Police: Records

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Following the recommendations of Bishop James Jones that came out of the Hillsborough inquiry, there was a request for a code of practice on public sector record keeping to be introduced within the police. The code was introduced in 2023, following consultation and the support of the previous Government, and it will be in operation until 2028, when we expect to review it accordingly. My noble friend will know that the code of practice is essentially a police code, but the accountable Minister is the Home Secretary, who I suspect would take a very strong view on a chief constable seeking to undertake the course of action that my noble friend indicated could be taken by South Yorkshire Police. We should examine the code, make it work, monitor its progress and, ultimately, make sure that it is fit for purpose in 2028.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, since the College of Policing introduced its updated code of practice on records management, both South Yorkshire Police and Northumbria Police have admitted destroying records relating to Orgreave, despite long-standing calls for a public inquiry. Does the Minister accept that voluntary compliance has failed to secure proper accountability and that legislative oversight is now required?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend, the Home Secretary is the accountable Minister with political oversight for the code of practice, although it is obviously in part an operational matter for the police. The noble Baroness mentions the alleged destruction of papers by Northumbria Police. There is for the first time an inquiry into Orgreave, which is ongoing and which this Government established, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. He has terms of reference to look at all matters relating to Orgreave. I do not want to pre-empt any discussions or any judgments that he may make but, self-evidently, from my perspective, if papers are available then they should be available to the inquiry and should not be going missing or being destroyed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55A, which is supported by StopWatch, a campaign organisation that is concerned with the use of stop and search. I disagree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

Amendment 55A would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders and related injunctions. Specifically, it would ensure that these reports include the number of occasions when stop and search has been used by the police prior to the issuing of such orders, and the protected characteristics of those who have been issued with them. These powers can have serious and lasting consequences for those subject to them, particularly young people and those from marginalised communities. Yet at present, the public and Parliament have very limited visibility of how these tools are being applied. This would ensure transparency and accountability about how anti-social behaviour powers are being used across England and Wales.

We know from existing evidence that stop and search disproportionately affects people from black and non-white ethnic backgrounds. The Government’s own figures last year reported that there were nearly 25 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people and yet only around six for every 1,000 white people. There is a real risk that these disparities could be echoed or even compounded in the issuing of anti-social behaviour orders or injunctions. Without clear data, broken down with protected characteristics, we cannot know whether these concerns are justified, nor can we properly evaluate the fairness and effectiveness of the system. By requiring the Home Office to publish quarterly data, this amendment would bring much-needed transparency. It would allow Parliament, bodies with oversight and the public to monitor trends, identify disparities and ensure that anti-social behaviour powers are being used proportionately and appropriately.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is clearly very exercised about the use of resources. He actually said that more information does not reduce crime. I think that is probably completely wrong, because the more information you have, the better you can understand what is happening. So this is about good governance and evidence-based policy. If these powers are being used fairly, the data will confirm that. If not, then we will have the information necessary to take corrective action. Either way, the transparency will strengthen public trust in policing and the rule of law.

This amendment is about shining a light where it is most needed. It would do nothing to restrict police powers. It would simply ensure that their use can be properly scrutinised. I hope the Minister will agree that accountability and transparency are not optional extras in a just society; they are actually the foundations of it.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we support Amendment 55A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She has already highlighted the importance of improved data collection around the use of anti-social behaviour legislation. This is essential because it is impossible to gauge the fairness or effectiveness of anti-social behaviour powers without adequate data and transparency.

We also support Clause 7. It is important to have more transparency around how these powers are used by local authorities and housing providers. The evidence is that they already have this information but are failing to share it. As a result, little is known about how these powers are being used in practice.

The charity Crisis wants the Government to go further by making this information publicly available. This would provide full transparency around patterns of anti-social behaviour and the powers used to tackle it. Is this something the Government might consider? Perhaps the Minister could let us know.

The police, too, must improve their recording practices around anti-social behaviour. A report last year by HMICFRS found that some forces’ recording is very poor, while others do not always record the use of statutory powers. We believe that transparency is key to ensuring that future orders are applied reasonably and proportionately, and to prevent discrimination.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, as ever, raises a serious and pertinent point with his Amendment 35. Clause 7 permits the Secretary of State, by regulations, to require authorities to provide them with information about anti-social behaviour. Unfortunately, Clause 7 contains rather vague requirements on what information the regulations might contain. It would perhaps be helpful for the Minister to provide the Committee with some concrete examples of what might be included. My noble friend is absolutely right that social media posts should not be included in any of the guidance.

With Amendment 55A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my fear is that the police and the Home Office, already overburdened with creating statistics, will yet again be further burdened. Perhaps this is not the way forward.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the speakers in this debate so far. This Committee stage will be a long haul, but I hope that we can continue this level of discussion and scrutiny throughout. Sorry.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

No problem.

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to Amendments 4, 5 and 7 in my name. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has made a very clear case for each one, so I will speak briefly. I put on record my thanks to Justice, which has gathered insights from so many people working in this field and it has been really interesting reading case studies that are backed up by very clear evidence.

These amendments would provide essential safeguards, ensuring the powers contained within respect orders are proportionate. Amendment 4 would require orders to be made only where there is evidence of actual conduct, not speculation about what a person might do in future. Amendment 7 would ensure that an order is imposed with a clear end date, capped at two years. In my opinion, it is wrong that an individual could be subject to potentially serious restrictions in perpetuity as a result of behaviour that falls below the criminal threshold. In Amendment 5, we want to change the “just and convenient” threshold generally applied in civil proceedings to “necessary and proportionate”. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put a very good case for this—much better than I could ever do, so I will not try.

Amendment 1, moved by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, calling for an independent review of existing anti-social behaviour powers before respect orders are rolled out, would improve the Bill considerably, because precisely what laws are already used, and what works in practice, is critical to their success.

