Lords Chamber

Monday 9th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
None Portrait Legislation: Tobacco and Vapes Bill - third reading
-

Will now make a short statement
15:35
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
on the position regarding legislative consent on this bill. The bill is UK wide and it's being The bill is UK wide and it's being developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. A legislative consent motion was received from the motion was received from the Northern Ireland Assembly on the 10th of February, 2025, from the 10th of February, 2025, from the Scottish Parliament on the 29th of May 2025, and the Senedd on the 9th of December 2025.

Following further amendments to the Bill during Report stage. Supplementary legislative consent motions have been sought from the Scottish Parliament and Senedd. It has not been possible to complete this process before Third Reading. However, noting the strong support of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, we are hopeful that this process will conclude shortly. The Northern Ireland Executive has confirmed their current legislative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consent motion is sufficient. I beg to move. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contrary not content. The contents have it in schedule 16,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it in schedule 16, amendment one. Baroness Mone. My Lords, I beg to move amendment one, amendments 1 to 5 are minor and technical and stem from the amendments that the government made at Report stage on advertising. The amendments ensure consistency across the advertising related restrictions in the Communications Act 2003. In particular, the amendments will ensure that a business who manufactures or sells more than one type of product, such as both vaping products and nicotine products, is in scope of the restrictions on sponsorship of prohibited products.

It was always the government's intention to capture any business who manufactures or sells prohibited products, no matter how many different types of products they sold or manufactured. The amendments therefore provide consistency across the advertising related restrictions and prevent the creation of a potential loophole. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in schedule

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in schedule 16. Sorry. Amendment proposed. OK and amendment. There's no debate, so you don't need to respond. So. Amendment proposed. The question is Amendment proposed. The question is that. Amendment one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The content have it. Amendment two Baroness Merron moved moved formally. The question is that amendment two be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content.

The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment three Baroness Merron moved formally. The question is that amendment three be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it amendment amendment four Baroness Mone. The question is that amendment four be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the question the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment five Baroness Merron moved formally.

The question is that amendment five be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. It has been a privilege to take this landmark bill through your Lordships House. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health and disability and ill health and tobacco claims around 80,000 lives every year. And whilst tobacco remains the greatest threat, this legislation is about protecting future generations not only from the harms of tobacco but from nicotine addiction.

My Lords, I want to extend my thanks to noble Lords who have contributed from right across the House, in particular to the front benches, to the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord Earl Russell. My thanks also to the Secretary of State for his leadership and support, and to former Minister Ashley Dalton MP, who advanced this bill to your Lordships House. And I also want to pay tribute, as many of us do, to former Prime Minister the Right Honourable Rishi Sunak for his ambition towards a smoke free generation.

My Lords, I express my thanks also to the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, for his expertise and unwavering focus, and to all of the officials who have played a crucial role, including the bill, team, policy, teams, analysts, the bill's senior responsible owners, my private office and the invaluable contributions of the government legal department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Finally, my Lords, I pay tribute to the Ministers and officials from the devolved governments for their collaborative approach.

This, my Lords, is genuinely a Four Nations bill ensuring that we create a smoke free generation and tackle youth vaping in every corner of our youth vaping in every corner of our country. I beg to move EA.
15:42
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
So the question is that the bill do now pass. do now pass. >> My Lords, we have now reached the conclusion of a piece of legislation which many will see as legislation which many will see as a landmark bill. So can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed throughout the various stages of the Bill's journey through your Lordships House, a journey which began with its introduction as long ago as March last year. My Lords, from these benches and others, we heard a range of views on the various proposals in the Bill and indeed on the Bill itself.

For some it goes too far, for others it does not go far enough. But amongst all those disagreements, there are three points that I think noble Lords could agree on. The first is that smoking is bad for your health. Secondly, current evidence shows that vaping is less harmful than smoking tobacco. And thirdly, not vaping is healthier than vaping. Now, beyond that, our debates covered a number of issues, from from the evidence base to how to make vapes an attractive alternative to adults who wish to quit smoking while not appealing to children, as well as debating issues of matters of individual liberty, we also debated the illicit sales of tobacco, the treatment of specialist retailers, cigarette filters, the compatibility of this bill with the Windsor framework, and the enforcement of a regulatory regime of considerable complexity.

But we also probed the government on evidence behind some of the proposals, for example, on the relative harm of heated tobacco compared to combustible tobacco. For those smokers who tried vapes but did not like them, so reverted back to cigarettes. And while we did not always agree. Can I thank the noble Lady of the Minister and her officials for meeting with my noble friend Lord Howard myself throughout the passage of the bill? Can I particularly thank the Minister for the concessions made during the bill's passage? The amendment permitting vape vending machines in secure mental health settings is one that we particularly welcome.

These are vulnerable people in restricted environments for whom access to cessation aids is not a luxury, but a genuine health need. And it was right that the bill was amended accordingly. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lindsay and other noble Lords who have consistently made the case for specialist tobacconists throughout this process. These are small, responsible businesses serving adult consumers, some of whom travel specifically to London from all over the world to sample and purchase high value, hand-crafted cigars.

These are cigars which are quite distinct from the much less affordable than sorry, much less affordable than cigarillos and machine made cigars that form part of the tobacco market that this bill principally targets. I hope the government will continue to bear that distinction in mind as secondary legislation is developed, and it is on secondary legislation that I wish to sound a note of caution, because a very significant portion of the bill's practical effects will be determined not by what Parliament has already debated, but by regulations yet to be laid.

The rules governing vape distributors, flavours, advertising restrictions and the designation of vape free zones all remain to be settled by Ministers. Now that is a considerable degree of delegated power. It is power that the government have argued is a necessary one to allow them to collect the evidence. And while we see that there may be merit in that argument, we on these benches will be monitoring the development of these regulations particularly carefully. But our concerns can be summarised relatively easily. We want regulations to be grounded in evidence.

Regulations must not impose unnecessary burdens on retailers, especially corner shops and other small retailers, and must not impose burdens on the hospitality sector. And regulations must recognise concerns of former smokers who rely on particular vape products and descriptors as part of their pathway from smoking, and not ban products that might make smoking cessation more difficult. We particularly welcome the commitment to review of this act after a reasonable period of years. That review will matter. The generational ban may, over time contribute to reduced smoking rates, but the risk of unintended consequences is real.

The illicit tobacco market, by some accounts, continues to grow, and a permanent and ever widening prohibition on tobacco sales to an increasing share of the adult population may drive some market. So we hope that any review examines such questions honestly and not with a pre-determined response, whatever the evidence. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for his advice and for his contributions to the debate, but also thank all those organisations, whatever their views, who shared their briefings with my noble friend Lord Howell and me and other noble Lords at every stage of the Bill's progress.

Of course, it is never possible to satisfy all points of view, but I hope that they will feel that we thoroughly debated the issues that they raised. And I also hope that whatever one thinks of this bill, these measures will help those smokers who wish to quit. They will reduce the attractiveness of taking up smoking, particularly in our youth, and they will improve the health of our nation.
15:47
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I speak from my >> My Lords, I speak from my benches as Baroness Walmsley as unable to be here today, as she is presently chairing a committee. We have reached the final stages of this landmark piece of public health legislation, and I want to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the Minister and her officials for the constructive engagement. Throughout. This has been a challenging and a complex piece of legislation, and the collaborative spirit and cross-party scrutiny shown across this House has undoubtedly helped to strengthen the Bill.

I also want to personally thank Baroness Walmsley for her outstanding leadership of our team, her diligent negotiation and a clear focus on public health throughout the bill. I also extend my thanks to Baroness Northover and the rest of the team who worked on the bill, and I thank Adam Bull in our whips office for his guidance and support throughout. From the very start, we have been proud to support this Bill and the principles underpinning it. The creation of a smoke free generation.

The generational ban is bold, evidence based and one of the most significant steps any of us will probably take as parliamentarians in our lifetimes to improve the nation's health and wellbeing. It will help ensure that future generations never start on the path to addiction and as and the devastating consequences that surely follow. We are pleased that throughout our discussions, a number of improvements have been secured. Local authorities will now retain the full proceeds of the 2500 pounds fixed penalty notices from licensing offences, giving trading standards the resources they need for effective enforcement.

The government has also taken new powers to regulate or ban cigarette filters, recognising growing concerns about the false perception of safety they create and their environmental impact. To support to support smoking cessation, a new defence will allow public authorities to partner with businesses to promote non-branded vapes and nicotine products for public health purposes. The narrow exemption introduced for vape vending machines in adult mental health hospitals is also welcome, ensuring an appropriate balance between safeguarding and supporting cessation in secure settings.

We also welcome the government acceptance of the Delegated powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendations to upgrade the parliamentary procedure for age verification regulations to affirmative, and the commitment to a formal statutory review within 4 to 7 years of Royal Assent. My Lords, the recently launched consultation on smoke free heated tobacco and vape free places also sends an important signal about the government's intention to maintain momentum in this area. However, there are there is still more to do. We regret that the government did not accept the cross-party proposals for a levy on big tobacco companies profits to fund cessation and related healthcare, and we believe that further action is essential to keep vapes out of the hands of our children, and to bring forward a proper ban on disposable vapes.

This bill lays the foundations for a generational shift in public health. It will only reach its potential if implemented with care, attention and the continued cross-party resolve. My Lords, this is a landmark piece of legislation and we are proud to have supported it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. As many as are of that do now pass. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it report of the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policing Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. To move the House. Do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider the bill further on report. The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it before. Clause one. One. Three. Amendment 369. Lord Marks of Henley on Thames.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in opening this group I will speak principally to amendment 369, which is in my name, and the names of my noble friend Baroness Doocey, the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. But I will also speak to amendment 36983, 72A, B, and C, to amendment 36983, 72A, B, and C, and 373. My Lords, Amendment 369 brings to this Report stage our amendment calling for a strong
15:52
15:52
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Report stage. That has even started to persuade us on these benches that this bill does not need within it a strong statement of a statutory right to protest, which would both supplement and would both supplement and complement rights of the citizen under the XR. Our amendment 369 is co-signed by Lady Ducey and others. As I've said, and I accept entirely that the right to protest is in part at least enshrined in articles ten and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, article ten on freedom of expression, and article 11 on freedom of assembly and association.

But as I mentioned in committee, the convention rights are circumscribed because there may be, and I quote, subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, for the protection of prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others. My Lords, a significant feature of the rights under the convention is that the degree to which the European Court of Human Rights may interpret or enforce those rights is subject to what's known as the margin of appreciation accorded to individual signatory countries to decide how they, as nation states, interpret and enforce those rights.

And it's only where countries stray beyond that margin of appreciation that the European Court of Human Rights will hold a signatory nation in breach. What our amendment would do that is new and not encompassed by the convention, is to make it absolutely clear that in this jurisdiction, public authorities have a threefold duty in relation to protest. First, to respect, secondly, to protect, and thirdly, to facilitate the right to protest. That duty is dynamic and positive, and our amendment is an important and clear statement of what every citizen would have a right to expect and insist upon from government, local and national.

Under our amendment, government would have a duty to act which is far stronger merely than a duty to refrain from interfering, and such a firm statement would be a more powerful protection than the convention rights, precisely because the margin of appreciation of which I spoke would be irrelevant. And I need only remind the government that it is their own express view that how we determine and apply the limits of article eight on the right to respect for private and family life is open to discussion and a proper area for domestic legislation, which they propose to introduce in order to limit the way in which article eight might act within the margin of appreciation.

That is their stated position in the context of immigration law. That is a position that the government is entitled, in my view, to take under the European Convention. But there is a risk that more extreme governments might push the boundaries of what is acceptable in the context of other human rights, including the rights under article ten and 11 as well. Members will no doubt remember that at committee there was clear agreement around the House that whether dealing with convention rights, all rights under our amendment, we would have to strike a balance between the stated rights, on the one hand, and the applications of the limitation, either under the convention, in the case of the ECHR rights, or under domestic legislation, if it were amended.

As we seek, my Lords. But there's one specific area where that distinction may be important. The convention in both articles ten and 11, Permits of Restrictions for the Protection of Morals, as was apparent from the passage I quoted. That is not an area where, in a society as diverse as ours, with mixed secular and faith based belief systems and philosophies as ours is, we on these benches would wish to see, let alone advocate, a derogation from the convention rights or a restriction for from our rights for the protection of morals.

Our amendment would not permit a derogation or restriction on that ground alone. My Lords, we also discuss the possibility in committee that future governments might not be as enlightened as our present government at no doubt is, and I fear that we can see the possibility that a future government, more extreme than this one, might wish to introduce freedoms of speech or assembly. The noble Lord Lord Hanson, speaking for the government in committee, expressed optimism that that would not happen.

And he said, well, if the government's elected, they could do what they like was more or less what he said. I am not so sure. And I say in answer to that point of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, let's make it more difficult to change the citizens rights for the worse while we can. There was also discussion in committee as to whether there might not be differences between the convention rights under our amendment, and the suggestion was made by some that that would give rise for to satellite litigation.

For my part, I do not believe that the convention rights would in any sense either clash with or limit the rights of people in this country under the clear rights that would be enshrined in domestic law pursuant to our amendment. On a practical level, I acknowledge them and acknowledge now that policing protests can be an expensive exercise, and that it sometimes difficult for the police to draw a balance. And it's a balance that often has to be drawn in advance between over policing, protests and under policing.

But that makes it even more important to spell out in clear terms, what is the right to protest, so that the police and local authorities may be accorded the necessary resources for them to
15:59
None Portrait Amendment:369 Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-

carry out that duty to respect, protect and facilitate protest? My protect and facilitate protest? My Lords, noisy protests, of which we've heard much repeated protests. Protests in unpopular causes. These Protests in unpopular causes. These are and have been for centuries in this country, part of the stuff of this country, part of the stuff of life in our democracy. We've seen what the High Court thought of the arrest of so many peaceful arrest of so many peaceful protesters last year. What happens next remains to be seen, but it's not a question of what we may think of their cause.

It's a question of not stifling their rights. And these are rights that are fundamental to our way of life, which should be protected with determination and clarity. My Lords, turning to the other amendments in this group, which have been the responsibility of those on these benches, amendment 369 A to B, moved by my noble friend Lord Strasburger on face coverings at protests, is a minimalist position of support for the right to attend a protest without revealing the identity of the protester, allowing the protester to appear in disguise.

And that would be by allowing a defence of a reasonable excuse for wearing a face covering. It is a just a fact that people may have many legitimate reasons for disguising themselves. They may not want employers, teachers, parents, partners, political opponents or, in the case of people in public life, merely members of the public to recognise them or be aware of their attendance at a protest. And why not? I can see and we can see no justification for a limitation of that, right, unless it is for camera surveillance, to which we'll turn later today, which we regard as pretty unjustified anyway, without really serious regulation, of which there is at the moment not a whit.

My Lords, Amendment 372 A, B and C in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Strasburger, are intended to ensure that clause 139, which is to restrict protests in the vicinity of places of worship, would succeed in protecting worshippers and members of religious communities, carrying out religious activities at places of worship, while avoiding the problem that frankly affects the clause as unamended. And that problem is that the unamended clause would enable the restriction of protests in the vicinity of places of worship, which protests are unconnected with either worshippers of that place of worship, or with the act of worship or other religious activities in that place.

It is true that there is a condition in the bill as drafted, that reasonable persons of reasonable firmness should be deterred from worshipping there, or carrying out religious activities before the right to restrict would kick in. But that could be the case in any demonstration that was local that might keep people of reasonable firmness away. The reality is that what the government was trying to do when they drafted that clause was to protect worshippers from sectarian demonstrations by opponents of those worshippers, and from hate speech.

It is about, as was rightly acknowledged, protecting Jewish people near synagogues, Muslims at mosques. It's about protecting religious against religious discrimination. But I regret that we may hear from the Minister the suggestion that we should agree to this clause without the specificity that is provided by our amendments, and they put that on the basis that the police don't have to make a distinction. That was the basis that was raised at Committee stage. It's up to them. It is said, but this bill is about making appropriate provision in law for the police to have powers to restrict protests in particular circumstances.

And in those circumstances only. It is no answer to an objection that the bill is too wide, that the police do not have to use excessive powers that are granted to them. We have always been astute in this country to restrict police powers, and not to give the police discretion that they do not need to use. To do otherwise would be to substitute the discretion of the police for the definition in law of police powers. Now, I completely agree with those who say, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has pointed out on many occasions that the police are granted a difficult job, but it is not for government to say to the police, you can have these powers and you have to decide when to use them.

It is for Parliament to establish powers that are restricted to what is needed, and to legislate on any other business basis would be inimical to the rule of law, of which the proper definition of police powers is a necessary feature. My Lords, Amendment 373. In my name and the names of my noble friends Baroness Doocey and Lord Strasburger, would remove clause 140 from the bill, and clause 140, as noble Lords will remember, deals with the question of cumulative disruption allegedly caused by protests.

My Lords, many protests cause disruption, disruption by noise, by large numbers of people, by the occasional difficulties to get through the traffic or through crowds, even by roads being blocked or tube stations being difficult to access. There are difficulties with passage when protests are about all these things are the normal incidents of protests. They are the price we pay for our democratic right to protest. So what is the difference between one protest which doesn't give right to, to to such a restriction as is suggested or repeated protests? And it is that repeated protests are often required to persuade government or authority that something must be done.

So repeated protests are, of their nature, more likely to be justified and more likely to be effective, whether that be farmers protesting against inheritance tax repeatedly in central London or marches against the Iraq War, or any number of protests in Trafalgar Square. The noble Lord Lord Gove shakes his head. But that is a fact. When we look back at the history of protests in this country, repeated protests have the utility that they are more likely to be effective. Protest movements take time to build up momentum, and that momentum is an important part of their future success.

The more justified the protest, the more likely it is to be effective. And we say, the more likely it is to be repeated and repeated in the same area. So this clause, clause 140 is, we say, an oppressive clause. It would provide the police with the powers to restrict the very protests that are most likely to be justified and effective. There's no way of curing it, and we should have none of it. My Lords, I beg to
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:10
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
resolution, my Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 369A, which we've just been discussing, which we've just been discussing, which is in my name, and also to is in my name, and also to amendments 372 A, B, and C, and amendment three, seven, three. So amendment three, seven, three. So all of which I've added my name, my Lords, regarding amendment 369, a Lords, regarding amendment 369, a clause 133 seeks to create a new offence of concealed identity at protests.

If this clause were enacted, as it stands, the police would be empowered to ban all face coverings at a protest, with only some limited exceptions concerning the person's health, religion or work. My Lords, there are many other categories of perfectly law abiding citizens who may have good reasons to conceal their identities at protest. For example, those protesting against a hostile foreign state who feared retribution for themselves or their families, or those who might be criticising their own religious or cultural communities or survivors of sexual violence or domestic abuse who need to stay below the radar for their own safety.

None of those are covered by the limited exemptions in clause one three, three. To solve this problem, amendment 369 would provide a defence of reasonable excuse for the offence of concealing identity at process protests, thereby putting the burden on police officers to justify why they believe. Wearing a face covering at a protest made this suspect arrestable. This amendment strikes a careful balance between allowing the police to prevent public disorder while protecting the many law abiding citizens who have legitimate reasons for wanting to exercise their freedom of expression anonymously.

I will now turn to amendments 372 A, B, and C in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks and which I have signed. Clause 139 of the bill would seem to have been drafted to give reassurance to Jews and Muslims and other denominations, that they can attend their place of worship without feeling intimidated by protests in the vicinity of their synagogue or mosque, church or whatever. That sounds to me like a laudable objective. What's not to like? Well, my Lords, the difficulty is the severe unintended consequence caused by the drafting, the sheer number of places of worship in a country is as old, religiously diverse and densely populated as Britain that could inadvertently become no protest zones is enormous.

Here in Westminster, Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square are both in the vicinity of one or more churches, and yet they frequently host major demonstrations. They could become off limits. There would be a few. There would be few, if any, large spaces in central London, or any other city that would escape the risk posed by clause one three, three of being ruled too close to a place of worship for a demonstration to be allowed. The government may well say, well, that's not the intention of clause 139, but that's exactly what the clause as drafted permits a senior officer to do.

My Lords, Amendments 372 A, B and C solve the problem by making a ban on protest near a place of worship possible only when the protest is directed at or connected with a place of worship, or persons likely to worship there. So demonstrations that are unconnected with a nearby place of worship or in its vicinity, purely by coincidence, will be unaffected by clause 139. Problem solved. Turning to clause 140, this would amend the Public Order Act 1986 to impose a duty on police to consider the so-called cumulative disruption resulting from repeated protests in a given area.

Clause 140 would give the police unprecedented powers to restrict or prohibit protest. If these are expected to be too disruptive. My Lords, clause 140 represents a grievous attack on the right to protest, a right that is vital to our democracy. It is overly it's overly broad framework would empower the police to routinely kerb freedom of expression and assembly as exercised through peaceful protests. It was significantly expand the definition of serious disruption. This would allow the police to pre-emptively prohibit peaceful demonstrations if, in their opinion, an area has been the site of too many protests.

That's a very broad discretion. Presumably it would apply if the protests in question were organised by different groups who advocate for different causes. This could create a first come, first serve version of free speech, where areas are given what can be described as a protest allowance at the whim of the local constabulary. Furthermore, clause 140 leaves the definition of the area in question entirely at the discretion of the police. So this power would permit the police to move a demonstration to a different part of the same square.

Another part of town, or even a difficult to reach rural area. Similarly, clause 140 does not specify within what time frame disruption would have to be repeated to be considered cumulative. The suggestion that so-called cumulative disruption should be taken into account in considering conditions for restrictions or prohibitions on protests, is also disproportionate. Why should one person's right to protest be extinguished simply because somebody else has already protest in the same location about the same cause, or a different one? My Lords, this power would, if enacted, give the police the power to ban or curtail repeated process which are likely to be on the most important causes, the ones most worthy of protest and the ones most protected by the courts.

No protest movement has ever brought about change through a single demonstration. The civil rights suffragettes and anti-apartheid movements relied on repeated cumulative demonstrations. This clause gives the police far too much discretion to curtail and prevent peaceful protest on the most important matters. My Lords, clause 140 is a bad idea, badly drafted and with many bad outcomes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It should not stand part of the bill. My Lords. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise. To speak to my amendments in this group. But before I do, I would like to say that I like to would like to say that I like to read. A long time ago, more than 70 years ago, I learnt to read before I went to school. And I've got to I went to school. And I've got to say this alphabet soup of a bill is quite confusing, and part of that is the fact that so many people disagree with it.

And I think the disagree with it. And I think the noble Lord Lord Hanson, perhaps should be aware that it's moderately unusual to have this many amendments, and it perhaps would help if he accepted 1 or 2. And obviously all of my amendments are incredibly reasonable, and I would, you know, would urge him to to pick them up. My First Amendment actually would solve the problem that the noble Lord Lord Pannick has outlined. I expect his strong support when I get to that on three, six, nine, on the on the right to protest.

The noble Lord Lord Marks has moved at Committee stage. Many of us, or we were all reassured that this was not necessary. And because the right to peaceful protest is already protected under the Human Rights Act. We were reminded, correctly, that articles ten and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and that public authorities are already bound by those duties. But that reassurance is based on an assumption that those protections will remain intact.

And as the noble and learned Lord Marks pointed out, we cannot be sure of that. We cannot speak for future governments who might cause deterioration to our right to protest, because over recent years, under the government here and on the government there, we have seen a steady erosion of our of of our rights to protest. We've seen an expansion of police powers to restrict those protests. And each time we're told the powers are modest, you know, you'll hardly notice them.

And of course, that's not true, because the effect is cumulative and very damaging and leads to much greater constraint for people who are campaigning and protesting. So the balance is shifting and Parliament continues to widen state power without reaffirming the underlying right at the same time, on amendment 369A, which I've also supported in the name of the Leonard of of the noble Lord Lord Strasburger. There are many reasons, legitimate reasons, why people might want to cover their faces at protest.

And I would suggest that some noble Lords on this side of the chamber might actually benefit from wearing masks, sometimes just to hide their looks
16:20
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
of derision at other noble Lords, speaking coherently and cogently, speaking coherently and cogently, and I think, sensibly so. People might fear losing their job if their political views are known. They might be a backlash from family or their local community. They might be worried about racial They might be worried about racial profiling, particularly given the increased use of facial recognition technology. And they might be technology. And they might be protesting against a foreign regime and be genuinely concerned about reproductive repercussions for loved ones overseas.

So I would say that it is not reasonable to do that now. My own amendment, which is three 72ZA, so clause 139 is actually very, very problematic. It gives the police significant new powers to restrict protests near places of worship. There is no doubt I'm an atheist, but I absolutely would protect the right of people to worship as they as they as they would like to, without fear, freely and at a time of rising anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism.

That duty is paramount for for us here in Parliament, all of our diverse communities must be supported and defended, and every faith group must have the ability to worship freely. Now, clause 139 as drafted risks undermining that balance between rights. If the government are not prepared to remove it, then at the very least it must be clarified and narrowed. My amendments are offered as a compromise and as an attempt to introduce clarity. Where the drafting is currently vague and overly broad.

So my two sets of amendments, which are about in the vicinity of 50m, and the purpose of intimidation, seek to establish some clarity in terms of the very broad definitions in clause 139. Now vicinity 139 seeks to restrict the vicinity of places of religious worship based on the false premise that these powers are required to protect the freedom of religion. Now, the drafting of vicinity is a very vague definition, which could mean ten metres or ten miles. At the very least, the clause must be amended to make it more specific and contained with an eye towards protecting article 11.

Rights of freedom to assembly. The phrase in the vicinity needs to be clarified in terms of a specific distance. Many cities and towns have a large concentration of places of worship. This clause, as it stands, could make it virtually impossible to protest, and the noble Lords have said, including taking protest to Parliament or other places where protests might wish to focus in order to make their point. People in positions of influence in government, for example, we feel the Green Party feels that 50m is a sensible compromise which will provide clarity for the police in terms of the threshold for imposing conditions on protests while protecting the article 11 rights.

Now, I would argue that this particular amendment would help the police. It's so specific, the police could take a tape measure to protest and make sure that protesters were actually at the designated distance. And also, of course, it helps protesters because they can know if they are legally able to protest at that point or not. So I really would urge the noble Lord Minister, the noble Lord Minister, to think about this, to actually clarify what in the vicinity means. It's far too vague to bring in in a piece of legislation, and surely the government must see that on the issue of may intimidate.

Again, it's terribly vague, and I don't understand why anybody would put that in a bill. I think this is bad writing, which is why we have so many z s and z, z and z's and and so on in this at Report stage, all of our diverse communities have to be supported and defended. But clause one, three, nine of the bill as it stands, won't do this because it is too vague. Their already existing powers to address racial and religious hatred and violence under the Public Order Act 1986, the police can impose conditions on protests that may compel people not to worship, disrupting the activities of an organisation, or intimidate or harass people in the vicinity.

So my amendment does try to make things clearer, and as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always, I'm just trying to help the government to get things right. I just want to the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to the noble Lady before she sits down, that her amendments do not achieve the amendments do not achieve the purpose that I understand the government to have with clause 139. Because if you only confer the Because if you only confer the power in relation to a protest that takes place within 50m, then you're takes place within 50m, then you're not going to achieve the purpose, because the purpose is to ensure that people are able to get to and to get away from their synagogue every Saturday.

And if there's a march of hundreds or thousands of people which impede their access, then 50m is not going to work. And as I've already put to Lord Marks, protest is a balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of other people, and the noble Lady is ignoring the rights of others.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll speak to you all later. I think the noble Lord is wrong. I'm think the noble Lord is wrong. I'm afraid you have to have. You cannot have these vague terms. I would have thought the noble and learned Lord would have been appreciative Lord would have been appreciative of the fact that you need clarity in legislation and not these. How can the police know what the can the police know what the vicinity in the vicinity means? How can they possibly make good can they possibly make good judgements? They already make terrible judgements based on some of the law laws that we've passed already.

They actually overstep the mark constantly because they cannot be clear about exactly what it means and what we think it means. So I would argue that actually 50m is a very, very sensible limit.
16:27
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord. >> My Lord. >> My Lords, I've added my name to amendment 379, introducing an amendment 379, introducing an express statutory right to protest, imposing both negative and positive obligations on authorities that recognise the right to protest. We were told at committee and we've been told again that as, as Baroness Jones has reminded us that that this won't be necessary. But as Baroness Symons is rightly pointed out, I think this whole group of amendments indicates exactly why it is necessary.

This whole section, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames has explained, would actually undermine the right to protest. A constant concern that I have had with this bill is that this is just the latest iteration of adding new powers to a veritable arsenal of laws already on the statute books, undermining curtailing protests. But the problem is, is that we keep making new laws that seemingly are then not enforced or not consistently enforced, leading then to a demand that something more should be done and more and more.

And each time that normalises the chipping away of the right to protest is a democratic norm, not as an unqualified right, but as a norm. I'm just back from Manchester, where last week two masked and armed banded pro ayatollah supporters apologists with a terror backing Iranian regime and Khomeini supporters rode horses on the streets of Manchester at Iranian dissidents in the middle of the day. It was terrifying. It was intimidating. It was violent in many ways.

And the thing that really struck me was that the Greater Manchester Police officers, who were asked why they didn't intervene, just shrugged and said, what can we do now? I'm not advocating that we have a new law specifically banning the riding of horses by pro Islamists through the streets. I'm suggesting that what we need is more decisive police action and use of the laws that we've got when they're required. And I'm just worried about this building up of more and more laws.

It's one of the reasons why I share with other noble Lords real concerns about the vague phrasing of clause 139, the absence of a clear definition of vicinity, as has been explained, that would allow the police to create substantial no protest zones around places of worship, while giving powers to ban demos that may have the effect of intimidating people so as to deter them from religious activities, is a very permissive power now. I mean, I think we all understand it. I thought it was interesting that the noble Lord panic described what he considered clause 139 was, and he talked about on Saturdays at synagogue, people being intimidated.

And I think we all recognise that. But that's not what clause 139 says. And I've been more sympathetic. Oh, sorry. I'd be more sympathetic if it was what the, what the clause said. But in fact it's a very general clause that might have some very unintended consequences. And I have no sympathy with a lot of those pro-Palestinian demos in the vicinity of synagogues, the ongoing intimidation of Jewish citizens. But the police already have extensive powers to arrest people for religiously aggravated hate speech.

As we heard in great detail at report last night last week. Why aren't they using them? There's also the existing powers available to the police to allow them to impose conditions on demos that intimidate people who wish to engage in worship under the Public Order Act. So what is one three, nine, four? And whatever it's for, I'm afraid that it might have. I think, some unintended consequences. I think, that may intimidate worshippers. That idea of may intimidate worshippers because they're told so by religious leaders doesn't would potentially enforce a form of blasphemy law in the vicinity of a place of worship.

This is a question asked by Big Brother Watch, and I think they have a point. I can't see how clause 39 does not prioritise religious sensitivities at the expense of freedom of expression and assembly, and that could happen in two ways. Firstly, how do we ensure that clause 139 doesn't insulate religious institutions from scrutiny or opposition? It could be that, for example, victims of sexual abuse by religious leaders might want to protest outside, I don't know, a Church of England church or a Catholic cathedral.

It could be that former Muslim women who want to protest against, for example, religious practices such as FGM or the enforced wearing of burqas could also be barred. Secondly, just based on the sheer number of places of worship in the country, that in a country that is so religiously diverse and closely populated is, Britain could mean that a significant proportion of the country could be turned into no protest zones. And that's been explained. But a single street could be the site of a specific private business, media organisation, government, health institution, alongside various places of worship.

Wouldn't clause 139, as it's presently drafted, allow worshippers or religious leaders to ask police to pre-emptively restrict protest not aimed at them at all, but covering topics that the religious might consider offensive or intimidating. A woman's rights pro-choice demo, or aimed at an anti-abortion charity's offices, for example, but in the vicinity of a Christian church or a pro-Israel demo at a media organisation complaining about biased TV coverage. But in the vicinity of a mosque, you could see how that could happen.

Many issues, when viewed through the lens of religious sensibilities, could be claimed to be intimidating to worshippers. Clause 39 could seriously censor and silence such views in relation to protest bans, even though it is not what the noble Lord noble and learned Lord Pannick thinks clause 39 is about. No doubt it's not what the government thinks clause 39 is about, but it's what the drafting of clause 39 would allow. Then, just on the ban on face coverings, the JSR has noted that the lack of a clear definition of what could constitute a protest in relation to the new offence of concealing identity, and would indeed, or could it criminalise all forms of identity concealment, and that would unjustifiably interfere with the right to peaceful protest? The noble Lord Lord Strasburger, as Amendment 369 is so modest and proportionate.

