Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on Amendment 247A. I had the fortune of meeting Claire Wright over a year ago, and she explained to me what Hope and Homes for Children was doing as a charity. I too was bowled over by it, because it was an area that I did not have much knowledge of. She and the organisation have done amazing work. While this may be out of scope of the Bill, the one suggestion I make to the Minister is that he could bring together a round table of Ministers from relevant government departments to listen to Claire Wright and Hope and Homes for Children, so that their good work can be shared and built on.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for bringing forward this important amendment. It would ensure that this House does not overlook emerging and deeply troubling patterns of abuse that fall outside traditional definitions.

The amendment seeks to expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who are recruited into residential care institutions overseas for the purpose of financial gain, commonly referred to as orphanage trafficking. As my noble friend highlighted, this is a practice that too often disguises itself as humanitarian intervention, while in fact it enables systematic exploitation and harm. Many so-called orphanages operate as profit-making enterprises, intentionally separating children from families and communities to attract funding and donations. The children involved may be subject to physical and emotional abuse, forced labour or trafficking into other forms of exploitation.

It is right that we recognise the growing international call to confront this practice and that we consider whether our legislative framework needs strengthening to support that effort. Ensuring that the Modern Slavery Act accurately reflects contemporary forms of exploitation is a legitimate objective, and I commend my noble friend for shining a spotlight on an issue that has far too long remained in the shadows.

We are sympathetic to the intention of the amendment and welcome the opportunity it provides to examine how the UK can play a stronger role in protecting vulnerable children globally. At the same time, we look forward to hearing from the Minister about the practical implications of such a change and how it might interact with existing powers and international co-operation mechanisms. I hope the Government will engage constructively with the concerns he has raised, and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this short but vital debate on an issue, which, speaking personally, I was not tremendously well aware of before looking at the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Many noble Lords have commented that it is the hard work of people such as Claire Wright and others that has brought to light this pernicious activity or—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—this evil trade.

As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has explained, Amendment 247A seeks to include so-called orphanage trafficking within the meaning of exploitation under Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act. I know the noble Lord has concerns about modern slavery and trafficking in his wider work. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery for highlighting this evil activity and the wider concerns around modern slavery.

As the noble Lord described, in our case, concerns about orphanage tourism would be about volunteers from the UK visiting orphanages overseas, fuelling this activity and contributing to a cycle of harm and exploitation of children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made a very relevant point: a lot of it is done in good faith. However, it can be undermined and exploited by those who are acting in bad faith.

I make it very clear to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the Opposition Front Bench—that the Government share the same concerns. That is why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides travel advice warning British nationals of the risk of volunteering with children and highlighting how volunteer visitors may unknowingly contribute to child exploitation and trafficking. The advice that the FCDO gives signposts travellers to the global standard for volunteering, which helps organisations provide responsible volunteering. By adopting the global standard, organisations commit to promoting child-safe volunteering in all environments, which includes not facilitating visits to orphanages or other institutional care facilities.

Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the specific vulnerabilities of children and encompasses the exploitation of children for the provision of services of any kind and to enable someone to acquire benefits of any kind, including financial gain. Therefore, orphanage trafficking is already captured by the broad terms of the existing legislation. It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, anticipated that that may be the tenor of my contribution.

I point out to noble Lords that on 16 July this year, the Home Office launched a public call for evidence on how the Government can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery, human trafficking and exploitation. The call for evidence closed on 8 October, and the Home Office is now analysing responses received. A report summarising the key findings and themes from the call for evidence responses will be published in due course. Of course, the Home Office will consider the evidence gathered to explore any further changes that can be made to improve the identification of victims.

We are seeking to introduce new modern slavery legislation as part of our efforts to review and improve the modern slavery system. This new legislation will enable us to clearly articulate the UK’s responsibilities under international law regarding modern slavery, allowing us to reduce opportunities for misuse while ensuring the right protection for those who need it.

I make no commitments here to your Lordships’ Committee, but that may well be to an opportunity to revisit some of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, floated the suggestion of a wider round table; I will certainly take that back to colleagues and discuss it.

For the reasons I have outlined about Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act already capturing orphanage trafficking in the broad terms, we do not believe it is necessary to amend Section 3 any further, as the conduct in question is already captured. In light of this explanation, and hoping that it does not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and other noble Lords too much, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly perhaps to defend the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. Quite often in your Lordships’ House, we end up with amendments that are remarkably similar, and it appears to be a trait among some of your Lordships to consider working in co-operation with others systematically a somewhat eccentric behaviour. I personally feel that it should be encouraged.