On the subject of likely success, I welcome the fact that respect orders can include positive requirements that people have to, for example, attend rehabilitation—perhaps to deal with addictions to drugs or drink or both. However, such requirements can work only if every region has capacity in drug and alcohol treatment programmes. I am sure the Minister is aware that only 12 of the 43 police forces returned data last year on how many cases were referred for such treatment. Without that information, we cannot know how such rehabilitation can work. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, when he responds, about what efforts are being made to ensure there are places available. Legislation alone is no good without resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we must ensure that courts can operate within their means. If we issue them with new responsibilities, we have to be sure that they have the capacity to fulfil them. Unfortunately, in restricting respect orders to the High Court and county courts, the Government risk not providing the bandwidth to deal with new orders.

At the end of Labour’s first year in office, the Crown Court backlog suffered an annual increase of 11%. There are over 74,000 cases waiting to be judged. Of course, that burden is not entirely at the door of the Crown Courts, but a considerable number of the outstanding cases will require their use. County courts are in a better—but still not ideal—state. The average time for justice to be delivered is just over 49 weeks. Reflecting on this, it makes sense for the Government to divide the responsibilities for the new respect orders as widely as possible. The logical conclusion is to permit an application for a respect order to be made to a magistrates’ court.

If respect orders were confined to the serious criminality that we expect to be dealt with by the High Court and county courts, I would accept placing additional pressures on to them and excluding magistrates’ courts. It is right that those facing serious harassment or other forms of anti-social behaviour have the ability to make application to these courts, but the scope for respect orders is far wider than that. The definition of anti-social behaviour is to include actions causing alarm and distress. These are two very subjective metrics: they are fundamentally different from harassment and more serious forms of anti-social behaviour. So I see no reason why magistrates’ courts should not be available to deal with these less serious and potentially menial forms of anti-social behaviour. This is the reasoning behind Amendments 8 and 16, tabled in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie.

There is also precedent for this. When the last Labour Government introduced anti-social behaviour orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, they could be made only by a magistrates’ court. This recognised that anti-social behaviour should be the purview of summary justice. The Minister might argue that the Government are simply replicating the application process for anti-social behaviour injunctions and that they were the action of the previous Government. That may be a fair criticism, but that would not mean that the Government are right. Simply following the case of previous legislation does not automatically mean that the legislation before us today is following the right path; nor does it acknowledge the very different state of the backlog in the High Court and county courts today, as opposed to 2014. It makes far more sense to permit the use of magistrates’ courts for this purpose today, given the historic case burden.

Finally, I can see no downside to this. It will permit burden-sharing between three types of courts. It would not alter the nature of the orders, nor the process by which they are made. But it would make some progress toward reducing the waiting time for the making of a respect order. Surely the Government do not want to see a 49-week wait for a respect order to be made. Would that not hamper the effectiveness of these supposedly tough new respect orders? I hope the Minister will consider these amendments carefully and sensibly.

The other amendments in this group seek to minimise the pressure placed on our courts by the new measures and ensure that our shared principles of justice are upheld. Interim respect orders interact with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. They can be made following a court adjournment up until the final court hearing. They have the same function as a regular respect order and can impose the same restrictions. I am conscious that this may sometimes be necessary. I reiterate the debilitated state of our courts and the fact that adjournment is sometimes out of their hands, even if the defendant is likely to engage in further anti-social behaviour. In these occasional instances, I can understand the need for an interim respect order.

Amendment 15 aims to find a balance, creating a presumption against issuing an interim order, while still leaving the option open. Amendment 19 exists to forward the argument that these orders can be issued to prevent only further harassment, and not the vague concepts of alarm and distress. These amendments aim to ease the administrative burden on the courts. Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that, if an appeal is made against a decision to refuse to issue an interim respect order, the defendant is notified. It is right that a person should know when they might be subjected to a respect order, especially when they have not yet been proven guilty. I beg to move Amendment 8.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I have just a few comments. I am quite concerned that the latest figures show that the magistrates’ courts’ backlog of cases to be heard reached 361,000 as of September 2025, a record high and a significant increase on previous years. In the other place, the Minister said the legal test for respect orders was being kept “broad and flexible” to enable them to be used for a wide range of anti-social behaviours. Again, this suggests significant extra pressure on courts. Jamming up the system further is not going to help victims. Can the Minister say what the Government’s assessment is of the impact on the wider criminal justice system?

Giving evidence in the other place, the Police Federation also pointed to the pressure these orders would put on custody places, saying that infrastructure was needed to make new legislation “effective and believable”. Perhaps the Minister could also address that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their comments. I am sorry: I am just getting my pages in order; it came slightly more quickly than I expected. I thought we would have a few more contributions.

The amendments all relate to the role of the courts in the Government’s new respect orders, and it is fair and proper that they do so. These new orders will enable courts to ban offenders from engaging in formal, harmful anti-social behaviour and—again, as we have discussed—tackle the root cause. Amendments 8 and 16 seek to allow magistrates’ courts to issue respect orders. I have been clear that the respect orders are civil behaviour orders intended to prevent further anti-social behaviour occurring. They also aim to encourage rehabilitation through the positive requirements that I discussed in the previous group of amendments. Because they are civil in nature, applications should be heard in the civil courts, which have the appropriate procedures and expertise for handling these types of orders.

Magistrates’ courts deal primarily with criminal matters and summary offences. Hearing civil applications in a magistrates’ court would risk treating preventive orders as punitive measures, when, actually, as I mentioned, they are designed either to try to stop people undertaking negative behaviour or to encourage people to undertake what I will term positive behaviour, such as anger management or alcohol awareness courses.

