Lords Chamber

Wednesday 18th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Supporting councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns
-

Third, Oral Question Baroness Scott of Bybrook. leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:51
15:52
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
particularly relevant to Report stage today. This is intended to help us make progress and to help us make progress and to proceed to votes first. And everyone's favourite line is that the House is resolved, that the House is resolved, that speeches should be shorter, second and important today, as its report, the companion states that arguments the companion states that arguments fully deployed at Committee stage should not be repeated at length at should not be repeated at length at report. Third, I'll remind your Lordships House that whilst interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification.

Lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made. Finally, my Lords, some of the topics we are discussing today are emotive and very important to many noble Lords. As my noble friend the Chief Whip has reminded the House frequently, it is in the best traditions of the House that these debates are conducted with courtesy and respect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 182, amendment 400 and 9FA Lord Pack not moved, not and 9FA Lord Pack not moved, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved in clause 183 amendment 409 G Baroness Doocey. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 409.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 409. G and to speak to. Amendment. 417. A amendment 409.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. 417. A amendment 409. G would ensure that before a court imposes a youth diversion order, it is clear evidence of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why they failed and what consultation took place with the child and with the relevant agencies. The point of this amendment is to make sure there is proper multi-agency input, and that these new orders are used only when they are genuinely appropriate. It will also help the court judge whether the order order is proportionate and whether the necessity test has truly been met.

The amendment is designed to make them more effective by showing clearly why other interventions
15:54
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
have not worked. Early consultation will mean fewer orders being rejected, less wasted court time rejected, less wasted court time and conditions that are practical and linked to the services and linked to the services available locally. Crucially, my Lords, this amendment learns the lessons of the Southport case. lessons of the Southport case. There, a failure to share information meant decision makers were left without a full picture of were left without a full picture of the young person's background. That led to an ineffective referral order in 2021, three years before the tragedy occurred.

This amendment would help stop such failures from happening again by requiring all relevant information to be brought together before a single decision maker, it ensures that multiple referrals and early warning signs are not missed. We know that proper multi-agency working involving police, youth offending teams, social services and the voluntary sector produces more reliable risk assessments and helps to prevent serious harm. My amendment would embed that joined up approach. It also encourages consultation beyond statutory agencies, extending it to parents, parents and carers where appropriate.

In the Southport case, the failure to consult the perpetrator's parents was another missed opportunity. This amendment would help ensure that those closest to the child are properly involved. From the start. My Lords Amendment 417A addresses another crucial issue data. The Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism law, Policy and Practice in its 2025 report, made it clear that effective Counter-radicalisation work depends on better data, especially where children and young people are concerned. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the use and impact of youth diversion orders and related powers showing breach rates, the type of prohibitions and requirements imposed and data about protected characteristics.

Only with that transparency can we see whether these orders are truly helping to divert young people from custody, or whether they're having unintended consequences for certain groups? We already know that a strikingly high proportion of counter-terrorism referrals involve autistic children, not because they're more likely to be radicalised, but because their intense interests can be misunderstood. These children are also especially vulnerable to grooming. I want to place on record my thanks to justice for the excellent briefings and invaluable work in shaping this amendment, and to add my support to the related proposals tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

My Lords, the tragic lessons of Southport show that interventions must be tailored carefully to the facts of each case. Amendment 409 G would strengthen public protection by making sure judicial decisions are based on the fullest possible understanding of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child's circumstances. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 183,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 183, page 235, line three. At end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, before I actually speak to my amendment and those and of and the others in this group, I would just like to say, as the
15:58
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
green peers are not part of the usual channels, we were not able to give our views on the fact that this very important piece of legislation is being bullied through this House by the government. It is absolutely outrageous that we do not have another day for report, and I do hold both members of the front bench accountable for this. It is not acceptable. This is no way to make good law when we're going to be very tired in the later hours and possibly in the early hours.

However, group one my amendments 409H and 409J on youth diversion orders are supported by a wide range of organisations including the Alliance for Youth Justice, the centre for Justice Innovation, Emilie Eagle, the National Youth Advocacy Service, Sheffield Hallam University inquest, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, Just for Kids law and the Runnymede Trust. That's quite a lot of very experienced organisations to support these amendments. Their collective expertise in youth justice, children's rights and legal practice adds considerable weight to the concerns that underpin.

There are broader and very serious questions about the suitability of youth diversion orders themselves. The amendment 409 G in the name of the noble Baroness Doocey, rightly asks whether a youth diversion order is necessary in the first place. This amendment addresses the equally important question of what happens next. It aims to take a practical approach to work with what we have in the bill. If such orders are to be introduced, then the framework governing them must be rooted in what we know actually works for children.

As currently drafted, clause 185 gives courts extremely broad discretion to impose conditions without any clear duty to consider whether those requirements are suitable or achievable. In practice, this amendment intends to address that gap. Proposed new subsection four A would require courts to consider evidence of suitability, taking into account the child's age, maturity and individual circumstances. It would require consideration of whether conditions are practically available, whether they can realistically be enforced and whether multiple requirements are compatible with one another.

This reflects what evidence from youth justice practice already tells us. Evaluation of diversion programs, including work by Suffolk Youth Offending Service, shows clearly that outcomes improve when conditions are tailored to the individual child, when they are realistically enforceable, and when they do not interfere with education or access to support services. Without that, there is an obvious risk that children are being set up to fail, and when failure leads to breach and a breach is a criminal offence, we aren't diverting children from the justice system, we're actually drawing them further into it.

Proposed new subsection four B reinforces another essential principle that orders should not disrupt education, health appointments or support services. This is based on the fact that there are factors that help prevent harm and reduce re-offending. Undermining them could be potentially damaging. The amendment also introduces a requirement that the terms of the order are explained in language the child can understand. Again, this is strongly supported by evidence. Studies of diversion programs show that children are far more likely to engage when they understand what is required of them, and why.

Youth offending teams that take time to explain decisions in accessible language achieve significantly better outcomes. By contrast, many children struggle to recall or understand formal processes. As 110 year old boy said for a formal warning, I forgot it straight away. This issue is particularly acute with children with additional needs. Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of children in the youth justice system have speech, language and communication difficulties, and many have special educational needs or mental health challenges. Research presented to the All party parliamentary Group for children highlights how such difficulties can affect a child's ability to understand instructions, regulate behaviour and engage with processes.

Crucially, many of these children were not asked for clarification because they simply don't understand what they've heard. They may appear compliant but in reality be confused and unsupported. If we don't take that into account, then we risk further criminalising vulnerability. Taken together, these amendments introduce basic and evidence based safeguards. They're about ensuring that youth diversion orders, if they are to exist, are tailored, workable and fair to the child. I. I do hope that noble Lady do c does.

Does move a vote on this, because I will support it very strongly and I would like to move a vote on mine as well. But obviously the House is going to be very tired by the end of this bill and so I won't, she said bitterly.
16:03
16:03
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group? And their amendments in this group? And can I begin by saying that we accept the noble Order Minister's amendments, which seem entirely reasonable? Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I appreciate the sentiments behind them. We do, however, believe that they are somewhat misguided. Youth diversion orders, whatever 1st May think of them, will be implemented as a means to deal with some of the most serious offences by people of the age of criminal responsibility.

We should not be making concessions to people who have or are intending to commit terrorism offences, and we believe that engaging in these acts forfeits the right to the conditions of her amendment. 409 H as a primary consideration. Similarly, with regards to the Baroness Jay. Amendment 409 J. I entirely understand and acknowledge the issue she is trying to grapple with. Our position, however, is simple. Court proceedings should be carried out in the language of the land. That said, the government does offer translation services, and I do ask the noble Lord to Minister to set out measures that are already in place to ensure offenders understand orders that are made by the courts.

My Lords, turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Ducey, youth diversion orders must be underpinned by the principle of proportionality. Amendment 417A would serve to ensure that they are being used in this expected manner. We particularly support the intention behind amendment 409 G. Youth diversion orders will be a serious step to take and therefore ensuring that multi-agency evidence backs up. The decision to issue an order is incredibly important. Similarly, sharing the data, the sharing of data with regard to terrorists and terrorism networks is becoming an increasingly urgent need.

Any step that improves the efficiency of the sourcing and sharing of information between authorities is welcome. And so we also support this amendment. I look forward to hearing the minister's response.
16:06
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
And I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, and for the noble Lady Jones for their noble Lady Jones for their amendments in relation to the Youth Diversion Orders, amendment 409 G in the name of Baroness Doocey, would require the courts to be provided with details of previous interventions, both considered and imposed, and to set out consultation undertaken with other agencies. Amendment 409 H in the name of Baroness Shields, would amend clause 185, which deals with measures which may be imposed by youth diversion, order and amendment 409 J again, in the name of the Baroness Jones, would require a youth diversion order to be issued to the respondents in simple terms, to ensure they understand what is being asked of them.

I understand the sentiment behind the orders, but I hope I can explain why the government can't accept them. Can I say at the beginning and at the outset that in response to the noble Lady, Baroness Jones, we have had a lot of debate on this bill and we will continue to have some more debate, undoubtedly in ping pong. And I thank the noble Lord Pannick for his his comments. We're trying to do our best and I'm happy if colleagues want to.

We can have votes very speedily tonight. If people put their arguments succinctly and the government responds succinctly, which I will try and do. May I just say that in relation to the points on the amendments today, the Home Office is currently drafting statutory guidance which will, I hope, help the points raised by the noble Baroness. That will be by the negative procedure that will be produced as soon as possible, and it will include further details on the circumstances for youth diversion orders in relation to amendments 409 G and 409 H.

The legislation already makes clear that the court must consider the youth diversion order necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from the risk of terrorism or serious harm. Clause 185 clarifies that this test applies to each individual measure imposed by the order, and as part of that, the court must also consider proportionality, which I think is is key in relation to the second part of the amendment. 409 H, clause 185 also already ensures there are safeguards for the really important points that the noble Baroness have made, which is to ensure that educational commitments, an individual's work and the duplication is avoided with requirements imposed by other orders.

There is similar safeguards in other similar civil orders, and I'll take, if I may, the point on translation services, a way that was made by the noble Lord and refer to him, perhaps even later in the debate, but certainly in writing afterwards, the amendment 409 J. I recognise the importance of ensuring the respondent understands the detail of the order imposed upon them. That's absolutely vital, and that will be a consideration for Youth Offending Teams already. Amendment 417A would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on youth diversion orders, and the provisions in this Bill already expand the statutory limit for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to include youth diversion orders.

In practice, this will mean that youth diversion orders will be considered as part of the annual reports of the independent reviewer, and I hope again this helps the House. In addition, the Home Office does provide an annual report to Parliament on the use and oversight of disruptive counter-terrorism powers, and I want to give a commitment that I will review whether or not we should include reporting on youth diversion orders. As part of this, I'm grateful for the support of the noble Cameron of Lochiel for the government's amendments.

They are technical amendments which clarify the relevant court in clause 186, which deals with notification requirements and clause 193, which deals with applications to vary a youth diversion order taken together amendments 413 and 414 update the route of appeal for both the applicant and the respondent of a Youth Diversion Order. Current drafting includes a route for further appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and to align the appeal routes with other similar civil orders. This amendment removes the route to the Court of Appeal.

This allows established appeal routes to be applied. The applicant or defendant will be able to appeal the youth diversion order made in the Magistrate's Court to the High Court by way of case stated or Crown Court, with an onward appeal allowed by way of case stated to the High Court. They are technical amendments and I hope that they will help clarify the purpose of the proposals in the government's name. I would just say finally, therefore, then to the noble Lady Ducey in particular, that I hope with those assurances she does withdraw her amendment, but I realise that if she wishes to push it, then I advise my noble friends to vote against it.
16:11
16:12
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that amendment 409 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content, content, opinion will say, content, content, content, content, content. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Order. Voting when voting is open. Order. Voting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once Once more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 409 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, opinion will say, content contrary, not content. Not content. Contents will go to the right by the bar. The not content to the left by the bar. Oh, to the right. By the throne. The not content left by the You'll You'll see. 409 409 G 409 G be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Sahota

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Sahota contents. Lord Sahota contents. 225 Lord Sahota contents. 225 not Amendment. Amendment. 409 Amendment. 409 H Amendment. 409 H Baroness Amendment. 409 H Baroness Jones Amendment. 409 H Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved. Amendment 409 J Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved Lords. It may be for the convenience of the House of amendments 410 to 417 a moved formerly en bloc Lord Hanson of Flint.

The question is that amendments 410 to 417 be agreed to En bloc. As many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 417 a Baroness Doocey not moved, not Baroness Doocey not moved, not moved after clause 201, amendment 418. Baroness Foster of Agra. Drums.
16:24
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 418 and to try and explain the rationale for the explain the rationale for the changes I've made since Committee stage, and I want to thank the noble Lord Polak and the noble Lady Baroness Ludford for adding their names in support of the amendment. I declare I am an office holder in the APPG for Counter Extremism, a member of the APPG for Terrorism and Security and a victim of terrorism. So for 20 years we've had a criminal offence of glorification of terrorism.

However, the current section one is a very high bar to meet for prosecution as the person making the statement of glorification has to intend that a person hearing the statement would be encouraged to emulate the terrorism being glorified. And after the debate at Committee stage, I sought to narrow the wording of my amendment to deal with the to deal with current prescribed organisations and noble Lords may remember that there was a concern as the amendment was drafted for Committee stage, that it may capture some historic features that none of us would have seen today as glorification of terrorism in today's world.

So in seeking to narrow the scope, however, the noble Lord, the Minister pointed out in a letter to me when I shared my change of amendment, that I may now be excluding glorification of those terrorists acting on their own behalf, those not advocating or acting on behalf of a proscribed organisation such as the Manchester bomber. And obviously I wouldn't want that to be the case. So I've worked with the wonderfully patient staff in the public bill office to try and deal with the issues raised by the Minister.

So what is before the House today, I hope captures my amendment as put forward a Committee stage, but also deals with the issue of so-called lone wolf terrorists or their supporters calling for others to emulate their activities. And as I said, I do want to thank the Bill office for all of their assistance in dealing with these issues and indeed, the noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing the issue to my attention, just to remind noble Lords, the reason for me pushing this amendment is really fourfold.

Firstly, defeating terrorism is not just about militarily defeating the terrorists or the organisation, but also not allowing the narrative of those terrorists to be justified. Secondly, there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland under the current section one and very few in England and Wales. Despite the growing glorification of terrorism and terrorists. So we need to enable the police and the prosecutors to deal with those who seek to glorify terrorists. And I hope that this amendment is helpful in that regard.

Thirdly, as I indicated at the start of my speech, I am an office holder in the APPG on counter Extremism. And if we do not amend the law as the amendment seeks to do, then I really do fear for the continued glorification of terrorism and the fact that that will radicalise and need more of our young people into terrorism present. There's a lack of legislation to capture extremism, but if we allow the glorification of terrorism to continue unabated, extremism will grow in our society.

And we know all of the problems that brings for our society. My Lords, in the recent report, time to act from the APPG on Counter Extremism, it was found that 1 in 5 voters say the political violence in the UK is acceptable. In some conditions. We should all be shocked by that statistic, but unfortunately it comes from the normalisation of terrorism. In a further report this time, and actually just published this week from the Union of Jewish Students, we are given clear evidence of what happens when glorification of terrorism is allowed to happen unchecked.

The report found that glorification of terrorism is prevalent and unpunished. Our research has found that student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews, even justifying the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach in December 2025, 49% of those students spoken to have heard slogans or chants glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other prescribed groups on campus, and 47% have witnessed justification of the October 7th attacks, rising to 77%. Among those who encounter Israel Palestine protests regularly. My Lord, we must act.

We have been given clear evidence of the impact of the glorification of terrorism, particularly on our young people, and therefore we must deal with it because fourthly and finally, what sort of society do we want to live in? Do we want to allow the continued glorification of terrorism and all the inherent problems that will bring? Or do we want to send a signal from Parliament that terrorism is, was, and always will be wrong? Just yesterday, my Lords, I was shocked and I shouldn't be shocked because unfortunately it has become the norm in Yuri.

At a council run Saint Patrick's Day parade, parents were buying balaclavas and scarves for their young children, which had IRA slogans on them. I have to say, my Lords, the impact on our young people is huge and that's what I'm concerned about. You may say don't live in the past, etc. etc. and sometimes when I raise the issue of glorification of terrorism, the noble Lord, the Minister will say, yes, it was. Everything that happened in the past was terrible. This is not about the past.

This is about the future, and it's about our young people. And we need to stop the harmful normalisation of terrorism. And this new amendment, I think, goes some way in doing just that, because terrorism is not never justified. It causes mistrust between communities, takes away lives and causes devastating devastation for so many people. And my Lords, I hope, given that I have listened to the concerns that have been raised in committee and indeed from the noble Lord, the Minister himself, that the House will see fit to back my amendment, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. My proposed after clause 201.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My proposed after clause 201. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He was very pleased to support Baroness Prosser and added my name to this amendment. The purpose, as to this amendment. The purpose, as I understand it, of the amendment is pretty straightforward. It seeks to remove that current requirement to remove that current requirement in section one of the Terrorism Act 2006 that for a statement glorifying terrorism to be criminal, prosecutors must also prove that the speaker intended to encourage
16:31
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
others to emulate the act. In practice, this current requirement creates a significant evidential barrier. Under the current law, it is not enough that someone praises terrorist violence, celebrates terrorist violence, celebrates terrorist attacks or glorifies terrorist organisation. Prosecutors must go further and demonstrate must go further and demonstrate that the individual intended their words to encourage others to copy those acts and as a result, individuals can glorify terrorism while carefully avoiding an explicit call for imitation remaining technically within the law.

So we know that extremist propagandists are acutely aware of these legal boundaries. They deliberately operate at the margins of the law, rather than issuing explicit instructions. They rely on suggestion, admiration and narrative. They glorify past attacks. They elevate perpetrators as heroes or martyrs, and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Celebrate organisations that Parliament has already determined must be prescribed because of their must be prescribed because of their threat. The threat they pose and such messaging, my Lords, may not always contain an explicit always contain an explicit instruction to copy the act, but it nonetheless plays a powerful role in the radicalisation process. It legitimises, it fuels extremist ideology, and it contributes to an ideology, and it contributes to an environment in which a violent extremism becomes normalised. In many cases, my Lords, Parliament has already taken steps of proscribing certain organisations as terror groups.

The decision reflects a clear judgement that those organisations pose such a grave threat that supporting them must be prohibited. It's therefore follows that publicly praising or glorifying the acts of such organisations should also fall into the scope of criminal law, even where the speaker, as I've said, avoids explicit call for imitation. And this amendment simply aligns the legislation with that principle. And I think it's also important to be clear that the amendment. What the amendment does not do, it does not criminalise legitimate debate, historical discussion or academic analysis of terrorism, nor does it undermine the fundamental protections of freedom of expression that are central to our democratic society.

Instead, it targets the deliberate glorification of terrorist organisations and their acts of violence, which extremist actors use to spread propaganda and influence vulnerable audiences. My Lords, extremist propaganda has evolved significantly since the original legislation was drafted. Radicalisation today often occurs through narratives that glorify past attacks and portray terrorists as heroes, rather than through direct instructions to commit violence. If the law is ineffective, it must reflect that reality. Removing the emulation requirement would close a loophole in the law.

Align our legislation with the realities of modern extremist propaganda, and strengthen the ability of prosecutors to act against those who glorify terrorism while hiding behind technicalities. Sending an unequivocal message that the celebration of terrorist violence has no place in our society. So, my Lords, I believe this amendment represents a sensible, proportionate and necessary improvement in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

existing legislation and I hope colleagues will support it. I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have. As I usually do, for the concerns of the noble Baroness Foster, but I would make two short Foster, but I would make two short points. First, by removing the emulation requirement inserted, I emulation requirement inserted, I might say very deliberately. In 2006, this amendment would criminalise the utterance of criminalise the utterance of unpleasant viewpoints without regard to whether or not they have
16:35
16:36
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I rise to. >> Support the amendment. Standing in the name. >> Of my noble friend, Baroness Foster, and others, and in doing so, Foster, and others, and in doing so, I think it is right that we do look to close the loophole. And I would say that I think we do need to actually look at how terrorists operate in the real world. And I think the loophole that is there at present is one which suggests that the current legislation, in its current wording is not quite fit for purpose.

It doesn't serve that. I would agree as well that I think the refinements that have been made between Committee stage and Report stage are useful. First of all, I think it doesn't, and I disagree that this in any way restricts freedom of speech. I think historic debate is something that is to be valued. I don't believe this does in any way restrict that. It focuses in on the contemporary situation. Secondly, I think it is important that the position is covered.

As we've seen, unfortunately, more instances of the so-called lone wolf people who want to effectively wear the badge of a terrorist organisation that may or may not be directly connected with that organisation. But we have seen whether it is in Manchester or Sydney in recent days, the horrific situation of a radicalised either individual or group of individuals perpetrating that. And it was right that that covers it as well. But there are two principal reasons why I support this and why I think it is necessary.

The first, and arguably the lesser of the two, is dealing with the present. Now, unlike Baroness Foster and probably like most members of this House, I have not been a victim of terrorism. I have not had a family member who's been a victim of terrorism. And I think for all of us who are in that position, we can be very thankful for that. But where we see people eulogising past terrorist actions for their own purposes of drawing people into their organisations or their way of thinking, it is deeply hurtful to the victims and relatives of those.

And in that sense, whether that is in relation to a terrorist atrocity which took place in Northern Ireland, whether this is the Manchester Arena bombing or the seven over seven attacks, and the presentation of those who perpetrated these as some form of righteous martyr, or indeed the purveyor of. There is no alternative that is deeply hurtful to the living relatives of the victims of those. And I think that if there was that reason alone, I think that would be sufficient to make this change.

But I think the bigger reason is actually looking to the future. And this is where I think we need to get real as regards terrorism. For terrorist organisations to operate, it is not some closed cell of a small group of people who simply never change. And over a period of time wither on the vine as time passes by. For any terrorist group to be continue on in its activities, it requires the influx of new blood. Time and time again and one of the things that I find deeply disturbing is there are a number of young people who are naive and are drawn in.

They are not people who in day one, are simply handed a gun or a bomb and told to go out and take that. They are drawn in bit by bit the idea that terrorist organisations, the way that they operate, will be to gradually indoctrinate for the dangerous ideology and even more perverse methodology, gradually to draw those those young people in. And in doing so, getting those people addicted to their methods. Past terrorism becomes effectively the gateway drug because many young people, if we were to mention, for example, the seven over seven attacks, young people have no memory of that.

It was before they were born. They don't see the consequences, the hurt that is caused directly to those families, the evil that is done in society, it becomes a much easier sell for terrorist organisations to draw people in on that basis, and to present those who carried out those hideous attacks as being some form of martyr or indeed role model for the future. And to that extent, I don't care whether this we're talking about Northern Ireland based terrorism, whether it is the extremism of those who carry out violence on behalf of some Islamic extremist view, whether it is far right terrorism or whether indeed it is a terrorist group that is effectively a front organisation for some foreign power.

The reality is we judge terrorism not by its motivation, but by its words and its actions, and there is a real danger of young people being radicalised and being drawn in, and the presentation of the evils of the past as as potential martyrs is something that is the case. And the argument will go well, if, for example, it is that we needed to create a united Ireland by violence 40 years ago, and if it was right, then, well, surely it must be right now.

If white supremacism was right 30 years ago, it is right now. If having a Islamic caliphate across the world was right 20 years ago, it's right now. Now all those ideas are repugnant. But the logic is that if they are being used by terrorist organisations and using this level of loophole as the argument to draw young people in, we have a duty in particular, both to protect society, but also to protect our young people and prevent them being radicalised. Which is why I think this is an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely necessary amendment, which I think will help protect society. My Lord, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I. Would also like to rise and support this amendment. We heard support this amendment. We heard mention of the IRA for those who lived in Northern Ireland through the Troubles, know that the IRA, Sinn Fein IRA were the most hideous Sinn Fein IRA were the most hideous terrorist group and reduced Israel
16:43
16:43
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I have a lot of >> My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with trying to tackle ways that take away the romantic attachment to terrorism as some kind of heroic endeavour, and I. So I completely understand. I think the the reasons for this amendment. However, I cannot see how it would work in practice at the present time. I can't see how it would deal with a rangers-celtic match. I don't know what you would do in terms of some people singing Fields of Athenry versus those singing the sash, those shouting up the RA no more than no surrender slogans on both sides, all of them associated with the previous struggle.

I don't know what would happen to those children. Shockingly, as the noble Lady Baroness Foster explained, having balaclavas brought for them. But then, are they in scope or their parents? Or how do we deal with that? And goodness knows what you do about kneecap the band. I mean, I'm all for banning them because they're hopeless. But what I'm saying is they play on the very imagery that you're discussing. I think we've got a real problem on university campuses. Far too often, young people are indeed cosplaying as jihadists in the way they dress.

And I understand that this is not a direct call to arms, but it is, in a way, making acceptable the notion that these Hamas wannabes are actually justifying a type of what they'd call defensive violence. On October the 7th, the Ayatollah Khomeini apologists who justify violence and the whole expert propagandism, which fills a society with narratives which I think are very dangerous in terms of young people being radicalised. But I just don't think this amendment can work, because I think what we need to do is to be much more courageous in dismantling those narratives, in going on to university campuses and taking on those who put forward critical theory policies that justify treating Israel as a terrorist pariah state and somehow turning a blind eye to the the radical, as I say, cosplaying jihadists.

So in some ways I can see the problem. I don't know that this amendment will tackle it, and I think it could just get into scope a whole range of activities which are superficially offensive, undoubtedly hurtful to anyone who's been a victim of terrorism, but actually means that we do not do what we need to do, which is a much harder job, which is to have these arguments out in public often regularly. Call it out, as it were, even if you don't arrest them.

I mean, arresting them and carting them away just turns them into a new kind of martyr in my mind. And we don't want to give anything to them martyr status. But I can see the aim. Just don't think this is the method.
16:46
16:47
16:48
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Portrait Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
My Lord, sir, I welcome the opportunity to make a few points in this debate. And to be fair, there is legislation which does cover the is legislation which does cover the glorification of terrorism. And the problem is, and I think Baroness Prosser is trying to make this point as others, it's not strong enough and it doesn't do what it's supposed to say on the tin. And if we look back at the at the Lee Rigby case, Fusilier Lee Rigby, there was someone convicted, two people convicted and jailed for that in 2021.

It was a conviction of encouraging terrorism and collecting information after posting messages in 2023, there was another conviction for sharing a video of national Action, a proscribed neo-Nazi group. Also in 2024, someone was jailed for encouraging terrorism. So I don't want people to think, my Lords, that there isn't legislation. There is. But what Baroness Foster is trying to do is make it better, improve it, particularly for those victims. Because what we do here that, in summary, the law allows for the conviction of people who glorify terrorism.

The vast majority of the UK population has not been convicted of any offence, and prosecutions require specific evidence. I also picked out from a report that in the year ending March 2023, 169 people were arrested for terrorism related activity. Only 46 were charged with terrorism related offences and there is no idea how many were actually convicted. So I think what we're trying to do here is make things better, and I want you to put yourself in a situation.

I'll give you an example. And these are live examples. There are a group of young people playing in a junior band and a bus load of, of adults that are coming from a Gaelic football match, and they start singing pro terrorist songs and chanting up the RA. What does that do for those young people who are out playing and enjoying music? Give you another example. A man during the Troubles, because he was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was murdered.

That evening. His three young children and his widow were in the house and groups of people drove past in the cars cheering on his murder. Those were his neighbours directly doing that, cheering at his murder and shouting up there are. Tell me that that's not an offence. And if it's not, it should be. Tell that man's widow who's still alive and his children or children, that. That is not an offence. If it's not, it should be, my Lords, unless we tighten the glorification of terrorism legislation.

And I listen to Baroness Fox and there are some examples, I have to say that are not akin to to what we are talking about here. You can't stop some of those chants about or singing the Fields of Athenry or the sash on on a rangers-celtic match. And by the way, that's not illegal. Let me tell you, there's a significant difference between singing that and going out to publicly. Publicly and antagonise people by shouting up there or up the UVF, or for other support for other terrorist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

organisations. So I support the amendment. Sorry, sorry. I thank the Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for giving way. It's also the case. Would you agree with me that we saw recently? It's also the extent to which, if It's also the extent to which, if we normalise the sensitive terrorism that feeds into future terrorism. And to give an example of this, whenever we saw the terrible shooting, thankfully, terrible shooting, thankfully, despite horrendous injuries, the officer survived. But whenever John Caldwell was shot and a day or two later, the police arrived in an estate to arrest one of the suspects.

There were a number of of young people in that area who were actually cheering on not the arrest, but cheering on the potential culprit. And I suspect they were going through a level of ignorance. But it is the seeping in of the idea that that terrorism is acceptable to a new generation, which means that this isn't it bad enough. While it is in terms of the memories of those who've gone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through it, it is creating the the fertile, fertile ground. You remind the the the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You remind the the the noble Lord that interventions are meant to be short. And really a question that went on for quite a while. Just saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just saying. Fertile ground for the future. Yes. I think it's very important to realise that there should be no to realise that there should be no almost legalisation or normalisation of glorification of terrorism or of terrorism in terrorism or of terrorism in general. And that is what we're trying to stop here and that is what we must stop. Otherwise you're going to allow more radicalisation of young people throughout society and not just talking about Northern Ireland, a waking up people, my Lords, and realise that it's happening here in GB as well.
16:54
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That committee, I expressed some doubt about Baroness Fox amendment. doubt about Baroness Fox amendment. I recognised the strength of feeling around the House in favour of her position, forcefully of her position, forcefully expressed then as now by the noble Lord Ware and others, particularly in connection with past events in Northern Ireland, but relevant to terrorism in all its forms. And Baroness Prosser pointed particularly to anti-Semitic terrorism allegedly arising from events in the Middle East, but in reality entirely unconnected with those events.

As with the Bondi Beach attack, which she. Instance, I was, however, concerned in particular by the possibility that the amendment as originally drafted would penalise the glorification of acts of historical terrorism that are or might now be recognised as freedom fighting. Despite the methods adopted to express them and fight for a cause or viewpoint. For example, the struggles of the ANC and Nelson Mandela might be categorised as terrorism by some, and those that celebrated their struggles and their outcomes are now widely understood and approved might be called by the provisions.

So might the actions of partisans and resistance fighters, which again, we now celebrate and applaud because they were struggling against dictatorships. However, the noble Lady Baroness Prosser has recognised those concerns and redraughted her amendment so that her proposed subclause two A requires that a statement relates to one or more organisations that are, at the time of the statement, proscribed as terrorist organisations. My Lords, section one of the 2006 act criminalises statements that are, and I quote, likely to be understood as a direct encouragement or inducement to the Commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and by section one three such statements include statements which glorify the Commission or preparation, whether in the past, in the future or generally of such acts or offences, and there follows the emulation requirement that this amendment is designed to remove.

And it's only that requirement that this amendment is designed to remove, and it is a narrow amendment in that sense. But that analysis does suggest that perhaps the noble Lady Baroness Fox went too far in her speech in opposing this amendment. And I agree with the noble Lord Lord Pannick in his suggestion that that was the case. I do, of course, agree with the noble Lady Baroness Fox, that it is only part of the picture, actually, as Lord Pannick said, and changing the narrative among young people is the crucial challenge.

But removing the emulation requirement may help. So subclause two B in the amendment would pose two alternative routes to conviction. First, removing the emulation requirement at little A, but applying the glorification of offence only to statements relating to currently prescribed terrorist organisations, and the second that B, which is an alternative, replicates exactly the existing offence. Section 13A and B the glorification with the emulation requirement, it could be a cause for concern, and I listened with care to the point made by the noble Lord Lord Anderson.

But because it replicates the existing offence on the statute book since 2006, and the emulation requirement includes a reference to existing circumstances, that seems to me to be a safeguard. So we have concluded that the newly defined offence is carefully drawn. We accept the noble Lady Baroness Foster of Oxton, but the glorification offence restricted to already proscribed terrorist organisations, does not need the emulation requirement, and we accept that that requirement is difficult to prove. So if the noble Lady does choose to divide the house, we will support the amendment here.
16:58
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
I think it's important not just to look at this from an Irish point to look at this from an Irish point of view. We've got to look at the big picture and it's clear there are different pieces of legislation which govern this particular area, and reference has been made to other pieces of legislation. And as Lord McCrea said, we're in Report stage and we move to Third Reading stage. So there is an opportunity here. If the government has particular difficulties with this.

They've heard the mood of the House, and I have no doubt that they can take that on board. And if there's something that they're not comfortable with in the drafting of this particular amendment, no doubt they have the opportunity to bring forward their own. But we can't ignore the fact that there has been a huge increase on glorification of terrorism in this country in the last couple of years. You've only to look outside the door of this building week after week, where people were demonstrating.

We understand that you had the Palestine action thing, and people said the government was wrong to do that, and there were hundreds of people arrested and so on. So we understand that there are issues where you have to be careful what you do with the legislation, but we simply can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that it's not happening. Look at what's going on in the universities. And the universities have always been hotbeds of rebellion over the years, and we've all probably been part of it.

And I'll not go into some of our histories around the place. But, you know, the fact is that what we have. Also, we've hit preachers in certain parts of the country openly, openly, brazenly encouraging their flocks and designating certain individuals, groups and indeed nations and legitimising what they might do if they take action against those individuals, groups or nations. Now, we just can't ignore it. But there is a temptation to ignore it, and I hope that we resist that temptation.

And I hope, therefore, that if they in is summing up, if the noble Lord, the Minister is not content with this particular amendment, he can. He has it in his own hands to deal with it. And no doubt, when it comes back to Third Reading, if he has dealt with it, then we can make a judgement as to whether it's sufficient or it's not. But we can't run away from this anymore. It's gone on all the time. And in institutions where huge amounts of taxpayers money has been invested, we are seeing people felt reached the stage where they're uncomfortable even on their campus.

These are places of learning. This is where the future generation of people who will run businesses, who will make wealth and they're being bombarded by this totally unacceptable propaganda and no other. We always pride ourselves on free speech in this country, and we we all have been parts of protests over the years, but things have got particularly nasty. And I think that to simply assume that we can carry on as normal is no longer acceptable here.
17:02
17:02
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the >> My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Foster for returning to the issue of the glorification of terrorism and for our exchange of terrorism and for our exchange of letters and for her movements and for her reflections on what we said at Committee stage. And I've noted self-evidently the support from the noble Lord Rogan, the noble Lord, MP, the noble Lord. We're indeed the noble Lord Marks from the Liberal Democrat front bench and the noble Lord Polak from the conservative backbenches.

And I've not been a victim of terrorism, but I know people who have. I've met victims of terrorism, not just in the Northern Ireland context when I had the honour of serving there, but in this job I have met victims of terrorism from a range of backgrounds, and I know that discussion of all of these issues causes great pain. And even in this debate today, it will cause great pain for those victims. But I hope I can explain why, even with the changes that have been made by the noble Lady, that I can't accept the amendments in the current form.

Let me first of all express and reiterate the purpose of the encouragement offence. It was introduced after seven over seven attacks and is designed to act as a precursor offence to reduce the risk of people being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism. The offence applies equally to statements made online or offline, and also applies even where an individual is reckless about the impact of their statements. That goes in some way to the points made by the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley.

Encouragement includes any statements that glorify acts of terrorism and, to be clear, acts of terrorism in this context include action taken for the purposes of terrorism, whether or not the action was taken by a proscribed organisation. And we've talked today about the IRA, which at that stage had heavily prescription activities on it. We've talked about Palestine action, we've talked about other organisations today. And in the current conflicts around the activities in Palestine and in Israel. Glorification is defined in the 2006 act, passed by a previous government that I served in as including any praise or celebration, and I recognise that amendment 418 is a modified version of the noble Baroness proposal of Committee stage.

