Death of Ann Widdecombe

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, no 78 year-old woman deserves to be bludgeoned to death in her own home. The whole House will wish that the search for anyone who may have incited or abetted her cowardly killer will be far-reaching and remorseless and their punishment unbending. To those who sneered about Ann Widdecombe after the news of her death or, worse, welcomed her death, I say that to try to unsay such things when you learn of the manner of her death does not make it okay. Your shameful words are indelible, and their stain lies not on her but for ever on you. There is too much easy hatred in politics today. We must confront all its perpetrators and root them out.

There was no hatred in Ann Widdecombe. Strong principles? Yes, you sure knew where you stood. Convictions expressed with clarity? Certainly. A zeal to serve her community? Absolutely. Readiness to debate fiercely and then make up with a drink and a laugh afterwards? Very much so. People who knew her in the House of Commons say there was never a harder-working constituency MP. She worked for the causes in which she believed day in, day out, right to the very end. Her killer found her after one engagement, and he took her as she was preparing for her next one.

The response from her own community in recent days has shown how dearly she was loved by her neighbours and those with whom she so faithfully worshipped her divine creator at Buckfast Abbey. She was one of those rare politicians that non-politicians, real people, related to and liked. Yes, she was a character. She loved her country. My goodness me, how much she loved this land. Eccentric, maybe, but how English is that? My party leader, Kemi Badenoch, spoke simply and eloquently, as a woman of a woman, of the shock that we in the Conservative Party feel at the loss of a dear colleague of decades. Like Kemi, I reach out to the members of Reform, to whom Ann lately hitched her redoubtable wagon. Her loss is a loss, in my judgment, to the whole of public life, and it is another darkening of the happiness and the cheerful innocence of things.

I thank the Minister for the kind words that we have heard from the Government and from so many in the party opposite. Sometimes, we know that we are all brothers and sisters under the skin, on the same journey, for the same purpose of public duty. Ann’s death is another reminder of the real threats to many in public life. We remember David Amess, Jo Cox, Ian Gow, Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford, Airey Neave —all slain by terrorists while serving MPs.

I know that there is a limit to what the Minister will be able to say about the ongoing investigation, but the announcement that counterterrorism police are now leading the investigation has only deepened concern felt here in Westminster and across the country. The Home Secretary said that the suspect was not known to Prevent. Can the Minister give the House any update on latest information that he can share?

Understandably, there was much in the Statement about the advice available to MPs and new provision that may be made at the other end of this palace. Can the Minister say anything about what provision may be made for Members of your Lordships’ House, who are not free from daily threats of violence? We must never, ever close the gates of democracy, but we must safeguard all those, Members or not, who come to Parliament to serve their fellow countrymen and women.

Surprise has been widely expressed about the haste with which the Devon and Cornwall Police downplayed any idea that there was a political motive to this killing. Is the Minister satisfied with protocols for releasing information to the public in high-profile cases in this social media age? Will he commit to reviewing the handling of this case so that the right lessons are learned?

That is for the future. For now, all our thoughts and prayers should be with Ann’s family and friends. I know that the whole House will join with me in expressing our deepest sympathies to them all.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we join others in extending condolences for the death of Ann Widdecombe. The reaction to this tragedy has rightly included tributes from every party and from all sections of society. That is a reminder that, under fierce disagreement, there is a shared commitment to our democratic institutions and a shared vulnerability when violence enters political life.

Like every Member of this House, we were shocked and saddened by her death, the circumstances of which are subject to an active police investigation. The police have been clear right from the outset that they are treating this as a suspected murder. However, they have not yet established a motive. The situation seems to change constantly, and I suspect that it will continue to do so, as they uncover more and more evidence.

They have also asked us to respect their request not to speculate and to allow them to do their work. If only we could have the same lack of speculation on the internet and on social media. Would that not be great? Unfortunately, however, it is never going to happen.

Ann Widdecombe commanded widespread respect for her commitment to democratic debate and public services, first as a councillor, then as an MP for two decades, then as a Government Minister and, finally, as a Member of the European Parliament. This tragedy is a reminder that those who serve in public life should be able to do so safely.

We depend on people from all parties and none to put themselves forward and speak their minds without fear or favour, but my personal experience suggests that younger people, in particular, will not even consider the possibility of making politics their life. When you ask them, even though they are highly articulate and very happy to tell you what the Government should and should not do, they say, “We are not going to put ourselves forward to be shot down”. I honestly think that we all ought to work together to change this system. They should not be feeling like that. They should want to serve and realise how great it is to do so.

From these Benches, we send our sympathy to Ann’s family, her friends, her former colleagues, her constituents and her community, who will all be grieving her loss. Our responsibility now is to continue our arguments, definitely with seriousness but also with civility, and to give the police the space they need to establish the facts of her very sad death.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from both the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Everybody in this House knows that politics is about beliefs, about standing for things, and about making your views known. No one can deny that Ann Widdecombe did that in a way that was energetic, forthright, occasionally humorous and, unlike many Members of this House, occasionally on “Strictly Come Dancing”, which is important.

I spent 18 years in the Commons with Ann Widdecombe, and I cannot think of many areas where we ever agreed, but we disagreed with civility, with humanity and with mutual respect for views that we held. The loss of her in these circumstances is devastating for her family and for all who knew her, particularly for Members of this House who knew her as well. She brought conviction to our politics. She was forthright in her opinions. She argued courageously for things she believed in. She did not deserve to be murdered in this way.