But I think it's so important because it tackles what justice has noted as poor drafting that could make criminals of protesters who have legitimate reasons for insisting to remain anonymous. All that, the noble Lord Strasburger suggests, is a reasonable excuse clause, and that would not stop the police dealing with those wearing face coverings to intimidate and avoid arrest. Although, as we've heard, the police already have such powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. But regardless, they don't use them.

These new powers, however, I think, are problematic. And the thing that's most extraordinary and I raise this at committee, maybe the noble Lord, the Minister, can answer it this time, is the government knows that you can't have a blanket ban. So it's made three exemptions. The three exemptions are for religious health or work reasons. But those exemptions seem to me to be completely arbitrary. I mean, I've got no idea why you chose those three exemptions, and they're certainly inadequate as a way of reflecting very important reasons why a protester may not want to protect their may want to protect their privacy in public.

To those who cries, they did it committee that if you've done nothing wrong, then you should have nothing to hide. Why would you wear a face covering? Those who say that, I would suggest, have never worked in one of the many public sector workplaces where having the wrong opinions can lead you, for example, to be disciplined or treated with social ostracism. Try being a general gender critical feminist academic going on a demo without having your face covered, and you might find yourself on the wrong side of academia when you go back to work.

Or they've never been the victim of stalking or harassment and want to conceal themselves when on a public protest, that could be, by the way, filmed either by the mainstream media or live streamed by phone, or they're people who've never been someone who's had to defy their strict community or religious strictures or prohibitions, or have never been a transnational dissident taking on the Iranian or the Chinese regime. So anonymity is an important enabler of freedom of assembly and association. And while, as we'll see later, there's a problem of police deploying live facial recognition at protests per se, a prohibition on face covering protests could represent a step towards the possibility of widespread biometric surveillance at protests as well.

So I'm afraid there is no presumption that the right to protest is secure in today's political climate, never mind a future government. And if the clauses in this bill aren't or are not reined in, then I think that the right to protest will be even more fragile.
16:36
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I agree with so much of the discussion about this important group, but I remember that this is Report stage. And so whilst I'm particularly, I particularly share the concerns about cumulative disruption because it is Report stage and not committee, I will confine my remarks to one speech in this group, no interventions and just focus on 369 and 369A as briefly and succinctly as I can to do them in reverse order. I so agree with Lord Strasburger and his and his colleagues Baroness Jones, Lord Pannick and Lord Marks about 369A and again these arguments were rehearsed with great precision at Committee stage, and the example was given of a of an Iranian dissident protesting and not being and being concerned about reprisals.

And you could substitute other other countries and their embassies for Iran. That was just the one that came up that day. And in the in the clause, the government acknowledges that there should be some defences to the offensive of wearing a mask on a protest. I have concerns about the offence itself, because it's sort of presupposes that protest is a slightly dodgy thing to begin with. I don't agree with that. But nonetheless, the government conceded there should be defences and included health, religious observance and work as a justification for concealing identity, and fear of reprisals was not included.

And I think Lord Strasburger and colleagues reasonable excuse defence is a very proportionate one, given what the noble Lord Pannick said earlier about about balancing rights. And and so I really urge my colleagues in government to think very seriously about Lord Strasburger amendment, because the defence is currently in the offence of concealing your identity, a protest. Do not include that fear of reprisals. Whether you're a battered woman, whether you're someone who disagrees with your employer or, crucially, whether you're a dissident outside the embassy of your homeland, I really, really urge my noble friends in government to think again about that.

And then just briefly on three, six, nine. I'm still just over two minutes. The enshrining the right to protest as a freestanding, as a freestanding clause, even though it's acknowledged by Lord Lord Marks of Henley on Thames that we have articles ten and 11 of the convention incorporated into the Human Rights Act. I say, I say, in friendship and gently to him, that I do think this kind of duplication may be a mistake that we would come to regret.

He's quite right, of course, as is the government on other matters to do with article eight, that you can be more precise and you should be more precise in your domestic legislation when attempting to safeguard rights and freedoms. But this isn't that much more, more precise. Effectively, this, this, this, this new clause pretty much replicates articles ten and 11 of the convention. But for the removal of of morals. And frankly, I think the morals is a dead letter these days. And so I would just urge him gently not to press that one, because I think as a fellow human rights person, I've been working with the convention, with some members of your Lordships House for over 30 years.

That kind of almost duplication is dangerous in legal terms, so I would urge him not to press that one, just as I urge my colleagues in government to to to support him and and others who've signed up to broadening the defence in six, nine to to the offence of wearing a face covering at a peaceful protest,
16:40
16:41
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I was trying to be short, and this is Report stage, but with the leave, with the leave of the house, I will I will answer again as briefly as I can. I, I know not everyone agrees, not every jurist agrees. But as far as I'm concerned, the margin of appreciation was always intended to be an international concept for an international court. So once you get to Strasbourg, it is quite right that a margin of appreciation applies so that Strasbourg respects the legislation and the and the jurisdiction of domestic legislators and judges.

I don't see it as a domestic legal principle really at all. And so I don't see that it is for even the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to be operating a margin of appreciation when it applies the Human Rights Act domestically. So I don't see that as the problem that the noble Lord, noble Lord sees it. And so the way that you put meat on the bones of human rights protections is with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act with the detail of the public order statute book.

Hence, I agree with Lord Strasburger about having a proper defence to the face concealment. That is, the detailed meat on the bones, not, frankly, drafting a right to protest that pretty much replicates articles ten and 11. Now, if the concern and I would understand this, is that a future government is going to come in and scrap the Human Rights Act and pull out of the ECHR, why then have colleagues piggybacked onto section six of the Human Rights Act in the way that they drafted the right to protest? So that that I think is is a mistake to if and I don't want to give up on the Human Rights Act and the XR and I will defend it as long as I have breath in my body.

And that, I think, is the approach, because it's a hostage to fortune by Lords to have freestanding vision of particular rights and particular statutes, when what we have, the precious protection that we have is an overarching human rights act that applies to the interpretation of all law. Yes.
16:43
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord, the right to protest is >> My Lord, the right to protest is an interesting concept. We all agree on all sides of the House that there is a right to protest. that there is a right to protest. But as with most rights, the right to free speech, the right to assemble in English common law, it's not part of our law, it's part of our common law. We have an absence of fundamental liberties. You are free to do things unless the law otherwise prevents them.

So it would be slightly odd to have the right to protest without any of these other rights simply inserted into our law. How would it work? The the point about public order legislation is that it always has to balance out various interests the right to protest, being one, the right of those affected by those protests, third parties, and of course the the police who have to enforce what is often very difficult and complex legislation to respect those various rights.

And the European Convention didn't invent these rights, but they are reflected in articles ten and article 11 of the convention, both of which are qualified rights. They're not absolute rights. And as Strasbourg has made quite clear, it's perfectly acceptable for individual governments to determine, by reference to the circumstances that obtain in their countries what limits are reasonable to place upon those rights. And Strasbourg has said a number of times they're not likely to interfere with those, so that imposing on top of our public order legislation, this right to protest, would, I respectfully suggest, cause only confusion in our law, make it difficult for courts, make it difficult for the police? As to the noble Lord Lord Marks fear of what might come.

Therefore, I think he's suggesting that it should be in some way hard wired into our law, which would make it more difficult for some government in the future to circumvent the difficulties. Well, with great respect, Parliament can't bind its successors. If a government decided they want to circumscribe the right to protest, they can do that. So I'm afraid I don't think this helps. I think there are sufficient protections. And I think what's interesting and difficult is as a challenge is finding where the limits lie.

But this is not an answer, my Lord.
16:46
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, this is indeed Report stage. And while I have a great deal of sympathy to the several amendments that the noble Lord Lord Marks has spoken to, and I also take the point of the noble Baroness Jones, that this is a very large grouping of a very large number of amendments, but I'm just going to restrict my comments to amendment three, six, 8A3, six, nine a my Lords, this is providing the noble Lady Baroness Fox said this, and I Baroness Chakrabarti also made this point.

It's a much simpler test to apply the test of a reasonable excuse, rather than the rather complicated language used in the statute. That's in clause one, three, three. Subparagraph two. And you have a test, for example, there, whether the wearing of the clothes had a purpose relating to the health of the person or others. That is just asking for a complicated interpretation and the reasonable excuse test is, in my view, a very sound one. And I just want to make one comment relating to the entirety of the Report stage of this bill, and that is that I, and I'm sure other members of this House have extreme concern that we are having to sit every night to beyond 11:00 and to midnight.

I'm glad to see a nod from over the benches there, my Lords, that not only places great strain on the Ministers, I hasten not to ask the noble Lord Hanson how many midnights he's been sitting up in this house for his. He's finding it difficult to count on his fingers, and there are only ten fingers to count on. And I pray he hasn't got enough fingers to count the number of times that he has said so. It imposes a strain.

It also imposes a great strain on all of us, my Lords, who need to participate in this bill and want to participate throughout every debate. It is also another problem, and that is that taking the House sitting so late, some very important amendments are just not considered this. This happened to me on Monday of last week. I had a very important amendment done together with others, and that was not reached. Indeed, it wasn't even spoken upon. This goes to the whole of the of the Report stage.

So I'm blaming nobody. I'm certainly not blaming the Ministers. I'm certainly not blaming the, the, the government Chief Whip all of whom I greatly respect. But there is a problem, and I can't help just recalling this, that on Monday, on Wednesday of last week, when again the house sat to midnight, I think it did, that I was sitting in a committee room in portcullis House and the announcer said the House of Commons was rising at 7:00. My Lords, there's a disproportionate burden being placed on this House, and I protest about it.
16:50
16:51
16:51
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
Noble Lady makes a forceful. My understanding is that led to no charges. I certainly wouldn't defend what the police did in those circumstances. And perhaps more relevantly, it has nothing whatever relevantly, it has nothing whatever to do with the contents of the bill, with the amendments, with the proposals that the government is putting forward in in this proposed legislation on amendment three six, nine. It's an important amendment proposed by Lord Marks and others that we should insert into the statute book a right to protest.

And I agree with Baroness Chakrabarti, the noble Lady. I agree with the noble Lord Fawkes that this would be most inappropriate. It cannot be right to introduce a statutory right to protest when we are not introducing, and rightly so, into the statute statute book. Any other provision in the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to religious freedom, and the reason for that is, Baroness Chakrabarti said, is we already have the protection of the Human Rights Act, which is applied by our judges.

And I don't, with respect, accept the criticisms that the noble Lord Lord Marks made. He said. He focussed on the European concept in the European Court of Human Rights, of the margin of discretion. But but that's an international concept. As the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti said, there's something similar here. Discretionary area of judgement. But the European concept is an international concept. It's not applied by the domestic court. Then Lord Marks said, well, we need to put a marker down in case future parliaments interfere with the right to protest.

But nothing we do today is going to prevent a future Parliament, should it wish to do so. From legislating and legislating, we may think inappropriately. That's a matter for them. It's a matter for debate at the time. And Lord Marks third point was that he said, well, the convention allows for a restriction for the protection of morals. And he said, surely that's inappropriate? Well, yes, but I can't think of any case, any case where protest has been limited because of a moral, a moral view imposed by the police or any other authority.

I wouldn't quite go as far as Baroness Chakrabarti I wrote it down. Morals are a dead letter nowadays, perhaps a wider proposition than the noble Lady intended to suggest, but I think amendment 369 would be very most unfortunate. It would cause confusion and it would achieve no sensible purpose, if I may respectfully say so. Amendment 369AI take a different view. I've signed amendment 369A that's Lord Strasburger amendment, and it's amendment that deals with clause one, three, three, which introduces this new offence of concealing your identity at a protest.

And there is no defence that is included there of reasonable excuse. And that is despite the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its fifth report of session 2024 2025, proposed that there should be such a defence and the absence of such a defence is, as Baroness Chakrabarti said, very puzzling because there are defences included in clause one three, three, two relating to the health of a person or religious observance, or a purpose relating to the person's work.

And I gave at Committee stage an example of why a defence of reasonable excuse is required. The example was, and it's a very typical example of a man or a woman who wishes to protest outside the Iranian embassy, or wishes to protest at some other demonstration against the conduct of the Iranian regime. And they may well have a very strong reason for concealing their identity, and that is that they have relatives in Iran. Are we really to say that they are committing a criminal offence? Despite the obvious need for them to conceal their I entity in those circumstances? I heard with great respect to the Minister, no convincing answer to that point at Committee stage, and that's why I've joined with Lord Strasburger in suggesting that a defence of reasonable excuse should be added to this new criminal offence.

And if Lord Strasburger wishes to test the opinion of the House, and I hope he does, if the Minister cannot give any comfort on this, I will certainly support it.
16:57
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, I rise to. >> My Lord, I rise to. >> Support mainly the the government. It seems to me that they are taking broadly steps to they are taking broadly steps to stop intimidation of the public, not to stop intimidation of the government, which is what those who support the right to protest seem to be suggesting. And the amendments on the whole seem to try and restrict that. Right. And I do not think it is necessary for the reasons that many people have already said the job of the police is to ensure peaceful protesters are able to protest and that they're not intimidated themselves.

It's not their job, really, to maximise the impact of the protest, which is what the implications of facilitation seem to suggest. Other people's rights have got to be respected. It's very difficult to police in the heat of a protest to try and get that right. It can be a little easier in preparation for the protest if you're able to plan. But often many of these decisions have to be made during the protests. And when you've got thousands of people who are emotional shouting perhaps outside the Israeli embassy, this can be an intimidating effect on everybody.

So I do think that we've got to think seriously about how the police are able to implement these, these amendments. I accept that, obviously, proportionality is a very important part of the ECHR, and I would argue against that. But it's quite hard for the cops to measure this on the ground. In Northern Ireland, it became such an issue that we ended up with a Parades Commission. It took the issues away from the police. I suspect that the way that legislation is going, that might be a wiser thing, to leave someone independent to make these decisions rather than the police.

But while everyone is with the police, I genuinely think it has to be as simple as possible. Not because the police are simple. I speak personally, but because it is not easy to get that balance right. And this is an acute judgement, not one that's measured within a court. I just wanted to speak about two other issues face coverings. If Parliament decides that it wants to have face coverings, then I do think we have to think carefully about the reasonable excuse.

Not because I disagree with Lord Pannick, but because I suspect that everybody will have a reasonable excuse. So you imagine being a police officer, confronting somebody about wearing a mask, trying to determine whether they have a reasonable excuse, together with 4 or 5 other people in the crowd? Almost impossible. Have they got a cold, which is one of the defences within the, you know, within the act already? I think that would be almost unenforceable. So I'm not saying it's wrong to have a reasonable excuse.

I am saying it's difficult to determine it. During a protest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm just intervening very briefly. Surely the police go ahead with the arrest, and then the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the arrest, and then the courts decide whether there's reasonable excuse or not. By that time, they're already in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By that time, they're already in a cell having to face the fact that they've been arrested. So I would say best to avoid that prospect and say best to avoid that prospect and best to avoid the dispute. You might end up with a crowd having to make that decision. The police need make that decision. The police need as much smooth transition when in when implementing legislation as possible. So I would be really careful if we carried on with that. The 50 metre test that Baroness Jones has mentioned, I don't think works.

I don't think it works for the reason Lord Pannick mentioned, which is about access and egress from a place of worship, but as importantly, the distance you need to keep for a protester is either throwing distance, shouting distance to make their point and probably abuse somebody. The process or amplified sound that can be quite a distance. Now, given the geography of many locations that protests might happen, I understand the point to make it a discrete area, but 50m can never work, and if you try and determine the distance, I think it's going to be quite difficult.

So vicinity I think, can work because I think it's a reasonable test and then leave that for the courts to decide and leave the cops the opportunity to make the decision based on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circumstances they face. But I'm afraid 50m is nowhere near reasonable. For the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord sits down. Could he. Answer the point made by Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Answer the point made by Lord Pannick about Iranians protesting outside the Iranian embassy? Scared, of course, for their relatives in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iran? Well, I particularly avoided having that conversation because I think it's a good point, Mike. If think it's a good point, Mike. If you remember, I introduced my points by saying, if a decision is made to impose a ban on masks, then I'm just making the point that a reasonable excuse may be difficult to enforce. I'm not expressing the opinion about Lord Pannick very good point about whether it will capture Iranians who might be in fear of their life from the Iranian republic.

I think it's a reasonable point, and I'm choosing not to express the opinion on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the noble Lord. Sit down. Could I just pick him up on one point? Because it's very interesting. You said that the law interesting. You said that the law should be simple, because that's what I've heard from currently serving senior officers. But can he serving senior officers. But can he see that as we accumulate more and more bits of law, it actually more bits of law, it actually doesn't make things simpler. It makes things more complicated for the police. And I have been on protests where the police have very definitely been quite confused about the legislation.

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really, he ought to be arguing with the government to make things much, much simpler. I'll probably finish here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll probably finish here because it's Report stage. But just to say that I think all I was saying, first of all, I think 50 saying, first of all, I think 50 minutes is too short. I think you could I think vicinity works, but I think clarity I agree with I'm not against the clarity, but I think you've got to leave the police with some flexibility given the circumstances they face. And I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion of vicinity. We can make it work, but 50m will never work in my view.
17:03
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Mr. Ben. >> Spence. >> My Lords, we have started the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have started the day day four report on this bill with a wide ranging and interesting with a wide ranging and interesting debate on the general landscape of public order law. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames and Lord Strasburger, and the Lord Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fox of Buckley have argued that there are too many statutory limitations on protests in this country. I do not agree, and indeed I suspect I will find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, the Minister, in speaking to those amendments.

First, however, I will speak to my amendments three, 773 and 377 de amendment 377C would extend the notification period for public processions from 6 to 28 days. Currently, section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 requires any person organising a protest to notify the police of their proposal to hold that protest with six days notice, and the purpose of this six day notice period is to ensure that the police can plan their resource requirements effectively. They need to examine the route, number of attendees and timing, gather intelligence on the groups and people involved, and assess the likelihood of violence and disorder.

And if the procession is likely to be large or the cause highly contentious, or if those involved have a history of causing disorder, then there may very well need to make contingencies and possibly bring in more officers. The short period of six days causes significant problems for the police, the public and the organisers of the protest, and it may take the police a substantial amount of time to gather all the available evidence and set conditions, so the organisers can often only be notified of those conditions the day before the protest is due to take place.

This does not give them an adequate time to ensure that they can comply with those conditions, nor does it allow for the public and businesses adequate time to adapt. Policy Exchange's polling demonstrated that the minimum level of notice that respondents to their survey believe protest organisers should have to give to the police is 28 days, and in their survey, 51% said organisers should have to give at least three weeks notice and 45% said the period should be at least four weeks.

The 28 day period is also, incidentally, the same notice period as exists in Northern Ireland. And whilst I appreciate the different historical and political contexts in Northern Ireland, it does not seem unreasonable to extend that to England and Wales, especially given the substantial time and effort that police must pour into planning for large scale protests. Amendment 37, seven D concerns the criteria in which the police may prohibit a protest, and currently section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 permits the police to prohibit protests if there is a likelihood that the protest will result in serious public disorder.

However, that is only that is the only criterion included in that section, meaning there is no ability for the police to prohibit a protest if there is a risk of serious disruption to the life of a community. Nor does it allow the police to take into account their own resources and their ability to maintain public safety when making their assessment. So my amendment extends the criteria for the prohibition of protest to include where the chief officer of police has a reasonable belief that the protest could result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or that it would place undue demands on the police.

So, given the government's commitment to reform of public order law, I would think they should be able to accept these two amendments. And before the noble Lord, the Minister says they need to wait for the noble Lord. Lord MacDonald of River Glen's review into public order and hate speech to report. I would gently remind him that the government were perfectly happy to pre-empt that review and legislate to extend the legislation on aggravated or aggravated aggravators based on characteristics last week, and if they were happy to do so for that provision, I do not see why they cannot accept mine.

But if the noble Lord, the Minister, finds himself unable to do so, I am minded to press them to a division when called. I will also briefly comment on the other amendments in this group. Amendment 36 nine tabled by the noble noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames and others, would create a new statutory right to protest. And while the intention behind this is understandable, it is difficult to see what legal gap it is intended to fill. As the noble Lord.

Lord Foulkes, has already explained, the right to protest is already protected through the common law and currently through article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated domestically through the Human Rights Act. But it is important to recognise that we do not derive our rights in Britain from international treaties or even from domestic statute. The right to protest was protected before Parliament passed the Human Rights Act in 1998, and before we joined the XR. It is a right derived from ancient English liberty and our common law inheritance, placing it into the Crime and Policing Bill in 2026 will not change a thing.

I dare say, if we were to leave the and repeal the Human Rights Act, we would still have our ancient freedom to protest intact. What's more, creating a new declaratory declaratory clause risks adding greater complexity without adding meaningful protection. Indeed, by restating rights that are already well established, we may inadvertently create new areas of legal uncertainty rather than clarity for the police, local authorities and the courts. And for those reasons, I cannot support that amendment. A similar concern arises with amendment 30 69A, which would introduce a reasonable excuse defence relating to concealing identity and protest.

Clause 133, subsection two already contains these defences. Those include where a person is wearing the face coverings for health reasons, religious observance, or for a purpose relating to their work, and that is perfectly reasonable and pragmatic. List of exceptions. Amendment 30 72A and 37 two AA seek to narrow the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on protests in the vicinity of places of worship, and in doing so they replaced the current test, where a protest may intimidate with the requirement to demonstrate a specific purpose to intimidate that is significant, that is, a significantly higher threshold, and the difficulty is obvious.

In practice, intimidation often arises from the circumstances and impact of a protest rather than from an explicitly stated intention, and requiring the police to prove purpose before acting risks trying there, tying their hands precisely where communities may feel most vulnerable. On amendment 37 three. As I stated at committee, we on these benches are supportive of the introduction of police powers to take into consideration cumulative disruption when placing conditions on protests and assemblies. I do not, therefore agree with removing clause 140.

The previous government did try to introduce this in 2023, after all, and it was the Liberal Democrats and Labour who voted that down in this House at the time. So it is good to see the Labour Party finally has come round to the Conservatives way of thinking.
17:10
None Portrait Government Spokes Lord Katz (Labour)
-

My Lords, I am grateful to the >> My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords Lord Marks, Lord Strasburger and Lord Davies of Gower and the noble Lady Jones for Gower and the noble Lady Jones for for this further opportunity to debate the right to protest and public order measures in this Bill, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this important debate. The government fully recognises the importance of peaceful protest in a democratic society. However, amendment 369, put forward by the noble Lord Lord Marks, replaces in statute a right that was already clearly protected in democratic law.

And that's just not just me saying that, as we've heard for a formidable legal troika of the noble Lords Lord Faulks and Lord Pannick and my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, public authorities are indeed, as they said, bound by the Human Rights Act, uphold articles ten and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. These rights are qualified and may only be limited where restrictions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Common law Lords also provide strong recognition of peaceful protest.

Protest. Introducing an additional statutory provision risks creating overlap and uncertainty, particularly for operational policing, without offering any meaningful new protections. In his contribution of Lord Lord Marks and indeed the noble Lady, Baroness Jones talked about the risks of further, shall we say, more extreme government coming and this paving the way for further restrictions on the right to protest. Well, I can only agree with comments made by a number of local Lords, I would say particularly noble Lord Pannick and I think also liberal Lord Doyle Lord Faulks.

It is here that I should hope the occasion never arises, but that is democracy, and I think that any incoming government that has that kind of mandate would not find it hard to not to overturn, not just provisions that the government is making in this, in this bill, but also the the amendment that the noble Lord Lord Marks proposes should the should it make its way onto the statute book. So I'm not sure that argument really washes. The government remains firmly committed to safeguarding the rights to protest.

That is one reason why I've asked the noble Lord Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to review the current legislative framework. One of the matters being explored as part of the review is, and I quote from its terms of terms of reference, whether the current legislation strikes a fair balance between freedom of expression and the right to protest with the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe. Lord MacDonald is expected to report later in the spring. And I can assure all noble Lords that we will consider very carefully all his recommendations, including any proposing a strength of the right to protest.

Moving to amendment 369A in the name of Lord Lord Strasburger, which would provide a reasonable excuse defence for concealing a person's identity at a protest in a designated area, and shift the burden of proof away from individuals within that designated designated area onto police. Instead of requiring a person to justify why they had a valid reason for wearing an item to conceal their identity as set out in the specified offences, it would place the responsibility on the police during the protests to to assess whether the explanation provided was reasonable or not.

And as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that isn't that isn't necessarily always an easy thing to do. Clause 133 currently provides three statutory defences for concealing identity at a protest within a designated area. These are relating to health of the person or others, religious observance, or for a purpose relating to that person's work. Defence carries a reverse burden of proof meaning for the individual to prove they conceal their identity for one of these identity. For one of these reasons, I consider this is a proportionate and carefully balanced offence.

My Lords, it's important to highlight that any decision to designate an area and arrest a person concealing their identity must take into account section six of the Human Rights Act 1998, meaning all decisions must be necessary and proportionate in relation to the right of peaceful protest. And it's important to bear in mind, my Lords, that locality will only be designated when it's thought that a protest activity is likely to involve or has involved criminality, and so it's expedient to do so in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences.

We we, we we heard discussion about kind of fear of reprisals when it comes to transnational repression. And we would say that introducing a statutory particular my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, we say introducing a statutory defence relating to transnational repression would introduce operational complexities for the police, as is, of course, the role of the courts, not law enforcement, to assess reasonable doubt and evaluate any defences raised by the defendant in the context of transnational repression cases, which are often internationally complex, such a defence would place an unnecessary burden on police to disprove claims relating to potential threats to an individual's safety from a particular state, for example.

I should stress as well that clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. So is he saying to the protester at the Iranian embassy that he or she has Iranian embassy that he or she has only two choices not to protest or to protest, not wearing a face mask, to protest, not wearing a face mask, and thereby run the risk that their relatives in Iran may may be killed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or tortured. No, what I would what I would say in that particular example is that I would revert to the what I mentioned about the the locality only being designated. Should criminality be be suspected or like liked by the police to, to to maybe likely to occur or to have occurred on previous occasions. And I would and I'd put it to the, to the to to the noble Lord the Lord Pannick that a a largely peaceful protest outside an embassy and at a an appropriate distance wouldn't fall into that that category of of protest, as I was going to say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear operational guidance from the NPCC. Very quickly, it might well be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very quickly, it might well be that that particular protester. If the noble Lords Minister. If the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord could explain, it's just on a demonstration in general, if you are if you are a an Iranian dissident or a Chinese dissident, you might be on a civil rights demonstration, you might be on a demonstration, you might be on a demonstration arguing for the right to protest. And that would equally be the target of the ire of your authoritarian, anti-protest anti civil liberty regime. So the the if the noble Lord could explain how this can't possibly chill their right to go on a right to protest.

And it's not just transnational, but other examples were given. Some people won't go on protest because they'll be frightened of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences. No, I would say that the the, you know, in terms of this having a you know, in terms of this having a chilling effect, the new offence will only cover people in the locality who are wearing or otherwise using an item conceals otherwise using an item conceals their their identity. And it's it is, as I said, it's for the the is, as I said, it's for the the police will only use this power if they can say that there is going to be criminality on a particular protest, on a particular on, on, on, protest, on a particular on, on, on, on a, on a, on, on a particular march.

And I would put that is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is not a power that they're going to be using lightly. Testing the local law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Testing the local law. But the difficulty is that there is absolutely no reason why the is absolutely no reason why the criminality has to be connected with the attitudes of those Iranians who are frightened. The Iranians who are frightened. The criminality has to be the criminality simply has to be connected with the protest as a whole. It may be entirely separate from the views or attitudes or desires of the Iranians, who, in Lord Pannick example, are likely to be deterred from attending a protest.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't think I disagree with the noble Lord. And what I'm saying is that the police designation of a locality where this where this this offence would apply would only be in the case where they thought that criminality where they thought that criminality and offences would be would be caused. It's not relating it to the fact that there are, in this case, fact that there are, in this case, Iranian Iranians, Iranians protesting. I would say that I, I'd just reflect the the comments from the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe.

He said the reason offences that we've listed in the in in the clause are I'm trying to paraphrase his words because I didn't write them down. But there are, there are, there are common sense and they are easily,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

easily explicable. And I'm very grateful to him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm very grateful to him that the defence that he is offering that this only applies if there is criminality, really there is criminality, really doesn't explain why clause 133 does doesn't explain why clause 133 does recognise defences for health, religious observance or a person's work. And if you recognise if the work. And if you recognise if the government recognises those defences, even though it's in the context of criminality, surely it should also cover the type of example that I've given.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think it's, you know, Lord can never test my patience too Lord can never test my patience too far, but I, I, I would, I, I'd simply say it comes back to the fact that there are some there are fact that there are some there are some, there are three very clear and easy to understand, easy to interpret in terms of operate for the police's operational use defences that one can that one could use in this situation. I'd say fear of dissident reprisal is does not necessarily fit into that category so easily.

But I will, notwithstanding his inability to test my patience, I'm going to make some progress as we have more to more to discuss. Turning to amendments 3272872372B and 372C in the name of the noble Lord Lord Marks would mean that clause 139 would apply only where a protest is directed at or connected with the place of worship before conditions can be imposed. Additionally, the noble Baroness Shah Lord Jones has amendments 37203728372, AB 372372 BBB and 372D, which would raise the threshold for police intervention by requiring proof that a protest has the explicit purpose of intimidating individuals assessing accessing a place of worship, and and that it would in fact intimidate them.

They also proposed limiting police powers to process occurring within 15m of the outer outer perimeter of a place of worship. My Lords. As seen with recent demonstrations, protests can have an unintended impact on the life of a community and those seeking to exercise their freedom of religion without intimidation or fear. I want to be clear that clause 139 seeks to address a clear legislative gap arising from such protests. Police currently have powers to intervene where there is a serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation.

However, we've already heard consistently, consistently from both the police and religious communities that these thresholds are too high to protect worshippers who feel too intimidated to attend their place of worship. Even though the protesters do not intend to have such an effect, requiring officers to demonstrate both the purpose and the effect of intimidation would restrict their ability to act at an earlier stage, reducing operational flexibility. Clause 139 My Lords, responds directly to that problem. It does not ban protests. It simply gives the police the ability to impose proportionate conditions where procession, assembly or one person protest may create an intimidating atmosphere in the vicinity of a place of worship.

This protects the freedom to worship without undermining the fundamental right to protest. Both rights are essential and this clause is carefully designed to balance them. As the noble Lady, Baroness Jones herself said, the duty to protect minority communities and their right, their right to go about their life, whether it's work or their freedom of worship or any other respect, is indeed paramount and this clause seeks to do so. The noble Lady's proposal to introduce a rigid 50 metre boundary would further constrain the police.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the noble Lady calls the current proposal in the bill vague, but I'd put to her the rigidity of 50m goes too far. If we just think to. If we just think to Saint Margaret's Church and its and its proximity to both this House and indeed Parliament Square, that is more than 50m, 50m having this rule in place, notwithstanding any particular provisions around protests in Parliament Square, as just as a practical example would make that make that sort of protest impossible.

And I would say using one of the examples promoted by the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley any protest outside church, churches or cathedrals that she mentioned would also be presumably limited in that stage. Activity occurring outside that distance may still create an environment that discourages worshippers from entering, yet the police would be unable to impose conditions unless the protest moves move closer. This was undermined the clauses purpose of enabling proportionate intervention. Where there is a risk of an intimidating atmosphere near a place of worship, and as the noble Lord Lord Pannick said, that includes the comings and goings going in and out, in to and from a place of worship, as well as actually being within the building.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley, who I, I'm afraid I do not see in his place for meeting myself and members of the Jewish communal organisations, including the Board of Deputies, the CST and the Jewish Leadership Council. About this clause. As I reiterated at that in that meeting, I want to make clear that the government will write to police forces and local authorities, following Royal Assent, to remind them of their existing powers available to protect community centres and schools, as well as places of worship.

This will this will ensure that all agencies are fully aware of the tools they already have to respond to intimidatory behaviour in these settings. Turning to amendment 373 the Lord Marks. This seeks to remove the cumulative disruption clause from the bill. I've been clear that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right in this country. However, it should be balanced with the need for individuals and communities to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. Over the last few years, we've seen the impact of recent protests on the life of communities.

