Kingdom.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the UK needs to work together with our allies to help to reopen the strait. However, France currently has 10 warships in the Middle East. We have none, although, to be fair, HMS “Dragon” is apparently on her way there. In an act of great strategic foresight, the Government withdrew our last minesweeper, HMS “Middleton”, from Bahrain eight weeks ago. Does the Minister agree with her noble friend Lord West of Spithead that this decision was a “terrible error”?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have heard a lot from people who think that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is a straightforward, simple act and that uniquely they know the necessary things we should be deploying. I say gently that this a hell of a lot more complicated than that. I have been listening to the last few Questions and noble Lords opposite seem to have come in today with really high ambitions for this Government on high streets, defence and all sorts of things. After 14 years of neglect, they really think we can turn it round after two years. I say gently to the noble Lord that he bequeathed us the smallest Armed Forces since the time of Napoleon, and we are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, there are ships still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, but they are of course friends of Iran, which possibly includes China and Russia. I would argue that Russia’s shadow fleet no longer is a shadow fleet if sanctions have been lifted by the United States. It surely comes down to the fact that we will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz unless we end the conflict and negotiate a settlement. It is not safe for the Americans to put their ships in. They certainly should not expect us to put ours in.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We need to resolve this with great care, co-ordination and collaboration with our allies and partners. It is complicated. As the noble Lord said, it is directly related to the conflict in Iran. We are where we are and we will do everything that we can, alongside others, to ensure that ships can travel safely through the strait.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Government’s position on this whole matter. Everybody in this House opposes the barbarous regime in Iran, I imagine. They certainly should do. Trying to engineer regime change by bombing remotely is unlikely to succeed, especially in this situation, but there is a case for self-defence, as the Minister has indicated. Does she agree that collective self-defence is exercised under Article 51 of the UN charter? How is that squared with allowing US bombers to use UK bases?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right about UN Article 51. That has been used for our activities in the region, not just most recently, but against the Houthis, the Iranian proxies in Yemen. To be clear, the use of our bases in Fairford and Diego Garcia that he refers to are about defensive action. We have been very clear about that and that is consistent with our use of Article 51.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, one of the precursors to the reopening of the commercial shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz would be the availability of reasonably priced insurance—and lots of it. The main marine insurance markets for the world are based in London. What discussions are the Government having with those markets to understand what has to be done so that those markets can reopen and allow the insurance side of shipping to take place? I declare my interest in the insurance world.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl. He is right and we are having active conversations with Lloyd’s of London to make sure that shipping is insurable as the strait reopens. At the moment, though, you could have all the insurance you want—if it is not safe, it is not safe. We need to make sure that that is established, but it is important. Even if the strait reopens, if you cannot insure what you are doing, that makes life pretty impossible, so we have to make sure that we have a solution on insurance.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
We will hear from the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
In terms of the Strait of Hormuz, the GCC countries are really important because they are the producers of oil and gas. If they are not willing to produce, given the attacks that are happening to them, opening the strait might not be that useful. What contact have His Majesty’s Government had with those nations in the Gulf that are under attack and need our support as well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
They are very close allies and partners, and they played no role in instigating what has happened. They have found themselves directly under attack, and we have all seen the impact that that is having. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have spoken to our counterparts to express our support in a spirit of solidarity, but also to discuss what practical measures we can take together.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Schedule 5, Clause 24, Schedule 6, Clause 25, Schedule 7, Clause 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clause 31, Schedule 11, Clause 32, Schedule 12, Clause 33, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 34, Schedule 15, Clause 35, Schedule 16, Clause 36, Schedule 17, Clause 37, Schedule 18, Clause 38, Schedule 19, Clause 39, Schedule 20, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 21, Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 22, Clause 47, Schedule 23, Clauses 48 to 50, Schedule 24, Clauses 51 and 52, Schedule 25, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 26, Clauses 58 and 59, Schedule 27, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 28, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 29, Clauses 64 to 73, Schedule 30, Clause 74, Schedule 31, Clause 75, Schedule 32, Clauses 76 to 84, Schedule 33, Clause 85, Schedule 34, Clauses 86 to 93, Title.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:12 - Division on Amendment 409G - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 189 - Amendment 409G agreed.
17:10 - Division on Amendment 418 - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 418 agreed.
18:25 - Division on Amendment 422C - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 191 - Amendment 422C agreed.
19:46 - Division on Amendment 422D - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 422D agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we are about to start the final day on Report of the Crime and Policing Bill. There are 13 groups of amendments to complete today, and multiple votes are expected. I will briefly remind the House of some key parts of the Companion that are particularly relevant to Report. This is intended to help us make progress and proceed to votes.
First—this is every Whip’s favourite line—the House has resolved that speeches should be shorter. Secondly, and importantly for today as we are on Report, the Companion states:
“Arguments fully deployed in Committee … should not be repeated at length on report”.
Thirdly, I remind your Lordships’ House that, while interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification; lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made.
Finally, some of the topics we will discuss today are emotive and very important to many noble Lords. As my noble friend the Chief Whip has frequently reminded the House, it is in the best traditions of the House that these debates are conducted with courtesy and respect.
Baroness Doocey
“(2A) In determining whether to make a youth diversion order in respect of the respondent, the court must be provided with evidence relating to—(a) the alternative interventions that have been considered or previously applied,(b) the reasons why such interventions were considered inappropriate, unsuitable, or unsuccessful, and(c) consultations undertaken by the police with relevant individuals, experts or agencies, which may include youth justice services.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the court to be provided with evidence of any alternative interventions considered and any consultation undertaken with relevant individuals or agencies in respect of a child or young person subject to a youth diversion order application. This amendment strengthens the provision of multi-agency evidence to assist the court when undertaking the ‘necessary’ test and when making a youth diversion order.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 417A.
Amendment 409G would ensure that, before a court imposes a youth diversion order, it has clear evidence of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why they failed and what consultation took place with the child and the relevant agencies. The point of the amendment is to ensure that there is proper multi-agency input and that these new orders are used only when they are genuinely appropriate. It would also help the court to judge whether the order is proportionate and whether the necessity test has truly been met. The amendment is designed to make them more effective by clearly showing why other interventions have not worked. Early consultation will mean fewer orders being rejected, less wasted court time and conditions that are practical and linked to the services available locally.
Crucially, the amendment learns the lessons of the Southport case. There, a failure to share information meant that decision-makers were left without a full picture of the young person’s background. That led to an ineffective referral order in 2021, three years before the tragedy occurred. The amendment would help stop such failures from happening again. By requiring all relevant information to be brought together before a single decision-maker, it would ensure that multiple referrals and early warning signs are not missed. We know that proper multi-agency working, involving police, youth offending teams, social services and the voluntary sector, produces more reliable risk assessments and helps prevent serious harm. My amendment would embed that joined-up approach. It also encourages consultation beyond statutory agencies, extending it to parents and carers where appropriate. In the Southport case, the failure to consult the perpetrator’s parents was another missed opportunity. The amendment would help ensure that those closest to the child are properly involved from the start.
Amendment 417A addresses another crucial issue—data. The Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism, Law Policy and Practice in its 2025 report made it clear that effective counter-radicalisation work depends on better data, especially when children and young people are concerned. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the use and impact of youth diversion orders and related powers showing breach rates, the type of prohibitions and requirements imposed, and data about protected characteristics. Only with that transparency can we see whether these orders are truly helping to divert young people from custody or whether they are having unintended consequences for certain groups.
We already know that a strikingly high proportion of counterterrorism referrals involve autistic children—not because they are more likely to be radicalised, but because their intense interests can be misunderstood. These children are also especially vulnerable to grooming.
I place on record my thanks to Justice for its excellent briefings and invaluable work in shaping the amendment. I add my support to the related proposals tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The tragic lessons of Southport show that interventions must be tailored carefully to the facts of each case. Amendment 409G would strengthen public protection by making sure that judicial decisions are based on the fullest possible understanding of a child’s circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, before I speak to my amendment and the others in this group, I just say that, as the Green Peers are not part of the usual channels, we were not able to give our views on the fact that this very important piece of legislation is being bullied through this House by the Government. It is absolutely outrageous that we do not have another day for Report. I hold both Members of the Front Bench accountable for this. It is not acceptable. This is no way to make good law, when we are going to be very tired in the later hours and possibly in the early hours.
However, on group 1, my Amendments 409H and 409J on youth diversion orders are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Alliance for Youth Justice, the Centre for Justice Innovation, MLegal, the National Youth Advocacy Service, Sheffield Hallam University, INQUEST, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Just for Kids Law and the Runnymede Trust. That is quite a lot of very experienced organisations that support these amendments. Their collective expertise in youth justice, children’s rights and legal practice adds considerable weight to the concerns that underpin these proposals.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am saddened by the attack from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the Ministers, because they have sat through hours of debate on the Bill and listened most patiently. I have not always agreed with them, but they have responded with the utmost courtesy. They should be thanked, rather than criticised, for their efforts.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. We accept the Minister’s amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.
I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. However, we believe that they are somewhat misguided. Youth diversion orders, whatever one may think of them, will be implemented as a means of dealing with some of the most serious offences committed by people of the age of criminal responsibility. We should not be making concessions to people who have committed or intend to commit terrorism offences. We believe that engaging in these acts forfeits any right to the conditions of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 409H as a primary consideration.
Similarly, regarding Amendment 409J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I entirely understand and acknowledge the issue she is trying to grapple with. Our position, however, is simple: court proceedings should be carried out in the language of the land. That said, the Government do offer translation services, and I ask the Minister to set out measures that are already in place to ensure that offenders understand orders that are made by the courts.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, youth diversion orders must be underpinned by the principle of proportionality. Amendment 417A would ensure that they are being used in this expected manner. We particularly support the intention behind Amendment 409G—that youth diversion orders will be a serious step to take, and that ensuring that multi-agency evidence backs up the decision to issue an order is therefore incredibly important. Similarly, the sharing of data on terrorists and terrorism networks is becoming an increasingly urgent need. Any step that improves the efficiency of the sourcing and sharing of information between authorities is welcome, so we also support this amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Jones, for their amendments on youth diversion orders. Amendment 409G, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would require the courts to be provided with details of previous interventions, both considered and imposed, and set out consultation undertaken with other agencies. Amendment 409H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would amend Clause 185, which deals with measures which may be imposed by a youth diversion order. Amendment 409J, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would require a youth diversion order to be issued to the respondents in simple terms to ensure that they understand what is being asked of them.
I understand the sentiment behind these amendments, but I hope I can explain why the Government cannot accept them. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we have had a lot of debate on this Bill and will undoubtedly continue to do so during ping-pong. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments; we are doing our best. If noble Lords wish, we can have votes very speedily tonight—if people put their arguments succinctly and the Government respond succinctly, as I will try to do.
On the amendments to date, the Home Office is drafting statutory guidance which will, I hope, help with the points raised by the noble Baronesses. That will be by the negative procedure. It will be produced as soon as possible and will include further details on the circumstances for youth diversion orders. On Amendments 409G and 409H, the legislation already makes it clear that courts must consider the youth diversion order necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from the risk of terrorism or serious harm. Clause 185 clarifies that this test applies to each individual measure imposed by the order. As part of that, courts must also consider proportionality, which is key.
On the second part of Amendment 409H, and regarding the really important points the noble Baronesses have made, Clause 185 already ensures that there are safeguards for an individual’s work or educational commitments and avoids duplication with requirements imposed by other orders. There are similar safeguards in other civil orders. I will address the point made by the noble Lord on translation services later in the debate, or in writing. On Amendment 409J, I recognise the importance of ensuring that the respondent understands the detail of the order imposed upon them. That is vital, and is a consideration for youth offending teams already.
Amendment 417A would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on youth diversion orders. The provisions in this Bill already expand the statutory remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to include youth diversion orders. In practice, this will mean that youth diversion orders will be considered as part of the annual reports of the independent reviewer. I hope this helps the House. In addition, the Home Office does provide an annual report to Parliament on the use and oversight of disruptive counterterrorism powers. I give a commitment that I will review whether we should include reporting on youth diversion orders as part of this.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the government amendments. They are technical amendments to clarify the relevant court in Clause 186, which deals with notification requirements, and in Clause 193, which deals with applications to vary a youth diversion order.
Taken together, Amendments 413 and 414 update the route of appeal for both an applicant and a respondent of a youth diversion order. Current drafting includes a route for further appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales. To align the appeal routes with other similar civil orders, this amendment removes the route to the Court of Appeal. This allows established appeal routes to be applied. The applicant or defendant will be able to appeal a youth diversion order made in a magistrates’ court to the High Court by way of case stated or to the Crown Court, with an onward appeal, allowed by way of case stated to the High Court. I hope that these technical amendments will help to clarify the purpose of the Government’s proposals.
I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, will withdraw her amendment. If she wishes to press it, I advise my noble friends to vote against it.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response because the current duty to consult requires the police to speak only to the youth offending team, not to social services, health, education and others who know the child. The whole point of my speech was to say that in order for these very powerful orders to be made, it is absolutely critical that everything is taken into account. That cannot happen if not all the agencies are consulted.
The lessons from Southport include years of escalating warnings that were missed. No one agency had the full picture, and I believe that without this amendment that will happen again. I am disappointed because the Bill is the quickest and simplest way to require proper multi-agency consultation as a basic safeguard before such orders are made, which is absolutely essential. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the relevant court for determining the police area is the one to which the application for a youth diversion order was made.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which court an application for variation should be made to.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which court an application for variation should be made to.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision made by the Crown Court on an appeal under clause 194(1). The effect is that there will be an appeal by way of case stated to the High Court under section 28 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision which is superseded by my amendments to clauses 186 and 193.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is superseded by the new subsection inserted by my amendment to clause 196, page 245, line 34.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 196, page 245, line 29.
“(6A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—(a) any guidance or revisions issued under this section, and(b) in the case of revisions, a statement of whether the Secretary of State considers them to be substantial and, if not, of the reasons why.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay all revisions of guidance before Parliament, even where the revisions are not considered to be substantial.
“Glorification of terrorism: removal of emulation requirement(1) Section 1 (encouragement of terrorism) of the Terrorism Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—“(a) relates to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed as terrorist organisations, and glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; or(b) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences, and is a statement from which members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the present glorification of past terrorism, including both terrorism from proscribed organisations and the glorification of individual terrorists, is criminal, to reduce any harmful normalisation of terrorism.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 418 and to try to explain the rationale for the changes I have made since Committee. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for adding their names in support of the amendment. I declare that I am an officeholder in the APPG for counterextremism, a member of the APPG for terrorism and security, and a victim of terrorism.
For 20 years we have had a criminal offence of “glorification of terrorism”. However, the current Section 1 is a very high bar to meet for prosecution, as the person making the statement of glorification has to intend that a person hearing the statement would be encouraged to “emulate” the terrorism being glorified. After the debate in Committee, I sought to narrow the wording of my amendment to deal with current proscribed organisations. Noble Lords may remember that there was a concern, as the amendment was drafted for Committee, that it may capture some historic features that none of us would have seen as glorification of terrorism in today’s world. When I shared my change of amendment and sought to narrow the scope, however, the Minister pointed out in a letter to me that I might now be excluding glorification of those terrorists acting on their own behalf: those not advocating or acting on behalf of a proscribed organisation, such as the Manchester bomber. Obviously, I would not want that to be the case.
I have worked with the wonderfully patient staff in the Public Bill Office to try to deal with the issues raised by the Minister. I hope that what is before the House today captures my amendments, as put forward in Committee, but also deals with the issue of so-called “lone wolf” terrorists, or their supporters, calling for others to emulate their activities. I thank the Public Bill Office for all its assistance in dealing with these issues, and thank the Minister, also, for bringing the issue to my attention.
My reasons for pushing this amendment are fourfold. First, defeating terrorism is not just about militarily defeating the terrorists or the organisation, but about not allowing the narrative of those terrorists to be justified. Secondly, there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland under the current Section 1, and very few in England and Wales, despite the growing glorification of terrorism and terrorists. We need to enable the police and the prosecutors to deal with those who seek to glorify terrorists, and I hope that this amendment is helpful in that regard. Thirdly, as I indicated, I am an officeholder in the APPG on counterextremism. If we do not amend the law, as the amendment seeks to do, I fear the continued glorification of terrorism and the radicalisation of more of our young people, leading them into terrorism. At present, there is a lack of legislation to capture extremism, but, if we allow the glorification of terrorism to continue unabated, extremism will grow in our society, and we know all the problems that would bring.
In Time to Act, the recent APPG report on counterextremism, it was found that one in five voters said that political violence in the UK was acceptable in some conditions. We should all be shocked by that statistic, but unfortunately it comes from the normalisation of terrorism. In a further report, published this week by the Union of Jewish Students, we are given clear evidence of what happens when glorification of terrorism is allowed to happen unchecked. The report found that the glorification of terrorism is prevalent and unpunished. Our research has found that student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews, even justifying the terrorist attack at Bondi beach in December 2025. Some 49% of those students spoken to have heard slogans or chants glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other proscribed groups on campus. Some 47% have witnessed justification of the 7 October attacks, rising to 77% among those who encounter Israel/Palestine protests regularly.
We must act. We have been given clear evidence of the impact of the glorification of terrorism, particularly on our young people. We must deal with it because, fourthly and finally, what sort of society do we want to live in? Do we want to allow the continued glorification of terrorism, and all the inherent problems that it will bring, or do we want to send a signal from Parliament that terrorism is, was and always will be wrong?
Just yesterday, I was shocked—I should not have been, because unfortunately it has become the norm—that, at a council-run St Patrick’s Day parade in Newry, parents were buying balaclavas and scarves with IRA slogans on them for their young children. The impact on our young people is huge, and that is what I am concerned about. People might say that I should not live in the past, and sometimes when I raise the issue of the glorification of terrorism the Minister will say that everything that happened in the past was terrible. But this is not about the past; this is about the future and our young people.
We need to stop the harmful normalisation of terrorism, and this amendment would go some way towards doing that. Terrorism is never justified. It causes mistrust between communities, takes away lives and causes devastation for so many people. I have listened to the concerns that were raised in Committee, and by the Minister, and I hope that the House will see fit to back my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, to which I have added my name. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is pretty straightforward: it seeks to remove the current requirement in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 that, for a statement glorifying terrorism to be criminal, prosecutors must prove that the speaker intended to encourage others to emulate the act. In practice, this current requirement creates a significant evidential barrier.
Under the current law, it is not enough that someone praises terrorist violence, celebrates terrorist attacks or glorifies terrorist organisations; prosecutors must go further and demonstrate that the individual intended their words to encourage others to copy those acts. As a result, individuals can glorify terrorism while carefully avoiding an explicit call for imitation, and so remain technically within the law.
We know that extremist propagandists are acutely aware of these legal boundaries. They deliberately operate at the margins of the law. Rather than issuing explicit instructions, they rely on suggestion, admiration and narrative. They glorify past attacks, elevate perpetrators as heroes or martyrs, and celebrate organisations that Parliament has already determined must be proscribed because of the threat that they pose. Such messaging may not always contain an explicit instruction to copy the act, but it none the less plays a powerful role in the radicalisation process. It legitimises terrorism, fuels extremist ideology and contributes to an environment in which violent extremism becomes normalised.
In many cases, Parliament has already taken steps to proscribe certain organisations as terror groups. The decision reflects a clear judgment that those organisations pose such a grave threat that supporting them must be prohibited. It therefore follows that publicly praising or glorifying the acts of such organisations should also fall into the scope of criminal law, even where, as I said, the speaker avoids explicit calls for imitation. This amendment would simply align the legislation with that principle.
It is important to be clear on what the amendment would not do. It would not criminalise legitimate debate, historical discussion or academic analysis of terrorism, nor would it undermine the fundamental protections of freedom of expression that are central to our democratic society. Instead, it would target the deliberate glorification of terrorist organisations and their acts of violence, which extremist actors use to spread propaganda and to influence vulnerable audiences.
Extremist propaganda has evolved significantly since the original legislation was drafted. Today, radicalisation often occurs through narratives that glorify past attacks and portray terrorists as heroes, rather than through direct instructions to commit violence. If the law is to remain effective, it must reflect that reality. Removing the emulation requirement would close a loophole in the law, align our legislation with the realities of modern extremist propaganda and strengthen the ability of prosecutors to act against those who glorify terrorism while hiding behind technicalities. It would send an unequivocal message that the celebration of terrorist violence has no place in our society. This amendment represents a sensible, proportionate and necessary improvement to the existing legislation, and I hope that colleagues will support it.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I have sympathy, as I usually do, with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I will make two short points.
First, by removing the emulation requirement, inserted very deliberately in 2006, this amendment would criminalise the utterance of unpleasant viewpoints without regard to whether they have an effect. It would become a police matter to say that the IRA did what it had to do in 1918 or that the Tamil Tigers, currently a proscribed group, fought bravely in defence of their homeland. It seems to me that this would restrict the scope of legitimate comment and be a departure from the principle that we normally criminalise behaviour only when it is liable to cause harm to others.
Secondly, I heard what the noble Baroness said about Hamas and the St Patrick’s Day parade, but I wonder whether the purpose of this amendment is not better served by Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, inserted as recently as 2019. This already makes it a crime to express
“an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”,
being reckless as to whether that will encourage someone to support it. If police or prosecutors are being unduly cautious in this area—I heard what the noble Lord said about that—they might usefully be directed to that provision of the existing law.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Foster and others. It is right that we look to close the loophole. We need to look at how terrorists operate in the real world. The loophole that is there at present suggests that the current legislation’s wording is not quite fit for purpose.
I agree that the refinements made between Committee and Report are useful. First, I disagree that this would in any way restrict freedom of speech. Historic debate is to be valued, and I do not believe that this would in any way restrict that. The amendment focuses on the contemporary situation. Secondly, it is important that the position of the so-called lone wolf is covered—unfortunately, we have seen more instances of this: people who want to, in effect, wear the badge of a terrorist organisation but who may or may not be directly connected with that organisation. Whether it is in Manchester or in Sydney in recent days, we have seen the horrific situation of a radicalised individual or group of individuals perpetrating such attacks, and it is right that this is covered as well.
There are two principal reasons why I support this amendment and think it is necessary. The first, arguably the lesser of the two, is that it is dealing with the present. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and probably like most Members of this House, I have not been a victim of terrorism or had a family member who has been. All of us in that position can be thankful for that. Where we see people eulogising past terrorist actions for their own purposes—drawing people into their organisations or their way of thinking—it is deeply hurtful to the victims and relatives, whether that is in relation to terrorist atrocities that took place in Northern Ireland, the Manchester Arena bombing or the 7/7 attacks. The presentation of those who perpetrated these attacks as righteous martyrs, and people purveying the view that there was “no alternative”, is deeply hurtful to the living relatives of the victims. That reason alone is sufficient to make this change.
The bigger reason is looking to the future, and this is where we need to get real as regards terrorism. Terrorist organisations are not some closed cell or small group of people who simply never change and who wither on the vine as time passes. For any terrorist group to operate and continue its activities, it requires the influx of new blood, time and again.
