National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

I will touch on Amendment 5, from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who—again contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has said— I have tried to engage with a number of times this week, including, at short notice, in discussions across the board. I am trying my best to achieve those objectives.

Amendment 5 seeks to expand the scope of the preparatory conduct offence and the definition of foreign threat activity to incorporate the development of artificial superintelligence. The noble Baroness has a strong point. She is right to identify the risks posed by advanced AI models. As the picture is rapidly evolving, it is vital that the Government step up to this challenge, and we are already trying to do so. We have the AI Security Institute, the most advanced capability of any Government in the world for understanding AI. The National Cyber Security Centre, part of GCHQ, is providing world-leading defensive capabilities. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament, will strengthen protections, and we are shortly to produce a national cyber action plan setting out the steps that the Government want to take.

However, I recognise that the noble Baroness has made important points, and I will go as far as I can to reassure her on those issues. The Government recognise that the development by foreign powers of highly advanced artificial intelligence systems poses a risk to our cyber security and our national security. We will therefore—I hope this helps the noble Baroness—ask the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation to expressly consider whether amendments to legislation are necessary to redefine “foreign power threat activity”. Accordingly, we will do that. In response to the points that the noble Baroness has made, it is up to the independent reviewer to consult who they think is necessary, but I anticipate—I hope this is helpful to the noble Baroness—that they may wish to consult with a range of experts, as she has suggested, relating to AI.

My noble friend Lord Beamish is in the Committee today and, while it is a matter for the ISC itself, I am happy that we involve the ISC in that as appropriate. The Government always welcome the views of relevant committees, and I encourage my noble friend Lord Beamish to look at any AI issues if he requires it. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness on the experts that we can bring in, alongside the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and the ISC examining these important areas. I hope that will help the noble Baroness.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister in full flow. Can he make the position absolutely clear? He said that, as far as the Government are concerned, on the advice that they have received, Amendment 3 is covered by Section 33 of the 2023 Act. He has put that plainly on the record. Is he also saying that, as far as the Government are concerned, Amendment 5 is covered by Section 18 of the 2023 Act but, if that is not the case and the independent reviewer makes cogent recommendations, the Government will come ready to this House to amend Section 18 of the 2023 Act as necessary? The one thing to remember in the context of the independent reviewer is that the independent reviewer can only tell the Government what he thinks. He cannot amend the law himself. That assurance would be very helpful.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I happily give the noble Lord the assurance that, as I have said, we are trying to ensure that we ask the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation to expressly consider whether amendments to the legislation, as in the area noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, are considered. That will be a formal request, involving the independent reviewer making a judgment about who he wishes to call, and that would undoubtedly include, as suggested by the noble Baroness, independent AI experts. My noble friend Lord Beamish, the chair of the ISC, is in the Chamber today and will have heard what has been said. He has had the discussion and the offer has been made to all parties that they at least submit some evidence as part of that process.

I go back to the genesis of the Bill. The Bill is around because there was a manifesto commitment. There was a request to the independent reviewer and he has come up with suggestions. We have introduced the Bill as part of those suggestions, and we have said in response to other areas that His Majesty’s Opposition have pressed us on that we will consider those matters, but we have to do so as part of other, wider Bills. I am saying to the Committee today that this is a defined Bill with a defined purpose. I am trying to ensure that, having listened to the Committee, and as we will discuss in later amendments—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will finish this sentence, if I may. As we will discuss in later amendments, we have made some changes to help reflect some of the views that have been put to me. Ultimately, that is the position that I am trying to take.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

May I repeat my second question? Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s view that Amendment 5 is covered already by Section 18 of the National Security Act 2023?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My view is that there are powers there. However, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I am saying that we will ask the independent reviewer to examine whether we need to make any changes. That is the settlement I am trying to reach today. If there are other points I want to add to that, I will contact the noble Lord by letter or email afterwards. That is the settlement I am trying to put on the record for all parties today, to get this aspect of the Bill agreed and the amendments not pressed.

--- Later in debate ---

This is an international organisation of very high standing for which all of us have great admiration. I hope that this will be put beyond doubt, because on its behalf people have put in cogent terms that some of its work could have been compromised in the Bill as it was drafted. I recognise that my noble friend Lord Anderson has helped us to make progress on this. Perhaps when the Minister replies, he will say how this will now be dealt with. These amendments presumably will now have to be sent back to another place. Is he satisfied that this will meet his objective of moving to Royal Assent very rapidly? He knows that none of us wishes to place obstacles in the progress of the Bill but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has said, we do not want this to become a law of unintended consequences.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, as a Welsh-born bathroom singer of much practice, I was pleased with my noble friend Lord Anderson when he referred to three tenors. However, your Lordships will have observed that, with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and his operatic roots, it is now four tenors—and an “alto” as well.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

It took your Lordships quite a long time to get that one.

But seriously, I commend and congratulate my noble friend Lord Anderson and the Minister for the hard work they have done together in the last couple of days. I was attending a wonderful family wedding in Hereford Cathedral yesterday and was being informed, between bits of the service, of what was happening in the discussions. I am very happy with the result. What has been agreed gives sufficient protection for the concerns that have been expressed.