What I wanted to say is the obvious: data is king. The situation that we have allowed to evolve over the last 20 or 30 years has been allowed to happen because of a dearth of reliable and systematic collection and utilisation of data. We have allowed what has been happening—largely to these young girls, in plain sight—because we have lacked the detail and the nitty-gritty information required to nail it. In a long career in business, the thing one disliked most was awaydays when you talked about strategy, when a large number of people would devote an enormous amount of hot air to talking about this, that or the other, usually in a slightly vague way. The thing that nails that sort of debate is reliable and accurate data. It deflates the rather pompous balloon who is spouting out, apparently knowledgeably but actually probably repeating what somebody else has said—it deflates that remarkably quickly.

Very simply, we need to follow the fourth recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her report. It is in bold and it is very brief, but it is extremely clear:

“The government should make mandatory the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases and work with the police to improve the collection of ethnicity data for victims”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it has been five months since the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was published. I once again extend my thanks to her for her incredible work on this. The audit laid bare the systemic failures of local government, police leadership and safeguarding structures that allowed organised grooming gangs to operate in plain sight. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, found a culture of denial, a fear of being labelled racist, an unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths and a catastrophic failure to treat vulnerable young girls as victims. Her review documented how institutions minimised, dismissed or actively ignored evidence of horrific abuse. Perhaps the most sobering lesson from this is that these were not isolated failings; they were structural, cultural and tragically repeated in town after town across the country.

The national audit produced 12 recommendations. To their credit, the Government have accepted all 12, some of which have found their way into the Bill. However, unfortunately, the first and second recommendations of the audit have so far been left behind. The first recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was to change the law so that any adult who intentionally has sexual intercourse with a child under 16 receives a mandatory charge of rape. In their response to the audit, the Government said:

“Our laws must never provide protection for the adult abusers rather than the child victims of these despicable crimes. We share Baroness Casey’s view … and we accept the recommendation to change the law in this area”.


If the Government agreed with this recommendation and said that they will implement it, why have they not done so? The Bill provides the perfect opportunity for this change in the law. That is why my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and I tabled Amendment 271B. It would provide for a new, distinct offence of child rape. This would operate alongside the current offence of the rape of a child under 13 in Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

In her audit, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, laid bare the loophole in the law. Currently, an adult who has sex with a child under the age of 13 is automatically guilty of rape, and this operates with strict liability. But, despite the age of consent being 16, when an adult has had sex with a child between the ages of 13 and 15, the decision to charge and which offence to charge with is left open to the Crown Prosecution Service. This has led to many cases of child sexual exploitation having the charges downgraded from rape to lesser charges, such as sexual activity with a child under Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act. Not only is that offence not a charge of rape but it carries a maximum sentence of 14 years—not life, as in the case of an offence under Section 5. Our amendment would provide that, where a person over the age of 18 has penetrative sexual relations with a child between the ages of 13 and 15, they will be charged with the rape of a child in all cases and face a sentence of life imprisonment.

We have not included a so-called Romeo and Juliet provision in this amendment, because it applies only to those who are over 18. Children who are close in age and have consenting sexual relations would not be criminalised under the amendment. I want to make sure that that is clear.

Fundamentally, the law must be unambiguous on this matter. The penetration of a child is rape. It is not sexual activity; it is not exploitation; and it is not an unfortunate incident. It is rape. The Casey report describes girls as young as 13 being passed between adult men, yet institutional language frequently minimised the seriousness of what had occurred. Creating a specific offence would reinforce the fundamental point: children cannot consent to sex with adults—full stop. Given that the Government have accepted that this needs to happen, I hope that they will be able to accept my amendment.

The second recommendation from the national audit that the Government have failed to deliver is the national inquiry. Amendment 247B from my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch seeks to press the Government on what has become a chaotic process. I know we have discussed this on many occasions in this House, but the fact is that the inquiry is in disarray. Survivors have already resigned from the panel because they do not trust the Government. Those most impacted by the grooming gangs scandal have lost faith in the process that was meant to bring them long-overdue justice. Months on from the announcement, the Government were U-turning. The chair has not been appointed, the terms of reference have not been published and the inquiry has not begun. How much longer must the victims and survivors wait? My noble friend’s amendment would give the Government a timeline of three months, and there is no reason why they cannot live up to that.