As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have mentioned, I cannot comment on the current police investigation; it is not appropriate for me to do that. What I can say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord True, is that the police are making a further statement on the developments in the murder investigation possibly as I speak—they were due to hold a press conference between 3 pm and 3.15 pm and they may well be doing that now; I am trying to check whether anything further has been said. It is important that we give the police time to examine that.

The issue that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned about Devon & Cornwall Police and the counterterrorism police is a step that has been taken in co-operation with both forces to look at further leads. It does not necessarily mean that terrorism was involved, but it is important that we give the police the opportunity to investigate. The counterterrorism police have now taken the lead on the investigation. As Laurence Taylor, the head of national Counterterrorism Policing, has said:

“We … have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the investigation … We are pursuing multiple lines of enquiry to establish the motivation for this attack”.


Ann Widdecombe had an inimitable style in politics. She was valued by her own side and across both Houses of Parliament. She served Maidstone for 23 years as a champion for her constituents. She served the country in government as Minister for Employment and then Minister for Prisons. She served with pride and with a commitment that means that today we mourn her loss tremendously.

Both noble Lords who have spoken mentioned security for elected politicians. I can remember every case of the murder of a politician that the noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned. I have seen colleagues of mine, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, murdered. I have watched from afar as Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Reverend Robert Bradford were murdered. It is not a way to do politics. We do our politics by discussion. It is important that we ensure that Members of Parliament and Members of this House have the support to be able to do that job free of fear. I do not think there is a single Member of Parliament who has not faced threats at some time or other, and many Members of this House do so as well.

Ultimately, it is the parliamentary authorities who are responsible for the security of this House, but we in the Home Office will work with them and we will continue to review how we can work with Operation Bridger, which is the police support, through local forces and through national support to ensure that we get that protection. It will be done on the basis of threat and of particular support for Members of Parliament who require it.

Ultimately, we will find out who murdered Ann Widdecombe and they will face a severe prison sentence in due course. But we should remember the contribution that Ann made and the affection in which she was held, and remember, dare I say, the differences we had. We should engage in our parliamentary democracy and our public life to reflect those values in the way in which we know they should be reflected—mutual respect, honest disagreement and sometimes open discussion. Ultimately, we should recognise that Parliament is there for a purpose—to reflect the will of the people—and our job is to make sure we do that, as Ann would have wanted, in a civilised, humorous but principled manner.

Violence Against Retail Workers

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have done two things that the previous Government did not do. We have introduced an offence of assault on a shop worker and lifted the £200 threshold under which the police did not have to report and act on shop theft. I remind the noble Baroness that, as a shadow Minister in the other place in 2014, I opposed the £200 limit and have since had the pleasure of lifting it as a Minister. We take this matter seriously. Shop theft is a cost to us all. It is a cost to the workers who face those threats, to the businesses—particularly small ones—and to all of us as purchasers of goods. We must drive it down. That is what the figures show that we are trying to do; it is not an easy task to drive it down still further, but we have to take further action.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, violence against retail workers does not stop at the shop door. Staff who refuse unlawful sales or challenge theft can face online threats and harassment. This includes sharing their images and personal details. What steps are the Government taking to address this rapidly growing problem and ensure that online threats and doxing of retail staff are treated every bit as seriously as violence within a shop?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is not acceptable and should be looked at. The legislation covers those potential online threats in other areas, but the bottom line, going back to my noble friend’s Question, is that we are asking shop workers to uphold sales of cigarettes, alcohol, solvents and a whole range of other things and to help prevent people walking into a store feeling that they can steal something with no recourse whatever. We are trying to say through policing, the legislation that we have passed and support for the type of areas that the noble Baroness has mentioned that shop theft—I will not call it “shoplifting”—is unacceptable. We need to drive it down.

Police Leadership Commission Report

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions on it. Failures of police leadership are all too evident. Police leadership failed when forces overlooked, ignored and actively downplayed the scale of the grooming gangs. Police officers and police leaders were too afraid of being called out for being racist, and, as such, they left vulnerable young girls to suffer while the perpetrators got away scot free. Police leadership failed when officers manipulated evidence to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the football match in Birmingham over fears of “inflaming community tensions”. Police leadership is failing when we have officers spending more time trawling through social media posts than investigating and stopping burglary and shoplifting. When the policing of tweets and so-called diversity, equality and inclusion take precedence over the prevention and investigation of crime, we know we have a serious problem.

In 1829, Sir Richard Mayne, the first commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, wrote:

“The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts by police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained”.


Like all officers who joined Hendon Police College, I had to learn those words by memory, and they are just as relevant today as they were in 1829, so I welcome the statement in the report that:

“Police leaders should be resolute in refusing to take sides, or to be diverted from the course of focusing entirely on the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime”.


I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.

We might ask how we got here. Noble Lords might have different answers, but, for me, it is in large part because we took our eye off the ball. We allowed policing to focus, particularly after 2020, more on representation and identity politics than on promoting the best and most qualified people for the job. The report also acknowledges that nepotism has impacted progression at senior ranks, again challenging the notion that promotion should be based on merit alone. I must press the Minister to think seriously about these points. If the Government want to improve public trust in the police and restore robust but fair policing, we cannot have reforms that place greater emphasis on the identity of senior officers than on their experience and leadership qualities.

Fundamentally, good police leadership is not hard. It is about cutting crime and having your officers’ backs. Those on the ground need to know that they can take action they deem necessary and will not be hung out to dry by senior leadership when they do so. Officers need to be able to exercise their professional judgment and common sense, and not be second-guessed by endless policies and guidance. Police leaders must stop prioritising public perceptions over robust policing.

