Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I declare several interests. I am a co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Slavery and vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. She has done a brilliant first amendment and I am delighted to support her. I played a very small part in the Modern Slavery Act: I was involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny and an earlier report that persuaded the then Home Secretary, now the noble Baroness, Lady May, to put the Bill in place.

Exploitation of children is in the Modern Slavery Act, but it is rather masked and has not been taken seriously, particularly by the police. Perhaps more importantly—this is one thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, did not say—under the Act, a child who is exploited cannot consent to exploitation and cannot commit an offence. That is absolutely crucial, and it probably ought to be expressed again in primary legislation.

I enormously admire a great deal of what this Government are trying to do. I went on behalf of Action for Children to a very useful meeting with Diana Johnson and Jess Phillips, where I got the impression that they were going to move forward on this. But what is offered in this Bill does not really meet the need. To put into guidance what was put in primary legislation 10 years ago seems to make it less important. I ask the Minister to reflect on why you would want to put into guidance something that was expressed, not as well, in primary legislation 10 years ago.

The time has come to deal with county lines. A great deal of work has been done by the National Crime Agency. At long last, at least some magistrates’ courts realise that children who are ferrying drugs around the country—and cash, nowadays, as well as drink and various other things—are in fact victims and not perpetrators. But it is not fully known. The police do not seem to understand it. We need to explain, through primary legislation, to whoever is now in charge of modern slavery in the police that we are talking about child exploitation, of which modern slavery is a component. There is no doubt that these children are enslaved, but I suspect that, in this country, the word “exploitation” is rather easier to understand—and it is time it was there.

This amendment is brilliant. It could perhaps be improved in certain ways, but it asks the Government to do something really practical which, when I went to that very useful meeting, I got the impression they were going to do.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, but she may not need much support, having received the much-coveted gold star from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, I am very proud to say, supports a later amendment of mine on raising the age of criminal responsibility—which, I am ashamed to say, is barbarically only 10 in England and Wales. The UN recommends that it be 14. In Scotland it is 12 and the heavens do not seem to have fallen.

I have a couple of specific points to make in support of my noble friend’s amendment. If I may, I will be as bold as to predict what my noble friend the Minister and his advisers might be about to say in response. If they are about to say that my noble friend’s definition is unnecessary because the definition can be taken from the offence itself in Clause 40, I would like to get in first with two points to counter that. If I am pessimistic and wrong, so be it. Noble Lords know that I do not mind looking a fool.

The first point, which has already been made clearly by my noble friend Lady Brown, is that we need a definition that is about not just a specific criminal offence but interagency working and interventions across services, well in advance of any investigation or prosecution for a criminal offence.

I do not think the second point has been made yet. If the Committee compares the elements of my noble friend’s definition with the definition of the criminal offence in the Bill, it will see that the Government’s approach misses something very important that is to be found in my noble friend’s definition: enabling the child, not just causing the child, to engage in criminal conduct. That addition is important because “causing” is a harder thing to prove and a greater step in grooming. Currently, the Government’s definition is

“causing the child to commit an offence”,

or, indeed, “facilitating” somebody else to cause the child to commit the offence.

To prove causation in law is a serious matter. Enabling—making it easy, making the tools of the trade available, providing the opportunity—is a lower threshold, which is appropriate in the context of children. My noble friend made the point that currently in law they are treated as victims but also as perpetrators, and sometimes it is a matter of luck as to whether you will find the adult and the public service who will take the proper approach, in my view, of always treating the child as a child and as a victim, and not criminalising them. This is the point about “enabling”.

My noble friend the Minister is very experienced in these matters. Whatever he comes back with, I would like him and his advisers to consider the question of the lower threshold of enabling, not just causing. If there is to be a further compromise that includes some element of my noble friend Lady Brown’s amendment, I hope that that is taken on board.

The most formative time in my professional life was as a Home Office lawyer. I know what it is like to work on big Bills and to defend them as originally crafted and drafted. But it is wise, especially in this House, to take good advice and to bend a little when it might improve legislation for the benefit of victims.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I absolutely congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, on her excellently motivated amendment. It is very thought provoking. In particular, this sentence caught my attention:

“The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual”.


That is one of the most difficult challenges. For some years I have been involved in the grooming gangs scandal, and one of the most horrible parts of that was when the police took the decision that the young 14 or 15 year-old, precocious though she—a general “she”—may have been, was somehow actively consenting to her own rape or sexual exploitation. It was about the notion of this being a child, because the young girl may have looked more adult—it was literally as superficial as that—and about the type, if we are honest, in class terms. Therefore, it was said that she could not be a victim and she was accused of being a prostitute, and so on. We are familiar with that. That is the reason why that sentence stood out to me.