And of course, we saw the tragic anti-Semitic terror incident that took place at Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Manchester on on the 2nd of October, which led to the unfortunate murders of Adrian Dalby and Melvin Kravitz. This the and we also saw protests subsequently continuing, which highlighted the concerns around the protection of specific communities, including Jewish communities and others affected by the cumulative impact of protests. There are other examples where communities face serious disruption from protests taking place in the same area week after week, and on this score, I do agree with the noble Lord Lord Pannick on the streets of London.

Over the past couple of years, we have seen regular practically weekly protests and the noble Lord Lord Marks is right. It is indeed the cumulative impact that has that, that has the effect of, of, of, of forcing home a particular message that those protesters want to make. But that shouldn't come at the price of allowing other citizens to enjoy their regular rights.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my noble Lord, the friend, for for giving Lord, the friend, for for giving way. But I do want to remind him. way. But I do want to remind him. At Committee stage, a number of us raised the statement that was issued by a whole range of civil issued by a whole range of civil society organisations, who often live in the communities in which live in the communities in which they are also carrying out protests. You'll recall, in particular, that the TUC supported that civil society statement.

Can my noble friend take the opportunity today to reassure those organisations? And I speak as somebody, one of perhaps few people in this House who have had responsibility for organising mass national demonstrations in central London. Can you reassure those organisations that this is not, as they fear, effectively a quota on national demonstrations in London? And similarly, can you give some guidance to the police about how they pick and choose between those different organisations, if there is indeed to be a quota?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my noble friend for that and of course, for all the work she's done in in terms of organising those, those national protests, at least 1 or 2 of which I'm sure I have, I have attended. I'm sure I have, I have attended. It's absolutely not a quota. It's simply a it's simply to say that if you are regularly marching in areas you are regularly marching in areas where you have to live, you have to undertake the activity side by side undertake the activity side by side with other communities, that that that repeated activity shouldn't impede on their ability to say, come and go to a synagogue.

And it can't be right that synagogues, I know this is the case, have had to alter their regular service times on a Saturday morning simply to allow for protests. There must be a way that police can accommodate both the needs of the protesters and the needs of those worshippers. And I do not see that. But I want to be very clear. This is absolutely not about imposing a quota on, on, on, on protests, as it doesn't allow police to ban a particular protest, but places a duty on senior officers to consider community disruption when deciding whether the disruption to the life of the community threshold.

In sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is met. Finally turning to amendments 377 C and 377 D from the noble Lord Lord Davis. Amendment 370 7C6 introduce the notice period required for planning processions from six days to 28 days. And as I explained at Committee stage, I believe six days provides the police with adequate time to work with organisers, planning protests to ensure any conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. His amendment 377 seeks to amend section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 to enable a chief Officer of police to consider serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, and the demands on police resources.

When determining whether to apply for an order prohibiting public processions. Section 13 of the 1986 act rightly sets out a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. Widening the scope of this power, including to take account of police resources, would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest under articles ten and 11 and the legislation becoming incompatible with the XR. He made a comment and comparing this with the the the measures we discussed last week, a report out of aggravated offences.

If I heard him correctly, I would say that that latter was very clearly a manifesto commitment and indeed was announced before Lord MacDonald's review. I hope I've been able to reassure, reassure, noble Lords have spoken in this group. They've raised some very legitimate issues about whether existing public order legislation and the measures in part nine of the bill strike the right balance between protecting the right to protest and protecting communities and preventing disorder. As I've said, there is an ongoing review examining justice issue, and I put it to noble Lords that we should wait for the outcome of that review.

And accordingly, this is not the occasion to press any of the amendments to a vote today. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord Lord Marks to withdraw his amendment.
17:30
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'll be very brief in explaining why I don't propose to withdraw my amendment. First, our amendment introduces would introduce a introduces would introduce a dynamic right with a duty on local authorities and public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest. Secondly, of course, the margin of appreciation is indeed an international concept, but this government is planning to legislate on the application of article eight, and there may be right to do so. But we need to have a proper concern about future legislation within the context of the margin of appreciation.

Thirdly, I'm not suggesting for a moment that we can entrench legislation, and Lord Foulkes is absolutely right to say that Parliament cannot bind its successors, but we can, by legislation, make it unattractive to reverse a public duty to support the right to protest. Finally, nothing I have said undermines the balancing of rights between the rights to protest and the rights and freedoms of others. But the right to protest is at the heart of our democracy. If the Conservatives are not going to support us on this, then so be it.

That's very disappointing, but I wish to tend to test the opinion of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for my part. Said amendment 369 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said amendment 369 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will content. Not content. The votes will be decided. Sorry,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The votes will be decided. Sorry, I beg your pardon. The question will be decided by a division. I'll advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is
17:32
17:42
17:43
17:54
17:54
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, as I explained in committee, I support the aims of the government are seeking to the government are seeking to achieve through clause 137 of this Bill, which creates a new offence Bill, which creates a new offence of climbing on memorials. Although there's a long history of statues forming part of peaceful protest and standing in dialogue between past and present, there is something special about war memorials which stand as sacred monuments to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we now enjoy.

It is therefore a particular affront when they are dishonoured or desecrated, especially for the proud comrades, families and descendants left behind by the heroes that they commemorate. So I'm glad to see the government taking action in this area, but I must say that I am rather perplexed about the way they are going about it. What they have correctly identified is a problem of principle that war memorials are specially cherished parts of our public realm, and that they should not be climbed on in this way, but in translating that principle into this legislation, they have severely and illogically curtailed it.

Rather than applying the power to all war memorials, they say it must only be one specified by the Home Secretary, and have named just 24 in the initial list included at schedule 14 to the bill. Reading that list, I was pleased to see some very fine memorials indeed, including the response John's splendid memorial to the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, who raised 52 battalions throughout the Great War. More than any other regiment. It stands on the grounds of Saint Thomas Church in the heart of Newcastle city centre, by the Haymarket and the Civic Centre.

It was commissioned by a local shipowner and conservative MP, Sir George Renwick, to commemorate the raising of four of those pals battalions, and later dedicated in thanks for the safe return of Sir George and Lady Renwick's five sons from the Great War. Not as many families were as fortunate as they. Similar stories stand behind each of the two dozen memorials specified in schedule 14, part one, but it is a curious list both for what it does and what it does not contain.

While the government's list has an admirable geographic spread, it doesn't include some of our most well known national memorials, such as the Battle of Britain Monument or the Royal Air Force Memorial, to give just two examples from very close to here on the Victoria Embankment. Their proximity to Parliament makes them, sadly, a focus for protest and vandalism far more frequently than some of the memorials currently specified in the bill, but they are not included in committee. We find out why that was.

Schedule 14 simply specifies those monuments which are presently listed grade one, in heritage and planning terms. Now, while listing system is a vital tool for preserving those assets that we most value as a society, applying it in this way is fraught with problems. Firstly, the government have restricted themselves to those memorials which are presently given the highest designation at grade one. This misses many thousands of memorials which stand proudly in every parish of the kingdom, sacred to the memory of those who laid down their lives in combat, and whose memory surely deserves to be honoured just as much as those inscribed on the memorials set out in schedule 14.

The government have started with a problem of principle, but only addressed it in part. Second, the listing system is predicated on specific criteria, as section one of the Planning Act 1990 puts it, listing is for buildings of special architectural or historic interest. This means that a memorial can be given a higher grading for its sculptural accomplishment than for the subject it celebrates in committee. I gave an example of this. The bill would protect, protect Sir George Frampton's Grade one listed statue of Edith Cavell at Saint Martin's Place, but not Arthur Walker's Grade two listed memorial to Florence Nightingale.

Round the corner in Waterloo Place, is one of these wartime nurses really deserving of greater protection than the other because they happen to have been sculpted by different hands. Thirdly, I worry that this approach will have a chilling effect on the listing system itself. If designating a monument grade one is accompanied by new restrictions and criminal sanctions, will that not deter Ministers and their advisers at Historic England from recommending these higher levels of protection? A better approach, I submit, is to follow what I proposed in my amendment 370, which is to specify any war memorial which has been listed, whether at grade one, grade two or grade two, or which has been designated as a scheduled monument.

This avoids the practical problems I've just set out and answers the problem of principle on which the government and I agree much more squarely, because the other difficulty of basing a list on historical architectural interest is that it produces something very different to a list of those memorials which we know are frequently targeted in political protest. The people of Newcastle, being well brought up and proud of their community, do not need legislation to tell them not to clamber on memorials to their forebears who died in the Great War.

If they ever climb on a monument, it tends to be the one to the second Earl grey, which looms over the city centre. But whether that's because they share the view taken by your Lordships House about the Reform Act of 1832, I wouldn't like to say if the government had simply started by compiling a list of memorials at risk along common routes of protest. They might have included some of the other war memorials and statues of military leaders which lie in Parliament Square and Whitehall, and which are targeted sadly more often than those listed in the current schedule.

During the helpful meeting that I had with the noble Lord Lord Katz about this last week, I asked about Sledmere, which boasts two of the two dozen memorials in the government's initial list. I like to think of myself as someone with a reasonable grasp of the geography of these islands, but I'm afraid I didn't know where in the country Sledmere was. I presumed it must be a hotbed of political protest, given it makes up nearly 10% of the initial list in schedule 14. In fact, it is a peaceable village of just 400 people in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

One of its two entries in the list at schedule 14 is for its Eleanor Cross, not originally a war memorial, but one of the 12 commemorative crosses erected by King Edward I to mark the resting places of the body of his wife, Eleanor of Castile, as she was borne back to Westminster Abbey from Nottinghamshire, where she died in 1290. The most famous of these crosses, of course, is perhaps the final resting place at Charing Cross, the point from which all distances to London are traditionally measured, like the one in London.

The Eleanor Cross at Sledmere is not a 13th century original, but a Victorian replica. It was commissioned in the 1890s by Sir Tatton Sykes, the local squire, and converted into a war memorial by his son sir Mark. He of the Sykes-Picot agreement, who served as a colonel in the Green Howards and as conservative MP for Hull Central. He was at Versailles for the peace conference, but contracted the Spanish influenza and died in February 1918. It was because of its links to him, rather than to Queen Eleanor, that the cross was was was graded at grade 2 in 1966 and only upgraded to grade 1 in 2016, now making it eligible for the government's protection.

I hope that these examples serve to persuade the Minister to accept my more logical solution set out in amendment 370, but in case not, I have also tabled two amendments, 320 372 Za and ZB, suggesting the addition of just two egregious omissions from the government's present list. And I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for signing all those amendments, as he did in committee. During our debate in committee, the noble Lord Lord Katz explained that the Home Secretary has already indicated that she intends to specify the as yet unbuilt Holocaust Memorial, which is intended for Victoria Tower Gardens.

Why, then, would she not list the existing Holocaust Memorial Garden in Hyde Park, which was unveiled in 1983? Sadly, that had to be covered in tarpaulin as recently as April 2024 at the advice of the Metropolitan Police, who were concerned that it would be vandalised by anti-Semitic protesters. Similarly, the noble Lord told me in committee that references to individuals or animals in subsection eight A of clause 137, is to allow for the potential consideration of the animals in War Memorial on Park Lane, for which we for the existence of which we must thank the late Dame Jilly Cooper.

If the Home Secretary is willing to consider specifying this memorial to the animals of war, I hope she would agree from the outset to specify the memorial to the women of World War Two, which was unveiled on the 60th anniversary of VE Day by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, who of course herself served in that conflict as a teenage mechanic and driver in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. There are many other memorials that I think worthy of the protections that are set out in clause 137, but I would be particularly curious to know on what grounds the government could possibly disagree with the inclusion of the two that I've set out in those amendments.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Order. Amendment proposed, clause 137,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 137, page 179, line ten. At end. Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise in support of amendment 370. In the name of the amendment 370. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Blencathra. Across this nation, war memorials, often raised by public subscription
18:04
Lord Bishop of Norwich Portrait The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
of pennies here and chutneys there, stand to hold memories. Memories of those who gave their lives. Sons those who gave their lives. Sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins, parents. They're carved in cousins, parents. They're carved in stone, in metal relief, in wood, in marble, or, in the case of the Whipsnade Tree Cathedral in Whipsnade Tree Cathedral in Bedfordshire. A living memorial. Bedfordshire. A living memorial. Planted by Edmund Blythe, World War One veteran, to commemorate his friends that were lost.

They are physical embodiments of of both sacrifice, of courage and of collective memory, often within or within the cartilage of parish churches. Each name both precious to someone and precious in the sight of God. Ordinary people called to do the most extraordinary things in very challenging times, and when they're damaged, it kind of is a a hit in the stomach for the whole of that community. It damages how we build our life together. And in recent years, we've seen a great increase in in younger generations exploring those names, finding out more about those people, giving their lives texture and colour and story.

And I've been very moved by going to a number of different exhibitions in parish churches across the Diocese of Norwich, which have showcased these often very young lives that were snuffed out in their prime for the service of this nation. And so it's deeply distressing when they're damaged, when they're stolen for scrap metal sometimes melted down. The hurt that that causes is immense. So I would hope that these really important memorials, across the length and breadth of this nation can continue to serve as places to pause, to reflect and to think again.

Not again. They are permanent reminders of the horror and destruction and futility of war. So I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will accept the eminently sensible amendment 370 and for all the reasons that were so ably outlined by Lord Parkinson, the the noble Lord. But if if the Lord, noble Lord, the Minister can't support amendment 370, then I would hope that the government would definitely support the two other amendments 370 2ZZA and 377372ZZB.
18:07
18:07
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Parkinson for bringing forward these amendments which seek to ensure that our memorials of national and historic importance are afforded the respect and protection they deserve under the protection they deserve under the new offence created in clause one, three seven. As was noted at committee, the offence of climbing on specified memorials was introduced to address gaps revealed by recent protests around war memorials, such as the Royal Artillery Memorial, and indeed around the statue of our great wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, just outside this place.

It was first introduced as part of the previous government's Criminal Justice Bill, and it is welcome that this government has taken up the mantle under the current drafting. However, only grade one listed memorials are specified together with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, but the list does not capture other memorials of equal national significance. Indeed, as my noble friend has argued so eloquently, using the grade one listed memorials does not serve a real practical purpose. It is much more about administrative ease.

So why does Sledmere get two specified memorials? But the women of World War Two memorials get no such protection. Amendment 370 would broaden the definition of specified memorials to include any war memorial that has been listed or scheduled, not just those which happen to be grade one listed. That approach aligns with the fact that the significance of the memorial is not solely a function of its listing grade, but of the history it commemorates and its role in national remembrance. And expanding the scope in this way provides a more objective and inclusive basis for protection, and avoids arbitrary outcomes based on historical listing decisions.

Amendment 372 complements amendment 370 by adding two memorials of particular national importance the monument to the women of Second of the Second World War in Whitehall, which honours the immense contributions of millions of women during that conflict, and the Holocaust Memorial Garden in Hyde Park, which stands as a poignant reminder of the horrors of genocide, including those memorials recognised, recognises the breadth of sacrifice, the diverse stories that make up our collective history. So I do hope the government will concede to this.

And if they do, and my noble friend is content, then so will I be.
18:09
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
On. >> I'm grateful for. To everyone who spoke in this short but important debate particularly, I'd important debate particularly, I'd say the, the, the, the, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, who spoke very movingly, I thought about the, the, the power of memorials in every community and indeed the hurt that communities do feel when they are damaged or or disrespected. My Lords Amendments three 7370 2ZZA and 372ZZ be put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay seek to expand the list of war and other memorials covered by the new offence of climbing on a memorial provided for in clause one, three, seven, and I'm grateful to him for taking the time to meet with me and officials last week on this issue, and for his thoughtful consideration on how best to achieve the government's aim, and indeed, an aim that I think is shared across the House.

As regards amendments 370, I fully acknowledge that many of the listed in unscheduled memorials covered in the planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 commemorate events and individuals of great national importance. The bill intentionally sets out a clear and fixed list of memorials, which provides certainty for the public, policing and the courts. By contrast, amendment 370 would link the offence to memorials listed or scheduled under two separate Heritage Acts. Those acts encompass a far wider range of structures than the focus lists in this measure, and can change over time.

Therefore, this would introduce an uncertainty about which memorials were captured at any given point, undermining the clarity and consistency that the measure is intended to achieve. And for this reason I cannot support this particular amendment. I am the noble Lord, and perhaps your Lordships' House would be pleased to hear much more disposed towards his amendments 372ZZA and z z b, which seek to end the monument to the Women of World War two and the Holocaust Memorial Gardens in Hyde Park to schedule 14.

Our aim is to ensure that memorials that have been deemed a threat in the course of a protest are covered by the offence and as the noble Lord has explained, these memorials have been targeted in recent years. They are both culturally significant and I agree with him that we need to protect them under this new offence. I am therefore happy to confirm that the government supports these two amendments. The Holocaust Memorial Garden in Hyde Park is, of course, designed to be enjoyed as a garden, and people are free to walk within it.

I've given consideration to the practical issue of whether the police will be able to enforce this offence. The intention, the offence is to capture the act of climbing, and I'm confident it will not capture walking on an installation such as the Holocaust Memorial Garden. Further, there are, of course, other memorials listed in schedule 14, which have steps which may be sat on by members of the public, such as the Royal Artillery Memorial in Hyde Park. I am content that in enforcing this offence, police officers will use their discretion to consider whether an offence is committed.

My Lords, as I've previously stated, the provision includes a power for the Home Secretary to add further memorials by secondary legislation. Perhaps this might indeed include these Statute of Frauds and Waterloo places as as mentioned by both the noble Lord Lord Fox and indeed the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, this government will be able to add to the list of protected memorials should a site be identified that requires inclusion. I remain of the view, however, that not every memorial or every memorial can be included.

To do so would make the measure unenforceable due to the number of memorials and many by their nature. For example, commemorative plaques can't be climbed on. That said, I accept we need a clear process for deciding whether to add further memorials to schedule 14. We will commit to setting out the process through which the government will add to the specified list of memorials. Through secondary legislation, we will ensure its methodical and structured approach to consider which memorials have a significant public interest of being included.

We'll set out the process shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. And as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson did refer to in his speech, this does include the Home Secretary's already indicated the National Holocaust Memorial, which is when, when, when it is has finally been built. I hope I've been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that a combination of the addition of the memorials specified in his amendments 372, z z and z z b, and the process I've outlined for considering the case for adding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further memorials will persuade him to withdraw amendment 370. Well, my Lords, I'm very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for that response, and thank him again for the time that he and his officials gave me last he and his officials gave me last week to discuss this in detail. I'm grateful to you, particularly to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, the Noble and Bishop of Norwich, the Noble and learned, Baroness Butler-sloss, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for their support. As the Gower for their support.

As the right reverend Prelate said, these stand very often on hallowed ground, but they are cherished and sacred
18:14
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
to people of all faiths and and non and inspire new generations to learn about the sacrifices of the learn about the sacrifices of the past. I do continue to think the the solution in 370 is the more logical one, but I'm very grateful to the Minister for what he's said to the Minister for what he's said in support of the other two amendments three, seven, two, Z, Z, A and B, which give an indication A and B, which give an indication that the Home Secretary is indeed willing to use the powers in clause 137 where needed, to make sure that these protections can be afforded to statues that are targeted by protesters and criminals.

So I'm very grateful to him. I will not press my amendment 370, and I look forward to seeing the two additions to the list and indeed, the vigilance of the Home Office and police in the years to come to see where others may need to be added.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alas, if necessary, I beg leave to well, I will not move. Your Lordships pleasure, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your Lordships pleasure, but amendment 370 be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment three, amendment 371 Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson of Flint. My Lords, these amendments seek

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, these amendments seek to achieve a similar aim to an amendment tabled at committee, which the government withdrew following concerns raised by the
18:15
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
benches opposite in bringing back these amendments. I hope the revised drafting directly addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords at committee, who felt the initial offence was drawn too widely. Amendment 371 explicitly requires Amendment 371 explicitly requires the protest to be taking place outside a public office holders home for an offence to be made out, rather than the broad activity reflected in the Committee stage amendment. Importantly, a person must be carrying on the protest must be carrying on the protest because of or in connection with the public office holders role.

Amendment 376 further amend section 42 and 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which confer powers to direct protests away from a person's home so as to remove the requirement that protest activity must be linked to a specific future action. As I stated at committee, this change ensures that harassing or intimidatory protests outside homes of individuals are captured, regardless whether they relate to past or future conduct. I do recognise the question raised by the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower about whether additional legislation is truly necessary to protect the homes of public office holders holders.

The government view is that there is an unequivocal need. We're not just talking about providing a feeling of safety to elected representatives, we're talking about the safety of their families. To this principle is far more foundational to the resilience of the public office holder, and thus to democracy itself, under under the Defending Democracy policing protocol drafted and agreed by the former security Minister and then and the then Prime Minister, the previous government set out a very clear expectation. Any protest outside the homes of elected representatives should be treated as harassment.

That intent of the previous government is what this amendment now achieves. My Lords, the role of elected representatives is the backbone of our democracy. Yet the security Minister has heard firsthand from colleagues of tempered what they what they see, or even how they vote because of intimidating behaviour targeted at their homes and their families. We know, too, that some, particularly women, are indeed, those from minority backgrounds are choosing not to stand for office because of the abuse they fear they will face. My Lords, that is not democracy.

That is democracy shrinking. This legislation will give public office holders and their families an additional layer of protection. It would help ensure that they can carry out their duties without fearing what awaits them at their front door, and it will allow their partners, their children and their loved ones to feel safe where safety should be most assured and in their homes. Let me be absolutely clear. Protest, as I said earlier, is a fundamental democratic right and this government defends it vigorously.

There are proper, powerful places for protest outside constituency offices, outside parliament, at town halls, at political events, at rallies. But the home is different. It's where family life happens. It's where our children sleep, where our partners work, where people retreat from public life. It must not become an area for intimidation or a no go zone. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 137, insert the new clause which is 137, insert the new clause which is printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Katz given by the noble Lord, Lord Katz protests outside office holders homes are in a special category.
18:19
18:19
18:19
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the in committee I raised some strong objections to the amendment. The government was the amendment. The government was the government were proposing. Then. We were concerned that the proposals could inadvertently criminalise canvassing and leafleting. And Officer Holder from a rival political party. And we were also concerned about the proposed second aspect of the offence, which could criminalise making representations about a matter relating to the office holders private capacity. So I do still have reservations about the principle behind amendment 371.

I do not accept the government's argument that all protests outside a public officer office holders dwelling constitutes harassment. That is the stated view of the government. I think that is demonstrably false. If a protest outside a public office holders home becomes actual harassment within the meaning of the law, then that should be prosecuted as such. And if the protest breaches the peace or becomes highly disruptive, then there are already laws to deal with that. But simply saying that any person who wishes to make representations to a politician about their actions or policies outside their houses, harassment and therefore unlawful, seems to me to be disproportionate infringement on liberty.

Having said that, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for taking on board our comments and the amendment the government have tabled for report is much improved and far more tightly drafted, and I welcome this. So could the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that the definition of a protest in the amendment will not include canvassing and leafleting, or asking someone to sign a petition? I think we would all benefit from this being on the record, given the government have listened to our concerns.

Whilst not completely content, we will not oppose this amendment.
18:21
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and particularly I'd like debate, and particularly I'd like to thank the noble Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, because I feel that this Dispatch Box I don't always meet the the high bar she sets in terms of defending the government's position. So it's always good to win her, win her praise. Picking up briefly on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davis. The government is committed to defending democracy, and I so therefore assure the noble Lord that amendment 71 does not restrict political campaigning.

It is, my Lords, perfectly legitimate for campaigners during election time to door knock and to speak to their local public office holders about different political opinion. Where this crosses the line is when these people choose to protest against the public office holder at their home. These government amendments are vital to protecting our democracy. As my friend the Security Minister has made clear, harassment and intimidation must never be accepted as part of a public office holders role. This cannot become the new normal and the scale of the problem cannot be overstated.

It is not simply MPs either. My Lords. The Local Government Association's Debate Not Hate survey in 2025 found that 7 in 10 councillors have experienced abuse or intimidation in the previous year. The speakers conference reported that an astonishing 96% of MPs who responded to their survey had suffered at least one form of abuse, intimidation or harassment. This demonstrated demonstrates that this is a real problem. Harassment is not simply confined to online spaces. It's very active in the in the in the real world too.

We must therefore put protections in place not only to keep public office holders safe, to ensure they feel safe as well their families are protected. And so with that, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 37 one be agreed to? As many as are that opinion will say content country not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Amendment 30 71A Lord Walney. My Lords. It's a it's a pleasure to lead

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a it's a pleasure to lead off this grouping on on Counter-extremism my my amendment Counter-extremism my my amendment
18:23
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
30 71A tabled with co-sponsors the noble Lords panic and Goldsmith and noble Lords panic and Goldsmith and Hogan-Howe would create a limited mechanism to give the government the option to seek parliamentary approval, to restrict the activities of an extreme criminal activities of an extreme criminal protest group which is dedicated to committing criminal damage for committing criminal damage for political purposes. It would do so without branding individuals or the group as terrorists, and it expressly rules out criminalising mere expressions of support that do not encourage illegal conduct.

So if it had been applied instead of terrorist prescription, if it is applied instead of terrorists, it would avoid the controversy of people being arrested for holding up signs in the manner that that has happened so recently with Palestine action under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000, following concerns in the Committee that the original amendment was too broad and risked unduly restricting freedom of speech and association, we have substantially narrowed its scope. The number of offences here has been narrowed to riot, violent disorder, criminal damage or attempts to interfere with key national infrastructure.

There is no possibility of widening this criteria without further primary legislation, so subsection 4D has been clarified so that assisting a designated group is only an offence where the individual is knowingly furthering the group's aims. Expressions of support for a group that do not amount to encouragement or assistance of criminal activity are expressly not criminalised in this text. My Lord, contrary to what I suspect the noble Lord, the Minister may be about to say in response, this proposal is timely now, despite the government's ongoing appeal against the High Court judgement that ruled the terrorist proscription of Palestine action to be disproportionate, disproportionate.

Indeed, the pending appeal makes it all the more timely. This amendment does not affect that appeal itself. It makes no comment on the wisdom or otherwise of the government's assessment that Palestine action had met the terrorism threshold after its five year long campaign of criminal damage and occasional use of violence. If passed. This proposal would, however, allow Ministers to seek parliamentary approval through a Statutory Instrument to restrict the activities of a future criminal group that held the purpose, the strategic intent and the practice.

The track record of using criminal damage for political purposes like Palestine Action did. This is another way in terms of specifying purpose and practice, that the amendment has been tightened from the text debated at Committee stage. Thus, it would allow action in a future, in a future scenario, to be taken much sooner. Before the group had met the terrorism threshold, the penalties applied for offences would be lower up to three years imprisonment rather than 14 years under the up to 14 years under the Terrorism Act.

It would not criminalise expressions of support, as I've said, and it would avoid those convicted being saddled with an offence under the Terrorism Act for the rest of their lives. And if the government's appeal against Palestine ruling is unsuccessful, this would provide an alternative to deter the group's group's malign activities. Should those activities be resumed once prescription was lifted. This is just one of the reasons why the House should not take the advice, which I suspect the noble Lord the Minister, is about to give, not to accept this amendment and wait instead for the outcome of the review by the noble Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and then, inevitably, to push this issue down the road for the next crime or public order bill, perhaps years hence.

We all look forward to hearing Lord MacDonald's views, but the government itself is not waiting for his view when it wants to take swift action in other areas, such as the cumulative impact caused by protests. And I hope, by the way, that the noble Lord, the Minister, will also accept my amendment 30 77A to extend the cumulative impact provisions that he has laid in applying to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act to section 13, thus giving the police the power to recommend a march does not go ahead on a particular day.

If the cumulative impact is sufficiently severe, but back to 30 71A there have been, of course, many reviews in this territory, including my own when I served as the government's independent adviser on public political violence and disruption. That review made this recommendation on extreme criminal protest groups. That is encapsulated in amendment 371 A it made that recommendation when it was published. When the review was published in May 2024, nearly two years ago, this is an appropriate time to act.

It is an appropriately limited measure that can make a significant difference, while completely preserving the right to protest and freedom of expression and association. There are a range of views in this, in this House and of course in the country over the prescription of Palestine action, whether it was right or wrong, it is undeniable that the measure and its impact has been divisive and it has been controversial. The sight of people being holding, being arrested and charged for holding up signs is uncomfortable.

Whether or not you blame the law or the police or the protesters themselves. But while there is a legal basis for the serious economic damage encapsulated in the definition of the Terrorism Act in of terrorism in the in the 2000 act, I would hazard there is not great public support or understanding for branding as terrorist. Those whose methods are largely limited to the intimidation that comes from criminal damage. Even though I am one of those who supported and continued this prescription, and continues to hope that the appeal, the government's appeal will be successful, there would, however, be far wider support for a mechanism such as this that inhibits such a group from impacting the lives of working people and the public.

Through this, a sustained campaign of criminal damage, no matter what the the legitimacy of the progressive cause in of itself, this would enable us to stop the lives of working people and the public and the public being ruined by by restricting the ability of individuals to fundraise for such a group, to recruit, to organise, and even, of course, as we have seen before, Palestine action were prescribed to broadcast them those crimes proudly on social media.

So I very much hope that noble Lords will support amendment 371 A today.
18:31
18:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the Lord Lord Walney for bringing forward amendment 371 a and for all noble Lords who have added their name to it. I thank the members of your Lordships House who have spoken to it, not as yet, but who will be speaking to it. Hopefully this amendment is eminently sensible. My Lords, we have heard of several examples already of groups which engage in criminal and intimidating behaviour for further to further their ideological ends, but who don't necessarily pass the terrorism threshold.

There is no justification for their continued lawful existence, but to prescribe them as terrorists obfuscates the meaning of the category and incorporates inactive supporters within the definition. The pertinent example of this is Palestine action. I will not speculate on whether their behaviour actually does amount to terrorism, but the actions of their supporters following their prescription highlights the necessity for action. And of course, an organisation that damages defence infrastructure and attacks members of the public should cease to exist.

But for the police to then have to spend precious time arresting hundreds of protesters with placards is clearly not ideal, and it may seem morally dubious on behalf of those protesters, but I think we can all agree that they are a far cry from the archetypal terrorist supporters of, say, ISIS or the Taliban. Most importantly, it is a waste of police time to have to deal with sanctimonious protesters who otherwise peacefully support the general ideological cause. And that is why we entirely support the noble Lords Amendment.

Our amendment 371 B introduces a minor change to the drafting that reflects our belief that the prescription of groups to this category should not be contingent on whether they fulfil the criteria of both subsections one A and one B. So, my Lords, individually, both the actions in both subsections should merit a protest group being prescribed and prohibited from taking further action. If a listed crime is committed, that creates a serious risk to the safety of the public, then the line is crossed from dissent to danger.

And I think that noble Lords can agree that whether a group is further an ideological end or not, this should merit prescription. The very act of a group entering an arms factory with sledgehammers should preclude their existence, regardless of motive. That said, my Lords, ideological motive is also a factor that should be considered in its own right. If a group shuns peaceful protest and becomes willing to commit criminal offences in further offences to further a political end, then that should be grounds to ban them.

Take, for example, the activist group who have consistently engaged in criminal damage, vandalism and intimidation in the name of so-called transgender rights. To take one example, as I'm sure any noble friend, sure, my noble friend Lady Cash will highlight. They recently sprayed paint, spray painted the office building of the Equality and Human Rights Commission for simply declaring that biological sex is biological sex. My Lords, this vandalism is an offence under section one of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and should result in a group being prescribed.

I am, however, wary that spray paint and other forms of vandalism may not be seen to create a risk of serious harm to public safety, and I am not confident that with the right lawyers, the action of these groups could result in not being prescribed because of a technicality. Criminality alone introduces the possibility of restricting the practice of a protest group. Whether this is augmented by either a risk to public safety or by an intention to influence political decision making, should confirm that decision.

That being said, my Lords, I will reaffirm my support to the noble Lords original amendment. It is pertinent. It is a pertinent time for this debate, and I do believe that amendment 37 one finds the right balance between prohibiting criminal activity and permitting peaceful support. I hope that all members of your Lordships' House can recognise the rationale of moving away from a rigid binary between terrorism and protest, and acknowledge that it is a spectrum that will benefit from more nuance. His Majesty's loyal opposition will support this amendment.