My noble friend Lady Cash is a stalwart defender of the rights of children and young girls. She proposes two crucial amendments, which also link into the national audit on grooming gangs. Amendment 288A would complement the duty to report in Clause 72 of the Bill. It would establish a duty on professionals with safeguarding responsibilities to report where they know or reasonably believe that a child is being sexually abused or exploited. That would fill a long-identified and long-criticised gap. If this scandal has showed us anything, it is that vulnerable young girls were let down by the very people who were supposed to protect them. Institutions sometimes waited for absolute proof before acting, and children paid the price for that inaction.

Amendment 288B creates a new offence targeted at public officials who obstruct or frustrate investigations into child sexual abuse. This is not hypothetical. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, found that public officials failed to record offences, failed to transmit intelligence and, in some cases, deliberately closed down avenues of inquiry. There must be consequences for such conduct. The noble Baroness was explicit that the fear of being accused of racism contributed to the reluctance of authorities to confront organised grooming gangs. More importantly, she also acknowledged that it remains impossible to provide a definitive assessment of the ethnic profile of the perpetrators, because the data collected by police forces has been woeful. That poor-quality data is one of the factors that permitted officials and authorities to claim they could not conclude any link between ethnicity or nationality and the prevalence of grooming gangs.

The large number of perpetrators whose ethnicity was recorded as “unknown” in the statistics creates a highly distorting picture. Inclusion of the “unknowns” shows 28% of group-based offenders as white, but exclusion of the “unknowns” shows 88% being white. This is obviously not the way to create datasets that could be used for accurate police intelligence and rigorous policy-making. Even today, we still have people trying to deny the fact that the vast majority of perpetrators in these grooming gangs were Pakistani, despite the evidence; they are able to continue this route because of the poor-quality data.

Because of this completely and shockingly inadequate collection of data, I strongly support this amendment from my noble friend Lady Cash. Her Amendments 288C and 288D compel the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all child sexual offenders and victims. Consistent nationwide data gives us truth, and truth is the basis of action. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of amendments. They probe the definitions of child sexual assault and rape, and also impose a statutory duty to investigate historic instances of child sexual abuse where the lawful authority has been negligent. I hope that the Government will consider these amendments with the seriousness they deserve.

These amendments together form a coherent, serious and necessary set of reforms that respond directly to the failures highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and some of her solutions. The victims of grooming gangs were failed by the state. They were failed by those whose duty was to protect them, and they were failed by institutions that put political sensitivities above child safety.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

Before my noble friend rises to reply, I want to emphasise, as someone who has practised at the Bar over many decades, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, the importance of our recognising in the course of these discussions that, while we are dealing here with a spate of offences clearly committed by gangs of Pakistani men, this is not confined to Pakistani men. The Epstein case has told us quite clearly that upper-class white men with power can abuse and groom and commit these crimes. I have seen it since my early years at the Bar. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, sitting there, and we acted in cases involving East End gangs who passed around girls who were part and parcel of that world. Nowadays, in the drugs world, pass-around girls, who are often underage, are part and parcel of that world. So we must not become fixated on the idea that this happens only in certain communities. I just want that to be emphasised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, the government amendments set out the devolution arrangements to ensure that criminals cannot exploit differences between the four nations, and we are very happy to support them.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important issue that I know there is cross-party support for, and I am largely supportive of the intentions behind the amendments in this group.

The first of the Minister’s amendments acts largely to tidy up the drafting of the Bill and ensure its thoroughness. I agree with this. Expanding the scope for technology testing regarding child sexual abuse materials is welcome.

Similarly, extending provisions to ensure that they are the same in all parts of the union is a minor but important amendment. Consistency across our internal borders is the best way to ensure that children are protected equally everywhere. It should help with cross-border co-ordination between authorities, and I therefore welcome it.

I see the logic behind government Amendments 295A and 295B. It is the right approach that, if the Government want to crack down on technology, they should first do so at the source. That means discovering which technologies are being used to create unlawful content, which requires people to test them. This would also, I hope, have the additional effect of not blanket banning content for people without nuance, instead targeting the specific pieces of software responsible. So long as the individuals able to use this as a defence remain strictly authorised by the Secretary of State, I appreciate the amendment’s aim.