However, I have some qualms, and I want to ask genuinely what we do about those qualms, because I do not know where to go. I am slightly worried, because county lines gangs, as the noble Baroness will know, are a young men’s game. Some of the gang leaders are younger than one would ever want to imagine in your worst nightmare. That is a problem with this, in a way, and with how you work it out. If you have a general rule that this is always a child, how do you deal with the culpability and responsibility of a 17 year-old thug, not to put too fine a point on it, who is exploiting younger people or even his—and it is generally “his”—peers? I am not sure how to square that with what I have just said. It also seems that there is a major clash with the age of criminal responsibility. I am very sympathetic with that not being 10, but how do you deal with the belief that someone aged under 18 is a child, yet we say that a child has criminal responsibility? Perhaps I am just misunderstanding something.

My final reservation is that if we say that everybody under 18 has to be a victim all the time, would that be a legal loophole that would get people off when there was some guilt for them to be held to account for? I generally support this amendment, but I want some clarification on how to muddle my way through those moral thickets, if possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Committee will allow me, I will begin by detailing the government amendments in this group. We know that criminal gangs conducting activity such as county lines drug dealing do not stop at internal UK borders, and children are criminally exploited across the UK. To go to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, this is why—at the request of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice—we are making provision in the Bill for child criminal exploitation prevention orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is at their request, and I hope that also answers the point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Since the Bill covers England and Wales, this means that the offence of child criminal exploitation will now apply UK-wide. These amendments have been tabled because, since the Bill was published, we have had those discussions and this is a way of making sure that we have a UK-wide approach.

These orders will give the police and courts across the whole of the United Kingdom powers to prevent child criminal exploitation happening in the first place, or happening again, by putting prohibitions and requirements on an adult who poses a risk of criminally exploiting a child. As I have mentioned, these provisions have been drafted in collaboration with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments and consequential amendments are therefore required for England and Wales to ensure that the orders function smoothly across the United Kingdom.

Finally, we have tabled some other amendments to put beyond doubt that assessment of whether an individual has engaged in child criminal exploitation, or associated conduct, in an application for, or imposition of, a child criminal exploitation prevention order is to be determined by the court on the basis of the civil standard of proof; that is, the balance of probabilities. This is appropriate given that there are civil rather than criminal proceedings in this case. The application of the civil standard of proof is well precedented in many similar preventive orders across the statute book and is important to ensure that an order can intervene earlier in the course of a child’s exploitation so that it can be prevented. I hope that I have wide support across the Committee for those measures—I think I do.

Amendment 232B is in the name of my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown. I welcome her moving her first amendment in such a positive way. She has secured the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which is a fairly impressive bunch on a first amendment, so I say well done to her on that. Her amendment seeks to create a further definition of child criminal exploitation.

I say to my noble friend—and I think that this was anticipated by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—that “child criminal exploitation” is already defined in Clause 40 by the description of conduct amounting to an offence. It is where an adult

“engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of … causing the child to”

engage in criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised a number of issues for which I am not accountable, but which my noble friend may wish to respond to. That is the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 40. Clause 40 captures activity online, through the use of technology and whether or not it is seemingly consensual. This definition also operates for the purposes of the child criminal exploitation prevention orders.

My noble friend has made a very strong case, through personal experience as a constituency MP in east London for almost 20 years, on the impact of county lines gangs on young people. I fully accept, understand and appreciate where she is coming from on those issues. That is why the Government introduced Clause 40 in the first place. It is also why the Government are introducing a bespoke stand-alone offence of CCE, along with the CCE prevention orders, to signal unequivocally that using a child to commit crime is against the law and that those children are victims of a crime. I also agree that any apparent consent of the child to involvement is irrelevant to whether they have been criminally exploited, and that criminal exploitation can occur online and through the use of technology. I understand my noble friend’s amendment, but these points are captured by the definition of CCE in Clause 40, which does not include a child’s consent and captures adults’ conduct by means of any method or control.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Obviously, I correctly anticipated the response that was coming, but I would be grateful if my noble friend would deal with this point about “enabling”, which is a substantive point of difference in the two definitions. Enabling is easier to prove than causing. “Causing” is closer to a child being used, which is reflected in my noble friend Lady Brown’s definition, but I do not think that “enabling” is in the Clause 40 definition as it stands.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. If she will bear with me, I will come on to that point in a moment. I am doing this in a structured order to try to address the points that are before the Committee today.

I say to my noble friend Lady Brown that, within the Bill, we are also taking the power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend have looked at that, and I will return to it in a moment. The guidance will include a descriptive definition of CCE, setting out in lay person’s terms the conduct captured by the offence, and will provide practical guidance on how the CCE offence and orders should be applied.