I look forward to hearing the noble Lord Lord Walney and the Minister's closing remarks.
18:36
18:36
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
I added. >> My name to Lord Walney amendment 30 71A as the noble Lord mentioned, the House will be very familiar the House will be very familiar with the problems that have arisen from the use of the power of the Secretary of State has to proscribe Secretary of State has to proscribe a terrorist group. The virtue of amendment 30 71A is that it avoids any such description. It focuses upon the severe mischief which we know certain groups are causing in our society, and who could object to the Secretary of State having a power by regulations to designate a group as an extreme criminal protest group? If there's a reasonable belief that their purpose and their practice is the deliberate commission of the serious offences which are set out in this amendment, that is riots, violent disorder, destroying or damaging property, and interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure, surely the Secretary of State should have power to take action, particularly when, as the amendment requires, those offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy.

Parliamentary debate, ministerial decision making or the exercise of democratic functions, and they create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others. We all support the right to protest, but there are limits, and the limits clearly are breached by conduct, deliberate conduct, the purpose of which is to act in the way that is set out in Lord Walney tightly drawn amendment. And, as he's pointed out, he has avoided in his drafting the real problem that has arisen in the Palestine action case, that people are criminalised by reason of support for that, that body that has caused problems.

The Court of Appeal case is pending, but this amendment avoids those difficulties. So I support this. I do hope that the Minister will not tell the House that we should wait. This is not the time that we should wait in particular for Lord MacDonald of River Glavine's report. I too have the highest regard for my noble friend Lord MacDonald. But we should bear in mind that in this bill the government has not waited for Lord MacDonald's report in relation to a number of provisions relating to public order in particular, and rightly so, on cumulative disruption.

So I say to the House, let's deal with this. This is a legislative opportunity. It's a pressing problem and we should deal with it now.
18:39
18:40
Lord Goodman of Wycombe Portrait Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Conservative)
-
-
for short debate on the same subject, which the Minister again gave a holding reply. But, my Lords, gave a holding reply. But, my Lords, it is third time lucky for today. On the very day of this debate, the government has published a counter-extremism strategy, or rather a cohesion strategy, of which counter-extremism is a part which counter-extremism is a part which I believe is being announced in the other place as I speak now. in the other place as I speak now. So the timing appears to show, if nothing else, the power of your Lordships House.

And in saying so, I make no complaint for the government to publish a strategy at all is at least a start. And I want to thank the noble Lady Baroness Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelson, the noble Lord Lord Walney, who have co-signed this amendment, as well as other noble Lords, the Liberal Democrat frontbench on our own frontbench who spoke at committee. Now, my Lords, the strategy will be carefully studied during the weeks ahead and it's worth reiterating at the start that only part of it concerns Counter-extremism.

It appears to contain, as one might expect, the good, the not quite so good and the indifferent. The good, for example, includes further action to bar preachers from abroad who incite violence in mosques. The not so good includes to give the same kind of example, no specific action at all. I can see against preachers in this country who incite violence in mosques. I draw the attention of those who doubt. This happens to the evidence regularly published on X by the activist Habib.

As for the indifferent, there is the proposed Special representative for anti-Muslim hostility. Some wanted a fully fledged definition of Islamophobia, claiming a basis in racism. Others wanted no definition at all. What we have is a halfway house. I suspect it will satisfy no one. And on the one hand, initiatives with faith communities such as Interfaith Week Interfaith Week are welcome, assuming the government and others know who they are engaging with, funding or giving platforms to. On the other plans to crack down on hate crimes, in the strategy's own words, are problematic.

The distinction between inciting violence and defending free speech is a difficult one to draw, but it is vital. But on balance, my Lords, I want to, in the words of the old song, accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. It is welcome that the strategy confirms the last government's definition of extremism, which, though not perfect, identifies its core characteristic, namely ideologies that aim to, and I quote, undermine, overturn or replace the UK system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights.

It is also welcome that the strategy recognises clearly and unequivocally, though Islamist extremism is very far from being the only challenge of this kind, it is the predominant form responsible for three quarters of the workload of contest, and 94% of all terror related deaths in the past 25 years. The challenges we must confront are terrorism at worst and balkanisation at best, with our United Kingdom divided up into in living practice, if not constitutional fact into ethnic and religious enclaves.

The precedent of Northern Ireland during the Troubles is not an encouraging one, and one I'm sure none of us want to see. So if the strategy is to work, much will hinge on a single word implementation. Can the government see the best of it through? If the strategy is to be coherent? Applying to out-of-school settings schools, universities, the NHS, prisons, police, charities, civil society and government itself three essentials are required first, clarity, authority and strength at the centre.

The way our governmental system works, for better or worse, is that until or unless number ten wants something to happen, it won't happen and even then, it may not. The strategy proposes a new inter-ministerial working group and regular reporting to the Prime Minister. This is an admirable aim. I fear it won't cut the mustard. What's required, rather, is a Cabinet Minister, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or perhaps a deputy Prime Minister charged with responsibility for delivering the strategy, and who speaks and acts with the Prime Minister's authority? I regret in passing the apparent non-replacement of Robin SIM cards as the Commissioner for Counter Extremism.

Second, the strategy needs to work not only at the centre of government but throughout the country, in civil society and local communities. And the closer the state is to local communities, the easier it is in pursuit of a quiet life to engage with, fund and work with extremists. If noble Lords want an example, they need look no further than the horrifying recent developments in Birmingham, where the West Midlands Police bowed to an extremist mob over a football game, conjure up evidence that doesn't exist to justify its decision.

And then, in the words of Nick, Timothy lied and lied again about its actions, including to Parliament. Three of the eight mosques at the West Midlands Police consulted over its decision had hosted preachers who promoted conspiracy theories or called for the death of Jews. I am a localist by temperament, but suspect that Westminster and Whitehall will need strong powers of intervention. Finally, national government, the public sector and local government will require a level of political and religious literacy that does not necessarily come easy.

And it is again welcome that the strategy recognises this fact. If, for example, members of the crowd begin to chant during a demonstration Shaybah Shaybah Yahud, Jaish e Mohammed Sufa Yahud, local police need to understand what the chant means and the threat it makes. Most of us don't speak Arabic, aren't Muslims, don't study political thought, may have no sympathy with religion in any event, and may simply and mistakenly identify Islam, the ancient faith with Islamism, the modern ideology, the Islamists and the far right have a common interest in presenting Islamism falsely as the historical and living mainstream worldwide.

The far right to target Muslims, the Islamists to it to recruit their children. Religious solutions to that last challenge lie in the hands of the traditional classical Islam, not the state, but government must at least know who it's dealing with. Act accordingly, protect members of all faiths and none, and actively work for the one nation ideal. The strategy offers at least a glimpse of it, so I will not. When the time comes, seek to test the opinion of the House in relation to our amendment.

I welcome the strategy's publication, but now the real work begins here.
18:47
Lord Goldsmith Portrait Lord Goldsmith (Labour)
-
-
I put my name to amendment 371A Lord Walney amendment, and I want Lord Walney amendment, and I want to just say a word about that, because it's a bit of an unusual event for me to do that, but I want to take the opportunity of saying something also about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower as an amendment to Lord Walney amendment. I have essentially two reasons for wanting to support the amendment that Lord Walney put forward. Obviously, he did it from a position of great knowledge and experience in relation to these areas, and I therefore would take what he says and what he proposes very seriously indeed.

First of all, the first reason is because what he is suggesting is that particular conduct should be illegal. And can it be doubted that it should be illegal if one looks at the constituents elements of this, it would be a serious crime being promoted deliberately for the purpose of persuading a particular political point of view, but also that it would be activities which create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others.

And that it should be for Parliament on the sea, on the application of the Secretary of State to determine whether a particular group satisfies those requirements. Now that makes it in my, in my view, right, for it to be unlawful and right for it to be unlawful without having to go through the difficulties which have been referred to already by noble Lords, of proscribing an organisation as terrorist. I'm not expressing any view in relation to that. I actually supported what the government did, but it's now for the courts to make their determinations.

And and I don't want to say anything which might suggest otherwise, but this amendment, if it were the law, would make it very, very clear that in a limited category of case where these requirements are met, that would be undoubtedly illegal without having to have issues. There are safeguards there. Parliament has to be involved in that. Secondly, it's clear that it's not proscription as terrorism that's stated clearly in the amendment. Thirdly, that all these elements need to be satisfied. And that's why I come back to this, to the noble Lord, Lord Davis of Gower's amendment 371B why don't support that? Because that would have the effect of diluting the requirements by making it possible for this to be a offence, even though one of the conditions which are described in his amendment as conditions 2 or 3 were not met.

So, for example, it would mean that. Even though the activities don't create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others, it would be an offence that goes too far for me, which is why I wouldn't support his amendment to 371A. Having said that, the other issue that will be raised, and I'm sure it will be raised by the noble Lord, the Minister, my noble friend, the Minister. I thank him also for seeing me to discuss this amendment.

Is the timing. I too have great respect for the noble Lord Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. He worked. He and I worked very closely together when we were in government, when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I look forward very much to what he has to say. But I'm troubled. It will take some time. It will have to then be a decision by government as to whether it accepts the recommendations. There will then need to be legislative time. And one thing I do remember very well from government is finding legislative time.

We have a vehicle here. If this is the right thing to do, then this is a moment that it can be done. And that is why I regret to say to my it's my noble friend, I support this amendment and I added my name to it.
18:51
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I've added my name to amendment 419 in support. >> Of Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of Lord. Goodman and the other signatories. It calls for Counter-extremism strategy to be Counter-extremism strategy to be published annually. I am also in support of the gist of all the amendments in this group, which are trying to plug the gap in the law exposed by the unwillingness to follow through on the proscription of Palestine action, insofar as its supporters may be labelled terrorists, but recognises that the activists are carrying out acts of terror, as the court said, that damage the public and our infrastructure.

The government will no doubt say that it has a strategy newly issued as protecting what matters at a time of tension, starting long before the current war with Iran but exacerbated by it. The government has to confront real threats, exemplified, inter alia, by the arrest of four men suspected of working for Iran and being involved in threats to the safety of our community. And there have been more than a dozen Iranian backed attempts at kidnap and murder of our citizens in the last few years, with no doubt more to come.

We are talking matters of life and death. The government's report allegedly identifies Islamist extremism as responsible for most of the terror related deaths in the last 25 years, and it's good to see the government saying what is sometimes deemed unspeakable. The government is also right to resist any attempt to introduce a blasphemy law into Britain. And we recall the innocent Batley Grammar School teacher still in hiding, simply because he was being a professional teacher. Unfortunately, Hamid Coskun was acquitted after burning a Koran.

A nasty act, but not one deserving of special punishment. We remain committed to freedom of speech, no matter how rude, and is not to be silenced by others who find it offensive in their view. But I see some blurring of responsibility in the government's document. As I saw it reported, it is tackling Islamism. What's the different difference between that ideology and Islam in general? Is there not a sliding scale from at the extreme end, wanting to cover the country with Sharia law at the expense of secular law, and that the other going on to be more motivated by what one's religion might demand, supposedly, rather than the law of the land.

Continuing along the blurring theme, if the government's strategy requires the appointment of an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, this is moving away from equal treatment and leaving the door ajar for unquestioned extremism. The definition of anti-Muslim hatred takes us into the realm of policing offence and dilutes the need to call out extremism and danger if perceived. If divisive content is to be regulated, who determines that safe and noise and outrage from those who feel they are being attacked again, risking muzzling dissent and free speech? The government report, I fear, is inadequate in protecting the Jewish community.

Jews don't count. We number precisely 0.4% of the population. But Jews, young and old, are under threat and confront hatred every day in the streets, in schools, in hospitals, in the arts and online. I welcome the government's decision to set up a commission to inquire into anti-Semitism in schools. But it is slow. Anti-Semitism today is disguised as anti-Zionism, as the late noble Lord Sachs pointed out, we see right through that there is no hatred based on, say, China's treatment of minorities or Russia's or African states treatment of Christians.

Jews are singled out the policing of hate marches and vandalism in the name of politics must be strengthened. And it is not going too far to say that the Jewish community's trust in the police and the BBC is faltering. The law must set out police powers in this respect, and vandalism, even in the name of politics, must be severely punished. To see the statue of Churchill defaced tells you all you need to know about countering extremism. How much worse it will be.

If ever there is a start on building a huge, brutal Holocaust memorial next to Parliament. But there is more complication to come. It is reported that the noble Lord Lord Walney, who deserves the utmost admiration of this house in his standing up to terror and extremism and defence of our values and freedom, is reportedly to issue a report, Undue Influence, which blows the government's document out of the water. The noble Lord Lord Walney allegedly reports that there are 30 or so charities linked to Iran which maintain influence here and plot attacks against dissidents and the Jewish community.

Some of them are already under the too slow investigation of the Charity Commission, though it's not its fault, which has called for greater powers. Most chillingly, the noble Lord suggests that there is a reluctance to call them out for fear of being labelled Islamophobic, a fear that might only become worse if the government's strategy of tackling what they see as Muslim hatred is put into place. But that would muffle still further any attempt to expose what might be going on by way of extreme risk.

So on the one hand, the noble Lord Lord Walney warns that fear of being labelled racist has stultified the tackling of Iran linked organisations, while on the other hand, the government wants the anti-Muslim hatred SA to protect Muslims from hate and discrimination. The noble Lord Lord Walney calls for more assertive regulation, but the government wants a cohesion strategy that plays down danger and reassures Muslim communities. The government's proposals, as I read them, would increase fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic.

It would make regulators more cautious and be weaponised by hostile activists to deflect attention away from their plans. The government's SA must be completely limited if it comes about to hate. Crime and regulation, should disregard religion and focus on criminal behaviour, and line must be drawn between domestic problems and the influence of Iran and other hostile states. Influence criticism must not be silenced in considering its balancing act. The government must weigh, on the one hand, the atrocities committed by Islamists in, inter alia, the Manchester Arena, London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, the underground, the Lee Rigby murder, Glasgow Airport, Heaton Park and there are other incidents.

And the risk, on the other hand, of not allowing the identification of further such calamities for fear of Islamophobia. The government needs to draw up a new strategy that protects Muslims at home from discrimination, but not creating an atmosphere that allows hostile organisations to cry Islamophobia when their activities are under scrutiny for fear of terrorism. It's a difficult task and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Goodman and I and the other signatories of this amendment are asking the government to accept this amendment and move forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Tope my name to this amendment of Lord Walney 3718, amendment of Lord Walney 3718, because I think it addresses a difficult area, which is around something that falls short of something that falls short of terrorism, which causes problems both for legislators, policing, and I believe the courts. Terrorism is I believe the courts. Terrorism is fairly well understood. It's it's the application or the threat of violence for a political purpose easily stated. But in this case, it seems to me that there is a gap and there are some indications there might be a gap.

It's not the first time we've been confronted by this problem. And before terrorism was defined, probably by the terrorism that we saw, which started in in Northern Ireland in the 1930s, we saw that people for political motives were parading on the streets, or legislation had to be introduced around uniforms and various other things that indicated that people were trying to use violence or political aspirations to influence government. But in terms of, it seems to me that this gap that's evolved is really around Palestine action.

And there are probably three indicators that there is a need for a solution around a gap that's developed. Number one is we've had the criminal case where a police officer was hit by someone with a hammer, and the people who appeared to have been involved have been found not guilty, and in that case had been appealed. But that's been one issue that has obviously caused some concern for everybody who is affected by that. The police in part, but mainly the businesses that were being attacked by this group.

The second case is the civil case, which is already.
19:00
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
I think in that. >> What happened was the jury could not agree. And there's a retrial of those serious criminal allegations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's quite right. And thank you for that correction. Although clearly they weren't found guilty. I think secondly, in terms of the civil case then this is about prohibition. And the High Court has decided that, in fact, it doesn't prefer the government's judgement that in fact, Palestine action should be a proscribed group. Now, I find that constitutionally quite odd. I understand that sometimes. Obviously the court will come to a different opinion on legislation, but it seems to me the government, faced with the best information possible, has come to a conclusion that there should be prescribed and the court decides that that's not proportionate.

Well, I think whatever the outcome, which I think Lord Walney we're going to is alluded to, we're going to hear eventually on appeal, that needs to be resolved quite quickly, because it's certainly hard to understand, but I think both cases might indicate there was some doubts about the prescription of this group. Most of the time, terrorist groups are fairly obvious. It's mass and indiscriminate, indiscriminate violence that murders tens of people. We don't. We see it and it's very, very obvious. But in this case I did wonder.

But of course, sometimes governments have information that the rest of us don't. But probably one of the other signs is what's already been mentioned by Lord Walney is that when people start to express support for a proscribed group, people then said, well, this is quite odd, why are we arresting them? Well, they didn't have the same qualms about Irish terrorism, and they didn't have the same qualms about ISIS when they were beheading citizens from this country. So it starts to indicate that perhaps there is something different about this group.

So I think Lord Walney amendment has identified a reasonable solution to that gap. And conspiracy alone is not sufficient answer. It is possible to charge them with conspiracy to commit a violent act, conspiracy to riot. But of course, what you can't do is prosecute people who might fund that conspiracy. What this amendment does is to start to address the the protest group and the way that it's funded and the way it is supported. Now, my final point is that it's quite narrowly defined in this sense is that it's about the intent, the intent, which is for serious harm to public safety or intent to affect public policy and democracy.

Both of those are substantial bars to pass before somebody could be convicted of this offence. But I think the government ought to seriously consider filling the gap with this amendment. And if it doesn't, something very much like it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hello. Thank you. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hello. Thank you. Thank you. My Lords. I rise actually to to support three, 71A support for one nine and also for, for one b which I've added my name to. The. It's I've added my name to. The. It's quite clear, my Lords, that attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer or breaking into an sledgehammer or breaking into an RAF base and damaging two planes, causing £7 million of damage, is not a peaceful protest. And I think this amendment 371A rightly targets that grey area between ordinary protest groups and groups that cross the threshold to be prescribed under terrorism law.

And these are groups whose purpose and practice involves the deliberate commission of criminal damage, riot, violent disorder and interference with national infrastructure. So when groups are legislated against often, then splinter groups form and these groups are left to fester. And I think this amendment 3718
19:04
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
gives greater power to the Secretary of State to deal with extremism at its root, rather than extremism at its root, rather than waiting for them to to grow and meet the terrorist threshold. And by this point, then it becomes too late. And the harms which are sometimes irreparable may have sometimes irreparable may have already occurred. So my, my Lords, responsible governance means intervening before that point is intervening before that point is reached. And for those reasons, my Lords, I support this amendment.

I also would like to pay tribute to Lord Goodman for his tenacity and support his amendment. My Lords, often our approach has been far too reactive, notwithstanding the announcement being made in the other place. As Baroness Deech said, the Jewish community in this country knows all too well how rhetoric and ideological radicalisation can create a climate of fear. Between 2024 and 2025, at least ten, and probably more terrorism cases against British Jews or UK based Israeli interests were uncovered thanks to the extraordinary work of the counter-terrorism police and the Community Security Trust.

These plots were foiled. My Lords, we have created an environment where extremism is allowed to grow unchallenged. Are we just going to wait until there's an attack on another attack on a synagogue, or a credible plot against a Jewish school? At that point, my Lord, it's too late. So this amendment, Lord Giddens amendment recognises that extremism rarely appears suddenly. It develops gradually through networks, narratives and campaigns that legitimise hostility. Left unchallenged. These dynamics can become embedded in communities and online spaces, creating an environment where more serious forms of criminality or even terrorism become more likely.

So, my Lords, this amendment I, amendment four nine, is about ensuring that our response to extremism is enduring, is coordinated and strategic. And above all, it's about ensuring that the government are equipped with the tools and the institutional framework necessary to address extremism before it escalates into violence. And finally, my Lords, Amendment 441, in this group, in the name of Lord Walney, Baroness Foster and myself, this amendment seeks to ensure that organisations which promote or support criminal conduct, or which attempt to subvert the constitutional integrity or democratic institutions of the United Kingdom, are prohibited from receiving public funds.

My Lords, such a safeguard is well overdue. It would ensure taxpayers money cannot, whether deliberately or inadvertently, support organisations whose activities threaten public safety or the foundations of our democracy. Public funds should strengthen society, not subsidise those who seek to destabilise it. It remains, my Lords, far too difficult to challenge organisations to continue to receive public support, despite clear evidence that their leaders promote extremist ideologies, including those who openly aspire to replace democratic governments with a religious caliphate.

This loophole allows public money to reach bodies fundamentally at odds with our democratic principles. So, my Lords, this amendment would close that unacceptable gap. It would protect public funds from misuse, send an unequivocal message that any attempt to undermine the democratic institutions of the United Kingdom should and will not be tolerated.
19:08
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. Lords Lord Walney, Goldsmith, panic and Lord Hogan-Howe actually for listening at committee because there were reservations raised. And I think therefore it's really refreshing and unusual to have an amendment brought back that's tried to take into account some of the issues that were raised in all good faith. And I do think the fact that the amendments being now posed as not unduly undermining freedom of speech or association with that very much in mind, and doesn't criminalise expressions of support, I think is very useful.

And the fact that it's so narrow, so much narrower in scope does make it much more, I think, possibly something like support. Not that everyone's been waiting for that point, but nonetheless, but nonetheless. And I and I do think what it's trying to do, which is a more serious point, is the pre prescription point. I think this is really important because I do. My dread is that what's happened with Palestine, actually with getting into the court case is discredited.

What prescription is about and watered down what people think terrorism is. And I think these kind of much more granular attempts at making distinctions are so important. So anyway, so that that's on that I, I, I do, however, think that we need to still acknowledge in relation to this whole group of amendments, the dangers here of what we mean by extremism, especially today, when we've had the government's anti-extremism pronouncements or they're coming out, that we should acknowledge that those who hold the pen on any legal definition of extremism acquire extraordinary powers to curtail free speech, to criminalise people and so on.

And it makes it a difficult issue in a democratic, pluralist society. There's invariably a wide range of beliefs and opinions that can be dubbed extremist. And that means that we have some potholes to negotiate around, and it can lead to partisan, subjective and political labelling of dissenting views that can be dubbed extremist. So I want to raise that because I don't think it's straightforward. We might all think that we know what we mean when we say extremist. And all the examples that I've heard today are things which I agree, I think, oh yes, extremists.

I, I don't like them either. I'll dub them extremists. The problem is, is that when it's used a bit more promiscuously, and if the definition is of extremism, that's something that completely undermines democratic norms and values. Can I just say that up until recently, I would have thought that anyone attacking the Democratic norm that has gone on for, you know, hundreds of years a key legal protection, legal protection traditionally afforded to due process. Anyone attacking that I would have thought was an extremist.

But now we have a government pushing through abolishing jury trials. And I meant to accept that as like being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

straightforward and I'm sorry. For giving way. I just wanted to I mean, thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to I mean, thank her obviously, for recognising what has been done in this amendment, but also just to suggest to her that the amendment doesn't actually talk about extremism. It talks about extreme criminal protest groups and it may reassure her. I think that the definition doesn't depend upon the particular views being put forward, being extremist. being put forward, being extremist. It's really the actions that are extreme, the particular conduct, the riot and so forth. I just offered that as perhaps reassuring her on the point that she's making,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which otherwise I'm listening to very carefully. Thank you very much for that clarity. And I think in relation to clarity. And I think in relation to that amendment, it's true. I was actually really kind of going on to to talk about why on both to talk about why on both sympathetic to amendment 1419 calling on the government to publish Counter-extremism strategy, publish Counter-extremism strategy, but recognising that when we do that, we have to acknowledge that this is a difficult area. And I this is a difficult area.

And I think that actually the amendment that's been referred to the First Amendment has carefully avoided it being on views and opinions. But not all the amendments in this group do I and so I I'm just making the point that that that we have to be very careful when we talk about extremism. Yes. On on amendment 419 the I mean, it is actually true that that one should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord government of Wickham for for his persistence, as has been said.

But if I can just say why I like this particular amendment, it's actually calls for the amendment. Sorry for a review to be published annually. So the fact that there's been an acceptance today that there is a strategy doesn't make this amendment irrelevant, because actually, I think we need to carry on updating and looking again and again and very carefully at what it is we mean. And laying it before Parliament seems important. The pre-emption of the new social cohesion document, protecting what matters, certainly is being posed as an anti extremism strategy, but actually is likely to get itself into all sorts of difficulties, precisely because this uncertainty about what we mean by extremism, you know, the beyond the controversy of the special representative on matters of anti-Muslim hostility, which the noble Lady Baroness Deech has already talked about the difficulties there.

And I'm very anxious. And if I can just say that I've been contacted since the announcements come out by people who've been working on the grooming gangs, who are worried that they will fear that they wouldn't be able to raise it with this definition, even though they're not quite sure what it is yet. So fair enough. But people who are academics, working on cousin marriage and so on and so forth, by the way, there's been some enthusiasm on certain quarters to say we should now name and shame all the anti, the all the media organisations who are dominated by anti-Muslim hatred.

So you can already see that, as it were, the supporters of this new definition, such as it is, are gearing up to start pointing fingers and have started naming names. So I think it's fair enough. But you know, this, this leaked document that said that national symbols like the Union Flag can be a tool of hate, used to intimidate and exclude or extremist symbol and so on. You can see why people would be anxious when we're asking universities to manage external speakers, to ensure that we keep our extremists, which apparently is in the document.

I mean, I'm not quite sure that I want university managers who tend to be on the progressive side, deciding who the extremists are, and especially on a day when we've just heard that 27 UK Islamic university societies have actually had memorials to Iran's Supreme Leader, UCL, Imperial, Bristol, Leeds, Warwick, all sorts of places, Cambridge and that that sort of it seems to me it's not the external speakers, it's what's happening in the universities themselves. Or when we think about Professor Michael Ben Gad, who has been called an extremist by his own students, an economics lecturer because he was in the IDF and has been threatened to be beheaded, or the rabbi in the University of Leeds, the Jewish chaplain, who only a couple of years ago, his wife and two children were forced into hiding.

And the university authorities have let all that happen. So I'm simply raising the point that although there's a strategy out and we've got a group of amendments, we all think we know what we mean by extremism. I don't think it's that easy, and I don't think this strategy will solve all problems. And therefore, I would actually like to say that the annual call for a discussion on what extremism is, where we're at with it, and a full and open discussion not just in Parliament, but with the public, rather than treating the public as though they're the problem, the extremists who need to be managed and policed, that we should be having a much more open and full discussion about what it is that we're trying to problems, that is, we're trying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

NESO. I just very quickly. Briefly say. That I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I. Would also like to see highlighted in any reports that will be coming forward, and I support particularly my noble friend Lord Goodman. And Lord friend Lord Goodman. And Lord Wavell, is the attacks that the increasing attacks that are happening now in the Hindu and Sikh,
19:17
19:17
19:17
19:18
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
today to publish an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility and appoint a tsar to ensure that and appoint a tsar to ensure that that definition is observed. I think that there are already think that there are already adequate protections in the law for people of all faiths. I'm thinking in particular of the proscription of the stirring up of religious hatred in the Public Order Act 1986, but also the proscription of discrimination by employers, whether of employees or applicants for jobs service providers, the prescription of discriminating against people on religious grounds.

And I'm not persuaded that Muslims need particular protections over and above those protections that all faith groups are granted under the law. And I am not convinced that in a city like Leicester, for instance, publishing a definition of anti-Muslim hostility but not anti-Hindu hostility will allay rather than exacerbate community tensions. And I hope there will be an opportunity for. Our Lordships House to opine on the entire plan, action plan that's been unveiled today. When, when, when the statement is discussed by this House in due course.

I would, however, like to say that I support Lord Walney amendment. I do think there are some groups, extreme criminal protest groups, who don't deserve the kind of free speech protections that other groups deserve precisely because they use their free speech, their right to protest in order to bully and intimidate, to threaten those who they seek to silence. The free speech Union was itself the victim of an extreme criminal protest group that my noble friend referred to in the course of speaking to this amendment and the and the supplementary amendment.

Bash back who? Stole some data from the Free Speech Union's website in a cyber attack, the details of some small donors, some of whom had donated to some extremely sensitive crowdfunding campaigns in the expectation that they were doing so privately. But that data was stolen and then published on Bash Backs website. And not only is that designed to silence those whom it disagrees with, but to also intimidate and bully, to threaten an organisation which is simply defending the right to speak of those that bash back in particular disagrees with.

So I think there are circumstances in which the Home Secretary should have the power to designate and prescribe certain extreme criminal protest groups. And I do think that this more nuanced measure, particularly with the supplementary amendment, is a more attractive alternative to the present arrangement. So in addition to defending a wide variety of people who who who haven't broken the law, the Free Speech Union is currently engaged in defending a Palestine action protester who was arrested and has been charged just for expressing support for Palestine action for holding up a sign saying I support Palestine action and I think it's very difficult to defend the prosecution of people who merely express support for what I would think of as an extreme criminal protest group, but not a terrorist group.

So I would urge your Lordships to support Lord Warner's amendment. I think it does create a degree of nuance and prescribing groups that deserve to be prescribed, without also making it a criminal offence to express support for those groups, I think is a a welcome compromise.
19:22
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, if I may turn first to Lord Warner's Amendment 371 a. Lord Warner's Amendment 371 a. >> And I say. >> At the outset that we are broadly supportive of that amendment, though having some hesitation about it. The concept of hesitation about it. The concept of the new category of extreme criminal protest groups who are not prescribed groups, has real merit and is plainly an attempt to plug an uncomfortable gap, and I agree, we agree with the noble Lord Lord Walney and in particular with noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, when he pointed out that Unlawfulness is at the heart of this amendment, and the fact that the amendment would state that the group or states that the group must have as its purpose and practice the deliberate commission of one of a series of serious offences, that those offences would be carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision making or the exercise of democratic functions, and that the activities create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others.

Those provisions make it clear that extreme criminal protest groups are well named, but they also make it clear that all the provisions as a whole would make it clear that it is not appropriate for proscription of those groups, whereby any support for the proscribed groups is made a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act. My Lords, if the amendment would avoid the prosecution of peaceful protesters for peaceable support of groups that could be branded terrorism under the terrorist act, then we could support it unconditionally, because there would then be a hierarchy of offences.

At the top of the tree would be offences under the Terrorism Act. Then the treatment of groups which were qualified as extreme criminal protest groups under the the Walney amendment. But the government has not committed and would not commit, and I don't suppose they will at this stage commit to end prosecutions for peaceable protesters under the Terrorism Act. It may be that that will change after the MacDonald review. It may be that will change if the government's appeal against the decision of the High Court in relation to Palestine action is unsuccessful.

But our position is that it would plainly be helpful to have a middle course, and I thought that the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe pointed out that in very sensible terms, and the noble Lady Baroness Fox articulated the same point very well, but in a different way. But the problem that we see with the amendment is that it doesn't affect the Terrorism Act, and there would remain the potential for prosecution of peaceful protesters under that act as the law stands.

So we have decided with some hesitation that it is probably sensible to await the MacDonald review, and I accept that I'm making that point in the face of the point or the argument made by the noble Lord Lord Pannick, that we shouldn't be asking for any legislation along the lines of the the amendment to wait at all. Of course there is the problem. And I say this to the noble Lord, the Minister, that not accepting this amendment leaves us with the limited choice of the Terrorism Act or nothing.

And that is a very unfortunate position to be in. But we do also have some concerns with the drafting of the amendment, and they're not minimal concerns. Three B promotion of a designated SPG, including public advocacy, recruitment or dissemination of the group's materials would be an offence. Would three B cover handing out leaflets or carrying posters or flags in a peaceable way? At subsection Subclause three, providing material support, training, funds or equipment to the group with a person knows or only or reasonably to know that the recipient is a designated ECP.

So the level of knowledge required is very low. What is material support, I ask, and what would count as equipment? Would posters, flags or banners count as equipment? And it would be considerably worrying if the answer to those questions was positive. So in sum, our position is this we are broadly supportive. We believe there should be a middle category, but we are concerned about the amendment as it stands. But it follows that that our position is that the government should be seriously considering its position between now and Third Reading.