One of the things that I find deeply disturbing is that a number of young people are naive and are drawn in; they are not simply handed a gun or a bomb on day one and told to go out and take it with them—they are drawn in bit by bit. The way in which terrorist organisations operate is to gradually indoctrinate those young people in a dangerous ideology and even more perverse methodology and gradually draw them in. In doing so, they get those people addicted to their methods—and past terrorism becomes, effectively, the gateway drug. Many young people, if we were to mention the 7/7 attacks, for example, would have no memory of them: they were before they were born, and they do not see the consequences and the hurt caused directly to those families or the evil done in society. It becomes a much easier sell for terrorist organisations to draw people in on that basis, and to present those who carried out those hideous attacks as being some form of martyr or indeed role model for the future.
To that extent, I do not care whether we are talking about Northern Ireland-based terrorism, whether it is the extremism of those who carry out violence on behalf of some Islamic extremist view, whether it is far-right terrorism or whether it is a terrorist group that is effectively a front organisation for some foreign power. The reality is that we judge terrorism not by its motivation but by its words and actions. There is a real danger of young people being radicalised and drawn in, with the presentation of the evils of the past as potential martyrs.
The argument will go that if, for example, we needed to create a united Ireland by violence 40 years ago and it was right then, surely it must be right now; that if white supremacism was right 30 years ago, it is right now; or that if having an Islamic caliphate across the world was right 20 years ago, it is right now. All those ideas are repugnant, but the logic is that if they are being used by terrorist organisations, using this level of loophole as the argument to draw young people in, we have a duty to protect society but also to protect our young people and prevent them being radicalised. That is why I think this is an absolutely necessary amendment that will help to protect society.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I also support this amendment. We have heard mention of the IRA. Those who lived in Northern Ireland through the Troubles know that Sinn Féin/IRA was the most hideous terrorist group—reduced to “Ra”. Last night, after celebrating St Patrick’s Day, five young people came on to the Tube dressed with tricolours and shouting “Up the Ra, up the Ra, up the Ra”, which only means support for the IRA. I do not think those young people fully realise the hurt and offence that gives to the victims of Sinn Féin/IRA. I fully support this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with trying to tackle ways of taking away the romantic attachment to terrorism as some kind of heroic endeavour, so I completely understand the reasons for this amendment. However, I cannot see how it would work in practice at present. I cannot see how it would deal with a Rangers-Celtic match, or with people singing “The Fields of Athenry” versus those singing “The Sash”, those shouting “Up the Ra” and those shouting “No surrender”. There are slogans on both sides, all of them associated with the previous struggle. I do not know what would happen to those children if, shockingly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, explained, they have balaclavas bought for them—then are they or their parents in scope? How do we deal with that? Goodness knows what you do about Kneecap, the band. I am all for banning them because they are hopeless, but they play on the very imagery that we are discussing.
We have a real problem on university campuses. Far too often, young people are cosplaying as jihadists in the way they dress. I understand that this is not a direct call to arms, but these Hamas wannabes are in a way justifying the type of—what they would call—defensive violence of 7 October. The Ayatollah Khamenei apologists justify IRGC violence, and the expert propagandism fills a society with narratives that I think are very dangerous in terms of young people being radicalised. But I just do not think this amendment can work, because I think we need to be much more courageous in dismantling those narratives, in going on to university campuses and taking on those who put forward critical theory policies that justify treating Israel as a terrorist pariah state and somehow turning a blind eye to the cosplaying radical jihadists.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that this amendment is not going to solve all problems in this area, but it is going to make a significant contribution. She is concerned about hard cases, and she identifies some of the possible hard cases. My answer to that is that the CPS will prosecute only in a case where it believes there is a more than 50% chance of a conviction and it is in the public interest. Many of the examples that she gives are most unlikely to satisfy those criteria.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, if noble Lords in this House do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is giving the answer to a problem that is a reality within our society, then I hope that the Minister, if he is not accepting this, will tell us what the answer is. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about going into the campuses and talking to these young people. You will never shame the likes of Gerry Adams, so just trying to talk them away is not going to solve the problem.
I am speaking for those in Northern Ireland who went through 30 years of terrorism. Every day you went out, your loved one went to the gate and watched you get into the car, believing it was the last time they would see you. Society cannot live under that. It should not be asked to live under that. Therefore, if the Minister says this is not the answer to the problem, I respectfully ask him to give us the answer and not close his eyes to reality. We have to deal with it, and we need to deal with it now.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a few points in this debate. To be fair, there is legislation that covers the glorification of terrorism. The problem—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others have tried to make this point—is that it is not strong enough and does not do what it is supposed to say on the tin. If we look back at the case of Fusilier Lee Rigby, two people were convicted and jailed for that. In 2021 there was a conviction for encouraging terrorism and collecting information after posting messages. In 2023 there was another conviction for sharing a video of National Action, a proscribed neo-Nazi group. In 2024 someone was jailed for encouraging terrorism.
I do not want people to think that there is no legislation; there is, but the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is trying to improve it, particularly for those victims. We hear, in summary, that the law allows for the conviction of people who glorify terrorism. The vast majority of the UK population has not been convicted of any offence and prosecutions require specific evidence. I also picked out from a report that, in the year ending March 2023, 169 people were arrested for terrorism-related activity. Only 46 were charged with terrorism-related offences and we have no idea how many were actually convicted. What we are trying to do here is to make things better.
I ask noble Lords to put themselves in a situation; the examples I give are live examples. There is a group of young people playing in a junior band and a busload of adults pull up who are coming from a Gaelic football match and they start singing pro-terrorist songs and chanting “Up the Ra”. What does that do for those young people who are out playing and enjoying music? I give another example. A man during the Troubles, because he was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was murdered. That evening, his three young children and his widow were in the house and groups of people drove past in cars, cheering at his murder. Those were his neighbours who were doing that—cheering at his murder and shouting “Up the Ra”. Tell me that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be. Tell that man’s widow, who is still alive, and his children that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be.
We need to tighten the glorification of terrorism legislation. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I have to say that she gave some examples that are not akin to what we are talking about here. You cannot stop some of those chants and singing “The Fields of Athenry” or “The Sash” at a Rangers-Celtic match—and, by the way, that is not illegal, but there is a significant difference between singing that and going out to publicly antagonise people by shouting “Up the Ra”, “Up the UVF” or support for other terrorist organisations. So I support the amendment.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Does the noble Lord agree that, as we saw recently, it is also the extent to which, if we normalise the sense of terrorism, it feeds into future terrorism? To give an example of this, when we saw the terrible shooting of John Caldwell—thankfully, despite horrendous injuries, the officer survived—and, a day or two later, the police arrived on an estate to arrest one of the suspects, there were a number of young people in that area who were cheering on not the arrest but the potential culprit. I suspect that they were doing that through a level of ignorance, but there is the seeping in of the idea that terrorism is acceptable to a new generation. That means that, while it is bad enough in terms of the memories of those who have gone through it, it is creating the fertile ground—
Lord Katz (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that interventions are meant to be short and to ask a question; his has gone on for quite a while.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I was just going to say: fertile ground for the future.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
Yes, I think it is very important that there should be no legalisation or normalisation of glorification of terrorism, or of terrorism in general. That is what we are trying to stop here—and what we must stop; otherwise, it will allow more radicalisation of young people throughout society. I am not talking just about Northern Ireland; we need to wake up and realise that it is happening here in GB as well.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I expressed some doubt in Committee about the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I recognised the strength of feeling around the House in favour of her position, forcefully expressed, then as now, by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and others, in connection particularly with past events in Northern Ireland but relevant to terrorism in all its forms. The noble Baroness pointed particularly to antisemitic terrorism allegedly arising from events in the Middle East but in reality entirely unconnected with those events, as with the Bondi Beach attack, which she instanced.
I was, however, concerned in particular by the possibility that the amendment as originally drafted would penalise the glorification of acts of historical terrorism that are or might now be recognised as freedom fighting, despite the methods adopted to express them and fight for a cause or viewpoint. For example, the struggles of the ANC and Nelson Mandela might be categorised as terrorism by some, and those who celebrate their struggles and their outcomes, now widely understood and approved, might be caught by the provisions. So might the actions of partisans and resistance fighters, which, again, we now celebrate and applaud because they were struggling against dictatorships. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has recognised those concerns and redrafted her amendment so that her proposed new subsection (2)(a) requires that a statement
“relates to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed as terrorist organisations”.
Section 1 of the 2006 Act criminalises statements that are
“likely to be understood … as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement … to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
Under Section 1(3), such statements include any statement that
“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”,
and there follows the emulation requirement that this amendment is designed to remove. It is only that requirement that the amendment is designed to remove, it is a narrow amendment in that sense, but that analysis suggests that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, went too far in her speech opposing this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his suggestion that that was the case.
Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that it is only part of the picture, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also said, and that changing the narrative among young people is the crucial challenge, but removing the emulation requirement may help. Proposed new subsection 2(b) in the amendment would pose two alternative routes to conviction. The first would remove the emulation requirement at paragraph (a) but applying the glorification offence only to statements relating to currently proscribed terrorist organisations. The second, at paragraph (b), which is an alternative, would replicate exactly the existing offence at Section 1(3)(a) and (b), the glorification with the emulation requirement. It could be a cause for concern—and I listened with care to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—but because it replicates the existing offence that has been on the statute book since 2006, and the emulation requirement includes a reference to existing circumstances, that seems to me to be a safeguard.
We have concluded that the newly defined offence is carefully drawn; we accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the glorification offence, restricted to already proscribed terrorist organisations, does not need the emulation requirement; and we accept that that requirement is difficult to prove. Therefore, if the noble Baroness chooses to divide the House, we will support the amendment.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I think it is important to look at this not just from an Irish point of view; we have to look at the big picture. It is clear that there are different pieces of legislation that govern this area, and reference has been made to other pieces of legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, we are on Report and moving toward Third Reading, so there is an opportunity here. If the Government have particular difficulties with this, they have heard the mood of the House. I have no doubt that they can take that on board, and if there is something that they are not comfortable with in the drafting of this amendment, they can bring forward their own.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. As I said in Committee, I firmly support her in seeking to amend the emulation requirement in the Terrorism Act 2006. We will of course have a more wide-ranging debate on terrorism in the next group, so I will reserve my wider comments for then.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for returning to the issue of the glorification of terrorism, our exchange of letters and her movement and reflections on what we said in Committee. I note the support from the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Empey, Lord Weir, Lord Marks, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, Lord Polak, from the Conservative Back Benches, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, and Lord Elliott. I will come back to comments made by other noble Lords as I progress.
Let me say straight away that I have not been a victim of terrorism, but I know people who have been. I have met victims of terrorism not only in the context of Northern Ireland when I had the honour of serving there but in this job, from a range of backgrounds. I know that discussion of all these issues, including in this debate, causes great pain for those victims. However, I hope can explain why, even with the changes that have been made by the noble Baroness, I cannot accept the amendment in its current form.
Let me first express and reiterate the purpose of the encouragement offence. It was introduced after the 7/7 attacks and is designed to act as a precursor offence to reduce the risk of people being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism. The offence applies equally to statements made online or offline. It also applies even where an individual is reckless about the impact of their statement—that goes some way to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Encouragement includes any statements that glorify acts of terrorism. To be clear, “acts of terrorism” in this context includes any action taken for the purposes of terrorism, whether or not it was taken by a proscribed organisation. Today, we have talked about the IRA—which, at one stage, was heavily proscribed—and about Palestine Action and other organisations in relation to the current conflicts and activities in Palestine and Israel. “Glorification” is defined in the 2006 Act—which was passed by a previous Government in which I served—as including any “praise or celebration”.
I recognise that Amendment 418 is a modified version of the noble Baroness’s proposal made in Committee. Specifically, the amendment would retain the historical safeguard that I pointed out to her and that is necessary to limit the offence, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, indicated today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having taken into account our concerns. However, the amendment would still disapply this to statements that indirectly encouraged acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations.
The offence was carefully drafted at the time of its introduction to ensure that statements that are automatically captured by the offence have to meet both the requirement that the statement glorifies an act of terrorism and the historical safeguard. Amendment 418 attempts to split up these two requirements, when it was always intended that these requirements would work together. I remind the House that the encouragement offence has been recently reviewed by Jonathan Hall KC, the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, at the Government’s request and in light of the 7 October attacks, which a number of noble Lords referred to. In that review, he strongly advised against removing this historical safeguard.
In addition, the offence is very clear that statements that glorify acts of terrorism in such a way as to encourage others to carry out these acts would include acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. As a result, it is not necessary to spell this out any more clearly in legislation. As with the noble Baroness’s previous amendment tabled in Committee, it is also worth highlighting—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—that there are other offences that may be relevant to her concern too. In particular, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation. The noble Lords, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Elliott, made points about prosecutions, which have very often been undertaken under that legislation. The offence in this Bill is designed to address the harm that comes from the legitimisation of terrorist organisations, which the noble Baroness has spoken about.
We may need to test the opinion of the House, but I know why the noble Baroness has brought the amendment forward. I know why noble Lords—particularly those with fresh memories of activities in Northern Ireland, including those who saw activities that still offend many people in Northern Ireland—support the amendment. I know why the noble Lord, Lord Polak, supports the amendment. However, I say to all of them that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has reviewed it and believes the offence is currently fit for purpose. There are many other mechanisms—including those that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed to—that will lead to prosecutions for these issues. There is also a significant effort to ensure that the Government support activities to turn people away from terrorism—through the Prevent scheme, education and a range of other mechanisms—so that people are not politicised towards terrorism through activities undertaken.
With those reasons in mind, while I recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns and understand why she brought them forward, I hope that the reassurances I have given mean that she will not press the amendment to a Division. I await her response.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has communicated with me throughout on this issue of the glorification of terrorism. I also thank, as I said before, the Bill office for the way in which it has engaged with me.
I thank all noble Lords for their engagement on this issue. This has been a very good debate. On the other parts of the Terrorism Act that are there, I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had to say on Section 12. The unfortunate thing is that we see very few prosecutions in relation to it. This is why, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we cannot ignore what is going on around the glorification of terrorism in the widest possible terms in the United Kingdom. With that in mind, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Amendment of section 3 (proscription) of the Terrorism Act 2000In section 3(3)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000, at end insert “, provided that only one organisation per order may be added”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require that any order made under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 relates to a single organisation. This would enhance the ability of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise the proscription process by allowing the possibility of voting against some Secretary of State proscription decisions, without jeopardising others.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, more on terrorism, and proscription in particular. Amendment 420 is in my name, and I support Amendment 422B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which would beef up parliamentary involvement, and the role of the ISC in particular, in the proscription process. I oppose later amendments that seem to limit or completely remove the role of the courts in this area.
The Home Secretary’s power to proscribe a terrorist organisation under Section 3 of the 2000 Act is an awesome power. It is none the less necessary in a democratic society, because people should not be able to have private armies. We all understand that. None the less, getting these decisions right is incredibly important. In this debate, I will not relitigate any past or pending decisions. I am looking at it from the point of view of constitutional principle. The consequences of proscription are very serious, now and in the future, so getting these decisions right is very important.
My Amendment 420 is very modest, and I am grateful to all noble Lords across the House who supported it last time, and to colleagues in the other place of different political persuasions who spoke to me privately, expressing their support for this type of change. At the moment, a single proscription order may contain umpteen organisations, which means that when that order is put before each House, there will be a yes or no vote on an entire list, rather than an opportunity for Members of the other place or noble Lords to properly scrutinise and vote on each proscription decision. By contrast, the courts are able to review these decisions individually. I suggest that, as a matter of constitutional principle, both Houses should have a similar opportunity. That is what Amendment 420 would do.
Last time, my noble friend, amiable and courteous as always, as noble Lords know, was able to offer one argument against me, which was that we have always done it this way. I hope he forgives me, but I do not think that a good enough argument. There may be a further one to come, but that is not a good enough argument to limit the reasonable opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to vote on each individual proscription decision. There is no speed issue or emergency issue because even after my amendment, the Home Secretary could make multiple orders on the same day and sign them with the same pen; there would just be individual votes and debates, as required by Parliament. That is the argument. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in the circumstances I shall confine my observations to Amendments 422A and 422B. Before I do so, I say that I strongly support the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness. Were she to divide the House on it, I would support it, but I gather that, perhaps because of the press of business, that is not her present intention.
The purpose of Amendment 422A is to ensure that individuals can be prosecuted under Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act for the offence of supporting an act of terrorism only if the alleged acts amount to supporting terrorism in the sense that the ordinary citizen would understand that concept. Amendment 422A makes explicit that the necessary intent that the prosecution must prove is that the alleged acts were done with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism. The amendment also restricts the possibility of a demonstrator being arrested under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. In general, an arrest must be authorised by a senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.
My suggestion to your Lordships is that the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. It has been widely criticised, for example, by the judges in the Palestine Action case. In that case, judicial concern about statutory overreach contributed to the proscription of Palestine Action being held to be unlawful. It has also been the subject of much distinguished criticism—for example by Lord Sumption, a former member of the Supreme Court. I suggest that the position is profoundly unjust. If we consider, for example, the demonstrations that have been taking place in the streets of London, hundreds of people have been holding up placards that say, “I support Palestine Action”. Many of these characters are elderly and retired folk, rather like me; most self-evidently respectable, rather like me; and usually without knowledge of the secret workings of Palestine Action, rather like me. Now they may be self-indulgent—rather like me—and some accuse them of being naive, but are they really guilty of terrorism in the sense that most of us understand that concept? I suggest, surely not. What they are doing is using a form of shorthand to demonstrate their opposition to the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, and that they are entitled to do.
There are at least three serious objections to the present law. First, it is a serious restriction on free speech. I refer here not to the European convention, although it may be engaged, but to the long-standing tradition of English law. Secondly, to use the law in circumstances that offend the common sense of the ordinary citizen brings the whole body of criminal law into disrepute.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name. Like many noble Lords, I was surprised by the decision of the High Court that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was unlawful, in view of her detailed description of its terrorist activities in her House of Commons Statement on 23 June 2025.
In reading the High Court judgment, I was struck by the inconsistency of the arguments of the learned judges. At the beginning of the judgment, they set out the details of Palestine Action’s Underground Manual, which is standard textbook terrorist stuff: guidance to form small autonomous secret cells and to recruit only trusted participants. Then there is operational terrorist tradecraft: instructions to use secure email and VPNs, to conduct reconnaissance, and to pick targets based on complicity with the Israeli arms industry. It then has a section on targeting and tactics, with lists of defence firms, universities, financial firms and government buildings, and practical advice aimed at serious property damage to disrupt those targets.
The court then concludes that proscribing the organisation was “disproportionate” and that the Home Secretary did not follow her own policy, even though it said that
“the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary given that she has both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety”.
I submit that the Home Secretary must have the absolute right to proscribe an organisation based on the advice that she has received from our advisory bodies.
In coming to her decision, the Home Secretary sought copious advice on the terrorist nature of Palestine Action. As all noble Lords know, the Home Office and the FCDO do not proscribe organisations willy-nilly. We all complained about their failure to proscribe the IRGC. The Home Secretary had reports from a proscription review group, a cross-departmental group including counterterrorism policing, which encompasses specialist police officers from many police forces. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the CTP gave their reports.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre produced its assessment. JTAC comprises counterterrorism experts from United Kingdom intelligence agencies, police forces and government departments. Its report is very significant and was summarised as having concluded:
“Although most of its activity could not be classified as terrorism within the definition in Section 1 of the 2000 Act … Palestine Action had ‘commit[ted] or participate[d] in acts of terrorism to the extent of the attacks at Thales, Glasgow … at Instro Precision (a subsidiary of Elbit) in Kent … and at Elbit in Bristol … JTAC noted that those participating in the Bristol attack had ‘entered the [Elbit] warehouse, using weapons including sledgehammers, axes and whips’ and ‘during the attack two responding police officers and a security guard were assaulted and suffered injuries. One police officer had been assaulted with a sledgehammer and sustained a serious back injury’.
JTAC noted that Palestine Action had cleverly issued videos of the damage to property but not its violence against the responders.
We now come to the crucial question of proportionality. From reading the evidence, I am certain that the Home Secretary’s proscription of Palestine Action was lawful and proportionate, and a necessary response to an escalating campaign that threatened critical national infrastructure. The statutory test, the court admits, was satisfied. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 permits proscription where an organisation
“commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.
The Home Secretary concluded that Palestine Action met that test and laid an order, which was approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Operational intelligence supported that decision. The JTAC assessment concluded that the group had conducted incidents resulting in serious property damage and that the Underground Manual provides
“practical advice and advocates for serious property damage”.
That assessment links the manual and the recorded actions to the statutory definition of property damage designed to influence government. The High Court judgment itself accepted that three of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to terrorist offences, which strengthens the factual basis for proscription.
The proscription was proportionate because of the severity and escalation of conduct. The pattern of over 300 direct actions with increasing frequency and severity, including attacks on defence suppliers and critical infrastructure, supports a conclusion that ordinary criminal law and targeted prosecutions were insufficient to address the systemic risk. It was proportionate because of the targeting of national security supply chains. Where actions against defence firms and related infrastructure create heightened national security risks, proscription is a legitimate, proportionate tool to protect those interests where the conduct is political and aimed at influence.
Proscription was also proportionate because policy and process safeguards were engaged. The Home Office relied on PRG and JTAC operational inputs and then laid the order before Parliament—steps that reflect the five policy safeguards that the Secretary of State must consider after concluding that it satisfies the terrorism test: the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities, the threat to the UK, its presence in UK, and the threat to British nationals overseas.
Of course proscription interferes with Article 10 and 11 rights to peaceful free association and expression, but it is narrowly aimed at an organisation which has been shown to promote or prepare acts meeting the statutory terrorism definition. Where evidence shows a real risk to infrastructure, violence and public safety, the interference with Article 10 and 11 rights is justified and necessary in a democratic society. Indeed, the court said:
“We do not consider that the proscription of Palestine Action is likely to result in any general impact on expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or even opposition to Elbit. This provides some support for a conclusion that the proscription was proportionate”.
Nevertheless, the court concluded that the Home Secretary was in breach of convention rights because there might be some supporters of Palestine Action who are not advocating destruction and violence but general support for the organisation. However, if these people want to protest about Israel or Gaza or anything else, then they can do so, but not under the umbrella of an organisation advocating violence and damage and terrorism.
The court went on to say:
“Real weight must attach to the fact that Palestine Action has organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism as defined at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act. Those actions are small in number but they are still significant and it is also significant that these actions have happened in the United Kingdom … It is significant that Palestine Action has not suggested that its actions that have been assessed to comprise terrorism were either a mistake or an aberration”.
Indeed, Palestine Action has lauded those who took part in the actions.
The court said:
“It is, further, significant that the contents of the Underground Manual provide good evidence of Palestine Action’s continuing intention to promote the use of violence regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public”.