I mentioned at Second Reading my belief that the discretion vested in the DPP and the Attorney-General is a real protection and would be a real protection for those who might be faced with even a suspicion of prosecution in such a case. I think that we have reached a good way to deal with the matters raised by my noble friend Lord Anderson at Second Reading.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is vital to our national security that those who assist bodies designated under this Bill are appropriately and effectively punished. The Terrorism Act 2000 has no prohibited purpose condition analogous to that included in the Bill, which we on these Benches believe could be exploited by potential criminals.

As my noble friend Lord Cameron and I argued at Second Reading, the existence of a prohibited purpose requirement will add a large degree of subjectivity and present further evidential barriers for prosecutors in the majority of cases where offenders have no legitimate defence. This argument was also made by Conservative MPs in the other place. We were told, however, by the Government that they were unable to accept our amendment, that no amendments to this Bill would be accepted and that our only chance of engaging in meaningful dialogue was to wait until the next national security Bill, the date for which is unspecified.

It is in that context that I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Amendments 12A, 13A, 17A, 18A and 19A seek to create a defence for the offences of assisting a designated body or obtaining material benefit from a designated body. I understand the principle behind these amendments. However, we on these Benches worry that

“for the purpose of carrying out humanitarian activities”

is a potentially subjective criterion that may be misinterpreted and expanded by the judiciary or exploited by those seeking to harm the interests of the UK. Equally, the inclusion of a “reasonable excuse” defence for the obtaining of material benefit from designated bodies is a cause for concern. The wording is sufficiently broad that it may encompass excuses that are not intended to be captured. Moreover, the Minister has repeatedly resisted amendments with much tighter wording, arguing that the intention was for this Bill to be drawn as narrowly as possible.

Given the perhaps unhelpful manner that the Government have displayed during the passage of the Bill, I was extremely surprised to see these amendments appear on the supplementary Marshalled List last night. The tabling of amendments at the 11th hour, with minor drafting tweaks, would make the reasonable observer conclude that the Government have been involved in the drafting process. However, I struggle to believe that would be the case, given that the Government have told the Official Opposition on multiple occasions that they were unable to make further policy decisions during the interregnum. Indeed, they were so unwavering in this stance that they were unable to accept even amendments that had been confirmed as government policy, such as that on the seizure of passports. Therefore, I look to the Minister to assure the House that there has been no government involvement in the drafting of amendments in this group. Can he confirm that?

I can only reasonably assume that the Government will therefore be unable to accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. If the Government have offered assistance to the Liberal Democrats and are willing to accept the amendments in this group, I have several further questions for the Minister. Why did he inform us that the Government’s hands were tied and that no compromises could be made on the Bill between Second Reading and today? Given that the Conservatives also raised the issue of a defence to the offence of supporting a designated body, why were the Government willing to give preferential treatment and to work with Liberal Democrat Peers, but not the Conservatives? The Government informed us several times that, even with amendments they were sympathetic to, there simply was not enough time to draft them in an acceptable form during the passage of the Bill. Can the Minister now confirm that this was not the case, or did the Home Office increase the capacity of the legislative team over the weekend?

The concerns raised by the amendments in this group are not novel. In the spirit of collaboration, I even wrote to the Minister on 10 June, before Second Reading, outlining the issues on which we wished to work constructively. We were told in no uncertain terms that, on every issue raised, the Government were unable or indeed unwilling to act. The decision therefore to assist in the drafting of amendments that were published the night before Committee is just not satisfactory. It leaves noble Lords with very little time to consider amendments that concern national security and which are an unfortunate attempt at avoiding genuine parliamentary scrutiny. I would be very pleased if the Minister could address these concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I too have added my name in support of Amendment 20 and endorse everything my noble friend Lord Verdirame has just said. I will briefly add, for emphasis, that the Government have promised an equivalent power for state-related organisations and without this, one of the key planks would not have an equivalent power.

Finally, if I understood correctly the concern expressed about the keffiyeh at the beginning of speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is that not an article of clothing now commonly associated with a fully proscribed terrorist organisation, Hamas? As has been said, if such legal jeopardy arose, the relevant law does exist—Section 13 of the Terrorism Act. It is not widely used, and the argument would probably be that this headdress was originally about the assertion of Palestinian national identity. It has indeed been co-opted by supporters of Hamas, but it is a separate question which I do not think impinges on whether this amendment ought to be supported.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I hesitate to do so, but I disagree with my two noble friends who have just spoken. Some years ago I was in a supermarket in London and found myself standing next to an approximately 17 year-old young man who was wearing a t-shirt with a swastika on it. He was entitled to wear that if he wished, because it is not unlawful to wear a t-shirt with a swastika on it, however much one disapproves. I turned to the young man and, in a moment of complete foolishness, I suppose, said to him, “Excuse me, but do you realise that 6 million people were murdered by the Nazis on the back of that particular insignia?” He turned to me and said, “Sir, I’m most awfully sorry: I never knew that, and I will never wear this again”. I was surprised that I got away with it and lived to tell the tale, as noble Lords will be sure I have on many occasions.

I do not think that in this Bill, we should be criminalising the mere wearing of such insignia as I have described. This is not a counterterrorism Bill; this is a counter-state threats Bill. We had this discussion at Second Reading and, in my view at least, we are not merely replicating what is in other Acts of Parliament. Further, if somebody wears an insignia and there is a public order disturbance or a racially aggravated public order disturbance, there are plenty of other laws to deal with that activity.