They should listen to the very strong feeling in the House that something is needed in the way of a middle course that would prevent these prosecutions for peaceable protest and support under the Terrorism Act, and that they should then come back to the House at Third Reading with an amendment that could could answer the criticisms and gain widespread support. I'd only add, finally, that we have considerable sympathy with Lord Feldman amendment calling for the publication of a strategy.
19:28
19:30
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Yes, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Well, there's a lot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe. 371B has been withdrawn, but is that correct? Is that what you've that correct? Is that what you've just said? But we now proceed with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister, and then I take 371 A. Well, there's been a lot discussed this evening, my Lords, discussed this evening, my Lords, and I'll try and respond to the amendments as best as I can. First of all, I welcome the fact that the noble Lord Walney has moved his amendment today. I did have the chance to talk to him earlier today online. And he has he has arrived in time, and I'm pleased that he is here to do that.

And he's had support from across the house, from the noble Lord Polak, from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, from the noble Lord Pannick, from. Noble Lord Davis in part. And I thank him for his amendments today. Also, other noble Lords and ladies have spoken in favour of the legislation, and I note the comments that were made by the noble Baroness Deech, by Baroness Verma, and in the context of this debate, also by the noble Lord Hogan-Howe. And I'll come on to the noble Lord Goodman of Wickham's separate amendments, if I may.

In due course. The nub of this argument is that amendment 371 from the noble Lord shows that there is an impact of sustained criminal activity, including serious incidents involving damage to property, intimidation and risks to public safety, and that that should be dealt with in terms of an interim measure. Could I call it between prescription and between criminal damage legislation as a whole? Now, I've outlined to my noble friend Lord Walney in a recent letter the Public Order Act of 1986, which grants police powers to manage protests by imposing conditions, which also looks at conditions that are necessary to be placed on protests, including the location, route and date.

I've also pointed to my noble, to the noble Lord and indeed to the noble Lord Pannick and Lord Goldsmith. I also met today that the noble Lord Macdonald of River Glaven is currently undertaking an independent review into public order, but also into hate crime legislation, which will cover whether the existing legislation is effective and proportionate. And I am pleased to have, in a sense, the acknowledgement from the noble Lord Marks of Henley upon Thames that the review, which will report later in the spring, will give some potential framework and discussion around the existing framework of legislation.

And I must also say to the House as well that the foreign influence registration scheme, the action we've taken under the 2000 Act on Palestine Action, the work of prevent the protest legislation in this bill are all measures which are dealing with similar issues to that, that the noble Lord Lord Walney has brought forward. Now, the amendment itself, and this is where I come to the nub of the problem, which I hope noble Lords will accept. I understand there's a range of views, and I may find myself in a minority on That when I look at the amendment itself, if there was such a tool as proposed by the noble Lord Walney below the threshold of the Terrorism Act 2000, that wouldn't have stopped the government prescribing Palestine action under the 2000 act, as the assessment was made in that case that the Palestine Action Organisation passed the statutory test for prescription at that time, and as noble Lords will be aware, although there is a Court of Appeal hearing now on Palestine action, the High Court agreed in its first consideration.

The Palestine action had organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism. Now there is a case pending that will be looked at that will be reviewed. The government will have to respond to that in due course. But I would argue that at present we have the tools in existing public order and relating legislation to tackle the type of criminality that the noble Lord Walney has mentioned, and we are significantly upscaling our efforts on counter extremism as a whole. Groups which do meet the Terrorism Act threshold and individuals acting on their behalf or in their support, will be dealt with under existing prescription powers and where groups do not meet the threshold for prescription, we will continue to assess the activities of organisations against our legal frameworks and indeed existing legislation.

If there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportional action will be taken. And I've mentioned already things such as prevent things. Things such as the protest legislation and others. And again, Lord MacDonald of River Avon will review those matters in due course. Just to answer the point that's been made from the noble Lord, panic and others, that the government has brought forward legislation we've committed and commissioned Lord MacDonald to undertake a review.

But the amendments that we brought forward have been in response to urgent matters that we felt we needed to take at the time. And I've tabled those in relation to protest legislation to ensure that we manage difficult challenges at the moment by putting forward legislation, for example, on protests and on marches and giving police powers. This I would suggest to the noble Lord Walney, and indeed to the noble Lord panic is something that we should take our time to consider. The noble Lord MacDonald is bringing forward his review shortly in the spring, and this amendment, whether it's in original form or as amended by the noble Lord Davis in 371, Be seeks to create effectively a parallel regime to the Terrorism Act, which the government believe is not necessary and risks unjustified interference with rights to free speech and freedom of association.

The government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred, and in doing so, we have to strike the right balance between protecting freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities. Now, amendment 441 be also tabled by the honourable Lord Walney is concerned with access to public funds for organisations promoting or supporting criminal conduct. Again, I say to him, the government provides funding to a huge range of organisations through grant schemes administered by departments across the board and arm's length bodies across government, and any grants of public funds is subject to Treasury guidance set out in Managing Public Money.

A guide produced by the Treasury that also looks at risk control and assurances which grant controllers are required to take into account. So I'd just say to him again, is the legislative route one that is required now, today. And this goes to the heart of the amendments from the noble Lord Goodman of Wickham. And we have published the Social Cohesion Action Plan today. A number of comments have been made about it from the noble Baroness Verma, from the noble Lord Goodman, of Wickham, from the noble Baroness Deech, around the issues in that social cohesion Action plan.

It was put on the website probably less than an hour ago. It is many pages long. I would simply ask that members look at the social cohesion plan, look at what is in it, look at the context of it, look at the things and issues we're trying to challenge so that all communities, all communities, can live their lives in freedom, can understand their religion and live their religions in freedom. And that we have social cohesion in what remains and will be a multicultural society.

The engagement principles will be updated so that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups. And amendment 419, which would require the publication of a counter-extremism strategy. The noble Lord has said he's raised it in questions. He's raised it in amendments, in committees, raised it in the Moses room, in grant committee on a special debate. We are looking at the issues that is raised. There will be further updates and reports on that matter, and I'd advise him to look at the social cohesion strategy in full, which is only, as I've just said, been produced within the last hour.

Extremists often deliberately operate without meeting thresholds for criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for their actions. Despite this, this government still has a responsibility to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism and violence and hatred. But in doing so, we still have to protect the balance between freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities. We've been very clear in our approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism because we have an overarching counter-terrorism strategy. That approach ensures counter extremism efforts focused on the highest harm threats in direct support of our core counter-terrorism and wider security mission, and the local Social Cohesion Strategy published by the Department of Local Government.

In the past hour, following a statement in the House of Commons, which I suspect will be repeated here shortly, is trying to meet how we marry those things together to provide social cohesion. And I hope that will answer the points from the noble of Ashton on those issues. I just say, finally, if I may, that with prevent, with contest, with the definitions of extremism that we have examined and set up by the previous government in 2024, we believe that there is a strong mechanism to support tackling extremism, and for us to ensure that we support all members of our society.

And I would just say to to Baroness Deech, I mean this genuinely, she said that Jews don't count. I would say to her, genuinely, everybody in society counts. Everybody has a right to protection. Everybody has a right to live their lives free from persecution, free from harassment, free from counter-terrorism and from terrorist activity and free from extremism. And I would say to her, I felt genuinely sorry when she said that phrase. I think that we're trying to support all members of our community, particularly with the Jewish community.

And if she looks at the measures in this bill, they have been driven by measures to support people allowing to express their religion and not be harassed and not be put into a box by people on a regular basis through marches and through protests. That's what we're trying to do. I say to the noble Lord Walney, I understand where he's coming from, but I would wish to him to withdraw and not push his amendments, because I believe that we have a framework in place to deal with criminal activity, to deal with those organisations that cross the terrorism threshold and to ensure, through the social cohesion strategy, that we ensure that all members of our community have the right to live a free life in this United Kingdom.

Here.
19:42
19:42
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords, this has been an excellent and a thoughtful debate, excellent and a thoughtful debate, and I have been touched by the kind words and expressions of support words and expressions of support from all. Well, nearly all sides of of the House. I've listened carefully to what the noble Lord, the Minister, has said, and I hope he knows how much I respect the work that he and the government does. But on this occasion I am not convinced by his central assertion that the framework exists and is working.

Now. He raises the issue of Palestine action, as so many have done across the chamber today, and it is indeed looming large over this discussion. Whether or not you take the view that the government was right in prescribing it, the fact that it took five years of this organisation committing criminal damage in a sustained and organised way before it was deemed to have met the terrorism threshold, which is now obviously being challenged. And I hope that the government wins on appeal.

But the fact that it took five years shows that there is a gap. It is not filled by the public order measures which are which are used to place conditions on marches that the noble Lord, the Minister, has cited in response as to why the framework is working, that is a different thing. And so I I'm really pleased and I think it is really unusual that you get such a broad expression from Reductively, from the Conservatives also to the Liberal Democrat benches on a difficult issue like this.

I think it shows that it is proportionate. And if I can just in conclusion, quote the noble Lord, Lord Marks's words back at him when he he I think he has reluctantly, I would think, come to the view that this could abstain. But he did make the point himself that not supporting this amendment leaves on the table a choice between the the status quo of doing nothing or full terrorism. And so I really respect his view that he would like to see encouragement of proscribed terrorist organisations taken off.

I think that is a complex question, but I do think that if I had opened that up in this amendment, the whole thing would probably have been subsumed. So I think it is right that we push this particular narrow change to the legislation, the the government's noble Lord. The minister's concerns can be tightened up after this as it goes back into ping pong, and then we can deal with the noble Lord, Lord Marks's concerns in in short order after that.

So with that, with that all having been said, I would like to test the the opinion of the House on this matter.
19:45
19:45
19:48
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – report stage: Division:Amdt 371A
-

>> >> In >> In order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In order. The question is that amendment 37. One a be agreed to, as many of 37. One a be agreed to, as many of that opinion shall say content the contrary not contents. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, but not contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now closed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted. There have voted. Contents There have voted. Contents 200,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted. Contents 200, not contents 162. So the contents have it. have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taking a hard line on. Right. Amendment 37 two. Lord Parkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parkinson. Who not moved. Not moved. I'm then going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. I'm then going to call together three seven, 2ZZB and call together three seven, 2ZZB and 3277. So sorry z a Lord Parkinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

3277. So sorry z a Lord Parkinson. Lord 372ZZA and 372ZZB moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two amendments moved en bloc. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as amendments be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not contents. The the contrary, not contents. The contents have it. Amendment 372ZA Baroness Jones of Malcolm not moved. Baroness Jones of Malcolm not moved. Not moved. Amendment 372A Lord Marks of Henley on Thames not moved. Amendment 372A Baroness Jones not moved 372AB not moved, not moved.

Amendment 372B Lord marks not moved. Amendment 372BA not moved and b b not moved. Amendment 372C Lord Marks of Henley not moved 372D not moved and 373 Lord Marks not moved. That concludes this group. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this seems to be a convenient time to break for dinner. Break business will therefore not Break business will therefore not return to the bill before 2038. I beg to move the report. Be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourned. The question is that further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that further consideration on report be adjourned. As many of that opinion will say. Content on the contrary, will say. Content on the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now.
19:59
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
>> The question on a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the 5th March. Energy markets. My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Amy, Actaeon and Buckthorn and my Lords. This Buckthorn and my Lords. This statement comes at a time when the United Kingdom faces major, unparalleled challenges to its energy supply. For 50 years, under successive Conservative and Labour governments, energy policy has been built on the four pillars of security of supply, diversity of supply to back that security, stronger adherence to ever improving environmental measures and above all, affordability on all four tests.

This statement fails, and the current war in Iran exposes the government's energy policy as uniquely vulnerable to international supply chains, unaffordable to industry and households alike, glaringly insecure and unashamedly reliant on putting intermittent power before the firm power needed to keep incubators in our hospitals running 24 over 7365. My Lords, the statement argues that there is no point in drilling in the North Sea because, and I quote, all our gas is sold on international markets. Does the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that this is nonsense? Every single molecule of gas we extract from the North Sea goes straight into our pipes, making up around half of the UK's supply.

And as the noble Lord, the Minister, agree with the North Sea operators in the UK, that data already submitted to government details 111 named projects equivalent to £50 billion of investment that could be unlocked with tax and regulatory reform on security of supply. We are increasingly vulnerable and as the noble Lord, the Minister, accept that we have one pipeline coming to the UK from Norway alone, which is responsible for 30% of our gas supplies. As Dieter Helm, the eminent economist, stated, is this not a sitting duck for a hostile power or an obvious hit for drones in the North Sea? Amyloids does the noble or the Minister agree that onshore, economically, the UK is facing the highest industrial power prices in the industrial world, crippling our industry and increasing our cost of living? And perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister can explain to the House whether he agrees that the reason we are failing are energy dependent industries, is because we have unaffordable energy prices.

Gone is, most of the steel industry deeply damaged is the fertile fertilizer industry. And by imposing additional energy costs this year, the ceramics industry is under threat, as are petrochemicals and refined fuels. Turning to capacity, does the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that we already need twice the capacity, twice the grid and all the batteries and storage we can find, plus many more interconnectors to service a level of power demand of about 45GW. We used to meet that comfortably with just 60GW of capacity.

And does he not recognise that all of this is because we have to have firm power available on days like today, when the wind doesn't blow and only 16% of our electricity was generated from wind today, only double that from the heavily polluting, burning biomass of 7 million tonnes of wood pellets a year in Drax and turning to renewables, does the noble or the Minister agree that there was good reason for the late publication of the secret MOU between the Secretary of State and the Chinese government, since it demonstrated that not just our renewable energy policy, but our overall energy policy is tethered to China, a country which burns more than 55% of the world's coal and is building another 400GW of coal generation.

Yet our imports of solar panels are nearly 100% imported from China, and demonstrate our serious reliance on a foreign state, not least because, as the noble Lord, the Minister said from this Dispatch Box recently, he cannot be sure that the solar panels being installed in our schools are not made by slave labour. Does the noble Lord, the Minister, agree with me that we need a policy built on renewables and more North Sea gas, not renewables instead of gas, and that energy security and affordability depends on a substantial increase in gas from the North Sea, not imported LNG, which has gone up 40% year on year and which in its total life cycle emits nearly twice the levels of carbon compared to North Sea gas.

My Lords, the government needs to start to secure our own gas reserves first by a fiscal and regulatory regime which immediately encourages more tiebacks and greater exploitation of existing reserves, then by a licensing regime which will ensure production comes on stream at the same time as new Build nuclear. My Lords, none of what I've said this evening is anti renewable. Indeed, when I was Minister for energy, I launched the first renewables Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and was for many years the president of the British Wind Energy Association.

What I've done is to set out a direction in which the UK is more, not less, energy secure, with more affordable, more environmentally acceptable and more prosperous, with more jobs for working people, greater economic confidence, higher growth and a lower cost of living.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank the Minister for the statement on the very serious and fast moving situation serious and fast moving situation in the Middle East, the recent escalation in the Gulf following President Trump's deeply destabilizing actions risks widening the conflict. 14 countries are now directly affected. Global are now directly affected. Global shipping supply routes are shut, and once again, oil and gas prices have skyrocketed because of have skyrocketed because of geopolitical chaos. What a tragic inevitability. The same man who denies the existence of climate change has unleashed another conflict for the control of fossil fuels.

If this conflict is not urgently contained, it will shut down oil fields, disrupt global markets, drive up oil and gas prices, food prices, inflation and government debt alike. We need an urgent halt to the targeting of energy and desalinated desalinated facilities on all sides. My Lords, we have been here before in the UK despite the progress we are making on our energy transition, we remain frighteningly exposed to the harsh economic impacts of global events far beyond our shores. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and E 3G estimated that our reliance on fossil fuels has cost this country an additional 100 and £183 billion since 2022, because of the increased cost of energy as a result of the war in Ukraine, we cannot afford another lost decade of dependence on fossil fuels that we neither control nor influence.

So while while much of the minister's statement is welcome, the coordination with allies, reassurance on supply and commitment to clean power, the real question is whether this government will now act at the speed and scale the crisis demands. Unlike the last energy crisis, this one includes oil as well as gas. On these benches, we see the Conservatives claims that the solutions lie in a North Sea licensing new North Sea licences as the equivalent of trying to fill a swimming pool via a drinking straw.

North sea gas
20:07
20:07
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
constituents who rely on heating oil to heat their homes? Some 1.5 million rural homes and 62% of million rural homes and 62% of homes in Northern Ireland depend on it. Prices have rocketed, in some cases nearly doubled. These consumers are the forgotten victims of energy policy not covered by Ofgem, Ofcom, regulation and therefore without price protection and redress. I ask the Minister will the government now work with the CMA and Ofgem to establish proper oversight, investigate price abuses and ensure that these households are protected? Disruption to supplies from the Gulf crisis has also pushed up the cost of aviation kerosene by more than 80%.

So can I ask what consideration is being given to the resilience of 70% of our kerosene is imported, and how the government is mitigating escalating costs for both consumers and operators alike on the cost of electricity and gas. We have some stability with the energy price cap, but that is short lived. While our gas supply is more secure than oil, gas prices have already reached a 12 month high. There is a very real risk of a renewed cost of living squeeze later this year, placing further pressure on families and businesses who are struggling to pay their bills.

The government must make plans for scenarios where prices stay high and new interventions will be required. Families and businesses deserve deserve reassurance that the government support will not vanish if the crisis endures. I ask the Minister to give that reassurance today. These events bring into sharp relief the deeper issues, the the structure of our energy market. Despite our work on renewables, UK consumers remain uninsulated from the global fossil fuel markets as our energy market has not been reformed to reflect the increase in renewables uptake.

Three years on, we have been told repeatedly that the energy market reform is coming. The government have ruled out the introduction of zonal pricing, but this crisis is a clarion call that urgent action is needed. Why are we still funding crucial decarbonisation and social environmental levies through household bills rather than general taxation? Moving those, those moving more of those policy costs into general taxation will help to make the system fairer and more equitable. While the government will the government commit to reviewing this balance on the lack of gas storage capacity? Just 12 days remain, some of the lowest in Europe.

So will the Minister consider the case for greater strategic reserve? The price of gas still sets the UK electricity price 97% of the time. Does the government agree with Greenpeace's call to bring gas plants into a regulated asset base, creating a strategic reserve administered by Niso to break the link and save customers an estimated £5.2 billion by 2028, we must double down on the rollout of renewable energy, grid upgrades, long term storage, diversity of supply and greater energy interconnection with Europe so that we can gain energy security and price control.

Investors need predictability, predictability, planning, grid connection and the carbon pricing framework. Britain must move to a continuous pipeline of renewable projects, build faster, connect sooner and supported by modern transmission networks. Every insulated home, every electrified heat pump, every community scale battery gives us energy independence. Turning to energy security for Britain will not be won in the North Sea. It will be won on our rooftops, in our grids, in our offshore wind fields and in our insulated homes.

And if this last conflict teaches us anything, it is that energy dependence is a choice. And energy independence through clean energy must now through clean energy must now become our utmost mission.
20:12
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords for their >> I thank noble Lords for their contributions this evening, and I will attempt to address the will attempt to address the questions that they have put to me this evening. Although I must say, to be absolutely frank, there appears to have been one sensible contribution and one not very sensible contribution. And I will I will attempt to answer them just the same. But what I what I thought we were talking about, and I think we are talking about, is the really difficult situation that everyone finds themselves in now as a result of the Iran war.

What that is possible likely to do to energy prices. What that's possible is possible or likely to do to the effect of those supplies on consumers and industry, and what we can reasonably do to make sure that we have indeed the security that noble Lords have talked about this evening for our own supplies for the future, but also in such a way that we have a secure future ahead of us as well. And in that context, I would have thought that the, the, the particular lesson we should draw from.

The events of the last few days is that we cannot get away from. For various reasons, enormous volatility in the fossil fuels and gas markets abroad. And that itself, for various reasons, directly leads to volatility and difficulty with energy prices and energy supplies and various other things. And that the the the lesson surely has to be that we should ensure that we have secure home grown energy which is not subject to international volatility, in the way that we are finding right now, but is also secure for our supplies, secure for our consumers, and builds an industry on on the back of that, which actually creates jobs and businesses and energy arrangements which are secure for the long term future.

And that, of course, is to continue with the moves towards renewables, low carbon energy, getting the role of gas as far as possible, out of our out of our markets and securing a future where our home grown energy is not only not subject to dictators and Petro states, but actually is entirely under our own control, not only under our own control, but is under our own control. As far as the sources of that are concerned.

Now, obviously, we've got a number of worries and concerns right now with what none of us in this, in this chamber know too much about. And that is exactly how long this particular war is going to continue. So obviously, one can earnestly hope that the war comes to an end fairly soon, or that as indeed the UK government is pushing that we have a negotiated diplomatic settlement for the particular issues that we have for the future.

But we know that prices are going up very rapidly at the moment. We know that's a bit of a differential between different areas of the oil and gas economy. We know, for example, that heating oil, which is not subject to the energy price cap, is going up fairly rapidly, that we actually got to deal with a number of those issues on those different fronts pretty immediately, regardless of the long term future that we think we should have in place for our energy economy.

Now, as far as customer. Security is concerned, we have in place, obviously, the energy price cap, which should mean that for three months at least, we can say that customers for electricity and gas will have a cheaper price for their gas and electricity than has been the case over the most recent period, so that's protected to that extent. Heating oil is not so protected. We've seen considerable spikes in how that works. And that's associated, by the way, with jet oil, jet jet fuel as well, because they're essentially the same thing, kerosene.

And we have seen considerable spikes in that as well. Now the UK has considerable reserves of jet fuel, doesn't have the same reserves of heating oil. And indeed we have taken action just today in terms of making sure that we have written to the CMA and to the industry leaders in, in the heating oil industry to make sure that they keep a cap on prices, that they are not price gouging, that they are keeping their prices as modest as they can.

But all this does depend on what happens over the next period with the the progress of the war, whether the hormone strikes will be opened or at least put into a position where oil and gas can get through the straits. And whether we can reasonably, reliably start talking about a reliable supply for world energy coming through in a way that is not at the moment, because this crisis. Mark my words, is not about supply.

The UK has ample supplies of gas of all sorts, 50% from UK fields, assuming it stays in the country and we perhaps will touch on that. And also supplies from Norway, supplies from liquid petroleum gas. Three terminals that have been have been built and a number of LPG vessels are on their way to the UK. As we speak. It's not so much about supply, it's about price and what will happen if the war continues for a long time on price, for example, as far as LPG is concerned, we only take about 1% of our gas in the form of LPG from Qatar.

Very small supplies. Most of it comes from other sources. But there are other forces in the world that are trying, literally trying to turn those vessels around to LPG vessels around to go to their parts of the world to supply at an increasingly high price, LPG for them. So we've got to be clear that we need to take firm action, firstly, to make sure we have the prices right for the future and we have the, the, the ability to protect our own energy interests.

And we have the ability to make sure that the supplies that are reliable at the moment continue to be reliable in the longer term. Now, one thing that this is not about is about the idea that we should suddenly start drilling for gas, drilling for oil, translating a lot more gas and oil back to the UK as the as the noble Lord opposite appears to think is the next the next move. Firstly, that would take a very long time to happen.

Secondly, as I have mentioned previously, it is not the case that this oil, this gas just comes to the UK. It actually goes all around the world as a world price, and it would make no difference to the world price. Indeed, we only have 0.7% of global oil and gas production in the UK. In any event, it would make no difference to the outcome. The outcome that we need to, to, to, to work on is to continue with our low carbon policies to get us off gas as, as, as quickly as we can to secure a renewable, low carbon and indeed firm energy through renewable policy in the longer term, so that we are not dependent on this kind of situation happening ever again.

That is clearly the task we have ahead of us. And I would commend, therefore, the statement to the House in terms of what it says about that future that we have ahead of us. Still, despite this, the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment.
20:22
20:23
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Well, I very much welcome Lord Foulkes, as it were, back to his place. Although we are speaking at a place which is slightly remote, nevertheless have a real feeling that you are essentially in the chamber with us this evening. I absolutely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has to say on this subject. After all, nuclear is low carbon. It is essentially renewable. It is essentially homegrown, and it stays with us for a very long time.

And by the way, in case anyone hadn't noticed, is this is firm power. So having nuclear in our low carbon arsenal is a is is very much a part of that process of getting ourselves off fossil high carbon fuels and getting us into a situation where we can control our own energy destiny in this country. The noble Lord will know that work is underway to procure. A small modular reactor with Rolls-Royce. That's going very well, and the possibility of life extensions to one or more of the existing nuclear power stations, which would again be a very good contribution to the energy security of this country for the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, this is the week in which the well-meaning but naive approach to net zero finally hit the buffers. It's not just oil. And the buffers. It's not just oil. And I should know, is a 40 year veteran of the fertilizer industry. It's the gas. It's the it's the gas that produces ammonia and CO2 that drives our economy forward. There's no domestic production of ammonia no domestic production of ammonia or fertilisers anymore. We are reliant on the kindness of strangers, and a third of world strangers, and a third of world production of fertilisers is now stranded beyond home straight.

At the moment the crops need it the most. The reality is that farmers are going to pay a quarter more for their fertilizer immediately,
20:25
20:25
20:26
20:27
20:28
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Thank my noble friend for that >> Thank my noble friend for that question because he he alludes to in his question one of the key in his question one of the key points for the future of gas storage, which is the rough field and what happens with with that for the future, he will know that there were some suggestions that the rough field should be used for hydrogen storage. That is not now happening. And the rough field is is available for quite a large expansion in overall gas storage.

Having said that. We do not have enormous amounts of gas storage in this country. But we do, on the other hand, have access to a very secure forms of gas, albeit traded on the on the international markets. In terms of the pipeline interconnectors that we have, the Norwegian gas supply that we have freely available to us. And as I have mentioned, with the development of LPG terminals in this country, the. Ability to land large amounts of LPG and storage, well, so my assessment in terms of gas security would be that actually, although we don't have a huge amount of gas storage, we have actually collectively got a pretty secure gas security arrangement.

And I would, by the way, just drop in the point that we are producing increasing amounts of biogas in the UK, which is actually beginning to. Come to a few percentages. Part of the of the gas supply overall, but again, is a is a homegrown, secure way of doing it. That that I think means that although we have will have a future management issue of declining gas in the system and there's much more, much less gas going into the system now, and was a few years ago, we nevertheless have a pretty secure gas arrangement in the UK.
20:30
Lord Howell of Guildford Portrait Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords. >> The Minister. Six energy crises rather similar to this one. I can't resist a bit of sympathy with Ministers and having to go through Ministers and having to go through it all again and explain the difficulties over which we got very little control. But isn't the simple truth behind all this that governments in this government certainly have persistently underestimated the amount of clean electricity we are going to need for any kind of serious green transition.

The data centers are 71 of them, I gather, are planned, are going to drink it all up. We simply need a massive new investment at a pace which doesn't seem to be contemplated or considered at all at the moment. We're still crawling about ten years until we try out the smrs that Lord Foulkes just referred to were still arguing, really, about whether the size will see another giant replica can possibly be afforded, and who's going to pay. We're still facing the fact that we're going to need to draw energy of every kind and every source, including particularly gas, from wherever we can get it.

Interceptors, neighbors, LNG, and in order to have a modern economy and a recovery and growth, isn't that the reality and isn't it? Could the Minister just assure us that the Department of Energy, which seems to have lost in all this, has really got a grip on the pace at which we need to accelerate and decide our nuclear decisions of our stores storage he's been talking about and all the rest we seem to be wandering along, facing yet the next crisis almost looming, looming up while we're standing here.
20:32
20:33
20:34
20:35
20:36
20:38
20:39
20:40
20:41
20:42
20:43
20:44
20:45
20:45
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

amendment 37 for Baroness Ducey. >> My Lords, I rise to move
20:45
None Portrait Amendment:374 Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-

>> My Lords, I rise to move amendment 37, for which seeks to place statutory guardrails on the use of live facial recognition, echoing the recent calls from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We recognise that this technology can assist the police in tackling serious crime, but it must be used responsibly. Its rapid spread into everyday policing before essential safeguards or parliamentary scrutiny are in place raises profound constitutional concerns, particularly in the Policing of dissent. Amendment 37 four addresses the most contentious use of this technology at protests and public assemblies.

It would prohibit live facial recognition when police impose conditions under the Public Order Act, unless and until Parliament had approved a new statutory code of practice. These are moments when people exercise their fundamental rights to free expression and peaceful assembly rights, which depend on participants feeling safe from tracking or retrospective profiling. This bill already tightens protest offences and curbs anonymity, layering unregulated facial scanning on top of those restrictions risks further shrinking the space for lawful dissent.

Many people will have perfectly legitimate reasons to think twice before attending a demonstration if they know their face may be scanned without clarity on how watchlists use it. Protests are compiled. People have no way of knowing whether they're being flagged for genuine risk or for the views they hold at a protest. The chilling effect is not just about being scanned, it's the fear of political profiling. If the government cannot clearly define who is a legitimate target for facial recognition at a peaceful assembly, then such deployments are, by definition, arbitrary and cannot meet the legal test of necessity and proportionality.

Operationally, the emerging concerns around false positives and the significantly increased risk to those from minority ethnic backgrounds are a real headache for policing large public gatherings. Deployment without a code of practice will likely result in dozens of wrongful stops to verify identities, with confrontations that divert officers from real security threats and from de-escalating crowds. We've already seen how damaging these errors can be. Just in the last few weeks, an innocent South Asian man was arrested at his home in Southampton for a burglary 100 miles away in Milton Keynes.

He was handcuffed and held for nearly ten hours because he was wrongly matched to CCTV by a Home Office algorithm that, its own research shows, produces significantly higher false positives for black and Asian faces. Last month, the man was publicly ejected from his local supermarket after staff misinterpreted a facial recognition alert. These are not minor glitches to be shrugged off. They are serious violations that erode public trust, particularly in communities already wary of state power. The government's consultation is welcome, but it's far too slow for the pace of change we see on our streets.

Until Parliament has set clear rules. Amendment 374 is both necessary and proportionate. We must ensure that Parliament, not oblique algorithms, decides the limit of state power. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 141,
20:49
20:49
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
talking today about live facial recognition at protests and why the police must not be allowed to use it until Parliament has agreed a clear and democratic code of practice. At its heart, amendment 374 is about power and trust. Live facial recognition is not just another camera on a street corner, it is mass surveillance, a mass surveillance tool that can scan every face in a crowd, compare people in in real time against a watch list, and permanently change what it feels like to stand in the public square.

Once you normalize all that at protests, you change the character of protest itself. If people think that simply turning up at a demonstration means their face can be scanned, logged, and potentially mismatched to a suspect list, some will decide it's safer to stay at home. That is a direct, chilling effect on the right to protest, to assemble, and to speak out against or for the government. We should not let that happen by stealth, through a patchwork of local decisions and internal guidance that most citizens will never see.

That is what's happening at the moment. The technology itself is far from neutral. We know that facial recognition systems can and do get things wrong. They perform differently across age groups and ethnicities, and a false match in the context of a protest is not a minor inconvenience. It can mean being stopped. That questioned, detained, or stigmatized in front of your friends, your colleagues, your community not because of something you did, but because an algorithm made a guess.

Allowing that at political protest without proper rules and oversight is an rules and oversight is an invitation to injustice. Excuse me. And it's not enough to say, trust the police. We have internal policies. The question here is not whether any particular chief constable is well intentioned, it's whether the state should be able to scan and track people at political gatherings without Parliament having debated, defined and limited that power. In a democracy, if the government wants tools that can alter the balance of power between citizen and state, it must come to Parliament, set out the case and accept constraints.

That is why a publicly debated statutory code of practice matters. It's where we answer basic questions that are currently left in a grey zone. In what circumstances, if any, is live facial recognition at a protest justified? Who sets the watch lists and on what criteria? What happens to images of people that are not of interest? Are they actually deleted, and if so, how quickly? Who can access them and for what purposes? What independent oversight exists when things go wrong, until those questions are answered openly.

The use of live facial recognition at protests rests on an unpublished risk. Unpublished risk assessments, and technical documents that ordinary citizens cannot challenge, and that elected representatives cannot easily amend. That is the opposite of how intrusive powers should be operated in a liberal democracy. We should also be honest about the precedent. If we accept live facial recognition at protests now, without a code, it will be used more often and for more purposes later. Once the infrastructure is there and the practice is normalised, it will be very hard to row back.

My Lords, the time to set limits is before the rollout, not after the abuses. Police should not have, without parliamentary approval, the ability to quietly turn every protest into a data harvesting exercise, watching not just the few who pose a risk, but the many who are simply exercising their rights. So the principle is simple if live facial recognition is to be used at all in the context of political protest, it must be under a clear, democratically approved code of practice, debated in Parliament, tested against our human rights obligations, and subject to real oversight and redress.