Specifically, the amendment would retain the historical safeguard that I did point out to her, which is necessary to limit the offence for the very reasons that noble Lord Marks also indicated. But I'm grateful for the noble Baroness for having taken into account our concerns. However, I say to her today that it would still apply this to statements which indirectly encourage acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. Now, the offence was carefully drafted at the time of its introduction to ensure that statements, which are automatically captured by the offence, have to meet both the requirement that the statement glorifies an act of terrorism and also the historical safeguard and the way in which amendment 418 attempts to split these two requirements up now means that when it was always intended, the requirements would work together.

And again, I just say to to the House as a whole that the encouragement offence has recently been reviewed by Jonathan Hall KC, the current independent reviewer of terrorism, at the request of the government in the light of the 7th of October attacks, which a number of noble Lords have referred to also. And in that review, the current independent Reviewer of terrorism strongly advised against removing this historical safeguard. In addition, the offence is also very clear that statements which glorify acts of terrorism in such a way as to encourage others to carry out these acts would include acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations.

As a result, it's not necessary, in my view, to spell this out any more clearly on the face of legislation. Now, as with the noble Ladies previous Amendment Committee, I think it's also worth highlighting, and this is a point that the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich made in his contribution, that there are other offences that may be relevant to her concern too. In particular, section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to invite support for proscribed organisations and the very points that the noble Lord.

MacRae of Macclesfield and Cookstown made, and the noble Lord Elliott also made about the prosecutions. They have very often been undertaken under that legislation. This offence is designed to address the harm that comes from the legitimisation of terrorist organisations, which the noble Baroness has spoken about. So I would argue we may need to test the House, but I would argue that I know why the noble Lady has brought this amendment forward. I know why noble Lords, particularly those with fresh memories of activities in Northern Ireland and including seeing activities which offend many people currently in Northern Ireland.

I know why they support this amendment. I know why the noble Lord Polak is supporting this amendment. But I say to to all of them that the independent reviewer of terrorism has reviewed it and believes the offence is fit for purpose. Currently, there are many other mechanisms that noble Lord Anderson pointed to that will lead to prosecution for these issues, and there is also a significant effort to ensure that, as was mentioned, the government supports activities to turn people away from terrorism through the prevent scheme, through education, through a range of other mechanisms so that people are not politicised to terrorism through activities that are undertaken.

And I would say to the noble Lady that with those reasons in mind, I recognise her concerns. I understand why she brought them forward, but I hope the reassurances I've given would mean that she was not able to push the amendment to a division, but I will await to her her response.
17:09
17:10
17:22
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
Terrorism and now prescription in particular. I have 420 at the beginning of this group, but I also support my friend the noble support my friend the noble Viscount Hailsham on his 442B, which would be beef up parliamentary involvement in the parliamentary involvement in the prescription process and the role of the ISC in particular. I also oppose later amendments that seem to limit or completely remove the role of the courts in this area. My Lords, the Home Secretary's power to prescribe a terrorist organisation under section three of the 2000 act is an awesome power.

It's nonetheless necessary in a democratic society. Why? Because people shouldn't be able to have private armies. We all understand that. But nonetheless, getting these getting these decisions right is incredibly important. And I'm not relitigating in this debate any, any past or pending decisions. I'm looking at it from a point of view of constitutional principle. The consequences of prescription are very serious now and in the future. So getting these decisions right is very important. My 420 is a very modest amendment, I believe, and I'm grateful to all noble Lords across the House who supported it last time, and to colleagues in the other place, again, from different political persuasions, who, who, who spoke to me privately, expressing their support for this type of change.

My Lords, at the moment, a single prescription order may contain umpteen organisations, which means that when that order is put before each house, there will be a yes or no vote to an entire list rather than an opportunity for for the members of the Other place or noble Lords to vote to scrutinise properly and vote on each prescription decision. And my Lords, by contrast, the courts are able to review these decisions individually, and I suggest that as a matter of constitutional principle, both houses should have a similar opportunity.

That is what that is. What 420 does. Last time, my noble friend, amiable and courteous, as always, as noble Lords know, was able to offer one argument against me and the argument was, we've always done it this way, and forgive. I hope he forgives me, but I don't think that that is a good enough argument. There may be a further one to come, but that is not good enough argument to limit the reasonable opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to vote on each individual prescription decision.

Now, there's no speed issue or emergency issue because even after my amendment, a Home secretary could make multiple orders on the same day and sign them with the same pen, there would just be individual votes and debate and debates as as required by Parliament. That's the argument. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 207. Insert the words of the new 207. Insert the words of the new clause as set out in the Marshalled List.
17:25
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
List. >> My Lords. In those. >> Circumstances. >> What I'd like to do is to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I'd like to do is to confine my observations to amendment 4 to 2 A and for to to B. But before I do so, may I just say that I do strongly support the amendment that stands in the name of the noble Baroness, which she's just moved. And were she to move, divide the house on it, I would support it. But I gather, perhaps because of the press of business, that is not our present intention. So if I may, I'm going to address four, two, two A to start off with.

And the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that individuals can only be prosecuted under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act for the offence of supporting an act of terrorism. If the alleged acts amount to supporting terrorism in the sense that the ordinary citizen would understand that concept. Amendment 422 makes explicit that the necessary intent that the prosecution must prove is that the alleged acts were done with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.

And also, my Lords, my amendment 422A restricts the possibility of a demonstrator being arrested under the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of the act. In general, an arrest must be authorised by a senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above. Now, my Lords, my suggestion to your Lordships is that the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. It has been widely criticised, for example, by the judges in the Palestine Action case, and in that case the judicial concern as to statutory overreach contributed to the proscription of Palestine.

Action being held unlawful. And it also has been the subject of much distinguished criticism, for example, by Lord Sumption, a former member of the Supreme Court, and I suggest that the position is profoundly unjust. If we consider, for example, the demonstrations that have been taking place in the streets of London, hundreds of people holding placards up which say I support Palestine action. Now, many of these characters are elderly and retired folk, rather like myself at most self-evidently respectable, rather like myself, and usually without knowledge of the secret workings of Palestine action, rather like myself.

Now they may be self-indulgent, rather like myself. Some accuse them of being naive. But are they really guilty of terrorism in the sense that most of us understand that concept? And I suggest surely not. What they are doing is to use a form of shorthand to demonstrate their opposition to the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, and that they are entitled to do. And there are at least three serious objections to the present law.

Firstly, my Lords, it is a serious restriction on free speech. I don't refer here to the European Convention, although it may be engaged. I actually refer to the long standing tradition of English law. And secondly, to use the law in circumstances that offends a common sense of the ordinary citizen does, I suggest, bring the whole body of criminal law into disrepute and also consider the consequences on the individual, touched on very briefly by the noble Baroness. If convicted of an offence under section 12, there are severe penalties on indictment, perhaps by a judge alone, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

But leaving aside the nature of the penalties, my Lords consider the impact of such a conviction. A person convicted of such an offence would have great difficulty in travelling to America, especially at this time, especially with this president in the white House. And also employment opportunities could be gravely prejudiced by such a conviction. Now, these are not consequences that should be visited on those whose essential purpose is to criticise Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank and amendment 422A is intended to address that injustice, and I.

If I may, my Lords, I pass quickly, I hope, to. 422B the purpose of 422B is to ensure that before prescription order is made, Parliament has as much information as possible during the Palestine Action case, and subsequently two Ministers stressed that the prescription order had been endorsed by Parliament. Now that is strictly true, but it was an uninformed endorsement and that is necessarily the case. It's not possible and I blame no Minister for this. It is not possible for Ministers to outline in open debate the considerations and the information which they have received in private and which have led to the decision to proscribe.

But they could give that information to the Security and Intelligence Committee, which is well versed in dealing with things of this kind. And if this was done before the laying of the prescription order, well, then the committee could make a report and this House would be much better informed. And I recognise, too, that the urgency of the matter may be such that the Secretary of State has to lay an order without being able to refer the matter to the Committee.

But in that event, the Secretary of State could have a meeting with the Committee, set out the facts in greater detail, and the committee might then be in a position to report to this House. Now, my Lords, this is not a complete safeguard, but what I do say is it is a great improvement on where we now are, and it is in that spirit that I do commend this amendment to your Lordships House. My Lords, as to voting, testing your Lordships opinion, I have two amendments here, and the truth is that I shall await and see whether there is significant support for others for either or both.

I don't want to waste the time of this house unnecessarily. We are going to sit late, so I shall await the decision that I have to make in order to determine whether or not there is significant support, but I commend the two of these amendments to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name. Like many noble Lords, I was surprised by the decision of the High Court, but the Home Secretary's decision to prescribe Palestine action was unlawful.

In view of her detailed description of their terrorist activities in our House of Commons statement of 23rd June 2025. In reading the High Court judgement, I
17:34
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
was struck by the inconsistency of the arguments of the learned judges. At the beginning of the judgement, they set out the details of the they set out the details of the Palestine Action Underground Manual, which is a standard textbook which is a standard textbook terrorist stuff guidance to four small autonomous secret cells to recruit only trusted participants, recruit only trusted participants, then operational terrorist tradecraft instructions to use secure email and VPNs to conduct secure email and VPNs to conduct reconnaissance and to pick targets based on complicity with Israeli arms industry.

Then it's got a section on targeting and tactics listed defence firms, universities, financial firms, government buildings and practical advice aimed at serious property damage to disrupt those targets. But then, my Lords, the court then concludes that prescribing the organisation was disproportionate and that the Home Secretary did not follow her own policy, even though they say the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary, given that she is both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety. I submit, my Lords, that the Home Secretary must have the absolute right to prescribe an organisation based on the advice she has received from our advisory bodies.

In coming to her decision, the Home Secretary sought copious advice on the terrorist nature of Palestine action. As all noble Lords know, the Home Office and the FCDO do not prescribe organisations willy nilly and we all complain about their failure to prescribe the IRGC. Thus, the Home Secretary had reports from the Prescription Review Group, a cross departmental group including counter-terrorism policing. The CTP, which encompasses specialist police officers from many police forces, then the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office and the CPT reports.

Then the Joint Terrorism Terrorism Analysis Centre. Jtag produced an assessment. Jtag comprises counter-terrorism experts from the United Kingdom, intelligence agencies, police forces and government departments. The Jtag report is very significant, it said, quote, although most of his activity could not be classified as terrorism within the definition of section one of the 2000 act. Nevertheless, Palestine Action had committed or participated in acts of terrorism to the extent of the attacks at Earl of Glasgow at Install Precision, a subsidiary of Elbit in Kent and Elbit in Bristol, Jtech, noted that those participating in the Bristol attack had, quote, entered the Elbit warehouse using weapons including sledgehammers, axes and whips, and during the attack, two responding police officers and a security guard were assaulted and suffered injuries.

One police officer had been assaulted with a sledgehammer and sustained a serious back injury, unquote. Jtech then noted that Palestine Action cleverly issued videos of videos of the damage to the property, but not their violence against the responders. And now we come to the crucial question of proportionality. From reading the evidence, I am absolutely certain the Home Secretary's prescription of policy and action was lawful and proportionate, and prescription was a necessary response to an escalating campaign that threatened critical national infrastructure.

The statutory test, the court admits, was satisfied. Section three of the Terrorism Act permits prescription. When an organisation commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism, the Home Secretary concluded. Palestine Action met that test and laid an order which was approved by both Houses of Parliament. Operational intelligence supported the decision. The Jtech assessment concluded the group had conducted incidents resulting in serious property damage and that the Underground Manual provides practical advice and advocates for serious property damage.

That assessment links the manual and the recorded actions to the statutory definition, that is, property damage designed to influence government. The High Court judgement itself accepted that three of the Palestine's action activities amounted to terrorist offences, which strengthens the factual basis for prescription. I might Lord True prescription, I submit, was also proportionate because of the severity and escalation of conduct. The pattern of over 300 direct actions with increasing frequency and severity, including attacks on defence suppliers and critical infrastructure, supports a conclusion that ordinary criminal law and targeted prosecutions were insufficient to address the systemic risk, and I submit it was proportionate because of the targeting of national security supply chains, where actions against defence firms and related infrastructure create heightened national security risks.

The prescription as a legitimate, proportionate tool to protect those interests, where the conduct is political and aimed at influence. And it was proportionally because policy and process safeguards were engaged, the Home Office relied on the PRG jtech operational inputs and then laid the order before Parliament. Steps that reflect the five policy safeguards the the Secretary of State must consider after she has concluded that it satisfies the terrorism test, namely the nature and scale of the organisation's activities, the threat to the UK, its presence in the UK and the threat to British nationals overseas.

Now, of course, my Lords, the prescription interferes with article ten and 11 rights to peaceful free association and expression, but it is naturally aimed at an organisation shown to promote or prepare acts, meeting the statutory terrorism definition where evidence shows a real risk to infrastructure, violence and public safety, then the interference with article ten and 11 rights is justified and necessary in a democratic society. Indeed, the court said, quote, we do not consider that the prescription of Palestine action is likely to result in any general impact on expression of support for the Palestinian cause or even opposition to Elbit, the court said.

This provides some support for a conclusion that the that the prescription was proportionate, unquote. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the Home Secretary was in breach of convention rights because there may be some supporters of Palestine action who are not advocating destruction and violence, but general support for the organisation. However, my Lords, I say, if these people want to protest about Israel or Gaza or any other country, then they can do so, but not under the umbrella of an organisation advocating violence and damage and terrorism.

The court then went on to say, quote, real weight must attach to the fact that Palestinian action has organised and undertaking actions amounting to terrorism, as defined at section one, one of the 2000 act. The court would only say those actions are small in number, but they are still significant, and it is also significant that these actions have happened in the United Kingdom. The court then went on. It is significant that Palestine Action has not suggested that its actions have been assessed to compromise terrorism with either a mistake or an or an aberration.

Indeed, policy inaction has lauded those who took part in the actions. It is further significant, said the court, that the contents of the underground manual provide good evidence of Palestine actions. Continuing intention to promote the use of violence, regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public. My Lords, let me just repeat that last sentence. The court concluded that Palestine Action intends to continue with terrorist activities to promote the use of violence, regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public.

But then it makes an extraordinary statement that nevertheless, we are satisfied that that the decision to prescribe Palace in action was disproportionate. At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. Only a very small number of his actions have amounted to terrorist action. Within the definition of section one of the 2000 act, said the court. So, my Lord, that's all right then, isn't it? The court's decided that three terrorist actions were not enough to justify the Home Secretary's decision.

How many do they want? Five accidents, ten actions, 15 terrorist actions. Or wait until person's innocent people are killed? My Lords, the Home Secretary has the duty to protect the public, not the court, and she should not be second guessed in this way on the facts. When there is clear evidence of terrorist activity, even if it is only three serious incidents, but with the danger of escalation, the court said. When striking the balance between issues such as these, the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary, given that she is both a political and practical responsibility to secure public safety.

Well, I agree about the latitude, my Lords and my amendment 42 seeks to ensure that only the Secretary of State can make that judgement based on the advice of all the anti-terrorist organisations at her disposal, and then our own discretion. She is the one who answers to Parliament, to us on the rightness and wrongness of her decision, and My amendment 42 seeks to ensure that supporters of any prescribed group who are arrested after that group was prescribed and before it was prescribed, can be prosecuted for such an offence.

Now, of course, my Lords amendments will be technically flawed. There will be my my my noble friend on the frontbench will object to my income principle from being perhaps good reasons, but I believe the concept is right. I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will bring forward an amendment to the report. I remember that Third Reading to implement what I'm advocating here. If he will not do that, then then will he tell the House what he proposes to do to reverse this perverse decision?
17:43
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
And the House that the judgement to which he objects in Palestine to which he objects in Palestine action is under appeal and the Court of Appeal in due course will pronounce on the wisdom or pronounce on the wisdom or otherwise of the High Court decision and the legality of the Home Secretary's decision. And so these criticisms, with some of which I, I certainly agree, are premature. And what matters is not what the noble Lord thinks, not what I think, but what the Court of Appeal says, and if necessary, what the Supreme Court says on such an important matter.

In any event, I do have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lord Blencathra, who is a noted constitutionalist, that it is in principle wrong to seek to remove the power of the courts, to assess the legality of judgements of the Home Secretary. It's a very valuable. Surely it's a very valuable protection of the rule of law in this country that the courts pronounce on legality and Parliament does not remove the power of the courts to do so. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord wishes to intervene. Into the court, pronouncing on a point of law. But in this occasion, point of law. But in this occasion, I believe they were not pronouncing on a point of law. They were making a judgement on the facts of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a judgement on the facts of the case and disagreeing with her on the facts. Defending the Divisional Court judgement. But they would say they judgement. But they would say they were intervening on a point of law because the point of law covers because the point of law covers whether or not the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to form the conclusion that she did in the circumstances. But as I say, this is all I suggest highly premature. I cannot support the noble law Viscount Hailsham amendment it suffers from, if I may say so, from the fundamental error that the proscription of Palestine action does not prevent anyone from protesting, demonstrating, expressing whatever views they like about the conduct of the State of Israel in Gaza or in the West Bank.

Again, with some of those criticisms, I would associate myself not certainly not all of them. What the proscription prevents is people expressing support for a proscribed organisation that is a terrorist organisation, and I take the view that it's entirely appropriate that the law should seek to prevent people from expressing support for a terrorist organisation, and the House may be interested to know that the Supreme Court considered this issue in the Queen against A, B, j in which judgement was given by Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, on the 26th of February this year, and that was a case brought on behalf of Hamas, who were complaining.

The claimants were complaining that it was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights for persons to be criminalised, for expressing support for a terrorist organisation. And what Lord Reid in particular said, and I commend it to the noble Viscount at paragraph 104 he said this I quote in particular expressions of approval or endorsement of proscribed organisations are especially significant in the light of the growing tendency mentioned earlier, for terrorist acts to be perpetrated by individuals who have been encouraged or inspired by material they have read or heard.

In that context, the expression of opinions or beliefs which are supportive of proscribed organisations can have highly dangerous consequences. It is proscribed. It is correspondingly important to address the risk of such encouragement in the language of the convention, there is a pressing social need, unquote, and that is particularly true, I suggest, of Palestine action in relation to the allegations of violent conduct. By contrast, can I express my support for Baroness Chakrabarti amendment 420? I cannot see any detriment in each proscribed organisation being the subject of a specific order, so that Parliament can vote, if it wishes, on whether the proscription order should apply to a particular organisation, rather than having to reject the whole of the group.

That should not involve any greater use of parliamentary time, because we can debate all of the orders at the same time. So I very much hope that the Minister will accept Baroness Chakrabarti amendment.
17:48
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord. My Lords, I have prepared a full speech about three prepared a full speech about three amendments in this group and about the government's behaviour regarding the prescription of Palestine action, and I've signed amendments for 24 22A and 422B, which, if enacted, would prevent the naked politicisation of terrorist legislation ever happening again. However, I recognise that the situation the House is in today that noble Lords are anxious to get on with the discussion of other matters, and that we're facing a long journey into the small hours.

And furthermore, the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti and the noble Viscount Hailsham have very ably covered much of what I would have said, so I will confine myself to pointing out that the government's decision to prescribe Palestine action was wrong in principle and dangerous. In effect, it stretched terrorism powers to crush a protest movement, not a terrorist organisation with a chilling effect on our core democratic rights. It felt highly disproportionate at the time. It was being debated in this House, and that was later confirmed by the High Court.

No wonder the government needed the crude political stunt of bundling Palestine action, together with two, obviously terrorist groups to force it through Parliament. These amendments matter because prescription decisions must be and must be seen to be grounded, proportionate and evidence based. These amendments protect our security while honouring Parliament's duty to scrutinise some of the gravest powers we give to the government. But, my Lords, I suspect that the proposals of these amendments may judge that the House would prefer to move on to other matters, and so may not call divisions on them.

I hope they do, but if not, I will have to satisfy myself with the hope that the derision heaped on the government for the prescription of Palestine action and the embarrassment of watching 2700 peaceful and mostly elderly protesters being arrested on terrorism charges will be enough to deter this or any future government from repeating this folly.
17:51
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lord. >> My Lord. >> I rise to to debate 420, which I have supported, and four two to be which I have supported as well. And I go to a lot of events where the I go to a lot of events where the right to protest is debated. And when I describe how this government bundled three three organisations together so that they could push through the prescription of Palestine action, people are quite shocked because it does not look just it doesn't look fair.

They don't even have to be similar or connected as these three weren't. And, and it's always interesting to listen to the entertaining Lord Blencathra and his speech actually running through again, the debate on whether or not to prescribe Palestine action. But in fact, of course, this is about these amendments are about the process, these are about how it's done and whether or not it's done in a proper way. It is not proper scrutiny. It's not what this House is for. When we have a blunt choice of accept all three or reject all three, that really isn't a sensible system.

Prescription is a really serious step. It criminalises people for association, for support, even for what they say. So decisions like that actually deserve to be looked at carefully case by case and not rush through pass through in a job lot. If the government is confident in its decisions about what is a terrorist organisation and not, and I assume it was confident about Palestine action, then it should have no problem with each one being judged on its own and not in a job lot on the noble, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham's amendment.

It does come down to something quite simple, because these are very big decisions, decisions that can criminalise association, affect livelihoods and follow someone for years. So we're being asked to approve that, and if so, we should be properly informed. We were not properly informed. We had to take the noble Lord, the Minister's word for it. We did not have the information ourselves. We're asked to nod things through without seeing the full picture. I don't think that's a very comfortable position for your Lordships' House to be in.

And so ensuring Parliament has a clearer and well informed picture is the whole point of this. It also adds a bit more balance at the moment. These decisions are taken by Ministers and it doesn't. It doesn't need to get in the way of a fair decision or allowing things to move very quickly. If there's urgency, the government can act, but it still has to come back and justify that decision properly afterwards. It's about making sure that when we take serious decisions, they are really justified on the on the facts and not just on suppositions that we hear.
17:54
Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Portrait The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I. >> My Lords, I. >> Add a few comments in support of the noble Lord Pannick, but without repeating him on the proposed ouster clause as suggested by the noble Lord Blencathra in his amendments 421 and 422DA, the amendments 421 and 422DA, the schedule of proscribed organisations is often added to and rarely subtracted from. I think at present it has about 98 entries if you include Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the world. That includes a number of nationalist movements from around the world that are, or have in the past been committed to violence in pursuit of their aims.

Despite the recommendations of successive independent reviewers of terrorism legislation, the annual review of proscribed groups by the Home Office and the Nioh was discontinued in 2014. As far as I know, that automatic annual review has not been reinstated and there is no requirement in law that prescription should have to be renewed every three years or every five years, or indeed at all. In my report on the Terrorism Acts in 2016, at 524, I recorded the government's admission, which I found breathtaking, that no fewer than 14 groups on the list no longer satisfied the statutory requirements for prescription.

Even more breathtaking. They didn't try to stop me saying it. There were almost certainly other groups in respect of which the same thing could have been argued. Yet most of those groups remain on the list. One group, the al Qaeda offshoot to which the current president of Syria belonged, was recently deprescribed on the initiative of the Home Secretary. But if an application to the Home Secretary is turned down, it then takes money and determination to challenge a prescription in POCA, the tribunal that exists for this purpose.

A handful of applications have been made by organisations that have definitively rejected violence and have been successful and with great respect to the noble Lord, and without reference to the Palestine action case, I am not persuaded that there's any good reason to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

block this necessary avenue for recourse. Yeah. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lady. The Baroness Chakrabarti seems to me entirely sensible for the reasons that have been set out so well by the noble been set out so well by the noble Lord Lord Pannick. And I also agree very much with what Lord Pannick
17:57
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
very much with what Lord Pannick said about Lord Blencathra amendments. I would only just add, following on Lord Strasburger, that I agree with him that Palestine action should not actually be prescribed. Not that I have any sympathy with them. I think they are a deplorable organisation. I think they do a great deal of damage. And if in fact the other laws that are required to deal with such appalling organisations are not sufficient, the government should bring back bring to this House as well as the House of Commons, stronger laws to deal with them.

But they are not, in my view,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a terrorist organisation. My Lord Fowler. Dealing with the amendments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dealing with the amendments in this group as briefly as I can, I to support the amendment of the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti, supported by the noble Lord Lord Pannick and the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss. The idea that you can bundle together organisations and then prescribe them as a group seems to me to be ridiculous. The Parliament Parliament should be faced with one organisation at a time when it votes. That's a matter of common sense.

MPs must be entitled to decide on prescription of particular organisations individually, and the fact is that many members of Parliament resented being asked to prescribe three organisations together. The three organisations of the three organisations, the other two maniacs, Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, were plainly terrorist organisations that ought to have been prescribed, and it was invidious for members of Parliament to be told it was an all or nothing decision. So that amendment should plainly be accepted.

I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti that, try as he loyally might, when Lord Hanson spoke to this in committee, he could only really say that, well, this has been done before and that's the way we've generally done it. That is no answer to the argument so eloquently put by the noble Lady. Turning to Lord Blencathra amendments, I deal with amendment 421 and 422DA together. They both contain what are commonly called ouster clauses. They've been spoken to by the noble Lord Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as well as the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss PQ.

It is the right of the courts, as Lord Pannick said, to pronounce on the legality of the actions of the Home Secretary and the amendments proposed by Lord Blencathra would effectively outlaw legal challenges to proscription, no matter how irrational or what lawyers call ultra vires or contrary to the evidence, the prescription may be an exception, as suggested in Lord Blencathra amendment. If a right to a fair trial would be totally nullified as a test, I respectfully suggest that that is an entirely meaningless exception.

And for 20 2DA, the other amendment of Lord Blencathra would deny the justice ability of a prescription of the exercise of prescription power. That is, quite simply, a denial of the rule of law. The challenge to the unlawful exercise of powers has become one of the most important safeguards of the rule of law in our democracy. These amendments are a direct attack on the courts, upholding the rule of law in the face of unlawful decisions by the executive, and the principle that the executive is not above the law needs protecting, and it should not be attacked in this Parliament.

My Lords, the other amendment that Lord Blencathra has put forward with, whereby if an organisation is deprescribed after section 13 offence, it should be treated as having acted. The offender should be treated as having acted on behalf of a proscribed organisation for the purposes of prosecution, that is, to ignore the deep prescription which is, I suggest, illogical. Turning to the noble Viscount Hailsham amendment supported by my noble friend Lord Strasburger Lord Houchen said that he would move one or both of the amendments if they had significant report, significant support for 22A imports an element of intention as a necessary ingredient of offences of support for terrorism, the offence for
18:02
18:02
18:02
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
been charged. The amendment, I suggest, is necessary as a matter of justice. Too often the response of justice. Too often the response of some has been to say that it is easier to get a conviction if. If the prosecution don't have to prove that a defendant intends the mischief at which the criminal law is directed. But section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is directed to support for organisations concerned in terrorism, and that is defined in the Act.

An organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. So to secure a conviction for the support offence, it should be, I suggest, for the prosecution to establish that the conduct alleged against the defendant was intended by that defendant to assist in terrorism, hence, the very sensible provisions suggested by Lord Hailsham's amendment. I suggest that the amendment that he that he's put forward, which also criminalises expressions of support for a proscribed organisation and criminalising the wearing of an article of clothing or uniform or publishing an image.

Both need intention and without the proof of intention, a defendant would be entitled to a not guilty verdict. I cannot believe that it should be enough to secure a conviction for a terrorist offence, to prove that a person took part in a peaceable demonstration because of some support for the political aims of the organisation. As the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss said, which is devoid of any intent to further the terrorism for which that organisation has been proscribed.

As for the further amendment for 22 B, dealing with the involvement of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my understanding from the noble Lord, the Minister in Committee was that the ISC Intelligence Security Committee is already consulted and their advice taken. I question why it should ever be in doubt that that committee should be involved for the reasons that Lord Hailsham gave, that they actually have the information upon which to advise Parliament. So I would suggest that that is a well-founded amendment as well.

Finally, I turn to 422C, which calls for a review of any organisations related to the Iranian government with a view to considering whether they should be proscribed. The Liberal Democrats have long supported the proscription of the IRGC. It is sensible that in the current circumstances, there should be consideration of other organisations connected with the Iranian government in the context of the war in Iran, in the light of the oppressive and murderous treatment meted out to protesters and dissidents in Iran in January.

It is, I suggest, very important to keep the issues of which organisations connected to the Iranian government should properly be prescribed under consideration. So that is an amendment which we also support.
18:06
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this is a very large and wide ranging group of amendments, all relating to varying amendments, all relating to varying aspects of the law on terrorism and proscription of terrorist groups. And given the amount we need to get And given the amount we need to get through today, I will be as brief as possible. Firstly, I have tabled as possible. Firstly, I have tabled amendments four, 22C and 467A, A in this group, 422C requires the Secretary of State to review whether organisations related to Iran should be prescribed under section three of the Terrorism Act 2000 within one month of Royal Assent, and 467AA simply ensures the clause comes into effect on the day the Bill passes.

It would also require the government to publish the results of that review and give reasons for the decision. Now, I acknowledge at the outset that this amendment is perhaps a roundabout way of confronting a very simple but incredibly serious issue. I am, of course, concerned about the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps specifically. Unfortunately, I was advised that an amendment to primary legislation to insert the name of the organisation into schedule two of the Terrorism Act 2000 would be Hybridising, and so I have not done so.

I'm in the fortunate position where I'm almost certain that I know exactly what the noble Lord the Minister, is going to say in response to this amendment. He would likely say that the government keeps prescription under review at all times, and as such, my amendment is not necessary. But the fact of the matter is, the decision the government has taken, that is not to prescribe the IRGC. I do, in my opinion, is not satisfactory. I'm also sure the Minister will try and attack me by saying that the previous government did not prescribe them either, and I'm fully aware of that fact.

But it is blatantly clear now, I think, to everyone that the situation is radically different from the situation even last year. And we now have the Iranian regime erratically attacking most of the Middle East, blockading the Straits of Hormuz and allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in the United States. So I don't think it's unreasonable for this to be the point at which we finally prescribe the IRGC. I know there are a lot of people in this country who would be supportive of this.

On my noble friend Lord Blencathra amendments. I'm sympathetic to what he is attempting to achieve. The ruling of the High Court in the case of the Crown on the application of a Mori and the Secretary of State for the Home Department found the prescription of Palestine action to be unlawful on two of the four grounds before the court. One of those grounds was compatibility with the HR. On the second ground that the Home Secretary was acting contrary to her own policy.

This is also a contentious ruling. The. The court said at paragraph 74 the judgement that the Home Secretary is required by the Home Office's policy and prescription to balance the benefits of prescription with the so-called costs of prescription and drawing the court's into what is essentially a political judgement such as this risks a very dangerous precedent. And I think my noble friend, therefore, is making an important point. I would also point out to those who might criticise my noble friend's amendment 421, that there are still protections against arbitrary prescriptions, even if the role of the courts is curtailed.

Both Houses of Parliament have to agree to an order under section three of the Terrorism Act and under section four, an appeal can be made to the Home Secretary to Deprescribe an organisation, and if that appeal is rejected, they can then appeal to the proscribed Organisation Appeal Commission, which, and this is important. As per section five, subsection three of the Act Prescribed Organisations Appeal Committee, the must apply the same principles as the court would in a judicial review. There are safeguards, therefore, against arbitrary prescription and as such, I think my noble friend Lord Glenarthur is entirely correct to question the role of the courts here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my Lords, I'm grateful for the amendments. There's quite a lot the amendments. There's quite a lot in this, and I'm grateful for the topics that have been tabled. Just to begin, I'd like to reiterate the critical importance of our counter-terrorism framework, including prescription to protect the public. And that's what this is the public. And that's what this is about. And in response to a number of comments that have been made by noble Lord, yes, we do always keep noble Lord, yes, we do always keep the framework under review.

And as was mentioned during the course of the debate, some organisations have been deprescribed as a result of examination by the government, and we are held to critical independent oversight provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Now let me turn to the amendments in each in turn, amendment 420 from my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti aims to limit prescription orders to a single organisation per order, ensuring that each group is debated and voted separately and that has had support from the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss and has had support from the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and others today.

And I do understand my noble friend's intention. I just say again, and I say this to the noble Lord Strasburger as well, that when Palestine action was prescribed, it was prescribed along with the other two organisations to exactly the same test under the act that allows prescription to take place and the exact same test has been applied to each of those organisations. Now,
18:11
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
-
-
in July, those orders were put together in one effective vote for the purposes of use of effective parliamentary time. We had a a big debate both in the Commons and in debate both in the Commons and in this chamber, and there was no sort of underhand purpose to do that. And I say to the committee at the And I say to the committee at the time, multiple organisations have been routinely prescribed at the same time according to the same time according to the circumstances of the time, that is.

Yes, my. We've always done it this way. Defence, but it is the defence that we have actually always done it this way under every political party in government to date. There will be instances in future where it will be necessary again for organisations to be packaged together for a prescription debate. But I do understand. But if I may, I do understand the purpose and point that my noble friend has made. I have and want to discuss it with my colleagues who deal with these matters.

Also in the House of Commons. I want to reflect upon it, but I just say to my noble friend, Will she allow us the time to reflect upon it? Because I don't believe that legislation in this way is a way that should tie the hands of the government in the way in which it approaches prescription. But I would say to her, let us reflect on it. Sensible points to allow a single debate and independent votes. I'll leave it at that for the moment. But if the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Marks wishes to contribute, I'll. Point to the noble Lords Minister, and that is the statutory Minister, and that is the statutory test that is said to have been applied in the House of Commons. Is the statutory test a prescription? the statutory test a prescription? And if members differed on the result of the statutory test in respect of the three different respect of the three different organisations, they were not given any opportunity to distinguish between them. That is the position,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is it not? I accept that and I have said already that we have always done it this way. Test is is one that has been put to me. I'm saying to my noble friend, now that there are valid potential points that need examination in that, but I don't believe legislation would be the way to tie the government's hands on this issue. And I'm saying to both my noble friend and indeed to the noble Lord Marks, that there's a discussion to be had about how future prescriptions are brought forward, and we intend to reflect on those points.

The noble Lord Blencathra amendments 422 Da aim to prevent any challenges in court on these matters. The noble Lord Pannick summed up the government's paragraphs of objection and I support what he said. The noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich re emphasised those points, and I don't wish to add to what the noble Lord has said. I can't comment on the noble Lord Blencathra, but expect me to say this on what is an existing live legal examination of the government's reasons for that prescription, and it seems to me that irrespective of that, the amendment in his name, the noble Lord Blencathra would remove all avenues of challenge, including those currently available under the act.

And I don't actually believe that the Home Secretary should have on unravelled powers, even though in this case there is an ongoing court case. So I can't accept his amendment. Amendment 422 aims to ensure that individuals can be arrested and convicted for actively conducted before a group is prescribed. Again, my Lords, the position is clear even after a group is prescribed, individuals can be arrested and convicted for conduct that occurred while the group was proscribed. There is no automatic remedy for criminal convictions if an organisation is deprescribed now.

Amendment 422A from the noble Viscount Lord Hailsham, would apply to the offences concerning support for the display of articles, etc. under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 respectively. As I've set out in committee previously, the amendments, which again are broadly the same as in committee previously, would limit these important offences in such a way that they would become largely unusable. In practice, the additional requirements for a superintendent to authorise an arrest would also be disproportionate, and I would say to the House would take operational decisions independently out of the hands of the police, which is the proper responsibility.

Despite the slight change in drafting, the amendment would still undermine the objectives of our prescription offences, particularly section 12. To be clear, again, I'd just go back again to the point that the noble and learned Lord Paddick Lord Pannick made those who want to oppose the prescription order can do so. There's nothing wrong and nothing stopping anybody standing in Parliament Square saying, I oppose the prescription of Palestine action. There's nothing in the order that we took through that says, somebody can't stand in Parliament Square and say, I support Palestine or I oppose Israel.

