Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 247A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has laid out the case in detail.

It is a sad fact that children, some with living parents, are deliberately separated from their families and placed in residential institutions overseas. These institutions then present these children as orphans to attract donations from well-meaning supporters, often in the UK. The children become commodities: the more vulnerable they appear, the more money flows in. This is exploitation on a grand scale, masquerading as charity, and it is funded in part by British individuals and organisations who often have no idea that they are perpetuating abuse.

Amendment 247A proposes an overdue expansion of the definition of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to explicitly include orphanage trafficking. As the explanatory statement confirms, this new clause would insert a clear definition into the Act that orphanage trafficking means that

“The person is a child who has been recruited into a residential care institution overseas for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation”.


Our approach throughout the Bill’s scrutiny has been to ensure that our legislation is robust and responsive and specifically targets the modern tactics of abusers and exploiters, particularly concerning vulnerable children.

The phenomenon of orphanage trafficking was not adequately understood as a distinct form of modern slavery when the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was drafted a decade ago. In recent years, however, extensive research and reporting, including by UNICEF and specialist organisations working in south-east Asia and Africa, have revealed the scale and systematic nature of this exploitation. We now know that the practice uses the guise of charitable care to perpetrate sustained abuse for profit. This is unacceptable.

By explicitly defining this conduct, Amendment 247A would ensure that the MSA 2015 is fully equipped to address this tragic global issue. We have seen the importance of such clarity throughout the Bill. Just as we have recognised that exploitation evolves, we should now acknowledge orphanage trafficking as an identifiable and compatible form of abuse. This amendment applies the same principle to this particularly insidious form of overseas exploitation.

The amendment serves three critical functions. First, it would provide legal recognition and awareness. This is a necessary first step to legally recognise orphanage trafficking in UK law. This action would raise the profile of a genuine issue that, despite being recognised in jurisdictions such as Australia and New Zealand, remains poorly understood here. It is time this was addressed. Australia’s experience demonstrates that legislative recognition creates public awareness and shifts provision towards sustainable, family-based care models rather than institutional placements.

Secondly, the amendment targets financial facilitators. This is the amendment’s most powerful practical effect. Adding this specific definition to the MSA 2015 would mean that individuals and organisations which provide financial support to these exploitative overseas institutions could be in breach of the Modern Slavery Act. This would allow enforcement action to be taken against them.

Thirdly, it covers international obligations and UK leadership. This amendment aligns with our commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and reinforces the UK’s role in setting global standards for combating modern slavery. It demonstrates that our child protection framework extends meaningfully beyond our borders.

Supporting Amendment 247A is a necessary evolution of our anti-slavery legal framework. It would ensure that our commitment to protecting exploited children extends effectively beyond our borders and covers every known facet of trafficking, reinforcing our foundational principle that the law must protect the vulnerable from financial and criminal exploitation.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be upheld at every level. We hope the Government will support this amendment in order to protect innocent, vulnerable children from this very distressing practice.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I too support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is my privilege, as I travel around the world visiting Anglican provinces, often to visit orphanages and see some of the work they do. As noble Lords have already said, many of these children still have a living parent somewhere, but that parent, for whatever reason, no longer feels able or wishes to look after them, particularly if the mother has died in childbirth.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 286A offers us an alternative approach, where only those who take purposeful actions to conceal abuse, specifically with the intention of doing so, would be criminalised. This is a proportionate threshold for criminalisation, where those guilty of concealing this insidious crime are rightfully prosecuted, and those who just fail to report abuse, whether that be due to lack of knowledge or some other motivation, receive appropriate professional and civil sanctions. This duty should empower our child protection system to better combat child sexual abuse, and I believe that Amendment 286A strikes the right balance in enabling us to do just that. I encourage the Government to accept it.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Probably the most harrowing date in my life as a bishop was when I had to give evidence in person to IICSA as the Church of England’s lead bishop on religious communities— we knew that some of the horrific abuse that had taken place was in religious communities. Ever since then, I have worked really hard on these matters. I sought to add my name to Amendments 286A and 287, but I missed the deadline, sadly, so I am grateful for the chance to support them now.

I was going to say quite a bit about Amendment 286A, but the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said just about everything I wanted to say, so I will not detain the Committee any further on it. On Amendment 287 on training, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others. It is important that the Bill will apply not only to already knowledgeable professionals but to volunteers, who will have a whole variety of levels of funding, of safeguarding experience and of experience in dealing with child sexual abuse. We cannot assume that mandated reporters will already have the necessary understanding to fulfil these new legal obligations, so I think this is an appropriate probing amendment to see what support there can be to ensure that those who will have a duty are equipped to discharge that duty properly. Without that, I think we will fail to hit what we are trying to do.

I am sorry that it has taken us this long to get this far with the IICSA report. I think we have made a bit more progress implementing its recommendations in the Church of England than we have in this House, but I am glad that we got this opportunity today. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have proposed amendments.

I want to say a few words about Amendment 273, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, invited me to do so. On the seal of the confessional, if it is possible for a churchman to say this, I remain a bit agnostic. I am interested in what will actually produce good safeguarding. I have heard people say, including survivors sometimes, that the chance to go and talk to a priest, and know it would not go beyond that priest, was what gave them the courage—often with a priest going with them—to make a disclosure to the relevant authorities. I can see that if we change that, some disclosures would happen but some would not, so I am keen to hear a bit more about that.