Until that is in place, the police should not be allowed to deploy this technology at protests.
20:55
20:57
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I rise to speak to amendment 37, for which I have signed, but also for which I have signed, but also to amendment for 30, which I've tabled. My Lords, the use of live facial recognition in our public spaces is an extraordinary surveillance net that chills the right to move freely and anonymously in our streets. The use of live facial recognition technology in public spaces poses a profound challenge to our civil liberties that cannot be met purely by internal police guidance.

We are witnessing a fundamental shift in the nature of British policing, a shift, if you like, from the line fishing of traditional human observation to the deep ocean trawling of automated mass surveillance. Amendment 37, four and 4.3 collectively seek to provide the democratic and judicial safeguards currently missing from what the experts have called a regulatory lacuna or legislative void. Amendment 37 four prohibits the use of LFR during public assemblies or processions, unless a specific code of practice has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

As my noble friends have explained, in a free society, individual should not have to pay the price of handing over their sensitive biometric data just to engage in democratic process protest. We must safeguard public privacy and civil liberties by requiring democratic oversight. Before this technology is deployed against those exercising their right to assembly. We cannot have policing by algorithm without democratic oversight. The current lack of oversight creates a documented chilling effect. Research by the Ada Lovelace Institute indicates that nearly one third of the public is uncomfortable with police use of LFR, and up to 38% of young Londoners, for instance, have stated they would stay away from protests or public events if they knew this technology was being used.

My Lords, we cannot allow our public squares to become spaces where citizens are treated as walking barcodes or a nation of suspects. Critically, amendment 430 establishes that the use of LFR in public spaces must be limited to narrowly defined serious cases and require judicial approval. It provides the fundamental safeguards our society requires. It prohibits the use of LFR by any authority, unless it is for the investigation of serious crimes, and has received prior judicial authorization, specifying the scope and duration of its use.

We must ensure that this technology is used as a targeted tool, not a blanket surveillance net. My Lords, the government maintains that internal police authorisation is sufficient. However, the 2020 bridges judgement found the existing legal framework woefully inadequate, noting that far too much discretion is left to individual officers regarding where LFR is deployed and who is added to watch lists. The constitutional principle is clear if the police require a judicial warrant to invade a single home, they should certainly require judicial approval before scanning the sensitive biometric data of tens of thousands of innocent citizens in a public square.

Furthermore, we must challenge the narrative that this is a precise tool. Independent reviews have found that the Met's trials were verifiably accurate in only 19% of cases, and approximately 87% of alerts generated by their system. My Lords, we cannot allow technological deployment to race ahead of democratic deliberation. These amendments ensure that this technology is used proportionately and under the rule of law, and we must act now to present what has rightly been called a shortcut to a widespread surveillance state.

Now, my Lords, I should just say that National Physical Laboratory studies confirm the problems. While the most recent NPL study last year noted improvements in algorithm performance. It confirmed that demographic differentials persist specifically when settings are adjusted to a standard threshold. False positive rates remain higher for individuals with darker skin tones compared to those with lighter skin tones. The government often cites minimal discrepancies at specific technical settings. However, in operational use, police forces frequently lower the similarity threshold to increase the number of matches, which exponentially increases the risk of misidentification for women and minority groups.

My Lords, for all these reasons, we need to introduce to controls set out in amendment 374 and for 30.
21:02
21:04
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this group of amendments returns us to an issue. amendments returns us to an issue. That was debated at some length in committee. The use of live facial recognition technology in policing. recognition technology in policing. And I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling these amendments on this important topic as set out in committee. We on these benches cannot support proposals that would severely restrict or preempt the operational use of live facial recognition by law enforcement.

Live facial recognition is an increasingly important tool in modern policing, used lawfully and proportionately. It has already demonstrated its value in identifying serious offenders, locating wanted individuals, and preventing violent crime before it occurs. It has been deployed particularly effectively in high risk environments such as transport hubs and major public events, where rapid identification can make a decisive difference in protecting the public. My Lords, this does not mean that safeguards are necessary. There must always be a careful balance between the protection of civil liberties and the need to equip police with effective tools to tackle serious crime.

The use of new technologies must be proportionate and subject to appropriate oversight, but the amendments before us go significantly further than that in different ways. They would either prohibit particular uses of the technology, place rigid statutory barriers in its way, or create restrictions that would unnecessarily impede the ability of the police to deploy it where it may be most needed. Amendment 37 four would prohibit the deployment of live facial recognition in the context of public assemblies, or impose extensive prior authorization requirements, and this amendment is drawing the hands of the police, tying the hands of the police at precisely the moments when rapid and flexible operational decision making may be required.

So, my Lords, we must recognise the points raised during committee that the government are currently consulting on the future regulatory framework for live facial recognition, and to attempt to settle these questions piecemeal through amendments to this bill, would risk creating an incomplete or inconsistent framework. And while the concerns raised by the noble Lords are legitimate and deserve careful consideration, we should not default to restricting a technology that has already shown its potential to disrupt serious criminality and protect the public.

The challenge is not to prohibit its use, but to ensure that it is deployed responsibly, lawfully and proportionately. And for those reasons, we cannot support the amendments in this group. Sir, I look forward to what the Minister has to say in his response.
21:07
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Doocey for tabling amendments, and I'm grateful to the amendments, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davis for supporting some of the arguments that I'm going to be making in response to going to be making in response to those amendments. Obviously, the noble Lord Clement-Jones and noble Lord Strasbourg and noble Lord panic and the noble Baroness Lawlor have all put their fingers on the concerns that they have around the use of this technology. I just want to begin by providing a view as to what live facial recognition does.

It does allow for real time location of individuals of interest to the police. It scans the faces of those passing a camera in real time. It compares the faces against a predetermined specific watch list, which would be potentially wanted criminals or vulnerable missing persons or individuals posing risks to public safety if no match is made. And this goes to the point the noble Lord Strasburger made. The scanned faces deleted instantly. Currently, every deployment and every specific bespoke watch list for that deployment must have a defined policing objective, must be supported by clear intelligence, and must be ultimately determined by humans at the end of the day.

Now, noble Lords will be aware that the use of facial technology in all circumstances, including live facial recognition, is already subject to safeguards, including those provided by the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. But let me say, I agree that there is a need to have a framework, and that is the nub of what's been said by, I think, everybody who has contributed to this debate today and will know that the government had a ten week consultation for that very purpose, to look at the issues of a legal framework where law enforcement, use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies could be used.

The consultation ended on the 12th of February. I can give an assurance to the House that we intend to respond to that consultation as a government by the summer. And we've got a 12 week, more or less deadline to try and do that from the end of the closing. But by the summer, the consultation will look at and is clear about that. The government needs to design a new framework. It needs to assess how the police use those technologies, like facial recognition.

It needs to ensure that safeguards that noble Lords have mentioned about the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and it needs to ensure that we protect those rights and that facial technology recognition is demonstrably proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed. We are currently considering the consultation and as the noble Lord Davis has said, that should take its course. But we intend to set out proposals in due course, which will be subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, and, I hope noble Lords would accept that it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation and the proposals the government would bring forward, which we will ensure has a new legal framework for the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies.

So I hope that with those comments, which I think, you know, the points made have real merit. But I hope that with the comments that I've made and the reassurances I've given that we'll save the difficult debate that we'll have about what the regulation, how it operates and what the proposals mean for ensuring that we have a proper legal framework for another day, because that day will come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very soon. I hope the noble Lady would give way. Mr. Sits down. Could you give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Sits down. Could you give the house some indication of when that day will come, when we will have a debate on some meaningful have a debate on some meaningful proposals? And could he also tell the House whether those proposals will cover the use of this will cover the use of this technology by the private sector, which is happening a lot already in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retail as well as the public sector? As I've tried to indicate to the noble Lord, we've had a consultation. It is finished on the 12th. We intend to respond to that consultation by the summer. As yet, how that response will be and what that response will be, is to be formulated. So I will not give him chapter and verse on when and how. But if legislation is required, we would look at that at the earliest opportunity, as we always do.

But I can't pre-empt a the future King's speech, and I can't give a timetable on that. But what I can do is give a timetable when we respond to the consultation that, remember, for this House we've initiated, we haven't been forced into that. We've initiated the consultation as the government to get to a position whereby the very issues that noble Lords have mentioned today are considered. So I hope that with those comments, the noble Baroness would withdraw her amendment.
21:12
21:13
None Portrait Amendment:g375 Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-

This amendment. >> Be withdrawn? >> The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 37 five. Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson. Flint. I beg to move. Amendment 37 five standing in my name. And in doing so, can I pay tribute to my noble so, can I pay tribute to my noble friend Baroness Whitaker for the discussions that we've had, both in committee and also outside of the committee, which has resulted in the amendment being brought forward to the House today on report, amendment 37 five addresses the no return period for individuals directed to leave an unauthorised encampment. This new clause restores the previous three month period, replacing the 12 month prohibitions introduced by the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022.

The government remains firmly committed to ensuring the communities feel safe, the public spaces are protected and that unauthorised encampments do not cause disproportionate disruption or distress. At the same time, we must ensure that enforcement powers are applied fairly and in a way that respects the rights of all individuals, including those in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. And I thank my noble friend Baroness Warsi for her campaigning on this issue, and indeed for meeting with me and representatives of the all party group on Gypsy Roma traveller communities earlier this year.

Now, as she knows and as the house I hope will be aware, in May 24th, the High Court found that setting and extending the no return period to 12 months was incompatible with our rights. This was because of the limited availability of authorised transit sites, which mean that individuals could be placed at risk of criminal sanction even when no lawful alternative was available. In the light of this ruling, the new government examined this on election in 2024, and it's right that we use this bill to remedy that incompatibility.

Amendment 37 five does exactly that. It amends the Criminal Justice Act and Public Order Act of 1994 to reinstate the three month no return period that operated successfully for many years. It also does the same for the new offence at section 63 added by the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022. This strikes a more proportionate balance by maintaining an important enforcement tool for police, while ensuring that individuals are not penalised in circumstances where alternative sites are in scarce supply and maintain a three month maximum stay.

Now, let me be clear this change does not weaken police powers to respond to an authorised encampments that cause damage, disruption and distress. The full suite of powers introduced by the 2022 act remain in place. This amendment simply ensures that those powers operate proportionately and in a manner compliant with human rights obligations. Now, I know that my noble friend, Baroness Whitaker may well speak also, and the amendments that are there on the important issue of lack of permitted sites, I just say before they do so that the government agrees that planning appropriately for housing and accommodation needs of our diverse communities is essential.

Planning policy is clear that local authorities should assess the need for traveller sites. This includes responsibility to set pitch and plot targets for traveller sites, and to provide five years worth of sites against targets, and there is a revised National policy Framework, which is currently out for consultation through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and that is currently open for consultation until the 10th of March. But I will listen to what my noble friend says and what anybody from the Liberal Democrats says in response to their amendments, but I thought I would just use this introductory comments to both move the amendment, but also just to say that we do recognise that the national planning policy framework does need to be examined, and that's why it is currently out for consultation on the very issue that move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should first declare interest. Sorry. Noble Baroness, can I just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Propose amendment? Amendment. Proposed clause 142. Insert. The following new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. Thank you. Apologies, my Lord, in my enthusiasm to support my noble
21:17
21:17
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
Co-Chair of the relevant APPG. It is in that connection that I applaud these amendments. They applaud these amendments. They write and acknowledge wrong a breach of the Human Rights Act, whose remedy was fought for in the whose remedy was fought for in the courts by a brave Roman gypsy, Wendy Smith. They will give our few Wendy Smith. They will give our few remaining nomadic families some limited means of continuing to live limited means of continuing to live in the way the courts have agreed they are entitled to.

As my noble friend, the Minister said in. In the meeting, he called to to discuss the amendment for which I. The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, not at his place. Our colleagues in the NGOs, Wendy Smith's barrister and the few thousands of travellers affected. And it is only a few thousand of very grateful, the Minister said. I quote, it is a stage in a journey. That journey, my Lord, is the path to equal treatment and the end of the dwelling.

Discrimination which comes from the lack of permitted sites, the actions to move farther along in the journey through greater provision of sites do not lie in his department. My noble friend, the Minister has helpfully said something more about what the future is. If he has any details on timing and more precise allocation of responsibility, we should welcome that. But as I said, they aren't inherently matters for for his department. But I, I would like to hear the whole government supporting it.

I commend these amendments.
21:19
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I. >> Declare my interest is a member of the APPG for, Roma and Travellers and I'm speaking in Travellers and I'm speaking in support of amendment 37, 5466 and 468. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, Lord Hanson, for his introduction to this important group of amendments. As has been said, this is the start of a journey to reach equality of access to services for those currently living a nomadic life. Several noble Lords across the chamber made representation against the Police and Crime Act, brought in under the previous government in 19, in 2022, and subsequently ruled to be a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Those objectives listed the effect the new restrictions would have on family life, those with health issues and access to education, etc. in a society which expands to uphold the rationale of equality for all, it is unacceptable to discriminate against those who follow a different lifestyle. To the majority of us. I have long campaigned for legislation to require every local authority to provide both permitted permanent sites for and Travellers, alongside permitted temporary stopping sites for those who travel as part of their culture and way of life.

This has always been rejected by governments of different political persuasions, and I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, the Minister, this evening on the provision of sites in the future. I am now lucky enough to live in an area which has adequate decent provision for those identified as Gypsy, Roma or Traveller. Several of their sites are within a short walk of my home. I'm delighted that they are able to be married in the church in which I also worship, and they are also able to grieve the passing of their loved ones in the same environment.

Everyone should be able to access education for their children alongside health care for their elderly, even if they are moving from area to area around the country. A stopping place or site which allows this to happen should be a right and not left to a local landowner. To permit this for short periods. Whilst this small group of amendments is not a magic wand to ensure sites appear overnight, it is a step in the right direction to help families to help families raise their children in a relatively safe environment.

And I support the noble Lord, the Minister's amendments.
21:22
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yes, it. >> Yes, it. >> My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for debate that the Government's amendment 375 has afforded us. This is obviously a highly contested issue. But before we start, I would like to put on record the very specific nature of the issue we are debating in the High Court in 2024 that declared that a specific section of the Conservative Party's police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022 was incompatible with article 14, the Prohibition of Discrimination, and article eight The Right to private Life of the European Convention of Human Rights.

That section extended the prohibition of returning to land covered by requests to leave from 3 to 12 months. That is why the government is now attempting to reverse that change. The judgment did not, as was claimed at committee, nullify that no returns order. I will make as much as loyal opposition position clear. Whilst we accept that the law as it currently stands, renders the continuation of the current offence of returning or re-entering to prohibited land untenable, we would ultimately rather the human rights law that has caused this incompatibility to be repealed, and the offence to be upheld.

My Lords, it is not racial discrimination to uphold one of the fundamental governing systems of our society. As little as many are. Some, perhaps some noble Lords in the chamber will want to hear it. Private property has been a continuous thread throughout our history that has galvanised peace and prosperity in our country. Remove the right to private property and you create a system that favours freeloaders and fraudsters. In the judgement, the presiding judge spoke of a balanced structure between property rights of landowners and occupiers and the interests of travellers.

The increase in annual returns order from 3 to 12 months would supposedly disproportionately affect the balance in favour of landowners. My Lords, I do not believe that the interests of trespassers should be equally balanced with those of landowners and occupiers, if at all. That does not pertain to the Gypsy Traveller community, it does not matter who the people are. Declaring that the right to private property should trump the subjective desires of an individual or group does not have a racial element.

It is an entirely neutral law and is fundamentally liberal in that it affords the same freedoms to all. It is true to this latter point that it is so disheartening to see the party that was once the vehicle of Manchester liberalism now supporting such a partial and archaic view and anarchic view of the world. Therefore, my Lords, if the law permits that upholding the belief in private property and enacting its enforcement into law is considered wrong, then the law should be repealed.

If the law sustains a private property, undermines an abstract theory of human rights, and that the latter should prevail, then the law should be repealed. If the law favours the human right of the infringer over the victim, then the law should be repealed. If the law is able to overturn the decision of a sovereign elected parliament acting on its own volition, then the law should almost certainly be repealed. Therefore, whilst we welcome the government's attempt to find a compromise between our legal commitments, we are unfortunately of the opinion that they are amending the wrong act entirely, and I understand that they are still rather dogmatic in their commitment to this outdated doctrine, but they are simply kicking the can down the road and delaying the inevitable.

And whether the courts allow a three month no returns period is immaterial. They would still exist. An extra judicial doctrine that has the ultimate say of the United Kingdom's Parliament. There will simply be an appeal to this amendment, and if that is unsuccessful, they will find themselves facing the ECHR in another challenge to another act. My Lords, we are sympathetic to the government's attempt at a balancing act, but they are targeting the symptoms over the cause. That cause is the ECHR enshrined in human rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act, has served its purpose for the fact it now favours rule breakers over rule takers shows it does so no longer so the government must recognise this truth and I suspect that deep down they do so and they should follow the advice the Conservative Party and leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Perhaps the Minister will reply, bearing good news. Mr. replies. Can I just suggest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. replies. Can I just suggest to the noble Lord that the rule breakers are not those who want to breakers are not those who want to return within three months? They are the local authorities that have statutory obligations to provide sites, proper sites for travellers,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but are failing to do so. And I do accept that to a certain degree, yes.
21:27
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
And well, let me clear up something straight away. I don't think there's going to be a meeting think there's going to be a meeting of minds between myself and Lord Davies of Gower on the abolition of the. And I think, if I may, my Lords, I'll leave it at that tonight. There's no common ground with us. We're looking at some reforms. Yes, generally, but there's no common grounds for us to abolish the lot, which is what the noble Lord seeks to achieve.

So I think we're just saying there's blue stroke, red water stroke, orange water between us on this. And I'll leave it at that. The, the the question that has been raised, and I'm grateful for both the support of my noble friend Baroness Whitaker and also the support of the noble Lady, Baroness Bakewell of Hardington. On this issue we have moved in the light of the judgments that were made, and we have instated in this legislation the three month period.

And that is the right thing to do in relation to the legislation. And I think the noble Lord, David Gower, accepted that whilst having a wider target. But at the moment I will take his acceptance of that as support. I thank the noble Lady, Baroness Bakewell, for her support and I'm grateful for the constant chivvying of my noble friend Baroness Whitaker on this issue. I think, again, I did say my opening remarks to try to anticipate what was said, that the government agrees that planning appropriately for the housing and accommodation needs of our diverse communities is essential in supporting sustainable and inclusive growth, and it is important that the responsibilities as the noble Lord panic has just reminded the House to set pitch and plot targets for traveller sites from local authorities and identify specific deliverable sites sufficient for five years worth of sites against targets is absolutely right.

And as I've said again in my opening remarks, a revised national Planning policy Framework and Planning Policy for traveller sites was published at the end of December 24th. Following extensive consultation. The Ministry for housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on a new national planning framework and that consultation runs to the 10th of March. So the the provision that both the noble Baroness Bakewell and my noble friend Baroness Whitaker have mentioned about the need to look at more sites is actively being looked at now.

But for the moment, I would hope that I can make to move the amendments that I've stood in my name. And despite the wider reservations of the noble Lord and the support of both the Liberal Democrat benches and my colleague Baroness Whitaker, I hope that my amendments can be accepted by the House tonight.
21:30
21:30
21:31
None Portrait Amendment:377 Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-

about lawful or reasonable excuse for public order offences. It's not particularly easy for a legislator to say what can or could constitute to say what can or could constitute a reasonable excuse. But, my Lords, a reasonable excuse. But, my Lords, the law is currently in a mess. And the culprit, I'm afraid, is a case called Ziegler, where the Supreme Court by a majority said that whatever Parliament might say, it was necessary for a court to decide for itself, using the vexed issue of proportionality as a separate assessment, it would seem paragraph 59 of the leading judgment describes the process proportionality as a fact specific inquiry which requires the evaluation of the circumstances in the individual case.

Now there's been widespread criticism of the Ziegler case. The courts themselves have been backing away from it. For example, the Colston Statute case in the Court of Appeal, and last week in two cases, Rex versus AB and Policy Exchange. The think tank has mounted a long standing campaign against the incoherence that the Ziegler decision has generated. There is absolutely no reason, I should add, from Strasbourg's point of view, why national governments should not decide what are the sensible and appropriate limits on the law in relation to protest.

Many noble Lords will remember the 2023 legislation and the provisions concerning tunnelling, major obstruction to transport networks and interfering with key national infrastructure. I was always concerned that superimposing on all these very specific offences the defence of lawful or reasonable excuse, without giving any definition, was in effect, simply asking courts the question well, do you think there was a reasonable excuse, but not saying how they were to approach that particular issue? I put down amendments together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord, hope without success to try and clarify the issue so that courts could know what questions they should ask of themselves other than did they like the protest, or did they not like the protest? During the course of the debate on this particular provision at Committee stage, no one in the debate, no noble Lords from any party, seemed to agree with the Ziegler decision or seek to defend it.

The noble Lord, Lord Marx, seemed to dislike the amendment on one particular ground, which is that it purported to oust the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. I understand his loyalty towards the European Court of Human Rights, but the amendment does not seek to do that at all. What it seeks to do is to confirm that, in our view, and I think it's pretty uncontroversial. This amendment complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. It respects a balance of the various rights.

And of course, the House will know only too well that articles ten and 11 are qualified rights. And it is clearly important that the the law in relation to protest should take into account not only the rights of protesters, but all those those parties whose lives can be completely upset by the exercise of those rights. And of course, the police who have to interpret the law and administrate the law. So coherence is most important. I then looked again at what Lord Hanson had to say in response to this group.

Now, to be fair to Lord Hanson, who has been indefatigable in the course of this bill, dealing with any number of amendments, and he's had to deal often with large groups. And I don't blame him altogether for not, as it were, seizing on the Ziegler point with any great detail, but I fear that his answer was simply not good enough. He simply said the government were not persuaded that the amendment was needed, and that public order offences had been developed to ensure that these reasonable excuses apply only when the when appropriate and respect the need to balance, etc.

perfectly fair statement of what the aims of any government is, but not an answer to the inadequacy of the Ziegler case. So I ask him directly, does the government think that the Ziegler decision. Sorry, it's not going to be. Lord Hanson is getting a well-earned rest. But the noble Lord, Lord Katz, does he he, on behalf of the government, say that the Ziegler decision was correct? Or does he accept, like almost any other legal commentator, that the decision was unfortunately wrong, as other judges seem now to accept? If that is the case, then the law is incoherent and it must be changed.

And I fear I must join with Lord panic and Lord Goldsmith not currently in his place, and say it is not simply good enough to say we must wait until Lord MacDonald speaks on the subject, if he were to speak on the subject, because of course, that may be some time in the future. And then there is the vexed question of legislative time. So, my Lords, we need to sort out the law in relation to protest. This amendment states in a way that has not been criticised in any way, the drafting what could or should constitute a reasonable excuse or lawful excuse.

The time has come,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lord, to clarify the law. For everybody's sake, my Lords, I beg to move. The amendment proposed after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed after clause 142. Insert the following
21:37
21:37
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
the most simple of offences. It was all about wilful obstruction of the highway. But that used to be fairly highway. But that used to be fairly straightforward. It was on a highway, it got obstructed and it was done wilfully. That was that was done wilfully. That was that was the offence. That's all that had to be proved. And of course, it's not only used in the case of it's not only used in the case of protest, but Ziegler said that in the case of protesters blocking the the case of protesters blocking the highway, that simple test couldn't be applied.

You had to consider further issues. And in fact, what they said was the person could only be convicted of obstructing the highway if the prosecution could persuade the court that a conviction would be a proportionate interference in his or her convention rights, which in effect shifted for the police to prove proportionality. When someone was blocking the highway. Now, my point is that I think we understand the intellectual background to that, but I think it's left the law in such a confused position that the cops don't know whether to enforce it or not at the moment of the crime, and that's never a good position to be in.

There's a secondary issue, which is often senior officers becoming involved in planning for marches that are to happen in the next week or two weeks. They probably got a little bit more time to consider these issues. But frankly, the police have always used discretion. People do block the highway fairly regularly. We all do. If you stop in your car, if you if you're walking on the highway, you can't block it. So they don't arrest everybody who block the highway. They don't arrest every protester who is walking on the highway.

And clearly he's obstructing it. That's what marchers do. It happens all the time. But of course, it does get a bit tricky when a group within the protest decide to sit down in the middle of Oxford Circus and want to stay there for some time, that I think we might all accept is unreasonable, they'll try and persuade them. At some point they might want to intervene and say, actually, I think you need to move, or alternatively, you're going to get arrested. There is a consequence to what you're doing.

That's your right, but there will be a consequence. But I'm afraid this judgment has left them really confused about it. And this is just in terms of obstruction of the highway, but it applies to all the different aspects of public order law. And I don't think it's fair to start asking the police to start balancing human rights on on the Street. Of course, there's the issue of reasonableness, which is where discretion comes in. They're not going to arrest everybody. They should only exercise the powers.

If somebody refuses to move and or is repeatedly causing an aggravation to the simple offence. But I think the danger of this judgment is, I'm afraid, is that the law is confused. The police get caught in the middle, and I think there is an opportunity with this amendment to clarify it. I think it's a reasonable one and I support it.
21:40
21:42
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Foulkes, for the elegant way that he introduced this amendment, and Lord Hogan-Howe for explaining his perspective on it, which was effectively a police perspective. Given that the police find it difficult to apply the law as it was thought to be after Ziegler. And I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord panic, for explaining that the law has moved on since Ziegler, and I do not propose to get into that argument of precisely what the law is in the light of Ziegler, as subsequently interpreted.

What I'm concerned with is the way that this amendment actually addresses the question of reasonable excuse, and the way that this is achieved is effectively spelt out in proposed Subclause two, where it's where it says that the A person has no excuse for conduct if it's intended to intimidate, provoking convenience or otherwise harm members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity, and that hides within it a an open question about what is the meaning of intention in that context.

And it's for that reason that I don't support this amendment as drafted, because it may well be that a person recognizes that the conduct which is otherwise perfectly lawful, particularly in a context of of peaceful protest, may inevitably carry the consequence of provoking or inconveniencing other members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity. And that that comes back to the point that Lord Hogan-Howe made in the context of obstructing the highway in the context of any obstruction or interference with traffic or movement, or getting to work or delay, all of those could be intended consequences of lawful protest.

And what worries me is that this amendment, as drafted, would acknowledge that intention and say that there could be no excuse. So it's not, then, a question of weighing up any excuse in the light of what the courts may consider to be an excuse in any particular case, the question is made as to what the intended consequence would be, and the intended consequence may appear to may appear to the people charged with the conduct to be entirely reasonable, though intended, and may objectively be entirely reasonable, though intended, and the position is made worse by the proposed subclause three, which would provide that it's immaterial that there may be other excuses for the or reasons for the conduct, or that its main purpose may be different.

The main purpose of the protest, a peaceable protest, is to make a point, and it may be that objectively, making that point in the peaceable protest is a reasonable excuse for conduct that might amount to obstruction. And in a direct answer to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Foulkes made in response to the point that I made in committee about the ouster of the Human Rights Act, the Lord suggested that I was wrong about that.

But in fact, if you look at Subclause five, it can be read in no other way. For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1988, this section must be treated as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Human Rights Act provides that a restriction that is necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of others, freedoms of others is, or maybe legitimate. And if this section effectively outlaws the Human Rights Act for the purposes of this, Subclause outlaws the application of the Human Rights Act, then it operating as an ouster.

It is predetermining the very issue which the Human Rights Act requires to be considered before restrictions are authorized by law. And so I would suggest that, irrespective of any argument on Ziegler, the effect of this clause, as drafted, is inconsistent with the Human Rights Act and in fact, a dangerous clause. And the same goes for the clause that specific about the obstruction of the highway. It's part of the same argument. In that narrow context, I take the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe point that it's difficult to decide upon, but sometimes the courts are there to decide difficult issues.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well that's it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well that's it. My Lords. The recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the Crown and the Supreme Court in the Crown and AB J in Crown and Burden in the last couple of weeks has thrown the law of public protest into even law of public protest into even greater confusion. That case relates to two protesters who were prosecuted under section 12, one A prosecuted under section 12, one A of the Terrorism Act 2000 for expressing public support for Hamas, a proscribed organisation.

The appellants claim that their charges under the act represented a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression and article ten of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court unanimously dismissed this appeal and in doing so ruled that section 1201, a offence in the Terrorism Act, does not represent a disproportionate interference with the convention rights. And I raise this ruling because it highlights the confusion around protest law. Ever since the Supreme Court delivered a different ruling in the case of DPP and Ziegler in 2021, we have discussed the implications of Ziegler ruling in this House on a number of occasions, and indeed a noble Lord.

Lord Foulkes has again reminded us of the details of that case. There is a clear tension between the court's ruling in Ziegler and their ruling last week. The court has made it clear that the Ziegler logic does not apply to the Terrorism Act offence, but it has not yet rectified the damaging consequences of Ziegler decision. The basis of the court's reasoning in Ziegler was the lawful excuse defence in section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. That committee, myself and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, tabled amendments to remove the reasonable excuse defences in a number of acts used to prosecute highly disruptive protesters, including the Highways Act, the Public Order Act 2023, and in this bill, when I spoke to those amendments, the noble Lord, the Minister said that defences necessary in these instances to ensure an appropriate balance between protecting the wider community and the right to protest.

But, my Lords, it is clear that the balance has not been made and I have not tabled these amendments to remove the reasonable excuse defences. Again, apart from amendment 377, be that amendment would remove the reasonable excuse defence from section 137 of the Highways Act. I can think of no possible excuse for anyone to purposefully block the highway unless they are authorised to do so, so teachers, police officers, the Highways Agency and removing that defence would render the issue in Ziegler null and void.

Since it was that defence that was the issue under consideration by the court. So I do accept, however, that the problem has now grown. The Supreme Court's decision in Ziegler case means there is no judicial precedent, and defence lawyers up and down the country have been lining up to utilise that argument so their clients can get off scot free. And that is, well, that is why I will be supporting amendment 377 from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. And whilst I would prefer to remove those defences entirely, it is better that the clarity in the law provided by 377 is made.

His amendment does not sorry. His amendment does apply more widely than mine, and therefore, I'm happy to admit, provides a more substantial solution to the problem. I would like to pick up on something the noble Lord, Lord panic, said a committee. He said that, and I quote much of the criticism. Ziegler fails to recognise that the courts themselves have understood that Ziegler went too far, and that what Parliament has determined in relation to the law is the governing law. End of quote. And I accept his interpretation of the courts via subsequent decisions have recognised the issue with Ziegler.

But of course the decision of Ziegler still stands as case law. It has not yet been overturned. And so I rather think that serves as one of the strongest arguments of Parliament to pass amendment 377 and rectify the error that the courts have themselves acknowledged. And of course, if the European Convention on Human Rights prevents the application of the law as passed by Parliament, or prevents the conviction of those who should
21:51
21:52
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate. And I'm grateful, of course, the noble Lords, Lords and Lord David Gower Lords, Lords and Lord David Gower for tabling these amendments which seek to narrow the existing lawful or reasonable excuse defences which or reasonable excuse defences which may be used as a defence for public order offences. It may be helpful, my Lords, to set out how a lawful excuse works. In practice, a person excuse works. In practice, a person is only automatically treated as having a lawful excuse under two specific circumstances.

The first specific circumstances. The first is if the defendant honestly believes that the person who's entitled to consent to the damage has given consent, or would have consented if they knew of the circumstances. For example, an honest belief that the owner of a car in which a child was locked in on a hot day consented or would have consented to the defendant smashing the window to get the child out. The second, if the defendant acts to protect their own or someone else's property, and they honestly believe both that the property needs immediate protection and that their actions are reasonable.

For example, a person damages one person's property whilst accessing the property of another to prevent a fire. So it doesn't matter whether a person's belief in those circumstances is reasonable or justified, it just needs to be honest. Now, whatever the failings or the or indeed one's views on the Ziegler judgement as the noble Lord, Lord panic said in his sagacious contribution, the to the case law has moved on, and the Supreme Court have made subsequent. Subsequent rulings which chart, I would say, a clearer path.