Let me just repeat that last sentence. The court concluded that Palestine Action intends to continue with terrorist activities
“to promote the use of violence, regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public”.
But then the court makes an extraordinary statement:
“Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was disproportionate. At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act”.
So that is all right, then. The court has decided that three terrorist actions were not enough to justify the Home Secretary’s decision. How many does it want? Five actions, 10 actions, 15 terrorist actions, or to wait until persons—innocent people—are killed?
The Home Secretary has a duty to protect the public, not the court, and she should not be second-guessed in this way on the facts when there is clear evidence of terrorist activity. Even if it is only three serious incidents, there was the danger of escalation. The court said:
“When striking the balance between issues such as these, the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary given that she has both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety”.
I agree about the latitude and my Amendment 422 seeks to ensure that only the Secretary of State can make that judgment based on the advice of all the anti-terrorist organisations at her disposal, and at her own discretion. She is the one who answers to Parliament, to us, on the rightness and wrongness of her decision. My Amendment 422 seeks to ensure that supporters of any proscribed group who were arrested after that group was proscribed and before it was de-proscribed can be prosecuted for such an offence.
Of course, my amendments will be technically flawed, and my noble friend on the Front Bench will object on principle, with perhaps good reason, but I believe the concept is right. I hope that the Minister will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to implement what I am advocating here. If he will not, will he tell the House what he proposes to do to reverse this perverse decision?
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the House, that the judgment in Palestine Action to which he objects is under appeal and the Court of Appeal, in due course, will pronounce on the wisdom or otherwise of the High Court decision and the legality of the Home Secretary’s decision. These criticisms, with some of which I certainly agree, are premature. What matters is not what the noble Lord thinks or what I think, but what the Court of Appeal says and, if necessary, what the Supreme Court says on such an important matter.
In any event, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is a noted constitutionalist, that it is in principle wrong to seek to remove the power of the courts to assess the legality of judgments of the Home Secretary. Surely, it is a very valuable protection of the rule of law in this country that the courts pronounce on legality and Parliament does not remove the power of the courts to do so.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I have no objection to the court pronouncing on a point of law. However, on this occasion, it was not pronouncing on a point of law but making a judgment on the facts of the case and disagreeing with the Home Secretary on the facts.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am not defending the Divisional Court’s judgment, but it would say that it was intervening on a point of law, because a point of law covers whether the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to form the conclusion that she did in the circumstances. However, as I say, this is all highly premature.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I have prepared a full speech on three amendments in this group and the Government’s behaviour regarding the proscription of Palestine Action. I have signed Amendments 420, 422A and 422B, which, if agreed, would prevent the naked politicisation of terrorist legislation ever happening again. However, I recognise that noble Lords are anxious to get on with discussing other matters, and that we are facing a long journey into the small hours.
Furthermore, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have ably covered much of what I would have said, so I will confine myself to pointing out that the Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was wrong in principle and dangerous in effect. It stretched terrorism powers to crush a protest movement, not a terrorist organisation, with a chilling effect on our core democratic rights. It felt highly disproportionate when it was being debated in this House, and that was later confirmed by the High Court. No wonder the Government needed the crude political stunt of bundling Palestine Action together with two obviously terrorist groups to force it through Parliament.
These amendments matter because proscription decisions must be, and must be seen to be, grounded, proportionate and evidence-based. These amendments protect our security while honouring Parliament’s duty to scrutinise some of the gravest powers that we give to the Government. I suspect that the proposers of these amendments may judge that the House would prefer to move on to other matters, and so may not call Divisions on them. I hope that they do but, if not, I will have to satisfy myself with the hope that the derision heaped on the Government for the proscription of Palestine Action—and the embarrassment of watching 2,700 peaceful and mostly elderly protesters being arrested on terrorism charges—will be enough to deter this or any future Government from repeating this folly.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 420 and 422B, both of which I have supported. I go to a lot of events where the right to protest is debated, and people are quite shocked when I describe how this Government bundled three organisations together so that they could push through the proscription of Palestine Action. It does not look just or fair. They do not even have to be similar or connected, as these three were not. It was interesting to listen to the entertaining noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, running through the debate on whether to proscribe Palestine Action.
These amendments are about the process: about how it is done and whether it is done in a proper way. It is not proper scrutiny and it is not what this House is for when we have a blunt choice to accept or reject all three. That is not a sensible system. Proscription is a really serious step: it criminalises people for association, for support and even for what they say. Such decisions deserve to be looked at carefully, case by case, and not rushed through or passed in a job lot. If the Government are confident in their decisions about what is and is not a terrorist organisation—I assume they were confident about Palestine Action—they should have no problem with each one being judged on its own, not in a job lot.
The amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, comes down to something quite simple. These are very big decisions that can criminalise association, affect livelihoods and follow someone for years. If we are being asked to approve that, we should be properly informed—but we were not; we had to take the Minister’s word for it and we did not have the information. We are asked to nod things through without seeing the full picture. I do not think that is a very comfortable position for your Lordships’ House to be in.
Ensuring that Parliament has a clear and well-informed picture is the whole point of this. It also adds a bit more balance. At the moment, these decisions are taken by Ministers. It need not get in the way of a fair decision, or allowing things to move quickly. If there is urgency the Government can act, but they still have to come back and justify that decision properly afterwards. It is about making sure that when we take serious decisions, they are justified on the facts, not just on suppositions.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I add a few comments in support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—but without repeating him—on the proposed ouster clause suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in his Amendments 421 and 422DA. The schedule of proscribed organisations is often added to and rarely subtracted from. At present it has about 98 entries, if you include Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the world. That includes a number of nationalist movements from around the world that are, or have in the past been, committed to violence in pursuit of their aims.
Despite the recommendations of successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, the annual review of proscribed groups by the Home Office and the NIO was discontinued in 2014. As far as I know, that automatic annual review has not been reinstated. There is no requirement in law that proscription should have to be renewed every three or five years, or indeed at all. In my report on the Terrorism Acts in 2016, at paragraph 5.24, I recorded the Government’s admission, which I found breathtaking, that no fewer than 14 groups on the list no longer satisfied the statutory requirements for proscription. Even more breathtakingly, they did not try to stop me saying it. There were almost certainly other groups in respect of which the same thing could have been argued, yet most of those groups remain on the list.
One group, the al-Qaeda offshoot to which the current President of Syria belonged, was recently deproscribed on the initiative of the Home Secretary. But if an application to the Home Secretary is turned down, it then takes money and determination to challenge a proscription in POAC—the tribunal that exists for this purpose. A handful of applications have been made by organisations that have definitively rejected violence, and these have been successful. With great respect to the noble Lord and without reference to the Palestine Action case, I am not persuaded that there is any good reason to block this necessary avenue for recourse.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It seems to me entirely sensible, for the reasons set out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I agree very much with what he said about the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, that Palestine Action should not be proscribed. It is not that I have any sympathy with it—it is a deplorable organisation that does a great deal of damage. If in fact the other laws required to deal with such appalling organisations are not sufficient, the Government should bring to this House, as well as the House of Commons, stronger laws to deal with them. But it is not, in my view, a terrorist organisation.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will deal with this group as briefly as I can. I too support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The idea that you can bundle together organisations and then proscribe them as a group seems ridiculous. Parliament should be faced with one organisation at a time when it votes—that is a matter of common sense. MPs must be entitled to decide on the proscription of particular organisations individually, and the fact is that many Members of Parliament resented being asked to proscribe three organisations together.
Of the three organisations, the other two—Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—were plainly terrorist organisations that ought to have been proscribed, and it was invidious for Members of Parliament to be told that it was an all-or-nothing decision. That amendment should plainly be accepted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that, try as he loyally might, when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, spoke to this in Committee he could say only that this has been done before and is the way we have generally done it. That is no answer to the argument so elegantly put by the noble Baroness.
Turning to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I will deal with Amendments 421 and 422DA together. Both contain what are commonly called ouster clauses; they have been spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is the right of the courts to pronounce on the legality of the actions of the Home Secretary. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would, in effect, outlaw legal challenges to proscription, no matter how irrational, or what lawyers call ultra vires, or contrary to the evidence the proscription may be. An exception is suggested in the amendment: if a right to a fair trial would be totally nullified. As a test, I respectfully suggest that that is an entirely meaningless exception.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a very large and wide-ranging group of amendments, all relating to varying aspects of the law on terrorism and the proscription of terrorist groups. Given the amount that we need to get through today, I will be as brief as possible.
I have tabled Amendments 422C and 467AAA. The new clause proposed by Amendment 422C would require the Secretary of State to
“review whether any organisations related to the Iranian government should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000”
within one month of Royal Assent. It would also require the Government to publish the results of that review and give reasons for the decision. Amendment 467AAA would simply ensure that the proposed new clause came into effect on the day that the Bill passed.
I acknowledge at the outset that this amendment is perhaps a round-about way of confronting a very simple but incredibly serious issue. I am, of course, concerned about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps specifically. Unfortunately, I was advised that an amendment to primary legislation that inserted the name of an organisation into Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 would be hybridising, so I have not done so.
I am in the fortunate position where I am almost certain that I know exactly what the Minister is going to say in response to this amendment: that the Government keep proscription under review at all times and, as such, my amendment is not necessary. But the fact is that the decision the Government have taken not to proscribe the IRGC is not satisfactory.
I am also sure that the Minister will try to attack me by saying that the previous Government did not proscribe the IRGC either. I am fully aware of that fact. But it is blatantly clear now to everyone that the situation is radically different from the situation even last year. We now have the Iranian regime erratically attacking most of the Middle East, blockading the Strait of Hormuz and allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in the United States. So I do not think it unreasonable for this to be the point at which we finally proscribe the IRGC. I know that there are a lot of people in this country who would support that.
On my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendments, I am sympathetic to what he is attempting to achieve. The ruling of the High Court in the case of R (on the application of Huda Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department found the proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful on two of the four grounds before the court. One of those grounds was compatibility with the ECHR. The ruling on the second ground—that the Home Secretary was acting contrary to her own policy—was also contentious.
The court said at paragraph 74 of the judgment that the Home Secretary is required by the Home Office’s policy on proscription to balance the “benefits” and “costs” of proscription. Drawing the courts into what is in essence a political judgment such as this risks a very dangerous precedent, and my noble friend is therefore making an important point.
I also point out to those who might criticise my noble friend’s Amendment 421 that there are still protections against arbitrary proscriptions even if the role of the courts is curtailed. Both Houses of Parliament have to agree to an order under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act, and, under Section 4, an appeal can be made to the Home Secretary to deproscribe an organisation. If that appeal is rejected, an appeal can then be made to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which—and this is important—per Section 5(3) of the Act must apply the same principles as the court would in a judicial review. Therefore, there are safeguards against arbitrary proscription and, as such, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is entirely correct to question the role of the courts here.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group—there are quite of lot of them—and the topics that have been raised.
To begin, I reiterate the critical importance of our counterterrorism framework, including proscription, in protecting the public; that is what this is about. I say in response to a number of comments by noble Lords that yes, we always keep the framework under review. As was mentioned in the debate, some organisations have been deproscribed as a result of government examination, and we are held to critical independent oversight, provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
Let me address each of the amendments in turn. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Amendment 420 aims to limit proscription orders to a single organisation per order, ensuring that each group is debated and voted on separately. That has had support today from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. I understand my noble friend’s intention. I just say again to them—and to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger —that Palestine Action was proscribed, along with the other two organisations, according to exactly the same test under the Act that allows proscription to take place. The exact same test was applied to each of those organisations.
In July, those orders were put together in one vote for the purpose of the effective use of parliamentary time. We had a big debate in both the Commons and this Chamber, and there was no underhand purpose in doing that. As I said to the Committee at the time, multiple organisations have routinely been proscribed at the same time, according to the circumstances of the time. That is my “We’ve always done it this way” defence, but we have in fact always done things this way, under every political party in government to date.
There will be instances in future when it is again necessary for organisations to be packaged together for a proscription debate. I understand the purpose of the point made by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have discussed this matter with my colleagues who deal with these matters in the House of Commons. I want to reflect on it, but I ask my noble friend to allow us the time to do so, because I do not believe that such legislation should tie the hands of the Government in how they approach proscription. Let us reflect on these sensible points in order to allow a single debate and independent votes. I will leave it at that for the moment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I have one question for the Minister. The statutory test that is said to have been applied in the House of Commons is the statutory test of proscription. If Members differed on the result of the statutory test in respect of the three different organisations, they were not given any opportunity to distinguish between them. That is the position, is it not?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that. As I have said, the “We’ve always done it this way” test has been put to me. I am saying to my noble friend that there are valid points that potentially need examination, but I do not believe that legislating to tie the Government’s hands on this issue is the way forward. I say to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that there is a discussion to be had about how future proscriptions are brought forward, and we intend to reflect on those points.
Amendment 422DA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, aims to prevent any challenges in court on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, summed up the Government’s objection, and I support what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, re-emphasised those points, and I do not wish to add to what he said. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, might expect me to say, I cannot comment on an existing, live, legal examination of the Government’s reasons for that proscription. Irrespective of that, the amendment in the noble Lord’s name would remove all avenues of challenge, including those currently available under the Act. I do not believe that the Home Secretary should have unrivalled powers, even though, in this case, there is an ongoing court case, so I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 422 aims to ensure that individuals can be arrested and convicted for active conduct before a group is deproscribed. Again, the position is clear: even after a group is deproscribed, individuals can be arrested and convicted for conduct that occurred while the group was proscribed. There is no automatic remedy for criminal convictions if an organisation is deproscribed.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their approach to such an important debate, in particular those who made a special effort to be succinct with the long night ahead. I remind noble Lords that my amendment on one organisation per order is not about Palestine Action; it is about procedure and constitutional safeguards for the future.
I am very grateful for the way in which my noble friend the Minister responded differently from the response in Committee. I am hugely encouraged by what he said. He has very graciously offered to go back to his colleagues in the Home Office and think again on this. I feel that I have to respond in kind by encouraging him to do just that, as he has so graciously offered. I so believe in the power of our argument on Amendment 420 that, when he has those discussions, I believe he will feel able to come back with a government amendment following Report. If he is not able to do so, having had those discussions, we will see what might be done at Third Reading.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I was clear: I will not be bringing an amendment back at Third Reading, nor can I support the amendment that she brought forward today. I recognise the issue that she has raised and we will examine and discuss that with colleagues in relation to future proscription orders before any House of Parliament.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
There we go: I was too optimistic, perhaps. None the less, I believe that my noble friend sees the power of the argument or he would not have said what he has said. There are plenty of ways in which the Home Office might consider doing one organisation per order in the future. In any event, in light of the time, and given that I do not have the support of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition or of the Government—I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for their support—I will not try the House’s patience with a vote that I cannot win this evening. I will keep nudging my noble friend the Minister and beg leave to withdraw.
Viscount Hailsham
“Support for terrorism: intention(1) The Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 12 (support) after subsection (4), insert—“(4A) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.” (3) In section 13 (uniform and publication of images), after subsection (1B), insert—“(1C) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”(4) Subject to subsection (5) a person may not be arrested in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, unless that arrest has been authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.(5) When determining whether to authorise the arrest under subsection (4), that police officer must have regard to the provisions of sections 12(4A) and 13(1C) of that Act.(6) Subject to subsection (7), subsections (4) and (5) of this section shall not apply where an arrest has not been authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above, but a police officer, having regard to the urgency or gravity of the relevant circumstances, reasonably believes that it is necessary to arrest a person in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.(7) When determining whether to make an arrest under subsection (6), that police officer must have regard to the provisions of sections 12(4A) and 13(1C) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments are designed to ensure that arrests under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act are in general confined to cases where a person is reasonably suspected of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I am very grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches, but for a similar reason to that advanced by the noble Baroness, I am not going to trouble the House by seeking to divide.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the date on which this Act is passed, review whether any organisations related to the Iranian government should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription).(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of the review under subsection (1), and this must include the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Amendment 422C seeks a review of the proscription status of Iran-related entities within one month of the date on which the Act is passed. As I said previously and re-emphasise, it is clear to everyone that the situation now is radically different from the situation even last year, and on that basis I think we have a duty to protect people and I therefore seek the opinion of the House.
Baroness Kidron
“AI chatbots: content promoting terrorist and national security offences(1) It is an offence to create, supply, or otherwise make available an AI chatbot which produces content specified in subsection (2).(2) Content is covered by this section if it is content which--(a) produces language promoting, or tactics or target selection for, terrorist offences or real world violence,(b) threatens national security, or(c) encourages activity which threatens public safety.(3) It is an offence to create, supply, or otherwise make available an AI chatbot which has not been risk assessed for the possibility of producing content specified in subsection (2).(4) Where a provider of a chatbot identifies a risk of the chatbot producing content of the kind set out in subsection (2), it is an offence for a provider of a chatbot not to take steps to mitigate or manage those risks before making the chatbot publicly available.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) For the purposes of this Act an “AI chatbot” is a generative AI system, including a deep or large language model, able to generate text, images and other content based on the data on which it was trained, and which has been designed to respond to user commands in a way that mimics a human, or engage in conversations with a user that mimic human conversations.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, drawing on conclusions in reports by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, seeks to make it an offence to supply a chatbot which creates content or provides tactics that would result in terrorist offences or threats to national security, or supply a chatbot which has not properly been risk assessed. It is part of a set of amendments related to AI chatbot offences in Baroness Kidron’s name.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.
I will first speak briefly to government Amendment 429B, which will give a power to the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations that could, in the future and at the discretion of the Secretary of State, ensure that chatbots are covered by the Online Safety Act. However, that very broad power is not matched by substance. The amendment does not define a chatbot or deal with the critical fact that, when a child is entrapped by a chatbot, there is nowhere to turn. Currently, the regulator has no duty to deal with individual complaints and the police do not recognise a chatbot as a person, meaning that there is no perpetrator to pursue.
The amendment also fails to address harms to children. In fact, it explicitly deals only with “illegal” harms. It does not deal with the coercive elements of control or the willingness of chatbots to plan many crimes, in addition to the crimes themselves. The government amendment also has nothing to say about enforcement. Taken together, it simply adds new duties to a system that is already understood to be lacking in speed and effective enforcement.
This lack of substance is compounded by a lack of clarity about scope. The amendment’s wording refers to an
“internet service that is capable (or part of which is capable) of generating AI-generated content”.
This is so broad that both Amendment 209, of two weeks ago, and Amendment 441A in this group would be entirely unnecessary. Yet, during our meetings on this issue, officials have been absolutely clear that although the scope is currently drafted as wide as possible, the intention is to get to a narrower definition as part of the process of creating secondary legislation. They could not guarantee that gen AI or search would be covered in any final measures. In short, it creates powers but offers no promise of protection.
I would rather have worked with the Government on this issue to make watertight provisions. Indeed, I have made that offer directly to the Secretary of State. We are in the foothills of a crisis. The government amendment offers too little clarity or certainty, so we are left with an amendment that is limitless in wording but uncertain in application and with a timeline that simply does not meet this moment.
On Thursday 5 March, Megan Garcia and her husband came to Parliament to talk about the loss of their son, Sewell. Members from both Houses were moved by the story of a much-loved and high-achieving child who was captured by a chatbot, coerced, bullied and, finally, encouraged to commit suicide. His death resulted in the chatbot, character.ai, becoming age-gated to users over 18, but there are many more chatbots to take its place that are not restricted in the same way. As this issue is getting more public notice, is in the newspapers daily and is talked about in the online world, sadly, my inbox is filling with cases that involve similar coercion, sexual content, dangerous medical advice and chatbots that support illegal activity.
On Friday last week, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate published a report that showed that eight out of 10 chatbots it tested were willing to help rehearse, offer tactical advice and identify potential sites for US shooters. Scenarios included a school shooting and a synagogue. Whether in the UK or elsewhere, the capability is the same and the risk is real. A chatbot that organises an attack, while wishing its user, “happy (and safe) shooting!”, is no less likely to help place a bomb, organise a knife attack or any other such violent act. This is not a description of a dystopian future; these chatbots are already on the market, widely used by both adults and children—ChatGPT, Gemini and Replika, among others.
Only on Monday, just two days ago, I was contacted by someone about Alexa+, which is widely anticipated to be launched very soon in the UK and is already available in the US. In the tranche of messages, there were messages about emotional dependence in very young children and stories of inappropriate content. One exchange on Reddit, from which I have redacted the name of the child, said:
“I plugged our Alexa in to ask it to help me with cooking a sweet potato”.
Then, her daughter asked it
“to tell her a silly story so it did”.
Then, her daughter
“asked it if she could tell it a story. It said yes … and then mid story interrupted her and asked her what she was wearing and if it could see her pants”.
I could not find a reliable statistic for how many households in the UK have Alexa, nor is it clear whether Alexa+ will be a choice for consumers or simply rolled out as an upgrade, but the statistics I found revealed that between a third and two-thirds of UK households have Alexa. In the material I was sent, it repeatedly alluded to the fact that the new service was active in their house or child’s bedroom without their knowledge or consent.
We have chatbots that coerce children into suicide, plan violent acts, build abusive relationships and have the capacity to be active in tens of millions of households. Taking a power, having another consultation and bringing forward regulation over which Parliament has no oversight is not action; it is kicking the problem down the road.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 422D and 433 to 437. I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Her arguments have been entirely backed up by the release only today of the report entitled Invisible No More: How AI Chatbots Are Reshaping Violence Against Women and Girls by Durham University and Swansea University. The research identifies the range of design choices and failures in safety mechanisms that enable, encourage, simulate and normalise violence against women and girls. The report found that fantasies of incest and rape were normalised, and one chatbot, Chub AI, suggested violent rape and domestic abuse as categories.
I reiterate the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about the long and bureaucratic path to business disruption measures, meaning that harm continues to perpetuate as our system is not agile enough to tackle these rapidly evolving issues. I wish to pay tribute to Professor Clare McGlynn KC for her work co-authoring this ground-breaking report and emphasise the warning she made in today’s Times newspaper. She said:
“Chatbot violence against women represents a rapidly escalating threat. Without early intervention, these harms risk becoming entrenched and scaling quickly, mirroring what happened with deepfake and nudify apps, where early warnings were largely ignored. We must not make the same mistakes again”.
Professor McGlynn and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, once again demonstrate their ability to warn against these emerging harms, and I sincerely hope that noble Lords will back the noble Baroness should she wish to divide the House today.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 422D and the consequential Amendments 434 to 437, to which I have added my name. In Amendment 429B the Government have gone far to respond to concerns over AI-generated harms, but this amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said, gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State to decide the shape of how AI-generated services are controlled in this country. The Minister knows there is concern across the House about exposing this central part of the new tech economy to what are effectively unfettered ministerial powers. Very few noble Lords want to support a skeleton amendment like this.
Government Amendment 429B gives the Secretary of State the right to amend, which is defined later as including the right to
“repeal and apply (with or without modifications)”.