My final reason for objecting to this amendment is one that perhaps some will think trivial. However, if your Lordships were to look at new Section 17B of the 2023 Act, on page 4 of the Bill, between lines 13 and 21 it contains no fewer than four split infinitives in “to materially assist”, to which I object as a matter of principle. I hope that the Minister might agree that they should read “materially to assist” in order to comply with the English language, something I was taught by my foreigner parents to comply with at all times if possible.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we cannot support these amendments. As we have heard several times, this is emergency legislation, introduced at a time when an urgent response is necessary to the activities of some truly malign state actors and their proxies.

There has been a dangerous escalation in recent months and years, not only of the threats of military and quasi-military attacks, but of cyber attacks on our energy and transport infrastructures and on our economy more widely. Then there has been an appalling outbreak of antisemitic attacks in the UK and abroad, and in allied countries such as Australia. Those attacks have also given occasion, we should remember, to anti-Muslim attacks at home and abroad. Our traditions of tolerance and peaceful co-existence have been, and have certainly seemed, constantly under threat.

Against that background, it has been considered that the mechanisms of proscription under existing terrorism legislation have needed supplementing with the provisions of this Bill concerning malign state-sponsored threats. As the Minister has confirmed, and I do not wish to be repetitive of what has been said many times in the debates today, there is to be further government legislation to tackle the growing threat from foreign state entities and their proxies, and to improve this country’s defences against cyber security threats. The Bill is, in that sense, work in progress.

We do not see the need to tack on to the Bill new offences of wearing items of uniform, dissemination of particular types of publication, or further complex new powers for seizure of passports, all in the last stages of a piece of emergency legislation. There may be a case for some version of some of the measures proposed, under some conditions, after careful later consideration.

I echo some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but there are other points about the difficulties we have had with the Terrorism Act and other legislation. I am not sure that I go as far as he does on split infinitives, although my personal preference echoes his. We should not be introducing legislation at this stage which would raise all the issues that have so troubled us under the Terrorism Act. Now is not the time for these measures and this emergency legislation is not the Bill.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres. She was absolutely right to remind us that the Bill is not an esoteric subject, nor is it part of some kind of sophisticated spy novel, but that, rather, it affects potentially every citizen in this country, and that is why it is so important. As she said, it is the first duty of government to protect its citizens from harm, and that is exactly what is being done by the delivery of the Bill. Therefore, in principle, and in most of its content, I support the Bill entirely.

I am very grateful to Jonathan Hall KC, my successor-but-three as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation —how to feel old in one sentence—who has done an excellent job. On the subject of Jonathan Hall, I remind noble Lords who have called for a review after 12 months that he is in fact required by law to give a review after 12 months, so that amendment is entirely unnecessary, with great respect to those who suggested it.

I remind noble Lords, too, that every Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and Jonathan Hall in his current role as Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, can of his own volition and motion create a report at any time. My successor as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, my noble friend Lord Anderson, his successor, and Jonathan Hall and I have all done exactly that, or at least made moves to do exactly that, and have obtained proportionate and helpful reactions from government when that has arisen. The reassurance provided by having an Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, who does much the same as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—and at the moment is the same person—gives great reassurance.

In relation to the content of the Bill in detail, I do not want to repeat what was said by my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Verdirame about some of it. Much of my noble friend Lord Anderson’s suggestion about the need to review proposed new Section 17C of the National Security Act 2023 can be covered very simply, probably by removing five words—

“by virtue of retaining a benefit”—

from the amended proposed new Section 17C(7), but that will be a matter for consideration in Committee.

I regret that the Bill has taken quite a long time to reach the Floor of the House, but I am bound to reflect after 40-odd years in one or other House of this place that there is an awful lot of “glass houses” about those complaints. There is not a Government who have not been guilty of serious delays, and much longer delays than this. We should not waste time on matters of that kind; we should simply get on with it. My own view is that we need two Committee days. If we have two Committee days, we will complete the necessary amendments to the Bill without difficulty and with proper debate. If we need one day, then I agree: let us make it a very long day and get the work done.

State threats in recent years have been described in detail by Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 Director-General. He reminded us in October 2025 that we had seen

“a 35% increase in the number of individuals”

being investigated

“for involvement in state threat activity”,

in one year. That is a matter for real concern and reflects remarks made by my noble friend Lord Alton.

I will also reflect something that my noble friend Lord Barrow and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said on what I shall call the subtlety of what we are doing. One should not assume that this is simply extending counterterrorism legislation; there is much more subtlety to this subject than that, as my noble friend pointed out. We cannot simply cut and paste from counter- terrorism legislation in order to deal with countering state threats, because they are different in nature. They have been defined—very well, in my view—by MI5 as covering

“overt or covert actions by foreign governments which fall short of direct armed conflict with the UK but go beyond peaceful diplomacy and expected statecraft to harm or threaten the safety or interests of the UK or our allies”.

In the Terrorism Act 2000, the definition of terrorism is much simpler than that. This is a much more complicated subject. There is a view—it is one that I, and perhaps others here, share—that designation under this Bill is much more suitable to deal with the IRGC than proscription under the Terrorism Acts, because those subtle arts referred to in that MI5 description are needed to deal with organisations such as the IRGC.

I turn to the question of charities and other independent organisations. I have a great deal of sympathy with what they do, but—as my noble friend Lord Anderson has heard me say privately on many occasions; I know he is bored of me doing so—I do not think that we should overlook the importance of the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in this Bill, the Attorney-General not to prosecute. It is an extremely important protection, which is used on public interest grounds and has been used fairly frequently, although it does not arise in what one might call ordinary crime.