It's it is the case that the right to private property will always need to be balanced with other convention rights, such as the right to protest and freedom of expression. This will have to be judged on a case by case basis, but leading case law has set out the parameters, and the Court of Appeal did not say that the exercise of a person's convention rights could never form the basis of lawful excuse to criminal damage. Whilst I acknowledge the concerns of noble Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Marx.

It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to decide what may constitute as lawful or reasonable excuse in individual cases. Further, the current scope of the defences allows the CPS the necessary flexibility to consider the full circumstances of each case on its merits. The types of behaviour the noble Lords have suggested, such as intimidating or harming members of the public or risk of damaging property, is unlikely to be considered a reasonable excuse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore, I'd ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful to.
21:54
21:55
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
them. The first point is that he didn't like the the clause, which says that it's not an excuse if you says that it's not an excuse if you intend to intimidate, provoke, inconvenience, or otherwise harm members of the public by members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity. But that doesn't seem to me a very reasonable excuse to me, me a very reasonable excuse to me, and seems to be a very sensible thing to put in the amendment.

He didn't like clause subclause three, where it says it's immaterial. There may be other purposes, so he hasn't got a very good excuse. It's no good saying well, actually my overall excuse, because I happen to support Just Stop Oil is a good one, so you can't rely on that. And the final point he made was that he rather stuck to his argument that this was an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act. May I repeat the point? It is absolutely not that whatever the future may hold, we are still part of the European Convention on Human Rights.

But the convention requires the balancing of rights, including that they have to be treated as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of rights and freedoms of others. What I say is that this particular provision does reflect all those factors in a perfectly appropriate balance. So therefore it does comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. I come finally to this point, the noble Lord, Lord panic quite rightly says, pointing to a recent judgment of the president of the Supreme Court, that the courts are backing away from Ziegler.

I'm not surprised. And it sits very uneasily with the jurisprudence in this area. Generally, the decision is almost moribund. But, my Lords, it's time to give it a decent burial. It is time to conclude that the law should be clear, that we can understand what it means. The police can understand what it means, and that the the whole business of putting forward spurious excuses will cease, and we can have a proper and sensible law in relation to protest.

And of course, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 377 be agreed to. As many as are of
21:57
22:00
22:05
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – report stage: Division:Amdt 377
-

No, the question is that amendment 377

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents H2, not contents 151, so Amendment
22:08
22:08
22:08
22:09
22:19
22:20
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-

>> The not contents. Not content.
22:20
22:23
22:30
22:31
None Portrait Amendment:380 Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-

Yes. Thank you. My Lords. Amendment 380 erects a vital safeguard. It blocks clause 154 from handing millions of drivers private photos to the police for facial recognition searches without full parliamentary scrutiny and explicit consent. It stops a road traffic database being quietly repurposed for mass biometric surveillance, while still allowing proportionate, tightly regulated data sharing for genuine policing needs. In committee, peers from across the House voiced concerns echoing not just Liberal Democrat, but a wide range of civil society Liberty, Big Brother, watch, justice, stop Watch, inquest and Privacy International among them.

Yet the Minister TILs still tells us that this is merely a tidying up exercise with no impact on facial recognition. The evidence, my Lords, I suggest, tells a very different story. It points to a plan to funnel photos of over 50 million innocent drivers into a vast facial recognition repository, dismantling vital privacy safeguards for anyone who thinks that sounds exaggerated, let me make three points. First, the previous government explicitly justified an almost identical clause on the basis that it would enable facial recognition searches, and they were candid about that intention.

If this government does not share that purpose, it should have no difficulty supporting my amendment. Second, thanks to freedom of information requests, we now know that other civic databases, passports and immigration records are already acting as de facto facial recognition libraries without public knowledge, without consent, and without a clear parliamentary mandate. Third, there is a strategic facial match up project, a joint Home Office and police scheme to enable facial recognition searches across multiple databases, including Non-policing ones.

Its existence has yet to be confirmed in public Home office policy documents, having surfaced only via government tender notices, media reports and oblique spending references. If this project does not exist, I invite the Minister to set the record straight. My Lords, facial recognition turns an ordinary photograph into biometric data, a unique identifier like a fingerprint or DNA, which in law should only be retained for criminal justice purposes under very strict safeguards. The UK does not currently have population wide biometric databases of innocent citizens, creating a single, easily accessible policing platform for these civil images runs directly against the European Court of Human Rights, warning that blanket retention of biometrics is a serious and disproportionate interference with privacy.

Plugging the DVLA database into a facial recognition engine also risks creating a honeypot for hostile states and criminals, exposing the lifelong biometric signatures of almost every adult driver. There are practical problems as well. Driving license photos are updated only every ten years, so the database already holds millions of outdated images. Using that kind of so-called noisy data for facial recognition inevitably increases the risk of false positives and wrongful stops. We know this technology is far less precise than DNA, and has already contributed to wrongful accusations.

Let we. Yet we are assured its accuracy is improving. But there is no timescale for this. My Lords, the government is in effect asking Parliament to sign a blank check for mass access to our biometric data. Amendment 380 simply asks this house not to hand them the pen. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Opposed. Clause 154.
22:36
22:36
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
>> Man who's just got his driving licence. He's very excited. He sees it as a right of passage. He's now a grown up. He's joined that club a grown up. He's joined that club of drivers and he shows his driving licence with pride. I can assure you, he has no idea that applying for a driving licence now means that he is joining a vast biometric police database, a club of police surveillance, that his mugshot will be treated like one of those vast, most wanted gallery of rogues in images.

I do think that this is a corruption of public trust. The public apply for one thing only for it to be subverted and used for something else. It seems to me to be duplicitous and behind the backs of the public. Currently, police forces can only directly access and search DVLA data in relation to road traffic offences and must phone the DVLA in relation to whether offences. And to note Baroness Ducie's amendment would not prevent police forces. As she has explained from accessing DVLA data for law enforcement purposes.

But it shouldn't be the default position. So I think it is important to create this safeguard to prevent such data being used to conduct effectively phishing exercises of facial recognition, and I think, therefore we need this amendment to be taken very seriously. And I will be interested in what the noble Lord, the Minister, has to say. This isn't some paranoid dystopian vision, by the way, in a recent submission to the Home Affairs Committee, the National Police Chiefs Council stated that police chiefs are indeed seeking access to the DVLA database for facial recognition and that would be a huge expansion of police surveillance powers granting them access, as we've heard, to the biometric data of tens of millions of citizens.

I think that we cannot underestimate how important it is that we don't just nod this through, that we take seriously what a risk it is for civil liberties. And it is why. Baroness Ducie's amendment three Haiti creating a safeguard is so important to protect the civil liberties and privacy of innocent driving driver licence holders. And just to conclude with a quote from Big Brother Watch that says that this represents a disproportionate expansion of police powers to track and identify citizens across time and locations for low level policing needs.

I think it's, in a way, an abuse of the police to ask them to use these underhand methods, and it's therefore vital that this safeguards in law to prevent this from happening, and particularly because it is happening behind the backs of ordinary people.
22:39
22:40
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, the DVLA driver database must not be turned into a ready made lineup for facial recognition systems. This is about more than data protection. It's about the basic relationship between citizen and state. People didn't hand over their photographs to the DVLA so that the government could quietly repurpose them for mass identification. They did so under legal compulsion to get a driving licence, using those images to power facial recognition searches fundamentally changes the the deal after the fact.

It turns a compulsory single purpose database into an all purpose surveillance tool without anyone ever having been having given meaningful consent. Once you allow the police to run facial recognition matches against the DVLA database, you create the possibility of identifying almost anyone, almost anywhere from a single image that goes far beyond investigating named suspects. It enables trawling through the entire driving population to find possible matches, with all the risk of false positives that facial recognition systems already carry.

A bad match here is not an abstract error. It's a real person wrongly flagged, questioned or even arrested because a machine thought their face looked similar. The DVLA database is also near universal for adults. That makes it uniquely tempting if we normalise using it for facial recognition in one context, it will not stop there today. It might be justified for serious crime tomorrow. It could creep into protests, public events or routine inquiries. Once the precedent is set that every licence holders image is fair game for search, the barrier to expanding that use becomes paper thin.

There is also a democratic principle at stake here. When the state wants new investigative powers that are this sweeping, it should come to Parliament and ask for them openly, with clear limits, safeguards and independent oversight. What must not happen is a quiet technical integration between facial recognition systems and the DVLA database, introduced by secondary legislation and governed mainly by internal policies and obscure memoranda of understanding. This is legislation by the back door, not by debate.

If we allow the DVLA database to be searched with facial recognition, we're not just making investigations a little more efficient. We would be rebuilding the basic infrastructure of our democracy so that the state can, in principle, put a name to almost any face. We're doing that using images. People had no real choice about providing, and for a completely different purpose. So the line we should draw is simple and firm. The DVLA driver database is for licensing drivers, not for powering facial recognition line ups.

If any government wants to change that, it must come back to Parliament with primary legislation, make its case in public and accept strict statutory constraints. Until then, we should say clearly that turning a compulsory license licensing database into a de facto national ID gallery is a step too far for a free society. That is what amendment 380 does, and I commend it to the House.
22:44
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> I don't excuse me, I don't support the amendment. I think it makes the point that obviously there will be regulation, because I think there are fears that people think there are fears that people have about accessing the DVLA database. But at the moment, the only database that facial comparisons are made against are those of suspects, which is quite a substantial database. People who the police have arrested in the past, it would be bizarre outcome, wouldn't it, if the technology existed, to find a serial rapist, and the only way we could find them was on the DVLA database.

We buried our head in the sand and said we weren't going to look. This is just a start of an investigation, not a conclusion. No one will get charged. The result of being identified by this, this process, but it may well start an investigation that might exclude them or include them, but to not take the possibility that you could identify them either or other databases, I think, is the wrong way forward. And of course, I think it should be restricted probably initially, particularly to serious crimes.

But the alternative of ignoring it seems bizarre, given that most places we go to now have CCTV cameras because the present method of publication or identification generally is showing the image around the police station. So do you know them? Well, frankly, it doesn't work in London. And when technology exists to actually make that a more efficient and effective process, I honestly think we'd be foolish to ignore it. But I do agree that it should be regulated. What those regulations should be up for debate, but to exclude the possibility altogether, I think, is wrong.
22:45
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, the. >> That Lord panic has said that the fact that these. That this access is to be authorised by regulations is a saving grace in this House. We know full well that facial motions virtually never succeed. The conservative front bench may take some comfort from the fact that there would be provision for regulations, but the reality is that once the enabling legislation was passed, then regulations would be in the hands of the government.

And really nobody could do anything about it. My Lord, this is an issue of consent. People who apply for driving licences do so and have done so for many years on the basis that their photographs are provided and their biometric data is provided for the purpose and the limited purpose of applying for a driving licence. That goes for the information. All the information they provide. It is not for the purpose of enabling a trawl for suspects.

One can envisage a a position where in some circumstances authorisation to use information in public hands, as Lord Hogan-Howe suggested, may be appropriate, but this is not the place for it to be provided for by regulations subsequent to and consequent upon this enabling clause. It's about a question. It's a question of public trust. The information the photographs are provided by applicants for driving licences on trust that they will be used for that purpose and that purpose alone.

Then to misuse that information, to enable a trawl of photographs to see if they might be suspected of some offence, with nobody having any real control over that use is an abuse of trust. And amendment.
22:48
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> My Lords, I rise to address amendment 38 zero in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ducey, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Winscombe and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. And I'm grateful to them for raising an issue that deserves careful consideration. The amendment in this group would prevent authorised persons from using information held within the Driver and Licensing Agency database for biometric searches using facial recognition technology.

It is right to ensure that Parliament scrutinises these emerging powers thoroughly. Public trust in policing is vital and it is only through open debate and clear safeguards that such trust can be maintained. Now the DVLA database contains photographs and personal information provided by millions of law abiding citizens for the specific purpose of licensing drivers, and it is therefore entirely understandable that noble Lords should question whether it is appropriate for that information to be used in other contexts, particularly in the context of advanced biometric searches and the principle that personal data should not be repurposed without clear justification, is one that many of us across the House share.

However, while the concerns behind this amendment are sincere and very valid, I fear that the amendment itself is both perhaps unnecessary and ultimately misguided. Indeed, I believe it risks undermining the ability of our police and law enforcement agencies to prevent and investigate serious crime. First, it is important to recognise the operational value that carefully regulated facial recognition tools can provide to modern policing. The technology, when used responsibly, can assist officers in identifying suspects in serious crime, locating dangerous offenders and protecting the public in situations where time is of the essence.

It can be particularly valuable when investigating crimes involving unidentified individuals captured on CCTV or other images. The police already rely on a range of databases and identification tools to perform these tasks. Photographs from custody suites from passport records and other lawful sources have long assisted the police in identifying suspects and victims alike. Facial recognition technology represents in many ways, the technological evolution of that long standing investigative practice. The amendment before us would place a blanket prohibition on the use of DVLA images for biometric searches involving facial recognition.

Such a prohibition risked creating an artificial and potentially harmful limitation on investigative capability. If a suspect's image appears on CCTV and the only high quality image available for comparison is contained within DVLA database, the amendment would prevent police from even conducting that comparison. So, my Lords, we must ask ourselves whether this is truly a proportionate outcome. Secondly, it is worth emphasising that the use of facial recognition technology by police forces in the United Kingdom is not taking place in a regulatory vacuum.

The deployment of such technologies is already subject to a framework of legal safeguards, oversight and guidance. Police forces must operate within the boundaries of data protection law, including the principles established under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Their activities are also subject to oversight by bodies such as the Information Commissioner's Office and, where appropriate, the courts. Moreover, the use of live facial recognition by police has already been subject to significant judicial scrutiny.

The courts have made clear that deployments must be proportionate, transparent and accompanied by appropriate safeguards, and that jurisprudence has helped shape operational guidance and policing practice in this area. Given that context, I question whether it is wise for Parliament to impose a sweeping statutory ban in relation to one particular database. Doing so risks risks preempting the careful regulatory balance that is already evolving through legislation, oversight and case law. My Lords, that does not mean the concerns raised by the amendment should be dismissed.

Far from it. The growth of biometric technologies demands a clear and robust legislative framework. Many members across this House have rightly called for greater clarity about how facial recognition should be governed in the future. Indeed, I feel the same questions of transparency, accountability, accuracy and bias must continue to be examined with great care. But those broader questions should be addressed through a comprehensive approach to biometric governance, rather than through a single amendment targeting one database in isolation. Indeed, if Parliament concludes that additional statutory safeguards are required for facial recognition technology, than we should consider them holistically, ensuring that any rules are consistent, proportionate and grounded in operational reality.

A piecemeal prohibition risks creating unintended consequences while failing to resolve the underlying policy debate. And so, for those reasons, my Lords, while I commend the spirit in which the amendment has been brought forward, I regret that I cannot support it. Instead, I hope that the House will continue the broader, necessary conversation about how facial recognition technologies should be regulated, ensuring that we protect both civil liberties and the ability of our police to keep our communities safe.
22:54
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
This has been a useful debate, >> This has been a useful debate, my Lords, and I'm grateful again to Baroness Doocey for tabling amendments and for the noble Lords amendments and for the noble Lords Strasbourg and the noble Lady, Baroness Fox, for speaking in support of them. I'm grateful also to the comments of Lord Davies of Gower, which echoes some of the points I will make, and I think that the noble Lord and learned Lord panic did point to one of the arguments.

I will put that access to the data will be subject to a statutory code of practice to ensure use is appropriate. If I just remind noble Lords about what the purpose of clause 104 is, 154 is about simply bringing legislation up to date, which is what I said in committee when we debated this matter. As a result of technical changes to the way police and law enforcement access driving licence data, it has become clear that we need to improve the DVLA data access regime by setting out clearly in statute, which is what clause 154 does, which persons can access DVLA driving licence data and the legislation does, I think, provide additional clarity on this issue.

The measure will also enable us through secondary legislation, going again to the noble and learned Lord Panic's point, made under these new powers to expand the purposes for which DVLA data may be accessed automatically to include policing or law enforcement purposes. This means the police will have another tool to cut crime and keep the public safe, in line with commitment by chief officers to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry when investigating an offence. And I just emphasize again that access to the data will be subject to a statutory code of practice to ensure use is appropriate.

We are clear that there will be strong safeguards around the use of data, which, as I've said, will be introduced via regulations made under new provisions. We debated earlier, Government Amendment 32, which ensured that these regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure in both houses, in line with recommendations from the Constitution Committee, we want to ensure that officers undergo training prior to being able to access information. The police are already legally required to consult with local communities. Extensive audits of Who accesses DVLA driving data are maintained, and it's already standard practice that each time the DVLA database is accessed by a police officer, the details of what information is accessed, for what purpose is logged, and this will continue to be the case once these revised measures are implemented.

Now I should just say to all the noble Lords, including Baroness Doocey, who've moved this, that on the issue of facial recognition technology, I want to be clear now, the police forces do not conduct biometric facial recognition searches against images contained in the DVLA database. They don't do it now. Officers use the DVLA database for day to day policing matters. Anybody who has watched a police programme on a Monday night, when we get the opportunity in recess to do so, will have seen at some point a police officer pull over a car and look at an individual who says, I haven't got my license with me.

I'm Jimmy Jones of Exodus and the police officer wants to check that they're Jimmy Jones of X address. And so they accessed the DVLA database. And nine times out of ten on the police television programs that I watch on a Monday night during recess, there is a false name and therefore this police action accordingly. That is the use that police use the database for currently. And as I've said in our early debates on amendment 374, the use of facial recognition technology in all circumstances is currently subject to safeguards such as the Human Rights Act, such as the Data Protection Act.

And as I've said already in previous discussions, any use of facial recognition technology is going to be subject to the outcome of the consultation that we finished on February the 10th, that will be completed within about 12 weeks, and by the summer we'll have government proposals which the noble Lady can scrutinise, along with both Houses of Parliament, to achieve some view on whatever the government proposes following the outcome of that consultation. So if and again I shared the view of the noble Lord Davies of Gower on this.

If the amendment was agreed by the government today, then the police officer who stops somebody, potentially a drunk driver, potentially a unlicensed driver, potentially a driver with no insurance on the street, would not be able to access the DVLA database. And that goes to the very point that the noble Lord Hogan-Howe was mentioning in his. This is not about mass surveillance, it's about using DVLA database in an appropriate way, logged, recorded, monitored by the police to ensure that we check that person A is actually the right person who can drive that vehicle at that particular time.

It is not with due respect to noble Lords mass surveillance. It is proper use of police technology to ensure the DVLA database helps catch bad actors in the action of doing bad things. I hope she withdraws the amendment.
22:59
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, there's no chance whatsoever that I'm going to withdraw the amendment. But I think withdraw the amendment. But I think you know that we are not on the same page on this. How on earth can the government justify taking information that people have given for one purpose and using it for something else? It's totally and utterly disgraceful. People gave their photographs in order to get a driving licence. It is wrong that they can now be repurposed to be checked by police.

There's nothing wrong. Just let me finish the sentence. There's nothing wrong with the government in its consultation. Having said to people we now want to repurpose the DVLA driving licence database because it would be really helpful to police. Would you be willing to agree to this? But you didn't say that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You've just taken it. Do you think that a police officer at 11:00 at night on a officer at 11:00 at night on a street in Westminster here, shouldn't access the DVLA database to check whether the person who says they're the person is the says they're the person is the person. If she thinks that, then she's really blowing a hole in every Monday night television

**** Possible New Speaker ****

programme I've ever watched. I would suggest to the Minister's been watching too many of these television programmes. There is a complete lack of transparency. The Information Commissioner's Office had to learn about the use of passport databases through media reports, rather than through the Home Office. Disclosure. Despite the fact that this appears to have been happening since 2019. So it's it's just so wrong. It's completely and utterly wrong. If people had given you their information to use it for those purposes, fair enough.

No problem at all. But they didn't. And you've taken it without permission. I just think that the whole situation is absolutely appalling, and there is potential for 50 million drivers to be put on a permanent database and to be checked every single day. Of course, the police want it. I'd want it if I were the police. It's going to make their lives so much easier. It's going to make it very easy. In a minute. It's going to make it very easy for them to check everything they need to check.

But the fact is, that shouldn't be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

purpose of this. The noble Ladies speaking very eloquently, and she's putting her eloquently, and she's putting her case on the basis of a lack of consent. Could I suggest to her that the police regularly use material which people have not material which people have not given consent for the police to use, for example, their fingerprints, their saliva.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their saliva. But not 50 million innocent drivers being put on a database? I don't accept that. However, I've given all the arguments. We've had a debate twice. Sorry. What does that mean?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's simply saying, I think the noble Ladies already indicated that she was going to divide the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she was going to divide the house. So given the hour, probably quite useful just to go to that stage. Well, that is very unfair. Because of all the people in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because of all the people in this House, my speeches are probably shorter than everyone. So you shouldn't pick on me because you shouldn't pick on me because you don't like what I'm saying. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you don't like what I'm saying. And I don't like being bullied, so. Go.
23:03
23:03
None Portrait Crime and Policing Bill – report stage: Division:Amdt:380
-

>> Well done. Yes. >> My Lords, voting is now open. Yes. Yes. Sit Yes. Sit around. Yes. Sit around. Great Yes. Sit around. Great to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is amendment The question is amendment 380 The question is amendment 380 be agreed to? As many as are of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content. On the contrary, not content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. And. That And. That should And. That should be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. That should be. And. That should be. On And. That should be. On the. Question. Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. And. That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 40, not contents 123. So Amendments Amendments 381 Amendments 381 and Amendments 381 and 382 Amendments 381 and 382 already debated Lord Hanson, who formerly the question is an amendment 381 and 382 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not contents. The contents have it. Articles 154,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 383. Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move amendment 383, which repeals the statutory code relating to non-crime hate incidents issued non-crime hate incidents issued under section 60 and 61 of the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022. It does so Courts Act of 2022. It does so because in consideration of the review undertaken by the College of Policing and the National Police Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council, that is the appropriate policy to take forward the interim findings of the review,
23:14
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
which was commissioned in conjunction with the College of Policing by the former Home Secretary. That review interim Secretary. That review interim findings, was published in October and the findings were clear the existing system no longer operates existing system no longer operates as intended and should be replaced with a clearer and more proportionate model. Now, Non-crime hate incidents were originally introduced following the landmark Stephen Lawrence inquiry and their intent to gather information to intent to gather information to prevent crime, support investigations and safeguard the vulnerable does remain as relevant today as it did 30 years ago, and we remain committed to safeguarding against hostility and collecting information to support an effective policing response.

However, the environment in which policing operates has evolved significantly since that inquiry, and over time, Non-crime hate incidents have expanded beyond their original intention. The growth of social media in particular, and online polarisation, has drawn the police into disputes that fall outside their core duties. Police officers must be able to focus on catching criminals, cutting crime and ensuring public safety, and the present statutory code has not provided the clarity needed to support that focus. It must therefore be revoked. Now, the College of Policing and I'm pleased to see the Lord Herbert, the chair of the College of Policing in his place and the National Police Chiefs Council are very clear.

The current system is not fit for purpose. They intend to set out a more appropriate framework, one that ensures recording is proportionate, clearer and firmly focused on the most serious incidents. To ensure the police are not drawn into matters they should not be. It will do this by tightening the definition of an incident, raising the recording threshold, moving from recording all incidents that are of cause for concern, to capturing only those that relate to core policing purposes. These reforms will be supported by robust guidance and training so that the incidents are handled appropriately.

The new framework has been developed by police experts and in consultation with community representatives, and it will, I believe, strike the right balance between safeguarding vulnerable communities and protecting lawful freedom of expression by ensuring that recording is consistent and focused on genuine risk. This amendment before the Committee House today, therefore repeals the statutory framework to facilitate the introduction of a new framework. However, commencement will only be time to ensure that orderly transition aligned with the introduction of the replacement framework takes place.

And as I've already indicated to the House previously, further detail will be set out following the publication of the college's final report, which I expect in very short order in coming weeks. The report is going to the Police Chiefs Council for their consideration next week, and I expect it to be published by the College of Policing shortly afterwards. Amendment 303 ends the system that policing experts agree no longer works. Let me be clear, however, the original intention behind Non-crime hate incidents, which is to help prevent crime safeguard the vulnerable, remains important.

Our commitment to tackling hate remains and I think that was witnessed also by the amendments we brought forward last week, approved by this House on hate crime. But the mechanism by which police assess and record information will change, with a higher threshold for police involvement. So, my Lords, we will continue to safeguard our communities, but through a clearer, more proportionate framework that works. And when that is brought forward, I will make sure that the results are published and that noble Lords, as well as members of the House of Commons, can see the outcome of that final report once the Police Chiefs Council have issued it for clearance.

The amendment enables the changes that I've explained and I know the noble Lord Jung has amendment 387 B if he will allow me, I will respond to that amendment once I've heard the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords. But for now I beg to move the amendment. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 154, insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. My Lords, I rise. To support. Amendment three, 87B and declare my interest as a director of the Free Speech Union. I'm grateful to
23:19
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
the noble Lord, the Minister, for summarising the final report of the College of Policing and the Police Chiefs Council on Non-crime hate incidents, and for the courtesy he's shown me and the co-sponsors of this amendment in the run up to this debate, and for arranging for me and others to be briefed by Sir Andy Marsh and his team at the College of Policing about the recommendations in the final report. And I'll get to that shortly. As I made clear to the House during the Committee stage, I've long standing concerns that the investigation and recording of Non-crime hate incidents has been a huge waste of police time, and had a chilling effect on free speech, according to a report for Policy Exchange published in November 2024, police in England and Wales are spending an estimated 60,000 hours a week, sorry, 60,000 hours a year investigating and recording nches non crimes.

My Lords, that's time that could be spent solving actual crimes based on FOI requests submitted by the Telegraph and others, the Free Speech Union estimates that over a quarter of a million nches have been recorded since they were first introduced in 2014, and that's in England and Wales alone. That's an average of more than 65 a day. My Lords, why so many? Because if a hate incident is reported to the police by a member of the public, they have little choice but to record it as an nchi.

All that's required is that the victim, or indeed any witness, believes that the incident in question was motivated by hostility towards one or more of the victims protected characteristics. No additional evidence is required. Examples include a man accused of whistling the theme tune to Bob the builder whenever he saw his neighbour, a woman who said on social media she thought her cat was a methodist, and two schoolgirls who told another girl in the school playground that she smelled like fish.

It's hard not to laugh, but for the people who've had Nches recorded against them, it's no laughing matter. If you apply for a position or a voluntary role that requires you to carry out an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, an Nchi can show up on your record. That's why I say that I have had a chilling effect on free speech. People are rightly concerned that if they say something that another person takes offence at, it can permanently blot their copybook and may prevent them getting a job as a teacher or a carer, or volunteering at a charity like the Samaritans.

There's also the broader concern that the amount of time the police are spending on investigating and recording non crimes is undermining public confidence in the police. That's why I welcome the recommendations that the noble Lord, the Minister, has shared with us. It sounds like we finally seen the back of something the Free Speech Union has been campaigning for for six years now, assuming the Police Chiefs council and the Secretary of State sign off on these proposals, the kind of incidents that were recorded, as in the past will in future be recorded, as I understand it, as anti-social behaviour incidents and only those that meet a higher threshold, i.e.

recording the incident is considered necessary for the prevention or detection of a crime or for another policing purpose, and it complies with the new recording guidance. I am particularly encouraged by what we've heard about this new guidance. We've been assured that it will have due regard to the right to freedom of expression, and in that way, we hope, protect the police from being dragged into bad tempered arguments on social media, as well as petty disputes between neighbours. In future, if someone calls a control room to complain about a supposedly offensive remark they've seen on Twitter or overheard across the garden fence, the call handler can say, I'm sorry, but that's not a policing matter.

That is all to the good, my Lords, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council for producing such a sensible report. This is a welcome dose of common sense, which I hope will go some way to restoring public confidence in the police. Nevertheless, I don't intend to withdraw the amendment. Our amendment would not prevent the police recording incidents where doing so serves a legitimate policing purpose, even in some circumstances, logging those incidents on an intelligent management system.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, raised concerns about that during the debate at Committee stage, and we've adapted our amendment accordingly. To be clear, this amendment will not prevent the police recording incidents involving a hate element for intelligence gathering purposes. But I still have concerns that historic inches could show up in enhanced DBS checks. That's why subsection five of this amendment says the police must not disclose historic nature. That would not meet the new, higher recording thresholds.

I think your Lordships would agree that data entries that would not be made under the new regime, but which are hanging around on police computers, must not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. I have reluctantly come to accept that asking the police to comb through their databases and delete historic that would not meet the new recording threshold would be too resource intensive. Because of the sheer number that have been recorded, and that demand no longer appears in our amendment.

Nevertheless, subsection five says that any the police come across that would not be recorded under the new regime must be deleted. I don't think that's a big ask, my Lords, and it would enable people who believe inches have been recorded against their names, trivial incidents that would not be recorded under the new criteria to ask the police to delete them. I welcome the assurance that the new recording guidance will have due regard to the right to freedom of expression, but in the absence of putting any of these recommendations in statute, what guarantee do we have that the College of Policing under new leadership, or a different Home Secretary, wouldn't dispense with that requirement? Consequently, subsection four of the amendment says that guidance in relation to incident recording must have due regard to freedom of expression.

That brings me to a broader point. As I understand it, the government's plans for taking forward these recommendations, assuming they are signed off, is to include them in guidance but not statute. The government amendment in this group will repeal the statutory basis for the current regime, thereby clearing the ground for a new regime to spring up in its place. But that new regime will be wholly reliant on guidance. I don't doubt the noble Lord. The Minister will do what he said he'll do with the full support of my noble friend Lord Herbert, the chair of the College of Policing, Sir Andy Marsh, the CEO and the chief constables on the National Council.

But what about their successors, my Lords? What happens if a more authoritarian government replaces the current one? The only way to future proof these recommendations to guarantee this new, more sensible arrangement isn't short lived. The only way to guarantee that knickers don't spring back to life? Freddy Kruger, like in a few years time, is to give the new regime some statutory underpinning. Subsection one of this amendment drives a stake through the heart of NCH, and makes sure they can't be resurrected in the absence of primary legislation.

To the contrary, my Lords, no Parliament can bind its successors. Indeed, if the Home Secretary wants to take up some but not all, of the report's recommendations, the government could amend this amendment at Third Reading. But in the meantime, I urge you to support and to put these sensible suggestions on a statutory footing. In my view, too many of the rules governing how public authorities behave are found in guidance when they should properly be in statute. Indeed, the current regime, which I think we're all agreed is not fit for purpose, emerge from guidance issued by the College of Policing in 2014 and was not put on a statutory footing until 2022, by which time it was too late for Parliament to wrest control over it.

A bureaucratic leviathan had been created in the form of ever more voluminous guidance. Let's not make the same mistake again, my Lords. Something as important as what incidents reported to the police are investigated and recorded, and in some cases, disclosed in enhanced DBS checks is properly a matter for Parliament, which is why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I urge your Lordships House to support this amendment. My Lords is the leader.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords is the leader. Of the local authority. I had to address a public meeting in Windham address a public meeting in Windham in Norfolk in a at least ten years ago. I can't quite remember. It was about providing accommodation in about providing accommodation in the local plan for and Travellers, and I see here in the chamber this evening at least four former council leaders, and I hope they will sympathise with the dilemma that I faced with. It's a thorny subject.

Not many people have sympathy for Gypsy and Traveller families, but it's one of those hands you're dealt with when you become a leader. The meeting was highly charged. I was in the lion's den, but at least I was able to rely on a briefing from the council's solicitor and monitoring officer as to what was the safe ground, the procedure about the local plan, the process about assessing needs, the duty to balance the needs of the settled and travelling community and the obligations to follow the law.

My job was to hold the ring. Now, I don't think I made any friends that evening, but I was the messenger for a law that not everybody appreciated. But if the council didn't follow the law, who else would? I got out alive? And in the circumstances, I think it probably went as well as it could have done. The alternative probably was not to turn up at all, and that wouldn't have been right at all. So imagine my surprise when I was called to a police interview a few days later to answer for a Non-crime hate incident.

I was supported by the council's solicitor, who confirmed that yes, I had accurately reported the process and the law at the meeting right was on my side, but that meant for nothing. Perhaps someone in that audience that evening in Wyndham had had hurt feelings. Perhaps they had an axe
23:30
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
to grind against and Travellers. Perhaps they were political opponents. Ironically, perhaps they opponents. Ironically, perhaps they were prejudiced against me. I was invited to apologise to the unnamed and unidentified complainant and I refused. So it was explained that refused. So it was explained that in the absence of an apology, I would be reported to the police, to the prosecutor for hate crime and would have to defend myself in the court. The hate crime, it was explained, wasn't objective.