This applies to all of Part 3 of the Online Safety Act illegal content duties in relation to AI services. Parliament will not even have an option to amend regulations on this issue. Proposed new subsection (1) in this amendment seems like a big deal to me, and the noble Lord should be very concerned. The intention seems to be that the basis of the existing regime in Part 3 will be used, but we do not know how the Secretary of State will decide to adapt that regime to fit the particularities of AI services that generate illegal content. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, that goes a long way beyond AI services designed to mimic humans and human conversations, which is what chatbots are. If a subsequently elected Government are in thrall of the tech companies, how might they abuse this power?
During the passage of the Online Safety Act, noble Lords spent time and energy defining both a “search service” and a “user-to-user service”, and their responsibility for both designing out and mitigating illegal harms. It seems extraordinary not to have the details of the new services on the face of the legislation. The definition of “AI” in new subsection (17) is oddly uninformative. It simply says:
“‘AI’ is short for artificial intelligence”.
I think we all know that. That does not give us much of a clue about which technology it covers. By contrast, I draw your Lordships’ attention to Article 3(1) of the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which sets out a carefully thought through definition of an AI system:
“‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that … infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions … or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments”.
The unclear nature of the AI definition in the amendment is compounded by new subsection (10), which allows for the definition of the provision to be changed and expanded. Once again, Parliament will not be able to amend any regulations derived from this power.
The biggest concern about the amendment is that, although it covers illegal content, it does not cover content that is harmful to children. As a result, I completely support my noble friend Lady Kidron’s Amendment 422D, and its consequential amendments, which would assuage many of my concerns about the scope and power given to Ministers at the expense of Parliament. I also urge noble Lords to vote against government Amendment 429B when it comes up later in the evening.
I also say to the Minister that regulating the wide definition of “AI” covered in Amendment 429B is important. It needs to be brought back as part of wider artificial intelligence legislation. I hope that he can reassure noble Lords that we will hear more about this in the King’s Speech.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will speak to Amendment 433. Worryingly, children are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for all facets of their everyday lives. For many, gone are the days of independent, creative or critical thinking. While chatbots can help children to explore and better understand their world, there are far too many shocking cases of children receiving harmful information and becoming emotionally dependent on these platforms.
As it stands, AI chatbots risk becoming the latest example of an online product that has been rolled out without the right safety guardrails in place, and children are bearing the brunt. It is as if their well-being and mental health are not important. I can hear the AI developers thinking among themselves: “Who cares? It’s only children”. Well, we should care. Childline is hearing more and more from children who are being harmed on these platforms, with cases of false mental health diagnoses, information on how to restrict diets, and the formation of emotional relationships between children and chatbots. In increasingly concerning cases, children who have experienced abuse are told by chatbots that what they experienced was not abuse. These platforms cannot be allowed to give children harmful and misleading safeguarding advice that could prevent them speaking to trusted adults or organisations such as Childline.
The Government’s action to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to cover illegal content created by chatbots is most welcome, and I thank them for it. However, they cannot stop there. The harmful content that chatbots can generate must be included too. This must cover the harmful content duties in the Online Safety Act, such as preventing the encouragement of self-harm or suicide, and all harms that are unique to AI chatbots. It means preventing chatbots misleading or manipulating children or mimicking human relationships.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would make it a criminal offence to develop or supply an AI chatbot that harmed children. It is as simple as that. Providers must be legally required to risk-assess their services and put effective safeguards in place. Morally, this is the right thing to do. I ask the Minister: if the Government decide that they do not wish to support this amendment, please can they set out today how they will deliver measures that comprehensively protect children from all the risks that these services pose? As I keep saying, and will say one more time, childhood lasts a lifetime. If we truly care, we need to ensure that children are protected from every single type of harm. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others, and thank them all most warmly. They seem to me appropriately comprehensive and detailed. I have been following the developments in chatbots for a year now: they are massive, they are rapid, they are driven by the pursuit of profit and shareholder value, and not by the welfare of individuals, whether adults or children. There is a tsunami of harm coming towards us, affecting not only the most vulnerable but the whole of our society. We urgently need this kind of regulation and risk assessment for chatbots.
The comprehensiveness and detail in these amendments are simply the application of the precautionary principle to the development of new technology. Technology should not be unleashed on the world if it has the capacity to break people, to do harm and to infringe on personal liberty and well-being. We do not allow harmful technological developments without adequate safety standards in any other area. It is unthinkable that a car would be released into the public if it was at risk of harming them. Similarly, you would not put people on an aeroplane if there were a significant risk of harm. You would not even buy a washing machine if it could bring harm in your kitchen. Yet chatbots are released on the world to be experienced, in private, by young children, with all the ensuing damage. It is vital that this strengthening is put in place, and that it is put in place urgently. I cannot imagine how the Minister could argue against this series of amendments and their urgency today.
We need to look at the example that we set to the rest of world, both as a Parliament and as a jurisdiction. A few weeks ago, I took part in seminars organised by a research institute in a university; they had the aim of educating civil servants and government officials in good and safe governance of AI across the continent of Africa. The world follows the example that is set in this jurisdiction and others. For the sake of our children and for the sake of the world, we need to resist and make safe the development of this technology. I support these amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, for the reasons that have been so excellently given already and, in view of the time, I support all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will also try to be brief. I completely support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said. I would like to draw out two arguments that have been made to me today as to why her amendments should not be supported and explain why they are wrong.
The first argument is that we should wait for an overarching AI Bill. We will be waiting for a very long time. Those of us who have worked in trying to regulate social media for the last 15 years know that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I wholeheartedly reject that argument.
The second argument that has been made to me today—and I find this astonishing—is that the risk assessment is overly burdensome. We are regularly told that generative AI is one of the world’s most transformational technologies. That means it is capable of enormous good and enormous harm. The risk assessment in Amendment 433 is simply asking that the makers of these chatbots identify and understand the risks of harm—that does not seem overly burdensome to me. Further, it asks that the risk assessment
“is kept up-to-date … takes … account … of the Online Safety Act … assesses the risks to equality of treatment of individuals … assesses the risks to … privacy … assesses the risks … from the choice of underlying models, data sets …and … is in an easily understandable written format”.
I really struggle to understand how that could be overly burdensome. In fact, I would argue the absolute opposite: it is the basic foundation of decent regulation, and we should be wholeheartedly supporting the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I also support what the right reverend Prelate said about not letting loose a car or medicine, and food gets checked by the FSA. I think we could all be forgiven for thinking that maybe the Government care a lot more about the money that comes from Silicon Valley than about the citizens of this country.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I speak from the Labour Benches and first congratulate the Minister on listening to the debates we had in Committee. I thank him very much for bringing forward an amendment which is as close as I have seen this Government move to try and patch up some of the problems we are facing but, as I am going to say later, I am afraid I do not think it goes far enough.
I have said in this House before, and I will say it again, that we have been outpaced by technology in this area—“chatbot” was not even a word, I think, at the time that we finally passed the Online Safety Act. The harm which has been described so graphically today in the speeches we have heard so far was unthinkable in those days. We have really opened up a torrent of problems which we did not know we were trying to solve at the time that Bill went through, even though we were proud of the Bill when it happened.
Today, we at least have the benefit of two good choices about how to take this forward. The Minister has brought forward an amendment that deals with the issue but, unfortunately, to my mind, it does not go in the right direction, and I want to explain a bit about why that is the case. The problem we are facing constantly with the Online Safety Act is that what is in the wording of the primary legislation is at variance with the way in which it is interpreted and implemented by the regulator. There are good reasons for that, which we do not need to go into today, but a gap has emerged between that which we in this House wanted to be happening now—out there with our children, with our families, with those who are using the internet for the benefit it all brings—and how the regulator is able to operate. It is too slow, lacking in ambition about where it is trying to go and I do not think it has all the powers it needs in the way that the Bill sets them out. Even if it did, I do not think the way it is structured allows it to move forward.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that it cannot be right to further complicate the situation by bringing forward powers to be held in the hand of the Secretary of State to try and remedy a structural fault elsewhere. That is why I think he should think very carefully indeed about the noble Baroness’s amendments, which set out—sometimes in painful detail, but certainly for real benefit—exactly what we will not tolerate in this online space. We should have done it in the Online Safety Bill. We did not, but it is not too late to catch up now. Simply taking powers, some of which are dangerously beyond what this House would normally agree, is not the way forward. I hope if the votes tonight go against him, he does not take it too badly but works with everybody here who cares so much about this to try and come forward with something that will begin to address the problems we face.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief. When it comes to assessing risk to children, a plastic bath duck has better risk assessment than AI chatbots. I fully support my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others; I commend them on bringing them forward. Social media companies have captured our children’s attention, and now AI chatbots are coming for their affection—and worse. In legislating against harms caused by technology, we are always going to be playing catch-up, but we need to learn quickly to play catch-up much faster. These amendments offer us the opportunity to do that, and we should seize it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, brevity is the order of the day but, like some of my noble friends, I would like to add my support to the amendments that have been laid before your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lady Kidron.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege of chairing, is currently conducting an inquiry into AI and human rights. We have concluded our evidence taking, and I commend to your Lordships the evidence given by, in particular, Google, Meta and Microsoft. I also highlight some of the concerns that have been raised around child safety.
My noble friend Lady Kidron gave me, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others the opportunity to meet the parents of Sewell Setzer. It was an extraordinary moment. He was a 14 year-old boy who took his own life because he had been befriended by a chatbot. I was struck by a report from Internet Matters that said that two-thirds of UK children aged between nine and 17 have used AI chatbots, with many engaging often. More than a third—35%—of them say that it is like talking to a friend; that figure rises to 50% among vulnerable children.
It is the obligation of your Lordships’ House to take this issue seriously. We should all be greatly indebted to my noble friend Lady Kidron for laying these amendments before us.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I oppose government Amendment 429B in this group. I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. Like my noble friends, I will try to be brief.
As several noble Lords have already pointed out, this amendment would grant the Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping Henry VIII powers at a very late stage in our consideration of the Bill, thus giving this House far too little time to scrutinise them. Subsection (1) of proposed new Section 216A would grant the Secretary of State the power to
“by regulations amend any provision of this Act”—
the Online Safety Act—
“for or in connection with the purposes of minimising or mitigating the risks of harm to individuals in the United Kingdom presented by”
among other things, “illegal AI-generated content”.
That will presumably include content that breaches Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, meaning that it is grossly offensive. This can include memes. In 2024, a man called Lee Dunn was sentenced to eight weeks in jail for reposting three “grossly offensive” memes on Facebook, having pleaded guilty to a Section 127 offence. How will Ofcom monitor whether AI chatbots are generating grossly offensive content?
Will the Secretary of State use the powers granted to her by this amendment to insist that spyware is installed on personal computers and mobile phones? Perhaps your Lordships consider that too remote a risk, but what about requiring technology companies to carry out client-side scanning of people interacting with AI chatbots on their devices—much like how Section 121(1) of the Online Safety Act grants Ofcom the power to require companies, including those that own private messaging apps such as WhatsApp, to scan content on people’s personal devices and report certain categories of illegal material to the National Crime Agency?
Do not forget that this amendment would allow the Secretary of State to amend “any provision” of the Online Safety Act in order to minimise or mitigate the risks of harm posed by illegal AI-generated content. I dwell on this to illustrate just how wide-ranging and open-ended are the powers that this amendment would grant to the Secretary of State—powers that could have far-reaching consequences for civil liberties and freedom of speech.
Another risk is the definitions part of the Amendment. Subsection (17) disapplies Section 59(14)(a) of the Online Safety Act when it comes to illegal AI-generated content. Section 59(14)(a) qualifies the scope of illegal content in Part 3 of the Act, and disapplying it gives the Secretary of State enormous scope to enlarge the definition of illegal content and impose proactive suppression duties on AI chatbots to make sure they comply with the new draconian censorship regime.
If the Government believe there are specific harms that users of AI chatbots are currently exposed to and should be protected from—and I certainly do not say that there are not—let them bring forward primary legislation so we can consider the remedies they propose and factor in the trade-offs, particularly when it comes to free speech.
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.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I entirely support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on all her amendments. What I would say to the Government about their own amendment is that I have just had what I suppose is the privilege—although it sometimes seemed quite lengthy—of being a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I can tell noble Lords that the quality of much secondary legislation is lamentable, varying by department. A lack of preparation, of any Explanatory Memorandum explaining anything relevant, and of any impact assessment whatsoever, is extremely frequent. In the last year, we have had several secondary instruments relating directly to the Online Safety Act, none of which has been particularly impressive, and some of which have been debated on the Floor of this House—my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will be well aware of that. We have expressed our displeasure at the way in which this has been brought forward and explained.
All of us on the Cross Benches remember the late, lamented Lord Igor Judge. What he would think about a Government of this political hue bringing forward Henry VIII powers, to the power of 10, I cannot even imagine. If he is up there, he will be smiling wryly but he will not be impressed.
My only other point is rather strange. His Majesty’s occasionally loyal Opposition were extremely good at bringing in a variety of legislation which had a lot of Henry VIII powers. They have suddenly had a conversion on the road to Damascus, for which we should all be grateful. However, we need to think very carefully before we give the Government Henry VIII powers in an area as sensitive as this, and that is doing much harm as we speak.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I express from these Benches our very strong support for these comprehensive amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which she has characteristically introduced so well and to which so many noble Lords have spoken so eloquently in support. I also want to express our concerns regarding the Government’s proposed alternative, Amendment 429B.
In this group, we confront digital harm that is not incidental but engineered by design. AI chatbots are no longer a futuristic curiosity but deeply embedded the lives of our children. They are designed not merely as tools but as confidantes, mentors, companions and, in some cases, explicit romantic partners. Their anthropomorphic features create dangerous emotional dependency. Without statutory safeguards, these bots can provide explicit information on how to self-harm. This is not a flaw but a design feature that drives engagement, and we cannot allow the generative power of AI to become a generator of despair.
We are not debating theoretical risks, as many noble Lords have said today. We are debating the forces that led to the tragic deaths of Sewell Setzer III, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and Adam Raine, in the United States. Their families are pursuing legal action in the US on the basis that deceptively designed, inadequately safeguarded chatbots can be treated as defective products, and that developers should bear full legal liability when systems encourage, facilitate or fail to interrupt a user’s path to suicide.
I welcome the Government’s admission that a legal loophole exists in the UK. However, their proposed remedy, Amendment 429B, gives us a choice between the clarity of primary legislation through the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the convenience of the Executive. In contrast, the noble Baroness’s amendments provide clarity and embed safety duties in the Bill. Like my noble friend, I highlight Amendment 433, which deals with targeting the engineered features that keep children hooked. We know that bots guilt-trip users who try to end conversations. For a child, this is not a user interface quirk; it is emotional manipulation. These amendments would prohibit such coercive engagement techniques and, crucially, require bots to signpost users to help when asked about health, suicide or self-harm.
The primary legislation route offered by these amendments is the only fully viable and responsible path. If the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, we will support her in the Lobby. Should we be unable to secure her amendments, we would need to take a view on Amendment 429B. Four specific binding assurances would be required before we could consider supporting it; without them, it is nothing but a dangerous blank cheque. As changing these sections effectively rewrites the criminal threshold of the Online Safety Act, the Government must commit to the equivalent of the super-affirmative procedure for all significant policy choices, including amendments to core definitions or the expansion of duties beyond priority legal content. Standard procedures will not give this House the scrutiny needed.
Regarding mandatory supply chain transparency, we need a firm commitment that regulations will include a statutory mandate for providers to document and share their technical blueprints with Ofcom. Without this, the regulator cannot do its job. The Minister must confirm that the power will be used to tackle the issues raised by subsections (6) and (7) of Section 192 of the Online Safety Act, ensuring that chatbots cannot evade regulation simply because they lack a human mens rea. A bot does not intend harm, but it can be designed to cause it. The Minister must commit that any new regulations will explicitly disapply the requirement to prove human intent for AI-generated content. Regulations must define control across the entire AI supply chain so that accountability is not lost in a black box.
Finally, we would require a clear assurance that this power will not be used to alter the legal position of services that are not AI services. The scope of Amendment 429B must not drift beyond its stated purpose. If the Government are serious when they say that no platform gets a free pass, that must apply equally to generative AI models that, as we speak, are reshaping the childhoods of so many of our citizens. Safety by design must be the price of entry into the UK market, not an aspiration deferred to secondary legislation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, both the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the Government are trying to solve the same problem, but with different solutions. I have to say that I find both solutions wanting. I feel that the position I see solidifying in the House is that we must accept either the Government’s amendment or the noble Baroness’s amendment, that something must be done and that this is binary, and I am not sure that I can accept that. I commend the aims of the noble Baroness’s campaign and I hope that we can find some common ground, but I have a number of questions about her amendments.
The approach that the noble Baroness has taken in her Amendments 422D and 433 is to create criminal offences for a person to create or even supply an AI chatbot that produces a selection of prohibited content. That would place criminal penalties on individuals who are involved in the creation of such a chatbot. The Online Safety Act applies civil penalties when companies violate the regulations: the companies are fined by Ofcom if they allow prohibited content to be published on their platform. These amendments would apply criminal sanctions punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, but who is liable for these criminal penalties? Is it the software engineer who developed the chatbot? Is it the employee who presses the “publish” button that brings the AI online? Is it the senior management team who oversaw it, or the investors who commissioned it? Is it the CEO of the whole company? It is not clear to me, and it would be useful if the noble Baroness could clear that up.
The offence of supplying such a chatbot might also be problematic. If an AI chatbot app is listed on the App Store, and the AI could in some way be used by a person in the manner described, should Apple be criminally liable for that? Similarly, I have a few concerns about the risk assessment that the amendment would require AI providers to undertake. For example, proposed new subsection (5)(e) would require that a provider
“assesses the risks to equality of treatment of individuals”.
I question whether it is the Government’s role to mandate the target audience of a business product. It is worrying enough to believe that it is meritocratic to mandate quotas within organisations, but it is quite another stance to say that the very reason for a business’s existence, its output, should be directed by legislation.
As I have made clear, we do not oppose the noble Baroness’s objective of addressing the harms of AI with this amendment, but simply saying that there is a problem and that doing anything is better than doing nothing, irrespective of the problems with that something, is not a proper way to legislate. It is a recipe, I suggest, for bad law. However, I understand that the noble Baroness is trying to make the Government take action. It is up to the Government to come to Parliament with a sufficient solution. The Minister may try to say that the Government do have a sufficient solution in government Amendment 429B, but that would be wholly incorrect. I am quite shocked that the Minister has even considered bringing this amendment to the House, and I can only imagine what he might have said about it if he were standing where I am now.
Amendment 429B grants the Secretary of State sweeping Henry VIII powers to amend the entire Online Safety Act for the purpose of mitigating harms presented by AI-generated content. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would be delighted to hear me say that this is an egregious attempt by an overreaching Government to exploit a serious issue to centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is almost unprecedented to grant a Minister the ability to amend an entire Act of Parliament. With this amendment, the Government are doing away with every bit of lip service they have paid to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny or their democratic mandate. The amendment would give not only this Government, who have made it clear that they are very happy running a centralised state with digital IDs, but every future Government the ability to amend online regulations and curtail the freedoms of providers. Indeed, a future Reform Government might go in the opposite direction and remove all regulations on AI. The noble Lord should reflect on that, too.
I ask the Minister to imagine that the glove was on the other hand: that he was standing at this Dispatch Box and I was the Minister proposing to give my Government these powers. There is no way that he would support such sweeping powers to amend an Act of Parliament by ministerial fiat. This is the Henry VIII power to end all Henry VIII powers. It cannot be allowed to make its way into the Bill and, when it is called, I will take pleasure in opposing it in the Lobbies.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start by saying something that needs saying. The Government believe in protecting the public, especially children, from online content, which is why we have tabled the amendments on illegal online content today.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and his roll-call of that incredible list of speakers who supported the amendments. That was a wonderful list of people from all sides of the House, who did indeed have slightly varying reasons to support the amendment, but they were all positive. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his Benches for their unequivocal support. I believe that the Opposition Benches are allowing a free vote this evening, and I really hope that they will use their free vote freely.
I will address a couple of details, just for the record. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it is a binary, I am afraid, because either we have the Government’s amendment, which has no proper scope—it will be subject to all sorts of changes on the way—no oversight, no time limit and no scrutiny, or we have something that I have made very clear that I am willing to work with both sides of the House to perfect in the next few weeks.
Secondly, I say to the Minister that the Online Safety Act and the enforcement process we currently have has, so far, by civil penalty, put forward one fine of £55,000. That is where we are, and there is nothing in this government amendment or the consultation about online safety that deals with the problem of enforcement.
Finally, on the points that were made, we are talking about one person in one department having absolute power to change absolutely everything that eight years of debate in this House, two years of consultation, et cetera, have put forward. I am sorry but that is just inappropriate.
We have a new technology—it addicts, grooms, abuses and sometimes even kills. This is not in the future; it is right now. These amendments have the support of 45 expert organisations, which I believe have written to all noble Lords. I ask noble Lords, irrespective of their party affiliation, to support children, families, the vulnerable, women and, indeed, all of us, by sending a message to the Government to say, “If you can’t accept this, come back with something, for now, that is better described, narrow and to the point, that we can enforce”. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Royal Assent
Digital ID: Public Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, this Statement was delivered just one week ago and has already run into some serious difficulty. Reports in the press suggest that both the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary have made it clear that their departments will not provide some of the data required for the scheme. If that is correct, it raises a fundamental question: can this policy get off the ground?
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister announced that the Government sought to introduce a digital ID system that would allow individuals to log into the GOV.UK app to verify their identity. He said that
“unlike an ordinary login, digital ID will work across different departments … so you can access all of the services you need in one place”.
Yet it now appears that health and education—two of the areas where one might reasonably expect such assistance to be most useful—may not be included at all. The Chief Secretary stated that
“digital ID will, over time, bring all other public services into one app”
on your mobile phone. If that is the ambition, these reports raise serious questions about whether the Government’s own departments are prepared to make that vision a reality.
This proposal raises serious questions about accessibility. Noble Lords will know that when government services move online and on to apps, they do not always become simpler or easier to use. Often, the opposite is true. These systems can take years to refine. The user experience can be poor and tasks that were once straightforward become frustratingly complex. Take, for example, the process of verifying an identity with Companies House through the GOV.UK website. What would once have been completed in minutes can now take much longer, as users work their way through help pages, chatbots, online forms and endless CAPTCHA boxes. The current state of the Government’s digital infrastructure does not inspire great confidence that this scheme will deliver the outcomes Ministers promise.
If the ambition is to move large parts of the state on to a single digital platform, the issue of digital exclusion cannot be ignored. We can already see this in practice. Many now struggle to use the NHS app. Increasingly, patients must complete online forms or digital triage systems before they can book a GP appointment, resulting in delays in access to care.
We on these Benches also harbour concerns as to whether the system will truly remain voluntary. The Chief Secretary said:
“For those who really do not wish to, traditional routes will … still be made available”.