This should go hand in hand with an initiative similar to the one suggested by my noble friend Lord Nash. If the Government can identify the technology used, they should attempt to shut it down. Unfortunately, this is often outside the Government’s jurisdiction and therefore some form of software to prevent the distribution of child sexual abuse material might be the next best approach. I hope that the Minister can confirm that they are perhaps looking at this.

As I said, this is a non-partisan issue. We all want to reduce child sexual abuse, online or offline, and these amendments should work to help the Bill achieve the former. I hope that the Minister can, in due course—perhaps at a later stage—fully outline how this new technology will be implemented and applied consistently, and will consider my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I broadly support the approach.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on what he said and give him a fuller briefing on the detail of how we are approaching the AI issue. Obviously, we will come on to further amendments in the next group, which I will respond to once they have been moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this extremely important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Nash for their continued efforts on the protection of children online.

This group should unite the whole Committee. We can be in no doubt about the need to safeguard children in an environment where technology is evolving at unprecedented speed and where the risk of harm, including the creation and dissemination of child sexual abuse material, is escalating. It is a sad truth that, historically, Governments have been unable to keep pace with evolving technology. As a consequence, this can mean legislation coming far too late.

Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of online services, including generative AI systems, to conduct risk assessments on the potential use of their platforms to create child sexual abuse images. The Committee has heard compelling arguments about the need for meaningful responsibilities to be placed on platforms and developers, particularly where systems are capable of misuse at scale. We recognise the seriousness of the challenge that she has outlined, and I very much look forward to what the Government have to say in response.

On my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, we are particularly sympathetic to the concerns that underpin his proposal. His amendment would mandate the installation of tamper-proof software on relevant devices to prevent the creation, viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material. My noble friend has made a powerful case that prevention at source must form part of the comprehensive strategy to protect children. While there are practical questions that will require careful examination, his amendment adds real value to the discussion. I am grateful for his determined focus on this issue, and I hope the Government also take this amendment very seriously.

Similarly, Amendments 479 and 480, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, speak to the responsibilities of AI search tools and AI chatbots. The risk of such technologies being co-opted for abusive purposes is not theoretical; these threats are emerging rapidly and require a response proportionate to the harm.

From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives across this group of amendments and look forward to the Government’s detailed response and continuing cross-party work to ensure the strongest protections for children in an online world. As has been said several times throughout Committee, protecting children must remain our highest priority. I hope the Government take these amendments very seriously.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the way she introduced this group of amendments and for her tireless work to protect children online. I say on behalf of all noble Lords that the support she has received today across the Committee shows that her work is vital, especially in the face of emerging technologies, such as generative AI, which present opportunities but, sadly, also have a darker side with new risks for criminal misuse.

She has received the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Cotes, Lady Boycott, Lady Bertin and Lady Doocey, my noble friends Lady Berger, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Hacking, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Hampton and Lord Davies of Gower, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others to whom I will refer later. That is quite an array of colleagues in this House. It is my job to respond to this on behalf of the Government, and I will try to be as helpful as I can to the noble Baroness.

The Government share her desire to protect the public, especially children, online, and are committed to protecting all users from illegal online content. We will continue to act to keep citizens safe. Amendment 266 seeks to create a new duty on online service providers—including those already regulated under the Online Safety Act—to assess and report to Ofcom or the National Crime Agency on the risk that their services could be used to create or facilitate the generation of AI child sexual abuse material. The amendment would also require online service providers to implement measures to mitigate and manage the risks identified.

I say to the noble Baroness that UK law is already clear: creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated by AI, is already illegal, regardless of whether they depict a real child or not. Child sexual abuse material offences are priority offences under the Online Safety Act. The Act requires in-scope services to take proactive steps to prevent such material from appearing on their services and to remove it swiftly if it does.

As she will know, the Government have gone even further to tackle these appalling crimes through the measures in the Bill. I very much welcome her support for Clause 63. We are introducing a world-leading offence criminalising the possession, adaptation and supply of, or offer to supply, an AI model that has been fine-tuned by offenders to create child sexual abuse material. As I mentioned earlier, we are also extending the existing paedophile manual offence to cover advice on how to abuse AI to create child sexual abuse material.