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that the interim respect orders are not issued by the courts unless specifically said otherwise, and where an application has been made without notice. Again, anti-social behaviour can escalate quickly and cause great harm, and an interim respect order enables rapid protection in urgent cases involving immediate risk. Judges can make decisions based on the individual facts of the case and ensure that victims receive immediate relief in cases which they deem to be appropriate. On occasion, these will have to be issued without giving notice to the respondent, and it is important that judges retain the ability to do so on or without request from the relevant agency. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the court would be required to apply itself to the question of whether it was appropriate to make an interim order. There is no question of one being made without an express determination to that effect, but speed is still required.

Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that, if an appeal is made against the decision by the courts to refuse an interim respect order, the respondent is duly notified. I reiterate that interim respect orders are designed to provide urgent temporary relief to protect victims and the public from serious harm before a full hearing. If the respondents were notified of an appeal, it could undermine the immediacy and effectiveness of the interim order, and doing so would likely complicate proceedings, prolonging risk to victims and communities. I come back to the fact that all the measures in the Bill are designed to tackle anti-social behaviour at source and provide either interventions to prevent or interventions to encourage positive behaviour. The law allows appeals without notice to maintain speed and efficiency in safeguarding measures.

Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the interim respect orders are made only when the court considers the respondent likely to engage in harassment. Again, I just say to the noble Lord that the definition of anti-social behaviour is broad: it is intended to capture behaviours that may not meet the criminal threshold but which can cause severe harm to victims and communities. As I pointed out, interim respect orders are a necessary thing to provide immediate relief, preventing harmful behaviour from escalating and causing further damage to victims and communities. I would have thought that the noble Lord would have supported that general direction of travel. They are a preventative order, not a punitive order; they are punitive only in the event of a breach. Again, the purpose of the order is not to have that breach in the first place but to send a signal that says, “This behaviour is unacceptable”, or “This support mechanism is required”, and if you do not attend the support mechanism or if you breach the preventive mechanism, you are facing a potential criminal sanction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down —I love that expression—can I just check? I think he said that respect orders were not going to be piloted. Is that correct? Diana Johnson, the Policing Minister in the other place, in the third session in Committee, said:

“We will pilot respect orders to ensure that they are as effective as possible before rolling them out across England and Wales”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 1/4/25; col. 104.]


So, what has changed between then and now that the Government have changed their mind?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have considered the reflections in another place, and we have now determined that we want to get on with this. Remember that the Bill has 12 days in Committee, and then Report, and we have a long way to go before Royal Assent. The Government want to have a manifesto commitment that they made in July 2024 implemented in good time. Even now, that manifesto commitment will take us potentially nearly two years to put in place. That is a reasonable process, we have consulted widely on the respect orders and that is the Government’s position now.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Can the Minister say whether anything else has changed that we would not be aware of because it has not been written down anywhere?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very wide question, my Lords. Let me say that the purpose of Committee is to provide a significant number of days for Members from all sides of the House—as we have had today, from the government side as well as from the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—to test Ministers and raise points. If the noble Baroness has points she wishes to raise during the passage of the Bill, as ever, I will try to answer them, either on the Floor of this House or in writing afterwards.

The noble Baroness asks whether things have changed. Even today, there are a number of amendments that the Government have brought forward in the groups of amendments that we are deliberating on today. Things move; the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was saying with regard to the immigration Bill that a number of things have changed over the course of time, and things move. It is now 16 months since the King’s Speech which introduced this legislation. We continue to monitor and move; where necessary we bring forward amendments, and I am open to testing on all matters at all times. But I would welcome the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, of course I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, opposing the increases in these fines, but I think we need to go further and for a variety of reasons abolish these on-the-spot penalties per se, which is why I have tabled this clause stand part notice.

You cannot overestimate how much public space protection orders and community protection notices trivialise what we understand to be dealing with anti-social behaviour. We have just had a long discussion about what anti-social behaviour is. These orders are part of the toolkit to deal with anti-social behaviour and they end up targeting individuals for the most anodyne and mundane activities, and banning everyday freedoms.

The use of fines has, in a way, led us to not take seriously what real anti-social behaviour is, because these fines are given out for such arbitrary, eccentric reasons. PSPOs and CPNs can be issued on a very low threshold, are entirely subject to misuse—there is lots of evidence showing that—and often criminalise, as I said, everyday activities. For example, PSPOs are often used to ban young people gathering in groups—which seems to me to be a dangerous attack on our right to assembly—despite the fact that the statutory guidance states that PSPOs should target only activities that cause a nuisance and should not criminalise

“everyday sociability, such as standing in groups”.

That is what it says, yet they are constantly used in that way and seem to be unaccountably doled out.

There are now over 2,000 PSPOs in England and Wales, and each of them contains up to 35 separate restrictions. That means that tens of thousands of new controls are being issued on public spaces all the time. As we heard earlier, they are imposed in different geographic areas, making prohibitions on different types of activities for different citizens from one place to another. You can be in one town where an activity is legal and then go to the next town and the same activity is illegal. We discussed some of that earlier.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out and as Justice has drawn our attention to, the inconsistent use of PSPOs creates a “postcode lottery” for victims but also for perpetrators. Justice says that this

“undermines the rule of law by making enforcement dependent on the victim’s location rather than the circumstances”.

I hope we can send the Minister the research done by Justice and by the Manifesto Club that has already been referred to so that he can see from the freedom of information requests to local authorities just what kind of activities are being issued with PSPOs and CPNs, and therefore what these fines are being used to tackle. I assure the Committee that it is innocuous activities, not anti-social behaviour. There are councils that are banning kite-flying, wild swimming, as we have heard, and using camping stoves.