This all requires a significant cultural shift within police leadership. But to engineer that, we need to improve not just the quality but the amount of leadership training. The report highlights the striking disparity between military leadership training and the police equivalent. It points out that:

“15 years after leaving Sandhurst, a colonel in charge of 1,500 people will have undertaken 72 weeks of leadership development. By comparison, chief superintendents in the MPS”—


the Metropolitan Police Service—

“who have had comparable progression are likely to have had two or three weeks”.

The comparison with the military is particularly apt here, because British military leadership training is widely regarded as some of the best in the world—there is a reason why military officers from around the world flock to Sandhurst. I urge the Minister, when considering the work of this commission, to feed in best practice from our military academies into future police leadership training.

I also ask the Minister to think carefully about introducing new direct entry schemes. I can say from my own experience that I do not think they had a positive effect on senior leadership. The report acknowledges that the total cost of the previous direct entry superintendent programme, which ran from 2015 to 2021, was almost £10 million. Only 33 people graduated from that scheme, putting the cost per graduate at around £342,000. I do not think that can quite be considered a success. Bizarrely, though, after pointing out the cost and low numbers passing through the previous direct entry route, the report goes on to recommend the creation of new direct entry routes. This is a somewhat bizarre situation.

I wish to end with some simple questions to the Minister. The Government have this report, it is obvious to us all what is going wrong with police leadership, and it is not too difficult to figure out what needs to change, so how are the Government going to take forward these recommendations? What work is going on within the Home Office, right now, to implement leadership reforms, and when will be able to see the outcomes of the Government’s work?

If the Government are serious about restoring trust in policing and fulfilling the aims of the commission, they must take swift action to overhaul police leadership training. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the report from the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, which rightly starts with an uncomfortable truth: leadership across policing is too inconsistent and, for decades, we have failed to invest in developing leaders for the world they now face.

We support clearer standards, stronger developments of all ranks, and more transparent senior appointments, but consistency must not become Whitehall control. Before creating a national police service and a national academy, the Government must explain how police chiefs will be protected from politicisation. A central appointments panel may help, but only if it insulates chief constables’ appointments from political influence and ensures a diverse candidate pool, including those with neighbourhood and safeguarding experience.

We urgently need clarity about what we expect policing to deliver in the 2030s. Too often the police are left to pick up responsibilities that properly belong to other agencies, because those agencies are underfunded and lack the capacity to respond. But the police cannot walk away; they have a duty to the public, even when the work falls outside their remit. This results in police being increasingly drawn into non-crime work, spending hours in hospitals awaiting mental health assessments or caring for vulnerable children, leaving forces overstretched and officers shuttled from one crisis to another.

Ethical leadership cannot be a values programme instead of the hard work that inquiries have already recommended. Delivering ethics requires legally enforceable vetting and misconduct standards across forces, a complete overhaul of the complaints investigations so that they do not drift for years, and transparent monitoring of disproportionality in discipline, including for BAME officers. The public will not judge us by how many workshops we run but by whether the Angiolini, Jay and inspectorate recommendations are finally implemented in full.

Around 80% of crime now has a digital element, yet policing is still largely analogue, with 43 forces running separate IT systems and an obsolete police national computer. Outdated, poorly connected systems with multiple entry points heighten cyber security risks, given the high value of police data on the dark web. A lack of national co-ordination and the scrapping of ring-fenced capital funding means that most technology spending is now used just to maintain existing outdated systems. What is needed is a unified cloud-based technology platform and common procurement to enable seamless information sharing and good practice across forces. This will require very significant investments in IT and AI but offers the prospect of rapid returns in improved outcomes and would finally allow policing to exploit the wealth of operational data already at its fingertips.

We need national training frameworks that prioritise digital investigation skills for every officer and proper professional pathways for cyber, data, digital and forensic specialists. But highly trained specialists are locked into the same nationally set pay scales as everyone else, and chiefs have virtually no flexibility to pay them more than an entry-level constable. That is almost unbelievable. Is it therefore surprising that these specialists are routinely poached by the private sector, after they have been trained by the police for many years, on salaries that are several multiples of their police pay? If we are serious about tackling AI-enabled fraud, deepfake child abuse imagery and complex online exploitation, we must introduce genuine pay flexibilities for shortage specialties and parity of esteem for police staff.

I am deeply concerned that we are proposing a national academy and a licence to practise when there has been no independent national audit of police training since 2012. Officers need high-quality, regular, properly accredited refresher training to keep themselves and the public safe. If the College of Policing is absorbed into a new police service, we must avoid the police marking their own homework by ensuring that appropriate standards are set and independently audited.

This report gives us an opportunity to transform how we choose and develop leaders. But those leaders will succeed only if we define the mission clearly, fix the broken funding and training systems, and give policing the technological tools and special staff it needs. I very much hope the Government are prepared to meet those challenges.

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

I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, for their work on this important report commissioned by the Home Office to look at the important issues of policing. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is a former Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, is a former Policing Minister; indeed, I shadowed him for a while in a previous life. They both bring extremely important experience to bear and on a cross-party basis they have examined the future training needs of the police service.

My noble friend and the noble Lord have made 27 recommendations and, in answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we are going to consider those recommendations. We are going to examine them in detail. We want to give them a fair wind. We will report back in the autumn with our response to those recommendations. I will be able to provide further clarity and discussion at that time on the Government’s approach to the points that have been made.