The other part of the amendment talks about extending it to all those who volunteer. I am not quite sure how wide that needs to go. Certainly, I am happy for it to apply to Church leaders, lay or ordained, paid or unpaid, but it should not be the person who cleans the coffee cups in the church hall on a Sunday morning, or who puts out the “No parking” cones, or who photocopies the parish magazine or arranges the church flowers once a month. Let us be clear exactly what categories we are going to extend any duty to, and whether that is dealt with best in the Bill or in some sort of secondary advice, guidance, legislation or other instrument. I am keen to explore that more. I am very grateful for these matters being raised, and not before time.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 286A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, to which I also would have added my name if I had been slightly more efficient. The right reverend Prelate and I need to do better from now on. I acknowledge and thank the NSPCC and declare my interest as a teacher. To quote Keeping Children Safe in Education, which we have to read every year, child protection is everybody’s responsibility.

I was surprised to hear that this issue was not already completely covered. As we have heard now and in previous groups, it is essential that if someone acts purposefully to stop child sexual abuse being properly investigated, they should face strong criminal penalties. Actions like these can delay, and sometimes outright deny, victims their access to justice and the vital support needed to help them recover from such abuse.

The much-quoted Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse uncovered instances in which teachers were transferred to another school with no police referral, after a student was told: “You must not tell the police. We will handle it in-house”. Priests were moved from parish to parish, and there were examples of local authorities destroying files relating to allegations, which survivors perceived as part of a cover-up.

These are actions that can and do continue to happen across our society. While Clause 79 introduces a new criminal offence of preventing or deterring someone under the mandatory reporting duty from making a report, this provision does not go far enough to cover the multitude of ways that reports of abuse can be concealed. This is because Clause 79 is built on the mandatory reporting duty and requires the act of concealment directly to involve someone under that duty. This proposal is separate from applying criminal sanctions directly to the mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse in Clause 72, which I fear could create a defensive fear and blame-based child protection sector that criminalises those who lack the knowledge and training to report effectively. However, intentionally taking actions to cover up child sexual abuse cannot be tolerated and should be criminalised. I believe that this amendment strikes the balance.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 49 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—for whose wide-ranging support I am most grateful—would right an acknowledged wrong: the declaration of incompatibility with human rights of part of Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The right reverend Prelate regrets he cannot at the last minute attend, but he hopes His Majesty’s Government will help. The amendment also tackles the whole of that discriminatory part of the 2022 Act. I will not rehearse again the full range of unfair disadvantage which has resulted from these provisions, which I set out at Second Reading. I will briefly describe what our amendment would achieve, to correct a manifest unfairness which harshly criminalises, and confiscates the caravan homes and domestic possessions of, a small number of families whose nomadic way of life is recognised in law.

I should first of all say that it is the shortage of authorised sites which is the underlying problem. That is why that minority of Gypsies and Travellers who live in that way have often no other choice than to park their family home on an unauthorised site. This is where the judge found race discrimination. He said that

“it means that Gypsies will no longer be able to avoid the risk of criminal penalty by resort to transit pitches. The position might be different if transit pitches were readily available … But the evidence shows this is not the position”.

The amendment simply returns the situation to what it was before the cruel and discriminatory provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act were enacted. It in no way reduces the ample powers the police already had in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to oblige unauthorised trespassers to leave if there had been threatening behaviour or damage—previous case law has included “squashed grass” in this category—to issue temporary stop notices and injunctions to protect land, to direct unauthorised campers to an alternative site, and to prevent them returning within three months. Our amendment’s main provisions are: the elimination of the power of a landowner to command eviction on a subjective reason of being caused distress, and a return to 12 months as the interval within which the travelling family cannot return to the land—from three months, which was the discrimination that the incompatibility declaration captured.

I need hardly remind the Committee that our Gypsy and Traveller population already suffer a degree of prejudice which has substantially contributed to the worst life chances in health, employment, education and well-being of any minority ethnic group in our country: the attitudes and conduct enabled by the provisions we seek to repeal can only further encourage that prejudice and disadvantage. Can your Lordships imagine how it feels to have hanging over your head, when you cannot find an authorised site, the fear that your family home might be impounded, with all that is in it, and your family turned out, homeless, to find shelter—all on the say-so of a member of the public who feels “distress” simply at the presence of a travelling family? Not the least of your fears will be that your children cannot get to their school, or that the medical regime of an elder in your family has to be abandoned.

I urge the Minister to heed the widespread condemnation of the provisions we seek to repeal by our Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Committees on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and fulfil this Government’s acceptance of the obligation to comply with the court through our amendment. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, Manchester’s famous Christmas markets are now in full swing. If you’re visiting my city any time in the next few weeks, until the last few days before Christmas, you are most welcome to patronise them. However, that was not the case for a number of young people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds this time last year. They were turned away by police at the railway station on the supposition that they must have come to commit crime. Children were seen being forced on to trains heading to unknown destinations, separated from family members, and subjected to physical aggression. That included shoving, hair-pulling, and handcuffing. Several individuals reported officers making disparaging remarks about their ethnicity.

It is a sad fact that in 2025, it remains acceptable in our society to treat Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in ways that seek to drive them to the margins of society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which amended the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in respect of unauthorised encampments, included changes in respect of which, as we have just been reminded by the noble Lady, Baroness Whitaker, the High Court has made a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Police powers were expanded beyond the original provisions of the CJPO Act, allowing officers to arrest, seize vehicles, and forfeit property if individuals failed to leave when directed. The PCSC Act also extended those powers to cover land on highways, increased the no-return period from three months to 12 months, and broadened the types of harm that justify eviction, removing the previous need to demonstrate threatening behaviour or damage.