We have also introduced measures that reflect the critical role that AI developers play in ensuring their systems are not misused. To support the crucial work of the Government’s AI Security Institute, we have just debated and agreed a series of amendments in the previous group to provide authorised bodies with the powers to legally test commercial AI models for extreme pornography and other child sexual abuse material. That is essential to allow experts to safely test measures, and I am pleased that we received the Committee’s support earlier.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I fully endorse the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. I had great pleasure in working with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the Modern Slavery Bill. I am totally in awe of her experience and her willingness to share that experience, which, as a new Peer, was absolutely wonderful for me—although I could certainly do with it now as well.

The government amendments in this group provide more welcome detail on the definition and operation of child criminal exploitation prevention orders and include provisions necessary to cover the whole of the UK, not just England and Wales. As with other government amendments during the passage of the Bill, we welcome the expansion of detail in the Bill. Could the Minister confirm that each of the three devolved states has approved the relevant amendments in this group? It would be very good to hear that this has already been done. I do not disagree with anything that anyone has said so far—it has been an excellent and very clear unification of the views of everyone here.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for introducing this large group of amendments. As noble Lords will appreciate, many of the amendments before us today concern matters of clarification or technical improvement to ensure consistency across the Bill and the amendments tabled so far.

We on these Benches are broadly supportive of these changes, particularly when they strengthen child safeguarding protections and improve clarity, which we hope will eventually result in more seamless practical implementation. In this regard, we welcome amendments extending the scope of child criminal exploitation prevention orders to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those clarifying procedural matters, such as the form of notification requirements when oral notification may not be practicable. These are sensible adjustments that contribute to ensuring that the Bill operates coherently across the four nations and in real-world enforcement scenarios.

I briefly draw attention to Amendment 235ZA in my name, which would remove Clause 43(3)(a). That subsection currently requires that, when a court makes a criminal exploitation prevention order, the terms of the order must avoid

“conflict with any religious beliefs of the defendant”.

Although religious beliefs are, of course, an important individual right, the purpose of these orders is to protect children from very serious criminal harm. It is, therefore, my view that safeguarding and public protection must take precedence over all other concerns and that no such exemption should hinder appropriate and proportionate restrictions when a court considers them necessary. I hope the Government consider the matter carefully and take the recommendation on board.

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing forward Amendment 235A, which would give the courts an explicit ability to impose a prevention order to protect a child from being threatened, intimidated or coerced into criminal exploitation. The intention behind the amendment—to intervene earlier and more effectively to safeguard children at risk—is one that I hope all sides of the Committee can support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification of how the Bill will ensure that those protections are fully delivered. These are complex issues, but our shared objective is simple: to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and that those who exploit them face firm consequences. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the points that have been raised here today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this amendment, which would provide a valuable additional tool to protect children who are criminally exploited while at the same time committing criminal acts that victimise others. The amendment seeks to address these behaviours proportionately, managing the child’s risk to others without inflicting the potentially life-changing damage of having a criminal label attached, while ensuring the child is protected from further exploitation.

A criminal exploitation protection order would be an important step towards providing an end-to-end response for children in this situation. Unlike a youth rehabilitation order, it would directly target behaviours linked to child criminal exploitation, addressing the unique power imbalances and coercion involved in those often-complex situations. I urge the Government to look closely at the proposed order, which would be an extremely worthwhile addition to the Bill and which has the full support of these Benches.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for bringing forward this important amendment. It speaks to an issue that has been much discussed during the Bill’s passage: the urgent need to protect children who are coerced or manipulated into criminal activity by those who exploit them for profit and control.

Amendment 247 proposes a new clause to establish a criminal exploitation protection order. This would be aimed directly at safeguarding children who have already been subjected to criminal exploitation, preventing further harm. As the noble Baroness has eloquently explained, these children deserve support and a clear pathway out of exploitation. Undoubtedly, there is merit in exploring whether a new bespoke order focused on the safety and welfare of the exploited child could complement the existing prevention orders in the Bill which target the adult perpetrators. We recognise the intention behind ensuring that prohibitions and requirements are carefully balanced so as not to interfere unnecessarily with education, family life or existing legal orders. From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment.

We recognise that introducing new regimes raises practical considerations that must be considered. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to further discussion as the Bill progresses. Protecting children from exploitation must be central to this legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued leadership on this issue.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Armstrong for Amendment 247. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their support for the amendment, and for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I am sorry to have elevated the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—obviously, I was transfixed by the “Liverpool” part of his title. I appreciate his gentle chiding of me for that rookie error, which I still occasionally make after 15 months in this place. I apologise for that.