I begin in, I hope, a constructive way but also in a way of challenge to say that I do not accept the characterisation of the police to date by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The police are doing a very good job in dangerous circumstances. Police officers at every level, from chief constables to ordinary police officers on the beat to police community support officers, do a very strong job. Our duty is to ensure that the recommendations that have been made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, help support those police officers to do a better job in the future.

Crime is down: theft offences by 11%; vehicle-related crime by 14%; domestic burglary by 22%; shoplifting by 1%; personal robbery by 12%; knife-enabled offences by 10%; knife-enabled homicides by 21%; and knife-enabled robberies by 15%. Those are just some examples from the past 18 months of statistics of how the police are helping to tackle those issues. But that does not mean that there is not room for improvement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has pressed me many times to examine the issue of training; she is absolutely right to do so, and these recommendations form the basis of us examining how we can take those issues forward. I do not accept that we should not put diversity at the heart of our police service. I want to see diverse police officers representing their communities and representing the communities they police. But it is important that we secure training and support for all those officers, whatever their ethnic background.

There is a need for reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is absolutely right that we need to examine what policing is for and how to ensure that we have the back-room support for front-line police officers. She and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will know that we are in the middle of a radical programme of police reform. We are abolishing police and crime commissioners. We are waiting for a report from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on police force areas. We are establishing a national police service, which will encompass the very issues currently considered by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, as chair of the College of Policing, with national procurement and a focus on what national policing should do, which is, from the National Crime Agency’s perspective, serious organised crime, counterterrorism policing and other important issues such as economic crime.

This reform programme is ongoing, but self-evidently —and this is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—we need to put in place support and training to ensure that police officers both meet the needs of the 21st century and have the support to do their job in an effective way. In their report, my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, have put great care and skill into the recommendations. I also thank the other members of the commission who took part.

There is a particular emphasis on giving voice to those on the front line. It is right to say, as the report itself says, that

“the policing profession has not consistently had the excellent leadership it needs”.

The commission has highlighted the critical importance of leadership and we all know that. It will also ensure, I hope, that we maintain that principle of policing by consent.

It is right that we take time to consider the recommendations in full. We welcome the commission’s proposals and the intent behind them. We are actively looking at the recommendation to create a formal senior constable rank and how that can be done. The commission also recommends a new professional digital passport for policing, along with other measures to put in place stronger supporting structures around professional development. The review’s recommendations on a fast stream for policing, on a targeted direct entry scheme and on the role of the forthcoming national police service in promoting ethical policing are all issues that we want to look at and respond to. We will do so in due course.

The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about police conduct and ethical standards of policing are extremely important. She will know from when we passed the Crime and Policing Act recently, because we spent a gazillion hours dealing with it in this House of Parliament, that there is a strong emphasis in it on improving the performance of the ethical standards and on the ability to remove police officers who are not performing well. Again, that goes to the heart of the recommendations before us.

In summary, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, will both know that I cannot respond today to the 27 recommendations, but I welcome them. They give us a strong foundation to examine how we can improve police leadership, police performance and skill levels to face the 21st century. It is a valuable piece of work. I commit to the House, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that we will report back in the autumn on the recommendations and what we intend to do about delivering them.

In the meantime, there are police officers and leaders out on the streets now, and they are doing a dangerous job on behalf of us all. They should have our admiration but they should also have our support in improving their performance, and that is what the recommendations are aimed at doing.

Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, this case arises from one of the most despicable and notorious failures of local agencies to protect local vulnerable girls. Can the Minister tell the House what specific lessons have been learned from the original Rochdale investigation? How have those lessons now been built into national policing guidance on grooming gangs? How will the Minister ensure that the guidance on grooming gangs now with police will be applied consistently across the UK?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Self-evidently, there are a number of lessons to be learned. That is why we have established the grooming gangs inquiry, currently operating under the auspices of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield. There are a number of lessons to be learned on this matter. We want to ensure that we take action to give guidance to the police and help prevent future victims. In this case, it should be remembered that of the individuals who were participating in this grooming gang, Mr Ahmed was deprived of his citizenship in 2016, and of the eight gang members in total one was deported to Afghanistan and one was deported to Pakistan, two are British and therefore exempt from deportation but have faced the penalty of prison, one left the UK last year clandestinely, and the final three have been deprived of their British citizenship and have deportation orders in place. We are working speedily to make sure that those individuals face further justice.

Counterterrorism: AI and Facial Recognition

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful as always for the expertise that the noble Lord brings to this issue. The independent reviewer did indeed consider, in his annual report, the impact of generative AI on terrorism-related activity. The report concluded that, where AI is intended to be used for terrorist purposes, existing terrorism legislation generally provides sufficient coverage. Nevertheless, we are continuing to look at that. It is an important issue. As the noble Lord knows from our long discussions in the last few days, we have a security Bill and a police reform Bill coming up. We keep those matters under review and, obviously, it is a very fast-moving situation. We need to be ahead of the game for the reasons the noble Lord has mentioned.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have committed substantial resources to live facial recognition technology, but, at present, the police authorisation makes no distinction between the technology being deployed on the high street and for counterterrorism purposes. Will the Minister confirm that the forthcoming framework will establish a distinct statutory authorisation regime for counterterrorism purposes so that we are not leaving both of them to inadequate police superintendent authorisation, as we are at the moment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a valid point about the difference between terrorism and what I will term other crime. As she knows, facial recognition technology is sometimes used for things such as identifying missing persons who have not been involved in crime at all. There needs to be a clear framework for this. As she knows, the consultation paper raised a number of questions. We are trying to resolve and respond to those and to look at the great analysis that we had in responses. We will bring forward proposals, which she will have an opportunity to test when we bring forward the police reform Bill.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for what they said. They both spoke in very measured terms and I wish to support broadly everything that they have said, for two reasons: first, because I agree with them, and, secondly, because I was too late to co-sign their amendments. The only point of difference I have with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is some thoughts about SLAPPs legislation—I confess that, yes, I am a member of the defamation Bar and I have various views about the questions that lie behind the excitement around the need to introduce SLAPPs legislation, but that is not for today. I broadly agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness and give them the encouragement that, simply because a Conservative Member of this House has not signed their amendments, that does not mean that a Conservative does not agree with them.