I opposed those changes in your Lordships’ House then, and I do so still. The overwhelming reason why illegal encampments take place is simple. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just reminded us, it is down to the continuing failure of local authorities across the nation to provide sufficient legal sites. There are few votes for local councillors in providing Traveller sites; alas, there are many more votes for those same councillors in closing or refusing permission for them. That is a direct consequence of the same prejudiced attitudes against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community which underlay the distressing treatment of the young people in Manchester last year. Amendment 49 can be a first step towards rectifying that institutionalised injustice.

I hope that in responding to this debate, the Minister, can give us some indication of how His Majesty’s Government intend to legislate, both in this Bill and elsewhere, to tackle the persistent levels of discrimination against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and thank her for tabling this important amendment. The noble Baroness has laid out the arguments extremely carefully and clearly. Romany and Traveller people experience stark inequalities. They are subject to a wide range of enforcement powers against encampments. Part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, introduced in 2022, created a new criminal offence relating to trespass and gave police tougher powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for up to 12 months, alongside powers to fine, arrest, imprison and seize the homes of Gypsies and Travellers.

This draconian amendment was tabled and supported by the previous Conservative Government. It took no account of whether elderly relatives or children were on site, or whether a woman might be in the late stages of pregnancy. It was a broad, sweeping power which the police had not asked for; nor did they want it.

On several occasions I called on the previous Government to require all local authorities to provide adequate permanent sites for Romany people and Traveller people, as well as temporary stopping sites to accommodate the cultural nomadic lifestyle—but to no avail. His Majesty’s official Opposition prefer the scenario where, due to the absence of authorised stopping places or sites, illegal camping is dealt with in a draconian manner. The Gypsies and Travellers are evicted and thrown in prison; their caravan homes and vehicles are seized; and their children are taken into care—all a burden on the taxpayer, with no thought to the humanitarian impact on the Romany people and Travellers themselves. Making a nomadic, cultural way of life a criminal activity was and is appalling and is out of all proportion, and it is in breach of Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

In Somerset there was previously adequate provision of both temporary and permanent sites for the Traveller community. I am pleased to say that I worked very hard to get those sites up and running, against huge opposition. Some of those sites have since been closed. I now live in Hampshire, where I am to all intents and purposes surrounded by Traveller sites. They live round the corner; they live at the bottom of the road I live in; their children go to the local schools, both primary and secondary; their babies are baptised in the church. One baby girl was baptised yesterday, surrounded by over 100 well-wishers from her extended family. We bought our logs from the man who lived down the road. Sadly, he died earlier this year, and we now buy from his grandson, who has taken over his grandfather’s business. There is nothing but good will and respect between the Travellers and the rest of the community.

There will, of course, be those who live close to very large, unmanaged, sprawling Traveller sites. I have some sympathy with those people. However, if their local authority had made adequate provision in the first place, with sites having adequate toilet and water facilities, maybe they would not be in the current unfortunate circumstances we hear about.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for reminding us how Gypsies and Travellers are still treated. It is a disgrace. It really is time that proper provision be made for those who have a culture different from those of us living in bricks and mortar. Now is definitely the time to ditch the legislation of 2022. It was not needed then, and it is not needed now. I fully support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for tabling the amendment. She has obviously secured widespread support—from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

As my noble friend explained, the High Court ruling in May 2024 found that the specific changes made by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 relating to Traveller sites were incompatible with convention rights. This is where I am going to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, because the Government respect the decision of the court. The Government—I hope that this is helpful to my noble friend—are working now on a response to that court judgment. I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the High Court ruling, and the response is needed. I hope I can help my noble friend by saying that I can undertake to update the House ahead of Report on this matter. We are not able to finalise the exact response as yet, but I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.

I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment today, but it is important that we signal to her that this matter is one we have to resolve speedily. In considering the court’s judgment, the Government will carefully balance the rights of individuals to live their private lives without discrimination, while recognising the importance of protecting public spaces and communities affected by unauthorised encampments. That balance will be made, and I hope to be able to resolve that issue by Report, as I have said.

A number of noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned the question of the shortage of unauthorised sites available to Gypsies and Travellers, and that is an important point. Local authorities, as Members will know, are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area and must plan to meet that need. These decisions are made locally; they reflect specific circumstances in each area and operate within the national planning policy for Traveller sites, which is set by the Government. We aim to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of Travellers, while respecting the interests of the settled community.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

Does the Minister accept that, aggregated across the country, the effect of lots of local decisions by local authorities is that there is a calamitous shortage of legitimate sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people? If so, what do the Government plan to do about that, rather than simply saying that it is up to each local authority?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The position of the Government is that it is up to each local authority. I understand the right reverend Prelate’s point, but there is overarching guidance in England, provided by the National Planning Policy Framework, which basically indicates that local authorities are required to assess the need for Traveller pitches in their area. That is a conflict; there is a shortage, there is always a debate on these matters, there is always opposition, there is always discussion, but, ultimately, local councils have to settle on sites in their areas and I cannot really help the right reverend Prelate more than that. There is guidance and a process to be followed.

Issues around the proportionality of enforcement action were also mentioned in passing today. Again, our laws are designed to address unlawful behaviour such as criminal damage or actions that cause harassment, alarm or distress, rather than to criminalise a way of life. This distinction is central to ensuring fair and proportionate policing. Harassment, alarm and distress are well established within our legal framework, so there is a careful balance to be achieved. The response to unauthorised encampments, locally led, involves multi-agency collaboration between local councils, police and relevant services. This approach supports community engagement and ensures that responses are tailored to local needs.