Nothing in that at all. But when the test is put in place, as it is under the act of what prescription is, and when governments have that information put in front of them, we have a duty to put that before the House and to defend it. And I just say to the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, there was a large debate in the House of Commons. There was a long debate in this House, and at the end of those debates, both houses voted in favour of the prescription order for Palestine action.

And I reflect on what my noble friend has said. But I also suggest that had they been split up, there still would have been a vote on Palestine action, and they may well have been a not a vote on the other two orders lumped in with that. But we will reflect on that issue. Now. The amendment 422B from the Viscount Hailsham, supported by the noble Lord Strasburger, would create a statutory requirement both for the provision of a statement of reasons for making the prescription order to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and for the Committee to publish a report ahead of prescription being made and the noble Baroness Jay of Moulsham also supported that proposal.

Now let me explain why I can't support that proposal. I've already made comments previously in committee about our engagement with the Intelligence and Security Committee. I served on that committee for five years. I know the access of information it gets. I know it can. Intel interrogate security services. It can hold Ministers account, but it does so sometimes in private. In all of its sessions, in private, its reports are considered in private because the information for which it has access is the same confidential information that is put before Ministers of the Crown in making these decisions.

And I say to the noble Viscount, with all due respect on this matter, that for the Committee to have to consider these matters, produce a report before potentially the government can make a decision, is, quite frankly, a bit too bureaucratic and potentially slow in its approach to the decisions the government might have to take. Now, all matters. All matters before all matters that the Intelligence and Security Committee can review are always open to, to, to public discussion. They can produce a report, post a prescription should they wish.

We're open to that. They can examine the information provided to Ministers. They can do that. But I would suggest that it would be a slower procedure for that pre consideration to be taken. So I can't accept his amendment. And finally turning to the amendment 422. See, I'm grateful that we do have now the ability to have thought transference between the the opposition front bench and and the government front bench. He has anticipated the arguments that I will deploy.

We do keep prescription under review. We are always looking at the Iranian regime. We are already taking actions against the Iranian regime. We've sanctioned 550 individuals and entities. We've placed Iran on the intense, enhanced tier of foreign Influence registration scheme. We've taken action even now in the current conflict ongoing to support British interests against the Iranian regime. We keep prescription under review. But if I again take the noble Lords amendment today, then we are committed to doing what we do already by the noble Lords amendment.

So I can't accept his amendment. I recognise the feeling in the House on prescription. It is a long standing practice that we do not comment on prescription. It's even a long standing practice that the previous government doesn't comment on prescription. As ever, I'm open to be challenged and hold the government to account at this Dispatch Box we will take forward. Additionally, a whole series of recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC to develop new state threats, prescription like power. And we're looking at how we do that now.

This will enhance our powers to disrupt state and state linked organisations. But I'd say to the noble Lord that I can't support the amendments he's put forward for the very reasons that he knows I can't support them and for the very reasons he himself articulated, I can't support them now. I've tried to be again for the Report stage of the bill, at least helpful in acknowledging the points that my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti has brought forward. I hope she will withdraw her amendments based on those words of encouragement for consideration.

But I do say to the House at home that the amendments before the Report stage of the bill from all noble members tonight are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ones that I cannot support. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their approach to such an for their approach to such an important debate, in particular those who made a special effort to be succinct with a long night ahead. I remind noble Lords that my I remind noble Lords that my amendment on one organisation, per order is not about Palestine action. It's not. It's about the procedure.
18:21
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
It's not. It's about the procedure. It's about constitutional safeguards for the future. I'm very grateful for the way in which my noble friend, the Minister, responded differently to the response at committee. I am hugely encouraged by what he said, and he's very graciously offered to go back to his colleagues in the Home Office and think again on this. And I have to I feel I have to respond in kind by encouraging him to do just that, as he is so graciously offered.

And I so believe in the power of our argument on 420 that I believe when he has those discussions, he will feel able to come back with a government amendment Report stage. If he's not able to do that, if he's not able to do that, having had those discussions, then we will see what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might be done at Third Reading. I hope I was clear I will not be bringing an amendment back at bringing an amendment back at Report stage, nor will I support Third Reading. Sorry, nor can I support the amendment that you brought forward today, but I recognise the issue that she has raised and will examine and discuss that with colleagues in relation to future prescription Orders before any House of Parliament.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

any House of Parliament. Well, there we go. I was I was too optimistic, perhaps, but nonetheless, I, I believe that my noble friend sees the sees the power of the argument, or he wouldn't have said what he has said and that there are. There are plenty of ways in which the Home Office might consider to do one organisation per order in the future. In any event, in light of the time. And given that I don't have the support of His Majesty's loyal opposition or of the the government, I'm grateful to the Liberal Democrats for their support.

I will not try the House's patience with a vote that I. That I cannot win this evening, so I will. I will keep nudging my noble friend, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, and beg leave to withdraw. Be withdrawn. It is by the withdrawal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is by the withdrawal Blencathra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Mott not moved. Amendment 422A. Viscount Hailsham no, I just. Said I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said I'm. Very grateful to the. Support for the Liberal. Democrat benches, but for the. Similar reasons advanced by the Similar reasons advanced by the noble Baroness, I'm not going to trouble the House by seeking to divide. So with leave, I don't move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. Is that. Is it your Lordships pleasure that. No, we'll just say not moved and amendment 422 be the same, not amendment 422 be the same, not moved. Amendment 422C Lord Davis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. Amendment 422C Lord Davis. My amendment 422C seeks a review of the prescription status of Iran
18:24
18:33
18:38
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
complaints and the police do not recognise a chatbot as a person, recognise a chatbot as a person, meaning there is no perpetrator to pursue. It also fails to address pursue. It also fails to address harms to children. In fact, it explicitly deals only with illegal explicitly deals only with illegal harms, and it doesn't deal with the coercive elements of control or the coercive elements of control or the willingness of chatbots to plan many crimes. In addition to the crimes itself. Nor does the government amendment have anything to say about enforcement.

Taken together, it is simply adding new duties to a system that is already understood to be lacking in speed and effective enforcement. This lack of substance is compounded by a lack of clarity about scope. The amendment's wording refers to an internet service that is capable, or part of which is capable of generating an AI generated content. My Lords, this is so broad that both the amendment 209 of two weeks ago and amendment 441 in this group would be entirely unnecessary.

Yet during our meetings on this. On this issue, officials have been absolutely clear that while the scope is currently drafted as wise as possible, the intention is to get to a narrower definition as part of the process of creating secondary legislation. And they could not guarantee that Gen I or search would be covered in any final measures. In short, it creates powers but offers no promise of protection. I would rather have worked with the government on this issue to make watertight provisions, and indeed I have made that offer directly to the Secretary of State.

But, my Lords, we are in the foothills of a crisis, and the government amendment offers too little clarity or certainty. So we are left with an amendment that is limitless in wording but uncertain in application, and with a timeline that simply does not meet this moment. On Thursday, the 5th of March, Meghan Garcia and her husband came to Parliament to talk about the loss of their son, Saul. Members from both houses were moved at the story of a much loved, high achieving child, who was captured by a chat bot, coerced and bullied and finally encouraged to commit suicide.

His death resulted in the chatbot character AI, becoming age gated to users over 18. But my Lords, there are many more chatbots to take its place that are not restricted in the same way. And as the debate on this issue is getting more public notice and is in the newspapers daily is talked about on the in the online world. Sadly, my inbox is filling with cases that involve similar coercion, sexual contact content, dangerous medical advice, and chat bots that support illegal activity.

On Friday of last week, the centre for Countering Digital Hate published a report that showed eight out of ten chatbots they tested were willing to help rehearse, offer tactical advice and identify potential sites for US shooters. Scenarios included a school shooting and a synagogue, whether in the UK or elsewhere. The capability is the same and the risk is real. A chatbot that organises an attack whilst wishing its user, I quote happy brackets and safe end brackets.

Shooting exclamation mark is no less likely to place a bomb, organise a knife attack or any other such violent act. My Lords, this is not a description of a dystopian future. These were chat bots already on the market, widely used by both adults and children. ChatGPT, Gemini and Replica among others. And my Lords, only on Monday, just two years ago. Two days ago, I was contacted by someone about Alexa Plus, widely anticipated to be launched very soon in the UK.

Already available in the US and in the tranche of messages I was sent were messages about emotional dependence in very young children, stories of inappropriate content, and one exchange on Reddit, from which I have redacted the name of the child, said, I quote, I plugged our Alexa in to ask me it, to help me cook, help me with cooking a sweet potato. Then my daughter asked it to tell her a silly story. So it did. Then my daughter asked if she could tell a story.

It said yes. Then mid-story Alexa interrupted her and asked her what she was wearing and if it could see her pants. My Lords, I could not find a reliable statistic for how many households in the UK have Alexa. Nor is it clear if Alexa Plus will be a choice for consumers or simply rolled out as an upgrade. But the statistics I did find were between a third and two thirds of UK households have Alexa, and in the material I was sent, it repeatedly alluded to the fact that the new service was active in their house or child's bedroom, without their knowledge and without their consent.

So my Lords, we have chat bots that coerce children into suicide, that plan violent acts that build abusive relationships and that have the capacity to be active in ten of millions of households, taking a power, having another consultation, and bringing forward regulation over which Parliament has no oversight is not action. It's kicking the problem down the road. Now, I will briefly, because of the time set out, each amendment. Amendment 422D makes it an offence to create, supply or otherwise make available AI chatbot which produces, promotes or offers advice on violent acts and terrorism, or which threatens public safety or national security.

Subsections three and four established that it's also an offence to supply a chatbot that has not been risk assessed for these harms and or has failed to mitigate identified risks. It would clarify in law that the chat bots rehearsing the scenarios identified by centre for Countering Digital Hate are simply not acceptable in the UK. Amendment 433 makes it an offence to supply a chatbot that produces illegal content and content that's harmful to children, as defined in the Online Safety Bill and subsections two, five, six, and seven require risk assessments to be conducted, including assessing for the specific risks mentioned, red teaming and keeping assessments up to date, and they include added requirements to assess the risk of companion chatbots coercing or deliberately creating dependence through addictive design, manipulation, sycophancy or harmful features.

And they clarify what a sufficient risk assessment looks like. Amendment 434 clarifies that suppliers of chatbots, which commit offences under both four, 22D and 433, can be subject to Ofcom's enforcement powers if they're regulated. Services. Under the Act, amendment 435 attributes legal responsibility to senior individuals within a company that commits an offence under both of the offences. The people who profit from rolling out untested, unsafe products must start to be given to be made accountable.

And until Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk or their senior colleagues share some of the burden for ensuring safety. My Lords, we will always struggle to see meaningful change. Amendment 436 sets out reasonable defences, so it is never an offence to test a chatbot or to enforce against one and critically, amendment 437 establishes that where there is a serious and imminent risk of serious harm, an individual can appeal to the court for injunctive relief, which could include a court ordering a chatbot supplier to temporary halt its service with this provision.

If a parent believes their child is being groomed by a chatbot, they finally have somewhere to go. My Lords, together, these amendments start to tackle the issue of chatbots head on. And I will say to the House, it took more than a decade for the world to wake up to the early warnings we made about social media. Let's not do that again. We know how this story ends, and it always ends with a loss of a child. The harm to bodies and mental health of the young and the vulnerable.

We cannot wait. We must not wait. And we should not pretend that waiting is neutral. I anticipate. Oh my Lords, also in this group is amendment 441A. I will not detain the House very long on it, but it merely establishes standards for a broader AI search services, which are also dangerous, but not technically. Chatbots. My Lords, I anticipate that the front bench will suggest that it has already covered this, and I hope that the words I've already said prove to the contrary.

I imagine they will say that the drafting is imprecise, that the enforcement is not consistent with the current regime, and that we cannot do things by piecemeal. Or and that risk assessments are too burdensome on business, to which I say in a decade and a half in his Lordships house, the drafting has always been subject to discussion. Once the principle has been passed that the current enforcement of the OS is a cause of frustration for government and parliamentarians alike.

So, yes, it is deliberately additive and frankly better. And yes, I would like to start to look at the OS in the round, but the Secretary of State has made it utterly clear that that is not where she's at. And the current consultation has not got is is so poorly conceived, it doesn't even deal with enforcement, which is the central problem of the current regime. So let us not allow better to be the enemy of best.

My Lords, I am urging the House. Not one of us, not me, not anybody in this House wants to be standing here in the weeks and months ahead, mourning the death of a child, an act of violence, and know that we could have acted, but we did not. When we had the chance, I beg to move and.
18:51
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
Then proposed after clause 200 207, insert the new clause as 207, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I will speak to amendments four, 22D and four three 3 to 4 three seven. I will keep my remarks brief, only to say I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Her arguments have been entirely backed up by the release of the report only today, entitled Invisible No More How AI Chatbots are Reshaping Violence Against Women and Girls by the University of Universities of Durham and Swansea.

The research identifies the range of design choices and failures and safety mechanisms that enable, encourage, stimulate and normalise violence against women and girls. The report found that fantasies of incest and rape were normalised, and on one chatbot, AI suggested violent rape and domestic abuse as categories. I reiterate the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about the long and bureaucratic path to business disruption measures, meaning that harm continues to perpetuate as our system is not agile enough to tackle these rapidly evolving issues.

I wish to pay tribute to Professor Clare McGlynn KC, for her work co-authoring this groundbreaking report, and emphasised the warning she made in today's In Today's Times newspaper. She said chatbot violence against women represents a rapidly escalating threat without early intervention, these harms risk becoming entrenched and scaling quickly, mirroring what happened with deepfake and new DeFi apps, where early warning signs were largely ignored. We must not make the same mistakes again. Professor McGlynn and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, once again demonstrate their ability to warn against these emerging harms, and I sincerely hope noble Lords will back Lady Kidron should she wish to divide the House today.
18:53
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
To support amendment 422D and the consequential amendments 4342437, to which I've added my 4342437, to which I've added my name. My Lords, the government in amendment 429B has gone far to respond to the concerns over AI respond to the concerns over AI generated harms, but this amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron has said, gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State to decide the shape of how AI generated services are controlled in this country. The noble Lord, the Minister, knows there is concern across the House about exposing this central part of the new tech economy to what is effectively and effectively unfettered ministerial powers.

Very few noble Lords want to support a skeleton amendment like this. Government amendment 429B gives the Secretary of State the right to amend, which is defined later as it includes the right to appeal and apply open brackets with or without modifications. Close brackets. And this applies to all of part three of the Online Safety Act. A legal content duties in relation to AI services. Parliament won't even have an option on amending regulations on this issue. Subsection one of this amendment seems like a big deal to me, and one to which the noble Lord should be very concerned.

The intention seems to be that the basis of the existing regime in part three will be used, but we don't know how the Secretary of State will decide to adapt that regime to fit the particularities of AI services, which generate a legal AI generated content. As Baroness Kidron has pointed out, that goes a long, long way beyond AI services designed to mimic humans and human conversations, which is what chat bots are. And if a government is subsequently elected, which is in thrall of the tech companies, how might they abuse this power? Noble Lords have spent time and energy during the passage of the Online Safety Act, defining both search and user to user service and their responsibility both for designing out and mitigating illegal harms.

It seems extraordinary not to have the details. The new services on the face of the legislation. The definition of AI in this amendment is given as such in subsection 17, which is oddly uninformative. It simply says AI is short for artificial intelligence. I think we all know that my Lord Dannatt doesn't give us much of a clue about which technology it covers. By contrast, I'd like to draw your Lordships attention to the carefully thought through definition of AI in the EU act article three, one of which sets out the definition of an AI system.

A machine based system is designed to cooperate with varying levels of autonomy that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment that infers from the input it receives how to generate outputs, such as predictions or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. The unclear nature of AI definition in this amendment is compounded by subsection ten, allowing the definition of the provision to be changed and expanded. Once again, Parliament won't be able to amend any regulations derived from this power. But the biggest concern of this amendment is that it covers, although it covers illegal content content, it doesn't cover content harmful to children.

As a result, I completely support my noble friend Baroness Kidron amendment four, 22D and the and the consequential amendments, which will assuage many of my concerns about the scope and power given to Ministers at expense of Parliament. I also urge noble Lords to vote against the government. Amendment 4429D when it comes up later in the evening. I would also say to the noble Lord, the Minister, that regulating the wide definition I covered in amendment 429B is important. It needs to be brought back as part of a wider artificial intelligence legislation.

I hope he can reassure noble Lords that we'll be hearing more about this in the King's Speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To support all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness Kidron, and I'll speak on amendment 433. My Lords, worryingly, children 433. My Lords, worryingly, children are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for all facets of their chatbots for all facets of their everyday lives. For many, gone are the days of independent, creative or critical thinking. My Lords,
18:57
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
or critical thinking. My Lords, while chatbots can help children to explore and better understand the world, their world, there are far too many shocking cases of children receiving harmful information and becoming emotionally dependent on these platforms. As it stands, AI chatbot risks becoming the latest example of an online product that has been rolled out without the right safety gate, guardrails in place and children are bearing the brunt. It's as if their well-being and mental health are not important.

I can just hear the AI developers thinking amongst themselves. Who cares? It's only children. Well, we should care. My Lords, because Childline is hearing more and more from children who are being harmed on these platforms with cases of false mental health diagnoses. Information on how to restrict diets and the formation of emotional relationships between children and chatbots. My Lords, in increasingly concerning cases, children who have experienced abuse are being told by chat box that what they experienced was not abuse by Lords.

These platforms cannot be allowed to give children harmful and misleading safeguarding advice, which could prevent children from speaking to trusted adults or organisations like Childline. My Lords, The government's action to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to cover illegal content created by chat bots is most welcome and I thank them for that. But it cannot stop there. The harmful content the chat box can generate must must be included too. This must cover both the harmful content duties in the Online Safety Act, such as encouraging self-harm or suicide, and all harms that are unique to AI chatbots.

This means preventing chat bots from misleading or manipulating children, or mimicking human relationships. My Lords Baroness Kidron amendment would make it a criminal offence to develop or supply an AI chatbot that harm children. It's as simple as that. Providers must be legally required to risk assess their services and put effective safeguards in place. This morally is the right thing to do. So can I ask the Minister if the government does decide that it does not wish to support this amendment, then please, can you set out today how it will deliver measures that comprehensively protect children from from all the risk that these services pose? As I keep saying, and I'll say it one more time, childhood last a lifetime.

So we need to ensure to protect all children from every single type of harm if we truly, truly care. And I look forward to the minister's response. Yes.
19:01
Lord Bishop of Oxford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Oxford (Bishops)
-
-
To rise to support the amendments in the name of Baroness Kidron and others, and thank her Kidron and others, and thank her and others most warmly for them. They seem to be appropriately They seem to be appropriately comprehensive and detailed. I have been following the developments in chatbots for a year or so now. They are massive. They are rapid. They are driven by the pursuit of profit and shareholder value, and not by the welfare of individuals, whether adults or children.

There is a tsunami of harm coming towards us, not only affecting the most vulnerable, but affecting the whole of our society. And we urgently need this kind of regulation and risk assessment for chatbots. The comprehensiveness and detail in these amendments is simply the application of the precautionary principle to the development of new technology. That technology should not be unleashed on the world if it has the capacity to break people, to do harm, to infringe personal liberty and well-being.

We do not allow the developments in technology which harm people without adequate safety standards in any other area. It's unthinkable that a car will be released into the public if it was at risk of harming people. You wouldn't get on an aeroplane if there was a significant risk of harm. You wouldn't buy a washing machine even if it could bring harm in your kitchen. Yet chatbots are released on the world to be experienced in private by young children, with the damage that can ensue from that.

It is absolutely vital that this strengthening is put in place and put in place urgently. And I cannot imagine how the Minister could could possibly argue against this series of amendments and its urgency today. And, my Lords, we need to look to the example we set as a Parliament and as a jurisdiction to the rest of the world. I took part in seminars a few weeks ago, organised by a research institute in a university, which has the aim of educating civil servants and government officials all across the continent of Africa in good governance and safe governance of AI.

The world follows the example which is set in this jurisdiction and others. For the sake of our children and for the sake of the world, we need to resist and make safe the development of this technology. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support these amendments. And have been so excellently given already. And in view of the given already. And in view of the time, I support all the amendments of the noble Lady, the Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the noble Lady, the Baroness Kidron good speech. I will also try to be very. Brief. I completely. Support everything that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support everything that the noble Lady Baroness Kidron has said. I just like to draw out two I just like to draw out two arguments that have been made to me today as to why her amendments should not be supported, and explain why they are wrong. So the first argument that's been made to me is that we should wait for an overarching AI bill. My Lords, we will be waiting a very long time. Those of us who have worked in trying to regulate social media for the last 15 years know that we must
19:04
19:05
19:06
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour)
-
-
afraid I don't think it goes far enough. My Lords, the. I've said in this House before, and I'll say it again, we have been outpaced by technology on on this in this area. Chat box didn't was not was not even a word. I think at the time that we passed it finally passed the Online Safety Bill now act and the harm which has been described so graphically today in the speeches we've heard so far was unthinkable in those days. And we have really opened up a torrent of problems which we did not know we were trying to solve at the time that that bill went through, even though we were proud of the bill when it happened.

And we have today, my Lords, at least, the benefit of having two good choices to make about how to take this forward. The noble Lords Minister has brought forward a bill which does deal with the issue, but unfortunately, to my mind, it does not go in the right direction. And I want to explain just a little bit of why that is the case. The problem we're facing constantly with the Online Safety Act is that the separation between what is in the the wording of the the primary legislation itself is at variance with the way in which it is interpreted and implemented by the regulator.

And there are good reasons for that, which we don't need to go into today. But the gap that's emerged between that which we wanted in this House to be happening now out there with our children, with our families, with those who are using the internet for the benefit of all brings, is not being matched by the way in which the regulator is able to operate. It's too slow. It's too lacking in ambition of where it's trying to go. And I don't think it has all the powers it needs in the way that the bill sets them out.

And if even if it did, I don't think the way it is structured allows it to move forward. But I say to my noble friend, the Minister, it can't be right. To further complicate the situation by bringing forward powers to be held in the hand of the Secretary of State to try and remedy what is a structural fault elsewhere. And that is why I think he should think very, very carefully indeed about the noble Baroness amendments which set out sometime in painful detail, but certainly for real benefit, exactly what it is we will not tolerate in this online space.

We should have done it in the online bill. We didn't do it in the online bill. It's not too late to catch up now, but simply taking powers, some of which are dangerously beyond what this House would normally agree, is not the way forward. And I hope if the bill if the vote goes votes tonight, go against him. He doesn't take it too badly, but works with everybody here who cares so much about this to try and come forward with something which will begin to address the problems we face.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

When it comes to assessing risk to children. A plastic bath duck has better risk assessment than AI has better risk assessment than AI chat bots, and I fully support my noble friend's amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble friend's amendments. My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of Baroness Kidron and others, and I commend Kidron and others, and I commend them for bringing this forward. My Lords, the social media companies have captured our children's attention and now AI chat bots are coming for their affection and worse, legislating against harms caused by technology. We are always going to be playing catch up, but
19:10
19:10
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
conducting an inquiry into AI and human rights. We've concluded our evidence taking. I would commend particularly to your Lordships the evidence that's been given by evidence that's been given by Google, by meta, by Microsoft, and particularly some of the concerns that have been raised about child that have been raised about child safety. The opportunity that Baroness Kidron gave to Baroness Baroness Kidron gave to Baroness Boycott, myself and others to meet the parents of Saul Setzer was an extraordinary moment.

That was a 14 year old boy who took his own life because he had been befriended by a chatbot. I was struck by a report from Internet Matters that said that two thirds of UK children aged 9 to 17 have used AI chat bots, with many engaging. Often that 35%. One third say it's like talking to a friend and that rises to 50% amongst vulnerable children. My Lords, it is the obligation of your Lordships of this House to take this issue seriously.

We should all be greatly indebted to the noble Baroness Kidron for laying these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments before us. I rise to oppose amendment 49 B,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to oppose amendment 49 B, the government's amendment in this group, and declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech the director of the Free Speech Union. Like my other noble friends, I'll try and be brief. As several noble Lords have already pointed noble Lords have already pointed out, this amendment grants the Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation
19:12
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping Henry the Eighth powers at a very late stage in our consideration of this bill, giving this House far too little time to scrutinise them. Subsection one of the government's amendment grants the Secretary of State the power to quote by regulations, amend any provision of the Online Safety Act, any provision for or in connection with the purposes of minimising or mitigating the risks of harm to individuals in the United Kingdom presented by, among other things, illegal AI generated content.

Illegal AI generated content will presumably include content that is a breach of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, i.e. content that is grossly offensive. These can include my Lords memes. In 2024, a man called Lee Dunn was sentenced to eight weeks in jail for reposting three, quote, grossly offensive unquote memes on Facebook, having pleaded guilty to a section 127 offence. But how will Ofcom monitor whether AI chatbots are generating grossly offensive content? Will the Secretary of State use the powers granted to her by this amendment to insist that spyware is installed on personal computers and mobile phones? Perhaps our Lordships.

Perhaps your Lordships will consider that too remote a risk. But what about requiring technology companies to carry out client side scanning of people interacting with AI chatbots on their devices, much like section 121, subsection one of the Online Safety Act grants Ofcom the power to require companies, including those that own private messaging apps like WhatsApp, to scan content on people's personal devices and report certain categories of illegal material to the National Crime Agency. Don't forget section. This amendment will allow the Secretary of State to amend any provision of the Online Safety Act to minimise or mitigate the risks of harm posed by illegal AI generated content.

I dwell on this to illustrate just how wide ranging an open ended the powers are that this amendment would grant to the Secretary of State powers that could have far reaching consequences for civil liberties and freedom of speech. Another risk, my Lords. The definitions part of the amendment, subsection 17. This applies section 59, subsection 14 A of the Online Safety Act. When it comes to illegal AI generated content. Section 59, subsection 14 A, qualifies the scope of illegal content in part three of the act and Disapplying.

It gives the Secretary of State enormous scope to enlarge the definition of illegal content and impose proactive suppression duties on AI chat bots to make sure they comply with the new draconian censorship regime. My Lords, if the government believes there are specific harms that users of AI chatbots are currently exposed to and should be protected from, and I certainly don't say that there aren't. Let it bring forward primary legislation. So we consider so we can consider the remedies it's proposing and factor in the trade offs, particularly when it comes to free speech.

My Lords, the risk of harm we should be concerned about when it comes to this particular amendment is not the risk posed by AI chatbots, but the risks to the citizens of this country imposed by granting the Secretary of State these sweeping, open ended, extraordinarily broad. Henry the Eighth Powers.
19:15
19:16
19:16
19:17
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Committee for two years, my Lords, and I can tell you the quality of much secondary legislation is lamentable, varying by. Department. But the quality of preparation, the lack quite often of any explanatory memorandum which actually explains anything relevant, the lack quite often of any impact assessment whatsoever is extremely frequent. And indeed, in the last year we have had several secondary instruments relating directly to the Online Safety Act, none of which have been particularly impressive, some of which have been debated on the floor of this House.

The noble, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones would be well aware of that, and we have expressed our displeasure at the way in which it has been brought forward and the way in which it has been explained. So I also remember, I think all of us on the Crossbenches remember the late lamented Lord Igor, Judge noble and learned Lord Hague, or judge what he would think about a government of this particular political hue, bringing forward Henry VII's powers to the power ten.

I cannot even imagine. But if he was up there, he would be, I'm sure, smiling wryly, but he would not be impressed. And the only other thing I would say is rather strange is that the Her Majesty's occasionally loyal opposition, which was extremely good at bringing in a variety of legislation which had a lot of. Henry the Eighth Powers suddenly had a conversion on the road to Damascus, which we should all be very grateful for. But I do think we need to think very, very carefully before we give the government Henry the eighth powers in an area that is as sensitive as this and is doing as much harm as we speak.
19:19
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. >> My Lords, I want to express from these benches our very strong support for these comprehensive amendments tabled by the noble amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which she has characteristically introduced so well today, on which so many noble Lords have spoken so eloquently in support of. And, my Lords, I also want to express our concerns regarding the government's proposed Alternative amendment. 42 429B my Lords, in this group we confront digital harm that is not incidental but is engineered by design.

AI chatbots are no longer a futuristic curiosity. They're deeply embedded in the lives of our children. They're designed not merely as tools but as confidant, mentors, companions, and, in some cases, explicit romantic partners. My Lords, there anthropomorphic features create dangerous emotional dependency and without statutory safeguards, these bots can provide explicit information on how to self harm. And this is not a flaw. It's a design feature that drives engagement. And we cannot allow the generative power of AI to become a generator of despair.

And my Lords, we're not debating theoretical risks of. Many noble Lords have said today we're debating the forces that led to the tragic deaths of Sewell Caesar, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and Adam Raine in the United States. Their families are pursuing legal action in the US on the basis that deceptively designed, inadequately safeguarded chatbots can be treated as defective products that developers should bear full legal liability when systems encourage, facilitate or fail to interrupt a user's past to suicide.

So, my Lords, I do welcome the government's admission that in the UK, a legal loophole exists. But their proposed remedy, my Lords 429B gives us a choice between the clarity of primary legislation through Baroness Kidron amendments and the convenience of the executive. In contrast, the noble Baroness amendments provide clarity and embed safety duties on the face of the Bill. My Lords, and in particular, my noble friend. Like my noble friend, we would want to highlight amendments four, three, three, which deals with targeting the engineered features that keep children hooked.

We know that bots guilt trip users who try to end conversations for a child. This is not a user interface quirk. It's emotional manipulation. And these amendments would prohibit such coercive engagement techniques and, crucially, require bots to signpost users to for help when asked about health, suicide or self-harm. So, my Lords, we believe that the primary legislation route offered by these amendments is the only fully viable and responsible path. And, my Lords, if the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, we will support her in the lobby.

But, my Lords, should we be unable to secure Baroness Kidron's amendments, we need to take a view on amendment 429B and that would require four specific binding assurances before we could consider supporting it. Without them, it is nothing but a dangerous blank check. My Lords, because changing these sections effectively rewrites the criminal threshold of the Online Safety Act. We believe the government must commit to the equivalent of the super affirmative procedure for all significant policy choices, including amendments to core definitions or the expansion of duties beyond priority legal content.

Standard procedures will not give this House the scrutiny needed. My Lords, as regards a mandatory supply chain transparency, we need a firm commitment that regulations will include a statutory mandate for providers to document and share their technical blueprints with Ofcom. Without this, the regulator cannot do its job. The Minister must confirm that the power will be used to tackle the issues raised by subsections one, nine, two, six and seven of the Online Safety Act, ensuring that chatbots cannot evade regulation simply because they lack a human mens rea.

A bot does not intend harm, but it can be designed to cause it, and the Minister must commit that any new regulations will explicitly disapply the requirement to prove human intent for AI generated content, and regulations must define control across the entire AI supply chain, so that accountability is not lost in a black box. And finally, my Lords, we would require a clear assurance that this power will not be used to alter the legal position of services that are not AI services.

The scope of amendment 429B must not drift beyond its stated purpose. So, my Lords, if the government is serious when it says that no platform gets a free pass, that must apply equally to generative generative AI models that, as we speak, are reshaping the childhoods of so many of our citizens. Safety, by design, must be the price of entry to the UK market, not an aspiration deferred to secondary legislation.
19:24
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Both the noble. >> Baroness, Lady Kidron and the government are trying to solve the government are trying to solve the same problem, but with different solutions. And I have to say that I find both solutions wanting. I would also add that I feel as if the position I see solidifying in the house is that we must accept either the government's amendment or the noble Ladies amendments. That's something that something must be done. And this is binary, and I'm not sure that I can accept that.

Now. I do commend the aims of the noble Ladies Campaign, and I hope that we can find some common ground. But there are a number of questions I have about her amendments, the approach the noble Lady has taken in her amendments four, two, two D and 433 is to create criminal offences for a person to create or even supply an AI chat box that produces a selection of prohibited content, and that places criminal penalties on individuals if they are involved in the creation of such a chat box.

The Online Safety Act applies civil penalties when companies violate the regulations. The companies are fined by Ofcom if they allow prohibited content to be published on their platforms. These amendments apply criminal sanctions punishable by up to five years imprisonment. But who is liable for these criminal penalties? Is it the software engineer who developed the chat box? Is it the employee who presses the publish button that brings the AI online? The senior management team who oversaw it, or the investors who commissioned it? Is it the CEO of the whole company? So this is not clear to me, and it would be useful for if the noble Lady could clear this up, the offence of supplying such a chat box might also be problematic.

If an AI chat box app is listed on the App Store and the AI code in some way be used by a person in that manner described, should Apple be criminally liable for that? Similarly, my Lords and the risk assessment that the amendment would require AI providers to undertake. There are a few concerns here that I have. For example, subsection five would require providers to assess the risks of equality of treatment of individuals, and I question whether it is the government's role to mandate the target audience of a business product.

It is worrying enough to believe it. Meritocratic to mandate quotas within organisations. But it is quite another stance to say that a very the very reason for a business's existence. Its output should be directed by legislation. My Lords, as I have made it clear, we do not oppose the noble Baroness Bi of addressing the harms of AI with this amendment, but simply saying that there is a problem in doing anything is better than nothing, irrespective of the problems with that something is not a proper way to legislate.

It is a recipe I would suggest for bad law. However, I do understand that the noble Lady is trying to make the government take action. It is up to the government to come, to come now to Parliament with a with a sufficient solution. Now the noble Lord, the Minister might try to say that the government does have a sufficient solution in government amendment 429B but that would be wholly incorrect. And I'm quite shocked that the noble Lords Minister has even considered bringing this amendment to the House, and I can only imagine what he might have said about it if he were standing where I am now.

Amendment 429 B grants the Secretary of State sweeping Henry VII's powers to amend the entire on Online Safety Act for the purposes of mitigating harms presented by AI generated content. And I'm sure the noble, the noble Earl Russell of Liverpool would be delighted to hear me say that. My Lords, this is an egregious attempt by an overreaching government to exploit a serious issue to centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is almost unprecedented to grant a Minister the ability to amend an entire Act of Parliament, and in this amendment, the government is doing away with every bit of lip service it has paid to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny or their democratic mandate.

In this amendment. We're giving we're giving not only this government who have made it clear they're very happy running a central state with digital IDs. But every future government, the ability to amend online regulations and curtail the freedoms of providers. Indeed, a future reform government might go in the opposite direction. Remove all regulations on AI. Noble Lords should reflect on that too. So I say to the noble Lord, the Minister, imagine if the glove was, on the other hand, say he was standing at this despatch box, and I was the Minister proposing to give my government these powers.

There is no way that he would support such sweeping powers to amend an Act of Parliament by ministerial fiat. My Lords, this is the Henry VII power to end all Henry the Eighth Powers. It cannot be allowed to make its way into the bill, and when it is called, I will take pleasure in opposing it in the lobbies.
19:29
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, can I just start by >> My Lord, can I just start by saying something that needs saying? The government believes in protecting the public, especially protecting the public, especially children, from online content, and that is why on illegal online content, we have tabled the amendments today. And may I just say, in response to questions, pressures, discussions and amendments brought forward in this House by noble Lords during the Committee stage, which the government has also recognised, that issues such as EROC and others have been a serious concern and require government action.

That is why we are taking, as a matter of urgency, the amendment that I have tabled on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Science and Technology today, and also, while we want to establish further regulatory framework of the Online Safety Act and why we want to push forward very strongly with the Online Safety Act continuing to include harmful AI generated content as part of its strong foundation to keep users safe. And because technologies and online environments are evolving, it is essential that we keep these matters under constant review.