This assurance ignores that some people will genuinely struggle to use the new system rather than just being refuseniks. It is also unclear what this means in practice. The Chief Secretary did not guarantee that traditional routes will remain available to the same extent that they are today. People will naturally worry that, over time, this could lead to a real-term reduction in those routes, with fewer alternatives for those who cannot or do not wish to use the digital system.
I ask the Minister for clarity. Can he confirm that this policy will not result in any reduction in access to public services for those who either cannot or do not wish to use the digital ID system? Can he also confirm that the introduction of this scheme will not lead to any reduction in the availability of existing processes in departments or services that adopt this digital ID route?
I turn to the GOV.UK One Login system. How many public services now require systems to use GOV.UK One Login as a mandatory gateway rather than an option? How many of the National Cyber Security Centre’s 39 cyber assessment framework outcomes does One Login currently meet, and which does it not?
Can the Minister also say what whistleblowing concerns have been raised since 2022 about security clearances, administrator access, overseas development and undetected red team intrusions? What security incidents have occurred? Has any personal data been compromised?
These questions were asked in a UQ in January. I am concerned by the lack of detail in the Minister’s response. I hope the Minister can reply more fully this time. If not, I hope he will write to clarify these points.
I appreciate that the Government have opened a public consultation, but these questions are immediately obvious to us—and, I hope, to the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to respond to last week’s Statement and, indeed, for his personal engagement with us at that time.
The Chief Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that he was continuing the proud Labour tradition of building public services for the many. He invoked the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start. It was a stirring lineage. But there is history he omitted: Verify, which wasted over £220 million; GOV.UK One Login, for which the Cabinet Office sought up to £400 million; and now this national digital ID, which the OBR estimates will cost £1.8 billion over three years. This, indeed, is Verify 4.0.
The Government have confirmed that possession of a digital identity will not be compulsory. We on these Benches opposed mandatory digital ID at every turn, and I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. My honourable friend Lisa Smart MP pressed the Chief Secretary directly in the Commons last week and received his wholehearted assurance. He continued to claim that using digital ID will be entirely optional. So, I ask the Minister in this House, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in the Bill the Government intend to bring forward later this year? How can we trust any Government on how personal data, once surrendered to the state, will actually be used?
Earlier this month, this House considered an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by my noble friend Lady Doocey, which sought to prohibit police from using DVLA driving licence images for facial recognition searches. The DVLA holds over 55 million records. Every driver provided their photograph for one purpose only: to hold a driving licence. They did not consent to their image becoming part of what Liberty has rightly described as the largest biometric database for police access ever created in the United Kingdom. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, the Home Office Minister, did not accept the amendment and confirmed at all stages that the express purpose of Clause 138 of the Bill is precisely to permit facial recognition searches of DVLA records. So, within a single parliamentary week, we have a Government launching a national digital identity consultation on the basis of assurances about data use, while declining to place in statute the very protections that would make such assurances meaningful. The question is not whether the Government intend that digital ID will become an instrument of surveillance, but whether a future Government could.
The Chief Secretary said that he wants security at least as strong as online banking. That is the right aspiration, but, as mentioned by the noble Earl, GOV.UK One Login, the umbrella infrastructure for this system, reportedly satisfied only 21 out of 39 security outcomes required by the National Cyber Security Centre. Whistleblowers have described vulnerabilities that allow unauthorised access to sensitive functions without triggering any alert. How can the Government justify launching a national identity solution on a platform that fails to meet nearly half the NCSC’s mandatory security outcomes?
In part two of the Fisher review, published in January, Jonathan Fisher KC warned that AI-driven impersonation at scale is now a defining crime of our age and that we must implement upstream measures—stopping fraud at the point of identity issuance, not reacting after a digital identity has been stolen. If our foundations currently satisfy barely half the required security outcomes, how do we deliver the upstream protection Mr Fisher demands?
Will the Government commission and publish a full NCSC security audit before a single citizen is enrolled? Will they introduce an offence of digital identity theft that they, along with the previous Conservative Government, have so far resisted? The consultation proposes a universal unique identifier to link citizens across every departmental silo. Without strict legal guardrails, that identifier is the functional infrastructure of the national identity register that Parliament voted to abolish in 2011, and it is precisely the centralised data honeypot that hostile state actors would most wish to compromise. We need not mere parliamentary approval for services added to the app, but a statutory prohibition on bulk data matching across departments.
In summary, I put four questions to the Minister. First, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in primary legislation, with an explicit prohibition on any future mandatory requirement without a further Act of Parliament? In that context, and as the noble Earl has mentioned, how mindful are the Government of the possible consequences for digital inclusion? Secondly, the Home Office’s assurances on DVLA facial recognition mirrored word for word those given by the previous Government. Before the Minister can confirm the opposite, what statutory purpose limitation on digital identity data will be placed beyond the reach of secondary legislation? Thirdly, will the Government provide a statutory guarantee that the universal unique identifier cannot be used for bulk data matching across departments without primary legislation? Finally, will the Government publish an independently verified cost-benefit analysis before the Bill is introduced, and explain why £1.8 billion would not deliver greater public benefit directed to the NHS and front-line policing, for instance?
The Chief Secretary asked what it is that critics fear from a public consultation. We do not fear the consultation; what we fear is a fourth cycle of the same expensive failure, grand ambitions and insecure foundations—a creeping identifier that becomes the digital spine of state surveillance. But what we fear above all is a system whose data acquires uses never publicly intended by its creators. We have just watched that happen in this very Chamber with the DVLA database of images. We on these Benches will support voluntary, secure, properly costed modernisation of public services, but we will not accept warm ministerial words as a substitute for hard legislative limits. We need a state that is not merely digital by choice today but constitutionally prohibited from becoming compulsory tomorrow. On the evidence of this and last week’s proceedings, we are very far from that guarantee.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is asking me questions to which, as he very well knows, I am not going to give the answer. That is the whole point of the consultation, and across the Chamber, everyone knows this in reality. We want to ensure that the public can access public services in the same secure way as they access many things in today’s society, including banking. Most members of the public assume that there is this great big database; they assume that their data is being used. The reality is that there are these silos. This consultation is not proposing what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl were suggesting. It is not saying, “Let’s create this huge database, which could be vulnerable”. Instead, let us make it easier for the public to access the services that they need.
On the questions about inclusion and accessibility, I met with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and his group, and I said that what we want to ensure through this consultation and digital ID system is a much more accessible system. We want a system that is more open to people who have been excluded because they have to produce or send a certain form, ring a certain number, or go through a certain call centre. What we are trying to achieve is greater accessibility.
The question of inclusion also relates to people’s access to the internet. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is not here, because I also had a meeting with him. There are strong, legitimate concerns, which is why we are conducting this consultation and why we want everyone in this House to participate in and make a contribution to it. The noble Lord made the same point: where there is exclusion, we can use community-based organisations—including post offices and sub-post offices—in a way that will ensure that people can maximise their opportunities to access public services.
The noble Earl asked me about cost, but there is no cost associated with this yet, because the system has not been designed. The system will be designed following the results of the consultation.
The consultation will not be limited to a certain number; it will be open across the board. We also want to establish a panel. Carnegie UK pointed out, in a letter to the Guardian, that a deliberative exercise in democracy—namely, selecting people randomly through postcodes—can produce a much more effective consultation. However, both approaches will be in what we end up designing.
I come back to this fundamental point. This is not only about how people access public services but about how they can determine the use of their data, so that they can set out when they want their data to be used for a particular purpose. For example, there are times when I might need to establish my ID. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, I occasionally go to a club—a dance club, by the way. If I am asked to produce an ID, I do not want to produce my driving licence because it has my name and address as well as my age—believe it or not, they sometimes do ask me my age. If they want to know my age, I am happy to release that data—but not my address or other things. So this is about how we establish that sort of process and about accessing public services.
In this day and age, for every private sector service we use, we expect to be able to access things. Tesco has more data on me than most government departments do, because it knows what time I go shopping, what I buy and what I favour, and it then sends me emails and messages about that. We have to try to turn away from the view that this is a rigid identity card system that will be on a national database. This is about public services, how people access and use them, and how they can control their data more effectively. I reassure the noble Lord on that.
There will be an initial consultation of 12 weeks, but that could be extended with the deliberative process. At the end of that, we will look at the results, and Parliament will be heavily engaged in that. No legislation has been drafted yet, because we want to see the results of the consultation and the scale of the project. I understand everyone’s concerns about cost, as well as some of the problems we have had in the past, but this is an opportunity to respond to people’s needs and to create more effective public services. Most people expect that from the private sector and we should expect it from the public sector too.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, first, I take it from what the Minister has just said about costs that no sum has been earmarked in the current three-year expenditure review for the development of the scheme—can he confirm that? Secondly, will people in Scotland have to access the Government’s proposed ID scheme for those services that have been retained, and a separate ID scheme—namely, the Scotcard—for those services that have been devolved?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We will consult the devolved authorities on this; they will be a major part of the consultation. There is no definite cost for the programme because the design of what we are building has not been decided yet. Noble Lords should not just look at one line item on the shopping bill but rather the whole thing. The issue is that the status quo has costs. I know we often say this, but if we can develop a more efficient digital portal for people to use, it could potentially reduce costs and save the public and the Government money. That has to be a good thing.
If you look at all the private sector services we use that currently have this sort of thing, they are doing it to reduce costs—although they often dress it up as “improving services”. Let us take banking: my accessibility to banking services has improved hugely over the years. I can do many more things online and through apps than I could ever have done before by visiting a local bank. I reassure the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this will not be a mandatory system. When we are able to launch it, I suspect that it will be something that people want to use, because it will make their lives easier. That is what we should be doing.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Digital Identity. The Minister said that he will consult widely on this and on what support there might be for it. Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition. If they have not already convinced the Government that they are opposed to it, how will the Government ensure that many of them will have the opportunity to feed the Government their opinion?
This morning, I tried to log in to GOV.UK on a personal matter but was kicked out eight times. My digital understanding is pretty good, so that worried me greatly. I knew that this was coming up, so I wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to this issue. We have been talking about sovereignty and keeping all our information in one place. So far, the experience of GP services has been that we do not have exclusive access to our data because it is farmed out somewhere else. Has that been considered? How will we ensure, eventually, that any ID information is sovereign and held in this country under our Government or whatever system we set up?
Finally, there has been lots of evidence of discrimination, particularly against Black and Asian men and Muslim women. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that aspect as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s last point, how we look at inclusion and accessibility is really important in tackling those issues of discrimination. It is very important that the consultation looks at that. The noble Earl also raised a question about the NHS app which I did not explicitly address. That has developed very strongly, and it is very clear that that will continue. This will not be part of the NHS; it has never been planned that way. It is also about people having confidence that their medical records are kept absolutely secure, which is fundamental.
This is about a tool to access a range of services. I hear the noble Baroness. The noble Earl raised OneLogin. There are issues about that. There are different forms of identifiers. Digital ID could provide a consistent identifier that could be used across all Governments, so instead of having to produce hard copies and photocopies, we just have that one ID on an app. We are using it in the private sector, in banking in particular but in other services too. I think the consultation will produce a clear idea of what people’s needs are and how the Government should respond. My right honourable friend Darren Jones is absolutely right; this is about putting our public services on a 21st-century footing.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I very much welcome the deliberative aspect of this consultation. It is good to see the Government doing that, and I hope it goes into other areas. I want to associate myself with many of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked. Hopefully over this consultation period they will all be answered. I have two concerns. First, who is going to build this? Who is going to have access? Is this another gig for Palantir? That is my real question. Secondly, we have so many very good ID firms in the private sector here in the UK—it is something we excel at—but can the noble Lord say a little more about what they are going to do behind the ID? It seems to be all about the ID, but it is what happens at the other end that is the exciting bit, were he able to describe it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I cannot be too prescriptive, but I can reassure the noble Baroness on her first point; a number of noble Lords have raised this issue. This will be a sovereign-based scheme. We will develop it in-house through government services. It will not be contracted out. On her other point on how this will develop, I think it will be led by people, not the Government. People will be demanding these things. No one has asked this specific question, but many parents want their children to have age identification. The noble Baroness has raised questions in other debates about how children are accessing things now. If they were required to have this, it may be a solution. I am not saying it is, but it is something that we would want to see as part of the consultation. The deliberative process, which is part of the consultation, will be a random selection of people, but it will be a much more intense consultation with those people, better identifying what their needs are.
I cannot answer many of the questions that noble Lords have because we want to see what the consultation comes up with, but we know what people are generally seeking here. If legislation is required, we will debate what should be in a Bill and so on, but I am confident that the consultation will result in the better policy outcome that we all desire.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his update. First, can I take him back to a slightly more fundamental question that we are yet to address in this exchange? Why do the Government feel it is necessary at all to have a consultation, given the visceral public reaction to the proposal to introduce digital ID in the first place? That in itself seems like a pretty convincing consultation. We all know that the Government have stepped back politically from their original plan on digital ID and wound back to this position because of that reaction. Secondly, on the form of the consultation, the 100-person panel sounds very novel. Can the Minister give any assurances on the control over spending in that process and whether it will be value for money compared with other forms of consultation? Lastly, digital ID is one of a large number of policies that the Government seem determined to introduce despite the fact that it was not in the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last general election. Can he account for that fact and explain why the Government are determined to bring it forward when there is no mandate for them to do so?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I keep coming back to the point that when we are looking at public services and people’s access to them, there is a solution here that most people would be very happy about—but we will not determine that unless we have a fuller consultation.
On the value-for-money element, the deliberative process will be through a process called sortation and a random postcode lottery. That is a way of selecting individuals in which everyone is given an equal chance to be invited and no individual can buy their way in or simply turn up to an event. But that does not stop everyone else participating in the wider consultation, so I think we have the best of all worlds. It will result in more effective consultation but also more cost-effective consultation.
I come back to the point that this Government are determined to listen and better understand the needs of the public in relation to the services they provide. I think that is across all parties. No Government want to end up with the situation the noble Baroness described where you spend hours trying to get on to a public service and are constantly kicked out or rejected. This is about making the process easier. No matter what other people say this is about, I assure the noble Lord that it is about that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said; I hope we all give this a great deal of support. Does he agree with me that it is a great pity that the pilot scheme abolished by the coalition Government in 2010 was not allowed to run? All the indications are that it was very popular with those who used it.
On the point about the driving licence, as a non-driver and non-car owner, I resent the fact that I have to use a driving licence as a form of ID because it is the only ID that is practically acceptable. There is a government consultation at the moment about mandatory eye tests, which presumably I shall have to go through in order to get a driving licence—which I will never use—because it is the only acceptable ID. This will surely be very popular with many people. We cannot allow the nay-sayers or pressure groups to get in the way of making progress.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. When we all sit down and have a sensible discussion about this and try to take the partisan politics away, we will reach a much better consensus. This consultation enables us to do that.
At the outset, we have to put at the forefront of our thoughts the needs of the public in how they access services. My noble friend is right—driving licences have become the de facto ID. The fact is that the driving licence, as I said in my opening remarks, has data that I do not want handed out easily. That is why I think this solution will benefit the public and get cross-party support.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in applauding the Government’s commitment in this Statement to deliberative democracy. That is an innovative step forward, but I am sure the Minister will want this Statement to be accurate, so I point out that it says:
“This will not be a new experience for citizens. The public already use these systems every day, from banking to shopping”.
More than 15% of Britons do not do online shopping and more than 12% do not do online banking, despite the fact that banks have been closing branches wholesale and trying very hard to force people online, whether they like it or not. Does the Minister agree that the way this Statement is phrased is really over-egging the pudding?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not agree at all. I think that 14% of people do not have some of the things that the noble Baroness referred to, but the world is changing very fast and if we are to address financial exclusion, inclusion and accessibility, this process can address many of those concerns. As I said, there are community organisations and community services. For example, many people use their post office, and we want to ensure they have that choice. We are moving into a world, as she rightly said, where banks are determining how they will provide services and Tesco is determining what I can buy or what I should buy using data supplied to it. The world is changing and it is about time that, first, the state caught up in provision of public services and, secondly, the public can determine what data is used for what purpose. That is why this is a good idea.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s points about the consultation process; there is a great deal to consult about. As one Tesco consumer to another, can my noble friend confirm that, almost irrespective of the consultation, the Government are determined to allow an individual, if they wish, to delete their digital ID? If there is any more that the Minister can say about the circumstances in which a digital ID might be withdrawn from an individual by the state, I would be grateful to hear his thoughts.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me address the first question. This is not a mandatory scheme and, certainly, if people have a digital ID, they can say they do not want it. I do not anticipate any circumstances where a Government would want to take away something that lets people access public services, but I hope the consultation will result in a much more open and transparent debate so that we focus much more on the needs of the public rather than what we think a Government might do.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, as ever with many big government ideas, there is a solution that is yet to find a problem.
I am yet to hear a ministerial Statement on the very serious data events that happened at Companies House over the last week. I have not heard a Statement from Ministers at the other end, and I do not believe I have heard one in this House.
What happened last week was probably the most serious data breach to hit Companies House in a generation. I am in practice as a chartered accountant, and let me advise the House and the Minister on what happened. If one were logged in to Companies House with one’s personal online registration, one could then find a backdoor route very simply to access any company record in the UK, change directors’ details, find their personal address, file company accounts and file new confirmation statements. This is serious stuff and it is why, me included, we have serious concerns about big government attempts at managing data, because it generally goes wrong. Where a poste restante email address is used, which is very commonplace within practices, those practices are going to have to trawl through all the companies registered with them. Many in the profession are asking: will the Government reimburse the practices which will have to spend many hundreds, if not thousands, of hours making sure that the Companies House foul-up has not affected their clients?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I cannot possibly answer on his latter point, but I certainly will ensure that he gets a response about it. It is interesting that he was, I think, making the case for what we are proposing. The problem is that different government departments have different portals, different IDs, different ways of getting in and different ways of controlling the data. We want a much more secure digital ID that people will have confidence in. This is not about collecting new data, and it is not a big idea that we will have this central database of everything; this is about how people access public services. At the moment, if you want to get in through Companies House, the noble Lord described something that digital ID may resolve. But other departments have different schemes. Everyone has a story about being locked out of these services because they do not have the right identification or ID, and this is a solution that will help the public. That is what we should be talking about, rather than seeing this as being about big government. It is about delivering public services and not about big government.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:05 - Division on Amendment 424 - Ayes: 148 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 424 disagreed.
23:17 - Division on Amendment 425 - Ayes: 119 / Noes: 191 - Amendment 425 disagreed.
23:35 - Division on Amendment 426B - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 58 - Amendment 426B agreed.
23:47 - Division on Amendment 426C - Ayes: 70 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 426C disagreed.
23:58 - Division on Amendment 426D - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 163 - Amendment 426D disagreed.
(a) proceedings for an offence shall not be instituted against a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who must exercise personally any function under this section of giving consent;(b) proceedings to which this section applies may not be commenced after twelve months from the date of the offence to which the proceedings relate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to add the requirement of DPP consent for the institution of the criminal proceedings in Clause 208 against a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy and reduces the limitation period for the offence.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 422E and, additionally, do so on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, KC, who has a prior appointment in The Hague this week. He was the author of the probing amendment on this topic in Committee. At that stage, the Minister signalled some reservations about it and subsequently wrote to him with additional data, which has proved to be most helpful, so we thank her. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, has appended her name to this amendment and will speak to it, along with her other amendment.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 208, which was inserted into this Bill in the other place at a late stage, has attracted numerous amendments. Our intention with Amendment 422E is that, where opinions are a matter of individual conscience, we should attempt to offer the House a compromise between the Commons position—Clause 208—and Amendment 424, which seeks to leave out the clause entirely. I point out that Amendments 423, 423ZA and 423A would be pre-empted if this amendment was agreed on Division.
The amendment would do two things. First, it would require the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before any proceedings may be instituted against women acting in relation to their pregnancy. Secondly, it would provide that such proceedings must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence. The version we debated in Committee provided for the consent of the Attorney-General rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Minister observed that offences where Attorney-General consent is required tend to be in the national security or international spheres, while DPP consent is required to address a wider range of concerns, including, as the Minister explained, where there is a risk that the institution of proceedings might violate convention rights or cause a defendant “irreparable harm”. There are some offences in areas other than national security or international matters where AG consent is required, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, argues—for example, contempt of court under the strict liability rule, pursuant to Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act. Nevertheless, on balance, it seems proportionate and in keeping with existing practice to replace Attorney-General consent with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Our amendment would, however, require that the DPP exercises the function of giving consent “personally”. That language is taken from the Bribery Act, where some offences impose a similar condition on the DPP. Without this additional requirement, we understand that the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings could be given by a Crown prosecutor by virtue of Section 1(7) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. So requiring the DPP to exercise that function personally provides, in our view, a better guarantee against the risk of abuse, error or overzealousness.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I do not think that we take interventions on Report, if I may refer to the Companion—but perhaps the Whip could assist us.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I can clarify for your Lordships’ House that the noble Baroness is able to take interventions, or not, as she wishes.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I would like to proceed and conclude my argument. I will be happy to listen to the noble Baroness once I have finished.
Because the police do not know when they find a lifeless body which of the situations they are confronted with, even with decriminalisation of abortion offences for the women acting in relation to her pregnancy, she may still be investigated. If it was a case of stillbirth, for example, for that woman the investigation will inevitably be a cause of stress. She might be worried that the evidence will not support her or she will not be believed. However, what else are the police supposed to do in these cases, other than try to establish the facts?
Therefore, it is not possible to remove women acting in relation to their pregnancy from any criminal process, even if you decriminalise abortion offences for them. What is possible is to introduce further guarantees, as we are attempting to do with this amendment, that would add an additional layer of personal assurance from the DPP that the facts in context of terminations are taken into account, and that after 12 months, in any event, proceedings will not be brought against the pregnant woman. It ensures that the decision to prosecute in relation to the woman is taken at the highest level—the DPP—and applies the certainty of a limitation period.
No solution in this area will ever be flawless, but when the evidence before us is so limited and the broader picture so uncertain, wholesale decriminalisation would be a disproportionate response to a problem which, in any event, needs careful and thoughtful steps for resolution. This amendment offers a more balanced and workable path to the problem that we all want to resolve satisfactorily. It provides meaningful safeguards for women, ensuring that any decision to prosecute is taken at the highest level, as well as the certainty of a limitation period, while not upending the balancing of principles and values underlying the Abortion Act 1967. I hope that both those who oppose criminalisation and those who are rightly troubled by the distressing cases we have discussed will see that this approach represents a principled and proportionate compromise, and will feel able to support it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has already pointed out, if Amendment 422E is agreed to, I am unable to call Amendments 423, 423ZA or 423A by reason of pre-emption.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 423 which is in my name. The purpose of my amendment is to see if it is possible to effect a compromise between strongly held opinions. If a compromise is not possible, then subject to pre-emption, I could certainly support Amendments 422E, and I could also support Amendments 424 and 425. At Second Reading of this Bill and in Committee, I expressed my views on what was Clause 191 at that stage. I do not wish to in any way reiterate the detail of what I said. Suffice it to say that I am much closer to the position of the opponents of Clause 208 than to its supporters.