My noble friend’s amendment goes slightly further than the court’s judgment: she seeks to repeal the offence of residing on land without the consent of the occupier of the land, as well as the power for police to direct trespassers away from land where they are there for the purpose of residing there. I just say to my noble friend that those are matters the court did not rule on, and the Government still consider these to be necessary and proportionate police powers, but I give her the undertaking today that I did in my earlier comments, that we hope to be able to bring forward solutions by Report. In the light of that undertaking, I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

These amendments offer a package of reforms based on self-interest. They demonstrate our commitment to fairness and common sense by transforming asylum seekers and trafficking victims from costly dependants into contributing members of society. I urge the House to support these three amendments.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, as well as Amendment 45 in my name, and that of the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, I also strongly support the other amendments in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord German, has just spoken. In fact, I have added my name to two of them.

The current lengthy ban on asylum seekers working wastes talent. Lifting it would let an incredibly talented, resilient group of people—as those are the qualities they needed to even get themselves here—support themselves and their families. It would allow them to rebuild their lives with dignity and independence, at the same time as they would be filling vital UK labour shortages.

As the noble Lord has just said, it also makes financial sense. It could save the Treasury £4.4 billion a year in expenditure, generate £880 million a year in tax revenues and boost GDP by over £1 billion. As the noble Lord also said, it would cut the hotel and asylum support bill. Some 91% of people seeking asylum struggle to afford food. Against that background, the present work ban is actually driving people into exploitation and forced labour. It often means that they are paying exploiters for the so-called privilege of 14 hour-plus delivery shifts earning less than the minimum wage.

There are even more harmful forms of work. Surveys have shown that some 10% of women seeking asylum have felt forced into sex work to support themselves and their children. More raids, and more enforcement, will not stop this. It will only drive people into more hidden and dangerous situations to try to support themselves. Lifting the ban is the only way to protect people from exploitative and irregular work, and it saves the money that we currently spend enforcing that ban.

The stoking of division was exemplified by the riots last summer, but the community cohesion offered by letting people work side by side with those who are seeking asylum is invaluable. When we let people share their skills with their new communities, it helps them settle, improve their language skills and make friends; it leads to better integration outcomes. These are things that we are already seeing in the many churches in my diocese where asylum seekers worship while their claims are being processed. If they can also build those connections, meet people and become known, respected and loved sisters and brothers in the world of work, that can only help community cohesion.

I accept that, alongside the humanitarian and economic considerations to which I have referred, politics does understandably matter. Let me briefly address any concerns that lifting the ban would be an unpopular act in the country. YouGov polling shows 81% of voters support giving people seeking asylum the right to work after six months. That includes 87% of Labour voters and 81% of Conservative voters. On top of that, a Survation poll found that lifting the ban is backed by a two-thirds majority of business leaders. It is backed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of Labour Providers, the Entrepreneurs Network and the Federation of Small Businesses. That is a pretty widespread alliance, and it is not the sort of people who are normally associated with weeping-heart, left wing causes.

We have all heard the mantra from all sides of this House over many years that the UK needs to get people off dependence on benefits and into work. My amendment would seek to encourage us to do that. It is not the sort of amendment I believe should be taken to a Division, and I am not going to do that. However, I hope that, in responding to this debate, the Minister will be able to offer some assurances that we can make progress on this matter, not least so that His Majesty’s Government can achieve the target of closing the asylum hotels.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 42 seems to me to be something of a no-brainer. It would relieve the public purse in two ways. Local authorities might no longer have to find the cost of accommodation, and central government would no longer have to provide the pittance it does as a weekly allowance to people held in asylum hotels. It would be good for these people. It would be good for their self-respect and it would make it more likely that they would successfully integrate if they were, in the end, granted asylum.

The only people it would be bad for are people in the black economy. We all know that people in the situation we are describing tend to go out and find work and that work is available for them, thus they are launched into a criminal level of British society straight away. That is the wrong way to integrate people who have done no harm—people who are here fleeing persecution, famine or war elsewhere. It seems paradoxical and extremely dangerous that we do not allow people to work. I strongly support Amendments 42 and 43.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that contribution. It is slightly off the topic we are talking about today, but it is important that we focus on the issue of halving knife crime. The measures we have brought forward to date concern education, policing, new legislation on knife sales and tackling the culture of young people in particular carrying knives for defence. The noble Earl raises points that, with respect, are not directly for me, but I will make sure that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is apprised of his view. The point we can agree on is that, in the Crime and Policing Bill that will come before this House for Committee shortly, there are a number of measures that we believe will assist in continuing to reduce the level of knife crime. I will certainly reflect with my colleagues on the points that the noble Earl has made.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, these Benches pay tribute to the train crew and others who responded so heroically. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all those who have been impacted. The traumatic effects of being involved in an incident like that, in an enclosed space, do not just go away after a short period of time. I declare my unpaid role as co-chair of the national police ethics committee. I am grateful that information about the perpetrator was got out early, and not just the fact that it was not terrorism. Since Southport last year, we have known that releasing other information is vital to calming some of the public’s fears. That is something that my ethics committee has been discussing at length in recent times.

Like many noble Lords—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who may want to intervene shortly—I travel a lot on trains that do not stop for quite a long distance and which have many carriages. I could have made some of the points that have already been made about this. It is about having enough first responders, who are equipped to respond effectively, on those trains throughout the journey.

My trains have CCTV in every carriage—it usually works. That helps. I think facial recognition technology has been referred to. That needs to be managed very carefully. Many of the models that I have seen still have an in-built ethnic bias, inherited from the fact that the original training of their algorithms is often based on the faces of white men such as me. These models sometimes struggle to distinguish people from other groups within society, leading to too many false positives and causing people who are entirely innocent to have their lives interrupted by being stopped and accused of an offence. If we are to increase stop and search, there is no problem with that as long as we ensure that the officers involved are trained in unconscious bias so that they are not carrying it out in a way that is unfair.