I hope I can reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling the criminal exploitation of children and to supporting children who are victims of criminal exploitation. There are a number of comprehensive provisions in the Bill. In early December, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is meeting the Policing Minister in the Home Office to discuss these issues. I am grateful for her expertise and for the discussions that my noble friend Lady Armstrong has had with Action for Children and colleagues outside of the House.

I fully understand and agree with the desire to safeguard children from the horrific consequences of criminal exploitation. That is why the Government are delivering on the manifesto commitment to bring forward this order, under the clauses that we have discussed, and go after the gangs that are luring young people into violence and crime. Additionally, as the Committee will know, through Clauses 42 to 55 and Schedule 5 to the Bill, the Government’s criminal exploitation prevention orders will place prohibitions and requirements on adults who pose a risk of exploiting children into criminality.

This brings me to the central point of the amendment before us. The Government have considered the position but feel that the most effective way to manage the behaviour of those who have criminally exploited children, or who are at risk of doing so, and to protect children from being criminally exploited are the measures in the Bill. We should be restricting the conduct of the adult perpetrator rather than of the child victim.

I simply say to my noble friend—this is an important point—that for legislation to be effective, there needs to be a consequence for non-compliance. If the measure that she has brought forward was put into legislation, we would be focusing on the child victim and their behaviour. In the event of non-compliance, unless there is a consequence to that—and I am not quite sure what that consequence would be—the proposal would have no legal effect. If a child breaches the prohibition or requirements in an order, the first response could be a further narrowing of the prohibitions or requirements, or varying them. Ultimately, a breach of the order would require a consequence, and I am not sure that we have considered that matter in full.

The Government believe that the measures we are introducing in the Bill will create greater awareness of child criminal exploitation and increase identification of victims, and will ensure that we assist victims in receiving appropriate support. When victims are identified, practitioners will be encouraged to recognise vulnerability, first and foremost, and, I hope, to clearly signal that the children who are used by adults to commit crime are victims of abuse.

I hear what noble Lords have said. Everybody who has spoken has broadly supported the direction of travel. We want to draw on that wealth of experience and insight, which is why my colleagues, the Policing Minister and the Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office, are hosting a round table with experts before Christmas to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and look at how we can better support children who are victims of crime and potentially perpetrators of crime.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a valuable point. It is important that we have police officers who understand the impact of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, since, as she mentioned, often they are the first port of call. I hope that the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy—I say again to the House that we hope to publish it in very short order—will cover a range of issues about how we can raise awareness and have a full policing response, as well as further potential government responses.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the CPS has published its Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2025-2030, and indeed the previous Government published their violence against women and girls strategy in 2021, but I am unable to find the current Government’s strategy. Can the Minister help me with this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can. I think I have already said it to the House, but I will give the noble Lord the latest. On 17 November the Minister responsible for this in another place, Jess Phillips, said during Home Office Orals that the strategy would be coming out very soon but that we are already taking action. I give this assurance to the House: when I say very soon, I mean very soon. I hope noble Lords will recognise that when it does, very soonly, they will know that I said that the violence against women and girls strategy would come out “very soon”. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.

Migration: Settlement Pathway

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is the second set of changes to immigration policy announced this year, on top of the Bill we have just passed, and the changes to the asylum system; it is fair to say the Government are feeling the pressure. But, as with the asylum Statement last week, I welcome many of these measures announced by the Home Secretary.

The Government are proposing a scheme whereby the default length of time for settlement is 10 years and, depending upon a person’s situation and circumstances, time will be either added or subtracted from those 10 years, meaning some people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain much sooner, and some much later. I am particularly supportive of those who receive benefits for more than 12 months having to wait for 20 years before qualifying for settlement. But this does raise the question of the degree to which foreign nationals are able to access public funds. It would be useful for the Minister to specify how this particular route would work. Surely, where a person is on a settlement route but not yet received settlement, they should not be able to receive any public funds.

I am interested in understanding how the Government have made the decision on the number of years they propose for each settlement pathway, as some seem to be rather odd. For example, the proposal is for a person who can speak English to degree level to be offered a nine-year path to settlement, while those who volunteer will be able to qualify between five and seven years. I understand that the volunteering pathway is subject to consultation, but what reasoning do the Government have for requiring a person who has degree-level English to wait for longer than a person who has done some volunteering? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the volunteering pathway does not lead to abuses of the system?