However, there are two general points I would like to make at this stage. First, it is very difficult to distinguish in principle between a child that is just born and a child that is about to be born. Secondly and consequently, to extinguish the life of a child that is about to be born can be justified only in the most compelling of circumstances. This is not just a matter of personal morality. It is a reflection of the value that society as a whole, and Parliament in particular, has put on human life. I hope that these two propositions will be accepted as true by your Lordships and will inform the debate we are to have.
In urging a compromise, I would ask the House first to consider the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, because that Act permits, in certain circumstances, late-term abortion. Without going into too much detail, Section 1(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the 1967 Act permit a late-term abortion in the following circumstances: when it is necessary to prevent grave, permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother; when the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman; and when there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer from such serious abnormalities as would result in serious handicap. The point that I make is that the existing provisions in law meet many of the concerns that have been expressed in support of Clause 208.
However, I recognise that the proponents of Clause 208 do not regard the existing law as sufficient. It is therefore with that in mind that I have tabled Amendment 423 in the hope of addressing those concerns. Proposed new paragraph (a) in my amendment reflects the language of the Infanticide Act 1938. That statute was reviewed in 2006 by the Law Commission and its terms were confirmed. My amendment proposes that it would be a defence to a late-term abortion that
“the balance of the woman’s mind was … disturbed by reason of her pregnancy”.
The amendment provides that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. In proposing that part of the amendment, I recognise that, in logic, if such a defence should be available in respect of the death of a child immediately after birth, it is very difficult to say that such a defence should not be available in respect of a child immediately before birth.
I turn to proposed new paragraph (b) of my amendment, which seeks to meet the concerns that have been expressed in your Lordships’ House in respect of late-term abortions that result from domestic abuse. That is, I am sure, a concern to many of your Lordships. I have addressed that very precisely in paragraph (b), which I hope will reassure noble Lords who have that anxiety.
The remaining part of my amendment addresses the distress that can be caused to a woman by the police investigation. First, I will make just two preliminary points. If it is necessary to create a criminal offence, one has to accept the necessity of an investigation, but one that has to be conducted with great sensitivity, which is the case of course when one is investigating allegations of rape and the victim of the rape has to be examined and talked to. It has to be done with great sensitivity. The second general point I come to is the one with which I began my remarks: is the distress caused to a woman by the investigation a sufficiently compelling reason to justify extinguishing the life of a child about to be born? In my view, the answer to that is no.
However, I accept that concerns remain and my amendment seeks to address those remaining concerns. The amendment provides that no investigation can take place unless authorised by a very senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above. The superintendent must have regard to the defences set out in my amendment and, to echo a point made by the noble Baroness in moving her amendment, the investigation must be completed within 28 days: the initial authority being for 14 days, with two subsequent extensions of seven days, but no more.
To conclude—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Can I just go back to the point the noble Viscount raised a minute or two ago? He said that such investigations must be undertaken with great sensitivity. He referred to the investigation of rape cases. I put it to him that all experience shows that the police and, indeed, prosecution authorities sometimes find it very difficult to investigate such cases with sensitivity. How is he going to guarantee that?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I am not sure that I accept that. It is certainly true that when I started practising at the Bar, which was a very long time ago, investigations were not conducted with great sensitivity, but the police service has advanced a long way from that. So I do not think—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me —that I accept the premise that the police are crude or insensitive in their investigation. There may be individual cases, but in general, no.
I hope I will be forgiven now if I conclude. Clause 208 is a serious departure from existing law and practice. It was passed in the Commons on Report in a time-limited debate without the normal benefit of scrutiny in Committee or of pre-legislation consultation. I have tried to meet your Lordships’ anxieties with a compromise amendment. If there is no taste for that, so be it, and I will vote for the other amendments and clauses that I have identified, but I hope that your Lordships might reflect on the desirability of compromise.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 424 seeks to remove Clause 208. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, this clause passed the Commons without any evidence, scrutiny, public consultation or impact assessment, although it is momentous. It is a radical proposal with implications for the mental and physical health of the woman and lethal consequences for the viable unborn child. Clause 208 would allow mothers to self-administer the abortion of their unborn child for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy right up to full term. This is not just its consequential effect; it is its intended effect. The clause states:
“For the purposes of the law related to abortion … no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”.
The unborn child, in many cases more developed than those successfully looked after in premature baby units, would have no legal protection. As my honourable friend Julia Lopez said in the other place:
“This is not pro or anti life. It is not extremist to want protections for viable babies, and it is not anti-women to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not be outside the reach of the law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/06/25; col. 330.]
This in part was a reference to the fact that a woman may be coerced into having an illegal abortion at home. The law as it stands—
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Is the noble Baroness aware that, if Clause 208 became law, abortion law would continue to apply to doctors and healthcare professionals and they would still be subject to time limits and all other aspects of the current abortion law?
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
Dr Alison Wright, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has written to Peers protesting that women may continue to face police investigations and criminal charges solely for ending their own pregnancy unless this clause is supported. She, speaking on behalf of the college, makes no distinction whatever between the abortion of a viable child at full term and a first-trimester termination. Indeed, the infant who without the intervention of lethal drugs would be fully a living person at that stage, if born, is completely unmentioned. It is as if this is unmentionable. Dr Wright describes the women concerned as being at the most vulnerable times in their lives. That may be true, but the most vulnerable and defenceless person here is the unborn viable child. Obviously, it is deeply distressing, as we have heard, for the mother to be questioned by the police in the aftermath of an illegal abortion. This should be done with compassion and sensitivity, but the police cannot act as if nothing has happened.
Clause 208 also endangers women by removing the current legal deterrent against administering an abortion away from a clinical setting right up to birth. Women may be incentivised to perform their own life-threatening abortion late in pregnancy. This is particularly the case given how easily women can obtain abortion pills through the pills by post scheme, beyond the legal limit and without a reliable gestational age check. These pills are not meant to be used after the 10th week of pregnancy for a very good reason. I encourage noble Lords to support Amendment 425 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which would reinstate mandatory in-person medical consultations and abolish the pills by post scheme, which was started during Covid lockdowns and should have been rescinded after the pandemic, as was originally intended.
More than 1,000 medical professionals have written to us opposing Clause 208, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, former president of the British Medical Association, for her support for my amendment. One letter I received pointed out that—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness refers to 1,000 doctors writing, but is she aware that the British Medical Association has sent briefings to Members in support of the Bill as it now stands and that it alone represents more than 200,000 doctors?
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
The British Medical Association is a trade union, not a royal college.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I am very sorry—I have to carry on or I am going to run out of time. This is Report and I am going to continue.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is perfectly entitled not to take any interventions. We will make better progress if people just agree to take interventions or not, and then we will be able to hear from everyone.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
One letter I received pointed out that 22 week-plus babies aborted in a medical setting are clinically euthanised prior to surgery with a lethal injection into the heart. What would happen, she asked in her letter, to babies aborted at home and born alive? Would the baby be left to die? How would the baby be disposed of? Would the mother be charged with infanticide?
Clause 208, as confirmed by a legal opinion obtained by the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh, in the other place, would also make it legal for a woman to perform her own abortion on sex-selective grounds at any time. Data from NHS England shows that there is already an imbalance in the sex of children among certain communities that cannot be explained by pure chance. Do the proposers of this clause want to further facilitate what has been called femicide?
Let me be clear about what Clause 208 does not do. It does not, despite the claims of its promoters, leave the current law intact. If the 24-week limit can no longer be defended when women induce their own abortions, and they can obtain pills through the post via a phone call, the limit set by Parliament in 1990 is rendered meaningless. The reason why it was then lowered from 28 weeks was precisely because of concerns about the termination of viable children.
The most basic justification for all abortions is that the unborn child in question is unwanted. The slogan is that every child should be a wanted child, but we all know that there are so many couples who for medical reasons cannot have families themselves yet desperately want a family. When you think of the fate of a viable baby being aborted as unwanted when there are so many families yearning to provide that love and support via adoption, this clause is morally questionable, even on the purely utilitarian grounds of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
The preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that
“the child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.
Removing the offence of a woman terminating her own pregnancy, even at full term, would remove the few remaining legal protections for unborn children.
I am sure that the proposers of Clause 208 genuinely believe that they will thereby create a kinder and more civilised society, but I fear that the consequences, if this is passed, will be precisely the opposite.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is normal to take questions and interventions as this is a debate so, before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her whether she believes that all 50 countries that have decriminalised abortion are wrong?
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 424 from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, for the reasons that she has so clearly set out. I will not repeat them but instead seek to offer in my Amendment 425 a more judicious response than Clause 208 to the small number of prosecutions that have occurred in recent years.
When we pass laws as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to ensure that those laws are as safe as possible, while legislating with the most difficult or even most nefarious scenarios in mind. It is with that in mind that I have tabled Amendment 425. The only reason why we are having this debate today and why there has been this push for Clause 208—not from the public but from abortion providers—is that the current law around how women can access abortion is not as safe as it should be and does not protect women in difficult or nefarious situations.
When the abortion pills by post scheme was introduced, I and many others warned of its risks. Sadly, those warnings have proven prescient, with one consequence being that a small number of women have faced prosecution for illegal abortions after the statutory time limit. Those prosecutions have led to the same groups who assured us back in 2020 and 2022 that pills by post was safe to lobby for the introduction of Clause 208, essentially trying to paper over the consequences of that scheme.
While women might no longer be prosecuted under Clause 208, the grave risks to women will not go away. Cases of women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy will likely increase without a legal deterrent. We will then hear calls for the full decriminalisation of abortion up to birth. It would be far safer to reintroduce in-person consultations with a medical professional before women can obtain abortion pills, as was mandatory before the pandemic. Amendment 425 would do this. It is not seeking to reverse the convenience of pills by post. It is only seeking to introduce safeguards for women. The amendment is deliberately moderate. It still permits at-home abortions but requires a prior confidential face-to-face appointment with a medical professional.
I draw colleagues’ attention to three reasons why this is important. First, in-person consultations allow women’s gestational age to be reliably verified. This would protect women because of the dangers associated with abortions away from the clinical context late in pregnancy. Those who argued for the Abortion Act in 1967 did so to prevent the back-street abortion. Under Clause 208, the DIY back-street abortion will be back for any woman who is more than 24 weeks pregnant.
In 2023, Carla Foster was convicted of an illegal abortion after she admitted lying to the abortion provider BPAS about her gestational age, claiming to be seven weeks pregnant when her gestation was actually between 32 and 34 weeks. Carla Foster was both a perpetrator—ending the life of a baby capable of living outside the womb—and a victim. She was a victim of a scheme that meant she could obtain abortion pills with no meaningful safeguards or medical care. After calling paramedics, she described being traumatised by the face of her dead baby. An in-person gestational age check would have both saved the life of her baby and spared the trauma caused by her actions.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I am not giving way; I am sorry.
Secondly, in-person consultations protect against coercion and abuse. Far from protecting victims of abuse, as is claimed, the lack of such consultations is a traffickers’ charter, allowing traffickers and abusers to cover up the effects of sexual exploitation by coercing their victims to phone up and ask for abortion pills. In-person appointments prior to an abortion in a confidential setting mean that such abuse is more likely to be detected. The disturbing case of Stuart Worby emphasises this need.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I am just carrying on; I am sorry.
Mr Worby was jailed in December 2024 after arranging for a friend’s girlfriend to pretend to be pregnant and acquire abortion pills for him via the pills by post scheme. He then spiked a woman’s drink with those pills to induce an abortion against her knowledge. Again, he could not have obtained the pills if in-person appointments were still mandatory.
Thirdly, in-person appointments allow for possible health risks to be checked to assess whether it is safe for a woman to undergo a medical, rather than a surgical, abortion.
The problems with the pills by post scheme are well documented, with FoI requests suggesting that one in 17 women requires hospital treatment afterwards. These risks were strikingly drawn to our attention by a letter, which has already been mentioned, from more than 1,000 medical professionals who support Amendments 424 and 425. I am glad too for the support of Dr Caroline Johnson MP, who still practises as a paediatrician and brought forward the same amendment in the other place.
The seriousness of this issue was brought home to me when I had the opportunity, in January, to meet with a woman whose sister tragically died after taking abortion pills via the pills by post scheme, leaving behind young children. The medical conditions the woman had, which meant she should have been deemed high risk, may well have been picked up in a clinical context. However, after a telephone consultation, she was sent pills in the post by BPAS and died suddenly minutes after taking the final set of pills.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I am sorry; I am going to keep going.
This amendment would ensure that women are offered the best possible care at in-person appointments, where medical history can be discussed with a woman.
Amendment 425 is not about whether we are pro-life or pro-choice; it is about safeguarding women. Polling last summer found that two-thirds of women support the return of in-person appointments; a mere 4% support the status quo. Abortion providers provided abortion services before the pandemic, with no major problems for access. I urge colleagues to support Amendment 425, which is a far more proportionate response to the handful of court cases that have occurred in recent years than that offered by Clause 208, which makes matters worse and removes legal protections for unborn babies up to birth. Amendment 425 would not reduce access to abortion for women, but it would ensure that their health needs are properly catered for.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am the chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I hope that the noble Baroness who has just spoken will accept that sometimes the expertise of people who are directly involved on a daily basis with the treatment of women seeking an abortion is really rather important. I found it distressing when the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, refused to acknowledge that, in fact, many representatives of the medical profession strongly adhere to what lies behind Clause 208. I strongly support that clause because it seeks to ensure that women in England and Wales will no longer be subject to long investigations and criminal charges, which are very often exceedingly distressing.
I also support Amendment 423A to stop ongoing investigations and Amendment 426B to grant historical pardons to women. However, I will focus my comments today on the safety of the telemedicine service for early medical abortion and, in particular, my opposition to Amendment 425, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, just spoke to.
There have been extraordinary suggestions that the creation of the telemedicine service is the reason for the increase in criminal investigations. This is not true. There were cases of women being sent to prison before the telemedicine pathway was even created. Since the vote in the House of Commons last year, several women have been investigated, including a woman who experienced a miscarriage when she was 17 weeks pregnant. Surely that is something we should seek to avoid.
I turn to a landmark study of more than 50,000 abortions in England and Wales, which concluded that telemedical abortion is effective, safe and improves access to care. Waiting times fell, the mean gestational age of treatment declined and effectiveness increased, with 98.8% of abortions successfully completed after medication. The scare stories we have just heard are exceedingly rare and we should not take them as a reason for rejecting the telemedical service that exists.
Safety is not only about clinical outcomes; it is also about safeguarding. Women accessing early medical abortion through a licensed provider will speak to a doctor, a nurse or a midwife who follows established safeguarding protocols, asking an agreed list of questions to verify what the woman seeking an abortion has said. In fact, abortion providers operate within one of the most tightly regulated areas of medicine. Where concerns arise, patients are always brought face to face to receive care by that method. Indeed, about 50% have a face-to-face appointment when they seek a telemedical abortion and the drugs that are concerned.
It is important to note that telemedicine has not removed face-to-face care. If a woman chooses to attend a clinic or hospital, she is able to do so. Telemedicine has simply broadened choice for women, and that is something we should also take very seriously as a huge benefit. We must consider what would happen if the option for telemedicine—
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Could I further clarify and ask a question? Is it not true that if any doctor or nurse is doubtful when telemedicine is happening, they will ask that person to come in to be seen?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
That is absolutely the case. I was trying to make that point earlier, but I did not do it as clearly as the noble Baroness has just done. Of course that should happen, and it does happen.
If we remove the option, we will find that women, regardless of circumstance, are forced to attend the clinic. I do not think that is sensible. We should allow women the choice to decide what the best route for them is. Some women—for example, those in abusive relationships, those living in rural areas, those with great caring responsibilities and those who cannot travel safely for some reason—may no longer be able to access safe, essential abortion care.
There is widespread support from the medical establishment for the telemedicine service remaining an option for women, including from all the relevant royal colleges, not just the RCOG. It goes across the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists—indeed, all those royal colleges that have a clear and obvious responsibility for providing good services for those women seeking an abortion.
I hope that, in further discussion today, that will be recognised and we will not hear comments—as were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton—that many doctors are opposed to this. That is simply not the case; they are in favour of Clause 208 and of the telemedicine service.
The evidence is clear—
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Could I further clarify and ask a question—
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
Let me just finish, I am just about to complete what I was going to say. I am happy to take the question.
The evidence is clear that telemedicine has reduced waiting times; enabled earlier treatment, which is a huge advantage; maintained high safety and effectiveness rates; improved privacy, which is something that most women in these circumstances really appreciate; and increased safeguarding disclosures. It expands choice and keeps women within a regulated clinical framework. That in itself is exceedingly important too.
To weaken or remove telemedical abortion would not improve safety; it would instead reduce access, delay care and create barriers for the most vulnerable women. The system works. It is safe, effective and must be maintained.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, views on both sides of the debate are sincerely held. We should all respect each other for that. We had a long debate in Committee. This is Report. Members should make their points. Repeated interventions do not help us at this stage. We need to take the temperature down. The House can make its decision known in the Division Lobbies later on.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support abortion on demand but, as we have heard, the danger continues to exist that an almost full-term foetus could be aborted by means of a pill ordered by telephone and delivered by post. I am struck by the extraordinary efforts that this House has gone to in order to provide safeguards for those who are terminally ill and who demand assisted dying, yet we do not afford the unborn foetus or near-term foetus any kind of safeguard at all. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, would introduce some kind of safeguard, which perhaps we all owe to that unborn child.
The experience of other countries suggests that late-term abortions are uncommon, and an in-person consultation to determine the stage of pregnancy would ensure that they remain so. We know, too, that women who abort at later stages of pregnancy are more likely to have birthing complications. This, surely, is a further reason for some medical oversight.
As I said, I strongly support abortion on demand. I think that introducing a safeguard such as this to avoid the actual death of a near-term foetus is acceptable, and I hope very much that the noble Baroness will put this to the House.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 423ZA would limit the application of Clause 208 to those deemed not to have capacity. I have also added my name to Amendment 426C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf.
Under the present law, it is an offence for a woman to procure an abortion to end her pregnancy after 24 weeks —the stage when the baby is deemed to be a viable child. Causing the death of the child is a crime, other than in exceptional circumstances. It is also an offence to procure drugs or devices with the intent of an abortion.
Clause 208 is a bad clause. It is constitutionally wrong. It has no manifesto pledge behind it, and no prior consultation has been done on it with the people of this country. No evidence exists that people want abortion up to birth. The clause undermines the constitutional arrangement by which the Government legislate: on the basis of consent by the governed for an announced programme, given freely at the ballot box.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 426B in my name. Before I do that, I want to ask the question that I was trying to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner; it was a perfectly ordinary question. Is the noble Baroness aware that, since 2022, there has been in place national oversight within the Crown Prosecution Service for the prosecution of abortion offences and that, under this framework, multiple women have been prosecuted, despite judges in the cases calling for the CPS to reconsider? That is all I wanted to ask the noble Baroness.
The amendment in my name has been signed by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Miller. It would insert a new clause that follows Clause 208 and is consequential on it. It seeks to pardon women who have had a conviction or a caution for the offence that Clause 208 applies to. It would remove their details from police systems, regardless of the outcome of their case. There are women who were convicted, and an even larger group of women who were not convicted but who were investigated. This means that they have permanently to disclose in a DBS check, because abortion offences are classed as violent crimes. When Clause 208 remains in this Bill, this is an issue that the Government will need to address, as they will need to do for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, because both are technical matters when this clause passes into law. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this is indeed the case if this clause reaches the statute book?
I think we all wish to resolve this matter. We have had a significant amount of discussion about this clause, and I think it is safe to say that there is some disagreement between us. I would like to summarise what I think we need to do from the point of view of those of us supporting Clause 208. To protect this clause, we will need to reject Amendment 422E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. We will need to oppose Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We will need to reject Amendment 423ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. We will need to reject Amendment 426C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. All those amendments seek to continue the criminalisation of women in one form or another: a cruel idea, that women should be punished.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, seeks to strike Amendment 208 from the Bill. The House has heard arguments, however, about the 50 countries where this works perfectly well, and where it does not increase abortion or offences. As my noble friend has said, all the royal colleges support this. We can safely say that what we are doing here is seeking to bring British law up to the same standard as other countries across the world. Amendment 424 seeks to place limits on a well-functioning, safe and early abortion through telemedicine. As my noble friend has said, it works. The amendment from the noble Baroness would place young people at risk. Women who need to go to a surgery for their medicine, but who live a long way away from it may start their miscarriage on the bus going home. Surely we want to avoid that.
Amendments 426C and 426D seek to restrict access and safeguarding in a way that will harm women, and young girls particularly. We must oppose those as well. I urge the House to reject all those amendments, to support Clause 208 and to support Amendments 423A and 426B.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, many noble Lords will know that the Church of England’s view on abortion is one of principled opposition, recognising that there can be limited conditions under which abortion may be preferable to any available alternatives. This is based on the belief of the infinite worth and value of every human life, however old or young, and including life not yet born. The infinite value of human life is a fundamental Christian principle that underpins much of our legal system and has shaped existing laws on abortion. All life is precious. We therefore need to recognise that women confronted with the very complex and difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy deserve our utmost understanding, care and practical support as they face what is often a heart-wrenching decision.
However, I cannot support Clause 208. Though its intention may not be to change the 24-week abortion limit, it undoubtedly risks eroding the safeguards and enforcement of those legal limits and, inadvertently, undermining the value of human life.
I support Amendment 425 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, since it is not clear how the law can function in an enforceable way without in-person consultation before accessing early medical abortion. The risks of medical complications are, as we have heard, much greater if the pills for early abortion are taken beyond the 11-week limit. Although there are benefits to telemedicine—I do not dispute that—there are also flaws, and they are key to the debate on whether Clause 208 should pass.
As I have already said, this is not a debate on whether the legal abortion limit should change, but without the levers necessary to monitor and enforce the law, we are at risk of it becoming exactly that.
In the same vein, I support the amendment in the name of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester, as we have a particular duty of care to those under 18 to ensure that they are properly cared for and supported while making such difficult decisions.
I am reminded of the call of the prophet Micah both to do justice and to love mercy. Balancing justice and mercy is the challenge that we are debating today. I do not think that women who act in relation to their own pregnancies should be prosecuted, but I also do not wish to see any increase in late-term abortions.
Although Clause 208 is well intentioned, it risks making an already imperfect situation worse. Therefore, I support Amendment 424 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton.
Decriminalisation of abortion is a question of such legal, moral and practical complexity that it cannot be properly addressed in an amendment hastily added to another Bill. Consideration of any alteration to the abortion laws needs public consultation and robust parliamentary processes to ensure that every aspect of this debate is carefully considered and scrutinised.
There are many outstanding questions, which deserve greater attention, about the tone of policing in this area, about how we can best ensure that women suffering miscarriages can access the right care when they need it, and about how those who provide abortions outside the law will continue to be held accountable for doing so.
As I have said before in this place, we need a framework that supports women, not one that puts them and their unborn children in the way of greater harm. On that basis, I will support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Stroud, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester should they push them to a vote.