Finally, does the Minister agree that deterrence for knife crime and other crime is driven much more by fear of detection and arrest than by the theoretical length of a maximum sentence?

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I want to have consensus in this House on the measures that we take forward as a whole, which is why I reflect on the fact that measures in the Crime and Policing Bill were voted against in the House of Commons within the past hour and a half.

My noble friend is absolutely right to focus on the issue of what is being done now. We have focused on putting additional support into policing and tracing convictions. We have investigated a lot of cases—some 800 cases that were closed cases previously—and increased the conviction rate by 50%. That is an important measure. With the acceptance of the 12 measures from the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and the inclusion of the IICSA recommendations in legislation, along with action and the further examination of a couple of those, this Government are taking the issue very seriously.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee. Despite the fact that the very first recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was that we must see children as children, it has really taken until tonight in this House for much of the conversation to move into that area. This was a point made by Sir Stephen Watson, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, at an event I attended earlier today. He has talked about how much of the failure to prosecute was down to police forces treating abused children not as victims but as somehow culpable in their own abuse. I thank the Minister for already confirming that we will have a victim-centred approach to this inquiry. Can he assure us that the inquiry will explore Sir Stephen’s point, including through the data it collects, so that we can determine to what extent it was a poor response by police forces to the victims of these serious multiple rapes that lies behind the failure to prosecute and convict? Does he agree with me that this is far better than just lazily assuming, as the media seem to be doing, that every single failure comes down to questions of the ethnicity of perpetrators? Finally, on a happier note, will he join me in congratulating Sir Stephen on his recently announced knighthood, a worthy acknowledgement for a man who has turned round how my city and its surrounds are policed?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I join the right reverend Prelate in congratulating Sir Stephen on his knighthood as chief constable of Greater Manchester. It is a great honour for an individual to receive that and a recognition of the important work he has done in turning round Greater Manchester Police, with the support of the mayor.

The right reverend Prelate mentioned the issue of convictions, which I hope I have covered. Where individuals have had convictions, we will legislate to have those overturned.

It is important that we look at the whole issue of how we got here. The focus is on gangs of a particular ethnicity, and that has been a driving force for the work that is being done in local, and now the national, inquiry. But I think we need to look at the police response as a whole to child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation, and at how we ensure that young children who are victims find a place where they can have trust in the system to bring forward their experiences, and be believed in bringing forward those experiences, and for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to provide a mechanism for them to secure the conviction of those evil predators who have abused them in their childhood.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short session this evening. I also gave evidence at IICSA in person: I was an expert witness on Anglican religious communities, because that was one of the guises in which Bishop Peter Ball had justified his abuse.

I want to pick up on mandatory reporting, which has been referred to already. For some in the Church of England, and for many in the Roman Catholic Church and some other churches as well, the tradition of the seal of the confessional has been honoured for many centuries and established in canon law in this land. There is an arguable case that the seal allows somebody—and it is more likely to be a victim or witness who comes to the confessional—to make a kind of protected disclosure, which then often would lead to them being helped to make a more public disclosure and allow a perpetrator to be taken to justice. I hope there will be careful discussions with religious bodies as to exactly where the seal of the confessional will fit in with this; I know my Catholic colleagues will particularly be concerned around that. We want what will produce the best safeguarding, but it is not simply that mandatory reporting or getting rid of the seal of the confessional will get better reporting at the end of the day.

On redress, I am vice chair of the Church of England redress board. We are setting up our own scheme because we just could not be bothered to wait for the IICSA recommendation on redress to come into force. But we also think it is important that we are the ones who will be paying out the money where we did wrong to somebody—whether it was in the original abuse, in colluding with a cover-up or in failing to take a disclosure seriously. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on whether, if we do have a national redress scheme, there will be some effort to recoup the costs from the bodies that were responsible for the abuse, or covering up the abuse, in the first instance, rather than this simply being something that the taxpayer ends up picking up.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his approach to the issue. I hope I can reassure him that I have already had representations from churches, and I have received at the Home Office a delegation from a cross-religious group to discuss the very issue that he has mentioned about the relationship between the priest or vicar and the individual. I want to explore that and I have given a commitment to discuss that further with those from the churches who made contact with me, and we have had submissions on that. I cannot give him definitive, final positions today, but I hope that we can debate this during the course of the passage of the Bill in this House.

I recognise that the issue of a redress scheme is extremely important. I recognise that victims and survivors will probably be very disappointed that the Government are not yet able to commit to a redress scheme. For those who know the internal workings of government, there is a spending review in the current climate and we have to work through that spending review. I cannot give a commitment today on that issue, but I hope that the right reverend Prelate knows that it is certainly a recommendation to government, and we will examine and respond in due course.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to ask for a clarification, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said that he proposes to divide the House unless he gets a satisfactory response from the Minister. What would be the combined effect of Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister? If the premises have 500 people in them at least once a month, would that mean that this is otiose and they do not need a security assessment? Or does the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, accept that, if there were 500, which is the limit, at any one time during the year—not at least once a month—mean that the security provisions would be required?

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful that we are debating the amendments in this group. I declare my interest, having lots of churches in Manchester that fall under the terms of the Bill.