It wasn't grounded in the merits viewed through the filter of the law. No, it was solely to be assessed subjectively by the beholder. I wasn't going to be cowed, so I literally said no, go and prosecute me. I dared them. I would welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. My council chief executive swallowed hard, but I never heard from him again. Which shows what a nonsense the whole thing was. So three, eight, seven be in the name of my noble friend Lord young and others shows what a resource sapping, police diverting bureaucracy around all this is.

But if the police focus on crimes, real crimes grounded in the law, something material as a nation be strayed from the path. And I recognised what's in the government amendment. But I do think we've lost perspective, and we must wipe the slate clean, literally, from those people who have been unjustly tainted by this. Now, I'm not talking about grossly offensive, inflammatory provocation. They are crimes. They should be crimes and they will become they will still be crimes.

But this amendment puts an end to the nonsense, the sort of people who are cowed, council leaders, people who are meant to be on your side from against the freedom of expression. So I hope that all, all sides of this House will stand shoulder to shoulder with those council leaders who metaphorically put themselves in harm's way. And this late hour, because if we don't stand up for the unfashionably marginalised people like the and travellers who are looking for a home under the structure of a local plan, public servants communicating a difficult message that may not be popular, but it is the right thing to do.

If we do not stand up for them, who will? And it's on that basis that I support 38 seven be.
23:32
Baroness Amos Portrait Baroness Amos (Labour)
-
-
On my second. >> On my second. >> I do not intend to speak. I spoke at Committee stage, but listening to what the Minister was putting forward and to what my noble order on the opposite bench noble order on the opposite bench was saying about recording of Non-hate crime. Now it depends on how you see Non-hate crime, and it depends on who's at the receiving end of that. Now, for me, it led to the murder of my son. Now, individuals who think they've got the right to A man in a certain way.

What starts off as just a verbal it leads to violence. And this is why, when I spoke at Committee stage, I was trying to put that across. Is that verbal, you know, city's playground? It doesn't necessarily mean it's that. And when after the inquiry, when that was put into part of the recommendation, it is said for those who are on the receiving end, if they perceive it to be, that is what it is, or people around them who perceive it to be.

Now, to take away, not recording. How do you how do you move forward if it moves from a verbal into violence and you have no way of tracking back where it started from? It has to be something that. OK, so within the report here, it could be said in a way in which it comes across to make sure that you do not lose those part of it because it leads to violence. Some of it leads to and that's what happened to my son, and hence why I do take offense when people say, oh, well, it's just a playground.

Playground talk. It is not necessarily means that. So please consider what you're saying here and what implication it has outside on our children.
23:35
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon Portrait Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Labour)
-
-
If the noble Lady would just if I could briefly add something to I could briefly add something to what she's just said. Just to clarify, I think the kinds of remarks you're talking about that were made about your son would be recorded. They would meet the new criteria under the Anti-social Behaviour Incident regime, which is, I understand it is going to replace the regime and they would retain they would remain on a police database in a way which, which, which could then be used to detect and prevent a crime.

They would meet the new recording threshold, and I have no objection to that kind of thing being recorded, and I think it would serve a useful policing purpose. So just to be clear, I'm not in any way suggesting that those kinds of remarks should not be included in future. I think they should be. I just want to exclude the more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trivial things from being recorded, and having the police waste so much time on them. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Sorry, but you won't know that you would know until it gets to you would know until it gets to that point, to the violence. But if you don't, start off with where it starts from, you would never get to starts from, you would never get to the end, because that is where trivial, you know, chat or whatever trivial, you know, chat or whatever you want to call it, or playground. But later on, if that same individual or whoever carries on, then that leads to violence.

And if you have no way of going back to check where where that started from, how do you know to be able to prosecute that individuals for what he said? Going back further to where to where we are now. So so that's what we need to be very careful about.
23:36
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lords following on, actually, from the noble Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, I, I think that one of the difficulties that we've had in the difficulties that we've had in relation to any discussion like this is that the police are under an enormous amount of pressure an enormous amount of pressure because of the horrible things that happen. Understatement of the year. To imagine that all speech can lead to violence. And if they do see that, then obviously they will police all speech and treat everybody speech as potentially dangerous damaging.

And once that happens, we no longer live in a free democratic society. It's quite straightforward. And one of the things that I think is very difficult is that the horror of Stephen's racist murder and the fact that the police didn't intervene, the fact that there was so much scandal around it means that sometimes people feel very nervous or anxious about then saying that anything done in the name of fighting hate. They're worried about saying it in case they're somehow implicated in having prejudiced views.

Because I'd like to enthusiastically welcome the Government's Amendment 383, abolishing the statutory basis for non-crime hate incidents, because actually, over the last few years, when some of us have raised problems with non-crime hate incidents and the police policing non-crime hate incidents, as in attitudes and words, it has felt as though we were banging our heads against a brick wall. So it really does feel quite good to count this as something of a win, to be vindicated even because to be honest, opposing Non-crime hate incidents has meant facing some brickbats, both outside of here.

As my capacity as the director of the Academy of Ideas and to be honest, especially in here, because there's been a less than subtle inference that opposition to non-crime hate incidents or indeed a whole range of hate legislation, in fact, that that reveals some lurking bigotry or was proof that we were soft on hate. Yet here we are. I think that's proof of something else that's important, that it's always worth raising issues here and battling on.

Because sometimes governments can change their minds. Sometimes the college of policing can change their minds. You can make people look at things again. And I would also welcome the outbreak of common sense and reasonableness from the College of Policing, and the fact that there's been a genuine attempt to getting on top of what obviously was not intended from the original Non-crime hate incidents. It's got completely out of hand. Despite that, and despite the fact that I'm really delighted that the the notion of freedom of expression and free speech has now been taken seriously by the different bodies.

I still have some worries, and I'd like some reassurance and clarification from the noble Lord, the Minister. I think I am worried about the risk of Non-crime hate incidents simply being rebranded, the government has suggested, and as we've heard, that some incidents currently recorded as cases will continue to be recorded as anti-social behaviour incidents, and despite what the noble Lord, Lord young explained in terms of the higher threshold, actually, I want to just check with the Minister whether this behaviour that will be recorded that way will still be based on the subjective premise of a victim perceiving hostility or prejudice towards protected characteristics, and as so much anti-social behaviour regulation, as we discussed in an earlier part of the report, is prosecuted on a lower evidential standard, yet treated as a criminal offence and can lead to criminal sanctions.

Sanctions. Could this lower threshold be used in these incidents? I'm just worried about repeating the same problems. Can the Minister also rule out that any such anti-social behaviour hate incidents will not be added to the national crime Database being disclosed in enhanced DBS checks and being investigated in much the same way as I'm not actually sure about that. One of the reasons why I'm supportive of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Young of Acton 387B is that it will make it harder to set up an alternative recording system that our NCH in all but name.

I'm also worried, though, about ambiguity and confusion. If we leave all this to guidance, as has been mentioned, as I understand it, police forces are not prohibited from continuing to record under the government's amendment for quite a while, and I'm just not sure how this is going to happen. A statutory basis for NCH is under section 60 and 61 of the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was simply a way for the Secretary of State to issue guidance. And I can or won't it simply mean repealing the statutory basis alone? Just return the police to the pre 2023 position where they continue with under their own guidance.

Maybe I've misunderstood that, even if that's only happening temporarily until the government work out exactly what to do. I'm just concerned about this muddled period. Amendment 387. Is it A or B? I can't remember rules out this concerning prospects and offers the police some clarity and guarantees the outcome that I think we all desire. Clarity or lack of it, has always been a bugbear in relation to Non-crime hate incidents, is why I'm so anxious to hear how the government plans will be communicated, and I hope there will be clarity.

On the one hand, we have experience of how a lack of clarity led to the growth of NCH, without any intention for that to happen. Even the current DPP, Stephen Parkinson, admitted to the Times Crime and Justice Commission that until recently he, quote, had no idea what an NCH was. I was puzzled by it and had to look it up. Look up what on earth the term meant. That was the current DPP, noting that even within the police service, there has been some surprise at the level of Non-crime hate incidents that were being investigated because they didn't know what they were.

The last thing police forces need now are to be left in limbo in any way, while consultations or regulations or guidance is being sorted out. We know from an inspection into activism and impartiality in policing, published by Her Majesty's Inspectorate in September 24th, that there has been inconsistency in the way forces have responded or responded to guidance. What happens if some of the more EDI enthusiastic forces carry on spending thousands of hours sifting through online posts, seeking out so-called hate, and so on? Invest in common investigating common everyday interactions as if they're crimes, which I know is not what the government or the College of Policing intend.

Policing in limbo in law is never good, and any ambiguities can lead to the law being flouted. Just one comparison. As of October 2025, at the start of the academic year, only one university had complied with the Supreme Court judgment clarifying biological sex in relation to the Equality Act. The rest claim to be waiting for the EHR code, waiting for guidance rather than complying with their legal obligations. And I just don't want the same thing to happen now. I preferred the original amendment 387, but I understand why it's been changed.

But I preferred that the idea of mandating all historic records of deleted within three months of Royal Assent. The government amendment, however, does not directly address the matter of what will be done with existing records in relation to their ongoing impact on on individuals job prospects. As we've cited the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald of River governance. So I just wanted to quote him here where he says, if you're going to attack someone's name in these instances, then you'd better be sure there's a good reason for doing that, because five years down the line, when they apply for a job, they might not get it.

And they might be. That might be as a result of Non-crime hate incident recorded against their name. That was entirely baseless, entirely motivated by spite or misunderstanding or whatever. How? Now that these knishes could have been recorded against someone's name based on just those discredited, misplaced statutory guidance from the past, how can we make sure that they don't punish people? Now, I thought that noble Lord MacDonald's words, when recently reminded I was recently reminded of these when I met one of the teachers involved with four pupils in Wakefield who, if you remember, slightly damaged a Quran in 2023 and the police recorded an nchi against them.

Despite the school admitting that there was no malicious intention that one of the pupils was autistic, Inspector Thornton told concerned parents at the local mosque that the damage was being treated as a hate incident, and those young boys are now getting to an age where they will be applying for jobs. Does the noble Lord, the Minister, agree? It would be a travesty of if their records of their on the police database were used to stop them getting a foot on the work ladder, and I just want to make sure that we don't forget those victims who are a different type of victim.
23:47
Lord Herbert of South Downs Portrait Lord Herbert of South Downs (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I draw attention to the entry in the Register of Interests that shows that I am the chair of the College of Policing. I think that we are broadly in agreement about the way forward. There is a large measure of agreement. I think, that the system, the current system of non-crime hate incidents is no longer fit for purpose. And as the Minister said about the final report into this matter, that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council have produced, which goes to the Police Chiefs Council next week for ratification.

Under the new proposals, Non-crime hate incidents will no longer be recorded. They will go. I can assure that noble Lady, Baroness Fox, that this will not be a mere rebranding exercise because the threshold of an incident will be significantly increased. There will be common sense, professional judgment that will guide decisions, and only where there is a genuine risk of harm and a clear policing purpose. Will incidents continue to be recorded. But I do think that the very powerful intervention of Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon reminds us of the importance of ensuring that where there is that risk of harm, we must continue to record the incidents.

That was the original reason indeed, why, as a result of the recommendation of the Macpherson Review, this regime was put in place. But for all the reasons we've discussed before, it is it doesn't it doesn't work properly. And there is a better approach which will reduce police time. So far, so good. And most of what my noble friend Lord young proposes in his amendment 387 I can therefore agree with the one area which I think is problematic is in relation to the requirement that all records must be removed, must be deleted after a period of three months.

The policy on deletion is is a matter for the government. It's not a matter for the College of Policing or the National Police Chiefs Council, but the, the, the the view of the college and the National Police Chiefs Council is that it would be very burdensome and disproportionately so to go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back and delete all the existing records. Of course. Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK. Just to be clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to be clear. One of the differences between the amendment as originally drafted the amendment as originally drafted and this new version is that the new version no longer asks the police to go through all their police to go through all their databases and delete all historic matches. It just asks them to matches. It just asks them to delete those they come across. So if a person who thinks they've got an record against them, like my noble friend here writes to the police via an SA, discovers they've got an nchi still recorded against their name and it wouldn't meet the new recording threshold, the higher threshold.

Then the police would be obliged to delete it. I'm not asking the police. The government doesn't ask the police to go through records, as you say. That would be too resource intensive. But when they come across them, all it asks is that they then delete

**** Possible New Speaker ****

threshold. OK, that's that's helpful. I thank my my noble friend and I'm thank my my noble friend and I'm sure the government will respond to that. I should say, though, that if that. I should say, though, that if part of the purpose of this is to is ensure that it meets the concern is ensure that it meets the concern that my noble friend set out, that people may, to use his words, may be prevented from getting a job because of the release of a because of the release of a non-crime hate incident in an enhanced DBS check.

I should just say that the review hasn't been able to find a single example, a single example of where a non-crime hate incident has been disclosed in an extended DBS check and prevented someone from securing employment. So we think that the risk of that is very low. The release is a matter for the chief Constable's discretion, and of course it could be made even lower if the new higher threshold were applied to any future decision. And again, that would be within the government's gift to agree that.

So what is already a negligible risk could be made even more negligible. And I think therefore, that would address the concern. And the final question relates to whether Non-crime hate incidents will spring back into life. To use my noble friends. Expression. Not so far, not for so long as I might be involved with it. I'm sure I could say the same thing for the chief executive of the college, Andy Marsh, but I think the serious point is that there clearly has been a change of mood, partly because of the what we've seen about the way in which social media has influenced the this, this, this, this whole matter.

But it it's always within the gift of any future government. As my noble friend conceded to no government can bind itself to change practice policy. What matters, I think now, is that we put in place a robust regime that that works, and that we ensure that the police are focused on the right things. So I'm very pleased that we have got this broad agreement about the the way forward. I don't think that my noble Friends amendment is necessary, but that's a that's a government matter to respond to that.

I do think we must be wary of not tying up the police more in relation to this when we're trying to release their time. And I do think we must just beware of the injunction of the noble Lady. Baroness Lawrence, that serious, serious incidents must continue to be recorded. And we must remember why this regime was set up in the first place. Not every Non-crime hate incident that has been recorded has been trivial. They can be indicate a building pattern of behaviour and that's what we have to guard against.

But the new system will put in place the higher thresholds to ensure that the trivial are weeded out. And that is,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, what we all want. My Lords, given the hour, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, given the hour, I don't want to detain the House for much longer. In fact, I've deleted the first page of my speech accordingly, and I will address the comments of the noble Lady, comments of the noble Lady, Baroness Lawrence, in a moment. So this amendment, firstly, it insists
23:54
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this amendment, firstly, it insists that all future incident recording guidance must have due regard to freedom of expression, and that matters in a liberal democracy. The test is not whether we only protect speech we agree with, it's whether we protect the space for robust, sometimes uncomfortable debate on race, religion, sex, gender, politics and many other issues. Policing. Policing guidance should not start from I beg your pardon? Police guidance should start from the principle that lawful speech is not a policing problem.

Secondly, it deals with the past as well as the future. It requires that historic non-crime hate incident records, which do not meet the proper recording threshold, must not be disclosed on DBS checks and must be deleted when discovered. That is vital for natural justice. If we accept that this category has been misused and overused, we cannot leave people's lives quietly marred by data that should never have been held in the first place. And I particularly address these remarks to Baroness Lawrence.

This is not about turning a blind eye to genuine hate crime. On the contrary, by scrapping a vague, perception based non-crime category, we free up police time and attention to focus on real offences, threats, harassment, violence, criminal damage. We will make the system clearer for victims and for officers will be sending a simple message. If you have been the victim of a crime, the law is there to protect you. If you've merely heard something you strongly dislike, that is not in itself a matter for the police at the moment.

Too many people are unsure where that line lies. They fear that expressing a lawful view on a controversial subject might bring a knock at the door or a mark on their record. That chilling effect is corrosive. It drives honest disagreement underground, and it pushes some people out of the public square altogether. We should be defending the right to argue and criticise, to challenge within the law, not encouraging people to outsource every disagreement to the outsource every disagreement to the police.

It preserves the ability the police to record information where it's genuinely for crime prevention and public safety, and it hardwires respect for freedom of expression into any future guidance. In doing so, it strengthens both civil liberties and good policing. It says the police are there to deal with crime, not to catalogue lawful opinions. This is a distinction worth defending and I urge the House to support this amendment. My Lord.
00:00
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I've listened very carefully to the contributions from both the Minister and also from from Lord Minister and also from from Lord young on their amendments and other other speakers around your other speakers around your Lordships House. I want to return to the difficult and sensitive issues about where the boundaries are, about protecting the are, about protecting the vulnerable that Lady Lawrence raised versus free speech, and we've debated that in some detail with examples at committee, and I won't rehearse those. And I have two questions for the Minister about the new arrangements in the debate and committee, I asked, sorry, I've just already said that the we are losing from the guidance a very useful paragraph that sets out exactly where the risk of significant harm may be greater if the individual who has experienced the incident is considered.

Can't say this considered to be vulnerable, and then it directs people to the College of Policing about how police do that. I mentioned that to Lord young because he said everything under the regime that's about to disappear was entirely in the view of the individual who felt that they were being done. That is not been the case. It has been assessed by the police in in following the code of practice. So my concern is, can the Minister reassure your Lordships House that in deleting section 60 and 61 of the police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the police will not lose the balance that we have in the current code that sets out how to determine a vulnerable person from one of the categories covered in the act, including race, religion, disability and LGBT, and the real risk that a crime may be committed in the future.

And I just want to say that Lady Lawrence spoke very eloquently. What she didn't say, and everyone has assumed, is that it was absolutely obvious from the start when the attacks verbal attacks started on Stephen and other young people in his area. It wouldn't have looked like something that should have been recorded. But there is something called a course of conduct, which is very common in harassment and stalking, and a number of antisocial behaviors that start to build up.

And the police bring in psychologists to look at that behaviour. And one of the problems is that we can't lose that progression. And if things stop being recorded, I don't understand how you can do it. There are certainly rules about not using it in DBS checks, but if you lose that information, I really fear that Lady Lawrence is right to have concerns. So can I ask the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if the government. Will give away? I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will give away? I think the disagreement is not about whether incidents should be recorded, because they could form part of a because they could form part of a course of conduct which ends in a serious crime. The argument is serious crime. The argument is about where the recording threshold should be placed. And surely the noble Lady, the Baroness, will noble Lady, the Baroness, will accept that if it's so low, the police are recording 65 Non-crime hate incidents every day in England and Wales alone.

Then the threshold

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is too low. The hour is late and I really don't want to get into a debate about that, because actually, the point is that the police are going to have to make whatever the new to have to make whatever the new system is work. My worry is that there seems to be a line now that there seems to be a line now that might exclude cases that are important because of the course of conduct, which might become a criminal act.

And that's why I didn't manage to get quite to the end. Can I ask the Minister if the government is confident that such a course of conduct of a number of non-crime hate incidents would be visible to the police if the code of practice is repeated and the police stop recording them?
00:01
Lord Lebedev Portrait Lord Lebedev (Crossbench)
-
-
Oh, my Lords, I won't take much of your time. First of all, I just wanted to say that I fully respect and acknowledge the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Baroness Lawrence, which I do feel have been addressed very well inside the house. So I will just say that I rise to support amendment 387B and endorse the arguments made by the noble Lords, including Lord, noble, Lord, Lord Young of Ashton, in favour of this amendment. Last July I was able to raise the widespread concerns so many of us have about non-hate crime incidents in inches.

In a short debate in this House, I was encouraged by the widespread support across parties for the robust stance in defence of free speech. Many noble Lords outline how pernicious and Chris were. I was grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his thoughtful engagement with the arguments. Since that debate, that has been a welcome retreat from the use of inches, with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and others recognising the inappropriateness of using valuable police time to harass individuals for exercising their right to free speech.

Like Lord young, I am pleased that police leaders and Ministers now recognise that recording the names of citizens on police databases for actions which are not crimes should be curtailed. That is customary good practice, but it is in this case not enough. We need to ensure that there is appropriate statutory protection for free speech, and we need to ensure that past expressions of opinion, which may have been recorded under a previous regime, cannot be used to blight the future of citizens.

Amendment 387B not only wipes clean the slate, it also affirms the importance of free speech, the foundational freedom on which all others depend. I commend it to the House.
00:03
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, a pleasure to follow >> My Lords, a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches from noble Lords across the House who recognise the problems that recognise the problems that Non-crime hate incidents have caused, and I'm very pleased to see that there is much agreement on this matter, and I'm really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of Southdown, for his update, as it were, and particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, for her very important intervention.

Like many of my noble friends and as I said, noble Lords from around the House, I fully support amendment three eight, seven B tabled by our noble friend Lord Young of Ashton and the noble Lords Lord Strasburger and Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would bring about the abolition of the category of so-called non-crime hate incidents. If this were to become the law of the land, inches would be permanently dead, their recording and retention would end, and we could finally put this well-intentioned but ultimately ultimately damaging experiment to bed.

We have had many debates over the course of this bill about the various tenets of hate crime laws and aggravating factors based on hostility. Indeed, only last Wednesday, the government was successful in expanding that enormous web of legislation even further, despite our best efforts to stop them. I know we have lost that battle for now, but I would like to reiterate my opposition to those provisions. But most related to the debate we had last Wednesday, the matter before us now is rather different. Non-crime hate incidents are not hate crimes.

They are something quite different. They represent the recording by police of incidents that are not crimes at all. The House will have heard the background to from other noble Lords, so I will not repeat that. But the establishment in 2014 via guidance issued by the College of Policing, was motivated by sincere intentions. They were supposed to assist police to identify in identifying patterns of hostility in communities that might escalate into criminal behaviour, and that objective was understandable. But in practice, the policy has drifted far beyond that limited purpose, and we now find ourselves in a position where individuals can have a police record created about them for conduct that is entirely lawful, simply because another person perceives it to be to have been motivated by hostility.

My Lords, that is a very serious matter indeed. The threshold for the recording of these incidents is ridiculously low. A person only needs to be concerned by another's conduct in order for them to report such conduct to the police for recording as an. The matter has quite rightly received serious scrutiny in recent years, and I particularly want to reference the independent review conducted by the College of Policing, led by my noble friend Lord Herbert Jones, into the use of non-crime hate incidents.

That review acknowledged a number of a number of very significant concerns, and it recognised that the recording of such incidents had, in some cases, created a chilling effect on free expression. It also identified problems with the threshold for recording and the potential for disproportionate interference in the lives of individuals who had committed no crime, and the review led to revised guidance from the College of Policing, intended to raise the threshold for recording noise and better protect freedom of expression. I welcome that effort to a step in the right direction.

But the review also demonstrated something more fundamental that the concept itself is deeply problematic. We have seen over the years a number of examples where the recording of Non-crime hate incidents have been plainly vexatious, trivial or disproportionate. And in one widely reported case, a former police officer found himself the subject of Non-crime hate incident after engaging in a debate on social media about gender identity. There are several examples that have been given this evening in during this debate, so I shan't I shan't provide further evidence.

There have been cases where individuals have had police records created simply for sharing satirical material online, expressing controversial opinions, or engaging in perfectly lawful political debate on all sides. We should pause and consider what this means in practice. In some circumstances, such records may be disclosed during enhanced background checks conducted by the Disclosure and Barring Service. That means an allegation of a non-criminal matter could potentially affect a person's employment prospects, particularly in professions involving children or vulnerable adults.

There have been documented cases where individuals have feared precisely that outcome. I also recall the remarks of Ministers during our committee debates, in which the government acknowledged the importance of protecting free speech in this area, and the Home Office has repeatedly recognised the need to strike the right balance. Indeed, the Home Secretary herself has spoken publicly about the importance of ensuring the police does not. Policing does not stray into the regulation of lawful expression. She has emphasized that police officers must focus on real crime and genuine threats to public safety.

My Lords, I agree with those sentiments, but I would suggest that the time has come to move beyond incremental reform. The fundamental difficulty is that the concept of a non-crime hate incident places the police in the position of adjudicating perceived hostility in circumstances where no law has been broken. That is an uncomfortable, and, I would argue, inappropriate role for the police service. Now, I would like to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, the Minister, for taking the time to meet with us and to and the and to the College of Policing for the briefing they gave on their plans for the future recording of such incidents.

It was helpful for the noble Lord, the Minister, to set out some of that when we opened, like my noble friend Lord Young of Ashton said the proposals by the college are certainly welcome. They have been clear that will not exist anymore and that any incident where hostility is a motivating factor will now be recorded as MSB incident. Critically, these will not be disclosed and enhanced DBS checks. The college has also said they will be providing updated guidance and training to clarify the highest standards of proof required for the recording of such an incident and a new training method.

This is all welcome, but my Lords, that does not mean all is perfect. I still do have some concerns and I will just briefly outline them. My first concern is that if the abolition of NCA is not embedded into statute, there is the possibility of their being brought back to life in the future. All it would take is for a change in Home Secretary or a new Prime Minister who could reintroduce them by the back door. If all we have is guidance, there is no legal safeguards to prevent them returning.

I would feel much more comfortable knowing that they are gone for good, and that they will never be resurrected from the dead. Secondly, I think it must be explicitly acknowledged that any guidance produced by the College of Policing about the future recording of incidents will have freedom of expression at its heart. Perhaps if this were the case when the NCA regime was created, we might not have seen as many unintended consequences as we have. I think it is that it is a fairly basic requirement, which is why I'm pleased my noble friend has included that in his amendment.

Thirdly, the issue of historic recordings does need to be addressed, given that the government has now agreed to abolish them, it does not seem right that thousands will still exit, exist, and may very well be disclosed and enhanced DBS checks. So that is a matter of fairness. Individuals should not carry the burden of a police record relating to conduct that was never a crime in the first place, and that has now been acknowledged as a mistake. But like my noble friend, I appreciate the point made by the College of Policing that require the deletion within a few months, as the original amendment said, would be a highly labour intensive process.

And if our purpose is to prevent the police from wasting time and allow them to do their job, then require them to sit down, then requiring them to sit down and trawl through every single file does not make sense. I do, however, think it's right that where they are discovered they should be deleted and they most certainly should not be disclosed. I think it is sensible to have the guarantee in statute. So once the College and the government have made commendable progress, and I would like to reiterate that I am genuinely pleased that the direction of travel, I do think that we still need some guardrails.

That is why we on these benches believe there must be a provision in legislation to ensure nrti's are gone. They do not return and that the new regime is more transparent, reasonable and respectful of freedom of expression. So for that reason, I very much support amendment 378B and if my noble friend does press it to a division, we will follow him into the content lobbies.
00:12
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful for the discussion. And in winding up this debate, can And in winding up this debate, can I put on record my thanks to Sir Andy Marsh of the College of Policing for the work that he has Policing for the work that he has done on this exercise of examining Non-crime hate incidents? And can I just remind the House that we're here today with the amendments that I have moved and with the outline I have given from the College of Policing in response, which the chair of the college policing has also endorsed.

We are here today because the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend Yvette Cooper, commissioned that review and asked for a report to be produced. And that's why we are here today. So we have taken action. And again, I listen with very great interest to the noble Lord Fuller and his experiences. That was not the responsibility of this government. We are trying to change that regime. I say to the noble Lord Young of Acton, we're trying to change that regime. I say to all of the noble Lords and ladies who've spoken, we're trying to change that regime.

But in doing so, I just say to my noble friend Baroness Lawrence of Cliveden that we want to ensure that we keep the essence of what that regime was originally established for, which is to identify precisely the issues that she has mentioned in her very powerful contribution the intent to gather information, to prevent crime, to understand tensions, to look at potential areas where tensions could rise, to support investigations, and to safeguard vulnerable, remains as relevant today as it did 30 years ago.

So I say to the House and to those Lord Lebedev, Baroness Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord Fuller and the noble Lord Young of Ashton, who have spoken around this issue, that we do understand that issue. But I hope that we're making some movement to address the concerns at the same time as keeping the essence of why those non-crime hate incidents needed to be recorded in the first place, and to have the revisions that the College of Policing have brought forward.

Once they're endorsed, we will look at how we put those into practice in due course, and I hope that will help both the Baroness Brinton and noble Lord Strasburger. In addition, now, the main issue that the noble Lord Young of Ashton has still referred to is the one of the prohibition of the disclosure of any historic records in enhanced disclosure and barring services that do not meet the new incident recording threshold, and to require that such records be deleted. Now, I note that noble Lord has changed the deletion thing, because I think he does recognise, having had the briefing that we arranged, there's a very big administrative burden in that deletion, but I just want to say to him that Non-crime hate incidents do not appear currently on a basic or standard DBS check.

The Home Office are not aware of any evidence to suggest that there is a problem in practice with the disclosure of Non-crime hate incidents on enhanced criminal record checks. Enhanced DBS checks are used only for sensitive rural roles involving the work with children or adults. And if I just help the house, I hope by saying the figures bear this out. It's extremely rare for any non-conviction or caution to be disclosed. Of the 4.1 million 4.1 million enhanced certificates issued by DBS in 2425, only 0.12% contained disclosure of police information of any kind.

And almost all of that was not involved in the areas that we've talked about this evening. So the figures are extremely small on that in the first place. But the relevance and importance still goes back to the point. My noble friend Baroness Lawrence mentioned that we should be looking at where there are areas where that could escalate, and that's the importance of not losing the essence of this in the discussions that we've had today. And it is also ultimately for chief officers to determine whether the non-conviction information should be disclosed in line with statutory guidance issued by the Home Office, reflecting the sensitive nature of the information.

And I don't believe it's appropriate for us to tie officer's hands to apply a prohibition on disclosing information which may be relevant about individuals who choose to work with the most vulnerable in our society. And if that advanced DBS check includes just 0.12% of 4.1 million enhanced checks, and if those 4.1 million enhanced checks and the small number of areas disclosed, which again for the record is 4920 disclosures out of 4.1 million, and not all of those were in.

Some of them were serious offences as well. It's a relatively small proportion. So I'm just saying to the noble Lord that his amendment, as well as originally being administratively difficult, he's also essentially tying officer's hands in what is a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

small percentage of work to be done. Yeah. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I'm just struggling to understand what the rationale would be for disclosing in an enhanced DBS check and which, under the new DBS check and which, under the new recording thresholds would not have been not have been recorded, elided been not have been recorded, elided that issue by suggesting that the police might think in future it would be a chief constable, it would be sensible to disclose relevant information if someone is applying to work with children or vulnerable adults.

But if the police wouldn't have recorded that historic under the new higher recording threshold because it wouldn't be considered to have any police value, no intelligence value, no value in the detection or prevention of a crime, what justification could there be for disclosing it in an enhanced DBS check? And if there isn't one, what will it cost the government to put that in statute that it can't happen? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord is asking for the deletion of historic records as well, which I think is the well, which I think is the important point that I'm trying to make, the deletion of those historic records. If the chief historic records. If the chief officer determines that, that non-conviction information should be disclosed, given. Again, I just be disclosed, given. Again, I just go back to the 4920 out of 4.1 million, including all matters for million, including all matters for an enhanced DBS check, then I think that's important that we don't fetter the chief officer's hands and apply a prohibition to disclosing information which may be relevant to individuals, and that is, that might be a difference between us.

And as the noble Lord Davis of Gower said, we may well test that in a division when the time comes. The noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, has made the absolutely right point that we need to ensure that when we repeal section 60 and 61, that we don't do so until a replacement framework is in place, and we will try and do that. And as I said at the start of the debate and in comments I've just made now, it's essential that police and others continue to have the ability to monitor hate and hostility, to prevent crime and safeguard the vulnerable.

And that's the assurance I give to my noble friend Baroness Lawrence as well. So in summary, the government's amendment is designed to repeal the statutory guidance and to restore focus and reduce administrative burdens. We've made those changes because of the type of incidents that noble Lords have referred to. Amendment 370 would risk creating precisely the opposite effect. And for those reasons, we can't as a government support amendment 370. I invite the noble Lord when the time comes not to move his amendment.

But in the meantime, today, tonight, I beg to move amendment 303, because having considered the matter and reviewed the matter, it is the right thing to do. And in establishing the new regime, we will make sure that we keep the essence of the important matters of the former regime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 303 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on report. Do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many as are of that adjourned. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page