I thought it was interesting that, recently, the Free Speech Union forced Thanet District Council to scrap its imposition of a sweeping public spaces protection order that would have banned the use of foul or abusive language in a public space in the Thanet area, so you would have been able to swear in one area but not in another. I understand that it might have raised a lot of money, but that is not necessarily the same as dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Actually, the councils themselves do not do the dirty work of enforcement. Instead, they outsource that to private companies, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has explained so well the dangers of using these private firms. We have a geographic breakdown of the national way of dealing with anti-social behaviour, and now we have an almost feudal way of collecting fines from it. These kinds of fines mean that orders might well be issued for all the wrong reasons—for income-generating, commercial purposes to meet targets that are about raising money rather than tackling anti-social behaviour—and increasing the fines will surely only incentivise that practice further.

I urge the Minister to consider that the noble cause that the Government are associated with here is dealing with anti-social behaviour, but using private companies to fine people in such a cavalier way discredits the whole cause. It is damaging the reputation of that noble cause. There is no transparency or oversight mechanism for these companies. There is one ban that I would like to bring in, and that is fining for profit. I hope the Minister will consider at least reviewing this and looking at it closely.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I do not intend to rehearse the arguments already put so effectively by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Suffice to say that we on these Benches fully support Amendment 23, as £500 is an extortionate amount of money for the type of behaviour that fines are designed to address and will simply result in private companies making even greater profits than they do at the moment while pushing those already struggling further into debt. For these reasons, we have serious reservations about the implications of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

The orders create a postcode lottery for victims. Charities warn that, in some parts of the country, orders are handed out like confetti. This undermines public trust by making enforcement dependent on the victim’s location.

Overall, the use of these powers needs to be subject to much stricter safeguards. The Government must ensure that there is proper oversight of their use and that the law is applied equally, openly and proportionately.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful debate on Clause 4 and associated amendments. The discussion has reflected the balance that must be struck between proportionate enforcement and ensuring that penalties remain effective and fair. As anti-social behaviour seems to be increasingly present on our streets, it is right that the clause is given careful consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised concerns in Amendment 23 about the overuse or inappropriate issuance of fixed penalty notices. Those are indeed legitimate points for consideration, and I am sure that all noble Lords agree that such powers should be exercised carefully and with a proper sense of proportion. Fixed penalty notices are designed and intended to deal swiftly with low-level offending without recourse to the courts, but they must always be used responsibly and in accordance with proper guidance. However, it seems that Clause 4(3) and (4) will help to act as a proper deterrent to anti-social behaviour, as they will play an important part in ensuring that the penalty levels remain meaningful. I look forward to hearing the Government’s thoughts on this matter.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We are grateful to my noble friend for his focus on practical enforcement. His Amendments 24 and 25 seek to strengthen the collection of fines by introducing automatic confiscation provisions and modest administrative charges for non-payment. It is right that those who incur penalties should expect to pay them, and that local authorities are not left to have to chase persistent defaulters at the public’s expense. We therefore view my noble friend’s proposals as a constructive contribution to the debate in order to ensure that enforcement is both efficient and fair.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has given notice of her intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. We respect this view, but we cannot agree to the removal of the clause. Clause 4 contains a number of sensible and proportionate measures that are designed to improve compliance and to strengthen the effectiveness of penalties. Many of these reforms build on the Criminal Justice Bill brought forward by the previous Conservative Government.

This debate has underlined the importance of maintaining confidence in the fixed penalty system, ensuring that it is used appropriately and enforced consistently. The system exists to fulfil the wider aim of upholding law and order in our communities. In these endeavours, we on our Benches will always be supportive.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. First, I say to him that when the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Covid inquiry were established, it took seven months to put a chair in place. We are currently at the very late stages of determining who the chair for this inquiry should be. It is very important, as he has said, that the inquiry, its chair and its terms of reference have the confidence of victims and survivors. I am sorry that a number of victims and survivors have walked away from the process; they will be welcomed back, should they wish to return.

We are working closely with the charity, NWG Network, to ensure that a range of victims put their views to this purpose; they are doing that currently. I believe that we will be in a position shortly to establish the inquiry, with the terms of reference to ensure that we do what we said we were going to do on the tin: to meet the objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set of a national inquiry, focusing on grooming gangs and on the ethnicity issue. I hope that we will have full support from the noble Lord and his colleagues in doing those important tasks.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, public trust in statutory inquiries is already fragile, and it is weakened by concerns about independence, delay and failure to act on recommendations. Take, for example, the Jay inquiry: it took seven years and reported in October 2022, but only a tiny percentage of its recommendations have so far been implemented.

This inquiry must be led by victims and survivors; their involvement is essential to its integrity and to uncovering the truth. The inquiry must go where the evidence takes it. If there is any suggestion that there were racial and religious dimensions of abuse, and if these are found to be true, then they must not be minimised. Can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that these issues will be addressed directly and say what steps will be taken to ensure that this inquiry’s recommendations, unlike those of so many before, are fully implemented?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I refer her to the Statement that the Home Secretary made in response to the issues that arose out of yesterday’s Urgent Question in the House of Commons. The Home Secretary said today that the inquiry will

“explicitly examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders”,

as well examine offenders who have been part of grooming gangs and who are not from a particular ethnic minority; the examination of those issues is also paramount.

The noble Baroness will know that we have set a time limit on the inquiry. We want the inquiry to report speedily, because the important thing is to get recommendations. As the Minister in the Home Office responsible for inquiries, I am very clear that we need to get the inquiry’s results, get the recommendations out and, very importantly, see them through as a matter of some urgency.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and I am grateful to the many organisations that have provided briefings. In too many areas of crime and policing, we are failing the people who most need protection: children and vulnerable adults exposed to predators, shopkeepers bearing the cost of unchecked theft, farmers shouldering the consequences of criminals stealing expensive farm equipment to order, and traumatised women who hesitate to report assaults, fearing that the justice system will only compound their suffering.