An important point, to go particularly to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, is that in Clause 60—which we will come to in later considerations—the Secretary of State has power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers of police about the exercise of their functions in connection with the prevention, detection and investigation of CCE offences and CCE prevention orders. I hope that the Committee will recognise that, importantly, the relevant police officers will be under a legal duty to have due regard to that statutory guidance when exercising functions in relation to the CCE offences and the CCE prevention orders. On the question of the statutory guidance, which my noble friend and others have touched on, the guidance has not been issued yet because the relevant legislation has not yet received the consent of this House or indeed Royal Assent. On the applicability of both of those conditions, statutory guidance under Clause 60 will be issued, which will place a legal duty on police officers to adhere to it.

My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned a very important point. There is a clear difference in what my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown has put forward, supported by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I hope this helps: the forms of conduct that are likely to enable a child to commit criminality are expected in most cases to also meet the test of conduct by an adult intended to cause, or facilitate the causing of, a child to commit a future crime. The nature of the offence, which is broad and large, will ensure that it captures offenders who will use children for crime. I believe that that is the right format. Both my noble friends have said that “enable” is a critical word. I believe that a separate definition is unnecessary, as it would have no legal impact over and above what is already in the Bill. It could cause confusion among police and prosecutors about which definition they should be applying.

The statutory guidance, which I emphasise will gave a legal bass and will be issued under Clause 60, is the appropriate place to provide the extra detail to understand proposals that are covered by the amendment, but which are already in scope of the clear and simple legal terms of Clause 40. I know that that is the defence that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti expected me to use, but it is the defence: Clause 40 is what it is, and the guidance will also be statutory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will sound like I am repeating myself from Question Time, but, very shortly, we anticipate bringing forward a policing White Paper looking at a whole range of mechanisms to improve police performance. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will wait for further detail on the policing White Paper, which I have already said to the House will be published before Christmas, to allow for further discussion on a range of efficiency and improvement matters for policing. The point she makes is worthy of consideration, but I will park it until a later date in the parliamentary calendar.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his detailed response, but will he reflect on the potential distinction between “enabling” and “causing”? Will he go back to parliamentary counsel and be clear that enablers will always meet this threshold of causation? I am really concerned about that. I understand that my noble friend has rejected the idea of a separate free-standing definition and is worried about confusion between the offence definition and a general definition, but in blending the intentions of the Government and those of my noble friend Lady Brown, it would be helpful to know that that language of “causing”, without specific mention of enabling, is watertight.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for further pressing me on the issue. I have tried to explain to the Committee where the Government are on this. We always reflect on debates in Committee, because there are always opportunities for my noble friend and others to bring matters back on Report. I am giving the Committee today the Government’s view that the definition in Clause 40, plus the guidance issued under Clause 60, will be sufficient to cover the objective of ensuring that we have this offence on the statute book and monitored and enforced by authorities.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I have just remembered that we will have further discussions on police training in later groups in Committee today, but the White Paper will deal with a whole range of matters on improving police performance.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that it is not a slogan; it is a manifesto commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period as a matter of some urgency. She will know that we have been trying to recruit a chair for the national grooming inquiry over many weeks, and we are still trying to do that. The anticipation is that we will, I hope, achieve that as quickly as possible. We have enabled a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to assist us in that recruitment, and this very afternoon we will have debates in this House on the Crime and Policing Bill on those issues. It is the Government’s intention to establish the inquiry as soon as possible, and I will keep this House updated.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, this feels like an appropriate moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale, who has worked so hard on this issue for so long, and to remember the friend of this whole House, the late, great Baroness Newlove. What are the Government doing to ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner is involved in the consultation and development of the strategy, and will the new commissioner be properly resourced to help to implement it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the recognition of my noble friend Lady Gale. I looked this up today, and she was asking me questions about this issue in this very week last year, so she is not one not to be persistent on the same issues. I also pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove for her work as Victims’ Commissioner. My noble friend will know that the Victims’ Commissioner had already been replaced from January next year. Self-evidently, we are hoping to produce the violence against women and girls strategy very shortly, but I will ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner both examines the potential future government strategy and is involved in its challenge and its delivery.