There is a danger that we can become naive, thinking that because there are, say, 2 billion buyers of toothbrushes in the People’s Republic of China it would be wrong of us to criticise the Chinese Government when they do things, either through their own agencies or through their proxy agencies, to damage the well-being of this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, calmly pointed out, not everything is always as it seems. Therefore, although neither the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, nor the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has threatened a vote on their amendments, I urge my noble friend the Minister—and he is my friend—to bear carefully in mind that when we are dealing with China we are dealing with an underwater crocodile. We can be naive and keep feeding it, and allow it to build bigger and bigger embassies and to spy, either formally or informally, upon the activities of our citizens, and indeed of the expatriate citizens of Hong Kong in this country, and we can allow it to carry on behaving appallingly towards United Kingdom citizens, such as Jimmy Lai, who “live” in Hong Kong, but, if we let another week or month or year pass in which we live in this fog of confusion, we are, I suspect, misleading ourselves and not doing our own citizens or the citizens of other countries any good.

China is not anything other than something that we need to be very careful about. Yes, we can sell 2 billion toothbrushes and we can sell glass, IT or whatever it may be, but I urge the Government to please not allow themselves to think that, when you feed a crocodile, it will wag its tail and say, “Thanks very much”. It will not. It will say, “Thanks for your leg—I’ll have the other leg, and then I’ll have your arm, your other arm and your head”. Meanwhile, people such as Jimmy Lai, who stand up for freedom of expression, are left incarcerated in terrible conditions in Hong Kong.

Let us wake up and realise that we are dealing with adversaries, not with people who wish to do us a favour. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who has yet to speak, for their amendments, because they are seriously worth considering.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This amendment seeks to ensure that our national security framework is not only addressing the threats of today but is prepared for what the director-general of MI5 has described as “the next frontier”—the potential risks posed by non-human autonomous AI systems. While our current debate focuses largely on human adversaries and their proxies who seek to undermine our national security, we must now also grapple with the emergence of systems capable of evading human oversight and control.

We are drawing a distinction between the AI tools we use today and what experts term artificial superintelligence, or ASI. The amendment defines ASI as a system

“capable of adapting its behaviour, in response to … its … environment, in ways not fully specified in advance by its developers”.

As Lord Browne of Ladyton, a former Secretary of State and expert on non-proliferation, has explained previously, the key distinction is that ASI would be an agent rather than an instrument. While a nuclear weapon cannot improve or replicate itself, or resist being shut down, a superintelligent AI system could, in principle, do all three. We are therefore contemplating a technology that could out-think experts and potentially subvert even our most capable national security apparatus.

This is not science fiction. We have recently seen a leading AI company restrict its latest, most capable model to a small group of major technology infrastructure firms, precisely so that they could use it to identify and close security loopholes that it was able to uncover in the core software and system. Officials are now warning that, in the wrong hands, the same kind of system could dramatically speed up cyber attacks against individual companies and, potentially, the critical infrastructure on which the country depends. That is where we are already today. The next level may be artificial superintelligence, where these systems become much more powerful and the risks in the hands of hostile states or state-sponsored actors are correspondingly greater.

The implications of that decision go further still. The United States Government have now imposed export controls on Mythos, prohibiting its use outside American jurisdiction. That is a remarkable step. A foreign Government have, in effect, decided that a single AI system is too powerful, too consequential and too potentially dangerous to allow unrestricted international deployment. That tells us that at least one major power has concluded that frontier AI capability is now a matter of national security, not only for the country that hosts it but for every country that might seek access to it. If the United States Government are drawing that line, it would be quite extraordinary if we in Parliament are not asking what our own response should be.

The AI Security Institute has warned that our current trajectory risks an irrevocable loss of control over systems that are becoming deeply embedded in our national infrastructure, economy and defence. Yet the AI Security Institute lacks the statutory authority to require disclosure, compel compliance or impose any binding obligations on the companies developing these systems. We have a body that can see the risks but cannot act upon them.

More importantly, the Government’s own AI Scenarios 2030 report, published earlier this month, acknowledges that highly capable AI could give rise to

“serious, potentially even existential harms”,

and, in the absence of effective intervention, highlights autonomous risks in which advanced systems may develop objectives that “resist human control”. My amendment would bring the development of such systems by a foreign power within the definition of “foreign power threat activity” under the National Security Act 2023. It is directed at systems capable of neutralising or subverting our relevant human authorities, which I have defined as our Armed Forces, intelligence services, police and the Government themselves.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats support the principles of the Bill. We have been clear that we also want this legislation on the statute book and we will not seek to hold it up. We fully recognise the unprecedented security challenges that we face, confronting more serious and less predictable threats than at any time since the Cold War. In 2025 alone, MI5 reported a 35% increase in state threat activity on the previous year, including more than 20 Iran-backed plots to kidnap or kill on British soil. We are in accord with the Government. This activity must be stopped.