Much of this comes down to resources. Although the Minister often states that Labour is investing an extra £1.2 billion in policing this year, the reality is that little of this will reach front-line services. The National Police Chiefs’ Council notes that a quarter of this sum will be returned to the Treasury through increased employer national insurance, with the rest already committed to fund pay awards and service debt. A decade of underfunding has forced police to borrow just to maintain their dilapidated buildings and antiquated IT. Already, gaps in children’s services, mental health and social care force police into roles they are ill-equipped to fill.

In scrutinising this Bill, we have to ensure that we do not set the police up to fail. Take drug testing: the Bill expands the range of triggers for police to be able to test someone for drugs but makes no provision at all for more drug testing centres or forensic resource. That must change because drugs are deeply intertwined with serious violence and linked to more than half of all homicides. Drug-related deaths have doubled since 2012, and about 70% of thefts and cases of domestic violence are driven by addiction. Yet more than 27,000 suspected drug suppliers remain on bail or under investigation, largely because we lack enough trained forensic specialists. If these delays, and the patchy availability of treatment programmes, are not addressed, the measures in the Bill will become irrelevant.

In a similar vein, there are a number of provisions in the Bill that are welcome in principle but need careful scrutiny in practice. Among those are new offences—such as assaulting retail workers and the proposed respect orders—which, while well-intentioned, risk duplicating existing laws and further straining a justice system already operating way beyond capacity.

Liberal Democrats have long argued that neighbourhood policing is the most effective way to address these problems before they take root. The role of local beat officers is crucial: they know where the domestic abusers live, where kids are left home alone, and where the drug dens operate. Effective neighbourhood policing depends on familiarity, consistency and trust—qualities that can only be built over time. We cannot keep parachuting in new officers and expect these relationships to flourish. That is why we have proposed legal minimum resourcing to ensure that neighbourhood policing teams are maintained at the level necessary to sustain long relationships and a sense of safety among communities.

That sense of safety is especially important for young people. At the moment, one in three young people reports that they do not feel safe in their communities. The dangerous and often tragic result is that they carry weapons. We therefore back proposals to tighten the rules around the online sale and delivery of weapons and we will bring forward amendments to give legislative life to even more of the Clayman review’s recommendations.

Turning to police and criminal justice reform, very few people realise that 90%—yes, 90%—of crime is now digitally enabled. That means that chief constables must be given the flexibility to decide the right mix of traditional police officers and specialist staff needed in their forces, because digital skill is very often now more highly valued than physical prowess, and recruitment should reflect that.

Meanwhile, training has to move with the times. One-third of all police officers now have under five years’ experience, but inspection after inspection exposes serious flaws in the training provided. Poor professional development, combined with infrequent updates on new laws and procedures, means that many front-line officers have outdated skills, leading to uneven standards and a workforce that lacks confidence to use its powers. With 94% of reported offences unresolved, new laws mean little if officers are not equipped to enforce them, so we will push for the first national review of police training since 2018.

However, reforming policing alone is like fixing a lock on a door that is completely rotten. It simply beggars belief that at the end of March 2025 there were 310,000 cases outstanding in magistrates’ courts; that serious offences such as rape are taking more than two years to come to trial, with offenders back out on the streets on bail, tormenting their victims; and that perpetrators who are convicted of crimes often pass through prisons without any kind of rehabilitation.

I shall highlight some serious concerns on civil liberties. In Clause 138, the move to give police automatic access to driving licence data for any law enforcement purpose, not just driving offences, marks a major expansion from current practice. The Home Secretary need only consult police, with no full parliamentary oversight, when drafting these regulations. While the Bill does not mention facial recognition, and Ministers say that there are no plans to use DVLA data this way, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, in a written submission to the Home Affairs Committee, stated that police chiefs are seeking access to the DVLA database for facial recognition searches, and proposals by the previous Government would have enabled this. To do this would put more than 50 million innocent people in a perpetual digital line-up, which poses profound risk, particularly for people of colour and minority groups. Big Brother Watch found that in the UK in 2023 89% of police facial recognition alerts wrongly identified members of the public as people of interest. We shall vigorously press the Government to ensure that DVLA access is necessary, proportionate and set out clearly in primary legislation, restricted to tackling serious crime or public safety threats.

It is about not just facial recognition but a whole range of biometrics, some of which are only now in development. I am particularly concerned about the need to future-proof the Bill against tomorrow’s technologies. New digital tools such as remote data extraction, advanced surveillance systems, predictive analytics and wearable sensor technology will soon reach the UK market. The Bill must be capable of evolving this technology, ensuring that protections for citizens remain robust as new digital tools appear.

In conclusion, public confidence in policing is at an all-time low. This may not be fair—I do not think it is—but it is the reality. New duties imposed by Parliament must therefore be matched by new investment. We must deliver policing that keeps people safe without edging towards a surveillance state. The Bill gives us a great opportunity to strike that balance, but more power without resources or safeguards risks serious consequences. Let us ensure that the Bill empowers the police, protects freedom and prepares the service for a fast-moving technological world, because only then will it truly deliver safer communities.

Police: Vetting, Training and Discipline

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, and she knows more than anybody else in this House how important it is that the police have the confidence of the community and that the community has confidence in policing. It is essential for public confidence that strict standards are upheld. I reassure my noble friend that we have taken action in the past 12 months to include new vetting standards, but, if she looks at the proposals for legislation in the next 12 months, she will see that that will put in place a range of measures to ensure that incidents to do with misogyny, racial hatred, sexual orientation and other transgressions by officers are dealt with speedily and effectively by the police. It goes back to a range of issues, but I hope that, this time next year, I will be able to give my noble friend greater confidence that the police have competence to deal with these issues.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the “Panorama” exposé and the 17 deaths in or following police custody last year cast serious doubt on the independent custody visitor scheme. Evidence shows that it neither influences police nor ensures robust oversight. Does the Minister agree that the scheme requires urgent reform, needs to be totally independent and should not remain the responsibility of police and crime commissioners?