Asylum Policy

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. I take the view that the Government will determine ultimately which are safe countries. The Government will make that judgment. We are open to challenge and discussion, but the Government will have to make a determination on that. In doing so, we will look at a range of factors. What does the United Nations think? What do the other agencies think? In the end, however, the Government ultimately will have to determine. Again, let me just say that it may not even be a blanket “safe” for a particular country. It may be safe, for example, now, for individuals post an Assad regime to return to Syria, but it may equally not be safe for some individuals to do that. There is a case-by-case basis for the individual, but, ultimately, we have to make that call.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to human rights, and I know it is a sincere one, but the Statement itself appears to express some irritation with both Article 8, respect for private and family life, and even Article 3, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. In the light of our own justice and prison system being found in breach of Article 3 in the High Court just two days ago, can the Minister say a little more—give us a little more specificity—about the detail of the proposed renegotiation of Article 3 that the Statement refers to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. We are seeking international reform of the application of Article 3. We will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. That means we have to discuss it with our partners and get joint agreement, but it is an objective to which the Government are committed. It is one that will be tested. It will be in our consultation in due course. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. That will be subject to scrutiny, but it will be within the spirit of maintaining our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights application. Those are fair and legitimate objectives, and I hope that my noble friend will support them in due course.

Police Reform

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House and declare that, as a former director of Liberty, I was in unusual lockstep with chief constables in opposing what was to become the cross-party mistake of police and crime commissioners. Does my noble friend agree that the design fault that distinguishes the PCC model from others that have been discussed, including committees of councillors, mayors and so on, is in the word “temptation” in the Statement? An elected politician whose sole raison d’être is policing faces the almost inevitable temptation to dip their toes, particularly in media statements, into operational matters, and it is that design fault we need to avoid in future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. Key to the potential new model is that the police mayoral model/policing board model will be accountable for setting the budget and for holding the chief constable, whoever he or she may be, to account for the delivery of a police and crime plan that the police and crime commissioner signs off.

The temptation is there now for a running commentary and wanting to be the front person on any incident in a community because, ultimately, that election depends solely on police and crime performance. It does not depend, as mayoral elections do, on a whole range of issues, many of which are not directly political but many of which are. So there is a shift there which I hope will be welcome. Again I say that, at some point, this House will have an opportunity to test our proposals, because legislation will be required to facilitate these changes.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

74: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Defence under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention(1) Section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is repealed.(2) Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention) is amended as follows.(3) Omit subsection (2).(4) After subsection (3)(c) insert—“(d) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”(5) After subsection (4)(d) insert—“(e) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”(6) Omit subsection (4A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment alters the statutory defence for refugees to ensure compliance with Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which prevents penalisation of refugees who transit in a country on their way to receiving sanctuary in another country, if they have come directly from a place where their life or freedom was threatened and they have good cause for their irregular entry or presence. This amendment restores the common law position and repeals section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act which sought to overturn it. It also expands the defence to cover not only offences relating to those who enter with false documents but also those who enter without any immigration documents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in Committee I proposed replacing Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 because it is incomplete. That section attempts to comply with Article 31 of the refugee convention by providing statutory defences for refugees who have irregularly entered or are present in the UK but who have come directly from a country persecuting them; they have presented themselves to the authorities without delay and shown good cause for their unlawful entry or presence. However, as described by our Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on this Bill, the statutory defence

“is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention”.

Strangely, the defence is available only to refugees who have used false documents; it does not extend to refugees who arrive, enter, or are present here irregularly, with no documents at all.

It is unclear to me why our country would privilege the refugee arriving by plane on a false passport over the stateless person or refugee with no passport or visa. Refugees are often compelled to flee with nothing but the clothes on their backs. What little they have may be stolen or lost along the way. I raised this anomaly in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Katz said that he understood what he called this “specific inconsistency”, very kindly agreeing to write to me on the point—that was on 13 October, at vol. 849, col. 113 of Hansard. As my noble friend helped explain to the Committee, also in col. 113, the defence is also imperfect and incomplete because it fails to protect from prosecution the refugee who, in fleeing persecution, stops in another safe country.

Sadly, those who drafted my noble friend’s letter to me of 24 October demonstrated neither his logic and compassion nor, frankly, any acknowledgement of what he actually said at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, the letter would be more fitting in support of opposition amendments proposed by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and rejected by the Government and my noble friend that day in recognition of refugees who transit countries en route to the United Kingdom. The Home Office letter said:

“The Convention is quite clear about the need for migrants to ‘come directly’ to benefit from the protections it affords them. In reality, not a single small boat that has reached the UK has set out from a dangerous country where migrants could not be reasonably expected to claim asylum. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are all signatory to the Convention and are entirely safe countries with functioning asylum systems of which migrants are able to avail themselves”.


It is as if last year’s general election never happened.

Therefore, almost all who arrive in the UK, even if eventually found by the authorities, by the Home Office or the appeal system, to be refugees, have no statutory defence to protect them from criminalisation and prosecution. That is contrary to a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention.