Lord Pannick (CB)
It was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that Clause 208 would undermine respect for the law. On the contrary, it will enhance respect for the law, because it will express in statutory form compassion for women who have the misfortune to suffer the loss of their baby at late term for whatever reason it occurs, and it will prevent intrusive, distressing police investigations at a most sensitive time in any woman’s life.
It has been suggested that there should be a balance in the law. Clause 208 already includes the necessary balance because it protects the woman but maintains the criminal liability of anyone who assists her to have a late-term abortion, whether it be the abusive partner, the rogue doctor or whoever it may be. That is right and proper, and that is the balance that should be accorded.
As a lawyer, I look for precedents. The precedent that occurs to me is the Suicide Act 1961, in which Parliament recognised that a person who had the misfortune to seek to take their own life should not be prosecuted. You cannot be prosecuted for attempting to end your own life. But the law says—I appreciate that we are currently debating the assisted dying Bill, but my speech has nothing to do with that—that if you assist a person to seek to take their own life, you can be prosecuted. That is the distinction there, and it is the distinction in Clause 208.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
There is another distinction that the House may wish to consider: under the Suicide Act, it is not a crime to take your own life, but we are talking about taking the life of an unborn baby.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Of course, the unborn baby, until it is born, has no legal identity. That is the law of the land. The unborn baby has no legal identity, and the mother is in the prime position in relation to that baby. We have to balance the interests of all concerned. My view is that Clause 208 does contain the balance that I have suggested to the House.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, if we have to balance the needs and rights of all concerned, does that mean that an unborn child that is viable beyond 24 weeks has no rights and should not be considered here? Does it mean that it is only the rights of the mother that matter?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am not commending late-term abortions. Nobody on either side of this debate is commending late-term abortions. The question addressed by Clause 208 is whether there should be a criminal liability: whether people should be investigated by the police and potentially sent to prison in those circumstances. That seems to me, with all due respect, to be the wrong balance. I say to the House that this is a very difficult issue, but I am afraid that those who oppose Clause 208 simply fail to recognise the arguments on the other side, which need to be balanced.
Baroness Neate (CB)
My Lords, as a former chief executive of Women’s Aid, I will specifically address the comments made about domestic abuse, particularly in relation to telemedicine. It is common for domestic abuse to begin in pregnancy, and it is common for all aspects of pregnancy, including conception, to be tools used by perpetrators of domestic abuse. That is why groups wishing to end violence against women and girls—domestic abuse groups, those who deal with so-called honour-based violence, those who deal with forced marriage, Rape Crisis and many others—have written to parliamentarians saying that creating clinically unnecessary barriers to abortion helps abusers, not survivors. I would really like noble Lords to take note of the fact that, in denying women discrete space for action, they are actually enabling abuse much more than they are preventing it.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 423A in my name would ask the police to cease investigations into women since the other House passed this vote back in June. Since June, in a number of cases women and mothers have been investigated. At Christmas, a woman in her 40s thought she was in her early pregnancy. She delivered a foetus in its gestation sac. She was very distressed. It turned out that that was actually at 24 weeks; she had not realised. She called the ambulance, and it was made clear that she had safeguarding issues. She was a victim of domestic violence. She had children. Then the police came. Her house was searched, including the Christmas presents for the children. It was incredibly distressing. The children had to leave the house. Many noble Baronesses here have talked, rightly, about the effects on the unborn child, but what about the children of the mothers who are taken away for investigation? So this is a very important addition to the other amendments. I very much support the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has tabled.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, I am sure that nobody, whatever side of this debate they sit on, thinks that anyone has a late-pregnancy abortion for the fun of it. No one is doing it to get some promotion at work or to get a late holiday—some of the excuses that we have heard suggested. This is an incredibly traumatic thing. Actually, I would say that an abortion at any time was an incredibly traumatic thing for a woman. I urge noble Lords to go, if they have not seen the Tracey Emin exhibition at the Tate; she speaks incredibly movingly but in a very harrowing way about her own lived experience of abortion. This is not something that is taken lightly.
For that small number of women who end up doing this at a late stage in their pregnancy, they are not doing it for the fun of it. They are often abused and often in situations of domestic violence; they are often from very marginalised communities, such as my own community—from the Muslim community, or from other more isolated communities. Many of them are from deprived backgrounds; they are not from nice families such as ours, where you can talk about these things. Many of them are told, by the way, that they do not know what is going on with their bodies, by their abusive partners or abusive parents, because coercive control does not just come from the husband or partner —it can come from within the family structure. They are not even told about their bodies; they are not given agency about their body—and they are told that if they dare to go to anyone for help, they will end up in prison, and here is the evidence. While I understand the concerns about coercion and care and making sure that we protect vulnerable women—it is very well intended—this could further push those very isolated women into situations that are ever more dangerous.
The final point that I want to make is that, whatever side of the divide we are on, we know that the police are really struggling with resources right now. We have had many conversations about how we do not think that police are investigating serious sexual assault against women and severe anti-social behaviour. Do we really want our police to be rifling through the bins of women who have just had a stillbirth? Do any of us think that that is a good use of time? Do we honestly want to see vulnerable women put in prison, when there are very few places in prison right now?
Finally, you cannot solve this problem by just prosecuting vulnerable women. I have had many conversations with people on the other side, and I understand that, as the Chief Whip said on our side, these views are profoundly and genuinely held by all of us. But I have heard the argument from people who say that, when the terrible thing happens and there is a late abortion, someone has to pay the price—someone has to go to prison. I would push that back. Throwing women, vulnerable women who have often been beaten and treated violently, into prison, is not the answer. Believe you me: these women need compassion, and their kids also need a mother, so that they do not fall into the patterns that lead to bad outcomes. If anyone thinks that these women need to be punished, trust me—what they will have gone through is punishment enough, which will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in my name, Amendment 426D. I start by thanking the Minister for meeting me a couple of weeks ago to discuss this matter—and I want to be direct at the outset about what the amendment would do and would not do.
The amendment is distinct from Amendment 425, which stands on its own merits, and which your Lordships will consider on its own terms. This amendment says nothing about adult women’s access to abortion, nothing about where medication is taken and nothing about the broader questions that have been part of our debate up till now. It rests entirely on one safeguarding principle—that when a child is the patient, a professional should meet her before prescribing. I believe that that is something that your Lordships can support, regardless of the views that you hold on everything else before the House today.
The amendment is brought on behalf of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Children—NHS doctors and nurses who carry statutory safeguarding responsibilities for children across every local safeguarding partnership in England. Its concern is that the needs of children, particularly looked-after children who become pregnant, are not sufficiently accounted for in this clause. Since 2022, a girl of 14 can telephone an abortion service, receive medication by post, take it at home, and no clinician will ever meet her. How does that give confidence that safeguarding risks are being properly assessed? How does the provider of medication know whether there is someone else in the room when they speak to the child on the phone? How do they know whether someone else has suggested that the child should make the phone call? Surely the only safe way to assess risk is to meet in person.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, says that telemedicine is safe. I fully respect her experience in this field and, in many situations, I would agree, but in the case of children, of which I note she made no mention in her speech, I believe she is wrong. Telemedicine is not safe for children.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
Is the right reverend Prelate aware that coercion can also occur in the consultation room, as I have seen many times? It may actually be safer for the girl—or the child, as he is calling her—to be able to choose the place and the time where she has that consultation.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I am very aware that there are risks to all forms of consultation. My argument is simply that the risks are minimised by in-person consultation.
The considered view of safeguarding professionals in the NNDHP is that the current guidance put in place by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in 2022 is simply not robust enough. That guidance, I note, requires an in-person meeting for children under 13. Children under 16 are,
“normally … required to complete their consultation in-person, unless there is a compelling indication to do otherwise”.
Evidence, however, suggests that most providers of abortion care are arguing that the option of telemedicine itself is a compelling indication that an in-person consultation is not required. For those aged 16 or 17, the guidance says only that children—and, of course, 16 and 17-year-olds are still children under the Children Act—should “be encouraged” to attend in person. More fundamentally, guidance can currently be changed unilaterally, without parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, at the discretion of the body that issued it. I believe, therefore, that legislation is required. What Parliament enacts, only Parliament can remove.
The case for this amendment, however, does not rest on my view or the NNDHP’s alone. The Government’s own consultation found that safeguarding organisations specifically identified under-18s as the group for whom in-person assessment was most critical to reduce the risk from those who sexually exploit children, manipulate the system or force their victims to obtain abortion. Indeed, MSI Reproductive Choices has documented that face-to-face appointments are associated with a significant increase in domestic abuse disclosures compared with telemedicine. This is especially significant given that girls and young women face a higher risk of coercive or abusive relationships than those aged over 24, and are often less equipped to ask for help.
The clinical risks compound this. Beyond 11 weeks’ gestation, home management is not appropriate and the risks to the patient increase significantly. As has been mentioned, accurate gestational age assessment is the foundation on which safe prescribing depends, and it cannot be done reliably by telephone. These are not theoretical risks. We have heard stories already. I would simply add that of a 16 year-old who was estimated by the clinic to be under eight weeks pregnant, but the baby she delivered was in fact 20 weeks. She later said, “If they had scanned me and I knew that I was that far gone, I would have had him”. An in-person appointment would have changed everything for that young woman. This amendment would require such an appointment.
I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, in her amendment. Without an in-person consultation, it is unclear how we will ensure that early medical abortions take place within the law. Indeed, challenges around vulnerability and correct gestational assessment apply to adulthood as well, which is why I fully support Amendment 425.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I had prepared a longer speech but I will speak very briefly as most of the points that I wanted to make have been made. Of course, I do not want to see women unduly prosecuted, but I was reassured by the wise remarks in Committee of my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, suggesting that the adaptation of police protocols was more suitable than the change in the law proposed by Clause 208. I support Amendments 424 and 425, as indeed do many doctors, including some among the numbers mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, of obstetricians.
One point, perhaps, has not been raised, which concerns the mental health of women who may be isolated. I am concerned about the possibility that home use, in relative isolation, of a self-induced later abortion may increase the emotional intensity and mental health consequences for some women, particularly if she has limited support or medical complications, which are of course much more common in later abortion. Safeguard support and informed consent become much more critical as gestation advances and care shifts away from in-person supervision. I am not convinced by this clause; it just has not had the depth of thought and preparation required to really understand the complexity of what is being proposed. I ask Members to err on the side of caution and to support the amendments that I have spoken about.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 426C and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner, Lady Spielman and Lady Lawlor, for their support. I will also speak in support of Amendment 422E, to which I have added my name.
Before explaining why we have tabled Amendment 426C, I give a little context. Like, I am sure, all other noble Lords, I have received a great deal of correspondence on Clause 208. One thing repeatedly said by proponents is that, apart from decriminalising all instances of maternal abortion, nothing would change. The Fawcett Society, for example, says that apart from this one change, the Abortion Act 1967 would continue to operate as it always has. However, I think this is quite mistaken. We are not tidying up a small drafting error here; we are making a fundamental change to the law. When you make a fundamental change to the law, you change perceptions and behaviour, and it has knock-on effects.
We have heard, for example, that there has been a marked change in the number of investigations related to abortion. We have also learned—the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, alluded to this—that the changes are a bit more complicated than we might have thought. There has been an increase in the number of investigations related to procuring illegal abortion offences, but at the same time there has been a decrease in the number of investigations for intentional destruction of a viable unborn child. For example, there were seven investigations of intentional destruction of a viable unborn child in 2025, compared with 18 in 2023. Only one person, a male, was proceeded against in the most recent year. Clearly, something is going on but, equally clearly, it seems to be a little more complicated than we might think and the Government do not really know. To repeat the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, made, it is not possible to determine how many investigations there have been that relate to women, including women acting in relation to their pregnancy.
Alongside that we have had another major change, about which we have already heard a great deal this evening, in Committee and at Second Reading, and that is the arrival on the scene of abortifacient pills. They have completely changed the profile of abortion, including whether the foetus is dead before it is delivered. It is not just about telemedicine but about pills by post, which have become much more easily available, not simply within this country but increasingly across country boundaries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and others have discussed consultations by pregnant women, and we have had some discussion of whether these should or should not all be in person. Our Amendment 426C has a rather different focus. It would create a new crime of obtaining abortifacients, which for the moment are pills, by false representation. To explain why this is desirable, I will say a bit more about the case of Stuart Worby, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred.
In 2025, Stuart Worby was found guilty of poisoning his pregnant wife by administering abortion medication without her knowledge or consent. She very much wanted the baby she was carrying and he did not. A female associate of Worby’s procured the drugs through an online consultation in which she claimed early pregnancy and was duly prescribed and sent the pills. Worby gave his wife the drugs without her knowledge. She suffered a devastating miscarriage and the government website summarising the case notes that she is left unable to bear children. The victim of Worby’s act was not investigated when she miscarried. The crime came to light only when she found messages on her husband’s phone and went to the police.
In another recent case in Scotland the abortion was procured by a paramedic who injected his partner without her knowledge. Again, she was not investigated; the crime only came to light indirectly. There may be many other cases like this, but it is possible and becoming easier to obtain these pills—
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
No, I am going to continue. I agree with the Chief Whip on this; we should just keep going.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
That was your choice. I am going to follow instructions.
It is becoming easier to obtain these pills not least because of the balkanisation of American states on abortion issues, which has also turbocharged the use of pills in the United States. If, as seems likely, obtaining and administering an abortifacient without consent is going to increase, then we think there is a good reason to make this a clearly defined offence. Our amendment is drafted in consultation with some experienced KCs based on existing fraud law.
I realise that there will be an obvious objection, which is that there is existing legislation, but as the Government Ministers themselves have made clear when introducing specific legislation to cover retail workers, the fact that there may be legislation is not necessarily a compelling argument against creating a new, clear offence. Sometimes the legislature may want to go further to inform, to highlight particular risks, and to clarify the law in new situations, which is what we are in in this case.
We have drafted this amendment on the assumption that Clause 208 stands, because you have to have to make an assumption, but the fact that it was so difficult to do this, that it is so unsatisfactory and that, if we went forward, we or the Government would have to redraft in the light of what does or does not happen to Clause 208 makes it clear that we are in an unsatisfactory situation. We are making law on the hoof when what is needed is a really good look at the situation we are in and the way that the changes that we might introduce would impact on other behaviour, so that we could take a coherent, holistic view of whether abortion law needs to be rethought.
In that context, I return to Amendment 422E. The first rule of good policy-making is to be clear about the problem. I do not think we are. Amendment 422E therefore proposes an alternative to the unscheduled and unexpected introduction of the sweeping changes in Clause 208. It would require the personal consent of the DPP for an investigation, with a tight time limit. It would address the distressing situations that we have heard about and it would leave us time to discuss properly what changes could usefully be made to current law. It would also ensure that any change that occurred fulfilled the objectives of those who proposed and support Clause 208. I am really concerned at this pulling something out.
I have two final, quick points. Many people will say that lots of other countries have decriminalised, but that does not mean they have a situation that would be exactly like ours if we passed Clause 208. Whether you have full decriminalisation exists in a whole set of different situations, and it certainly does not mean that those countries allow abortion at full term by mothers. The second point is that it is perfectly possible to have a review. The Scots have just done so. They have had a thorough review. One may or may not like what they have done, but that is what we should be doing. Given where we are, I commend my amendment to the House and strongly commend a compromise that would give us time. I hope that the Government are listening to the degree of concern over this and considering whether they might, in the near future, do something serious on this issue.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords are aware, in spite of what we have heard from some noble Lords, that more than 50 countries around the world, including 29 in Europe, do not criminalise women under abortion law. Going back to the noble Baroness’s comments about Northern Ireland, telemedicine was voted on as lawful by our very House.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I am sorry, so many Cross-Benchers have just been speaking. I sincerely hope that I can finish my point. I have been waiting ever so patiently.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Hazarika, and I wish to make my comments in the spirit, as she said, of understanding that there are people with very different views across the House. I respect those views, so I hope to be heard similarly.
National and international women’s rights and health groups are proactively calling for decriminalisation in the UK and beyond. That is in addition to the other place—our elected representatives—overwhelmingly voting in support of decriminalisation. I wonder whether we believe that every one of those respected organisations is wrong, that only a section of this House is right and that the other place is wrong. I would find it difficult to ally myself with those who oppose the decriminalisation of abortion.
On Amendment 423A, to which I put my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Hazarika, I do not know whether noble Lords have read the excellent article in the Guardian today by Hannah Al-Othman. She has done some extensive research about a number of harrowing cases, one of which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Hazarika, of women being arrested in their hospital bed. Is it seriously the case that we as a House want that situation to continue? The Centre for Women’s Justice has detailed a number of cases that are truly dreadful.
I also support the telemedicine provisions; they seem humane and are also lawful in Northern Ireland. I am not going to say any more. I strongly support decriminalisation and strongly oppose the amendments that other noble Lords have spoken to.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, is she aware that there are no telemedicine abortifacients available in Northern Ireland? It is not lawful.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wanted to sound really definitive in saying that I oppose Amendment 424 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, which would remove Clause 208, and that I oppose Amendments 425 and 426D. However, the good thing about this place is that I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich—about whom I am going to say something wonderful. She made me pause and think, and that is what is really useful about this debate. I am absolutely certain on some things, but I am not quite sure about the tangle of amendments that have been proposed. I am therefore going to carry on and voice some of my concerns.
To give a bit of context, abortion in the UK is a safe, normal and common procedure. It is appreciated by women because, when facing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, it allows them a legal choice on whether to be a mother—a decision that will alter the whole course of their life. The fact that a third of women in the UK will have a legal and safe abortion at some point in their life—the vast majority of which will happen early on—shows how careful we have to be not to allow this rather fraught, heated and emotional debate impose any unintended barriers to that success story for women’s freedom and rights. I am afraid that some of the well-meaning compromises we have heard about tonight would likely do that. I am particularly worried about undermining telemedicine and pills by post.
I want to reflect on time limits. Many of us will have received a tsunami of emails and letters urging us to oppose Clause 208, stressing emotively—and factually inaccurately—that this clause will legalise abortion until birth, and that that amounts to the state-sanctioned killing of babies, as someone explained to me. We have to restate for the public that this clause does not change the limits for abortion. There is still a 24-week abortion time limit. In fact, abortion itself remains a crime, just as it has been since 1968, unless very stringent conditions are met. I stress again that any medical professional, or anyone else, who assists a woman to get an abortion beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks will be committing a serious crime and will be liable for prosecution.
We have to understand the public backlash, because there is unease about the whole issue of abortion until birth, and time limits per se. As a society, or indeed as a Parliament, we may want to revisit the issue at some stage. For many, the 24-week legal time limit based on viability can feel too arbitrary, especially as surely we all want medical science to make great strides in keeping prematurely born babies alive ever earlier for those women who want their children, but that should not limit the rights of those women who do not want to proceed with their pregnancy.
There are moral issues here about human life—that old chestnut of whether human life starts at conception or birth. There are those who stress that we should focus on the unborn child—we have heard a fair amount of that tonight. They say that, when we talk about more developed foetuses, we are talking about an unborn child, and that the heart that can be seen beating on an ultrasound scan at six weeks is just as much that of an unborn child as one that beats five months later. Is gestational growth a useful guide to the law? Is viability the best guide to what makes us human?
Such difficult discussions should not be shied away from. When you go out and talk to the public about this subject, they talk about time limits and these kinds of issues. Certainly, at the Academy of Ideas, where we work with young people, we consider it is our duty to organise such debates regularly to ensure that new generations rightly ask questions and hear all sides of the argument.
However, Clause 208 is not trying to relitigate the legal time limit debate, even though I welcome the fuller debate we have had tonight. It is important that we acknowledge why it has caused a furore. It removes the threat of criminalisation for a tiny number of women who, for whatever reason, have taken abortion pills to terminate their own pregnancy, but we have to be honest and acknowledge that it brings a risk of abuse—I know that, even though I am supporting it. The notion that decriminalisation will mean that women will gleefully go on a crime spree because it is decriminalised—suggesting that it is only the threat of prosecution that stops women from letting their pregnancies progress carelessly so they can inflict on themselves the horror of self-induced full-term termination —seems far-fetched and lacking in generosity. Legal late abortions are not harmful per se; certainly, they are not more harmful than coercing an unwilling woman to endure a full-time pregnancy and labour against her will.
However, it is also true that late abortions are undoubtedly gruelling for both patient and clinician, which is why the idea that any woman would choose that as an easy or casual option is far-fetched, ludicrous and insulting. The earlier an abortion can be performed, the better it is for women, and that is the reality of the perspective we need for this debate. In 2022, the last year for which figures are available, almost a quarter of a million women in England and Wales had abortions. Almost 90% of those were under 10 weeks and only 1% were at 20 weeks or over. We are not talking about everybody having late abortions or queuing up to have them.
The emergence of telemedicine has allowed access to even earlier abortion. Surely one of the few positives that emerged out of Covid, 2020 and the lockdown was that it changed the abortion regulations to allow medication in early pregnancy to be taken at home. While it is easier, early medical abortion is certainly not a free-for-all or unregulated—it is not like getting a pharmacist to okay your access to Wegovy or Ozempic. It remains regulated under the 1967 Act, which is a hyper-regulated piece of legislation that includes speaking to a doctor and so on. The limit remains at 10 weeks and nothing in Clause 208 changes that. What is positive about pills by post is that it cuts down on the dreaded waiting list times, which means that treatment can be earlier. An insistence on face-to-face appointments, as some of the amendments suggest, would tangle up early abortions in delay, which would undermine the success of 40% of abortions by telemedical methods now being performed at six weeks, versus 25% using traditional access methods.
Finally, one of the arguments used against telemedicine is that it could lead to non-consensual coerced abortions, with abusive men, or even abusive parents, forcing young, vulnerable women to abort. I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, about the issue in relation to domestic abuse. Clause 208 does not change the law on this non-consensual coerced abortion. Non-consensual coerced abortion at any gestation remains illegal and is a crime.
However, it is key to note that since telemedicine became legal there has been a major increase in safeguarding disclosures, especially by young women who have felt able to talk about being victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence precisely because they are doing it remotely. It has allowed abortion providers to offer invaluable pastoral intervention beyond abortion services. Telemedicine also enables those vulnerable to coercion to avoid their abusers being involved in the deliberations about their desperate plight of being pregnant.
I will just finish by addressing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. There are many young girls—I appreciate that they are children—from traditional religious communities. Think of the young Catholic girl, the young Muslim girl and so on, as well as those at risk of honour-based violence. Those kinds of young people actually do not need to be asking their dad to drop them round at the clinic so they can get advice. They are sometimes dependent on other people. With telemedicine, they can go with privacy and talk at their own chosen time and place, without having to answer back to a parent or an abusive partner. In other words, telemedicine offers privacy and can help women stay safe.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can we please take the temperature down and respect the Clock? There are 10 minutes for Back-Bench contributions. Of course, many people want to get in, but please take the temperature down—there is no need to constantly interrupt others. Everyone can speak. We will come to the Cross Benches first and then go to the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I would like to pick up some of the safeguarding issues around telemedicine that have been mentioned in the House. To put things in context briefly, I have been a GP now for nearly 40 years, and over the past five years I have been conducting many remote consultations.