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it has been almost two weeks since Manchester was left reeling from yet another terrorist attack. The events of 2 October not only ended the lives of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz but left our entire Jewish community worrying about their safety. We are in an appalling situation now where we have to have armed police and security patrols outside synagogues and Jewish schools simply to ensure that British Jews can go about their daily lives safely. In the immediate aftermath of such an attack, such measures are, of course, necessary, but our places of worship and our community centres should be places of safety. No British citizen should have to live in perpetual fear simply because they are Jewish.

I have an observation to make. Whenever we speak in this House and elsewhere of terrorist attacks, atrocities and acts of extreme violence, we often offer our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. It has also become commonplace to repeat the refrain, “Never again”. We have said these words too many times; we hear them too often. We must move on from simply offering hollow words of condolence. Thoughts and prayers do not revive a grieving wife’s husband, do not prevent future attacks and do not save lives. These attacks happen again and again.

Beyond expressing our condolences, it is our duty as legislators to work together to tackle the evil that lay behind this attack. We must be clear that this terror attack and the rise of Islamic extremism and increasing antisemitism are inexplicably linked. This year has seen the second-highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded in this country. Hate-filled marches, ostensibly in the name of the pro-Palestine movement but frequently entering the territory of being anti-Jew, have filled our streets. For as long as we fail to tackle the growth of radical and violent Islamic extremism, both at home and abroad, attacks such as these are likely to continue. We must not shy away from calling this what it is—an extremist ideology linked to Islam—and we must ensure that we are always able to call out such an ideology.

Unfortunately, the Government’s working group on Islamophobia could serve to actively stifle free debate on the nature and prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism. This has been criticised by the National Secular Society, the Free Speech Union and the Network of Sikh Organisations, which is planning to bring a judicial review against the Government if the new definition goes ahead. So will the Minister implore his ministerial colleagues to drop these plans and ensure that free and open discussion about the dangers we face as a society from Islamic extremism is never curtailed?

I appreciate that this is a live legal investigation, and as such there is a limit on what the Minister can tell us. However, several questions arise from the particulars of these events. First, the attacker in question, Jihad al-Shamie, was a Syrian-born male who arrived in the United Kingdom as a child. He begged a woman to become his second wife, claiming that in Islam it is permissible for a man to have up to four wives, and then abused her mentally and sexually. At the time he carried out his attack, he was on bail for a rape he allegedly committed earlier this year. When he committed the Manchester attack, he called 999 and pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Despite all this, he was apparently not known to counterterror police. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to plug the gaps in the Government’s terrorism prevention programme? If so, are the Government looking into how they might do so?

Secondly, the Home Secretary, in her Statement, said she was looking to bring forward legislative changes to the Public Order Act 1986 to allow police forces to consider the cumulative impact of protest marches when deciding to impose those conditions. Indeed, we have seen the Government claim that they did not have sufficient powers to prevent the hate-filled marches across the country on the day after the 2 October attack in Manchester. However, Section 12 of the Public Order Act already permits senior police officers to place conditions on a public procession if it is held to cause intimidation to others. Is it the Government’s view that this existing test would not have been enough to place restrictions on those marches? Does the Minister think that the proposed new cumulative impact test will be sufficient? I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the appalling attack on the Manchester synagogue is a stark warning of the persistent threat of antisemitic hate and the urgent need to unify against those who seek to divide us. Attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable and this attack is a chilling testament to the rising tide of division in our society, which has left many in the Jewish community frightened even to go to their synagogue. Antisemitic hate, or hate in any form, has no place in Britain. We must never allow the heat of public debate to legitimise, excuse, encourage or embolden such cowardly acts of terrorism. Anyone who incites hatred, or spreads it, against any faith or background must be held accountable under the law.

This crime was not a political statement but an act of pure violence designed to spread fear and drive communities apart. Nevertheless, all of us, across all political parties, share a responsibility to seek consensus and reduce division when addressing issues that provoke strong passions. As a society, we are becoming more polarised with public debate, whether about events in the Middle East, immigration or indeed any other difficult subject, too frequently descending into hostility and suspicion. We all must reject the language and the policies of division and commit to trying to rebuild a sense of common purpose.

As we mourn the victims of this atrocity, we must also guard against overreaction. The temptation can be to reach for more powers and more controls, even at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. The Prime Minister’s pledge to review public order powers in the wake of Manchester is understandable, but I urge the Government to approach with caution, because incremental curbs on protest will not stop antisemitic hate, but a “drip, drip” approach to legislation risks us becoming a society where people of all backgrounds and beliefs no longer feel safe or free to express their views. That would, in my view, hand victory to those who want to divide us, because the restriction of protest rights will not defeat antisemitism but risks damaging our democracy.

The best way to respond to hate is to defend everyone’s right to live, worship and speak freely, within the law, while refusing to compromise our commitment to an open and plural democracy. We must learn from this tragedy, so I ask the Minister what action are the Government taking to work more closely with grass-roots faith leaders, not only through funding and policing but through genuine, community-led, early warning and education work with Jewish and interfaith groups to strengthen local resilience, encourage reporting and tackle radicalisation at its roots?

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

I am grateful for the approach taken by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and by colleagues from the Liberal Democrat Benches and for their condemnation of what is an evil act of antisemitic terrorism that targeted innocent worshippers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. It was carried out by a terrorist pledging his allegiance to the warped ideology of Islamism. Like both noble Lords who have spoken, I pay tribute to the two men who were killed that day: Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. Their bravery saved lives, their actions were commendable and the whole House should express our deepest sympathies, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did in her Statement, to their families and friends.