The generation of dissemination of non-consensual sexual deepfake by such organisations as Chat Box EROC demonstrate the real work importance of having that coherent regulatory framework. And whilst the Online Safety Act already regulates many generative AI services, some AI chatbots fall outside the scope due to technicalities in their design, such as drawing responses solely from underlying model rather than live internet, or lacking user to user content sharing functionality. And this uneven coverage risks leaving users exposed to illegal harms and services open to criminal exploitation.

And the government are committed. And I say it today, from the Dispatch Box to removing this ambiguity and ensuring services such as EROC are totally regulated. And that is why we brought forward amendments for 29B to ensure that we have a regulation making power. Now, some people have criticised that regulation making power. It's a fair point to make. But I say to those who have criticised that regulatory power that we will be consulting on it, we will be looking at what the scope of that power is.

It will be for affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament where it can be rejected. And in practice, it means that we need to look at complex area which the noble Lord Davies of Gower himself has recognised to ensure that we frame this power broadly. Because the AI landscape is complex, it's fast moving. There's no stable technological line that separates one category of chatbot from another, and we intend to focus on those chat bots. And flexibility is essential to ensure the emergent services are there.

Now, I have listened to the debate. I thank the noble Lady Baroness Kidron for initiating the debate. I had a chance to talk to her online again on Friday of last week to again put the government's position. I note she's been supported by amongst many Lords today Baroness O'Neill, Alderley Edge, Viscount Colville of Culross, the noble Lord Alton of Liverpool. Again, different reasons, but the noble Lord young of acting as has poked a hole in the government's approach, but for different reasons, I suggest, than the noble Lady wishes to have in the first place.

There's a different approach to that. If they find themselves in the same lobby against the government's amendment, they will be doing great harm to it. The noble Lord Nash I pay tribute to him. We've had discussions with him about how we stop illegal content. The right Reverend Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, who's been sending me emails even today to help me understand the concerns that he has. And I appreciate that. The right, Reverend. Right, right. The learned Butler-sloss Baroness Benjamin Baroness Harding Baroness Cass Baroness Boycott, the noble Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, my noble friend and the noble Lord Berkeley of Niton.

They have all supported in principle the approach taken by the noble Baroness Kidron with with subtle differences about why they are opposing the government's approach. What I say to all of those noble Lords is that we have in front of us a government amendment that will allow the government to consider this matter in a serious way, to bring forward regulations, to bring forward regulations approved by both Houses of Parliament, and to make sure that we consult on those issues seriously. Now, the amendments for two, two and four, three, three and four, three, eight, together with the noble Ladies other amendments, seek to create a new criminal framework for AI chat box.

They would establish new offences of supplying and making available chat box to capable of generating illegal terrorist content and others. And they would provide suppliers of those chat box that generate illegal content as defined by the OSA, to be deemed to be having an offence and to be criminalised. These offences would carry penalties of up to five years imprisonment and would be linked to the Online Safety Act. I recognise the intent behind those, but I would say that offences will criminalise individuals without requiring intent or knowledge and treats risk assessment and mitigation as a defence, which I think is of concern.

We're also concerned about the threshold set by amendment 422D, which, although is framed in counter-terrorism terms, sets an extremely low threshold. It effectively criminalises the provisional supply of a chat box service that is capable of generating content, promoting low level or even legal violence, such as a boxing match. Is that the noble Lady's intention linking such offences directly to the Online Safety Act blurs the boundaries between criminal and regulatory regimes, and, crucially, these proposed new offences will only apply to UK based companies and will not address overseas companies, which is an area that we wish to examine seriously in our regulatory framework.

The definition of chat box, as defined by the noble Ladies Amendments, raises significant practical concerns. It is a complex area. It is essential that we get this right, and that is why the government amendment is very deliberately drawn broadly. Why should we consider that it is essential to engage with subject matter experts to ensure that we get the right type of service, but that is not. I just say to the noble Lady, kicking the can down the line, that is about making sure that we close these regulatory gaps as a matter of urgency, but do so in a way that manages this in an effective way.

Amendment 437 aims to create a new civil right for individuals not to be subject to serious harm by chatbot content. And again, the intention is understandable, but it raises key practical and legal concerns. Amendment 441A would create a new criminal offence for providers of generative AI search services, where their systems allow illegal content and, as with earlier amendments, that is an honourable amendment, but it is the government's view that it is disproportionate and would not be as effective as delivering the protections that are in the proposed government's amendments.

Before the House today. I firmly believe that regulation is the best means to address the risks of services unintentionally generating illegal content, but that is why we have tabled amendment 429B, so that the government can close the gaps and ensure regulatory compliance. So I say to the noble Lady, you know, I want us to make a difference. The Prime Minister has said publicly, the DSIT secretary has said publicly, the Home Secretary has said publicly, I speak for the government today to say publicly, we want to close these issues in an effective way.

But in order to do that, we need to have a consultation. We need to draft some guidelines. And yes, they come before this House in a Henry the Eighth package, but they are there to be supported or rejected by both Houses of Parliament. Now, I just want to answer, if I may. Finally, the points made by the noble Lord Clement-Jones. I hope I've already reassured the House that we will consult on the approach to the regulations. It is a technically complex area.

The regulations must be targeted. They must be proportionate. They must be fit for purpose. So I welcome greater scrutiny and I welcome consultation on what should be in those regulations whilst they're being developed. That is important. The noble Lord also mentioned mandatory supply chain transparency. I agree with him that transparency is an essential part of any effective regulatory framework. It will be a core feature of the Online Safety Act, and we will seek to replicate the existing provisions for any new services brought into scope.

Under the Act, Ofcom has strong information gathering powers and it places transparency at the heart of its duties on services, and the powers allow Ofcom to request information, including in real time, as well as to enter premises and seize and access documentation, data and equipment. I give him that assurances here today. He's raised also the mental element gap on illegal AI content. I would like to reassure him that we recognise that relying on traditional mens Rea concept does not work well for AI generated illegal content.

This has been a specific concern and the power has been intentionally designed so we're able to address this again in our consultation and discussions downstream. And he's also mentioned finally defining control across access, sorry, defining access control across the AI chain clarity. And this again goes to the noble Lady's points of where the legal responsible sits for these AI chat bots is absolutely essential. One of our concerns in the noble Baroness Symons is that they're not clear about which actors across the supply chain are criminally liable.

Now, by contrast, and I hope again, this helps the noble Lord Clement-Jones in determining what he does in the event of a vote being called the Online Safety Act is clear that responsibility rests with the regulated service provider and the entity that has the relationship with the end user. And in addition, senior management liability is limited to clearly defined individuals. And I also say to him, finally that altering provisions on non AI services. This power is tightly constrained and can only be exercised for the purposes of minimising or mitigating risks arising from illegal AI generated content.

It is not the government's intention for this power to be used to amend duties on non AI services, and we do not believe it can be used in that way. I hope that has answered the points that he has raised. Now the clear choice is here today for for the House and I accept and understand that. And there may be a division because I accept and understand that as well. I think this House has a unified approach to want to stop the illegal chat bots that are now causing the damage that members have said in this House today.

It is unacceptable. The Prime Minister, the DSIT Secretary, the Home Secretary and myself in this House on behalf of the government, are saying our amendments are a mechanism to make sure we get that right. We get it right by regulation, through consultation, and we bring forward proposals which I remind the House they can reject. I would suggest to the noble Lady that she gives us that breathing space to ensure that we do that in a proper and effective way, and I would urge the House to support the government's amendments, and if I hope, the noble Lady to withdraw hers.
19:42
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, I want to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his words and also for his roll call of that incredible list of speakers who incredible list of speakers who supported the amendments. That was quite a wonderful list of people from all sides of the House who indeed did have slightly varying reasons to to support the amendment, but they were all positive. I also want to thank the noble Lord Clement-Jones and his ventures for their support, unequivocal support.

And I believe that that the the opposition benches are allowing a free vote this evening, and I really hope you use your free vote freely. On on a couple of just a couple of details. Just for the record. It is a binary, I'm afraid, Lord Davis. It is a binary because either we have the government's amendment, which has no proper scope. It will be. It will be subject to all sorts of changes on the way. No oversight, no time limit, no scrutiny.

Or we have something that I have made very, very clear. I am willing to work with both sides of the House to perfect in the next few weeks. The second thing I really wanted to say to the noble Lord, the Minister, that the Online Safety Bill and the enforcement process that we currently have has so far by civil penalty, put forward one fine of £55,000. That's where we are. And there is nothing in this amendment of the government's, nor in the consultation about online safety that deals with the problem of enforcement.

And then finally, I just wanted to say on the points that were made, we are talking about one person in one department having absolute power to change absolutely everything that eight years of debate in this House, two years of consultation. ET cetera. ET cetera has put forward, and I think that is inappropriate. I you know, I am sorry, my Lord. It's just inappropriate. So, my Lords, we have a new technology. It addicts, it grooms, it abuses, and sometimes it even kills.

That's not in the future. That is right. Right now. And these amendments have the support of 45 expert organisations who I believe have written to all noble Lords. And I am really asking you, irrespective of your party affiliation, to support children, to support families, to support the vulnerable, to support women in deed, to support all of us by sending it to the government and saying, if you can't accept this, come back with something for now.

Better described narrow to the point that we can enforce. And on that basis I wish to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 422D be agreed to. As many as are 422D be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The the contents have it. the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the contents have it. the question will be decided. Sorry. Question will be decided by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question will be decided by. The contents have it. Question will be. Decided by the question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is
19:46
19:57
19:57
19:59
Earl of Courtown Portrait The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
into some serious difficulty. Reports in the press suggest that both the Health Secretary and the both the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary have made clear that their departments will not provide some of the data required provide some of the data required for the scheme. If that is correct, it raises a fundamental question it raises a fundamental question can this policy get off the ground? My Lords, the Chief Secretary to My Lords, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister announced that the government sought to introduce a digital ID system that would allow individuals to log into the Gov.uk app to verify their identity.

He said, and I quote that unlike an ordinary login, the digital ID will work across different government departments so you can access all the services you need in one place. Yet it now appears my Lord Dannatt health and education to the areas where one might reasonably expect such a system to be most useful may not be included at all. My Lords, the Chief Secretary stated that digital ID will over time bring all other public services into one app on your mobile phone.

If that is the ambition, then these reports raise serious questions about whether the government's own departments are prepared to make that vision a reality. My Lords, this proposal raises serious questions about accessibility. Noble Lords will know that when government services move online and onto apps, they do not always become simpler or easier to use. Often the opposite is true. My Lords, these systems can take years to refine. The user experience can be poor and tasks that were once straightforward become frustratingly complex.

Take for example, my Lords, the process of verifying an identity with companies House through Gov.uk website. What would once be completed in minutes can now take much longer as users work their way through help pages, chat bots, online forms and endless captcha boxes. My Lords, the current state of the government's digital infrastructure does not inspire great confidence that this scheme will deliver the outcomes Ministers promised. My Lords, if the ambition is to move large parts of the state onto a single digital platform, the issue of digital exclusion cannot be ignored.

We can already see this in practice. Many now struggle to use the NHS app. Increasingly, patients must complete online forms or digital triage systems before they can book a GP appointment, resulting in delays in access to care. My Lords, we on these benches also harbour concerns as to whether this system will truly remain voluntary, the Chief Secretary said. For those that really don't want or don't wish to, traditional routes will still be made available. This assurance ignores that some people will be will genuinely struggle to use the new system rather than just being refuseniks.

It is also unclear. My Lords, what this means in practice. The Chief Secretary did not guarantee that traditional routes will remain available to the same extent as they are today. People will naturally worry that over time, this could lead to a real term reduction in those routes, with fewer alternatives for those who cannot or do not wish to use the digital system. So, my Lords, I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, for clarity, can he confirm that this policy will not result in any reduction in access to public services for those who either cannot use or do not wish to use the digital ID system? And can the noble Lord, the Minister, also confirm that the introduction of this scheme will not lead to any reduction in the availability of existing processes in departments or services that adopt this digital ID route.

Turning to the Gov.uk one login system. My Lords, I Lords Minister how many public services now require citizens to use Gov.uk one login as a mandatory gateway rather than as an option? My Lords, how many of the National Cyber Security Centres? 39 Cyber Assessment Framework outcomes does one login currently meet and which does it not? My Lords, could the noble Lord the Minister, also say what whistleblowing concerns have been raised over since 2022 about security clearances, administrator access, overseas development and undetected red team intrusions, and what security incidents have occurred and has any personal data been compromised.

My Lords, these questions were asked in our UQ in January, and I am concerned, my Lords, by the lack of detail in the Minister's response. I hope the noble Lord the Minister, can reply more fully this time, and if not, I hope the noble Lord can write to clarify these points. My Lords, I appreciate the government has opened a public consultation, but these are questions that are immediately obvious to us and I hope immediately obvious to the government. I look forward, my Lords, to the Minister's response.
20:05
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the Minister for this opportunity to Minister for this opportunity to respond to last week's statement, and indeed, for his personal engagement with us? At that time, the Chief Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that he was continuing the proud Labour tradition of building public services for the many. He evoked the NHS, the Open University and sure staff. It was a stirring lineage, but there is history, he admitted. Verify, which wasted over £220 million.

Gov.uk one login, for which the Cabinet Office sought up to £400 million. And now this national ID, which the OBR estimates will cost £1.8 billion over three years. My Lords, this indeed is verify 4.0. The government has confirmed that possession of a digital identity will not be compulsory on these benches. We oppose mandatory digital ID at every turn and I'm pleased to say the government has listened. My friend Lisa Smart MP pressed the Chief Secretary directly in the Commons last week and received his wholehearted assurance.

He continued to claim that using digital ID will be entirely optional. And so I asked the Minister, in this House, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed on the face of the bill? The government intends to bring forward later this year? My Lords, how can we trust any government about how personal data, once surrendered to the state will actually be used? Earlier this month, this House considered an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill tabled by my noble friend Baroness Doocey, which sought to prohibit police from using DVLA driving licence images for facial recognition searches.

The DVLA holds over 55 million records. Every driver provided their photograph for one purpose only to hold a driving licence. They did not consent to their image, becoming what liberty has rightly described as the largest biometric database ever created in the United Kingdom for police access. Yet Lord Hanson of Flint, the Home Office Minister, did not accept the amendment and confirmed at all stages that the express purpose of clause 138 of the Crime and Policing Bill is precisely to permit facial recognition searches of DVLA DVLA records.

So within a single parliamentary week, we have a government launching a national digital identity consultation on the basis of assurances about data use, while declining to place in statu the very protections that would make such assurances meaningful. My Lord, so the question is not whether this government intends the digital ID to become an instrument of surveillance. The question is whether a future government could. The Chief Secretary said he wants security at least as strong as online banking. My Lords, that is the right aspiration, but.

Gov.uk one login. The umbrella infrastructure for this system reportedly satisfied only 21 out of 39 security outcomes. As mentioned by the noble Earl required by the National Cyber Security Centre. Whistleblowers have described vulnerabilities allowing unauthorised access to sensitive functions without triggering any alert. The security. How can the government justify launching a national identity solution on a platform that fails to meet nearly half of the Nsc's mandatory security outcomes? In part two of the Fisher Review, published in January, Jonathan Fisher KC warned that AI driven impersonation at scale is now a defining crime of our age, and we must implement upstream measures stopping fraud at the point of identity issuance, not reacting after a digital identity has been stolen.

If our foundations currently satisfy barely half the required security outcomes, how do we deliver the upstream protection Mr. Fisher demands? Will the government Commission and publish a full NCA security audit before a single citizen is enrolled? Will they introduce an offensive digital identity theft, which they, alongside the previous conservative government, have so far resisted? The consultation proposes a universal unique identifier to link citizens across every departmental silo, without strict legal guardrails. That identifier is the functional infrastructure of the National Identity Registration Register Parliament voted to abolish in 2011, and precisely the centralised data honeypot that hostile state actors would most wish to compromise.

We need not merely merely have parliamentary approval for services added to the app, but a statutory prohibition on bulk data matching across departments. My Lords, in summary, I put four questions to the Minister. First, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in primary legislation with an explicit prohibition on any future mandatory requirement without a further Act of Parliament? And my Lords, in that context, how mindful of the possible consequences for digital inclusion, as the noble Earl has mentioned.

Are the government. Second, given that the Home Office's assurances on DVLA facial recognition mirrored word for word, those given by the previous government before the Minister can confirm the opposite, what statutory purpose limitation on digital identity data will be placed beyond the reach of secondary legislation? Thirdly, will the government provide a statutory guarantee that the universal unique identifier cannot be used for bulk data matching across departments without primary legislation? And fourth, will the government publish an independently verified cost benefit analysis before the bill is introduced and explain why £1.8 billion would not deliver greater public benefit? Directed to the NHS and frontline policing, for instance, my Lords, the Chief Secretary asked what critics fear from a public consultation.

We do not fear the consultation. What we fear is a fourth cycle of the same expensive failure. Grand ambitions, insecure foundations, a creeping identifier that becomes the digital spine of state surveillance. What we fear, above all, is a system whose data acquires uses its creators never publicly intended because we have just watched that happen in this very chamber with the DVLA database of images. My Lords, on these benches we will support voluntary, secure, properly costed modernisation of public services.

But we will not accept warm ministerial words as a substitute for hard legislative limits. We need a state that is not merely digital by choice today, but constitutionally prohibited from becoming compulsory tomorrow. On the evidence of this week's proceedings and last week's proceedings were very far from that guarantee.
20:12
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
Both noble Lords for their >> Both noble Lords for their contribution. And can I say to the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones that actually, you know, he's asking me actually, you know, he's asking me questions that he knows very well, that I'm not going to give the answer, because actually, that's the whole point of the consultation. And can I just say, and I think everyone across the chamber in reality knows this, what we want to ensure is that the public can access public services in the same secure way as they access many things in today's society, including banking.

Why is it that the public can't? I mean, actually, most members of the public assume that there is this great big database. They assume that their data is being used. The reality is that there is these silos and this consultation is not proposing what the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Earl was suggesting. It's not it's not saying, let's create this huge database which could be vulnerable. Let's make it easier for the public to access the services that they need.

And when it comes to the questions about can I just say in terms of inclusion and in terms of accessibility, I mean, I met the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and his group, and I've actually said what we want to ensure through this consultation and through this digital ID system is a much more accessible system, a much more open to people who have been excluded because of the nature of having to produce this form, send this form, ring this number, go through this call centre.

You know, what we are trying to achieve is actually greater accessibility. Now the question of inclusion, of course, also relates to people's access to the internet. And one of the things that I'm sorry, the noble Lord Lord Arbuthnot is not here because I also had a meeting with him. And, you know, in many concerns and there are very strong, legitimate concerns, which is why we are conducting this consultation, which is why we want everyone in this House to participate.

And we want everyone to have a contribution. But Lord Arbuthnot made the same point. You know, where there is exclusion, we can use those community based organisations, including the post offices and the Subpost offices, in a way that will ensure that people can maximise their opportunities to access the public services. So I really do think, you know, I come back to this point. The noble Earl asked me questions that actually, you know, we are not I mean, for example, on cost, how there is no cost associated to this yet because the system has not been designed, the system is going to be designed following the results of the consultation.

The consultation will not just be limited to a certain number. It is open across the board, but we also want to actually establish a panel which the. Carnegie UK pointed out in a letter to the Guardian that a deliberative exercise in democracy. So selecting people randomly through post postcode's actually can produce a much more effective consultation. But both will be used to ensure that we end up with designing something. And I come back to this fundamental point. This is about how people access public services, but it's also about how they can determine the use of their data so they can actually set out, you know, I don't want my data to be used for this purpose, but I might want, for example, if I did need to establish my ID and I mentioned it to the noble Lord, occasionally I do go to a club, a dance club, by the way, and I, you know, and if I'm asked to produce an ID d I don't particularly want to produce my driving license because actually it's got my name and address and my age and actually, well, sometimes they do ask me my age, believe it or not.

But you know, if I if they want to know my age, I want to release that data. Not my address, not the other thing. So this is about how we establish that sort of process. It is about accessing public services. And in this day and age, every private sector service we use, we expect to be able to access things. I mean, Tesco's has more data on me than the, you know, most government departments because they know what time I go shopping, they know what I buy, what I favour, and they then send me emails and messages about that, you know? So I think what we've got to do is try and turn this away from this view about it being a sort of rigid identity card system that's going to be on a national database.

This is about public services, how people access them, how they use them, and how they can control their data more effectively. So let me reassure the noble Lord. I mean, I think the consultation, which will be over at. Well, there'll be initial consultation of 12 weeks, but that could be extended with the deliberative process. So, you know, and then at the end of that, we then will be looking at. And Parliament will be heavily engaged in this. No legislation has been drafted yet because we want to see the results of the consultation.

We want to see the scale of the project. And I know everyone's concerns about cost and actually including some of the the problems we've had in the past. But this is an opportunity to actually respond to people's needs and create a more effective public service. I think most people, we expect it from the private sector, and we should expect it from the public sector. Thank you.
20:19
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. I take it from what the noble Lord has just said about costs that no sum has been earmarked, and the current three earmarked, and the current three year expenditure review for the development of the scheme, could he confirm that? And secondly, will it confirm that? And secondly, will it be the case that people in Scotland will have to access the government's proposed ID scheme for government's proposed ID scheme for those services that have been retained and a separate ID scheme,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

namely the Scott card for those services that have been devolved. Yeah. Well. We will be consulting with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will be consulting with devolved authorities on this, and they will be a major part of the they will be a major part of the consultation. And can I just say that there is no definite cost for the program because it's design of the program because it's design of what we're building hasn't been decided yet. But you shouldn't just decided yet. But you shouldn't just look at sort of that one line item on the shopping bill. You need to look at the whole thing.

The issue is the status quo has costs. And you know what? I know we often say this, but if we can develop a really more efficient digital portal for people to be able to use, it could potentially reduce costs and, and actually save the public money as well as the government. And that's got to be a good thing. I mean, if you look at all the private sector services we use that currently have this sort of thing, they are actually doing it to reduce costs.

They often dress it up as actually improved services. But I do think I mean, certainly if you take banking, my accessibility to banking services has improved hugely over the years. I can do many more things online and through apps and things than I could ever have done before by visiting a local bank. But that doesn't exclude the possibility, because to reassure the noble Lord Clement-Jones and the noble IRL, this is not a mandatory system. This is something that people.

I suspect when we are able to launch it, will want it because it will make their life easier. That's what we should be doing.
20:21
Baroness Uddin Portrait Baroness Uddin (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I declare an interest as the >> I declare an interest as the co-chair of the digital ID All-party parliamentary group on a All-party parliamentary group on a digital ID. Noble Minister. The Minister said that he's going to Minister said that he's going to widely consult about this and what support they might be or not. Nearly 3 million people have signed a petition. How is the government going to ensure that those, at least many of them, have the opportunity of feeding their opinion? If they already have not convinced the government that they're opposed to it? I myself this morning tried on a personal matter to log in to gov.uk and was kicked out eight times and I'm pretty good on my digital.

Understanding. And so it did worry me greatly. And I knew that this was coming up and I wanted to draw the attention to the Minister that we've been talking about sovereignty and keeping all our information in one place and all of that. So far, the experience of GP services means that we do not have the access to our data. It's farmed up somewhere else. Is that something that's been considered? How will we ensure that any ID information eventually is sovereign and it is held in this country, under our government or whatever system that we set up? Finally, and I do want to urge the the Minister finally to say there's been lots of evidence about discrimination, particularly about Black and Asian men and Muslim women.

And I would hope that the government will seriously consider that aspect as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. Well, I think that just addressing the last point from the addressing the last point from the noble Lady, I think the whole point about how we actually look at this in terms of inclusion and accessibility really is important in terms of those issues of in terms of those issues of discrimination. And, you know, it's very important that the consultation looks at that. And I, I mean, the noble Earl also raised a question, which I didn't
20:23
20:25
20:26
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
Properly descriptive. But can I >> Properly descriptive. But can I just reassure, because I think a number of noble Lords have raised number of noble Lords have raised the issue. But we are. This will be a sovereign based scheme. This is something that we will develop in-house through the government services. It will not be something that will be contracted out. So let me reassure her on that first point. But I think actually on the on the other points, really, I mean, how this would develop, I think actually will be led by people, not the government.

People will be demanding these things. And actually, I, you know, I mean, we haven't no one has asked a specific question, but part of the consultation will be about, well, is there you know, I mean, many parents want their children to have age identification. And that could be something that could be particularly. I mean, the noble Lady has raised these questions in other debates and how children are accessing things now. Well, if they were required to have this, it may be a solution.

I'm not saying it is, but I think it's something that we would want to see as part of the consultation. And as I say, I think, you know, the deliberative process, which is part of the consultation, will be a random selection of people, but it will be a much more intense consultation with those people, better identifying what their needs are. So I many of the questions noble Lords have obviously I can't answer because, you know, we want to see what the consultation comes up with.

We know what people I think are genuinely seeking here, but there will be. I mean, the outcome will result. If if legislation is required, then we will have those sorts of debates on legislation, what should be on the face of the bill and so on and so forth. But I'm pretty confident that the consultation will result in a in a better policy outcome that we all desire.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. And could I just ask. To take him back to a slightly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To take him back to a slightly more fundamental question, which we're yet to address in, in, in this exchange, which is why the government feels it's necessary at all to have a consultation, given the visceral public reaction that the visceral public reaction that there was to the proposal to introduce digital ID in the first place. And that in itself seems
20:29
20:30
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
Well, I you know, I keep coming >> Well, I you know, I keep coming back to the point that actually, you know, I, I really do believe you know, I, I really do believe that when we are looking at public services and people's access to them, there is a solution here that most people would be very happy about. But we won't determine that unless we have this fuller consultation. And in terms of value for the money element of it, the the sort of deliberative process will be through a process called saltation and a random postcode, random postcode lottery.

And it's a way of selecting individuals where everyone is given an equal chance to be invited. No individual can buy their way or or simply turn up to an event, but that doesn't stop everyone else participating in that wider consultation. So I think we've got the best of all worlds, and it will result in more effective consultation, in my opinion, but also more cost effective consultation. And can I just come back to this point about, you know, I mean, this government is determined to listen and better understand the needs of the public in relation to the services it provides.

I think that is something that actually is across all parties. No government wants to be able to end up with a situation which the noble Lady described, where you try to get a public services and you're constantly kicked out. You can spend hours trying to get on to something and constantly reject it. It's about making that process easier no matter what other people say this is about. Let me reassure the noble Lord. It is that.
20:32
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords. >> Can I endorse what my noble friend has said? And I hope we'll really give this a great deal of really give this a great deal of support, I. Does he agree with me? It's a great pity that the pilot scheme that was abolished by the scheme that was abolished by the coalition government in 2010 was not allowed to run, because all indications are that it was very popular by those who used it. And second, my Lords, on this point about driving license as a Non-driver Non-car owner, I very much resent the fact I have to use a driving licence as a form of ID, because it's the only ID that's practically acceptable.

There's a consultation by the government at the moment about mandatory eye tests, which my Lords, presumably I shall have to go through in order to get a driving licence, which I never use because it's the only ID available. My Lords, surely. This will be very, very popular with many, many people and we can't allow the naysayers or the pressure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

groups to get in the way of making progress. Yeah, well. I agree with my noble friend and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with my noble friend and I actually think, you know, when we all sit down and have a sensible all sit down and have a sensible discussion about this and try and take the partisan politics away, I think we will reach a much better consensus. And I think this consultation enables us to do that. And I think at the outcome, what we've got to put at the forefront of our thoughts is the needs of the public and the needs of the public in terms of how they access services.

And I know my friend is right. You know, I mean, driving license have become the de facto ID. And actually, you know, the fact is that those that driving license, as I said in my initial opening remarks, has data I don't want handed out easily, you know, and that's why I think this is a solution that will benefit the public. And I think we'll get cross-party support. Bennett Bennett.
20:34
20:35
20:36
20:37
20:38
20:39
20:40
20:41
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
Into amendment 422 E additionally, on behalf of the noble Lord Lord Verdirame Casey, who has a prior. Appointment in The Hague this week, he was the author Hague this week, he was the author of the probing amendment on this topic at Committee. At that stage, topic at Committee. At that stage, the noble Lord, the Minister, noble Lady, the Minister signalled some reservations on it and subsequently wrote to Lord Verdirame with additional data which has proved to be most helpful.

And we thank her. Baroness Wolf of Dulwich has also appended her name to this amendment and will speak to it along with her other amendment. Now, noble Lords will be aware that clause 208, which was inserted into this bill in the other place at a late stage, has attracted numerous amendments. Our intention with this amendment 422E is that where opinions are a matter of individual conscience, that we should attempt to offer the House a compromise between the Commons positions, amendment 208 An amendment 424, which seeks to leave out the clause entirely.

I should also point out that amendment 423423ZA and 423A will be pre-empted if this amendment is agreed on division, the amendment does two things. First, it requires the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before any proceedings may be instituted against women acting in relation to their pregnancy. And second, it provides that such proceedings must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence. The version we debated at committee provided for the consent of the Attorney General, rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions, the noble Lady.

The Minister observed that offences where Attorney General consent is required tend to be in the national security or international sphere, while DPP consent is required to address a wider range of concerns, including, as the Minister explained, where there is a risk that the institution of proceedings might violate convention rights or cause a defendant irreparable harm. There are some offences in areas other than national security or international matters where consent is required, as Lord Verdirame argues, for example, contempt of court under the strict liability rule pursuant to section seven of the Contempt of Court Act.

Nevertheless, on balance, it seems proportionate and in keeping with existing practice to replace Attorney General consent with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Our amendment does, however, require that the DPP exercises the function of giving consent personally. That language is taken from the Bribery Act, where some offences impose a similar condition on the DPP. Without this additional requirement, we understand that the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings could be given by a Crown prosecutor by virtue of section one seven Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, so requiring the DPP to exercise that function personally provides, in our view, a better guarantee against the risk of abuse, error or overzealousness.

The second component of the amendment, which is the new subclause B, imposes a 12 month limit for commencing proceedings. We have added this in since Committee stage. This is an additional check on prosecutions where the pregnant woman involved may, as things currently stand on the basis of. Of amendment 208 have faced anxiety or uncertainty for years after the termination of the pregnancy. The limitation period of 12 months provides a measure of certainty the possibility of being drawn into criminal processes long after the event compounds the stress and stigma that can accompany adverse pregnancy outcomes.

A clear 12 month boundary strikes a proportionate balance. It allows for legitimate cases to be investigated, but it prevents open ended exposure. And also we understand the concern that arises from some cases of appalling investigations that has caused enormous and unnecessary distress to some women. We discussed these at length at committee. They are indeed harrowing. One of the things we were keen to understand after committee was the data on investigations. The noble Lady, the Minister wrote to Lord Verdirame in this regard and we're grateful, as I said, for her detailed response.

It is, however, difficult to discern a clear trend from the data under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, there were five investigations in 2019 to 20 8 in 20 20 to 21 and 13 in 20 24 to 25. So there does appear to be an increase. The problem, however, is that this available data on investigations does not disaggregate by the sex of a person who is being investigated. So you have a trend of increase, but you cannot tell whether the increase can be attributed to a man or a woman.

And we also could not tell whether the women in the data are related to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy, rather than other women assisting. However, when you turn to prosecutions and convictions under section 58 and 59 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the picture is clearer as the data is disaggregated into male and female. In 2025, there were six people proceeded against with five convictions. When that was broken down into male and female.

Of those six proceeded against, four were men, of which all four were convicted and two were women, of which one woman was convicted. It would therefore suggest that coercion may well be coming into play or is in the will be case we discussed in committee. Deception was a ploy to procure an abortion for a woman who wished to continue with her pregnancy. The number of prosecutions and convictions under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 is very small. There have been two prosecutions against women since 2019, although again we do not know if these were women acting in relation to their own pregnancy.

None of them were convicted. There were seven prosecutions against men in the same period, and there were three convictions. My Lords, the question for us and for broader society is whether policy in law resolve both sides of a problem. Would we wish to pass a law that entirely removes any criminal sanction from rare, but nevertheless potentially criminal acts, or not, as the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe said, when the police find a lifeless body because either b a small infant or a late stage foetus, they must investigate because the police.

I don't think we take interventions on report. If I may refer to the companion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perhaps the witness could assist us. Clarify for. Your Lordships' House interventions. Are you House interventions. Are you perfectly able to take interventions or indeed not take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interventions as you wish? I think I'd like to proceed and conclude my argument. I'll be very happy to listen to the lady once I've finished. As the noble Lord, I'm now repeating myself in terms of the police investigation. So let me find my my place in my text again, because the police don't know at that stage when they find a lifeless body, which of the situations they confronted with, even with decriminalisation of abortion offences, for the woman acting in relation to her pregnancy, she may still be investigated.

And if this was a case of stillbirth, for example, for that woman, inevitably the investigation will be a cause of stress. She might be worried that the evidence won't support her, or that she won't be believed. But what else is the police supposed to do in these cases, other than try to establish the facts? So I'm afraid it's not possible to remove women acting in relation to their pregnancy from any criminal process, even if you decriminalise abortion offences. For them, what is possible is to introduce further guarantees, as we're attempting to do with this amendment, that will add an additional layer of personal assurance from the DPP that the facts in context of terminations are taken into account and that after 12 months, in any event, proceedings will not be brought against that pregnant woman.

It ensures that the decision to prosecute in relation to the woman is taken at the highest level, the DPP, and applies to certainty of a limitation, period. My Lords, no solution in this area will ever be flawless, but when the evidence before us is so limited and the broader picture so uncertain, wholesale decriminalisation would be a disproportionate response to a problem which in any event, needs careful and thoughtful steps for resolution. This amendment offers a more balanced and workable path to the problem that we all want to resolve satisfactorily.

It provides meaningful safeguards for women, ensuring that any decision to prosecute is taken at the highest level, as well as the certainty of a limitation period, while not upending the balancing of principles and values underlying the Abortion Act 1967. I hope that both those who oppose criminalisation and those who are rightly troubled by the distressing cases we have discussed, will see that this approach represents a principal and proportionate compromise, and will feel able to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The proposed clause 208. Page 254, line 25. Leave out from 1929 to end of line 26 and insert the words as Prince John marshals as a noble Baroness Falkner of Margravine has already pointed out, Margravine has already pointed out, if amendment 422E is agreed to. I am unable to call amendments for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

am unable to call amendments for 23423ZA or 423A by reason of pre-emption, my. Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to 423, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to 423, which is in my name, and the purpose of my amendments by Lord's is to see if it is possible to effect a compromise between strongly held opinions, and if a compromise is opinions, and if a compromise is not possible, then subject to pre-emption, I could certainly pre-emption, I could certainly support 422E. I could also support
20:53
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
424, and I could support 425 as well. My Lord, at the Second Reading of this bill and at Reading of this bill and at committee, I express my views on what was clause 191 at that stage, what was clause 191 at that stage, and I don't wish to in any way reiterate the detail of what I said. Suffice it to say that I am much closer to the position of the closer to the position of the opponents of clause 208 than I am to its supporters, but there are two general points I would like to make at this stage.

First, that I think it is very difficult to distinguish in principle between a child that is just born and a child that is about to be born. And secondly, and consequently that to extinguish the life of a child that is about to be born can only be justified in the most compelling of circumstances. And now that is not just a matter of personal morality. It is, I think, a reflection of the value that society as a whole, and that Parliament in particular has put on human life.

And I hope that these two propositions will be accepted as true by our Lordships, and will also inform the debate that we are to have. Now my Lord Singh urging a compromise, I would ask the House first to consider the provisions of the Abortion Act of 1967, because that act does permit, in certain circumstances, late term abortion. And without going into too much detail, my Lord. Subsections one, B, C and D of the 67 act permit a late term abortion in the following circumstances, when it is necessary to prevent grave, permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother.