I am drawn to the important reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we must not let the terrorists change the way we live our lives —I have said that myself on past occasions—so this is all about proportionality. I am drawn to his more subtle balance between 200 and 300 people, but I fear that, if we were to raise the threshold as high as some of the amendments in this group propose, it would take out many premises. We know that terrorists do not go for only very large events; they go for medium-sized events and buildings, as we have seen, sadly, with mosques and churches, not necessarily in this country but around the world. On the whole, the Bill as it has arrived to us is in the right shape, but there is considerable merit in the noble Lord’s proposal to have some flexibility in that 200 to 300 people range, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on that matter.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, it is extremely welcome that the House is now in the mood of trying to build consensus on the Bill. Despite the occasionally scratchy discussions we had in Committee, it is clear that people are accepting the main principles of the Bill. What we are now talking about is the quantum and the number of visitors who will trigger the threshold. I am very conscious that the Bill is not just about the legal requirements being placed on premises; it is about setting the tone with which all premises will respond and consider the threats they face.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not saying that risk is never a feature; the national threat level could be very high, in which case even smaller venues would need to take precautions that they would not have to under the Bill’s present wording. I am calling for flexibility and agility so that we do not have a thoughtless one-size-fits-all approach that will not keep anybody safer.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for another chance to address these amendments and support those brought forward by the Government. I am struggling a little with Amendments 13 and 25. I do not wish to deprive the good citizens of Buckley of the joy of their annual jubilee. Some of us thought that jubilees came round rather less frequently, but it is good that Buckley has them so often. I am not quite sure of the premises that would be covered by this legislation.

On Amendment 13, it would cost more in time, energy and effort to get an exemption for small premises than the fairly modest requirements for such premises would entail. It would not be much use for a small church hall to appeal for an exemption under Amendment 13. The risk for a large and wealthy organisation might be that they spend years in litigation and judicial review as to whether their premises should be exempt. I am not convinced.

As for Amendment 25, I yearn for the day when the terrorism threat is low or moderate, but I do not see that happening any time in the foreseeable future. We have to work on the basis that we will suffer significant threats of terrorism for quite some time. Given that the level is substantial one day and might be severe another, I would rather have the certainty of knowing what my premises had to do today and tomorrow and when planning an event in six weeks or 12 months, if it is a large event with a long lead-up time, rather than the rules changing depending on the terrorist threat having gone up or down a notch. Amendment 25 would create potential confusion, and I would rather that we kept things as simple as possible.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches welcome the government amendments to Clause 32, in particular Amendment 28 on consultation, which we were very keen to see written into the Bill when we debated it at previous stages.

Amendment 13 starts from the point of view that the measures in the Bill are inappropriately burdensome, as we discussed in the previous group. In fact, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 13 would be burdensome on applicants and the Secretary of State. It uses the words “demonstrated” and “materially”; these things all require some judgment and work. In particular, the Bill does not seek to

“materially reduce the threat of terrorism”,

as we have discussed. The public protection procedures in Clause 5 are more than a single measure.

As I understand the way that the Bill will work, with premises being different there is bound to be some dialogue between the owner or operator and the SIA in assessing whether they are compliant. That is the time to make these assessments. I do not think it will be a box-ticking exercise, at any rate to the extent that has been suggested. The process will get people to think—a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox —when they are planning the procedures. I hope she will invite noble Lords to come and see the Buckley procession, but the problem there sounds to me more like a problem with local authority funding than anything which arises from this Bill. The words “flexibility” and “agility” really worry me; this will create a lot of work for people. So our main objection to Amendment 13 is that it is neither appropriate nor, frankly, workable and we cannot support it if the noble Lord decides to divide.

Amendment 25 is on the national threat level. I do not want to say that it goes up and down like a yo-yo, because clearly it does not, but it does go up and down and so, again, I think it would be unworkable given the criterion. The right reverend Prelate used the word “confusion”, which was the first word I wrote down against this amendment. We know that owners and operators want clarity and certainty, so, again, we cannot support this amendment. I really cannot see how it could work because, when the national threat level changes, it happens quite immediately, so to change arrangements as the amendment proposes would take time. I just cannot see how it could operate.

--- Later in debate ---

It is, of course, a balancing act that the counterterrorism measures in the Bill remain robust while preventing an unintended chilling effect on volunteering and community leadership. These amendments achieve a balance, and I hope they become part of the legislation. Therefore, I hope that the Government accept these four amendments.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has just spoken to, for largely the same reasons that he does: we have many volunteers running church buildings and church halls around the country.

In addition to what he says, I know in practice that it is very unusual for a charity trustee, for example, to be held personally liable for something unless they have behaved egregiously. In many cases, organisations have a structure that allows them to take out insurance against some kinds of risks. But perception really matters here: the perception that one might end up going to prison, or be made personally liable, as a church warden or parish clerk, for excessively heavy fines compared with your own personal income.

Given the deterrent effect of that—when we find it so hard, and in an age when there are fewer volunteers, to keep the voluntary structures of this country running —if the noble Lord wishes to bring these matters to a Division, he will certainly have my support and, I hope, that of other Members of your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was surprised at the last stage by the amendment requiring the tribunal to issue a determination within a reasonable time, as defined by the Secretary of State, because it seemed to me that that was an inappropriate combination or eliding of the roles of the judiciary and the Executive. That was not pressed, but this amendment seems to me to be on the same page.

Others will have experience of the courts staying an order—I mean professional experience—but I understand that to be part of proceedings in a lower court. As I read Amendment 19, it would require an extra stage in the proceedings, presumably a hearing on an application that the time before determining an appeal is unreasonable, and so a further addition to the tribunal’s load and further delay. We cannot support that amendment.

On Amendment 20, having to pay within 28 days does not seem to me to be excessive penalisation, which is the wording used in the Member’s explanatory statement. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked of a grace period being aligned with similar penalties. The Minister disagreed and made the point that 28 days is a minimum.