It is important that we recognise today the worshippers, staff and volunteers, but also the emergency services, which responded in a superlative way and in a very quick fashion. The police officers took difficult decisions in dangerous circumstances and arrived at the scene of this terrible terrorist incident with speed.

An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on the entire nation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said, there is no ambiguity around who was responsible for this attack. The attack carried out by Jihad al-Shamie, a 35 year-old British citizen of Syrian descent, was instigated by the influence of extreme Islamist ideology, as evidenced by the 999 call that he made during the incident and his pledging of allegiance to the Islamic State.

Our immediate response to this issue has been several- fold. The noble Lord mentioned sympathy. That is important but it is not enough, as was mentioned. Our immediate priority has been to enhance security, particularly within synagogue locations. Additional support has been made available to more than 500 locations and, as all noble Lords in the House will know, there is a long-standing commitment to fund the Community Security Trust to the tune of £18 million per year.

It is no coincidence—I put this again in relation to the question of Islamophobia—that this month has also seen a suspected arson attack on a mosque in Peacehaven in East Sussex. From my perspective I want to be clear, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was in the Statement, that violence directed at any community, be they Jewish or Muslim, of all faiths or none, is an attack on the fabric of this country and should be condemned.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked about the proposals that my right honourable friend has announced in relation to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, also questioned whether that impacts upon freedom. That is a legitimate point to put and I accept that she has put it in good faith. The right to protest is a fundamental right in our society and it must be protected. But of the freedoms that we enjoy, none is more important than the right to live in peace and in safety. The Government have examined clearly the powers under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act and have come to the conclusion that while the right to protest is a fundamental freedom, it must be balanced against the right of the public to have their safety and security.

In the conversations that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has had with community leaders of all faiths, and with community leaders of no faith, she has concluded, with support from the police, that it is clear that a balance has not been struck. For that reason, my right honourable friend has confirmed that she is now examining amending Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Now, what does that mean? It means that the police will be able to take into account the cumulative impact of frequent protests. The police already have powers under Sections 12 and 14 of that Act to agree routes, times and a whole range of other conditions.

One of the things that we are examining, and we will bring forward proposals in due course, is ensuring that if a number of protests commence and continue on conditions set by the police, but ultimately result in intimidation or fear in a particular community, the police will have powers under those proposals to look at whether they—not the Government but the police—wish to put additional conditions to secure the support of the community. Those are important and, with the Home Secretary amending the Public Order Act, we will bring forward proposals shortly to examine those particular issues.

It is important to tell the House that, in the days since the attack, we have stepped up our efforts to tackle antisemitism wherever it is found, challenging misinformation and hatred in schools and looking at what is happening in universities, particularly to protect students of the Jewish faith and to ensure that patients and staff in the National Health Service are supported.

Terrorism seeks to do one thing and that is to divide us. I do not intend, nor does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to allow terrorism to divide us. We have a strong level of support for the Jewish community as a whole. We want to ensure that people can live their faith, whatever that faith, in peace and security. It is simply not acceptable to have incidents of this nature.

We need to look again—this is one of the key points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made in his questions—at the individual who committed this terrorist act, murdering and attempting to murder individuals in the synagogue. That individual has no record of contact with authorities. For whatever reason, he has self-radicalised. There will be an investigation. I cannot go into further details, but police are continuing to investigate his background and further arrests have been made. Self-evidently, the security services need to look at where there are organised cells undertaking activity. We also need to look at the reasons for self-radicalisation and what it leads to, how it is formed and the processes that lead to it. It remains very difficult for an individual to be identified if they have had no contact on terrorist-related activity. This individual had contact with the police prior to the incident but not on a terrorist-related incident. The independent office of police complaints will investigate the police performance in the contact prior to the incident and will obviously investigate the circumstances of the fatality at the incident. It will produce a report, which I hope will colour our examination of some of those issues at a later date.

I hope that the Government as a whole will look at the issues that both noble Lords mentioned in their contributions. It is important that we maintain a balance. We must look at wherever citizens are threatened and give them support but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that the measures we are taking in the proposals outlined by my right honourable friend still protect the right to protest and freedom of speech but give additional support to those communities of whichever faith, or none, that find themselves under persistent pressure from a particular protest group causing fear in their home community area and religious establishment.

The measures that we have discussed today will be brought forward in short order, and the report on lessons learned will allow the Government to reflect on these matters. I simply say at the end of my contribution that the Government have to be eternally vigilant on these matters. There are continually people who wish to do harm to sections of the community, for political and ideological reasons. We have a strong security presence and security service to identify that where possible. But we need to look—this goes to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made—at what leads to radicalisation in individuals and at better measures to pick that up at an early stage, so that the interventions that we have in place as a Government are applied to individuals who, for whatever reason, find themselves warping their minds. In this case, eventually that hatred led to acts of terrorism that meant people going about their ordinary, day-to-day lives, on the holiest day of the year, faced murder, disruption and fear, and ongoing concern about radicalisation. I hope the House will bear with me on these matters. We will examine the lessons and bring forward proposals in due course.

Gaza Protests: Anti-terrorism Legislation

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Earl’s support. We will do that and have done that, but there are several cases pending on which we are not able to comment. Therefore, I hope the public will accept and understand the reasons why that assessment has been made, but he is absolutely right in his comments .

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I absolutely condemn any demonstrators who attack the police; they should face the full force of the law. However, I have no doubt that the current approach is unsustainable. It blurs the line between violent or subversive action and legitimate, peaceful protest. The front-line police officers are strictly following the letter of the law in the name of national security, but does the Minister honestly believe that mass arrests of clearly well-intentioned members of the public are proportionate, necessary and wise, or that they serve the public interest?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am in danger of repeating myself to the House, but I have to, because the situation is quite clear: there is a line in the sand drawn by legislation passed by this House in 2000 on what a proscription order test is. We have had advice on that proscription order test and have passed legislation in both Houses which proscribes the particular organisation. Proscribing it then bans certain activity, of which protest in support of that organisation is one, not protest against the proscription in the first place. If that line is crossed, it is then for the police to exercise their discretion, for the CPS to determine whether charges should be brought and for a court to determine the activity.