I hope that we can deal with the Bill in short order and that we can keep our mind on the issue we are trying to deal with and not muddle it up with straight- forward terrorism, which is much more straightforward than this. We must take into account the need for subtle, clever and extremely able members of the various services that protect us to be able to talk, where necessary, with people who are implicit in doing terrible things, so that members of our services may make the world a more peaceful place and our country one in which the citizens are safe.

Computer-generated Child Sexual Abuse Material

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect children in private messaging spaces from the prevalence of computer-generated child sexual abuse material.

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

Under the Online Safety Act, all regulated services must implement proportionate safety measures across all spaces. Platform design cannot be used as an excuse to avoid detection and reporting obligations. The Crime and Policing Bill will further strengthen protections for children against computer-generated abuse by criminalising AI child sexual abuse material, banning nudify tools, outlawing AI paedophile manuals and introducing an AI model testing defence to prevent abuse at source.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that much of the responsibility for making Section 121 of the Online Safety Act effective lies with Ofcom? Will he confirm that the Government expect Ofcom to be bold and robust in its application of the new law to online spaces in private messaging contexts, and to use its new powers quickly so that we in Parliament can recognise that we have passed an effective law to protect children from vile online abuse?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The simple answer to the noble Lord is yes. The Government expect Ofcom to exercise its powers under Section 121 of the Online Safety Act where needed. A consultation ran to March 2025. We expect advice to the Home Secretary by April this year, and we will act when that advice comes forward.

Sydney Terrorist Attack

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I offer my condolences to the noble Lord for his loss. I cannot be with him this evening, because I will be in the Chamber dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill, but if I were not, I would certainly be standing in solidarity with him. The noble Lord asked what we are doing. I have given a range of things that the Government will do, and we are continually open to suggestions as to how we can tackle this scourge. We have already asked the noble Lord, Lord Mann, to review antisemitism in the National Health Service. We are also undertaking a review of antisemitism in universities, and we are demanding action from them to protect Jewish students.

We need to ensure that we encourage tolerance, understanding and knowledge of different religions, because there is a range of them in a multicultural society, and we need to have that tolerance. I reach out to the noble Lord to look on a cross-party basis at how we can ensure that the scourge of antisemitism and intolerance is tackled from very early on, so that we can ensure that people live their lives in an open, tolerant way, where their religion does not require armed guards at synagogues and schools. For the moment, I hope the noble Lord understands that we will support the Community Security Trust and police forces to deliver that safety, given that there are live threats, as evidenced by the recent Manchester attack.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that urgent steps should be taken to protect our national security and society by ensuring that those who disseminate antisemitic ideas—and, indeed, other vile racist ideas—can now expect to be prosecuted for doing so?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I enthusiastically support the amendment led by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which I was pleased to co-sign. The noble Lord rightly spoke about the rule of law and the fundamental right of access to justice. He referred to the UK-France deal. I understand that, at Brook House, a large number of people were detained and notices of intent to remove them were served on 25 August this year, with a deadline of 1 September to respond. But no appointments under the detained duty advice scheme were available until at least 2 September—the day after they were supposed to respond.

Previously, on the attempt to remove people to Rwanda, the Inspectorate of Prisons, during its 2022 inspection of Brook House—which of course is an immigration removal centre—noted that one detainee

“understood that he needed to reply to the notice of intent within seven days but described his escalating panic as he could not speak to a lawyer as the window drew to a close”.

The inspectorate said that, in the five cases it looked at, no detainees had replied to the notice within the seven-day window or before the decision to issue removal directions.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, astutely argued, this is an “invest to save” amendment. It reminds me of the one I am backing from noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the right to interpreting and translation services—the noble Lord, Lord Katz, has been kind enough to meet with us—in that there might seem to be an upfront cost, but it will actually make the system work more efficiently and save money. At the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out, there will be costs to the Ministry of Justice and the courts and tribunal services, with unrepresented parties with longer hearings, more support at appeals, more adjournments, and so on. There will be costs for local authorities, with unresolved asylum claims meaning that they have to provide housing support for longer, et cetera. There is a cost to the NHS, given the mental stress and ill health of people who are not properly supported.

This reminds me very much—I hope noble Lords do not think that I am going down a rabbit hole—of diabetes technology. It might seem absolutely nothing to do with this subject, and it is not, but my late husband was a type 1 diabetic. For a long time, the NHS was very reluctant to supply insulin-dependent people with diabetes with technology such as insulin pumps that enabled much better control of blood glucose. Better control means fewer hypos—hypoglycemic incidents—a severe one of which could require hospitalisation. The problem, as I understand it, is that the cost of the technology is on the GP budget but the cost of the hospital stay is on the hospital budget. There was no overall cost-benefit analysis, and you can see that all around the NHS, of course. Eventually, some bright spark realised that, with diabetes taking up 10% of the NHS budget, it made no sense not to invest in people having much better blood glucose control—but it took a very long time.

There has to be someone who takes a holistic view of all this and sees that you do not actually save money in the longer term by failing to support, in this case, an effective legal aid scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, concluded, an effective legal aid scheme saves money; it makes economic sense.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of which I too am a signatory. The principle is not controversial; the principle is established, and this really seems to be a matter of organisation, but one that has been as neglected as the somewhat remote but interesting analogy used by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, illustrated with cogency the extra costs to the Ministry of Justice of improving availability of legal aid. There are no extra costs of improving legal aid; there is a net financial saving, as long as the organisation is improved. Indeed, organising the availability of legal aid as required by law would remove not only the expensive delays to individual cases but the controversial delays to them, which in some instances have led to demonstrations—at hotels and other places where significant numbers of asylum seekers are living. I suggest to the Minister that simple adjustments to the system of dealing with asylum cases could make a huge difference to processing that vast cohort of cases, including the required provision of legal aid.