However, while we will not obstruct the Bill, our support is not a blank cheque for lawmaking. The Bill was introduced just 13 days ago and was rushed through the other place in less than six hours. That begs the question: why did it take 14 months to act on recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, which were accepted in full in May 2025? To ask this House to deliver a watertight defence in a single afternoon is a tall order and risks the Bill being seen as a rapid answer rather than a complete answer. Such accelerated progress risks important areas not being properly covered or provisions having unintended consequences.

Good legislation also involves scrutiny and input from outside Parliament. The media and experts from a wide range of professional fields are normally critical in improving a Bill. However, the speed of this Bill’s passage runs a real risk that much-needed external scrutiny will be missed.

The Bill addresses a critical gap. Looking to existing terrorism laws to deal with state organs was, in the words of the independent reviewer,

“shopping in the wrong department”.

By creating a power to designate bodies involved in “foreign power threat activity”, the Bill creates the right tool to penalise the proxies and hired guns that foreign powers use to carry out sabotage on UK soil.

The litmus test for the Bill will be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the IRGC. My noble friend Lord Marks has constantly argued that if the IRGC was not in power in Tehran, it would be universally recognised as a terrorist organisation. Yet, as drafted, this Bill is gentler on the IRGC than our laws are on the terrorists it funds.

We must also ensure that these powers have teeth in the global financial system. My noble friend Lord Purvis noted on 11 June that these groups operate through complex commercial, financial and now digital trade routes. We must use this Bill to trigger robust investigations by Companies House and the Financial Reporting Council to unmask front companies and starve designated organisations of UK-origin funds. However, I remain a bit concerned by the Minister’s comment that a UK connection of some sort is required for designation. In an era of digital interference, when state-backed proxies can target our citizens and sabotage our interests from behind a screen thousands of miles away, we must ensure that this requirement does not become a loophole. We need an assurance that this Bill is equipped for the era of digital interference, ensuring that hostile actors cannot evade designation simply by operating entirely from abroad via digital means.

We must also listen to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Development Committee. They warn that new Section 17B is so broad that it could unintentionally criminalise impartial humanitarian aid. Ministerial “intent” is not a legal safeguard. We need an express exemption on the face of the Bill for impartial humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, acting in accordance with international humanitarian law. Anything less leaves our aid workers at the mercy of a 14-year prison sentence for simply delivering life-saving medicine.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has identified another trap. Clause 1 currently allows for designation without even establishing a link to a foreign power for certain acts, such as those under Section 4 of the 2023 Act. That is both too weak against our enemies and too broad for a free society.

On future-proofing, the director-general of MI5 has rightly warned of the next frontier: autonomous AI systems that may evade effective human control. The Government’s own AI Scenarios 2030 report admits that such systems could cause “existential harms” without intervention. I will be moving a specific amendment in committee to ensure that “foreign power threat activity” captures the development of super-intelligent AI capabilities by a foreign power.

Finally, because this is a fast-track Bill, we must have a 12-month statutory review of its adequacy. We also need the safeguard that any removal of a designation must be approved by votes in both Houses. Parliamentary oversight must exist at the end of a designation, not just the beginning.

As I said, we will not hold this Bill up, but we will seek to amend it. We are talking about individuals who actively assist hostile states in sabotaging our nation. We owe the citizens and residents who are being specifically targeted by these lethal plots more than just sincere intentions; we owe them a law that holds up in the courtroom and at the border. We look forward to a rigorous, if brief, Committee stage.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, may I begin first by paying testament to the tireless advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on behalf of the victims of grooming gangs, and the tremendous courage and persistence that she displays in public service? She has warned again this week that fear of accusations of racism played a significant part in preventing professionals from protecting these girls—these children—from abuse and rape. One year on, her criticism is not about announcements or process or lists of things to do; it is that the Government have failed to grasp the cultural problems underlying all this. Will the Government finally heed the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and commit to legislate to make ethnicity data collection mandatory, first for police forces and secondly for children’s social care services dealing with child sexual exploitation? If not, why not?

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, I apologise for the confusion—it is one of those days.

First, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, to her new role. I wish her every success in holding the Government to account and raising those issues. I hope that she enjoys the new role and does it as successfully as possible. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her report and for her continued interest and comments on this.

The central point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has raised is around the ethnicity and nationality of grooming gang offenders. She is right that we have not yet got a reliable picture, because the underlying data has been incomplete and inconsistent. That is why the former Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, has written to all chief constables setting clear expectation that suspect ethnicity data must be recorded. But the noble Baroness is right that we need to do more, and that is why we will legislate to mandate collection as soon as possible. The police reform White Paper that we published in January said that we would set out our intention to create a framework to mandate data, and this will be taken forward through the upcoming police reform Bill. I cannot give an introduction date for the police reform Bill, but when it comes—it has been announced for this Session of Parliament—that will be done as part of the Bill’s proposals.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, drew attention to the fact that victims may have had convictions for underage prostitution quashed yet they still remain criminalised for offences such as drug possession, which have been forced on them by their abusers. Will the Minister commit to broadening the Government’s approach to quashing convictions so that survivors are no longer haunted by criminal records that are a direct product of the despicable abuse and exploitation they have already suffered?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has a very strong point. It is horrific that the law has historically treated children, including victims of grooming, as capable of being child prostitutes when they were and are sexually exploited children. We have already legislated to introduce a disregard scheme for those who were cautioned or convicted of on-street prostitution offences as children, and we have also invested £100 million to tackle child sexual abuse. The independent Criminal Cases Review Commission recently referred its first grooming gang case to the courts. That is an important step, and obviously we will keep all these matters under review.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is an appalling and tragic case. The brutal murder of Henry Nowak, the lies told by Vickrum Digwa and the behaviour of the police officers involved have made it all the more sickening. This was a young man, a university student, who was stabbed before being handcuffed by police as he lay dying and crying out, “I can’t breathe”.