None of that at all stops anybody from walking into Parliament Square today, standing up and condemning the State of Israel, protesting in favour of Gaza and for a Palestinian state, or condemning this—or any other—Government about our actions in favour of or against Palestine and a Palestinian state.

However, the line has to be drawn, and it has been. I hope those individuals who support Palestine will say so in a way that meets the legal obligations of free protest, but does not support organisations which, as the noble Earl said, cause criminal damage, have destroyed businesses, have carried out three major attacks, have thrown fireworks and pyrotechnics, have assaulted people in those buildings and have several court cases ahead. When they come out, if convictions are pursued, they will again show that there is further evidence in support of the actions that the Government have taken.

Palestine Action Protests: Arrests

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The purpose of Parliament, both the House of Commons and this House, is to pass legislation. We have done that with overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament in favour of the proscription order—and the proscription order is clear. However, I am also clear that we must not conflate terrorist activity with legitimate pro-Palestinian support. People are free to support Palestinian rights and sovereignty, and there are means to do it without being a member of or a supporter of Palestine Action. I cannot be clearer from this Dispatch Box.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, by handing overstretched and under-pressure police officers more power to decide whether a protest is in fact an arrestable offence in the heat of the moment, we risk creating an environment where almost every protest could be regarded as criminalised. Does the Minister accept that the recent ban, which has already led to many arrests of peaceful and even silent demonstrators, demonstrates how powers that are vague and too broad can be misapplied to unfairly target non-violent dissent?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not think I can be any clearer to the House. The proscription order was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons and in this House, and it is very clear. The police have a duty to enforce that proscription order. For the police, what that means is that they will potentially make arrests. It is then for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether charges are made, and it is then for decisions to be taken as to what happens to those charges. I am not responsible for police interaction on that matter because the police ultimately have to be independent of Ministers and government in making those decisions.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

Forgive me, my Lords; I think I was nodding off.

No matter how passionately any of us may feel about the unfolding tragedy in the Middle East, we all remain bound by the law. Activists cannot expect to waltz into a high security Ministry of Defence base and escape without consequences. The Liberal Democrats regard last month’s intrusion at RAF Brize Norton as totally unacceptable. The perpetrators should be prosecuted, taken through the courts and, if proven guilty, punished accordingly.

I grew up in Ireland, where terrorism was a very real and constant presence. Our newspapers were filled every day with what terrorists had done in the north—I lived in the south. It was just appalling: kneecapping, murder and bombing. That, to me, is the definition of “terrorism”. I believe that there is a big difference between that and criminal activity. I find anyone who commits violence to be absolutely abhorrent, but I see committing criminal acts and terrorist acts as very different things, and I do not believe that this particular act could be described as a terrorist act.

We are being invited not to prosecute criminal activity but to criminalise membership of an organisation. It is regrettable that Ministers put the three SIs together, because two of them are clearly well-proven, whereas the other one is, in my opinion, open to doubt. I want to be clear that we are definitely in favour of two of them, and we have no problem with that whatever. But it is not possible to say that, if a vote comes, we will vote for two of them and not for the other one.

When Parliament granted the Home Secretary the extraordinary power to ban organisations, it did so on the condition that such action be reserved for the most extreme circumstances when proportionality could be plainly demonstrated. It is our responsibility to question whether the use of these powers is fair, just and proportionate. That question of proportionality should be at the forefront of our minds today. I do not believe that the test of proportionality has been met. If this proscription proceeds, it will be the first time that a direct action group is outlawed primarily for damaging property. Although the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it clear that serious damage to property can meet the legal threshold for terrorism, questions about proportionality remain unanswered.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Which of the three tests that the noble Lord outlined for something to qualify as an act of terrorism has not been met by this organisation in the example that I gave?

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

It is proportionality that I am concerned about. Proscription, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, rightly pointed out, would mean that merely expressing approval for Palestine Action, even via an ill-judged retweet, could carry a 14-year prison sentence. I was not particularly convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, although he is a very long-standing friend, because if the CPS will not prosecute because it is clearly not the right thing to do, why is it there?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am sorry but I cannot let that pass. Every day the police prosecute people for theft. The maximum sentence for theft was seven years—I am not sure whether it still is. Practically nobody gets seven years; most people get a non-custodial sentence. The assumption that everybody prosecuted will be locked up for years and years is a misleading premise for this debate.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I am not trying to mislead anyone; the noble Lord knows better than that. If it can happen, I do not think it is right. It is as simple as that.

That brings me to the security breach. Barely three weeks after the Strategic Defence Review urged stronger protection for RAF logistics bases, an activist group breached the security at Brize Norton. Can the Minister say in winding up what consequences there have been for those in charge of security at the base? Was site security managed by the RAF or contracted out? Can he give the House a categorical assurance that whatever mistakes enabled this breach will not be repeated?

There is also the question of workability. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens have marched peacefully for a ceasefire and an arms export ban on Israel, a position that opinion polls say now commands majority support. Since this position is shared by Palestine Action, a member of the public promoting these views could be interpreted under this law as supporting the group. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on this, as it has understandably left many concerned and a bit confused.

We should be concerned that, while we debate the order, innocent Palestinians continue to die in their hundreds. The Government’s principal diplomatic energy should be directed at securing a durable peace: a plan for Gaza which excludes Hamas, pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt the de facto annexation of the West Bank and, without further delay, formal recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Kingdom. That is the Liberal Democrat position. For the sake of our security, credibility and liberties, I ask the Minister to focus on pursuing these aims instead.