--- Later in debate ---

This is all to say that the decisions to pursue prosecutions in cases where there is an active asylum claim are not taken lightly and to give some assurance that there is a process in place to ensure that those who stand to benefit from the defence in Section 31 are not prevented from doing so. I hope that detail provides some extra level of assurance to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and to your Lordships’ House. The Government remain committed to the protection of refugees and to their obligations under the refugee convention 1951. Given that, I invite my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for even being in the Chamber, let alone participating in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his courtesy and sincerity once more.

As to the advice that he has been given, I am afraid there is a circularity about saying, “Do not worry, because we will look very carefully at whether someone has a defence”, when, on the basis of the correspondence I have been sent and this legislation, there will be no defence, even for a genuine asylum seeker or a recognised refugee who came in a boat. To me, that is a huge contradiction: “Welcome to Britain. You are a refugee and the beginning of your life in the UK will be criminal prosecution”.

None the less, I know my arithmetic, and I do not want to test noble Lords’ patience much longer— I know that there is other business. I am afraid this will have to be sorted out by the DPP or in the criminal and appeal courts. Perhaps in the longer term, the Government may think again—who knows? For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 1. There should be a review of all these orders before layering another one on. In fact, some of that work has been done: freedom of information data demonstrates that people from minority ethnic communities are far more likely to be subject to this range of orders—Gypsy and Irish Traveller people are also more likely to receive disproportionate criminal punishments on breaching the orders—so the lack of monitoring of the use of behavioural orders is disturbing. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not want to continue this cycle of criminalising vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, so please can we have a formal review of the impact of the orders currently in place?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I find myself in agreement with many of the genuine human rights concerns already expressed around the Committee. I find myself in a bit of a time warp because these concerns were evidenced by the use, abuse, disrepute and ultimately disuse that anti-social behaviour orders fell into all those years ago. The criminalisation of vulnerable people, people with addiction problems, people with mental health problems, homeless people and so on is not hypothesis; it was evidenced by the practice of the original anti-social behaviour orders.

I therefore hope that, in his reply, my noble friend, who I know to be a very thoughtful Minister, will go some way to expressing how he thinks these new respect orders will improve on the very unhappy history of ASBOs. Other members of the Committee have already set out what happened in the interim. It would be useful if my noble friend the Minister could explain what will be different this time, why and how.

In a nutshell, my concerns are, first, that the threshold of behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress is low and vague. To be blunt, some people are easily alarmed and distressed. Harassment is the more objective, higher part of that threshold. That is the entry point at which vulnerable people can first fall into this quasi-civil criminal order that can sweep them into the criminal justice system rather than diverting them from it.

The second concern is that, once one is under the jurisdiction of such an order, it becomes a personal, bespoke criminal code for the individual. I remember the suicidal woman banned from bridges and the pig farmer who was given an ASBO because the pigs wandered on to the neighbours’ land. Is it really appropriate to have bespoke criminal codes for different people in different parts of the country? The postcode lottery point was made well, but there is also the issue of vulnerable people and minorities, who find themselves disproportionately affected.

Once you breach your personalised criminal code—which could be to keep away from a part of town where your close relatives live—you are then swept into the system. That is my third concern about these quasi-civil criminal orders: the ease with which vulnerable people with chaotic lives who have been let down by social services and society in general are now swept into the criminal justice system rather than diverted from it.

Finally, I share the concerns about making such orders available to even younger people, who really should not be anywhere near the criminal justice system. In a much later group—sometime next year, I think, when we will still be in this Committee and will be older, if not wiser—I have tabled an amendment, with the support of the noble and learned Baronesses, Lady Hale of Richmond and Lady Butler-Sloss, to tackle the shockingly low age of criminal responsibility, 10 years-old, that we still have in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

but only if the so-called non-crime hate incident is face to face. What would be completely unacceptable is for people to complain that they suffered alarm or distress because of social media or online messages. Our courts will be chock-a-block with claims that all the rubbish, including nasty rubbish on social media, could be included. The courts have better things to do. It is quite simple: if you do not want nasty messages on social media, get off it. I never once had a nasty or nice message on any social media, since I would not touch it with a 10-foot barge pole. It is a vile platform and, as a libertarian, I say: let the buyer beware.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