Just so that we see what we are looking at, I suggest that an overwhelming majority of the cases fall into two easily identifiable categories. First, in truth the majority are cases with no or almost no merit, which can be dealt with quickly. Secondly, there are cases with obvious merit that need to be separated from the critical mass early so that they can be dealt with on their undoubted merits.

I have some specific suggestions to make to the Minister—and I am afraid that there are a lot of mnemonics in what I am going to say. I suggest that the asylum intake unit, or AIU, the national asylum allocation unit, or NAAU, and the Home Office Third Country Unit—which, if it has a mnemonic, is HOTCU, or hot queue, which is quite descriptive of what is happening—should all be placed at detention centres or other facilities where applicants are resident in large numbers. The processes could then be completed within days, save in exceptional cases.

When there is a refusal, the appellate tier, the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, could also sit at or near the same premises. That chamber, without undue difficulty, could locate tribunal chairs to near the point of residence or at it, and each applicant’s case could then be considered first as a paper application. That is exactly the process followed in judicial review cases, where paper applications are considered in large numbers by single judges. I know that because I did it for a number of years, as a deputy High Court judge. Through a process like that, using the Legal Aid Agency on-site too, one could deal with these cases in a short time—within days. At the same centres, the Legal Aid Agency, through its civil aid service, could provide officials directly, not necessarily through law firms, if at each centre there were persons trained in immigration and asylum legal aid to consider each case.

Although we have heard that there is a shortage of lawyers to deal with immigration legal aid—and there is—one of the main problems is the absence of a critical mass for lawyers to concentrate in one place. If there is enough work, there will be some lawyers there to do that work; if there are only one or two cases, the lawyers simply will not do it. That is the law of supply and demand, which applies equally to legal services as to any other service. I suggest that if the Government and the department managed these services holistically and efficiently—heaven forfend that they would—these cases could be dealt with and the numbers reduced in half a minute less than no time, to coin a phrase, or certainly within a very short time.

The sense of urgency that this process requires, as I have described, is uncharacteristic of the legal system. As a lifelong professional member of the legal system, I plead guilty to that much. But knowing it as well as some of us in this Chamber do, I believe that the legal system can adapt to speedy processes when the merits require it and there is a right to legal aid, for example. So let us concentrate on dealing with the backlog, giving people legal aid and allowing them legal advice, but doing it promptly while providing a fair system—including, of course, legal aid.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friends who have just spoken, though I do not agree with them altogether. I had prepared a much longer speech, but I do not think it is necessary, so I will make just a few points.

First of all, my noble friends are much too pessimistic and are not actually exercising the role which we have today—I respectfully include an old friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord German, in the same comment. My observation of the law relating to the deprivation of citizenship is that it is extremely valuable that the decision is made by the Home Secretary herself. She will be advised in a proper way and will ensure that the advice is properly given.

The decision we make is about the situation we are in today; it is not about some future in which a malign Home Secretary might come into existence. I do not think it is right for us as legislators to take that view of the future, unless there is hard evidence of imminence of such a person being appointed. We can rely on our courts and on the separation of powers to protect us from that kind of situation, and indeed on lawyers such as my noble friends to be part of that protection. The legal process by which these orders are tested through the court system is extremely rigorous. SIAC has the advantage of having special advocates who have access to all the relevant material upon which the case is decided. The appellate courts act likewise, and we can be confident that courts will provide protection.

On the essence of the Bill, it is extremely important that national security should protect us from those people who have been deprived of their citizenship. That is what the Bill is about in the here and now, and in broad terms at least I fully support that aim.

As to my noble friend Lord Anderson’s question about whether we should improve the test from “conducive to public good” to a more strict test, I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that. We might improve the law during the course of the Bill’s passage by such a change, if it can be drafted.

I agree that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation should be inserted into this process. There are two of us here who have been Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and I can see it being something that the independent reviewer could do easily.

My noble friend Lord Verdirame made some comments about the increase in the number of cases in which citizenship deprivation orders have been made. This is actually over the period when I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the period since. That is nothing to do with me—it is just a consequence of the change in terrorism and the change in the cases that we have had to face up to. It is no surprise to me that there is a need for a greater number of deprivation orders in 2025 than there was in 2007. I am afraid that that is an evolution of the very unpleasant effects of terrorism.

As for the situation with children, I would like the Minister, if he would not mind, to explain to us again the protection that children have during the period when appeals are pending. In principle, I am afraid I can see no reason why we should change an old existing situation in which there is no birthright to British citizenship applicable to children who happen to be born there. Some countries have that birthright; some countries—I can name one in the European Union—have that birthright if the father was a citizen of that country but not if the mother was a citizen of that country. There are all sorts of laws dealing with the nationality of children. I see no reason to change our law, particularly under the particularity of this Bill.