The penalty will not come out of the blue in most cases, as I understand it. The SIA has to be satisfied that there has been, or will be, a contravention. Unless the responsible person has refused, or completely failed, to engage with the SIA, there will have been a dialogue.

With regard to volunteers, of course we are with the noble Lord on not disincentivising volunteers, but I do not think this is the first or only time that volunteers have been faced with or have had to think about the responsibilities laid on them as volunteers, particularly if they are trustees of charities. There are a lot of rules that have to be observed by them.

The Bill, in any event, is about taking precautions appropriate to the premises or to the event. The distinction between the operators—volunteers or paid—is surely irrelevant. I doubt terrorists would make that distinction. As we have been reminded today, the Conservative Government were proposing 100 as a threshold. That would have meant a greater problem, as the noble Lord defines it. We are, I am afraid, not able to support those amendments.

With regard to Amendment 23, Clause 20(2) allows for the SIA to consider “matters it considers relevant”, which presumably will include the local authority’s view. Having specifically to obtain the local authority’s view seems to be another bit of bureaucracy in certain cases. If it is relevant, it will be considered, and provision is made for that.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise in advance. The Minister will tick me off for this being a Second Reading intervention, and I should have been here on Monday to say it, but I would like briefly to give a small plug for an organisation that has not been mentioned at all at this stage: the National Protective Security Authority. This is an arm of MI5 which gives free advice on personnel security, physical security and other forms of security. It is informed by a knowledge of terrorist and state threats. It is based not only on the understanding of those threats but on commissioned research from universities. It will give advice for free—paid for by the taxpayer—to all sizes and shapes of organisation. When we are talking about the costs of this, and in the earlier stages about the so-called cowboys giving advice, I recommend that whoever is affected by this legislation looks at this website and seeks this free advice as their first step. I am sorry for the commercial plug and apologise for intervening at this stage.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in this group. As the Bishop of Manchester, I have got something like 400 churches and church halls in my diocese, but these amendments go rather wider than that. For places of worship, there are already some grant schemes for protecting against terrorism, given the particular threat that places of worship, especially Muslim and Jewish places of worship, have traditionally faced.

Back in my days as a vicar—25 years or more ago now—I seem to recall that, when I was trying to do good things to improve disabled access in my church, it was possible to do the work and then reclaim the VAT, which would not have been possible on other works. The principle that the Government fund by way of tax relief works that are important to the well-being of the community, to enable people to participate safely in events and activities, is well established in law. If small venues, particularly village halls, have to do physical work to premises, I urge that we find ways to defray not all but part of the cost, recognising that that shows this is something that is strongly supported by the state.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41, as I believe it is very important that we get some clarity. This amendment seeks to make sure that there can be no ambiguity in what is to be expected of local authorities, the SIA and other relevant bodies if the Bill becomes law.

We know that licensing and enforcement teams in most local authorities are already overstretched and underresourced. Through this amendment, I seek some reassurance that councils will be supported and financially compensated for the work they will have to do to provide oversight and enforcement, and around their ability to co-ordinate with the SIA effectively. The provision of advice and guidance that businesses will seek from councils will be significant, and it will be a cost. We cannot place additional burdens on our councils at this time unless they are funded fully. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government have a duty and a mechanism by which they can fund and resource councils in overseeing compliance with the Bill’s security requirements.

I should also add that, as this is new legislation, the Government have already committed that they will finance local authorities for any additional costs that they incur, although that is not clear from this Bill.

While I am on my feet, I will also speak to Amendment 42. I have already spoken, as other noble Lords have, about the worry this Bill is causing venues, particularly smaller premises. If left unamended, I have no doubt at all that the financial burden of implementing these requirements would force a number of our smaller venues, and perhaps even a few larger ones, to close. While we must do everything we can to protect the public from terrorism, we cannot allow the threat of terrorism and associated countermeasures to be a causation for permanent business closure as, if this is to be the case, then we are allowing terror to alter our way of life and, of course, providing a victory for the terrorists.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 25, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and to which, as he set out in opening the debate on this group of amendments, I added my name. I did so because this amendment sits very well alongside the other amendments that he has brought forward on behalf of the heritage rail sector and which we debated earlier in Committee. As with those amendments, it applies to a huge range of organisations, well beyond heritage rail or indeed heritage alone. It follows the thoughts that we expressed previously in Committee, and as many noble Lords did at Second Reading, about the importance of volunteers to so much of the cultural, sporting and heritage voluntary sector that we are championing and have very much in mind as we look at the Bill.

I am very glad that noble Lords have had smaller venues in mind as they have looked at this amendment. They are particularly reliant on volunteers—some of them all the more so since the changes in the Budget to national insurance contributions, which have made organisations that are run on a very tight margin more reliant on people who give their time freely.

There are so many barriers to people being volunteers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned briefly the cost of transport: if you are travelling to a heritage railway, you often travel many miles at your own expense, filling the car with petrol in order to get there. There are many barriers that put people off volunteering and enriching our lives, and we must make sure that this does not become another of them.

The people who volunteer and look after the public in these venues are no less diligent, professional and concerned about the safety of those who come to enjoy those venues, but they certainly need the help, assistance and training that the noble Lord envisages through his amendment. It must be provided in a different way from the way in which is mandated and applied to full-time employees. As the noble Lord says, many volunteers are seasonal and sporadic, so it is important that they are able to refresh their training—for example, students who have volunteered, gone away to university and come back, will need a way of being trained up again and refreshed in these responsibilities.