I have been a police officer. I was an officer for 32 years, policing some of the most challenging parts of London. I cannot fathom acting in the way those officers acted. The first course of action I would have taken is to prioritise the person who has been injured, yet in this case, when met with a person shouting, “I’ve been stabbed”, the response of one of the officers at the scene was, “I don’t think you have, mate”.

I have said before, and I will say again at this Dispatch Box, that at the root of the problem with modern policing are two things: training and operational discretion. Officers are being trained to tick boxes rather than exercise their discretion and common sense. We need less national guidance and bureaucratic requirements and more focus on training officers to utilise their judgment.

What has also become blatantly clear from this is how police today will prioritise accusations of racism over murder. That is a wholly unacceptable symptom of the corruption of the once widely accepted concept of equality before the law. This is not only evident in the statements and general attitudes of senior police officers and politicians but enshrined in policing policy documents. In March 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing produced the Police Anti-Racism Commitment. That document states that the police commitment to racial equity means:

“Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised”.


It also states—this is the worst part—that racial equity

“does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.

That is an explicit statement of policy that the police should not treat all ethnicities the same. It encourages police forces to artificially engineer arrests and crime statistics so that they are equalised for all ethnic groups, regardless of offending rates.

That is not equality; that is blatantly two-tier policing. It states that people should be treated differently by the police based on the colour of their skin. We should be clear-eyed about the insidious nature of this approach. It is completely divisive. It promotes sectarianism and the ideology of separatism.

Much of this arose out of the Black Lives Matter movement after the murder of George Floyd in the United States. When George Floyd was murdered by police on another continent, politicians and campaigners in this country rallied behind Black Lives Matter. Senior police officers responded by calling it a

“pivotal moment for policing in the UK”,

even though it happened 4,000 miles away in a very different policing environment. There were numerous protests, with many becoming violent and leading to riotous clashes with police.

Yet with the murder of Henry Nowak and the dehumanising treatment he endured from the police, where are those same voices calling for change? Almost every person who is currently saying that we should not politicise the death of Henry Nowak was more than happy to politicise the death of George Floyd.

Those who criticise the violent protests in Southampton did not bat an eyelid when Black Lives Matter were attacking police officers and tearing down statues. We were told constantly that Black lives matter and that to say that all lives matter is somehow unacceptable. I think there has been a blatantly hypocritical approach to these two cases.

Well, I am very clear: all disorder, rioting and violent protest is totally unacceptable. No one’s death should be politicised. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition was absolutely correct when she said:

“I don’t want to hear about Black Lives Matter. I don’t want to hear about white lives matter. We all matter”.


They are two sides of the same coin. This is identity politics. It is a poisonous ideology that divides people by placing them into different groups with supposedly opposing interests. This is not how we foster cultural and social unity and cohesion as a nation. All instances of identity politics must be consigned to the dustbin of history. The police’s treatment of Henry Nowak clearly exposes that. Will the Government commit, very clearly, to scrapping the police anti-racism commitment and all similar ideologically motivated equality, diversity and inclusion policies?

During the proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill in your Lordships’ House, I tabled an amendment to exclude the police from the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. I argued then that this duty created a perverse incentive for the police to prioritise equality practices over their one true duty: protecting the public, preventing crime and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches voted it down. Does this case not clearly demonstrate the folly of the equality duty? This is exactly why we brought forward that amendment: to get the police back on track and doing their actual jobs.

I appreciate the tone and content of the Statement from the Home Secretary but, unless the Government take immediate action to sweep away identitarian politics from the police, her words will never be more than empty platitudes.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, in the face of an unimaginable tragedy, the Nowak family has shown a level of moral leadership that puts many in the political sphere to shame. While others have rushed to use the death of their 18 year-old son to stoke the fires of a culture war, the family’s plea has been for one thing: justice without division. Henry was a young man with a life of promise ahead of him. We owe it to his memory to honour his family’s request for unity, rather than allowing his death to be weaponised by those seeking to tear our social fabric apart.

However, the details that have so far emerged of the police response at the scene raise deeply troubling questions. When we see footage of a dying teenager being handcuffed and told he is under arrest while his killer’s lies are taken at face value, we are seeing the consequences of a system that has lost its focus on the victim. This strikes at the very heart of public trust. We must ask how the basic instinct to preserve life was so catastrophically overridden by a false narrative provided at the scene.

However, we must also confront the “two-tier policing” narrative being peddled by opportunistic voices. This rhetoric is not just false; it is dangerous. It ignores the fact that the perpetrator’s actions were condemned by his own community and that the weapon used was not a protected religious item. Our response must be rooted in fact and liberal values, not in the reactionary populism that seeks to label entire communities for the crimes of one individual.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that this investigation must not only consider the actions of individual officers but examine whether there were systemic failures in training and guidance, particularly in the management of complex and fast-moving incidents? In much of Europe, initial police training lasts years, but in England and Wales the classroom-based foundation is typically 18 to 22 weeks. So I once again repeat our calls for an independent review of police training, which has not taken place since 2018.