Broadly, I support the Bill. We should get it through this House as quickly as possible, so we can ensure that the measure intrinsic in it is able to protect our citizens as quickly as possible and as well as can be done.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

As an amendment to the amendment in the name of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to leave out “and to provide full support at ministerial and official level to the peer in charge of the bill for its remaining stages in the House of Lords”.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I should make it clear at the outset that I am opposed to this Bill in principle but, above all, I am opposed to it because it is not an adequate Bill to deal with all the issues raised and does not provide anything like sufficient protection for those vulnerable people who might be persuaded, against their real will, to accept assisted suicide.

I agree with the words in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, apart from his bold bid that, in effect, this Private Member’s Bill should be treated as a government Bill. That was not what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said was happening; I am sure that he would confirm that civil servants are insisting on their neutrality being maintained, even when they are looking at the feasibility of the Bill—I see him nodding in agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asks for

“full support at ministerial and official level to the peer in charge of the bill”.

That would put the noble and learned Lord in the position of a Minister. Such support is inappropriate for a Private Member’s Bill of this kind. It does not pretend for one second to be neutral or even-handed.

If the last 27 words of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, were removed, I would agree with it completely, but he seeks to take the steps that I have just described. Indeed, despite the large resources supporting the purposes of this Bill and the involvement of many experts, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, one of our most respected and knowledgeable legislators, this Bill earns a D-minus for its draftsmanship, even after all those committee meetings in the other place. It needs to be dismantled if it is to be an effective and proper Bill, to give it what I would, as a shortcut, call legislative legitimacy.

What evidence is there for the propositions that I make? I will cite two pieces of evidence that emerged from your Lordships in the last two days. First, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, produced a report a couple of days ago which there is no time to read out. I will simply summarise that, by the calm standards of that committee, its criticism is excoriating. I was on that committee for a considerable period, and I never saw any Bill criticised to that extent. It says that the Bill is simply not fit for purpose, breaking several standard rules of draftsmanship. It is incompetently drafted, after all the time that has been spent on it, with the steersmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Then yesterday, the Constitution Committee reported and endorsed the views expressed by the other committee, saying, in effect, that the Bill was not fit for purpose.

We must remember that this Bill would allow a citizen deliberately to perform acts which are intended to cause the death of another citizen. Since the end of capital punishment, no such act is allowed in our law to any citizen other than in war. That is the weight of the change which this Bill seeks to make. We must be given time, the space and the methods to amend the Bill if that can possibly be done, hence my support in due course for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, which would allow a Select Committee to hear evidence which the Commons committee chose not to hear and would have been very persuasive. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus on the content of existing law relating to end-of-life issues. I do so to make the point that the current law recognises the fundamental importance of autonomy. It rejects the absolute sanctity of life, about which we have heard much from the Bishops’ Benches and noble Lords, and the Bill will introduce greater dignity and greater safeguards than currently exist.

There are two basic legal principles. The first is that you have a legal right to end your life. Since the enactment of the Suicide Act 1961, attempted suicide is no longer a crime. You do not need to satisfy a panel of doctors or psychiatrists. There is no special protection against your relatives. If you are a competent adult, the doctors cannot require you to eat, to have a blood transfusion or chemotherapy, and they cannot stop you going to Dignitas. Why is that? Because the law recognises that it is your life, and so it is your decision, and because the law rejects the absolute sanctity of life.

There is a second legal principle that follows from this, and it is that the health system has a legal duty in some circumstances to take positive steps to implement your wish to end your life. I will give noble Lords an example: the case of Re B (Adult, refusal of medical treatment) [2002] 2 All ER 449. This was an adult woman who was paralysed from the neck down. She was dependent on an artificial ventilation machine to breathe. She wanted the machine turned off: she wanted to die because of the poor quality of her life. Her doctors declined to do so, so she applied to the courts for an order that they do so. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, then the president of the Family Division, granted that order. She said the woman was an adult; she was of sound mind; it was her decision whether to live or die.

Parliament has intervened in this area. We made provision by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Sections 24 to 26, to allow an adult of sound mind to make an “advance decision” refusing treatment to prolong their life, should the occasion ever arise, and should the person at that time lack the capacity to indicate their wishes.

I have one other example. When Tony Bland, a victim of the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium tragedy, was in a persistent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery and could not express a view about whether to live or die, the Appellate Committee of this House decided in 1993 that because he had no quality of life, there was a legal duty on the health authority to end his life support—to pull the plug. That is what the doctors did, and there have sadly been many similar tragic cases since.

For this Bill to authorise doctors to assist a person to end their life by providing a drug so they can die with dignity is entirely consistent with well-established legal principles which respect autonomy on end-of-life decisions. The Bill contains many more safeguards than already exist. It enables terminally ill people to end their life in a less painful and more humane manner than starving themselves to death or otherwise committing suicide, or travelling to Switzerland.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I cannot take questions.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Why not?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Because we are restricted to four minutes.

I support the Bill. I look forward to debate—including debate with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—in Committee. Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down—

[Noble Lords]

No.