It is important to note that, because of the serious nature of these new duties on people who look after our cultural venues, they might appear scary. It is important that the training disabuses volunteers of such notions. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, rightly says, we want to avoid the sort of panic and chaos that come if people are not prepared mentally and practically for how they will deal with the sorts of scenarios that we envisage as we look at the Bill but hope do not come to pass.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, says, the alternative, if there is not the provision that the noble Lord sets out in his Amendment 25, is the snake-oil salesmen that we heard about at Second Reading. They are already offering their views on how to implement the provisions in the Bill before it is an Act of Parliament, and charging small venues huge amounts of money to do it. They are leaving them worse prepared and more frightened about the scenarios that they have to think about.

The noble Lord, Lord Falconer, has been very modest in his amendment: it is a “may” and not a “must” duty. There is much to commend the amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, but those are “must” amendments while that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is a “may”. It would make the voluntary job of people who look after these venues a lot easier, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have an interest to declare, in that I have 250 or 300 church buildings in my diocese that will come under the terms of the Bill when it is enacted.

I turn first to the provision of training. When, about 20 years ago, I first became a trustee of a large defined benefit pension scheme, it was quite scary, but I found that the Pensions Regulator provided me with training, which, as far I could work out, was free for me at the point of access. The principle that training should be provided and not just left to the private sector—to the snake-oil sales men or women, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, just referred to—is important, so that the state can provide good training or enable it to be provided. Similarly, back in 2000, I was involved with a group of friends when the asylum seeker dispersal scheme first began. I set up and won the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber to prove that this could be done morally and effectively, and not simply as a rent-seeking exercise at the expense of the asylum seeker.

State provision, ideally of a good standard that would drive up the quality of standards provided by alternative providers—the amendment does not say it all has to be done through the state—is much to be welcomed.

I recall the difference between volunteers and paid staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, for something that might be covered by one full-time staff member, it takes quite a number of volunteers, each giving small amounts of their time, to make happen. In my churches I have many volunteers—probably several thousand in the diocese of Manchester—who require DBS clearance for their work with children or vulnerable adults. The law is that those who are volunteers get the DBS clearance process for free; I have to pay for clergy and other paid staff of the diocese, but for volunteers it is provided free of charge. It is a good idea to find ways to help the many volunteers who enable small organisations, whether they are churches, heritage railways or small football clubs. My football club, Salford City, is in a rather lower league than the top two, but, again, there are many volunteers on duty to make sure that things are carried out properly.

I support the amendments in this group and hope that we can find some way of ensuring that good-quality training is provided that will avoid voluntary organisations in particular falling into the hands of those who will either charge them so much that they give up or exploit them for their own ends.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am genuinely torn and confused by this group of amendments. As this is Committee, I want to try to probe it a little because I do not know which way to go.

I was pleased that the Government listened to the consultations about training and, it seemed to me at least, dropped the notion of a one-size-fits-all approach. I thought that was commendable and still do. I know from my experience of organising events that at the same venue you can, for example, have different kinds of events that will have different requirements and need different types of training. I absolutely do not want to go against the idea of listening and thinking to ensure that training is not a source of problems for venues.

I also have a certain dread of training. Noble Lords have already noted that there are a lot of rackets about. When I looked into the original Martyn’s law provisions when they were proposed under the other Government, I saw how many adverts there were from consultants offering to prepare organisations for the legislative change. I got very anxious about that, because they were expensive and no one knew whether they were of the right calibre and so on. There was a worry that security firms in particular would make a packet. Having said that, it is the case that, inevitably, smaller organisations will not necessarily know how to do the training themselves and will turn to third parties.

I am not sure what I think about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I think there is something in this. On the one hand, the thing which has worried most voluntary organisations is what they will do about training. I know from my work in the voluntary sector that a lot of volunteers are put off by the notion that they will all be sent off on safety training courses. It is the dread of your life: you are giving up your time for a good cause to help people, and you think, “Oh God, am I going to be jumping through those hoops?” On the other hand, it is understandable that smaller organisations are not going to have expert trainers on hand and so will need to bring in third parties. That is where one becomes unsure about what they are going to get, and there have been some suggestions in the amendments.

The other thing is that there has been quite a move to reassure venues that there will be signposting of suitable free training offers online. Those kinds of box-ticking exercises are really not worth even being free. There is a danger that training, if it is treated as a box-ticking exercise, will lack quality control and give a false sense of security that the measures are being followed.

Obviously, what I have just said is contradictory, because I do not actually know quite how one should tackle this, but the Government cannot just brush aside the concerns; these are genuine dilemmas that I do not think the Bill addresses at present. There will be real on-the-ground issues that venues face if this legislation is passed.

Extremism Review

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I agree with all three points that he has mentioned. The key point is that Governments consider a range of advice. I give a commitment from this Dispatch Box, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would from the House of Commons, that when any change or development of policy is made it will be reported to this House and to the House of Commons. That is the right and proper thing to do. As for speculation on leaked documents and advice given to Ministers: Ministers decide. They receive advice, commission potential papers and deliberate on them. The two reviews we have established are designed to create debate and bring forward suggestions that Ministers will ultimately decide on. I thank the noble Lord for his comments, with which I agree, and welcome his support.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee. In your Lordships’ House next week, we will begin Committee on the very important Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Would the Minister agree that this is a time when we have to be absolutely clear what we mean by terrorism, so that we in this House can give that Bill the clear, in-depth scrutiny it requires?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree, and I look forward to spending potentially several days debating that Bill with noble Lords. It is important that we have a definition of terrorism. It is currently set down in legislation. The Government have asked again for a review of that as part of the review the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, but there are no outcomes to it yet. Until it brings any outcomes, that is the definition of terrorism in place for this legislation.