In the spirit of Committee, I wonder whether I might challenge the noble Lord a little on this epidemic of child criminality to which he so graphically referred. I think we should park these arguably very rare cases of child homicide outside a debate on anti-social behaviour, but would he agree with me that, when it comes to fisticuffs—what would be common assault—or even theft, we know that quite small children in every home in the country are capable of fisticuffs with each other, between siblings, and taking things that are not their own? But is not a crucial difference in our response to those children? Anti-social behaviour on the playing fields of Eton rarely ends up anywhere near the criminal justice system, but looked-after children in particular are more likely to be reported to the police and end up criminalised at a very early age. So does the noble Lord agree that children in, for example, England and Wales are no more malign than children in Scotland, where the age of responsibility is 14? We should look to ourselves as adult society and our responses to these vulnerable children.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The noble Baroness says that child homicides are very rare, but they have doubled in the past 12 years. All the statistics that I quoted were from the Youth Justice Board and the Office for National Statistics, showing a huge increase in knife crime. Then there are the police forces themselves; there is an article relating to the Met, or a discussion on a blog from yesterday, asking whether knife crime by children was out of control—and those are their words, not mine.

There has been a huge increase in viciousness, knife use and violent crime by children, and I suggest in my amendments that lowering the age to include 14 to 18 year-olds in respect orders might make a difference, if we could hive them off early. Of course, I accept that children in Scotland, as in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, will also have violent tendencies. My concern is that we are failing to intervene early enough to do anything about them; that is the whole cause of the problem in the past 30 years—a lack of early intervention to deal properly with children. For some, that will mean a caution or restorative justice; for others, it could mean better work from social services. But some prolific young offenders may need to be taken out of circulation, for their own benefit and to save the lives of other children.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint on securing the considerable legal services of my noble friend Lady Levitt. The Government are very lucky to have them both steering this supertanker. There is much to commend: its focus on several vulnerable groups, including exploited children, victims of stalking, cuckooing and so on. I hope to speak to these parts in Committee. There is further scope to innovate in other areas genuinely to improve criminal justice.

I still have some concerns about an arms race begun over 30 years ago and escalated by some parts of this measure. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—some noble Lords are too young to remember—began raising public expectations that Governments could legislate their way to a harmonious society. Politicians purported to do this even in times of austerity, amid real-time cuts to living standards, in the justice system, and to youth, mental health and addiction services. Continued rhetorical attacks on the judiciary and fiscal attacks on legal aid have left swathes of ordinary people thinking that the law is not for them. It will arrest and prosecute them for a growing array of crimes and misdemeanours but rarely protect them from abusive employers, landlords or unaccountable corporations. That is why I welcome the imminent Hillsborough law.

The disillusionment can be disastrous. Knee-jerk politics fights the alligators but never drains the swamp. I fear that we have been breeding alligators in a swamp in which only populist far-right politics thrives. We see this long shadow in compromises to due process rights, the unregulated deployment of technology at the cost of personal privacy, and always more police powers; every year, yet more powers—broad, vague and never mirrored by measures improving police vetting, training and discipline.

In 1994, it was the end of the right to silence, suspicionless stop and search, and restrictions on gatherings featuring music with a repetitive beat. Now, and for years, the target has been non-violent protest. I share the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner’s concerns about our existing public order statute book; and now we have the measures proposed in this Bill, and those trailed as likely new government amendments to come in Committee, to restrict cumulative protest. Protests against asylum hotels make me very anxious. But I would no more ban them than those against job losses, benefit cuts, environmental degradation, war crimes, or racism and antisemitism. What would blanket bans on face coverings at protests mean for dissidents outside the embassy of an authoritarian foreign power? With all its churches, restrictions on protesting “in the vicinity of” places of worship could render our capital an extremely un-British protest-free zone.

Recently Ministers have warned, rightly, of the existential dangers of a far-right Administration. We must never write, let alone legislate for, a blank cheque for potential future anti-democratic abuse. While today is one for broad brushes and four-minute speeches, I hope noble Lords will come prepared for line-by-line forensic scrutiny of Bill and amendment text in the vital weeks to come. The other place may invoke the will of the people, but here we read the small print.

Police: Vetting, Training and Discipline

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the BBC Panorama documentary Undercover in the Police, what plans they have to change law or practice regarding police vetting, training or discipline.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The scenes in the documentary were simply unacceptable and deeply concerning. The Home Office supports the commissioner’s drive to root out those unfit to serve the public. The Government must improve standards nationally. That is why, earlier this year, the Government made changes to discipline and vetting, and we are intending to introduce further measures later this year to strengthen suspension arrangements and to put police vetting standards on a more robust legislative footing.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend the Minister. I gave him advance notice of a case of a 68 year-old man convicted in Guildford Crown Court just last week of a string of pretty horrific paedophile offences. During the trial, it emerged that he had served as a police CHIS spy for many years in the environmental movement. Of course, we subsequently legislated under the last Government to give advance criminal immunities to such people. Is it time to look again at whether the system is robust enough to protect in that necessarily shadowy area of police practice?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the conviction last week. Quite simply, it is unacceptable that individuals are involved in that type of behaviour while serving as police officers, undercover or not. She will be aware that there is a long-standing undercover policing inquiry, which is examining issues and will report to the Government as soon as practicable. I am expecting to be able to respond to those recommendations once they are produced.