Child Houses for Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. She will know that the Government have accepted—certainly from the Home Office’s perspective—the recommendations of the report on child sexual abuse from IICSA. Some recommendations have been mirrored by the recent report on grooming gangs by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. One recommendation is that we do exactly what my noble friend has said. As part of our response, we are including an ambitious proposal for therapeutic support, and we are going to work across government to look at how we can future-fund support services to enable victims and survivors to access and receive better care and support. In doing so, we have in this year doubled the support funding for adult victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to a total of £2.59 million.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I welcome the Minister’s excellent Answer to the Question from the noble Baroness, but will he go a step further and tell us that the Home Office will use the Lighthouse project as the template around the country, given that it is cheaper than existing less specialist sexual abuse services, helps children recover more quickly from terrible trauma and enables quality court decisions to be made when necessary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. As I said in my initial Answer to the Question, we have recognised the great importance and success rate of the Lighthouse model. As part of the response to the recommendations from IICSA, we are looking at how we can roll that out. That is a cross-government issue with other government departments as well as the Home Office, but we are intent on ensuring that we have an ambitious proposal for therapeutic support, and that model is certainly one we are looking to roll out still further.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I am a signatory. It has been admirably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. He has set out in detail the rationale for the amendment, so I will not repeat his arguments. However, I would like to highlight the human impact of lack of legal aid for those in immigration detention.

Look at the scenario. Those in detention may have faced trauma such as persecution, threats to life and inhumane treatment by callous human traffickers. Following this trauma, they face a very complicated, confusing and bureaucratic system which they have to navigate. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to navigate the system without competent legal advice, and if they get anything wrong, the consequences are very detrimental to them, as this can endanger their safety in the long term.

Concerns have been expressed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons about the detained duty service, which all the evidence shows is not easily accessible and is of doubtful quality. It gives only 30 minutes of advice, which is not enough to explain the circumstances. Furthermore, at the end of the 30 minutes, it is not clear whether they will be supported. If appeal deadlines are missed, and because of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, this lateness is held as evidence of lack of credibility. All this is happening when those detained are locked up in prison-like conditions, potentially indefinitely.

This scenario is not exceptional; all the evidence shows that it is quite common. In short, the system of providing legal assistance and representation in detention is broken. Action is urgently needed—not least for the reasons described by the noble Lord, Lord Bach—such as the piloting of the UK-France migration deal. We need practical action to improve access to high-quality legal advice within 48 hours. This will not only be humane, but, as has been described, will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration and asylum system. I therefore commend this amendment to the Committee.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I too have put my name to this amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for how he opened the debate and explained the amendment.

About 42 years ago, my first task in the other place was to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which was probably the most important criminal law statute enacted in my time in either House of Parliament. Paragraph 6 of the Home Office’s online summary of the Act’s provisions, which is shared with the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Society website, says:

“The police must tell you … why you have been arrested and are being detained”.


There is an analogy between what we are discussing today and what happens in cases where people are arrested in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those of us who have been MPs or have worked with the police—I was once the chair of the London Policing Ethics Panel—and spent the night with police officers on duty have seen the following happen in real time in the real world. If somebody is taken into a police station under arrest, they wait to be interviewed and then a duty solicitor is found for them if they do not have a solicitor of their own. The job of that duty solicitor is to explain to them—in terms they understand, and, I hope, in a language they understand—why they have been detained.

People who are arrested for criminal offences in the ordinary course of things on a noisy Saturday night in north London do not expect to be kept in custody for a very long time. If somebody is detained under immigration detention, it must be even more alarming, because the consequences they see panning out before them are being put by force on to an airplane and returned to a country they have not been to for a very long time. It may be a very deserved return, but it must still be alarming.

For the kind of police situation I have described, it is worth looking at the statistics. Some 25% of those arrested—one in four—are not charged with any offence whatever. Mistakes are made and, sometimes, they are glaring mistakes: the wrong person is arrested, either due to mistaken identity or because they happen to be a youngster carrying the identity card of somebody who may look rather like them but is a bit older. They may be arrested mistakenly because their age has been misunderstood. There may just be a terrible mistake, which can be ironed out only if somebody is there to help them, because complete misunderstandings occur. It is very important in all cases that there should be an early intervention, which may be very brief, in which a lawyer can be made available to advise a person whether what has happened to them is legitimate—not whether it is right; that is not the question—as part of the process.

For the sort of immigration detention we are discussing, it may be that the figure of mistakes is much lower than 25%—I accept that. However, I do not accept for one moment that there will be no mistakes. Indeed, the provision of legal aid is a key component in upholding the constitutional right of access to the courts, which is itself inherent in the rule of law. The courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that a failure to provide legal aid in what are regarded proportionately as proper circumstances can amount to a breach of fundamental rights. I cite, for example, the judgment of Lord Reed in the UK Supreme Court case, R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017], at page 51, paragraph 66. It is an undeniable right.

I congratulate the Government on some steps that they are taking to deal with immigration cases. They are speeding up the process dramatically. I hope that those cases—for example, the Afghan and Hong Kong cases—in which almost everybody is given asylum anyway will be speeded up so that they can be dealt with more or less summarily. I hope that the Government will fulfil their promise to appoint more adjudicators, judges of one kind or another, for as long as is needed to deal with the backlog. I hope they will use these adjudicators in a creative way by sending them out to where the people they are adjudicating on are situated, so that cases can be dealt with in bulk, possibly by hiring a local school or village hall or by simply setting up a room wherever those people are held, so that the cases can be dealt with quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to my noble friend, and I speak on behalf of the Government, the MoJ and the Home Office, that that support is in place for that initial assessment. There is support in place potentially to take it further if certain tests are met. I understand that there is a need to examine the take-up on the assessment. Additional resource has been put in. Overall, that is where we are. My noble friend’s amendment is still open to the test that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have put to it, reflected by me.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says, but does he not agree that the very high percentage of these cases that reach an appellate level in which the litigants are not represented by lawyers is alarming evidence that if legal aid is available at an early stage, it is not having much effect?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not have before me, although I perhaps should, the figures to which he refers, but Ministers can certainly examine, and look at how we improve, that. It is in the interests of the Government—never mind of the individuals who are seeking asylum—to ensure that we have speedy, correct asylum decisions that get to the heart of the person’s asylum claim as a matter of urgency, rather than going through tortuous numbers of appeals and other legal matters. We must get to a position whereby the Government can determine whether someone has a legitimate asylum claim and, if so, can act upon it or, if not, can take action to deny that asylum claim and put in place the consequential action to be taken.