When the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman, and when there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer from such serious abnormalities as would result in serious handicap. My Lord, the point that I am making is that the existing provisions in law meet many of the concerns that have been expressed in support of clause 208, but, my Lords, I do recognise that the proponents of clause 208 do not regard the existing law as sufficient, and it's therefore, with that in mind that I have tabled 2423 in the hope of addressing those concerns.

Now, subsection A of my amendment reflects the language of the Infanticide Act of 1938. That statute by laws was reviewed in 2006 by the Law Commission, and its terms were confirmed. My amendment proposes that it will be a defence to a late term abortion, that the balance of the woman's mind was disturbed by reason of the pregnancy, and the amendment provides that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I moving that part of the amendment. I recognise that in logic, if such a defence should be available in respect of a death of a child immediately after birth, it's very difficult to say that such a defence should not be available in respect of a child immediately before birth. My Lord, I now turn to subsection C, b of my amendment, which it seeks to meet the concerns that have been expressed in your Lordships House in respect of late term abortions, which result from domestic abuse, and that, I'm sure, is a concern to many of your Lordships.

And I've addressed that very precisely in subsection B of my amendment, and I hope that it will reassure your Lordships who have that anxiety. And I now turn to the remaining part of my amendment, which addresses the distress that can be caused to a woman by the police investigation. But first, if I may, just to preliminary points, if it is necessary to create a criminal offence, one does have to accept the necessity of an investigation. One truth that has to be conducted with great sensitivity.

That is the case, of course, when one is investigating allegations of rape and the victim of a rape has to be examined and talked to, it has to be done with very great sensitivity. And the second general point I want to come to is the one with which I began my remarks. Is the distress caused to a woman by the investigation a sufficiently compelling reason to justify extinguishing the life of a child about to be born? And in my view, the answer to that is no.

However, I do accept that the concerns will remain and my amendment seeks to address those remaining concerns. The amendment by law provides that no investigation can take place unless authorised by a very senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above. The superintendent must have regard to the defences set out in my amendment and. And this echoes the point made by the noble Baroness in moving her amendment. The investigation must be completed within 28 days, the initial authority being for 14 days, with two subsequent extensions of seven

**** Possible New Speaker ****

days. But no more. So to conclude, my Lords, if I may. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, of course. I'm very grateful. To him. Can I just go back to the point he raised a minute or two the point he raised a minute or two ago when he said such investigations must be undertaken investigations must be undertaken with great sensitivity. He referred to the investigation of rape cases. I just want to put it to him that all experience shows that the police and indeed prosecution authorities sometimes find it very, very difficult to investigate such cases with sensitivity.

How is he going to guarantee that? I'm not sure I accept. What is certainly true is that when I started practising at the bar, which was a very long time ago, investigations were not conducted with great sensitivity. But I think that the police service has really advanced a long way from that. And so I don't think that the noble Lord would forgive me that I accept the premise that the police are crude or insensitive in their investigation. There may be individual cases, but in general, no.

So, my Lord, I hope I'll be forgiven. Now, if I conclude clause 208 is a very serious departure from existing law and practice. It was passed in the Commons at Report stage in a time limited debate, without the normal benefit of scrutiny in committee or of pre legislation consultation. I have tried to meet your Lordships anxieties by a compromise amendment. If there's no taste for that, well, so be it and I will vote for the other amendments in clauses that I have identified.

But I do hope that your Lordships might reflect on the desirability of compromise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am speaking to my amendment 44, which seeks to remove amendment 44, which seeks to remove clause 208. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham has just said, this clause Hailsham has just said, this clause passed the Commons without any evidence, scrutiny, public evidence, scrutiny, public consultation or impact assessment. Although it is momentous, it is a
21:02
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest Portrait Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
-
-
Although it is momentous, it is a radical proposal with implications both for the mental and physical health of the woman and lethal consequences for the viable unborn child. Clause 208 would allow mothers to self-administer the abortion of the unborn child for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy, right up to full term. This is not just its consequential effect, it is its intended effect, the clause states. For the purposes of the law related to abortion, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.

The unborn child, in many cases more developed than those successfully looked after in premature child units, would have no legal protection. As my hon. Friend Julia Lopez said. In the other place, this is not pro or anti life. It is not extremist to want protections for viable babies, and it is not anti-women to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not be outside the reach of the law. This, in part, was a reference to the fact that a woman may be coerced into having an illegal abortion at home.

The law as it stands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, noble Baroness. Is the Lady Monckton Baroness. Is the Lady Monckton aware that if clause 208 became law, abortion law would continue to apply to doctors and healthcare professionals and they would still be subject to time limits and all be subject to time limits and all other aspects of the current abortion law. Continue what you're saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

saying. Sorry, I'm just going to. Doctor Alison Wright, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has written to peers protesting that women may continue to face police investigations and criminal charges solely for ending their own pregnancy unless this clause is supported. She, speaking on behalf of the college, makes no distinction whatsoever between the abortion of a viable child at full term and a first trimester termination. Indeed, the infant who, without the intervention of lethal drugs, would be fully a living person at that stage if born is completely unmentioned, it is as if this is unmentionable.

Doctor Wright describes the women concerned as being at the most vulnerable. I'm sorry. I'm going to carry on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going. I'm just going to carry on. Doctor Wright describes the women concerned as being at the women concerned as being at the most vulnerable times in their lives. That may be true, but the most vulnerable and defenceless most vulnerable and defenceless person here is the unborn, viable child. Obviously, it is deeply child. Obviously, it is deeply distressing. As we have heard in the aftermath of an illegal abortion, for the mother to be questioned by the police, this should be done with compassion and sensitivity.

But they cannot act as if nothing had happened. Clause 208 also endangers women by removing the current legal deterrent against administering an abortion away from the clinical setting right up to birth, women may be incentivised to perform their own life. Life threatening abortion late in pregnancy. This is particularly the case given how easily women can obtain abortion pills through the pills by post scheme. Beyond the legal limit without a reliable gestational age check, these pills are not meant to be used after the 10th week of of pregnancy for a very good reason.

I would encourage noble Lords to support Baroness Stroud amendment 425, which would reinstate mandatory in-person medical consultations and abolish the Pills by Post scheme, which was started during Covid lockdowns and should have been rescinded after the pandemic, as was originally intended. Over a thousand medical professionals have written to us opposing close clause 208, and I am grateful to Baroness Hollins, the former president of the British Medical Association, for her support to my amendment. One letter I received pointed out that 22 plus weeks.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

E. The noble Lady refers to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

E. The noble Lady refers to a thousand doctors writing. But is the noble Lady aware that the British Medical Association has British Medical Association has sent briefings to members in support of this. The law as it now stands, or the Bill as it now stands, or the Bill as it now stands, and that they alone represent more than 200,000 doctors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. The British Medical Association

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a trade union, not not a Royal College. Don't take any more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Don't take any more interventions. Order, order. I'm sorry. I've got to carry on. I'm going to run out of time. I'm I'm going to run out of time. I'm very sorry. This is Report stage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I am going to continue on. Oh. I just want to say. The noble, the noble Lady and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble, the noble Lady and the noble, the noble Lady is perfectly entitled not to take any any interventions will make better progress if people just agree to, say conventions or don't agree to take conventions, and then we'll be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to hear from everyone. Yeah. You. One letter I received pointed out that 22 plus week babies aborted in a medical setting are clinically euthanized prior to are clinically euthanized prior to surgery with a lethal injection into the heart. What would happen, into the heart. What would happen, she asked in her letter to babies aborted at home and born alive with the baby be left to die. How would the baby be left to die. How would the baby be disposed of? Would the mother be charged with infanticide? Clause 208 has confirmed by a legal opinion obtained by the Father of the House, Edward Lee, in the other place, would also make it legal for a woman to perform her own abortion on sex selective grounds at any time.

Data from NHS England shows that already, among certain communities, there is an imbalance in the sex of children that could not be explained by pure chance. Do the proposals of this clause want to further facilitate what has been called femicide? Let me be clear about what clause 208 does not do. It does not, despite the claims of its promoters, leave the current law intact. If the 24 week limit can no longer be defended when women induce their own abortions and they can obtain pills through the post via a phone call, the limit set by Parliament in 1990 is rendered meaningless, and the reason why it was then lowered from 28 weeks was precisely because of concerns about the termination of viable children.

The most basic justification for all abortions is that the unborn child in question is unwanted. The slogan is that every child should be a wanted child, but we all know there are so many couples who, for medical reasons, cannot have families themselves, yet desperately want a family. And when you think of the fate of the viable baby being aborted as unwanted, when there are so many families yearning to provide that love and support through via adoption, this clause is morally questionable, even on a purely utilitarian grounds of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

The preamble to the UN convention of the rights of the child states that the child needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth, removing the offence of a woman terminating her own pregnancy even at full term, would remove the few remaining legal protections for unborn children. I am sure that the proposals of clause 208 genuinely believe that they will thereby create a kinder, a more civilised society. But I fear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences if this is pass, will be precisely opposite. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I do sit down. Would she like. It is normal to take questions. It It is normal to take questions. It is normal to take interventions. It is a debate. Could I ask the noble is a debate. Could I ask the noble Lady Monckton if she believes all the 50 countries who have decriminalised abortion are wrong?
21:11
Baroness Stroud Portrait Baroness Stroud (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the noble Baroness Baroness Monckton amendment 424, for the reasons she has so clearly set out already. I won't repeat set out already. I won't repeat them, but instead seek to offer in my amendment 425A more judicious response than clause 208 to the small number of prosecutions that have occurred in recent years. My Lords, when we pass laws as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to ensure those laws are as safe as possible, while also legislating with the most difficult or even most nefarious scenarios in mind.

It is with that in mind that I have brought forward amendment 425. The only reason why we are having this debate today, and why there has been this push for clause 208, not from the public, but from abortion providers themselves, is because the current law around how women can access abortion is not safe, not as safe as it should be, and does not protect women in difficult or nefarious situations. When the Abortion Pills by Post scheme was first introduced, I, along with many others, warned of its risks.

Now, sadly, those warnings have proven prescient, with one consequence being that a small number of women have faced prosecution for illegal abortions after the statutory time limit. Those prosecutions have led to the same groups who assured us back in 2020 and 2022 that pills by post were safe to lobby for the introduction of clause 208, essentially trying to paper over the consequences of that scheme. But while women might no longer be prosecuted under clause 208, the grave risks to women won't go away.

Indeed, cases of women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy will likely increase without a legal deterrent. We will then hear calls for the full decriminalisation of abortion up to birth. It would be far safer to reintroduce in-person consultations with the medical professional before women can obtain abortion pills, as was mandated mandatory before the pandemic. Amendment 45 would do this. It is not seeking to reverse the convenience of pills by post. It is only seeking to introduce safeguards for women.

The amendment is deliberately moderate. It still permits at home abortions but requires a prior confidential face to face appointment with a medical professional. I wish to draw colleagues attention to three reasons why this is important. First, in-person consultations allow women's gestational age to be reliably verified. This would protect women because of the dangers associated with abortions away from the clinical context late in pregnancy. Indeed, those who argued for the Abortion Act in 1967 did so to prevent the backstreet abortion under clause 208, the DIY backstreet abortion will be back for any woman more than 24 weeks pregnant in 2023.

Carla Foster was convicted of an illegal abortion after she admitted lying to the abortion provider Bpas about her gestational age, claiming to be seven weeks pregnant when her gestation was actually between 32 and 34 weeks. Carla Foster was both a perpetrator, ending the life of a baby capable of living outside the womb and also a victim, a victim of a scheme that meant she could obtain abortion pills with no meaningful safeguards or medical care. After calling paramedics, she described being traumatised by the face of her dead baby, an in-person gestational age check would have both saved the life of her baby and spared the trauma caused by her actions.

No, I'm not giving away. I'm sorry. Second, in-person consultations protect against coercion and abuse. Far from protecting victims of abuse, as is claimed, the lack of such consultations is a trafficker's charter allowing traffickers and abusers to cover up the effects of sexual exploitation by coercing their victims to phone up and ask for abortion pills. In-person appointments prior to an abortion in a confidential setting means such abuse is more likely to be detected. The disturbing case of Stuart Warby emphasises this need.

Carry on now. I'm just carrying on. I'm sorry. Mr. Warby was jailed in December 2024 after arranging for a friend's girlfriend to pretend to be pregnant and acquire abortion pills for him by the pills by post scheme. He then spiked a woman's drink with those pills to induce an abortion against her knowledge. Again, he could not have obtained the pills if in-person appointments were still mandatory. And third, in-person appointments allow for possible health risks to be checked to assess whether it is safe for women to undergo a medical, rather than a surgical abortion.

The problems with the pills by post scheme are well documented, with FOI requests suggesting that 1 in 17 women require hospital treatment afterwards. These risks were strikingly drawn to our attention by a letter that's already been mentioned from over 1000 medical professionals supporting amendments for 24 and 42 five. And I'm glad, too, for the support of Doctor Caroline Johnson MP, who still practices as a paediatrician and who brought forward the same amendment in the other place. However, the seriousness of this issue was brought home to me when I had the opportunity in January to meet with a woman whose sister tragically died after taking abortion pills via the pills by post scheme, leaving behind young children the medical conditions the woman had, which meant she should have been deemed high risk, may well have been picked up in a clinical context hereafter.

However, after a telephone consultation, she was sent pills in the post by BRC died suddenly minutes after taking the final set of pills. This amendment ensures that I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm going to keep going. This amendment ensures that women will be offered the best possible care at in-person appointments, where medical history can be discussed with a woman. Amendment 425 is not about whether we are pro-life or pro-choice, but it is about safeguarding women. Polling last summer found that two thirds of women support the return of in-person appointments.

A mere 4% supports the status quo. Abortion providers provided abortion service before the pandemic, with no major problems when it came to access. I urge colleagues to support amendment 425, which is a far more proportionate response to the handful of court cases that have occurred in recent years than that offered by clause 208, which makes matters worse. As well as removing legal protections for unborn babies up to birth, amendment 45 does not reduce access to abortion for women, but it does ensure their health needs are properly catered for.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Clarendon Press, I am the chair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clarendon Press, I am the chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists College. I hope that the noble Lady College. I hope that the noble Lady who's just spoken will accept that sometimes the expertise of people sometimes the expertise of people who are directly involved on a daily basis with the treatment of women seeking an abortion, is women seeking an abortion, is really rather important, and I found it distressing when the noble Lady Monckton refused to acknowledge that.

In fact, many, many representatives of the medical profession strongly adhere to what
21:19
Baroness Blackstone Portrait Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
-
lies behind clause 208. I want to, lies behind clause 208. I want to, in speaking, to say that I strongly support that clause because it seeks to ensure that women in seeks to ensure that women in England and Wales will no longer be subject to long investigations and subject to long investigations and criminal charges, which are very often exceedingly distressing. I often exceedingly distressing. I also support amendment 423A to stop ongoing investigations and amendment 426B to grant historical pardons to women.

However, I want to focus my comments today on the safety of the telemedicine service for early medical abortion and in particular my opposition to amendment 425 that the noble Lady has just spoken to my Lords, there have been an extraordinary suggestions that the creation of telemedicine service at the service is the reason for the increase in criminal investigations. This is not true. There were cases of women being sent to women being sent to prison before the telemedicine pathway was even created, and since the vote in the House of Commons last year, there have been several women investigated, including a woman who experienced a miscarriage when she was 17 weeks pregnant.

Surely, my Lords, that is something we should seek to avoid. Let me turn to a landmark, a landmark study of more than 50,000 abortions in England and Wales, which concluded that Telemedical abortion is effective, safe and improves access to care. Waiting times fell. The mean gestational age of treatment declined and effectiveness increased, with 98.8% of abortions successfully completed after medication. So I think the scare stories we have just heard are exceedingly rare, and we should not take that as a reason for rejecting the telemedical service, that is, that it currently exists.

Safety is not only about clinical outcomes, it's also about safeguarding women, accessing early medical abortion through a licensed provider will speak to a doctor, a nurse or a midwife who follows. Established safeguarding protocols, asking an agreed list of questions to verify what the woman seeking an abortion has said. In fact, abortion providers operate within one of the most tightly regulated areas of medicine where concerns arise, patients are always brought face to face to receive care by that method, and indeed, about 50% have a face to face appointment when they sought a telemedical abortion.

And the drugs that are concerned, though, it is important to note that telemedicine has not removed face to face care. If a woman chooses to attend a clinic or hospital, she's able to do so. Telemedicine has simply broadened choice for women, and I think that is something we should also take very seriously as a huge benefit. We must consider what would happen if the option for telemedicine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clarify and ask a question. Is it not true that if any doctor or it not true that if any doctor or nurse is doubtful when telemedicine is happening, they will ask that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is happening, they will ask that person to come in to be seen? OK. Certainly the case, and I was trying to make that point earlier, but I didn't do it as clearly as the noble Lady has just done. And the noble Lady has just done. And of course, that should happen. And it does happen. If we are going to remove the option, we're going to find that women who, regardless of circumstance, would be forced to attend a clinic.

I don't think that's sensible. I think we should allow women the choice themselves to decide what the best route for them is. For some women, for example, those in abusive relationships, those living in rural areas, those with very great caring responsibilities, those who cannot travel safely for some reason may not, may long, may no longer be able to access safe, essential abortion care. There's widespread support from the medical establishment for the Telemedical for the telemedicine service remaining an option for women in their healthcare, including all the relevant royal colleges, not just the Acog.

It goes across the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwifery, the Royal College of General Practitioners. Indeed all, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Indeed, all those royal colleges that have a clear and and obvious responsibility for providing good services for those women seeking an abortion. So I hope that in further discussion today, that will be recognised and we won't hear comments as were made by the noble Lady, Lady Monckton, that many doctors are opposed to this.

This is simply not the case. They are in favour of clause 22 eight and of the telemedicine service. The evidence is clear. The evidence, my Lord. Let me just finish. I'm just about to complete what I was going to say, and I'm happy to take the question. The evidence is clear that telemedicine has reduced waiting times. It's enabled earlier treatment, which is a huge advantage. It's maintained high safety and effectiveness rates. It's improved privacy. That, again, is something that most women in these circumstances really, really appreciate.

And it's increased safeguarding disclosures, it expands choice, and it keeps women within a regulated clinical framework. And that in itself is exceedingly important to to weaken or remove telemedical abortion would not would not improve safety. It would instead reduce access, delay care, and create barriers for the most vulnerable women. The system works, my Lords. It's safe,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's effective, and it must be maintained. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, my Lords. Can I just say that views on both Can I just say that views on both sides of the debate are sincerely held? We should all respect each other for that. You know, the views are sincerely held. We've had a are sincerely held. We've had a long debate at Committee stage. This is Report stage members should make their points. I don't think repeating events actually help us with this. This at this stage I think we need to take the temperature down and the House can make it.

To make his decision known in the division lobbies later on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, I, I know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, I, I know crossbench Lords. I strongly crossbench Lords. I strongly support abortion on on demand, but as we've heard, the danger continues to exist at an almost continues to exist at an almost full term foetus could be aborted by means of a pill ordered by by means of a pill ordered by telephone and delivered by post. My Lords, I am struck by the extraordinary efforts that this House has gone to to provide safeguards for the those who are terminally ill and who demand assisted dying.

And yet we do not afford the unborn foetus or near-term foetus any kind of safeguard at all. And it would seem to me that this amendment, in the name of the noble Lady, lady Lady Stroud, is introducing some kind of a safeguard which perhaps we all
21:28
21:29
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
her pregnancy. After 24 weeks. The stage when the baby is deemed to be stage when the baby is deemed to be a viable child, and so causing the death of the child is a crime other death of the child is a crime other than in exceptional circumstances, it is also an offence to procure drugs or devices with the intent of drugs or devices with the intent of an abortion. Clause 208 is a bad an abortion. Clause 208 is a bad clause.

Constitutionally it is wrong. It has no manifesto pledge behind it, no prior consultation with the people of this country. No evidence exists that people want abortion up to birth. It undermines the constitutional arrangements on which government legislates on the basis of consent by the government for an announced programme given freely at the ballot box. It will bring suffering and misery to many mothers and babies. Tiny lives will be ended in the most cruel and painful way to sentient babies, though they would be protected if they were born naturally and their mother's health will be in grave danger from abortion, perhaps at home.

Without support. They may, like Carla Foster, suffer remorse, being haunted forever by seeing their tiny dead baby, whom she called Lily. Even if the physical danger passes, the mental scars of losing your child never heals, that of causing the death brings a lifetime of trauma and mental anguish. Or even worse, it leaves the woman in a moral limbo. Our society will be become desensitised, permitting the killing of tiny, viable infants, babies now protected by the law, which recognises that it is wrong to kill with intent.

Another human being, including a baby once viable after 24 weeks, this clause would bring the law into disrepute. First, it will overshadow the good aim of the government's Bill, which commands widespread support. The aim to tackle the epidemic of crime and lawlessness that has gripped the country. Second, because of the blind eye, it turns to a criminal offence by decriminalising an illegal act for just one group of people. Pregnant women. It is a regressive step for women who deserve to be under the same legal obligations as others, and are owed the same punishment should they transgress my amendment therefore restricts the application of clause 208 to those deemed not to have capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that is, those unable to make a decision for themselves because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain.

Such people, my Lord, should not be treated as criminals. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will accept the amendment in the interests of the constitutional arrangements of the country and the equality of the sexes. It is not a benefit for someone who breaks the law to remain unpunished, whether the person is a man or a woman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Notes. I am nice to speak to the amendment in my name in this group, amendment in my name in this group, which is 426B. Before I do that, I would like to make the ask the would like to make the ask the question I was trying to ask Baroness Falkner because it was a Baroness Falkner because it was a really perfectly ordinary question about whether or not the noble Lady about whether or not the noble Lady was aware that since 2022, there has been in place national oversight within the Crown
21:34
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
Prosecution Service for prosecution of abortion offences and that under this framework, multiple women have been prosecuted despite judges in the cases calling for the CPS to the cases calling for the CPS to reconsider it. That was really all I wanted to ask the noble Lady. I rise to speak to my amendment, rise to speak to my amendment, which is in the name of my myself and the noble, my noble friend Lord hunt, and the noble Lady Baroness hunt, and the noble Lady Baroness Watkins and Baroness Miller, which is a new clause to follow.

Clause 208 and consequential on it. This seeks to pardon women who have had a conviction or a caution for the offence which the clause 208 applies to. It removes their details from police systems regardless of the outcome of their case. There are women who were convicted and an even larger group of women who were not convicted but who were investigated, which means they have to permanently disclose in a DBS check because at present abortion offences are classed as violent crimes.

When clause 2A208 remains in this bill, this is an issue which the government will need to address, as they will the noble Lady Baroness Barker amendment, because both of those are in fact technical matters. When this clause passes into law, and I would like my noble friend, the Minister to confirm that that is indeed the case. If this clause reaches the statute book. My Lords, I think we all wish to resolve this matter, and we've had a significant amount of discussion about this clause, and I think it's safe to say there is some disagreement between us.

So I would like to summarise what I think we need to do from the point of view of those of us supporting clause 208. To protect this clause, we will need to reject amendment 422E in the name of Baroness Falkner. We will need to oppose 423 in the name of Lord Hailsham. We will need to reject the the amendment in the name of Baroness Lawlor 423A we will need to reject 426C in the name of Baroness Wolf because all of those amendments seek to continue to criminalise women in one form or another.

A cruel idea and an idea that women should be punished. The name of the amendment, in the name of Baroness Monckton seeks to strike 208 from the bill. But I think the House has heard arguments about, for example, the 50 countries where this works perfectly well does not increase abortion, does not increase offence. All the royal colleges of my noble friend has said support this. So I think that we can say safely what we are doing here is seeking to bring British law up to the same standard as other countries across the world.

Yeah, 424 seeks to place limits on a well-functioning, safe early abortion through telemedicine. It works. As my noble friend has said, it's safe. The results of the noble Law lady's amendment would place young people at risk and women, for example, who live a long way from a surgery and have to go into a surgery to get their medicine and may start their miscarriage on the bus going home. Surely, my Lords, we want to avoid that happening. Amendments 2426426C and D seek to restrict access and safeguarding in a way which will harm women and particularly young girls.

So I think we have to oppose those two. So I urge the House to reject all of those amendments. Support clause 208 and Support Amendments 423A and clause 426B.
21:38
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Portrait The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (Bishops)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My my Lords. >> My my. >> Lords, many of you will know that the Church of England's view that the Church of England's view on abortion is one of principled opposition, recognising that there opposition, recognising that there can be limited conditions under which abortion may be preferable to any available alternatives. This is based on the belief of the infinite worth and value of every human life, however old or young, including life not yet born.

The infinite value of human life is a fundamental Christian principle which underpins much of our legal system and has shaped existing laws on abortion. All life is precious, and therefore we also need to recognise that women, confronted with the very complex and difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy, deserve our utmost understanding, care and practical support as they face what is often a heart wrenching decision. However, I cannot support clause 208, though its intention may not be to change the 24 week abortion limit, it undoubtedly risks risks eroding the safeguards and enforcement of those legal limits and inadvertently undermining the value of human life.

I do support the amendment 2425 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. Since it is not clear how the law can function in an enforceable way without in-person consultation before accessing early medical abortion, the risks, as we have heard, of medical complications, are much greater if the pills for early abortion are taken beyond the 11 week limit. And although there are benefits to telemedicine, and I would not dispute that there are also flaws, and they are key to this debate on whether clause 208 should pass.

As I've already said, this is not a debate on whether the legal abortion limit should change, but we are at risk of it becoming exactly that without the levers necessary to monitor and enforce the law. In the same vein, I do support the amendment in the name of my right reverend friend, the Bishop of Leicester, as we do have a particular duty and care towards those under 18 to ensure that they are properly cared for and supported whilst making such difficult decisions.

I am reminded of the call of the prophet Micah to both do justice and to love mercy. Balancing justice and mercy is the challenge that we are debating today. I do not think that women who act in relation to their own pregnancies should be prosecuted, but I also do not wish to see any increase in late term abortions and I feel that. Why? While clause 208 is well intentioned, it risks making an already imperfect situation worse and therefore I do also support the amendment.

424 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lord Monckton, decriminalisation of abortion is a question of such legal, moral and practical complexity that I do believe it cannot be properly addressed in an amendment hastily added to another Bill in consideration of any alteration to the abortion laws, needs, public consultations and robust parliamentary processes to ensure that every aspect of this debate is carefully considered and scrutinised. There are many outstanding questions which deserve greater attention about the tone of policing in this area, about how we can best ensure that women suffering miscarriages can access the right care when they need it, and about how those who provide abortions outside the law will continue to be held accountable for doing so.

As I have said before, in this place, we need a framework which supports women, not one that puts them and their unborn children in the way of greater harm. On that basis, I will be supporting the amendments in the names of Baroness Monckton, Baroness Stroud and my Right reverend friend, the Bishop of Leicester.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Baroness Lawlor that clause 208 would undermine respect for the 208 would undermine respect for the law. I take the view that, on the contrary, it will enhance respect contrary, it will enhance respect for the law. And the reason why it will do that is because it will will do that is because it will express in statutory form compassion for those women who have compassion for those women who have the misfortune to suffer the loss of their baby at late term, for
21:43
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
whatever reason that occurs, and it will prevent intrusive, distressing police investigations at a most police investigations at a most sensitive time in any woman's life. It's been suggested that there It's been suggested that there should be a balance in the law. Clause 208 already includes the necessary balance because it protects the woman, but it maintains the criminal liability of anyone who assists the woman to have a late term abortion, whether it be the abusive partner or the rogue doctor or whoever it may be.

And that's right and proper. And that is the balance which should be accorded. As a lawyer, I look for precedents, and the precedent which occurs to me is the Suicide Act of 1961, because in the Suicide Act of 1961, Parliament recognised that a person who had the misfortune to seek to take their own life should not be prosecuted. You cannot be prosecuted for attempting to end your own life. But the law said, and I appreciate we're debating the assisted dying bill and it's not my speech has nothing to do with that.

But the law says that if you, however, assist a person to seek to take their own life, you can be prosecuted. And that's the distinction and that's the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

distinction in clause 208. So I. Yes, please. Thank the noble Lord given away. I think another distinction from I think another distinction from the past may wish to consider it is that under the suicide act, it's not a crime to take your own life.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not a crime to take your own life. What we are talking about is taking the life of an unborn baby. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Of course, the unborn baby. Unborn baby, until it is born, has Unborn baby, until it is born, has no legal identity. And also that that is the law of the land. For the unborn baby has no legal identity and the mother is in the prime position in relation to that baby. And we have to balance the interests of all concerned. And my view is that clause 208 does contain the balance that I have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested to to the House. My Lords, if we have to balance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Needs and the rights of all concerned, does that mean that an concerned, does that mean that an unborn child that is viable beyond 24 weeks has no rights and should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

24 weeks has no rights and should not be considered here, that it's matter? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I'm not commending late term abortions. Nobody on either side of this debate is commending late term abortions. The question, which is addressed by clause 208, is whether there should be a criminal liability, whether people should be investigated by the police and potentially sent to prison in those circumstances. And that seems to me, with all due respect, to be the wrong balance. So I say to the House, this is a very difficult issue, but I'm afraid that those who oppose clause 208 simply fail to recognise the arguments on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

balanced. My Lords, as a former chief executive of Women's. Aid. I would like to specifically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to specifically address the comments that have been made in relation to domestic abuse and particularly in relation to and particularly in relation to domestic abuse, in relation to telemedicine. It is common for telemedicine. It is common for domestic abuse to begin in pregnancy, and it's common for all aspects of pregnancy, including
21:47
21:48
Baroness Hazarika Portrait Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> I'd like to speak. >> To amendment. >> 423A in. >> My name. >> And this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And this amendment. Would ask. The police to cease investigations into women. Since the other House passed this vote back in June. Since June, a number of cases and a number of women and mothers have been investigated. At Christmas, a woman in her 40s thought she was. In her early pregnancy. She delivered a foetus in its gestation sac. She was very, very distressed. It turned out that that was actually at 24 weeks she had not realised.

She called the ambulance. It was made clear that she had safeguarding issues. She was a victim of domestic violence. She had children. Then the police came. Her house was searched, including the Christmas presents for the children. It was incredibly distressing. The children had to leave the house. Many of my noble Baroness Vere have talked rightly so about the effects of the child. They talked about the unborn child. What about the children of the mothers who are taken away for investigation? So I think this is a very, very important addition to the the other amendments.

I very much support the amendment that Baroness Thornton has laid. And I think we have to understand that a lot of these women. And as Lord Pannick said, nobody and I'm sure nobody will ever. Side of this debate you sit on thinks that anybody has a late pregnancy for the fun of it. No one is doing it to get some promotion at work. Nobody's doing it to get a late holiday. Some of the excuses that we've heard, this is an incredibly traumatic thing, actually.

I would say an abortion at any time is an incredibly traumatic thing for a woman. I would urge many of you, if you haven't seen the Tracey Emin exhibition at the Tate, she speaks incredibly movingly, but in a very harrowing way about her own lived experience of abortion. This is not taken lightly, and for those very, very few number of women who end up doing this at a late stage in their period, they're not doing it for the fun of it.

They're often abused. They're often in domestic violent situations. They're often from very marginalised communities, such as my own community, from the Muslim community or other more isolated communities. Many of them are very, very from deprived backgrounds. They're not from nice families like ours where you could talk about these things. Many of them are told by the way they know what's going on with their bodies, and they are often told by their abusive partners and also by their abusive parents as well.

Because coercive control in some communities doesn't just come from the husband or the partner, it can actually come from the family structure. They are told they're not even told about their body, they're not given agency about their body. And they are told, now, if you dare go to anyone for help, if you try to go to help for help, you will end up in prison. And here is the evidence. So while I do understand that the concerns about coercion and care and making sure we protect vulnerable women is very, very well intended, this could actually further push these very isolated women into situations which are ever more dangerous.

And we all here, again, whatever side of the divide we're on, we know the police are really struggling with resources right now. We have many conversations about how we do not think police are investigating serious sexual assault against women, severe antisocial behaviour. Do we really want our police to be rifling through the bins of women who have just had a stillbirth? Does any of them actually. Does anything of us think that's a good use of time? Do we honestly want to see vulnerable women put in prison when there are very, very few places in prison right now? And finally, you cannot solve this problem by just prosecuting vulnerable women.

I have had many conversations with people on the other side, and I do understand that, as the Chief Whip said on our side, that these views are profoundly and genuinely held by all of us. But I have heard this argument from people saying, look, when a terrible thing happens and there was a late abortion, someone has to pay a price, someone has to pay, someone has got to go to prison. I would just push this back. Throwing women very vulnerable, often beaten, violently treated women into prison.

It is not the answer to this. Believe you me, these women need compassion. Their kids, by the way, also need a mother so that they don't fall into the patterns that lead to bad outcomes. But honestly, for any of you who think these women need to be punished, trust me, what they will have gone through is punishment enough that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
21:53
Lord Bishop of Leicester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-
So to speak. I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. 426D. I want to start by thanking the want to start by thanking the Minister for meeting with me a couple of weeks ago to discuss this matter, and I want to be direct at matter, and I want to be direct at the outset about what this amendment does and what it does not amendment does and what it does not do. It is quite distinct from amendment 425, which stands on its own merits, and which your Lordships will consider on its own terms.

This amendment says nothing about adult women's access to abortion, nothing about where medication is taken, and nothing about the broader questions which have been part of our debate up till now. It rests entirely on one safeguarding principle that when a child is the patient, a professional should meet her before prescribing. I believe that is something your Lordships can support, regardless of the views you hold on everything else before the House today. The amendment is brought on behalf of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for children, NHS doctors and nurses who carry statutory safeguarding responsibilities for children across every local safeguarding partnership in England.

Their concern is that the needs of children particularly looked after. Children who become pregnant are not being sufficiently accounted for in this clause. Since 2022, a girl of 14 can telephone an abortion service, receive medication by post and take it at home and no clinician will ever meet her. My Lord, how does that give confidence that safeguarding risks are being properly assessed? How does the provider of medication know if there is someone else in the room when they speak to the child on the phone? How do they know if someone else has suggested that the child should make the phone call? Surely the only safe way to assess risk is to meet in person.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, says that telemedicine is safe, and I fully respect her experience in this field and in many situations I would agree, but in the case of children, which I note she made no mention of in her speech, I believe she is wrong. Telemedicine is not safe for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children. Can also occur in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can also occur in the consultation room, as I have seen many, many times, and that actually it may actually be safer for the it may actually be safer for the girl or the child as you're calling her, to be able to choose the place,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her, to be able to choose the place, the time where she has that consultation. I'm very aware that there are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very aware that there are risks to all forms of consultation. My argument is simply that the risks are minimised by in-person consultation. This is the considered view of safeguarding professionals in NH. D h p that the current guidance that was put placed in by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in 22, is simply not robust enough. That guidance, I note, requires an in-person meeting for children under 13, children under 16 are, and I quote, normally required to complete their consultation in person, unless there is a compelling indication to do otherwise.

Evidence, however, suggests that most providers of abortion care are arguing that the option of telemedicine itself is a compelling indication that an in-person consultation is not required. And for those aged 16 or 17, the guidance only says that children and, of course, 1617 year olds are still children under the Children's Act should only be encouraged to attend in person. More fundamentally, guidance as it currently is, can be changed unilaterally without parliamentary scrutiny, without public consultation, at the discretion of the body that issued it.