In the meantime, and this is the important point for the House as a whole, the Government have improved vetting and are committed to strengthening police vetting. The measures that we have brought forward this year and also in the Crime and Policing Bill, which coincidentally is before the House today, are ones which will strengthen to ensure that we root out individuals who are not suitable to hold the badge of honour of a police officer in the United Kingdom.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I am perhaps not as warm towards this amendment as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, just was. It seems to me that it does give away its intention in the title,

“Primacy of the Refugee Convention”,


which fundamentally is an assault on whether we think Parliament has primacy in our view. Of course I will give way, although I have not got very far in my argument.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As a point of information, does the noble Lord realise that the title,

“Primacy of the Refugee Convention”


is directly adopted from the Conservative’s Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I was not aware of that, but I am not sure it changes my argument. As we have just discovered by listening to the debates about Article 31 of the convention, part of the issue here is that the interpretation of the words is contested, as we heard from the points my noble friend Lord Murray set out when he talked about restoring what he feels is the original definition—indeed, that has already been done in the Nationality and Borders Act, which I think has about half-a-dozen interpretation sections interpreting parts of the convention—and from what the noble Baroness said when she disagreed that that was the original intention.

The whole point is that, if there are disputes about what the convention means, somebody has to decide what it means. It can be either be courts and judges or Parliament setting out what we think we have signed up to and being clear about that, and Parliament has done so in a number of cases. If you put this amendment into statute, it would effectively say that judges could assert that what Parliament said was not the interpretation of the convention and a judge would decide what to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that she has been careful to word this amendment so that the court could not strike down primary legislation. If I may say so, I do not think that is a terribly good safeguard, because an enormous amount of our immigration legislation is not primary legislation but secondary legislation. All the Immigration Rules are secondary legislation made by Ministers using primary legislative powers, so unless there is something explicitly in the primary legislation which gives Ministers powers to make Immigration Rules that specifically forbids a court being able to do this, if this amendment were carried, a court could strike down our Immigration Rules.

That would in effect mean judges, not Ministers, making the decision. Of course those Immigration Rules are not just made by Ministers; Ministers draft them, but they are put before both Houses of Parliament and approved by Parliament. In the end, my contention is that, if you want to have an immigration system that carries the support of the public, decisions have to be made by people who are accountable to the public.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about the convention being chipped away. Part of the issue is that a large number of members of the public do not think that it works for them. They think that people can come to this country as economic migrants, put their hands up and say that they are asylum seekers, and that that somehow gives them a free pass.

When I was Immigration Minister, I argued that we should have a tough system that lets people with a good claim stay but is clear that, where people do not have a good claim, we will kick them out. All that the charities that end up supporting them do is damage the public’s support for our asylum system. If people think that this is a way of getting around the system for economic migrants who get here, and that courts interpret the legislation in a way that is not intended by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament, it damages public support for the very principle that the noble Baroness is setting out; that is incredibly damaging.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way a second time. My point is on not the big stuff around public opinion but the specific question of the danger of courts striking down the Immigration Rules. Does the noble Lord realise that the 1993 Act, which he said a moment ago does not really matter, is still in force; and that the provision I cited already prohibits the Immigration Rules breaching the refugee convention?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Parts of the Act are still in force, obviously, but, if what the noble Baroness says were true, there would be no need to have her amendment. The fact is that, if you say that the courts can decide that the convention—as they interpret it—can override legislation, that is damaging. The world is a very different place now from what it was in 1951 when the convention was adopted. You have to reflect that by democratically accountable Ministers and legislators making decisions about how we interpret it in the modern era; that is how you strengthen the principles underpinning it, but in a way that works in the modern world. If you do not do that, you will just have more people thinking that the whole thing is nonsense and that we should pull out of it. Actually, I do not think that we should pull out of it—it needs work and it needs to be amended, but we also need to interpret it correctly. My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment, which sets out a definition that is relevant in the modern world around people who pass through a number of safe countries then choose to come to the UK, is sensible; it would, I think, have the support of a large number of people in the United Kingdom.