First, you can assess safeguarding issues remotely. A paper was published in 2025—very recently—on young girls under 16. More than 600 young girls were involved in the study. It found that 100% of the safeguarding issues—some of these girls then had to be seen face to face—were identified remotely. The conclusion, which is very short, states:
“Requiring in-person adolescent consultation is associated with reduced access to medication abortion without enhancing safeguarding”.
We do want to work with evidence. You might think it is safer to consult face to face, but the evidence shows that it is not safer: it can actually make it more harmful.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
Well, the evidence is there. You either believe in evidence or anecdotes.
The second issue is about ultrasounds. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not recommend ultrasounds for judging gestational age, unless there are problems: for example, if a woman’s menstrual cycle is long or if there are other issues. Again, we have to go by the evidence: not what we think or feel, what we read in the papers or what we discuss with our friends.
I will also comment on assessing competence in younger children under 16. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, has an amendment about mental capacity. I am sure that she is aware that the Mental Capacity Act cannot be used in relation to under-16s. Therefore, the noble Baroness’s amendment, if passed, would automatically mean that a 16 year-old would be prosecuted if she had no mental capacity, yet a 17 year-old could use that Act. So it is a nonsense amendment in that respect.
I fully support Clause 208 and I urge the House—on humane reasons, on competence and capacity, and, moreover, on evidence—to support it.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 424, tabled my noble friend Lady Monckton, and Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I have put my name to both amendments. I will be brief.
Despite the careful unpacking in Committee of the human and legal problems that Clause 208 will create, no amendments have been put down that address them. As we know, there have been no impact assessments and no public consultation, though third-party polling shows a very large majority opposed to abortion up to the point of birth. No effort has been made to gain insight into the extent to which the existing telemedicine scheme is abused, as its laxness means it must inevitably be to some extent. The lack of real answers to the questions asked in Committee make it all too clear that the Government intend to keep their eyes closed and ears stoppered to shut out evidence of abuses. Sadly, some, though not all, of the medical profession also find it easier not to think about the lives of unborn children, no matter how close to birth.
The status quo is, therefore, profoundly unsatisfactory. If this clause is passed, it will signal to all women that there is zero risk to them personally in abusing the telemedicine scheme or procuring an illegal abortion in another way. So, of course, abuses will increase—that is how humans respond to bad incentives—and each abuse is likely to mean that a viable child is killed with impunity. I recognise that, despite the obvious risks that the clause introduces, it is tempting to support it in order to feel good about yourself and show that you are someone who really cares about women—but this requires suppressing all thoughts of children’s lives.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I say to my noble friends who will try to come in shortly that we have had a reasonably long debate on this group and we had a very long debate in Committee. I have begun to hear calls for the Front Benches. I offer the House a reminder that this is Report: the stage when we vote to make decisions. I hope that we can quickly begin to move on to hear from the Front Benches.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Chief Whip will offer me the chance to speak for a couple of minutes. We have always agreed that this is an expert House, and it helps to make sure that legislation is best addressed by expertise where it can be. One of the things we might want to consider in this debate is that there are at least two Members of this House who have given at least 100 years in total to the management of people having terminations of pregnancy —so we do know quite a lot about it. There is also a large number of people who have not spoken who are fellows of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who I think have been rather insulted by some of the things they have heard today because they do not represent the views of most members.
Having said that, I just want to say two things very simply. I firmly believe in decriminalisation. There is a great deal of misapprehension, as was just shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. The fact of the matter is that you cannot induce a pregnancy close to term. In fact, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will agree with me that it is virtually impossible to induce labour in a woman who does not have ruptured membranes at term with drugs. It just does not work. In fact, both he and I—numerous times, if I am not wrong—have been faced with caesarean sections that we did not want to do as the only way we could get a baby out of the womb when it was in danger. We could not use drugs to induce labour, because they do not work. That certainly applies to pills but even to drugs given intravenously. It is therefore important to understand that a termination of a pregnancy conducted by a woman herself will be an extremely rare event. It would be very difficult, and the idea that pills will work is nonsensical.
Moreover, we have heard a lot about pills, but nobody has told us yet what pills they are talking about. That is very important. The hormones that are usually used in early pregnancy would not work in late pregnancy. The other thing I have already mentioned is that pretty well all late terminations of pregnancy are done for very serious medical conditions. One of the commonest ones is where there is an extremely deformed baby in the womb. I described this during the earlier stages of the Bill, and I will not go through it again. The indications of these late pregnancies are always very carefully and scrupulously observed. They are not done lightly.
I should also add that, sadly, babies born much after 24 weeks still are very likely to be highly abnormal. Even though people often miscarry them when they do not want to, sometimes it can be the very best thing that can happen because these babies will eventually die early with very severe abnormalities.
Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, chaired a committee on this very issue to see how we could reduce the number of premature births. It is a big problem in medicine because of the risks to the babies when they are born after 28 weeks. I shall say no more except that I firmly believe we should really try to understand this from the woman’s point of view. No woman tries to interrupt her pregnancy except with the deepest grief and the deepest unhappiness.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will have a short intervention, but we need to move on shortly to the Front Benches. That is what the House wants, I believe.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, throughout this debate Northern Ireland has been mentioned, yet not one Member from Northern Ireland has been allowed to speak until now. We have had to force the issue to be allowed to speak in this debate. When the new abortion laws, the most liberal and extreme laws in the United Kingdom, were forced on Northern Ireland, few across this House really cared. The lobby for abortion in Northern Ireland was on the basis that women there had fewer rights than in England and Wales. Now that same lobby is using the same arguments for a change in the law in England and Wales. In the previous debate, it was suggested that this would bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, but that is misleading as, crucially, Northern Ireland does not have pills by post.
I genuinely believe that even many of those who support abortion know in their hearts that this is not the way to go about things. This hurried parliamentary process, the rewriting of one of the most sensitive and serious areas of criminal law, is surely unworthy of our democracy. A clause passed in the other House last summer was passed after 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. Is that what our democracy has come to? If noble Lords think that this is a good idea, why are they not prepared to allow public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, instead of rushing it through?
Clause 208 means no justice for the death of a full-term unborn child, even in the most grotesque circumstances. I ask supporters of Clause 208: what would you do if a woman told you that she was taking abortion pills, perhaps obtained from an NHS provider via telemedicine, in the 39th week of pregnancy because she had changed her mind about having a child? What would your conscience say to you, knowing that you made that possible through the support of this legislation?
We heard a great deal about unwelcome investigations, but what do supporters of Clause 208 think the police should do if they discover the dead body of a 39 week-old baby in a rubbish bin? The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, explained in Committee that investigations would often still be required even if Clause 208 passes, as police would need to investigate the circumstances if a deceased full-term baby body is found away from a clinical setting. Is that the option that supporters of Clause 208 really believe in?
To conclude, I could give many reasons why I support Amendments 425 and 426 but, because of time, I am not able to do so. Let us remember that when we are talking about the life of an unborn child, we are talking about not an it but a real, living person with the expectation of being born, being protected by a caring and loving society, and being held in loving arms. I do not think that is too much for a child to ask or expect.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We need to move on to the Front Benches.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I am the first speaker from these Benches. For us, this is a matter of conscience. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham has not had the opportunity to speak. She disagrees with me. She is supportive of the other side. She wished for me to mention that she has been contacted by a young student called Lily, who has contacted a number of other Peers to say that they share her point of view. I hope that Lily and my noble friend will hear that we have acknowledged their sincerely held views, which are very different from mine.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I have been trying to speak. The noble Baroness has an amendment down. It is not good enough that we are being silenced at a time when the House is being asked to vote to approve something that has not been properly discussed or explored, and the consequences have not been fully considered. It is not good.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I do have an amendment, Amendment 423A, which other noble Lords have signed. It is to ask that prosecutions cease and desist. The reason for it is that we have uncovered over these past few months that different police forces are taking entirely different approaches under the current law, and that women and health professionals do not know where they stand. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and to the speech of our noble colleague who is the chair of the College of Policing, about the fact that there needs to be a clear policy direction from Parliament in order that we can have a consistent approach throughout the medical profession and throughout policing.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, once again we have had a full and passionate debate on a matter of the utmost significance. It is apparent, from both deliberations in Committee and from today, that views on this matter are deeply and sincerely held across your Lordships’ House.
A wide range of points have been raised by noble Lords. Let us consider a variety of them. We have heard about issues around how the police investigate cases, about the interaction of telemedicine and criminal investigation, about the potential for women to face coercion, about issues of safeguarding of younger women and about issues of domestic abuse—to name but a few mentioned tonight. A lot of ground has not yet been covered. Other noble Lords have not yet spoken or have wanted to speak but have not been able to. What this tells us is that the matter is very far from settled. Some noble Lords’ concerns have plainly not been allayed.
This brings me back to the point I made in Committee. This clause has not received anything like adequate scrutiny. It is true that we have now had several hours of debate on this matter in your Lordships’ House. The point I made before, however, still stands: it is a matter of procedure, not substance. In the other place, however, this clause was considered for only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. No parliamentary committee has been able to seek views and take evidence, and if ever there was the need for a parliamentary committee to take evidence on a policy, this is it. We need to hear from and test the views of the police, of the CPS, of doctors, of obstetricians, of safeguarders and, if possible and most importantly, of women or their representatives and advocates. This policy was not in the Government’s election manifesto. It has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, public consultation, or an impact assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, put it very well in Committee. She said that the clause was passed
“in the other place following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact”.—[Official Report, 2/2/26; col. 1336.]
Changes to the law of abortion are and remain issues of conscience. The Opposition do not and will not take an official position on the substance of the clause. There is a multitude of views in my own party, and the issue is in the hands of your Lordships’ House as a matter of conscience. But that does not mean that we are released from our duty to undertake due diligence and rigorous interrogation of the consequences of changing the social law of this country. Whatever one thinks of the substance of the issue itself, the truth is that this clause has been tacked on to the side of a Crime and Policing Bill when it should not have been. That is no way to make law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. I shall start, as I did in Committee, by reiterating that the Government maintain a neutral stance on abortion in England and Wales. Many of the amendments in this group are similar or identical to those tabled in Committee. So, save in a very few cases, I shall not repeat the Government’s assessment of their workability. This means that if I do not explicitly mention an amendment, it is either because there are no workability issues or because I set them out fully in Committee. As a shorthand, I will refer to conduct that comes under Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, collectively as “abortion offences”.
I begin with Amendment 423ZA tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to work in practice—in particular, which party would bear the burden of establishing a lack of mental capacity and what the standard of proof would be. Thus, it is possible that it would create confusion for practitioners. Your Lordships may wish to note that the law already takes account of defendants’ understanding of their actions in various ways. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to interact with well-established criminal law principles.
Amendment 422E, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, is similar to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in Committee, but it contains an additional requirement that a prosecution could not be brought any later than 12 months from the date of the alleged offence. Your Lordships will be aware that, other than for summary-only offences, there is, almost without exception, no statutory time limit for prosecuting criminal offences in England and Wales. The reason for that is that evidence may emerge over several years, so a limitation period would remove the ability to prosecute in cases where evidence of guilt came to light much later on. The introduction of a limitation period could lead to differences in outcomes depending on when evidence becomes available, the complexity of the case and the resources of investigating and prosecuting authorities.
Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is similar to the one he tabled in Committee, but it differs in three respects: it would broaden the scope of the specified defences; it would make provision for who must bear burden of proof in relation to those defences; and it would introduce additional provisions relating to police investigations. In relation to the workability concerns I raised in Committee, for the second and third of these differences there are some further issues. In relation to the burden of proof, the drafting is ambiguous. If the intention is that the defendant should bear the evidential burden, clarification would be needed. In relation to the proposed new provisions for police investigations, your Lordships may wish to note that decisions on whether to initiate, and the scope of such an investigation, are currently operational matters for the police.
Amendment 423A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is also similar to one tabled in Committee. While the Government remain neutral on changing the criminal law, it is important that investigations into other offences, such as murder, manslaughter or infanticide under the Infanticide Act, are still carried out. Those offences would continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service if the test for prosecution is met. Your Lordships may wish to note that this amendment would be likely to trigger a review of any live investigations and prosecutions. However, we would not expect this to carry any significant resourcing implications.
Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, is again similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. It might be helpful to remind your Lordships of the point that I made then, namely that the proposed new offence is not limited to obtaining abortifacient drugs for use in the termination of a pregnancy. Abortifacient drugs are not defined in legislation and are also used for non-abortion-related purposes. In addition, further amendments would be needed to clarify whether the offence was one that is to be triable either way, whether the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment should be the same as that on summary conviction and whether the maximum penalty in the magistrates’ court should align with its general powers, which update automatically should the limits on its sentencing powers change in the future.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I would be grateful for clarification as to whether the Government have considered their own current inquiries into the grooming gangs. There was evidence there that:
“Victims and survivors were also critical about how easy it can be to obtain emergency contraception or abortion services without appropriate questions being asked”.
This evidence has been relied on consistently in Committee and on Report, yet there are concerns. Have the Government looked at that?
Secondly, in relation to the case that I mentioned in Committee, which contradicts much of what has been said, the comments of His Honour Mr Justice Cooke in Leeds Crown Court, in the case of Sarah Catt, very clearly state that this was a “cold calculated” decision that she took for her own convenience and self-interest. She took pills at 39 weeks and gave birth, and it seems she never revealed where the body was. She had a history of deceit and concealment—that is in the judgment of Leeds Crown Court. So have the Government considered, also in relation to other amendments about pardons, that this was conduct not of a victim but of a woman who perpetrated a crime?
Finally—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
It was a crime, and she was given eight years in prison for that.
On the question about the offences that the judge also considered—murder, manslaughter and infanticide —I emailed the Minister about the clarification I asked for in Committee on guidance being given to emergency services that may come across a situation such as that outlined in Sarah Catt. What is their obligation to the woman and the child?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her points, which I am sure your Lordships’ House will want to take into account when deciding whether, as a matter of policy, to vote for or against the various amendments. I remind the noble Baroness that these are not government amendments—the Government are neutral—but I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House has heard them and will take them into account in various ways.
Amendment 425 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is identical to one tabled in Committee. I raised at that stage the Government’s concerns about workability and operational difficulties, and they remain. In short, the effect of Amendment 425 might be to reduce access to early medical abortion due to resource constraints on the ability of abortion providers to hold in-person consultations.
Amendment 426D, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, is new, but it carries similar possible operational effects to those I set out in Committee in relation to Amendment 425, about which I spoke a moment ago. The proposed new clause in Amendment 426D may have a detrimental impact on abortion provision and access for under-18s, including those who live in remote areas or who have difficulties in attending a clinic. It should also be noted that it is unclear whether this amendment would require under-18s to have all consultations face to face, including any initial contact with the service. If so, this would further increase the workability concerns, including resourcing constraints on providers and access to abortion provision for young people.
Amendment 426B, in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, is once again very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. The duty on the Secretary of State, as drafted, poses substantial operational and resourcing implications. There is no centrally held record of women who have been convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for or investigated on suspicion of abortion offences. Therefore, the Secretary of State would be unable to comply with the duty to direct the specified bodies to delete such details from records. If this is the will of Parliament, consideration will need to be given to how to deliver the objectives of this amendment in a way that is operationally workable.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I appreciate that the hour is late and very charged emotions have been expressed, so I do not intend to delay the House with a long response. I simply point out to those Members who are not familiar with the Companion and were surprised that so many of us did not take interventions that this was not due to any lack of respect for their positions. The Companion says at 4.29 that a Member
“may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance … in time-limited proceedings”.
I wanted to make that clear.
I have heard what the Minister has said about Amendment 422E. I will go away and consider that. This was meant to be a compromise. I know that Members want to get to other substantive amendments. I therefore do not wish to test the opinion of the House and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I have listened to opinions from across the House but am not satisfied that the mother or the unborn baby is protected. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Stroud
“Abortion: requirement for in-person consultationIn section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967 (medical termination of pregnancy), omit “, by telephone or by electronic means”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would mean that a pregnant woman would need to have an in-person consultation before lawfully being prescribed medicine for the termination of a pregnancy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, let me assist the House by saying that we should now be moving on to Amendment 426A on assisted dying, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I understand my noble and learned friend tabled the amendment only to get a particular response from the Government and he has no intention of dividing the House tonight. I suggest that we allow his contribution but do not have a prolonged debate on assisted dying tonight—we have had a number of days on that. Then, when we have had the Minister’s response, we can get back to the other amendments because potentially there are three more votes in this group. I think the House will want to vote on those and this is a way forward for everybody.
Amendment 426A
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Providing assistance under assisted dying legislation in Crown Dependencies: criminal liabilityIn the Suicide Act 1961, after section 2A (acts capable of encouraging or assisting suicide) insert—“2AA Assistance provided in Crown Dependencies(1) In sections 2(1) and 2A(1), a reference to an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide does not include—(a) participating in acts that facilitate the provision of a medically assisted death in Scotland or the Crown Dependencies (the “jurisdictions”) under or in connection with legislation in those jurisdictions (“relevant legislation”),(b) performing any other function under that relevant legislation in accordance with that relevant legislation, or(c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that relevant legislation to access that relevant legislation.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 2 to prove that they—(a) reasonably believed they were acting in accordance with relevant legislation in those jurisdictions, and(b) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.””
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am obliged. Assisted dying feels quite pacific in comparison with the debate we have just had. This is my amendment, which I do not intend to press. It is the product of discussions with the BMA. It was tabled in Committee in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It was withdrawn in Committee because the Isle of Man Government, who have passed a Bill to deal with assisted dying, said they did not want it to be tabled before there had been discussions with them. There have now been discussions between the BMA and the Isle of Man Government and they are content for it to be tabled.
This amendment seeks to provide protections for doctors with patients who live in the Isle of Man or Jersey, where assisted dying Bills have been passed but have not yet received Royal Assent. It is common, for example, for some people resident in the Isle of Man to have doctors in the north-west of England. Those doctors may well give a diagnosis or a prognosis in writing, which might then be used in an assisted dying process in accordance with the laws in those two other jurisdictions. Amendment 426A says that if a doctor does such a thing and they are participating in a process which is strictly in accordance with the law
“in Scotland or the Crown Dependencies”,
And, obviously, Scotland voted against assisted dying yesterday, but the principle is that they will not be breaking the law in this country—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Can I finish my explanation, then hear from the Minister and then take it from there? I have had a very useful discussion with the Minister, who said that the Government took the view that the amendment was premature before Royal Assent in relation to the two jurisdictions, and I accept that. She said that once Royal Assent was given, the Government would consult with Jersey and the Isle of Man Governments and other relevant parties about what the Government would then do. She gave no commitment as to what the Government would do, but I am content with that approach. There will obviously be some degree of urgency, depending on how long it will take for the other jurisdictions to introduce assisted dying, but if the Minister were to confirm that that was the position, and that is what she explained to me, I would be content with that explanation.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I did not quite hear at the start. Can I just confirm that this amendment was not tabled at the request of the Isle of Man Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
That is correct. It was tabled after discussions between the BMA, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and me, and it was withdrawn because the Isle of Man Government wanted more consultation.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
With the House’s permission, it might be helpful if I set out the Government’s position, and then perhaps we can take it from there, if the noble Baroness is prepared to give way to me at this stage. The Government have some workability and drafting concerns about the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, but I will focus on the central issue so that the House knows what the Government’s position is.
Although the Government remain neutral on the overall issue, we recognise that assisted dying regimes being implemented in different parts of the UK and the Crown dependencies could create practical issues for those in one jurisdiction who are involved, in some way, in the lawful assisted death of a person in another jurisdiction. However, I support what my noble and learned friend said: the Government consider it premature to legislate on this issue. We do not yet know whether assisted dying will become lawful in the various jurisdictions, what the final form of any such regimes may be, or how and when they would be implemented. Legislating now in this unique way to amend the criminal law in England and Wales without clarity about these frameworks risks unintended consequences. The Government do not rule out that, in due course, processes may be agreed between the jurisdictions—or, if necessary, future legislation placed before this House and, potentially, other Parliaments—to achieve these aims.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. On the basis of that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Provisions for pardons and criminal records of women prosecuted under abortion law(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as followed.(2) After section 165 (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: England and Wales), insert—“165A Pardon and expungement of records for women under the law related to abortion(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply in respect of a woman (whether living or deceased) who, when acting in relation to her own pregnancy, was convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for, or investigated on suspicion of, an offence under the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.(2) Where the woman has been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence detailed in subsection (1), she is pardoned for the offence.(3) The Secretary of State must by notice direct the relevant data controller to delete details, contained in relevant official records, of a conviction, caution, arrest, or investigation detailed in subsection (1).(4) 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) after “165” insert “ or 165A”;(b) in subsection (2) after “165” insert “ or 165A”.” Member’s explanatory statement
Abortion offences are classed as violent crimes meaning they will permanently be disclosed as part of a DBS check. This amendment seeks to pardon women who have a conviction or caution for an offence which Clause 208 applies to. It would also ensure the removal of women’s details from police systems, regardless of the outcome of their case.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the amendment is defective, because my noble friend has said that. However, this is the only opportunity we have to address the issue. Now that we have agreed, as a House, to keep the clause in the Bill, if I press my amendment it will need to be dealt with by the Government between now and Third Reading. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
“Offence of obtaining abortifacients by false representation(1) A person commits an offence if they dishonestly makes a false representation and intend by making the representation to obtain any abortifacient drugs for use either by themself or another, whether such drugs have been lawfully prescribed in good faith based on the false representation or not.(2) A person guilty of the offence is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.”
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments, and indeed to everybody who was engaged in the debate. I completely accept that an abortifacient is a drug that can be used for other things. I am not sure what that has to do with my amendment, which is to do with false representation. For all the reasons I spoke about—the fact that we are throwing a bit of a bomb into a changing world rather than a tiny little change—I think this would be helpful. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
“Abortion: requirement for in-person consultation if the pregnant woman or girl is under the age of 18After section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967 (medical termination of pregnancy) insert—“(3E) If the pregnant woman or girl is under the age of 18, any consultation must take place in person.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that a pregnant woman or girl under 18 years old would need to have an in-person consultation before they could be prescribed drugs to end a pregnancy, so that potential safeguarding needs are identified.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I realise that I am going to make myself very unpopular at this hour, but I will make a very brief comment on the couple of comments that were made regarding the amendment in the course of the debate. I remind noble Lords that this is about children who become pregnant and it is about safeguarding risks. Therefore, I was not entirely happy that it should be contrasted between evidence and anecdote. There is plenty of evidence to support the need for this from professionals in the field. Similarly, to those saying that professionals say that children will not come, I am afraid that the professionals that have advised me on this are very clear that children will come when it is necessary. I therefore invite the House to support the amendment and ask for a Division.