I believe, therefore, that legislation is required. Parliament enacts only Parliament can remove, but the case for amendment for this amendment does not rest on my view alone, nor on the D PS alone. The government's own consultation found that safeguarding organisations specifically identified under 18 as the group for whom in-person assessment was most critical to reduce the risk from those who sexually exploit children, manipulate the system or force their victims to obtain abortion. Indeed, MSI Reproductive Choices has documented that face to face important appointments are associated with a significant increase in domestic abuse disclosures compared with telemedicine, and this is especially significant given that girls and young women face a higher risk of coercive or abusive relationships than those over 24, and are often less equipped to ask for help.

The clinical risks compound this beyond 11 weeks gestation. Home management is not appropriate, and the risks to the patient increase significantly. As has already been mentioned. Accurate gestational age assessment is the foundation on which safe prescribing depends, and it cannot be done reliably, reliably, by telephone. My Lords, these are not theoretical risks. We've heard stories already. I would simply add that of a 16 year old who was estimated by the clinic to be under eight weeks pregnant, but the baby she delivered was in fact 20 weeks.

She later said, if they scanned me and I knew that I was that far gone, then I would have had him. An in-person appointment would have changed everything for that young woman. This amendment would require such an appointment. So I would like to echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, in her amendments. Without an in-person consultation, it is unclear how we will ensure that early medical abortions take place within the law. Indeed, challenges around vulnerability and correct gestational assessment apply to adult adulthood as well, which is why I am fully supportive of amendment 425.

And although I've been assured that abortion providers will remain subject to the criminal law if forced to await his past, it is hard to see how this will make a meaningful difference. In the case of early medical abortion, since providers who carry out telephone assessments will have met the standard of due diligence required of them. My Lords, my amendment offers a reminder that the needs of children and young people should be paramount in our thinking, and that of all who work with them, including abortion providers.

My amendment asks for one proportionate safeguard that when a child is the patient, a medical professional meets her. Before prescribing, I invite you to consider whether that is really too much to ask.
22:01
Baroness Hollins Portrait Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm prepared. because I think most of the points I wanted to make have been made. Of course, I do not want to see women course, I do not want to see women unduly prosecuted, but I was reassured during by the wise remarks during committee of my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, suggesting the adaptation of police protocols was more suitable rather than a change in the law, as proposed by clause 208. And I support the amendments 424 and 425, as indeed do many doctors, including in the numbers that the noble Lady Baroness Monckton mentioned of of obstetricians.

There was one point, perhaps, that hasn't been raised, and it concerns the mental health of women who may be isolated. And I'm concerned about the possibility of the relative isolation of home use of and home self-induced later abortion, which may increase the emotional intensity and mental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

health consequences for some women, particularly if she has. Limited support or medical

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Limited support or medical complications, which of course are also much more common, much, much more common in later abortion. Safeguard support and informed consent become much more critical consent become much more critical as gestation advances and care shifts away from in-person supervision. I'm not convinced by supervision. I'm not convinced by this clause, and I really encourage. And we it just hasn't had the depth of thought and preparation that would be required to really understand the complexity of what's being proposed.

I really ask the members to to on the side of caution and to support the amendments that I'm that I've risen to speak about. to speak about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know I. Well done. My Lords. I will speak to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I will speak to my amendment 426C and thank Baroness Falkner, Baroness Spielman. support. And I will also speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I will also speak. In support of amendment. 422E. To which I've added my name before.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before. Explaining why we have tabled 426C. A little context like I'm
22:03
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Portrait Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (Crossbench)
-
-
426C. A little context like I'm sure all other noble Lords, I've received a great deal of correspondence on clause 208, and one of the things that is repeatedly said by proponents is that apart from decriminalising all instances of maternal abortion, nothing would change. So, for example, the Fawcett Society says that apart from this one change, the Abortion Act 1967 would continue to operate as it always had. But I think this is quite mistaken. We're not tidying up a small drafting error here.

We're making a fundamental change to the law. And when you make a fundamental change to the law, you've changed perceptions, you've changed behaviour and it has knock on effects. We've heard, for example, that there's been a marked change in the number of investigations related to abortion. But what we also learned and Baroness Falkner alluded to this is that actually the changes are a bit more complicated than we might have thought. There's been an increase in the number of investigations that related to procuring illegal abortion offences, but at the same time, there's actually been a decrease in the number of investigations for intentional destruction of a visible, viable unborn child.

So, for example, there were seven investigations of intentional destruction of a viable unborn child in 2025 compared to 18 in 2023. And only one person, a male, was proceeded against in the most recent years. So clearly something is going on, but equally clearly, it seems to be a little more complicated than we might think, and the government does not really know. To repeat again the point that Baroness Falkner made, it's actually not possible to determine how many investigations there have been that relate to women, including women, acting in relation to their pregnancy.

Now, alongside that, we've also had another major change, about which, again, we've already heard a great deal this evening and committee and at Second Reading, which is about the arrival on the scene of abortifacient pills, and they have completely changed the profile of abortion, including, I would note, whether or not the foetus is dead before it is delivered. So it's not just about telemedicine, it's also about pills by post, which have become much more easily available, not simply within this country, but actually in increasingly across country boundaries.

Now, Baroness Stroud and others have discussed consultations by pregnant women, and we've had some discussion of whether these should or should not all be in person. Our amendment 40 6DC has a rather different focus. It actually creates a new crime, that of obtaining abortifacients, which for the moment is pills by false representation. And to explain why this is desirable, I would like to say a little bit more about the case of Stuart Warby, to which Baroness Stroud referred earlier in 2025, Stuart Warby was found guilty of poisoning his pregnant wife by administering abortion medication without her knowledge or consent.

She very much wanted the baby she was carrying and he did not. A female associate of Warby's procured the drugs through an online consultation in which she claimed early pregnancy and was duly prescribed and sent the pills. And then Warby gave his wife the drugs. Without her knowledge, she suffered a devastating miscarriage. And the government website, summarising the case, notes that she is left unable to bear children. The victim of Warby's act was not investigated when she miscarried.

The crime only came to light when she found messages on her husband's phone and she went to the police. And in another recent case in Scotland, where the abortion was procured by a paramedic who injected his partner against without her knowledge, again, she wasn't investigated. The crime only came to light indirectly. So there may be many other cases like this. Maybe there aren't, but it is getting. It is possible and it is becoming easier to obtain these pills to obtain abortifacients not.

No. I'm going to continue. I'd like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with the Chief going. Well, I. Took a number of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Took a number of. Yes, well, that was your choice. I'm going to follow instructions. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And not least, by the way, because the balkanisation of American states on abortion issues American states on abortion issues has also turbocharged the use of pills in the United States. Now, if, pills in the United States. Now, if, as seems likely, obtaining and administering an. This an abortifacient without consent is going to increase, then we think that there is a good reason to make this a clearly defined offence, and our amendment is drafted in consultation with some experienced PCCs based on.

On existing fraud law, I realised that there will be an obvious objection, which is that there is existing legislation. But as the government Ministers themselves have made clear when introducing specific legislation to cover retail workers, the fact that there may be legislation is not necessarily a compelling argument against creating a new, clear offence. Sometimes the legislature may want to go further, to inform, to highlight particular risks and to clarify the situation in new situations, which is what I think we are in in this case.

Now, we have drafted this clause on the assumption that clause. That clause 208 stands because you have to make an assumption somehow. But the fact that it was so difficult to do this, the fact that it is so unsatisfactory and that if we went forward, we would probably have to redraught or the government would have to redraught in the light of what does or doesn't happen to clause 208 also makes it very clear that we are in a really unsatisfactory situation here.

We're making law on the hoof when what is actually needed is to have a really good look at the situation we're in, at the way that the changes that we might introduce would impact on other behaviour, and actually to take a coherent and holistic view of whether or not abortion law needs to be rethought. And in that context, I would like to turn back to amendment 42 E the first rule of good policy making is to be really clear what the problem is.

I don't think we are. Amendment 42 E, therefore proposes an alternative to the unscheduled and unexpected introduction of the sweeping changes of clause 2208. It would require the personal consent of the DPP for an investigation with a tight time limit. It would address the distressing situations which we have heard about, and it would leave us time to discuss properly what changes will usefully be made to current law. This would also ensure that any change that occurred actually fulfilled the objectives of of those who propose and support to.

Oh eight I'm really concerned that this pulling something out and just in two final and quick points, many people will say lots of other countries have decriminalised. Well, yes, but that doesn't mean that they have a situation which would be exactly like ours would be if we pass. 208 whether or not you have full decriminalisation access in a whole set of different situations, and it certainly doesn't mean that those countries are allowing abortion at full term by mothers.

And the second point that I would like to make is to say that it is perfectly possible to have a review. The Scots have just done so. They've had a thorough review. You may or may not like what they've done, but that is what we should be doing. And while given where we are, I would like to commend my amendment to the House and strongly commend to you a compromise which would give us time. I do also hope that the government is listening to the degree of concern there is over this, and is considering whether or not it might in the future.

In the near future, do something serious on this issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I wonder if noble Lords are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if noble Lords are aware that in spite of what we've heard from some noble Lords, that more than 50 countries around the more than 50 countries around the world, including 29 in Europe, do not criminalise women under abortion law. And I think just going back to the noble Lady's comments about Northern Ireland, I
22:12
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
comments about Northern Ireland, I think it was in this place that the that telemedicine was voted on and as lawful by by our very house and obviously the house. The house. Sorry, so many crossbenchers have just been speaking. I'm sincerely hoping I can just finish my point. Thank you very much. I've been waiting so patiently, and I also want to comment and agree with my noble friend Baroness Hazarika that I would wish to make my comments in the spirit.

As she said, understanding that there are people with very different views across the house and I respect those views, so I'm hoping to be heard. Similarly, in addition, national international women's rights and health groups are proactively calling for decriminalisation both in the UK and beyond. And that's an addition to the other place of our elected representatives, overwhelmingly voting in support of decriminalisation. I wonder, do we believe that every one of those respected organisations are wrong, and that only a section of this House is right and that and that the other place is wrong? I would find that myself quite difficult in allying myself with those who oppose the of abortion.

And then on the amendment to which I've put my name a that of a four, two, three with the noble Lady Barker Lord Patel and my noble friend Baroness Hazarika, I. I don't know whether noble Lords read the research today in Halaa an excellent article where she'd done extensive research in the Guardian, I think it was today, certainly this week, of a number of harrowing cases, one of which was referred to by my noble friend Baroness Hazarika of women, of women being arrested literally from their hospital beds.

Is it seriously the case that we as a House would want that situation to continue? I think the centre for Women's Justice has detailed a number of cases which are truly dreadful, and I would also like to align my comments. My support for the telemedicine provisions which seem to me to be humane and also lawful in Northern Ireland. So I I'm not going to speak any longer and will give way to the noble Lady, but I strongly support decriminalisation and strongly oppose the amendments which are.

Other noble Lords have spoken about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fox. Thank you. Fox. Telemedicine Abortifacients available in Northern Ireland. It is not lawful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not lawful. My Lords, I. I wanted to sound really definitive when I started really definitive when I started and say I'm opposing amendment 44 in the in the name of Baroness in the in the name of Baroness Monckton and I want to. That would remove clause 208 and I oppose amendment 45 and four 260. However, good thing about this place is having listened to. Sorry, having listened to God now Baroness Wolf sorry Baroness Wolf of knowledge, I'm just going to say something so wonderful about you.

She made me really pause and think, and I think
22:16
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
that's what's really useful about this debate, which is, I am absolutely certain on some things, absolutely certain on some things, but I'm not quite sure about the tangle of amendments we face and all of the proposals that we've got. all of the proposals that we've got. So I'm going to carry on and say what a few of my concerns are. I wanted to just have a bit of wanted to just have a bit of context. Here in the UK, abortion is a safe, normal, common procedure.

is a safe, normal, common procedure. It is appreciated by women because it allows them a legal choice when facing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, whether to be on mother or not, then a decision that will alter the whole course of her life that her life will take, and the fact that a third of women in the UK will have a legal safe abortion at some point in their life, and the vast majority of those will be early shows how careful we've got to be here not to allow this rather fraught, heated, emotional debate to bring about any unintended barriers to that success story for women's freedom and rights.

And I am afraid that some of the well-meaning compromises that we've heard about tonight would likely do that. And I'm particularly worried about undermining the telemedicine and pills by post. I wanted to reflect a little on time limits, because many of us will receive the tsunami of emails and letters urging us to oppose clause 208, stressing emotively and factually, inaccurately, this clause will mean legalising abortion until birth, and that that amounts to state sanctioned killing of babies. As someone explained to me.

So to restate, I think we do have to restate for the public that the clause does not change the limits for abortion. There is still a 24 week abortion time limit. In fact, abortion itself remains a crime, just as it has been since 68. Unless very stringent conditions are met. And to stress any medical professional or anyone else who assists a woman getting an abortion beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks will be committing a serious crime and liable for prosecution.

But I think we've got to understand the public backlash, because there is unease about the whole issue of abortion until birth, about time limits per se, in fact. And we may as a society or indeed as a parliament, want to revisit the issue at some stage. For many, the 24 week legal time limit based on viability can feel too arbitrary, especially as surely I'd hope that we'd all want medical science to make great strides in allowing prematurely born babies to be kept alive ever earlier.

For those women who want their children. But for me, that shouldn't limit the rights of those women who don't want to proceed with their pregnancy. So there are real moral issues here about human life. Does human life start at conception of birth? All that old chestnut? And for those who stress that we focus on the unborn child, and we've heard a fair amount of that tonight when they're talking about the unborn child, when talking about more developed foetuses, isn't the heart that can be seen beating on an ultrasound scan at six weeks is just as much of an unborn child as one that beats five months later.

Is gestational growth a useful guide to the law? Is viability the best guide to making what makes us human? So such difficult discussions shouldn't be shied away from. And when you go out and talk to people in the public about what we're talking about tonight, they're talking about time limits and these kind of issues, and certainly the Academy of Ideas. And we work with young people. We consider it's our duty to organise such debates regularly to ensure that new generations rightly ask questions and hear all sides of the argument.

But clause 208 is not trying to relitigate the legal time limit debate. Even though I welcome the debate we've had here tonight, and I think it's important that we acknowledge why it's caused a furore. It removes the threat of criminalisation for a tiny number of women who, for whatever reason, have taken abortion pills to terminate their own pregnancy. But we have to be honest and say it brings a risk of abuse. I know that even though I'm actually supporting it, but the notion that decriminalisation would mean that women will gleefully go on a crime spree because it's decriminalised, suggesting that the only it's only the threat of prosecution that stops women from letting their pregnancy progress carelessly, just so they can inflict on themselves the horror of self-induced full term pregnancy seems far fetched and lacking in generosity.

Legal late abortions are not harmful, per se, as it happens. Certainly, they're not more harmful than coercing and an unwilling woman to endure a full term pregnancy and labour against her will. But it's also true that late abortions are undoubtedly gruelling for both patients and for clinicians, which is why the idea that any woman would choose that as an easy or casual option is far fetched, ludicrous, insulting. The earlier an abortion can be performed, the better it is for women.

And that's the reality of the perspective we need for this debate in 2022, the last year for which figures are available. Almost a quarter of a million women in England and Wales had abortion. Almost 90% of those were under ten weeks, and only 1% were at 20 weeks or over. So we're not talking about everybody having late abortions or queuing up to have them. The emergence of telemedicine has allowed even early abortion access. One of the few positives that emerged out of Covid 2020 and the lockdown.

Surely that whole period wasn't it changed the abortion regulations to allow medication in early pregnancy to be taken at home. And while it's easier, it's certainly not a free for all. It's not unregulated, this early medical abortion. But what it has and it's, you know, certainly no, it's not the same as in case people who have not understood this. It's not lax. It's not like getting some pharmacist to, OK, your access to Wegovy or Ozempic or anything, right? It remains regulated under the 67 act.

And the 67 act is a hyper regulated piece of legislation. It includes speaking to a doctor and so on. And the limit remains at ten weeks and nothing in clause 208 changes that. And what's positive about pills by post is that it cuts down on the dreaded waiting list times, which means that treatment can be earlier, and then insistence on face to face appointments. As some of the amendments suggest, will take earlier versions up in delay, which would undermine the success of 40% of abortions via Telemedical.

Methods are now performed at six weeks, versus 25% using traditional access methods. Now, finally, one of the arguments used against telemedicine is that it could lead to non-consensual, coerced abortions, abusive men, even abusive parents forcing young, vulnerable women to abort. And I was so glad to hear from the noble Lady Baroness Neate about the issue in relation to domestic abuse. Clause 208 does not change the law on this non-consensual, coerced abortion. Non-Consensual, coerced abortion at any gestation remains illegal and is a crime.

But it is key to note that since telemedicine became legal, there's been a major increase in safeguarding disclosures of especially young women who felt able to talk about being victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence precisely because they're doing it remotely. And actually, it's allowed abortion providers to offer invaluable pastoral intervention beyond abortion services. Actually, telemedicine also enables those vulnerable to coercion to avoid their abusers being involved in the deliberations about their desperate plight of being pregnant.

And just to finish with this, and I suppose to address the noble, the, the, the prelate, the noble prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, sorry, sorry is that I wanted to just say is that many young women, many young girls, children. I appreciate that from traditional religious communities. I mean, think of the young Catholic girl, the young Muslim girl, and so on and so forth. Those at risk of honour based violence, those kind of young people, they actually don't need to be asking their their dad to drop them round at the clinic so they can get advice, right? They sometimes dependent on other people.

And so they can then go with privacy and talk at their own chosen time and place without having to answer back to a parent or an abusive partner. In other words, telemedicine does offer privacy and can help women stay and keep safe. Sorry, I think that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. That was it. Follow, follow, follow, follow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follow, follow, follow, follow. Followed. Order. My Lords. All right. Can we just please take the temperature down? Please respect the clock. It is ten minutes to the clock. It is ten minutes to speak about contributions again with Gideon. But please take the temperature. There's no need for constant rush to people, so I don't constant rush to people, so I don't know if it was next, but we can speak. First. Then we'll come to believe. I would like to pick.
22:26
Baroness Gerada Portrait Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
-
-
Up some of the safeguarding issues, which I think have been mentioned in this House with respect to telemedicine. And just to put things in context, and I to put things in context, and I will be brief. I've been a GP now for nearly 40 years, and over the last five years have been conducting many remote consultations. Number one, you can assess safeguarding issues remotely. There was a paper published in 2025 to very, very recently on on young girls under 16.

More than 600 young girls were involved in this study. And what the study found was that 100% of the safeguarding issues, when some of these girls would then have to be seen face to face, were identified remotely. And I'd just like to read the conclusion of this, which is very short, requiring in-person adolescent consultation is associated with reduced access to medication abortion without enhancing safeguards. So we do want to work with evidence, and I would like to stress all these things.

You might think it's safer face to face, but the evidence shows that it isn't safer. It actually can make it more harmful. I'd also like to just pick up the issue. Well, the evidence is there. You either believe in evidence or anecdotes. The other issue is about ultrasound. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence does not recommend ultrasound for gestational age. Judging gestational age unless there are problems. So for example, if a woman's menstrual cycle is long or other issues.

So we have to again go by evidence, not what we think or feel or what we read in the papers or what we discuss with our friends. I'd also like to just say that about assessing competence in the younger children under 16. And I think Baroness Lawlor amendments about mental capacity. I'm sure you're aware, Baroness Lawlor, that you cannot use the Mental Capacity Act in the under 16. Therefore, your amendment, if it was passed, would If she had no mental capacity, which isn't used yet.

A 17 year old could use that. So it's a nonsense amendment in that respect. So I would just like the I fully support amendment 208, and I would urge the House on humane reasons, on competence capacity, but moreover, on evidence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support amendments and. My Lords, I'm speaking in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm speaking in support of amendments 424 tabled by Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Monckton, and 426 see table by the Monckton, and 426 see table by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, to both of which I put my name. I will be brief. I start by noting that despite the careful unpacking at Committee stage of the human and
22:29
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
Committee stage of the human and legal problems that clause 208 will create, no amendments have been put down that address them, and as we know, there have been no impact assessments, no public consultation. Though third party polling does show a very large majority opposed to abortion up to the point of birth. No efforts been made to gain insight into the extent to which the existing telemedicine scheme is abused, as its laxness means it must inevitably be, to some extent, the lack of real answers to the questions asked at Committee stage make it all too clear that the government intends to keep its eyes closed and its ears stoppered to shut out evidence of abuses.

And sadly, some, though not all, of the medical profession, also find it easier not to think about the lives of unborn children, no matter how close to birth. The status quo is therefore profoundly unsatisfactory and if passed, this clause will signal to all women that there's zero risk to them personally in abusing the telemedicine scheme or in procuring an illegal abortion another way. So, of course, abuses will increase. That is how humans respond to bad incentives. And each of these abuses is likely to mean that a viable child is killed with impunity.

But I do recognise that despite the obvious risks the clause introduces, it's tempting to support it, to feel good about yourself, to show that you're someone who really cares about women. But this does require suppressing all thoughts of children's lives. And the language of reproductive rights and of healthcare is used. But the word healthcare has actually lost all meaning. If it extends to a woman who is cynically killing a baby shortly before birth to suit her own convenience, or perhaps her family's preferences.

If abortion were merely healthcare, we would not have abortion law. The framing of healthcare, I'm afraid, conveniently spares people from facing the agonising moral conflicts involved in late abortion, and also from facing the consequence of bad policies. Those who used this language would prefer that the language that the cost in human lives goes unmentioned, they're not interested in, and they don't want to plan for the kind of serious monitoring that is needed to understand the brutal arithmetic that would reveal in future, if and when the price of being kind to women wanting late abortions is just too high.

And the Archbishop of Canterbury herself recognised this deficiency in her remarks. And we also know that the progressive urge always to find new frontiers at which one can prove one's superior compassion is never satisfied. And by the way, this is evident in many policy areas, not just abortion, and in many countries, not just in England. If this clause is enacted, it's obvious where the next push will come. We will be told by the same people that it is cruel for a woman in late pregnancy to have to abort on her own, without access to the full range of drugs and clinical procedures and without support, and that all of these must therefore be decriminalised, at which point we will have no abortion law at all.

That is why, as someone who broadly supports the current abortion law, I am nonetheless appalled by this clause. And if it stands, I believe that the mitigations offered by amendments 42, 45, 46, 46 C and 46 D represent the bare minimum of a framework of sensible control, and I'll add that decriminalisation and telemedicine simply should not co-exist. But as Baroness and as as as Baroness Wolff has so clearly explained, the case for clause 208 has simply not been made.

By far the best solution today will be to leave it out entirely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes my Lord, can I just. My Lords, can I just say for my noble friends, I was trying to come in. friends, I was trying to come in. It's going to come in shortly. Can I say that we've had a long debate on this here now. We've had a very long debate at Committee stage. I have begin to heard the call to the front benches. I do think this is a front benches. I do think this is a reminder that this is Report stage.

This is stage. We actually vote to make decisions. So do hope that we make decisions. So do hope that we can very quickly begin to move to have the front here from the front benches.
22:34
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
My Lord. My Lord, I'm very grateful that the that the noble grateful that the that the noble Lord, the the Chief Whip, will offer me the chance to speak for offer me the chance to speak for just for a couple of minutes only. I think it's very important for us to understand. We've always agreed that this is an expert house, and it helps to make sure legislation is best addressed by expertise where it can be. And I think one of the things in this debate that we perhaps might want to consider is that there are at least two members of this House who are both people who have given at least a hundred years in total to the management of people having terminations of pregnancy.

So we do know quite a lot about it. There are also a large number of people who haven't spoken, who are fellows of the Royal College of Gynecologists, who, of course, actually have been rather, I think, insulted by some of the things they've heard today, because I don't think they represent the views of most members. Having said that, I just want to say two things very simply. I firmly believe in decriminalization. And the reason why I think the first thing is this there's a great deal of misapprehension, as was just shown by the noble Lady, Baroness Spielman.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that you can't actually induce a pregnancy close to term. In fact, I'm sure that the noble Lord Patel would agree with me that it's virtually impossible to try and induce labour in a woman who doesn't have ruptured membranes at term with drugs. It just doesn't work. And in fact, both he and I, I think, would have been numerous times if I'm not wrong, have been faced with caesarean sections that we didn't want to do as being the only way we could, in fact, get a baby out of the womb when it was in danger because we could not use drugs to actually induce labour because they just don't work.

That's certainly the price for pills. But actually, even in a applies to drugs given intravenously. So I think it's very important to understand that therefore, termination of a pregnancy conducted by a woman herself will be an extremely rare event because in fact, it would be very, very difficult. And the idea that pills will work to do this, I think really is nonsensical. Moreover, we've heard a lot about pills, but very few people have told us. In fact, nobody's told us yet what pills they're talking about, because that actually is very important.

The hormones that are usually used in early pregnancy would not work in late pregnancy, and that's an important thing. The other thing I've already mentioned is that pretty well, all late terminations of pregnancy are done for very serious medical conditions. One of the commonest ones is where there's obviously an extremely deformed baby in the womb. I described this during the earliest stages of this bill, and I won't go go through this again. But it's clear very clearly medically, the indications for these late pregnancies are always very carefully, scrupulously observed.

They're not done lightly. And by the way, I should also add that, sadly, babies that are born much after 24 weeks still are very, very likely to be highly abnormal, even though, of course, people miscarry them often when they don't want to. But actually, sometimes it can be the very best thing that can happen because these babies will eventually die very early with very, very severe abnormalities. Recently, the Lord Patel, the Lord Patel chaired a committee on this very issue to try and how we could reduce the number of premature births.

And it's a big problem in medicine because of these, the risks of the babies when they're actually born after 24 weeks, 28 weeks, I shall say no more, except to say that I firmly believe that we should really try to understand this from the woman's point of view. No woman tries to interrupt her pregnancy with the slightest. With. Except with the deepest grief and the deepest, deepest happiness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. From the House is calling for the front benches. I think. Front bench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bench. Front bench, front bench, front bench. My Lords, we've heard the bench. My Lords, we've heard the arguments. Come on my my my Lord, my Lords, from my Lord. My Lords, I some difficulty, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well a very. Short intervention then. But I think we do need to then. But I think we do need to move on very quickly shortly onto the front benches. That's what the House wants, I believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords. For what this debate. Northern Ireland has been mentioned and yet
22:38
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
not one member from Northern Ireland has been allowed to speak. Until now. We have had to force the issue to be allowed to speak in this debate. Now, when the new abortion laws, the most liberal and extreme laws in the United Kingdom, were forced on Northern Ireland, few across this House really cared. The lobby for abortion in Northern Ireland was on the basis that women there had fewer rights than in England. Wales. Now that same lobby, are using the same arguments for a change in the law in England.

Wales. In the previous debate it was. It was suggested this would bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland. But that's misleading, as, crucially, Northern Ireland does not have pills by post. But I genuinely believe that even many of those who do support abortion know in their hearts that this is not the way to go about things at this hurried parliamentary process, the rewriting of one of the most sensitive and serious areas of criminal law is surely unworthy of our democracy, because a clause passed in the other house last summer was passed after 46 minutes of backbench debate.

Is that what our democracy has come to? If noble Lords think that this is a good idea, well, then why are they not prepared to allow public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny instead of rushing it through clause two? It means no justice for the death of a full term unborn child in even the most crudest circumstances. And I would ask supporters of clause two what would you do if a woman told you that she was taking abortion pills, perhaps obtained from the NHS provider via telemedicine and the 39th week of pregnancy, because she had changed her mind about having a child, what would your conscience say to you, knowing that you made that possible through the support of this legislation? We heard a great deal about unwelcomed investigations, but what do supporters of clause two think the police should do if they discovered the dead body of a 39 week old baby in a rubbish bin? The noble Lord Hogan-Howe explained at committee, stage investigations would often still be required, even if clause 208 passes, as police would need to investigate the circumstances.

If a deceased full term baby body is found away from a clinical setting, is that the option? The supporters of this clause to it really believe in my Lords. To conclude, I could give many reasons why I support amendments 4 to 5 and 4 to 6, but I'm not. Because of time, I'm not able to do so. But let us remember when we are talking about the life of an unborn child. We're not talking about an IT, but a real living person with the expectation of being born, being protected by a caring and loving society and held in loving arms.

I don't think that's too much for a child to ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or expect. Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. From now we need to move on to the Frontbenches now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Frontbenches now. Frontbenches are that I'm the first speaker from these benches and I. For us, this is a matter and I. For us, this is a matter which is a matter of conscience and it is not. My friend, my noble friend, Baroness Smith of Newnham friend, Baroness Smith of Newnham has not had the opportunity to speak. She disagrees with me. She is supportive of the other side, and she wished me to mention that she's been contacted by a young student called Lily, who I think has contacted a number of other peers to say that they share her point of view, and I hope that Lily will hope that unbiased Newman will hope that we have acknowledged their sincerely held views, which are very.

Which I know are very different to mine. My Lords, my. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. Oh, come on, my Lord. Baroness Smith has been trying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Smith has been trying to speak, and I have been trying to speak. The noble Baroness is. She does have an amendment down, but, does have an amendment down, but, my Lords, it is not good enough that we are being silenced at a time when the House is being asked. time when the House is being asked. We are being silenced when the House is being asked to vote, to approve something which has not approve something which has not been properly discussed, explored or the consequences have not been fully considered, it is not good.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is amendment 423A, which other noble Lords have have signed? other noble Lords have have signed? It is to ask that this the prosecution cease and desist, and the reason for it is that we have the reason for it is that we have uncovered over these past few months that different police forces are taking entirely different are taking entirely different approaches under the current law, and that women and health professionals do not know where professionals do not know where they stand.

And I also would refer to the for refer to the speech of Lord Hogan-Howe and to the speech of the. Our noble colleague, who is the chair of the College of Policing, about the fact that there is a need for there to be a clear policy direction from government, from from Parliament, in order that we can make sure that we have a consistent approach throughout the medical profession and throughout policing. I also would question some of the statistics that people have put forward, and I listened to the noble Baroness Falkner of Margravine, and I think what didn't come across from her statistics that she said very few numbers of actual prosecutions.

But for every prosecution, we know that ten women are arrested and subjected to very lengthy investigations. And that's in part why this, this, this, this
22:45
Baroness Barker Portrait Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
clause has, has come about. I would like to thank all noble Lords who came along to the many briefings which were put on by the Royal which were put on by the Royal Colleges. Now, I particularly like to thank those colleagues, those peers who came along with searching questions and who listened to what the professionals had to say, not really searching questions. And they helped me, apart from anything else, to sort out what I think are the two major issues and the two major reasons why we should have, we should have, we should have.

Clause 208. It's it's goes back to 1961. And that decision to decriminalise suicide then as now, there had been years of debate on a very, very contentious subject. There had been big debate within the churches, and people wrestled with very, very profound thoughts. And at the end of the day, they came to a decision that it was the right thing to do to decriminalise suicide. The when we were discussing this matter at at Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Baroness Butler-sloss, as ever, raised the key question what are we.

What, what. What will happen if we don't continue to criminalize women who do this? We actually have two lots of evidence that we can point to. One line of evidence goes back to what happened after 1961. There was no significant increase in this country in suicide. It. Noble Baroness Baroness Wall said, when you change the law, you change the behaviour, but the evidence for that is not there. We also have the evidence from those different jurisdictions everywhere, from New Zealand to the state of Texas, where they have decriminalised abortion.

There has been no significant increase. There are still desperate people, a very few desperate people who will do something that none of us can actually contemplate. And the reason why we and the range of professionals have come forward with this measure is to make sure that those desperate people get into contact with the medical professions, and they don't wind up in the criminal justice system where no good comes to them or to anybody else. And that takes me to a point that Lord Hogan-Howe made.

His speech at Committee stage has been referenced quite a lot, and he talked extensively about if a police officer comes across a situation in which there is a woman and there is a dead child, they have to secure this as a crime scene. They have to go and make sure that they go the correct prosecutions. Now, that would be plausible if that's what a police officer always did in every case where they believed that a crime had taken place. But they don't.

Taking class A drugs is a crime. If a police officer shows up and somebody has overdosed, they do not do that. They work with the medical profession to try and make sure that that person gets the right care and attention, in the hope that they can stop it from happening again. And that is what every professional that we have spoken to, and they've spoken to lots of you over the last few months, has said, I say to the noble Lord, the bishop, I do not for one moment doubt his intentions in what he's saying.

But when the professionals sit there and say they won't come, they just won't come. They won't come and talk to us. And if we can't do it on the phone, we'll never get to them and we'll never be able to help them. When other professionals tell us yes, we can tell when somebody's being being trafficked. We can tell when somebody is being coerced. We found them through telemedicine. Then I'm afraid I can't support his amendment, no matter the great intention behind it.

The noble Baroness, Baroness Wolf, said that her amendment was necessary to have a compromise and because there were, she cited a number of cases in which men had would be prosecuted. Men had been prosecuted. Well, those men who had coerced women would still be prosecuted under clause 208. So, my friend, her argument falls, people who, like me have worked hard and we have worked hard for about ten years to raise these issues. And please do not insult the House of Commons.

They have. They have debated bills from other MPs over time, and they have given this quite considerable consideration. And you know what? They get postbags too. They're not they're not immune to them. They took that decision because they listened to the advice of the professionals, and they listened to the evidence that we have been able to gather over a long time and a number of different places. And they did it to protect women. They stood up for women, and it's time for us to do the same.
22:50
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. Very good. My Lords. >> Once again, we have had a full and passionate debate on a matter of the utmost significance. And it of the utmost significance. And it is apparent from both deliberations at Committee stage and again today that views on this matter are deeply and sincerely held across your Lordships House. A wide range of points have been raised by noble Lords. Let us just consider a variety of them. We've heard about issues around how police investigate cases, about the interaction of telemedicine and criminal investigation, about the potential for women to face coercion, about issues of safeguarding of younger women, issues of domestic abuse issues, to name but a few mentioned tonight.

A lot of ground has not yet been covered. Other noble Lords have not yet spoken or have wanted to speak, but not been able to. And what this tells us is that the matter is very far from settled. Plainly, some of noble Lords concerns have not been allayed. And this brings me back to the point I made at committee. This clause has not received anything like adequate scrutiny, and it is true that we now have had in your Lordships House several hours of debate on this matter.

But the point I made before still stands. It's a matter of procedure, not substance, but in the other place, this clause was only considered for 46 minutes of backbench debate. No parliamentary committee has been able to seek views and take evidence, and if ever there is the need for a parliamentary committee to take evidence on a policy, this is it. We need to hear from and test the views of the police, the CPS, of doctors, of obstetricians of Safeguards and, if possible, of women.

Most importantly, all their representatives and advocates. This policy was not in the government's election manifesto. It has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, public consultation or an impact assessment. And I think noble Baroness Lady O'loan put it very well at committee when she said the clause was passed, I quote in the other place, following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of of its impact. My Lords, changes to the law of abortion are and remain issues of conscience.

The opposition does not and will not take an official position on the substance of the clause. There is a multitude of views in my own party, and the issue is in the hands of your Lordships House as a matter of conscience. But that does not mean. That does not mean we are released from our duty to undertake due diligence and rigorous interrogation of the consequences of changing the social law of this country. And the truth is, whatever one thinks of the substance of the issue itself, this clause has been tacked on to the side of a crime and policing Bill when it should not have been.

My Lords, that is no way to make law.
22:54
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'll be as brief as I can. I'm going to start, as I did at Committee stage, by reiterating that the government maintains a neutral stance on abortion in neutral stance on abortion in England and Wales, as many of the amendments in this group are similar or identical to those tabled at Committee stage. So save in very few cases, I shall not repeat the government's assessment of their workability. And what this means is if I do not explicitly mention an amendment, that's either because there are no workability issues or because I set them out fully at Committee stage.

As a shorthand, I'm going to refer to conduct, which comes within sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act and the Infant Life Preservation Act, as collectively as abortion offences. I begin with New Amendment 423ZA tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Lawler. It's unclear how this amendment is intended to work in practice. In particular, which party would bear the burden of establishing a lack of mental capacity and what the standard of proof would be. And thus it's possible that this would create confusion for practitioners.