In the end, the decision on whether that is the correct interpretation of the convention should, in my humble opinion, be taken by Ministers and by Parliament. It should not be taken by judges being able to insert their interpretation of the 1951 convention, as it was drafted for a very different world, and how they think it should be interpreted now. That would be a retrograde step and would not do what the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Ludford, are trying to do. I think that they are frustrated that the public do not support the provisions of the convention and they are being chipped away at, but what the noble Baroness is proposing, supported by the noble Baroness opposite, would actually make things worse, not better. If the public think that the asylum system is not under any democratic control and that decisions are taken by courts, not accountable people, the system will become less supported by the public—not more—and the whole thing will unravel. If you believe in an asylum system, which I do, and you want to strengthen it, you have to allow democratic institutions to reflect the world in which we now live, not the world in which the convention was drafted. If you do that and make it a convention that is able to be interpreted in the modern world, you strengthen it and make it more likely to succeed than doing the opposite.

For those reasons, it would strike at the primacy of Parliament to put this into law, but it would also do something that I think, fundamentally, both noble Baronesses would not support: it would weaken public support for the asylum system, which, in the end, they will come to regret.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, I was not talking about schemes that were set up for specific groups of people in specific situations, such as those from Hong Kong, Ukraine or Afghanistan, which the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, I am absolutely clear as well that I do not disagree with him or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on the principle that we would not want to leave that purely up to the courts rather than having it as part of legislation that has been proposed by Ministers and supported by both Houses of Parliament. I do not disagree with that, but the counter-counterfactual is also the case: if we excluded anyone who passed through any country in which they could reasonably stop, as a safe port of call, then we would not be taking anybody else in outside those established schemes. I do not think that is a reasonable, practical interpretation of the facts on the ground. For that reason, I am afraid that we will not be able to support Amendment 203I from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.

Before I finish, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had the courtesy to say that she would not be able to be in her place until the end of this stage of the debate. She took the opportunity when speaking to rail against the increasing authoritarianism and blaming of refugees for all the ills of this country. I urge her, and indeed all noble Lords, if they think this is the case for this Government, to read carefully the words of our Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Labour Party conference. He set out a clear case, with humane and progressive reasons, for controlling borders. Indeed, I point to the words of our new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood. She is very clear that for people from, as she says, an ethnic minority, having a controlled system of borders is a good thing. There is nothing progressive about insecurity, whether insecurity of income, on our streets or on our borders. This Government were elected to tackle all three things, and we are determined to tackle them.

Given that, and given the time of night, I will conclude and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement in this group, even though some engagement was with a rather broader brush than ideally one would like in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did not need to be self-deprecating about not being a lawyer, nor did other noble Lords need to damn my amendments with faint praise for being surprisingly “legally coherent”, even though they disagreed with the substance.

Some noble Lords were of course going to use these amendments for the big debate that rages in our countries at the moment around the refugee convention. However, to go to the detail of my amendments, neither of them would affect the big debate about whether we should be in or out of the refugee convention, or whether we should be in it but periodically ignore it. My amendments were attempting to achieve some coherence in our statute book, which I think is what a Committee stage on a borders Bill should be about.

There are anomalies in the way that we are half-pregnant with the refugee convention at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, did not quite believe me when I said that Section 2 of the 1993 Act already provides that the Immigration Rules may not conflict with the refugee convention and therefore courts may decide on that matter. I would like him to believe me or, if he does not, to look at the statute, because Section 2 of the 1993 Act is still in force. The noble Lord then said that if what I say is correct, we would not need my amendment, but of course the rules are just the rules. Underneath the Immigration Rules there are executive decisions and guidance, and above the rules there is legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly and understandably brought up the question of democracy, and other noble Lords engaged in the age-old debate about what democracy is and the relationship between elected parts of the constitution and the courts. There must be a relationship between the two because there is no democracy without the rule of law and arbitrary decisions could be made. The moment you legislate, you are passing some role to the judiciary. Some of us are happy with that and some of us do not want quite so much of that, but my amendments would expressly preserve parliamentary sovereignty as the overriding principle in our legislation, even under the Human Rights Act.

On Amendment 185, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for identifying the point I make about the anomaly in the current position. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because clearly I did not make myself clear enough in my opening remarks; he said that my amendment would be a licence for people to come with forged papers. The anomaly I refer to is that, as a refugee with forged papers, you get protection from prosecution now, but not as a refugee with no papers. That is the detail of what I was trying to achieve in these specific amendments, notwithstanding this very general debate, and I am grateful for that. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 184 withdrawn.

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As it happens, my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee then. She then became a Home Office Minister and is fully aware of the ongoing discussions. We will continue to discuss with any Church leader the basis for individuals claiming conversion as part of the process of asylum, but I reiterate to the House that claiming conversion or Christianity does not mean that the individual is accepted. That is subject to a rigorous test by officials in the Home Office.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the substance of this Question, would my noble friend the Minister like to restate the Government’s commitment to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and, indeed, to the refugee convention itself?