Hampshire Police has referred itself to the IOPC. Will the Minister commit to updating the House promptly once that investigation concludes, and to ensuring that its findings are published in full?

Following the trial, there have been reports from Sikh organisations of a significant increase in anti-Sikh hate crime. What steps are the Government taking to support community cohesion and protect minority communities from being targeted in the aftermath of this case?

Can the Minister confirm that the weapon used in this case was not a ceremonial kirpan but a different, larger knife, and that the Government’s focus remains on tackling knife crime in all its forms rather than restricting lawful religious practice?

Finally, does the Minister agree that rebuilding public confidence depends on effective neighbourhood policing, with officers properly embedded in their communities and, crucially, backed by sustained investment, including in youth services, which have been decimated in recent years?

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

I begin by saying that this murder was appalling. The murder is the responsibility of Vickrum Digwa, who is now facing a life sentence with a minimum of 21 years in jail. It was all the more despicable because of the lies the perpetrator told about the dying boy, Henry. That was a life snuffed out and we should have consideration both for his life and for his family at this time.

It is important that we reflect on the issues that have been made. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday in her Statement to the House of Commons, there will be an IOPC investigation. I do not wish to prejudge that investigation. We have all seen the body-worn camera footage and we have all seen the concerns that that footage has raised, but it is important that the IOPC has an opportunity to reflect on that. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I say that we will update both Houses of Parliament when that report is produced, and I welcome her comments on that issue. It is also important that we recognise that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which is independent of the Government, and rightly so, has indicated that it will review the guidance that it issued in 2025 to ensure that there is no ambiguity in its wording and statements.

I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I ask him again to reflect on the fact that the guidance will be reviewed, and I will report back to the House in due course on that issue. On the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about training and the lessons learned from this incident, both the guidance and the IOPC report will help us reflect on what needs to be done to examine those issues in slower time, because it is important that we do that.

With regard to the arguments about scrapping the guidance, everyone should be equal under the law. That is a first principle of policing. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is reviewing the wording to ensure that there is no ambiguity. We also have the Police Race Action Plan, published under the previous Conservative Government, which includes the issues of equality and diversity, and an acknowledgment of the challenges with race. I cannot accept, I am afraid, the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that this House and the House of Commons scrap and throw away that legislation and guidance. We will review them, but it is important, for a whole range of reasons, that police understand the challenges of equality and diversity in policing, and the importance of policing for all the community.

I will also say, if I may, that I am concerned about the disorder that has arisen as a result and, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I hope that people who have a view on any issue do so in a peaceful way and make any protests in a peaceful way. Eleven police officers and a police dog were injured in yesterday’s events in Southampton. The police have already made some arrests and will potentially make further arrests, because it is not acceptable, either last night or at any other time, to express a view on a contentious, difficult and challenging issue in a way that increases violence, tensions and potential aggression in our communities.

I go back to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned. The individual who committed the murder—the perpetrator of the murder—was carrying a knife that was not in order with the religious exemptions that were in place. And even if religious exemptions were in place, the moment the knife is used for a murder, that is the crime for which the individual concerned has been put before the courts. He has been found guilty and others around him have also been found guilty for their actions in response to the initial lies that were told about the purpose of calling the police in the first place.

I think it is important that we also take on board the extremely brave statement from the family. It is one I am not sure I could make if one of my children was involved in a murder. The family said yesterday that they did not want Henry’s death

“used to create further division, hatred or tension”.

Those are wise words from people in the middle of grief, whose child has been murdered and who have just witnessed someone going to prison for life for that murder. It is a time when there is an important need for the community to come together, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said.

The family also quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer, who said something that echoes again the tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey:

“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder”.


We need to remember that today. I appeal to all Members of this House and all people outside who have concerns over this. Let the IOPC do its job. Let it report. Let the Police Chiefs’ Council review its guidance. Let the parents grieve and, if I may say so, let Henry Nowak rest in peace. Lessons will be learned from his murder, undoubtedly, but I say to the House as a whole that this is a time for calm heads and wise counsel, not for action on the streets.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025

Baroness Doocey Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Martyn’s law provisions, which were passed by both Houses of Parliament, set two tiers of organisation. The first tier, with around 155,000 premises in scope, is called the “standard tier”. Larger organisations facing potential threats of terrorism—there are some 24,000 of them—must have in place additional plans to ensure that they are prepared for potential terrorist activity. The type of activity that we have included in the guidance is around how individuals prepare for potential attacks, how they exit attacks and what training they give their staff. Therefore, under the terms and conditions of the Act that we passed, which concerns public access, any organisation that fits into those 24,000 premises will have to comply with those regulations.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, for “enhanced tier” premises, the Act requires a senior individual to be responsible for compliance. Although they are not personally liable for wider organisational failures, they may face prosecution if an offence occurs due to their neglect. Can the Minister say what guidance will be given on what “neglect” means in this context, so that senior managers and leaders are not put off taking on these very important roles?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is revisiting areas that we discussed during the passage of the legislation, on which I gave, I hope, clear answers. The statutory guidance—which I do not have with me, but which is quite a significant document—was published to give guidance to those nominated individuals responsible for managing properties for which they have a responsibility. We have also taken on over 100 new operational posts in the Security Industry Authority to assist with that, and there will be further guidance on contact that can be had. We also have a digital system undertaking, which we are issuing the contract for now, to manage this in an effective way. So I hope that those who have concerns will be able to look at the guidance and meet the statutory responsibilities that both Houses of Parliament have passed.