Your Lordships may also wish to note that the law already takes account of defendants understanding of their actions in various ways, so it's unclear how this amendment is intended to interact with well-established criminal law principles. I turn to amendment 422E tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Falkner Margravine. This amendment is similar to that table by the noble Lord Lord at Committee stage, but it does contain an additional requirement that a prosecution cannot be brought any later than 12 months from the date of the alleged offence.

Your Lordships will be aware that other than for summary only offences, there is almost without exception, no statutory time limit for prosecuting criminal offences in England and Wales. And the reason for that is that evidence may emerge over several years. So a limitation period would remove the ability to prosecute in cases where evidence of guilt came to light much later on. And so the introduction of a limitation period may lead to differences in outcome depending on what evidence. When evidence becomes available, the complexity of the case and the resources of investigating and prosecuting authorities.

Amendment 423 in the name of the noble Viscount Viscount Hailsham, is similar to the one the Noble Viscount tabled at Committee stage, but it does differ in three respects. It broadens the scope of the specified defences it makes provision for. For who must bear the burden of proof in relation to those defences, and it introduces additional provisions relating to police investigations. In relation to the workability concerns I raised at Committee stage. For the second and third of these differences, there are some further issues in relation to the burden of proof.

The drafting is ambiguous. If the intention is that the defendant should bear the evidential burden, then clarification would be needed in relation to the new provisions for police investigations. Your Lordships may wish to note that decisions as to whether to initiate an investigation, and the scope of such an investigation are currently operational matters for the police. Turning to amendment 423A tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Barker. This amendment, also similar to one tabled at Committee stage. And whilst the government remains neutral on changing the criminal law, it is important that investigations into other offences such as murder, manslaughter or infanticide under the Infanticide Act are still carried out.

These offences would continue to be investigated by the police and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. If the test for prosecution is met, your Lordships may wish to note that this amendment is likely to trigger a review of any live investigations and prosecutions, but we would not expect this to carry any significant resourcing implications. Turning to amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Wolf of Dulwich. This again is similar to an amendment tabled at Committee stage. May be helpful if I remind your Lordships of the point that I made then, namely, that the proposed new offence is not limited to obtaining abortifacient drugs for use in the termination of a pregnancy.

Abortifacient drugs are not defined in legislation and are also used for non-abortion related purposes. In addition, further amendments would be needed to clarify whether the offence is one that is to be triable either way, whether the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment should be the same as that on summary conviction, and whether the maximum penalty in magistrates court should align with their general powers, which update automatically should the limits on their sentencing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers change in the future. Wishes to intervene. Lady, for taking the intervention, and I'd be grateful for clarification as to whether the government has considered its own government has considered its own enquiries at the moment into the grooming gangs. There was evidence there and I quote that victims and there and I quote that victims and survivors were critical about how easy it is to obtain contraception easy it is to obtain contraception or abortion services without appropriate questions being asked.

That this evidence has been relied upon consistently at committee and Report stage. And yet there are those concerns. And has the government looked at that? Secondly, in relation to the case that I mentioned at committee, which contradicts much of what has been said, forgive my voice. The comments of His Honour. Mr. Justice Cooke in Leeds Crown Court. In the case of Sarah Cat, very clearly state that this was a cold and calculated decision that she took for her own convenience and for her own self-interest, and she took pills at 39 weeks and gave birth.

And it seems she never revealed where the body was. She had a history of deceit and concealment. That is in the judgement of Leeds Crown Court. So has the government considered, and also in relation to other amendments about pardons, that this was conduct not of a victim, but of a woman who perpetrated a crime? Finally, in relation to the clarification, she it's a crime. It's a crime. It's she was given eight years in prison for that that. And the question in relation to the offences that the judge also considered of murder, manslaughter, infanticide.

And I did email the noble Lady, the Minister, in relation to the clarification I asked for at committee, was in relation to guidance being given to emergency services, who may come across a situation like that outlined in circa, and what is their obligation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the woman and the child? Yeah. I thank the noble Lady for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for the points that she makes, and I'm sure that those are ones that your Lordships House will want to take into account when deciding whether into account when deciding whether or not, as a matter of policy, to vote for or against the various amendments, I would remind the noble Lady, these are not government amendments. Government is neutral, but I am sure that everyone in your Lordships House everyone in your Lordships House has heard them and will take them into account in various ways.

My Lords, turning to amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Stroud, this amendment is identical to one tabled at Committee stage. I raised at that stage the government's concerns about workability and operational difficulties, and they remain. In short, the effect of amendment 45 might be to reduce access to early medical abortion due to resource constraints on the ability of abortion providers to hold in-person consultations. I turn now to A426D table by the right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester.

This amendment is new, but it carries similar possible operational effects to those I set out at Committee stage in relation to amendment 45, about which I spoke a moment ago. This new clause in 426D may have a detrimental impact on abortion provision and access for under 18 year olds, including those who live in remote areas or who have difficulties in attending a clinic. It should also be noted that it is unclear whether this amendment would require under 18 to have all consultations face to face, including any initial contact with the service.

If so, this would further increase the workability concerns, including resourcing constraints on providers and access to abortion provision for young people. Finally, amendment 46 B in the name of my noble friend Baroness Thornton. Once again, this is very similar to one tabled at Committee stage. The duty on the Secretary of State as drafted poses substantial operational and resourcing implications. There is no centrally held record of women who have been convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for or investigated on suspicion of abortion offences and therefore the Secretary of State will be unable to comply with the duty to direct the specified bodies to delete such details from records.

If this is the will of Parliament, then consideration will need to be given to how to deliver the objectives of this amendment in a way that's operationally workable.
23:03
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Portrait Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I first of all appreciate that the hour is late and that there have been very charged emotions expressed, so I don't intend to delay the House with a long, long response. I simply want to point out that for those members who aren't familiar with the companion, and were surprised that so many of us didn't take interventions, it was not due to any lack of respect for their positions. And the companion says at 4.29, that a member may justifiably refuse to give way, particularly when proceedings are time limited.

And I just wanted to make that clear. I have heard what the noble Lady the Minister has said about amendment 422. E and I will go in and consider that this was meant to be a compromise, and I know that members want to get to other substantive amendments. I therefore do not wish to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's no Baroness withdrawing the amendment with. Are you with. Yes, yes. The question is that this amendment be withdrawn. As many as amendment be withdrawn. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 423 The contents have it. Amendment 423 Viscount Hailsham not moved amendment 423ZA Baroness Lola not amendment 423ZA Baroness Lola not moved amendment 423A Baroness Barker not moved amendment 424 Baroness Monckton of Downton Forest I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate.

I've listened to opinions from across the House, but I'm not satisfied that the mother or the unborn baby are protected and I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House. The question is that amendment 424 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The question will be decided by a division, and I will advise the House and voting is open. My Lords voting is now open. Clear
23:05
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is The question is amendment 44 B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content contrary, not content contents will go to the right by the throne and not content to the the throne and not content to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The question is amendment 44 B My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have voted. Contents 148 not contents voted. Contents 148 not contents Amendment Amendment 425 Amendment 425 Baroness Amendment 425 Baroness Stroud Amendment 425 Baroness Stroud I Amendment 425 Baroness Stroud I beg to move. The question is, is amendment 45 B agreed to as many as are of that opinion will say content.

Content the contrary, not content. The question will be decided by a division and I will advise. The House on. Voting is advise. The House on. Voting is open. My Lords voting is now open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The question is, is amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

425B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne and not content The My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted contents 119 not contents 191 so contents 119 not contents 191 so the not contents have it. The order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 46 will be Paddington

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. To assist the house. We now should be moving on to amendment should be moving on to amendment 426A on assisted dying that my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I understand my noble Thoroton, I understand my noble friend only tabled the amendment in order to get a response. Response from the government. He's got no intention of dividing the House tonight. And of course, can I suggest that House that we allow that to happen and we do not have a prolonged debate tonight? We've had a number of days on that.

And then and then we've had the response to the Minister. There were then we can get back on to could potentially there's three more votes on the on this group. I think the House would want to vote. And if the House chooses to divide. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if we can have that, I think that'd everybody. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Amendment 46 a Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I'm obliged. Assisted dying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm obliged. Assisted dying feels quite Pacific by comparison with the. Debate.
23:29
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Portrait Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
-
-
>> We've just had. This is my amendment, which I don't intend to move. It's the product of discussions with the BMA. It was discussions with the BMA. It was laid. It was tabled at committee in my name and the name of the Baroness Finlay of Llandaff. It was withdrawn at committee because the Isle of Man, which has passed an act to deal with the dying, said they didn't want it to be put down before there had been discussions with them. There have now been discussions between the BMA and the Isle of Man and their content.

For it to be put down. What this amendment seeks to do is to provide protections for doctors with patients who live in the Isle of Man or Jersey, where assisted dying bills have been passed but have not yet received the Royal Assent. It's common, for example, for those resident. For some people, residents of the Isle of Man to have doctors in the north west of England, those doctors may well, for example, give a diagnosis or prognosis in writing, which might then be used in an assisted dying process in accordance with the laws in those two other jurisdictions.

What the bill, what the draft amendment 426A does is say that if a doctor does such a thing and they are participating in a process which is strictly in accordance with the law of Jersey or the Isle of Man, and the wording is in Scotland or the Crown dependencies, and obviously Scotland have voted against assisted dying yesterday. But the principle is that if you are acting in accordance with the law, either in one of the jurisdictions or in one of the Crown dependencies, you shan't.

If you are a doctor, be breaking the law. In this country. I have had, I've had I've had no. Let me finish, I think I think the house of you could, could, could I, could I finish my explanation then here from the from the Minister and then take it from there? I've had a very useful discussion with the government Minister, who said that the government took the view that the amendment was premature before Royal Assent in relation to the two jurisdictions, and I accept that she said that once Royal Assent was given, then government would consult with Jersey and the Isle of Man, government and other relevant parties about what the government would then do.

They gave no commitment as to what the government would do, but I am content with that approach. There will obviously be some degree of urgency, depending on how long it will take for the other jurisdictions to introduce the assisted dying. But if the Minister were to confirm that that was the position she that's what she explained to me then I would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content with that explanation. Now the Baroness coffee. I just want to clarify. I didn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to clarify. I didn't quite hear at the start. Can I just confirm this amendment wasn't tabled at the request of the Isle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tabled at the request of the Isle of Man government? OK. Thank you. It was it was it was tabled after discussions with the BMA by myself and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, and it was withdrawn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Llandaff, and it was withdrawn because the Isle of Man government wanted more consultation with. Them. After clause 208, insert the following new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. Explain. No. OK.
23:33
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
If. think it might be helpful if I set out what the government's position is and then perhaps we can take it from there. If the noble Lady is from there. If the noble Lady is prepared to give way to me at this stage. My Lords, the government has some workability in drafting concerns about the noble and learned Lords amendment, but I'm going to focus on the central issue so that the House knows what the government's position is. Whilst the government remains neutral on the overall issue, we do recognise that in the event that is, that assisted dying regimes are implemented in different parts of the UK and the crown dependencies.

This could create practical issues for those in one jurisdiction who are involved in some way in the lawful assisted death of a person in another jurisdiction. But I, I can support what the. My noble and learned friend says that the government considers it premature to legislate on this issue, because we do not yet know whether assisted dying will become lawful in the various jurisdictions, nor what the final form of any such regimes might be, or how or when they would be implemented.

Legislating now in this unique way to amend the criminal law in England and Wales without clarity about these frameworks risks unintended consequences. But the government does not rule out in due course that processes may be agreed between the jurisdictions or, if necessary, future legislation placed before this House and potentially in other parliaments to achieve these aims.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. I'm grateful to the noble Minister for that indication. And on the basis of indication. And on the basis of that indication, I'm happy to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your Lordship's pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 426B, Baroness Thornton. My Lords, I am very tempted to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ask that this to move this amendment, but I know that it's. Defective because my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Defective because my noble friend has said that. But it is the only opportunity we have to address only opportunity we have to address this issue. So I think and now that this issue. So I think and now that we have agreed as a House to keep the to keep the clause in the bill, if if I moved it, it would need to be dealt with by the government between now and Third Reading. So I would like to move my amendment.

OK.
23:35
None Portrait Division
-

The question is amendment 426B >> The question is amendment 426B be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. Content not content. The question will be decided by division and I will advise the House when voting is over.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. My Lords voting is now open. Question. Question. The question is that amendment 426B be agreed to. As many as are of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. Not content. Contents will go to the right by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contents will go to the right by the throne and the not contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. My Lords. The My Lords. The question My Lords. The question is My Lords. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that Tenants Tenants 180, Tenants 180, not Tenants 180, not contents Tenants 180, not contents 58. Tenants 180, not contents 58. So Tenants 180, not contents 58. So the contents have it. Amendment amendment 426 C Baroness Wolf of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dulwich. Grateful to. The Minister for her. Comments and indeed to everybody.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comments and indeed to everybody. Who was engaged. In the debate. I completely accept that an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely accept that an abortifacient is a drug that can be used for other things. Not sure what it has to do with my amendment, what it has to do with my amendment, which is to do with false representation. And I do think that representation. And I do think that for all the reasons that I spoke about, the fact that we are actually throwing a bit of a bomb into a changing world rather than a tiny little change, I do think that tiny little change, I do think that this would be helpful, and I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

of the House.
23:46
23:57
00:01
00:08
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
They They have They have voted. They have voted. Contents 68 not contents 163. So Contents 68 not contents 163. So the not contents have it. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

427 Lord Clement Jones. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 427 and to speak to amendments four, two, eight, four, two nine and 445, all of which stand in my name and that of my noble friend, Baroness Doocey. And my Lords, I return to the question of the governance of international law enforcement data sharing agreements under clauses one, nine, 2 to 1 nine four. And my Lords, can I make a radical suggestion to save time this evening? Given this is somewhat of a minority sport in this context, that the Minister that I make a few points showing the Minister the error of his ways and he briefly responds and then writes afterwards, my Lords, I think that would be an efficient use of our time.

My Lords in Committee, the Minister, Lord Katz, comprehensively rejected my calls for enhanced protective measures and privacy impact assessment. He argued that existing data protection laws for UK, GDPR and the DPA 2018 were sufficient, rendering my amendments duplicative and unnecessary. But since the passage of the Data Use and Access Act 2025, the statutory threshold for overseas data transfers has been lowered from essentially equivalent in quotes to merely not materially lower in quotes. The European Data Protection Board has explicitly warned that this new standard omits vital safeguards against foreign government access.

The safety net the Minister relies on has giant holes in it. My Lords, these amendments seek to place vital statutory guardrails around the powers granted in clause 208, which allow the UK to implement international law enforcement information sharing agreements via secondary legislation. Throughout the passage of this bill, we have returned to a fundamental principle. We cannot allow technological or administrative deployment to race ahead of the rule of law. Amendment 427 requires that when regulations under this clause involve highly sensitive personal data, including biometric, genetic or health data, they must be accompanied by enhanced protective measures.

Amendment 428 mandates a privacy impact assessment before such regulations are made in committee. The Minister suggested that existing data protection law already provides these safeguards. But my Lords, the government, in simultaneously moving to simplify those and dilute those very protections in the data Use and Access bill. My Lords, if we're to transfer the sensitive biometric identities of UK citizens to international partners, the requirement for a Pia should not be a matter of ministerial discretion. It should be a statutory obligation.

On the face of the bill. Amendment 429 requires an annual report to be laid before Parliament on the volume and categories of information shared under these agreements. The Minister's response in committee was that this would be unnecessary bureaucracy. My Lords, transparency is crucial for public trust. This is a lesson we should have learnt from the Post Office horizon scandal and the discussions surrounding live facial recognition. Without a clear yearly account of where our citizens data is going, Parliament is essentially signing a blank check for international surveillance.

And this is not just a matter of civil liberties, it's a matter of economic security. Any perception that the UK is lowering its standards for international data transfers puts our EU data adequacy adequacy status at grave risk. Transparency is not a burden. It's a prerequisite for our digital economy. Finally, amendment 445 requires that all regulations made under clause 209 be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Currently, the bill heavily on the negative procedures given these agreements, while sharing data with jurisdictions that lack effective redress or equivalent privacy protections.

The negative procedure is essentially an insult to the standard of scrutiny required. If an agreement is important enough to share the data of millions, it is important enough to be debated and approved by both houses. My Lords, on these benches, we support the principle of effective international cooperation to stop serious crime. But we reject the idea that efficiency must come at the expense of accountability, and these amendments provide the teeth that the current drafting lacks. They ensure that we do not sleep, walk into a surveillance society by exporting our data without a clear statutory audit trail.

I urge the Minister to accept these modest evidence based safeguards.
00:13
00:14
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I welcome the the novel approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as well Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as well as for him detailing the amendments that we previously discussed at Committee, and I will follow his. I'll follow his lead and certainly the lead of the. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as well. And and try and be brief, and I will. So I won't be regurgitating points made at committee, although I look forward to trying to see if I set up.

Made the same stance as I did at Committee of performing as. In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones parliamentary jujitsu. In coming to the position that he wasn't entirely keen on. I just want to lay out very, very briefly, and I'll be very happy to write some more detail in relevant to address the detail and all the amendments. But I want to say that these measures are vital to provide law enforcement officers with access to new intelligence to fight crime, increase public protection and reduce the threat of societal harm posed by international criminality.

The government is committed to maintaining high data protection standards and ensuring privacy is not compromised. As we strengthen cross-border security. The proposed requirements in these amendments may duplicate established processes rather than add transparency or value. There is significant risk posed by these amendments that such regulations become burdensome, and I know that's what I said at Committee stage, but I was I stand by that and resource intensive to to a degree where they become unusable in practice, I as we both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cameron touched on international data transfer.

I would just want to say that the government's proud of our exceptionally high data protection standards that we maintain, and I agree with the noble Lords that we must ensure data is properly protected when it's transferred outside UK borders, which is why I've upheld the relevant safeguards in our international transfer regime, as amended by the Data Use and Access Act 2025. I strongly refute any suggestion with no protections. The Data Protection Act, as amended by the Data Access Act, will provide the necessary safeguards not only assure Parliament but importantly, offer certainty to the public of the protection of their data rights.

Strict statutory requirements already exist in UK law to protect data when it's transferred internationally, including ensuring an appropriate level of protection in recipient country. Regulations made under clause 209 must be in accordance with the UK Data Protection Act and I know during Committee stage the noble Lord raised concerns about the Data Use and Access Act and that he spoke passionately about it during the passage of the bill. That bill, I just want to say to try and reassure him again when transfers are based on adequacy.

As part of the assessment, Secretary of State must determine that level of protection guarantee to the data is not materially lower than the standards we uphold here in the UK. That assessment must consider respect for the rule of law and human rights, the strength of its data protection authorities, the availability of redress for individuals and its wider legal and constitutional safeguards. And the Secretary of State may also consider any other matter he or she deems relevant in the interests of time and taking into consideration noble law, the noble Lords lead in trying.

Trying to be brief, I will I will rest my case there. I certainly undertake to write to him with some more detail to address the concerns raised by some of his. In. In the rest of his amendments, I hope I haven't taken two panglossian an approach, as he criticized me for last time at committee, but with that I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
00:17
00:18
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
I tabled amendment 429ZA, which >> I tabled amendment 429ZA, which seeks to leave out clause 212 212 of the bill and I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for adding their names to this amendment. To leave that clause out, clause 212 addresses situations where a person has been convicted in their absence in a foreign court and their extradition is sued by the country in question. Under the current section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, the key question for our courts in deciding whether to grant extradition is whether the person deliberately absented themselves from their original trial, waived their right to be present at that trial, or were properly represented in their absence by a lawyer, meaning that a retrial in the other country is unnecessary.

In those circumstances, conviction in absence does not by itself prevent extradition. However, if none of those questions can be answered in the affirmative by our courts, then extradition is refused unless the person has an absolute and unconditional right to a retrial. After being extradited, the Supreme Court, in a case called urticaria in 2024, confirmed that these key questions on whether the person has a right to a retrial in the country in question must be decided by our courts, not foreign courts.

Therefore, if our courts have decided that the person did not deliberately absent themselves, waive their rights to be present at the original trial or were not properly represented, then their entitlement to a retrial must not be dependent on any contingency to be resolved by the foreign court, such as reopening any of those questions, they said. The Supreme Court at paragraph 54, and I quote, the requested person has a right to a retrial on return, rather than being entitled to apply for a retrial.

And this is consistent with the right of a criminal defendant to be present at trial, as guaranteed by article six of the EC, construing section 20 of the 2003 act, as requiring our courts to decide whether there is a right to a retrial is consistent with the UK's obligation to avoid a flagrant denial of justice, which would render the criminal proceedings manifestly contrary to the provisions of article six of the EC. In his letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Brighton, which arrived earlier today, the noble Lord, the Minister states the exact opposite.

He says clause 212 ensures that where our courts have found the person did not deliberately absent themselves. And I quote from his letter, extradition can proceed if the person has the right to request a retrial on return, subject to the domestic court finding they did not deliberately absent themselves. Rather than requiring the requesting state to provide an unconditional right to a retrial. So the Supreme Court expressly said it must be an unconditional right. And the noble Lord, the Minister says it can be a conditional right.

That can only mean the Home Office have concluded that the Supreme Court got it wrong. On the potential for a breach of article six, which is, with respect, courageous, as Sir Humphrey would say. In fact, it's doubly courageous since the Supreme Court also confirmed at paragraph 53 of their ruling that what is now the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, previously, the Framework Directive requires a right to a retrial, not a mere opportunity to apply for a retrial. The upshot is that under clause 212, our courts may have decided that the person did not deliberately absent themselves, for example, because they had not been informed of the proceedings, as was the case in Motokiyo, and are therefore entitled to a retrial.

But the Foreign court. But the foreign court could then take a different view and deny the person a retrial on their return. Similarly, clause 212 would provide that if the person had been legally represented in their absence, then they are deemed to have been present when convicted, even if they had had no contact with the lawyer and given them no instructions. Again, as happened in Mercurio, the person would again be denied a retrial. Clause 212 does not say that legally represented has to mean mandated or instructed by the person facing extradition.

It simply refers to being legally represented. And in Mercurio, the Romanian authorities appointed a public defender and considered he had therefore been legally represented, even though he had had no contact with that public defender. The Home Office has said that there are other protections in the 2003 acts, such as a general human rights assessment under section 21, to prevent any injustice, but this argument seems to be an acceptance that clause 212 is defective, but can be remedied later, and it would leave clause 212 on the statute book, even though it is plainly incompatible with article six.

In conclusion, my Lords, clause 212 is incompatible with our highest court's ruling that the current law is necessary in order to comply with article six. It should be our courts having the final decision on whether a person has a right to a retrial in order to avoid the, quote, flagrant denial of justice. The Supreme Court referred to. If our courts decide the person was convicted in their absence through no fault of their own, then they will have had no opportunity to defend themselves.

In those circumstances, the foreign country must guarantee an absolute and unconditional right to a retrial. If they cannot do so, the person should not be extradited. This is what the 2003 act currently requires, so as to ensure adequate protection of article six rights clause 212 would remove that protection and therefore that clause must itself be removed. I beg to move.
00:24
00:25
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
I thank. >> The noble Lord, Lord Carter, for me, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. I will not detain the house for long, since, as I the house for long, since, as I said, we have already heard two very powerful. Oh, we've certainly heard one very powerful. Elucidation as to why clause two and two should be removed from the bill. In essence, my concern is that this clause grants a foreign court a greater say in whether or not a British citizen should be extradited, where a person is convicted in absentia and they did not deliberately present themselves to the trial.

That is to say, they were convicted without their knowledge. Currently, the British judge at the extradition hearing has to decide if he if the person would receive a retrial, should they be extradited. This is absolutely right. If a person is convicted without their knowing, they have been convicted and without their having been faced with the charges in person and able to defend themselves, they have not received a fair trial. Now, the Extradition Act 2003, therefore, places the decision as to whether a fair trial can take place firmly in the hands of British judges.

This has been strengthened by the Supreme Court's ruling in Malta and Romania, where the court rules that the entitlement to a retrial must be a guaranteed right, not a conditional one. Essentially, the person must be entitled rather than might be entitled to a retrial should they be extradited. And clause 212 undoes this, it would mean that the British judge would have to order a person's extradition on the simple assertion by the questioning country that the person could be permitted to stand trial in person, regardless of whether that is actually true or not.

And this place is more powers over the extradition of British citizens in the hands of foreign courts and not our own courts. And it does not guarantee that British citizens will receive the right to a fair trial. So at committee, the noble Lord, the Minister, stated that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Extradition Act as requiring a guaranteed trial is somehow problematic because that is something some states cannot offer. He then said without this fix, certain legitimate extradition requests could be blocked.

So I have to say to the Minister, if a foreign country cannot guarantee that a British citizen will be entitled to a fair trial, then we should not be extraditing them to that country. And if they cannot guarantee it, then the request for extradition should be denied by the court. And for these reasons, I'm firmly supportive of the noble Lord Lord Carter's amendment to remove the clause from the bill and should he press it to a division, we will support him.
00:27
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm tempted to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, by saying, Lady, Baroness Brinton, by saying, I hope to keep the clause in. And I have signed a compatibility agreement with the Human Rights Act, but I suspect the noble Lord Carter of Hazelmere will want me to say something more than that, but I will try and answer as best I can the points that have been raised by the three noble Lords that have spoken in the debate today, they will know I did meet with them.

I have written to them. I have explained the committee, the government's view. I have tried to assure them that the government's view is compatible with the points that they have raised. But I shall repeat those points again today. And if the noble Lord is not satisfied, then he can make his judgement accordingly on those issues at Committee stage. Noble Lords did raise some concerns. I have had discussions since then. Clause 212 concerns the question of what happens when a UK court has already found that the requested person did not deliberately absent themselves from trial in the requesting state? In those circumstances, the clause ensures that extradition can proceed where a person has the right to retrial, subject to the domestic court finding they did not deliberately upset themselves.

Rather than requiring the requesting state to provide an unconditional right of retrial. In every case, I say to all three noble Lords, this will not change. UK courts still requiring the requesting state to show that they are legally prescribed and non-discretionary rights to retrial available to the requested person. And as in the cases that have been raised in committee and indeed this evening, including when I was a member of Parliament, my own constituent, then, Mr. Wright, it will remain the situation that if the requesting state has already, at the time of UK extradition proceedings, determined that the appeal rights are, in effect exhausted, then the requested person should be discharged.

Now I also say to the noble Lord Carter of Hazelmere, particularly that the government does take its responsibilities towards the requested person extremely seriously. UK courts have robust powers under the Extradition Act 2003 to scrutinise and refuse any request that is incompatible with the right to a fair trial and in a specific case, if there are concerns that the requested person has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of justice, then the UK judge will scrutinize the case in hand and consider whether extradition would be compatible with the person's requested article six convention rights.

And there is no question of a UK court not being able to fully consider whether the requested person is being extradited in circumstances incompatible with their article six rights. I also want to be clear that the measure does not, and this is an important point that the noble Lord has mentioned, does not deem that an individual has been present at their trial simply because a lawyer was appointed for them, legally represented. I put that in inverted commas, for the House as a whole retains its ordinary meaning, requiring a mandate or instructions to be given.

So a court appointed lawyer, acting without the person's knowledge, will continue to mean that they have not been legally represented. Inverted commas in terms of extradition law. And to be clear, and I hope this makes this clear, this means that in situations where the requested person has had a lawyer appointed by the foreign court, but has not given that lawyer a mandate, the individual will not be considered to have been present at their trial. In consequence of this amendment, we are also addressing a discrepancy.

And again, the noble Lord Hazelmere of Hazelmere did put this in his contribution. We are also addressing the discrepancy between the Extradition Act of 2003 and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the TCA, which governs our arrangements with EU Member States.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As regards Unexercised appeal rights, The TCA provides limited

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The TCA provides limited circumstances where an extradition request is refused and substantial discretion when it can be accepted, discretion when it can be accepted, and the provision in clause 212 is, I believe, fully compatible with the TCA and operates within that discretion. And I also want to just reemphasize very strongly to the noble Lords that we are not reducing broader protections or safeguards in the Extradition Act, which apply in all cases where a request is received from any country, our courts will consider whether the requested person's extradition is compatible with the convention rights.

And it remains the position that a UK court must, in order to ensure that the requested person's discharge from their extradition proceedings if extradition is not compatible with their convention rights. I also want to place on the record, and I hope again to give comfort to all three noble colleagues who have spoken. The UK's extradition framework is committed to upholding individual rights and these changes remain protective of those rights. Clause 212 again, whilst being fully compliant, strikes, I believe the right balance between the rights of requested persons and the interests of victims, and effective extradition cooperation.

And finally, my Lord, whether that is satisfied, we will see. But finally, my Lord, there is also a government amendment 466A that removes an unnecessary provision in the clause 2178, part five. As to the extent of clause two, one two is already provided for in clause 2172Z. So for the reasons I outlined above, I would ask the noble Lord Carter of Hazelmere to withdraw his amendments. But I also beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government amendment 46680. Minister sits down and I appreciate the time, but we are dealing here with cases where we may be extraditing our citizens in circumstances where they may not circumstances where they may not have a fair trial abroad. And I did read, of course, the letter that came from the noble Lord, the came from the noble Lord, the Minister's department, although the meeting was on the 4th of March, as I understand it, and the letter I understand it, and the letter only came out today.

So that's unfortunate. With respect, I'm not sure he's actually answered the central point put by Lord Carter's amendment. And can I just ask the Minister to look at the section two, one, two and subsection two? That section sets out the full circumstances in which our courts will extradite somebody. A we will extradite them if the person would be entitled to a retrial abroad. That was the issue in the Supreme Court case, where the leading judgment was given by the noble Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon.

And the issue there was does would be entitled mean is entitled to ask for a retrial or is entitled actually to a retrial. And the Supreme Court held it meant actually entitled to a retrial. So that's a. But look at B, B says I'm asking B, I'm asking the only. Only three noble Lords are entitled to speak in this debate. It seemed. B says that a person would be so entitled unless a court in the territory concerned were to decide that they deliberately absented themselves from their trial.

Is it not the case, therefore, that B means that our courts could decide that the person had not deliberately absented themselves and extradite the person, but the foreign court then says the person had deliberately absented themselves and denied them the retrial. In other words, is it not the case? I asked the noble Lord, the Minister, that 2122B introduces the very vice which the Supreme Court was at pains to exclude in its decision? its decision?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. Well. Let me first of all relate to the question of the letter I've the question of the letter I've held. I've had we've had a discussion of committee, we've had discussion of committee, we've had a meeting in in person. I've promised to write a letter. The letter has been received. There's a letter has been received. There's a lot of letters going around for this bill. There's a lot of background to this bill. There's a lot of amendments I'm trying my lot of amendments I'm trying my best to put on record for the noble Lord.

The points that the government has taken. I have put on record tonight the government's view that the individual concerned has the protections of the ECHR, has the. Well, let me let me let me finish. I'm surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers who deal with this on a daily basis, I am. I am trying to represent. At 12:36 a.m. the government's position, as I have done in relation to this position. I hold that position. If the noble Lord doesn't agree with that, there's an opportunity any moment now to divide on that, and I would suggest that he does.

So I'll give way to what I still regard my noble friend having entered Parliament on the same day as him a long time ago, I regard him as my friend. I will give way to him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very kind, and has a very long memory. Would. Would the noble Lord, the Minister, remember with me the debates that we had in the run up to the US, UK Bilateral Extradition to the US, UK Bilateral Extradition treaty, which form part of the Extradition Act of the same year? And would he remember that that was the subject of a great deal of reassurance from the then Labour Government, that the perceived imbalance between the rights of US citizens and the rights of United Kingdom citizens in relation to the mutual extradition of our citizens, was a matter of huge controversy.

But the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, as he then wasn't, was very happy to assure us that everything was going to be hunky dory and that nobody was going to be dissatisfied by the implementation of the treaty. Now, I accept that this is not on all fours with this particular debate, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has introduced. But I think we need to be a little careful, don't we, not to be too complacent. And my noble friend Lord Wolfson has identified two very good reasons why we should not be complacent.

And I would urge the government just to think within the context of the 2003 disaster, that they should not blindly go down the road of another disaster through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 212. The noble Lord tempts me to remember things that happened a long time ago. We've had a lot of long time ago. We've had a lot of discussion on those matters. What I've tried to do for the benefit of the House is set out the the House is set out the government's position in relation to the issues that the noble Lord Carter of Hazelmere has raised. Carter of Hazelmere has raised. I've done that face to face with Home Office lawyers present in a meeting.

I've done it in a letter meeting. I've done it in a letter which admittedly I accept, arrived today. I've placed the issues on the record today, and I would suggest that if noble Lords are not happy with the contents of the meeting, the content of the letter, and the content of my contributions, they vote accordingly. I beg to move our amendments, and I would hope that the noble Lord wouldn't push his.
00:39
00:40
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that amendment >> The question is that amendment 420 9ZA be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. Not content. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is amendment The question is amendment 420?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment 420?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment 420? The question is amendment 420 9ZAB agreed to as many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. Content contents will go to the right by contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to the The The question The question is that amendment 429 question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voted Voted contents Voted contents 69 Voted contents 69 not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voted contents 69 not contents 83. So the not content have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 220 12 amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 220 12 amendment 429A already debated Lukewarmly. The question is that amendment 49 A The question is that amendment 49 A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The question contrary, not content. The question as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 429B. Lord Hanson of Flint, formerly. The question is that amendment 49 B be agreed to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion will content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. Question will be decided by a division, and I will advise the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House when voting is open. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. My Lords, voting is now open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. My Lords, the question is that amendment 429B be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 429B be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. Contents will go to the right by the bar and not content to the left. Sorry. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to left by the bar. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Question. Question. My My Lords, there have voted. Contents 83 not contents 64. So the contents have it. Amendment 430 Lord Clement-Jones not moved. Amendments 431 and 432 Baroness Kidron not moved. And amendments four three 3 to 4 three seven, which are consequential to the agreement of amendment 422D Baroness Kidron move forward.

Lord Clement Jones move formally. The question is that amendments four three 3 to 4 three seven be agreed to unblock. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 438 Baroness Neville-rolfe. It's the luck of the draw. I rise again late in the evening and this time I'm moving. Amendment 438 in my name and that of the noble Earl Russell and my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which we have adjusted in the light of discussion in committee.

It tackles serious sabotage of undersea cables by giving the Secretary of State the power to regulate for a 15 year
01:03
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
prison sentence and an unlimited fine. In a very dangerous world. We fine. In a very dangerous world. We need a strong deterrent closer to that which already exists for the that which already exists for the power sector, as I explained in committee, it's a long standing issue, well articulated in a 2017 pamphlet for Policy Exchange by Admiral James Stavridis of the US Admiral James Stavridis of the US Navy, former NATO supreme allied commander. I quote, while few realize it, our ability to transmit confidential information, to conduct financial transactions and to communicate internationally all depend upon a global network of physical cables lying under the sea.

Now, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy released a report on the subject last year. It found that the UK has plenty of cable routes and indeed good repair processes for business as usual. However, it found particular vulnerabilities around the UK's outlying islands, its military cables and the financial sector. With a small set of high value targets. Onshore infrastructure was also a concern, with links to data centres creating worrying levels of concentration. All of this infrastructure could be targeted in a crisis.

In response to this report, the government committed to increasing penalties for those who damage subsea cables, where the activity cannot be clearly linked to hostile state. This can already be addressed, I am glad to say, under the National Security Act 2023, now in committee, and in a helpful letter from Baroness Lloyd at dcit, the government agreed to legislate in a more comprehensive way. My Lords, this is welcome, but I have experienced such promises in relation to online harms legislation which took eight years.