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

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I am not suggesting that it is. I completely agree with the noble Lord, but there is a difference between that kind of action and the action generally taken by young supporters of Palestine Action. Whether or not I agree with it—I have never supported its activity—there is a great difference between that and terrorism. If you start labelling people as terrorists willy-nilly right across the board, you go down a very dangerous route.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I have great regard for the noble Lord, but will he answer a simple question in a simple way? Does he accept that the actions of Palestine Action as described by the Minister are criminal actions that fall within the definition of terrorism and therefore are available, if the Director of Public Prosecutions so decides, to be prosecuted as terrorist offences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I would like to make a point about why so many people across the UK, particularly young people, have joined Palestine Action. It is important that we recognise their frustrations at the current time. Direct action at military bases is nothing new, as many noble Lords have pointed out. Welsh women marched from Cardiff to Greenham Common and were joined by thousands more women along the way. They did not just march. They used a range of direct action tactics, including blockading the base and cutting the fence, to protest against nuclear weapons being held at that base. There is a long history of direct action across the UK that is perhaps not comfortable. The actions of Palestine Action are the direct actions of a civil disobedience group, not a terrorist group. That is why I support this regret amendment.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was brave in moving this regret amendment, and she should have been heard with more respect. I was one of those who suggested that she should give way, but I know it can seem like bullying in this House, and I think we should reflect on that. It is not a very good thing to gang up on someone who has a difficult job to do.

I would also like to mention two others who have contributed and for whom I have great respect. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, joined the Cabinet in 2002, as I remember, as Secretary of State for Wales. He was a successful Secretary of State for Wales and then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Terrorism Act 2000 was in existence in 2002. Offences were added and other legislation was introduced while he was in the Cabinet, and I do not recall any occasion on which, publicly at least, the noble Lord protested, objected or resigned as a result of the creation of the body of terrorism law that now we have—he is confirming that—so I think that what he has said today is perhaps a little inconsistent with his history. Forgive me for saying so.

I also commend the Minister strongly. I thought he gave a very balanced description, which in factual terms nobody has contradicted. He said that three bodies are being proscribed now. It is interesting that objections have not been made in relation to two of those bodies—probably because noble Lords do not really like what they do very much, because they are extreme right-wing terrorists—but exactly the same process has been gone through with them as with Palestine Action. What is that process? To examine intelligence that no doubt exists, but that we have not heard about. In this House, we have to be responsible and take it that there is an intelligence case behind what is proposed. Material evidence has been brought together that shows that this organisation, Palestine Action, like the other two, has carried out activities that fall within the definition of crime that can, and I emphasise “can”, be treated as terrorist.

The context is that what has happened since the Terrorism Act 2000—since 9/11, in fact—is quite different from the world in which the suffragettes, the Greenham women and all the other examples that have been mentioned, including very successful anti-apartheid demonstrators such as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, lived. It is a given. That has not been objected to. Even the noble Baroness has not said that Palestine Action does not commit crimes that qualify as terrorist crimes, if they are prosecuted as such.

Noble Lords should not assume that every time a crime is committed that could be prosecuted as such, it is. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions have to make a decision. One of the most important protections in our constitution, which we talk about all too rarely, is the discretion of the DPP not to prosecute in the public interest or for other reasons covered by the two-stage code test. It may well be that if silly supporters of the criminal acts of Palestine Action or these other two bodies are interviewed by the police, they will not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. We have to trust juries, and magistrates in summary cases, to ensure that the prosecution system is run fairly. In this House, and particularly in the other place, there is a huge amount of control available over the prosecution system.

Let us be clear. If we do not like the definition of terrorism we have in our law, it is our duty as legislators to change it—and we have all decided not to change it. When it suits us, we encourage it to be used: something has to be done. When it is a bit inconvenient, we say that it is the most terrible thing on earth. The truth is the middle road, which has been given to us by the Minister. I urge your Lordships to act responsibly today, listening carefully to what has been said, taking into account what we can do in future, but accepting this instrument.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have a few short points. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just said.

First, I hope that when we vote, if we vote, we will entirely put out of our minds whether we sympathise with the Palestinian cause, as most of us do, and whether we regret what Israel has done in various respects. We are concerned with a violent group. It really does not matter whether the cause it articulates and supports is justified. The law in a civilised country simply cannot accept people using violence against people and property in support of a cause they believe to be right. No such law can survive in a civilised society.

Secondly, if I understood him correctly, the Minister has explained why it is not sufficient for the law simply to prosecute people who commit criminal acts of the sort that are alleged—I agree that we have to be very careful here, for sub judice reasons—against members of Palestine Action. The point, if I have understood the Minister correctly—and he will say if I have not—is that there is a vital public need to prevent these people organising and recruiting, and the only way in which the law can do that is to take the action that the Minister is proposing today, which I strongly support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

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

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

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

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

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