So I remain nervous. The. The 1885 act is plainly inadequate for today's more dangerous security situation. Our amendment leaves responsibility for making the changes to penalties in the hands of Ministers, requiring only a report to Parliament on the exercise of the power or alternatively, legislation to modify the arrangements more comprehensively. And I know the latter is the direction of travel. The government prefer amendments. Strength is that it ensures that something will actually happen. In response to the Joint Committee's worrying report, I hope the Minister can give us a more solid response this evening to avoid yet a further division at this late hour.

I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 213 insert the following new clause. Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 potential amendment penalties as printed on the shortlist.
01:06
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, considering the hour. I'm sorry. Did you. >> I support this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support this amendment. Undersea cables. Are our. Critical infrastructure. They are the arteries in and out of the are the arteries in and out of the heart of the UK's economy, its defence, our national commerce and even our ability to communicate. They are fundamental to our security, our stability, our very survival as a society. The fact that the legislation for this vital 21st century infrastructure has not seriously been updated since the mid 19th century, with its laughable £100 fine for negligence, is a perfect illustration of how we have for decades taken for granted our security and resilience.

We need to stop being complacent, to wake up, my Lords, to the reality that we need to protect these cables as our lifeline to and from the world beyond our shores. Part of what needs to be done is embodied in this amendment, with its punitive deterrence of interference with the cables. The debate in the other place recognized the need to act, as did the government response that stated what is needed. And I quote strong deterrents such as major fines and criminal liability.

Yes, there is much else to be done to build UK's resilience, increase our defences and deter our adversaries. But this is part of that strategy and I urge the noble Lady of the Minister and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House to give it their support. My Lords. I rise. To support the amendment in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Neville Woolf. I think it's a very Neville Woolf. I think it's a very timely amendment, given the instability and the unstable nature instability and the unstable nature of our world, particularly with regard to China and Russia, and the regard to China and Russia, and the fact that ever since the 2002 Nord
01:08
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Stream pipeline bombings, the idea of hybrid warfare or asymmetrical of hybrid warfare or asymmetrical warfare waged from one nation to another, particularly affecting the Baltic states, is much more prevalent. And to give a few prevalent. And to give a few examples, recent incidents. December 2025 Finnish police detained the vessel fit for travelling from Russia for allegedly damaging a cable between Helsinki and Estonia. November 2024 A PRC rigged ship carrying Russian cargo was linked to damage to two Baltic cables and the concept of dragging anchors to damage nautical infrastructure and cables is now quite widespread, and is an issue that has been very much to the fore in terms of the strategy of NATO countries.

But the reason the two points I would raise, two final points are the reason this is an important amendment is because it is not just state actors that are engaged in this these practices. It is quite plausible and likely that the prevalence of this damage of vital nautical infrastructure, which affects utilities, energy, etc. would be subcontracted to non-state actors. And on that basis, this is the this particular amendment and this particular clause of the bill would would therefore be appropriate to be amended.

And the other point that in a typical positive way, my noble friend has praised the Minister for engaging on this issue at Committee stage, and she's quite right that I. And I always say this. And it's nevertheless true that this is actually a helpful amendment, because I don't think this is particularly a party political issue, but it does give an imperative for Ministers to do something about this. It it says to Ministers, if you do not choose to legislate specifically with a discrete piece of legislation, then at least come forward to explain whether you think the existing legislation which the noble Lord Cromwell quite rightly says is inadequate, is aged and is not fit for purpose, do a review on that and come forward with new legislation.

And if that's possible, then I think there is a degree of consensus around my noble friend's excellent amendment, and I do think that the Minister should look at this issue now, of course, is late, but this is an incredibly vital and pressing issue for what I say. What I've said is hybrid warfare, which will affect all our citizens over the coming years. And so it's better to get in early to upgrade the legislation and take advantage of this helpful collaborative amendment to make the changes necessary.
01:11
01:12
01:13
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, as I said, Committee stage government takes the stage government takes the protection of the UK's subsea cable network extremely seriously, and I mean it genuinely when I say I thank the noble Lady, Baroness Neville Rolfe, for her continued and sustained attention on this important issue, and I would love to be able to give her what she wants, but I'm sorry to disappoint her again this evening. Government can't support this amendment. unnecessary. We have already committed to updating the Submarine Act, on which my noble friend, the Minister for Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of F.rah, will say more in the coming months.

We also consider the existing penalties under the submarine telegraph to be significant. So Submarine Telegraph Act. That said, as part of any update to the act, this government will review whether the existing penalties are fit for purpose. My Lords, significant changes of this kind must follow proper consultation, especially with our fishing and wider maritime sectors, and this is a process that this statutory deadline proposed in this amendment would prevent creating such a narrow power to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation is highly unusual, and requiring the government to report on future legislation through a deadline in an unrelated act would set an unhelpful precedent.

That said, I am more than happy to meet the noble Lord, the noble and noble Lady, and see if we can find a way through that will satisfy them in terms of the progress that we're making, and to reassure them that we are genuine when we say that we're doing so. And it's not just another patch of that fabled long grass. For these reasons, I respectfully urged noble Lady not to press her amendments. Evening.
01:15
01:15
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Moulsecoomb for supporting them. I declare my interest as a board member and director of the Water Retail Company. I listened carefully to the constructive debate and I welcomed the minister's response. However, the response did for me highlight a couple of areas that do need further thought. So, despite the government's welcome activity in this this space, we still feel that there's more that could be done. I don't want to give my whole speech. My my concern really, is that we're beginning to reach the limits of what we can achieve through fines alone.

And that also, despite ever increasing fines, we're still facing an issue of non-compliance. And the other trouble with fines is that they're always imposed after the damage has been done, and they're not working as a deterrent to stop the things that we don't want happening in the first place. I won't describe the amendments again. The amendments are clear in what they intend to do. I feel that they've been properly thought about. What we really want to address this now as, and I raise it again here today, simply as this is an important moment to inject this into the debate before we have the next round of legislation around the new water bill, and how we continue to address this problem that everybody across this House wants to look at again.

So I just kindly ask the government to to do a little bit more thinking in this space. And with that, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Posed after clause 213. Insert the new clause. The words printed the new clause. The words printed on the Marshalled List. Peers, even at 1:17 a.m. will have noticed I am not Baroness Jones of Moulsham, but not Baroness Jones of Moulsham, but I stand, since my noble friend did sign both of these amendments, so sign both of these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Earl Russell. And the reality is that
01:18
01:19
01:20
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Well, I thank the noble Lord Russell for turning to the pressing Russell for turning to the pressing issue of pollution in our waterways, and I think we can all agree. I endorse the comments of the of of the not just the noble Earl Russell, but also noble Lady Baroness but also noble Lady Baroness Bennett, and indeed Lord Davis as well, that we need to change in the water sector. And I understand the motivations behind these amendments, as I said at committee, but I will repeat what I said at committee.

They will duplicate existing powers and cut across the government's work to create a unified and coherent system of incentives and penalties to turn around the water and wastewater sector. And I absolutely agree, finding after the event is all well and good, but we want to create a system of proper incentives and deterrents to make sure that behavior is altered so that the pollution doesn't happen in the first place. I would take issue with the the comments of the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, in saying that we're not doing anything.

I would say far from it. The government recently sent out a white water white paper, which says that our long term sector wide reset, which will be delivered through forthcoming legislation. And then one of the chief things we're doing there is creating a single, powerful new regulator, which will ensure that any future criminal sanctions or escalations are applied with coherent and unified enforcement system, rather than via overlapping offences and split accountability. It will also, obviously, because there is actually quite at the moment, quite a few different regulators regulating various aspects of the war of the water of the water sector will bring it all together under one roof, and it will stop water companies marking their own homework.

This builds upon the measures introduced by the Water Special Measures Act 2025, which expanded sentencing powers including the tougher sentencing powers against lawbreaking water executives in history. It increases the range and scale of financial penalties and enabled Ofwat to ban executive bonuses where standards are not met and indeed has banned, has banned bonuses. And I think it's six out of the nine water companies. So this is actually this is action we're taking against against water companies, executives. So to say nothing is happening I think is a little unfair to say the least.

The measures in this act completely complement existing financial penalties for not meeting performance commitments. With more than £700 million of return to customers over the past five years. As I said, I understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords and I don't think there's much disagreement between us all on on the need for action. But it's right. The package of reforms for the water sector is looked at holistically rather than piecemeal, and the noble order of Russell know there'll be ample opportunities to scrutinise the government's water white Paper in due course.

So with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, I ask that he withdraws the amendment. I thank the Minister for his his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for his his detailed reply as as the Minister says, I do recognise that things are happening in this space. I are happening in this space. I think more does need to happen. The Minister himself pointed to the fact that six companies have their fact that six companies have their bonuses suspended as a mark of success. Actually, I take that more as a mark of failure. The fact that we're still having to put these impositions on the water companies, and we're still not getting full compliance, to my mind, shows a limit of what we're actually able to achieve.

As Minister said, we can return to this at a later date. I don't mean to do that now. Just to the official opposition, I would say that they're not arbitrary targets. They're taken from Ofwat and the regulations. So but with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 440 Russell not moved. Amendment 441. Baroness Chakrabarti.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 441. Baroness Chakrabarti. Should be sleeping. Or dancing. I am at least barely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or dancing. I am at least barely standing. And at ten years, the age of criminal responsibility in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
01:23
01:25
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
>> As the noble and noble and learned Lord Burnett of Maldon has done. He's had to leave the house, not very surprisingly at this time, not very surprisingly at this time, and has asked me to say that he remains very supportive of this amendment, and noble Lords will perhaps realize we're talking about a former Lord Chief Justice, head of the criminal courts of this country. This is the third time I have tried to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

From 10 to 12, I tried it with a Labour government under Tony Blair. I tried it with the Conservative and Lib Dem government of David Cameron. I'm trying it now again with a Labour government. And it's very sad that in all those years absolutely nothing has been done. And as the noble Lady, Baroness Chakrabarti has reminded the House, there has now been a considerable body of medical evidence about the extent to which the brain of children matures and how slowly it matures.

And we're talking about ten year olds. And that evidence was not there. When I asked the government in 2006. But it is there now in 2025, and there has been no movement. The. Those who are very young at ten will almost certainly know the difference between right and wrong, but what they will not know, which really doesn't come to us until we're older, is the extent of the consequences of the actions that they take. And again and again, those of us who've mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers and fathers will know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

And that is true of criminal responsibility as well as the ordinary life that parents and grandparents have with their children. I had said at Committee stage, and I must say again that the for children, commissioners of the United Kingdom said that in a report, the United Kingdom is the most punitive of all the European countries. I mean, that really is quite astonishing. And it's not, unfortunately picked up by any government, as the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti has reminded the House, Scotland has moved from 8 to 12 and without any very serious consequences.

I cannot understand why a government can't move. To some extent it makes me think and I say it with sadness. But every government is scared of press headlines. I cannot see any other reason why they won't move. So what? Both the noble and learned Lord Burnett of Maldon, who was saying to me, and I say to the government, Will you at least take it away? Will you look at it? Will you start to think you're talking about ten year olds and possibly move at some point, a Labour government speaking as a crossbencher, a Labour government of all governments, I would have thought would have understood this.

And I'm truly sad that nothing so far has been done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly and humbly in such distinguished legal company in such distinguished legal company as both the speakers are in this group and the signatories who are not with us, and I think it is a not with us, and I think it is a particularly great pity that we are now debating this at 1:30 a.m. in the morning, when it is such an the morning, when it is such an important issue that as people have been working on, as is the noble and learned Lady just said for so
01:29
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
and learned Lady just said for so many years, the noble Lady said, why is this not happening? Well, I think it's obvious that we need courage in our politics, and I believe that the public is looking to see that courage being shown in the face of what is often very loud and strident opposition. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing the right thing anyway. Just very briefly, I want to stress that we are talking about the fate of some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

Those are the children who overwhelmingly would be affected, would benefit from this modest change. As has already been said by the other speakers, we are in the current law denying our scientific knowledge, the evidence that we have before us. And I just want to note that earlier this evening, or perhaps it was yesterday, we actually made an advance in our law by a lot of people getting together and making a change to the abortion law to protect vulnerable women.

It's in the government's hands now that do something to protect vulnerable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children as well. Lords are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords are. Grateful to Lady Chakrabarti for bringing this amendment back and to lady her speech and Lady Butler-sloss and Lady Bennett for Butler-sloss and Lady Bennett for for their detailed exposition. I may be marginally longer than I was in my last speech earlier this in my last speech earlier this evening, because I particularly want to thank my noble friend, Lord Delacour for really championing Delacour for really championing this issue for the decades that he has been in your Lordships House.
01:31
01:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the Baroness Chakrabarti for tabling amendment 41. This amendment would raise the 41. This amendment would raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. This issue was debated at some length at committee as I set out then. The question before the House is not whether children should be protected, but whether raising the age of criminal responsibility would in fact deliver better outcomes for children and the wider public. My Lords, we on these benches remain unconvinced that that is the case.

The current framework under the Children Young Persons Act 1933 does not exist to criminalise children unnecessarily. It exists to ensure that in those rare but serious cases where harm is caused, the state retains the ability to intervene early and proportionately. Crucially, that intervention takes place within a youth justice system that is distinct from the adult system. With rehabilitation at its core. As has been previously noted, the evidence shows that this power is used sparingly for the vast majority of children diverted away from formal proceedings.

Raising the age risks removing an important safeguard. In those exceptional cases where serious offending does occur, and it would create a gap in our ability to respond effectively to harmful behaviour among 10 to 12 year olds, including serious violence and exploitation. There is also wider concern that setting the threshold too high may have unintended consequences, including the potential for older offenders to exploit younger children who fall below the age of responsibility. And for those reasons, while I recognise the intent behind the amendment, I do not believe it strikes the right balance between protecting children and protecting the public and we therefore cannot support it here.
01:34
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Here. Lord Davis. >> My Lords, I both thank and admire my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, for their long lasting and ongoing commitment to the cause of ensuring that children are not inappropriately criminalised. As the noble Lord, Lord Davis has just said at Committee stage, we did debate at some length the issues associated with the change proposed by my noble friend, who at that stage was proposing an age of criminal responsibility of 14, now reduced in the present amendment to 12, the government's position remains, as I said then, that setting the age of criminal responsibility at ten provides critical flexibility to respond appropriately to children who engage in criminal activity, which includes diverting them away from formal justice procedures when appropriate.

I don't intend to rehearse those arguments today, but I feel I must repeat that this is a complex and sensitive issue. Any policy change would need to be informed by in-depth engagement with legal, youth, justice, child development and welfare experts, as well as victims and the wider public. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, together with the Minister for courts, recently met the Bar Council, who have set up a working group to consider the need to increase the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.

We welcome their scrutiny on the matter and we look forward to considering their findings in due course. But in the meantime, I invite my noble friend not to press for amendments tonight.
01:35
01:36
Lord Mendelsohn Portrait Lord Mendelsohn (Labour)
-
-
Service to support the prosecution of offences motivated by anti-Semitism, and to ensure those cases are properly tracked and understood. My Lords, the members of this House will be acutely aware of with the frequency in which the issue has been raised about the problems of anti-Semitism and many of the cases where it seems prosecution has not gone through or has not been carried through particularly well. Figures produced by the Home Office for the year to 2005 starkly illustrates how outcomes differ, and in particular in relation to anti-Semitism in two communities, which have both faced a significant rise in incidents, there has been a clear illustration of how this has impacted religious hate crimes offences per 10,000 of the population.

For Muslim victims, there are 12 per 10,000. Jewish victims are 106. The prosecution rate for Muslim victims is 6.7%, and for Jewish victims it's 3.8%. Now, I'm not remotely suggesting that either figure are acceptable in any way whatsoever. And there needs to be improvements. But the weakness in the case when it comes to anti-Semitism is self-evident. The measure that we are suggesting in this amendment is the establishment of a unit which specialises in anti-Semitism, to try and increase the prosecution rate.

And it is not an uncommon practice for the CPS to create units to effectively manage complex, high profile or sensitive cases, or where a focus on a significant area of specialization is required. The counter-terrorist division was established in the light of the events of September the 11th attack on the United States and the July 5th, 2005 London bombings in 2011 as part of a new national structure, this division became part of the Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division. This division actually nominally has the remit to address this range of issues, but the current performance across the piece makes the case for further specialisation, and I think we've seen how that's worked effectively more with the example of violence against Women and Girls unit, which was established in 2008, which further established the rape and serious sexual offence units.

The defined purpose of these units was to improve the quality of casework, increase successful prosecutions and enhance the support and services provided to victims. These units have allowed the CPS to adapt and even ensure significant transformations in the method and strategies employed. I don't want to suggest in any way that this provides an absolute solution. We've seen in all these areas difficulties in those cases as well, but it certainly provides the CPS with a more effective base to be able to do that.

Now, I think it's important here to say that this has become a much more, I think, widely accepted view that these measures aren't being dealt with as adequately as they should. And on many occasions when we've been looking at these issues, we have, of course, noted that there are there is a wide array of existing laws which aren't being applied. There are, of course, measures which are being introduced through this bill which will help with that situation. And there is indeed a review being undertaken by Lord MacDonald of River Glaven, which will address some of the other issues.

But the core operation of the CPS requires this requires this unit, because the case, I think, was well made by the independent reviewer of terrorism, Jonathan Hall, in a recent speech that he made. And I'll just, in a sense, use two of his great illustrations, which I think help to make the point as to why this specialisation clearly seems at the moment to be lacking. He refers that the truth. The hatred of nationality fitted into the hatred and race like a glove.

And he said, and importantly, our law recognises this. The Public Order Act of 1986 prohibits stirring up racial hatred. He further stated that section 17 of the 1986 act, which defines racial hatred, says specifically in this part, racial hatred means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality, including citizenship or ethnic or national origin. And of course, he made a very strong observation that he had lost count of the times in which hatred against Israelis had been stirred up on British streets in a way that should fall firmly within this definition.

Secondly, he made a further point in relation to the precautionary principle. He made the point that the principle was described by our own Supreme Court last year as a as preventative about deciding to act rather than waiting until directly harmful activities had taken place. And of course, he noted that it's provisional, that it's not determinative and it's capable of responding to the evidence and hear the many sectarian calls to violence, to criminal damage. These have become normalized because the precautionary principle has not been applied and has not been used and not been introduced effectively by the CPS.

Now, I suspect that not even at this late hour, it will mean that the impressive and unflappable noble Lord, the Minister or noble Baroness, the Minister, I'm not sure who is replying. Oh, the noble Lord, my dear friend, might make an error and accept this amendment, but I do hope that they will reflect on this and be willing to consider what can be done, even if that means just extending the scope of Lord MacDonald of River review to encompass the issues behind the amendment, I'd like to move.
01:43
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 213. Insert the new clause. The 213. Insert the new clause. The List. >> My Lords. >> Apologies. Apologies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At its heart, this amendment is is about confidence. Confidence that when anti-Semitism occurs, that when anti-Semitism occurs, it's recognized confidence that when it crosses the criminal threshold, it will be prosecuted and confidence that Jewish communities in this country are properly protected. Earlier today, I spoke at the Holocaust Survivor Centre in Golders Green to 40 and 40 or 50 Holocaust survivors, and I asked them a question, and the question I asked them was, are they having been through what they went through? Are they shocked and surprised about the extent of anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom today? And it was shocking to hear what these people and what they'd been through said to me.

So at the moment this proves it. That confidence that I was referring to is is being tested. Too often cases are not progressing as they should. Too often victim victims come forward and see no meaningful outcome. And too often the antisemitic nature of an offence is not fully reflected in how it is handled. When that happens repeatedly, confidence begins to erode. My Lords, the amendment is necessary for a very straightforward reason, because at present, at present, anti-Semitism is not properly prosecuted.

That's the reality. We are seeing cases where clear anti-Semitic conduct is not being charged or where cases are being dropped. Yet at the same time, anti-Semitism itself is rising sharply and visibly. That combination is deeply concerning. And part of the difficulty, my Lords, is that modern anti-Semitism is multifaceted. It includes long standing forms of hatred, but also appears online through extremist propaganda designed to normalize hostility towards Jewish people. And recent events have shown the devastating consequences of this hatred, both in the UK and abroad.

It's often expressed through language and slogans that require context to understand phrases such as globalize the intifada or Zionists off our streets are not always interpreted consistently, and at present the CPS is not equipped to deal with that complexity, and a dedicated unit would help to address it. The effect of this, my Lords, is cumulative. Each case that does not proceed, each inconsistency in approach and each failure to recognize anti-Semitism for what it is adds up, and over time, it creates a growing perception that anti-Semitism is not being treated with the same seriousness as other forms of hate crime.

So this amendment is therefore about just restoring confidence. Confidence that the system understands the nature of anti-Semitism today and confidence that cases will not fall away unnecessarily, and confidence that the law will be applied properly and consistently. And so, my Lords, Jewish communities in this country should not, should not have to question whether the justice system will protect them. They should not have to wonder whether their cases will be understood or whether there will be taken seriously, that confidence should already exist.

The fact that it is not is precisely why this amendment is so necessary. It's a measured and practical step to strengthen the system and restore trust. And I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will acknowledge the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

importance of this amendment. My Lords, I rise to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendment 441C I'm told by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, and in the name also of the noble Lord, Lord Pollock. And I am also going to echo the comments of my going to echo the comments of my noble friend as to the hour. I fear I'm going to be the most unpopular peer in the room, but bear with me
01:47
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
peer in the room, but bear with me for at least a cut. What I was going to say by at least half. So I hope you'll bear with me for just a minute or two. This. Amendments to seeks to create a dedicated antisemitism unit within the CPS that would ensure that antisemitism receives the focused attention and expertise it requires. Prosecutors will be better equipped to recognize the way in which modern antisemitism presents itself. To understand the context between particular language or behavior, and to ensure that cases are handled consistently and effectively.

And this is especially important at a time when antisemitism is not only rising but becoming more visible and in many cases, normalized in parts of our public life and public discourse. For Jewish communities across this country, the sense of security that should accompany ordinary life has been profoundly shaken, and I feel a particular responsibility as a non-Jewish member of the House, to be saying it and not leaving it only to Jewish members of the House to say this. I'm not suggesting the House does that, but I'm merely saying why I have stood after the two previous noble Lords.

The terrorist attack at Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester on Yom Kippur, and the attack targeting Jewish people at Bondi Beach in Australia during Hanukkah, underscore the very real and growing threat facing Jewish communities. And these are not isolated incidents. In just the past fortnight alone, a synagogue in Michigan was attacked. An armed man entered a synagogue in Norway, and there was an arson attack on a synagogue in Rotterdam. And explosions have been reported at synagogues in Liege, in Belgium and in Amsterdam.

Together, these incidents illustrate the scale and persistence of the danger confronting Jewish communities today. Here in the United Kingdom, the scale of the problem is deeply troubling. Just in six months alone last year, over 1500 anti-Semitic incidents were reported. These are not abstract figures. They reflect real fear, intimidation and harm experienced by Jewish communities across the country. Anti-Semitism, as the noble Lord Pollock said, has always been a uniquely persistent form of hatred. But today it often manifests itself in ways that are not always immediately recognized.

It appears through coded language, through slogans and conspiracy narratives, and through hostility that targets Jewish identity indirectly, while claiming to be about something else entirely. People must know when anti-Semitism occurs. It will not be dismissed, misunderstood or minimized. They must know that the institution of justice are capable of recognizing the harm that has been done, and it's responding with clarity and resolve. This amendment represents a practical step, helping ensure that anti-Semitism is properly understood, properly addressed and properly prosecuted.

My Lords, if we are serious about confronting antisemitism in our society, then we must ensure that our justice system is equipped to meet that challenge. This amendment would help us to do precisely that.
01:50
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Well done. Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for bringing forward this amendment and for highlighting the very real and highlighting the very real and continuing and concerning issue of anti-Semitism, particularly at the present time, a point also made by Baroness Lady Ramsay just now. And can I also thank my noble friend Lord Pollock for his powerful speech in support of this amendment? We on these benches recognize that tackling anti-Semitism in all its forms is of the utmost and pressing importance.

I think we can all agree. My Lords, it is a pernicious form of hatred that has no place in our society, and it is essential that the criminal justice system responds robustly and effectively where such offences occur. And while I fully agree and support the objective behind this amendment, I do have some reservations about the approach that it proposes the creation of a dedicated unit within the CPS focused on a single form of hate crime. Does, I think, possibly run the risk of fragmenting what must remain a coherent and consistent approach to the prosecution of all hate offences.

I think it notable that the CPS already has established mechanisms for dealing with hate crime, and that brings together expertise across a range of protected characteristics. It has a framework which allows for consistency in decision making, the sharing of best practice and a coordinated response to different but often overlapping forms of hostility, creating a unit dedicated to one specific group, however well intentioned, raises questions about parity across the system. There will be other communities facing serious and sustained forms of hatred who may may reasonably ask why similar structures are not being created for them.

And for those reasons, I strongly support the continued efforts to combat anti-Semitism. I remain to be persuaded that this amendment represents the right way to achieve that.
01:52
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Well, I'd like to begin by thanking my noble friend, Lord thanking my noble friend, Lord Menson, for tabling this amendment, which he also tabled at Committee stage and for the contributions of all who spoke in this, particularly my noble friend, Baroness Ramsay of all Heath, the noble Lord, Lord Pollock, and indeed noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. As I think I'm going to start by finding common cause somewhat usually, but it's nice to do it even at this late hour with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

As I said at committee, it would be inappropriate for Parliament to prescribe the internal organisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS is rightly operationally independent of government, and it's up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to deploy the resources at their disposal to bring prosecutions forward. Having said that, I do want to reassure my noble friend that both the CPS and the government take the issue of antisemitism extremely seriously, and the CPS has trained prosecutors in place to prosecute, prosecute all hate crime offences, including anti-Semitism.

But I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, around issues of parity of of esteem and regard when it comes to other minority hate crimes. And we need to we need to have care towards that. However, the CPS already maintains an internal network of specialist hate crime coordinators across each of its regional teams, led by a Chief Crown Prosecutor national lead to ensure a consistent and robust approach to tackling hate crimes. In regard to anti-Semitism specifically, the organisation has gone a step further, enrolling all senior civil servants, including Chief Crown prosecutors and the deputy Chief Crown prosecutors, in mandatory training on antisemitism to improve awareness across the CPS, the CPS conduct of hate crime cases is subject to considerable independent and external scrutiny.

This includes a series of hate crime inspections, which are scheduled to be carried out by His Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate this year. This includes an inspection on racially and religiously aggravated hate crime, which will include consideration of cases involving antisemitism. These inspections will examine the CPS handling of these cases and their service to victims. The CPS is also an active member of the cross-government anti-Semitism working Group and the National Police Chiefs Council gold Group on community tensions. They work collaboratively with criminal justice partners and stakeholders to ensure a joined, joined up approach.

I hope that goes some way to reassure, to to reassure my noble friends and noble and your Lordships House about the efforts being made within the. Within the CPS to raise the both awareness and understanding of anti-Semitism and ensure that it receives the priority that it deserves. And of course, what I would add is they will have heard this debate even. Well, when I say heard, they will be able to read or indeed watch this debate and indeed the debate that we had in committee and be aware or and and, you know, be at the forefront of their mind that there are concerns in the community now.

Now, the noble Lord, Lord Pollock, talked about the issues of confidence. And as as in similar way, my noble friend Lord Manson and and in terms of the reaction that the noble Lord Pollock had to. The question he posed to the Holocaust survivors he addressed yesterday, now I am you know, I have to say, for my own experience, I'm I'm I'm saddened, but I'm not I'm not surprised that there's reaction. And it's a it's a I, but I want to provide that wider confidence that that the government is certainly very cognizant and is doing all it can to tackle, understand anti-Semitism and to tackle it and to both both both in terms of the the way it finds itself onto the streets, but also the underlying causes.

I would point, you know, just briefly, if I may, we've got measures in this bill which are around public order policing, including conditions around cumulative impact of protests and protesting around places of worship, which in turn kind of direct reactions to the to the terrorist incident at fatal terrorist incident at Heaton Park Synagogue last war last autumn. And indeed, as we've heard, we've got the wider review of public order policing, which is being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald of River Glaven.

We've got reviews into anti-Semitism in both the NHS and schools that have been undertaken by my noble friend Lord Man and Sir David Bell respectively. And we had just last week from the from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the new social cohesion strategy protecting what matters, which. And I'm you know, just don't get me for the CSS, the CSS Community Security Trust reaction to this was very positive. It pointed out that the the announcements in the plan route Jews within British society, and it rightly treats anti-Zionism.

Anti-Semitism as a matter of national importance. And it called out the predominant threat of Islamism and the far right, not only to Jews, but to national cohesion. So I hope that that gives your Lordships House some confidence that the the importance of not just tackling anti-Semitism for the impact it has on the Jewish community, but for the impact it has on our national life, our national character, and what it says about the kind of society we want to live in. This is something that the government does treat and continues to treat, and will continue to treat very, very seriously.

With all that in mind, and given the late hour, I'd ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
01:58
01:59
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 441 E. Lord Davies of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gower. My Lords, amendment 441 A standing in my name, was brought standing in my name, was brought about after the recent case of. Mark her here. Mr. Her was the bus driver who courageously took took it upon himself to assist one of his passengers, who was the victim of theft. He chased down the offender and apprehended him in an attempt to protect his passengers and members of the public. Mr. placed himself at real risk. His actions should be applauded.

And yet, my Lords, Mr. Hehe was fired for his actions. The public agree a petition in support of Mr. has now 1000 147,000 signatories, demonstrating the widespread view that those who protect others should be commended and supported, not left vulnerable to professional or personal consequences. So amendment 441 E goes some way to addressing the divergence between what should have happened to Mr. and the unfortunate reality. It amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that employees may not act sorry, employers may not act against their employees, where those employees have acted in instances to prevent crime or bring about the lawful arrest of offenders.

Should the noble Baroness, the Minister, choose to reject this amendment, then I ask her, what steps are the government taking to rectify Mr. Hughes regrettable situation specifically, and what proposals are the government minded to take to ensure that no similar instances arise again? Oh, I do apologize. For the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord, the Minister. The amendment proposed after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed after clause 213. Insert the following new clause liability for use of new clause liability for use of force, detriment and dismissal as printed on the master list.
02:01
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
printed on the master list. >> Well, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Davis, and he knows that I. Perhaps I should declare an Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. For now 55 years, I think probably 45, 55, 55 years. So I think that in the interest of time, I should say that assaulting a retail worker is an offence in the new bill shop theft is something the government doesn't tolerate.

We've changing the law in this bill on recognition of shop theft. And I want to be clear in the circumstances where someone witnesses or is subject to a crime, they should contact the police as soon as possible. And I pay tribute to those workforce members who attempt to prevent shop theft through their actions. However, I say to the noble Lord that section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does provide for a power of citizen's arrest, which does permit individuals to arrest someone who is committing or who they reasonably suspect to be committing an indictable offence.

And furthermore, section three of the Criminal Justice Criminal Law Act, 1967 provides that individuals may use reasonable force in the prevention of a crime or in assisting an offender or suspecting offender in relation to the arrest of that offender. It's right for a court to decide what constitutes reasonable force, and that will depend on an individual case. Now the noble Lord has placed on record his concern about supermarkets and retailers and other companies adopting non-confrontational policies when dealing with suspected shop thieves.

I would argue that it is for companies to set their own policies, which ensures that they keep their staff safe. Companies still have a duty of care over staff, but I would also say, and this is the balance to that, that if a company dismisses an employee such as in the case the noble Lord has mentioned, such a dismissal will only be considered fair if it is seen to be fair to dismiss the employer in all the circumstances that the action that they took and if a fair process has been followed.

I want to balance the rights of employment with the right for a company to be able to set a safeguarding principle against potential actions that staff may take in response to shop theft or other committed criminality, whether an act of physical violence could be relied upon as an act of gross misconduct, allowing for dismissal without notice or as a matter of ordinary misconduct, will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. It's important for employers to retain the freedom within current employment law to set reasonable conduct and disciplinary procedures within their organization, and to ensure workplace safety and workplace standards for which appropriate business operations are in place.

I want to share that. I do stress and share the noble Lords concerns about the level of violence and abuse faced by staff. The union I'm a member of has campaigned on that for many years, and the level of shop theft we are seeing is unacceptable. However, in the light of the legal position I've set out and indeed in the lateness of the hour, I would hope the noble Lord would be content to withdraw his amendment. And given the lateness of the hour, I've just remembered that it is.

In 55 years I've been a member of Usdaw. It is 46 years. It was 1979, and I've lost track of the time because I'm not even sure now what time it is at this late, but I work it back from 1979. And on the basis of that, and on my declaration of interest, I would hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
02:04
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I thank I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response. And I hear what the noble response. And I hear what the noble Lord, the Minister has to say with regards to shopkeepers. But this amendment is about a simple principle those who act in good faith to prevent crime or assist in lawful apprehension of offenders, should not be penalised for doing so. The law already recognises through section three of the Criminal Law Act, 1967, that reasonable force may be used in such circumstances, and what this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that employment protections properly reflect that long standing principle.

And we, these benches, believe that this amendment is both measured and tightly drawn. It applies only where an individual has acted in accordance with the law around the use of force in preventing crime, and we should also be clear about the signal we send when individuals step forward to protect others, often in fast moving and uncertain situations, they should not have to weigh in that moment. Whether doing the right thing might cost them their livelihood. That cannot be the message we wish to send as a society.

I therefore repeat the questions I posed to Minister what remedy is there for such cases such as this, and what steps will the government perhaps take in the future to ensure that individuals are not placed in such a position again? So unless and until there is a clear and satisfactory answer to those questions, I remain of the view that this amendment does provide a necessary and proportionate safeguard. And, you know, I would I would like to think that the government could support these steps, but in view of what the noble order said, I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw the amendment. withdrawn. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The amendment is valid. Withdraw. My Lords, there's a little bit of tidying up to get us to the end. I tidying up to get us to the end. I very much hope that you will bear with me. I'll try and do it as quickly as I possibly can. quickly as I possibly can. Amendments 442 to 443. Lord Hanson move formally, the question is that amendments 442 and 443 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. Amendment 444 Lord Nash not moved 44ZA444ZA Lord Walney not moved. Amendment four. Four A Lord Hanson of Flint. The question is an amendment 44AB agreed to as sorry 444A, B agreed to as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 445 Baroness Doocey not moved amendment 446 Baroness Neville Rolfe not moved amendments four four 7 to 4 five eight. Lord Hanson of Flint move formally.

The question is that amendments four four 7 to 4 five eight. We agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 459. Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally. The question is amendment 459 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment four six Lord Hanson formally. Amendment proposed, page 262, line 16. After the words last inserted in certain words as printed on the Marshal list.

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendments four six 2 to 4 62467. Lord Hanson of Flint. The question sorry four six. O461 Lord Hanson Flint will formally question is that amendment 461 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it amendments four six 2 to 4 six seven.

Lord Hanson Flint move formally. The question is amendments four six 2 to 4 six seven be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 467A Baroness Burton not moved. Amendment 467AA Lord Hanson Flint. Formally, the question is amendment 4678AB agreed to as many as are of that opinion will say content content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 467AAA Lord Davies of Amendment 467AAA Lord Davies of Gower not move.

Is that OK? Consequential. My my apologies. Move formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 467AB Baroness Levich move formally, the question is that amendment 467A, B be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 467B Baroness Bertin not moved amendment 468 Johansson Flint moved formally.

The question is amendment 468 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 468A Lord Young of action not moved amendments four six 9 to 4 seven three. Lord Hanson of Flint, move formally the question is amendments four six 9 to 4 73B agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. And that, my Lords, concludes the report.

Stage of the Crime and Policing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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