One concern I have about these proposals is about the settlement periods for illegal migrants. The consultation document states that illegal entry will add “up to 20 years” to the baseline qualifying period. It then says:

“We are consulting on whether this should be 5, 10, 15 or as high as 20 years”.


I ask the Minister why the Government need to consult on this. Why can they not make a decision themselves? Are the Government considering allowing scope for discretion?

On this, it somewhat beggars belief that the Home Office is actually considering permitting those who arrive illegally to still be able to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. I know I have made this point before, but I will keep making it until the Government absorb it and listen: there should be absolutely no route to settlement for those who enter illegally. Any person who commits a criminal offence by entering the UK without valid leave to enter and remain should be deported and never permitted to receive settlement. I look forward very much to what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we recognise the issues facing communities and immigrants across the country, and we agree that faith must be restored to the immigration and asylum system, which requires changes to policy. We appreciate the commitment to maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for partners of British citizens and British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, honouring our unique responsibilities to them. However, we are concerned that this overhaul overlooks key failures of past Governments.

Prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration. It is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy.

Changes to settlement must be made giving due regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect this policy and rhetoric could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. However, and moreover, the NHS is heavily reliant on non-British national staff.

The policy statement sets out that debt would limit an individual’s eligibility for settlement. What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Does it include credit cards or a mortgage? When consideration is being given to preventing access to public funds for those with settlement? What is the position of the state pension, which an individual would have contributed to over the years that they have been in the UK? If you take your pension, does that mean that you would no longer be eligible for that final route?

The Statement explicitly targets the cohort of lower-qualified workers who entered via the health and care visa, proposing they should wait 15 years before earning settlement, extending the pathway beyond the new 10-year baseline. Would that lead to a situation where care workers would be incentivised to volunteer in their community rather than work extra hours as a care worker? This proposal unfairly targets low earners and our carers. Why are carers not to be considered public service workers? What are we saying about the value of care? Care is a fundamental need in our society, especially as we are an ageing population.

Further, these proposals raise serious questions about those who are most vulnerable. The Government have committed to keeping some immediate short-route pathways for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Will the Minister explicitly reassure the House and survivors that these changes will not have the adverse, and perhaps unintended, impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?

The care sector in the UK is facing chronic staffing shortages, putting immense pressure on families and the wider social care system. Given that the Home Secretary has proposed that public service workers could qualify after five years, what assessment has been made of the risk that some essential public service workers will leave the UK? That was shared by the nurses’ union. What credible plan are the Government making to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector, especially in the short timescale that is available to them?

The Ukrainian people continue to resist Russia’s war of aggression, and many families who have sought refuge in the UK face further uncertainty over their visa status, causing significant instability. Will the Home Office and the Minister consider establishing a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for Ukrainians who have integrated into life in the UK and wish to remain long-term?

How does this policy relate to the family unit? It would seem that we could have a situation where people within the same family unit are on different routes to settlement because of their individual salaries on the one hand and caring responsibilities on the other—for example, a husband on a three-year route and a wife on a 10-year route. How might this disproportionately impact women, who often work less as a result of childcare?

The Home Secretary stated in the other place that fairness is central to these immigration changes. Is it fair to change the rules for an individual who has come to the UK on a legal route, with certain expectations, and move the goalposts midway through their route to settlement? While no one disputes that people coming to the UK should integrate, how will the Home Secretary and the Home Office ensure that the new mandatory measures, such as making sustained national insurance contributions above the personal allowance threshold and demonstrating English language proficiency to A-level standard or more, do not impose unworkable red tape on people who have come here legally?

Finally, how will these arrangements and changes be implemented? Will some of it be in primary legislation? Will some of it be in secondary legislation? Will some of it just be changes to the Immigration Rules? I understand that it is a tricky and detailed answer that I am expecting from the Minister, but if he cannot give me the exact details now about the legislative route for these proposals, perhaps he might like to write to me on these matters. I appreciate that I have asked a significant number of questions, but I hope that I can get answers to some of them.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling Motion A1, that this House,

“do insist on its Amendment 37”.

The amendment that we made to the Bill on Report has a simple purpose. My noble friend simply wishes the Home Office to publish data on overseas students, and that is a wish that I share.

The reason given by the other place for disagreeing with our Amendment 37 is that they,

“do not consider it appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish the data listed in the Amendment, the release of which should be determined within the wider publication of official statistics on migration”.

I agree with the basic premise here that an amendment to primary legislation is not necessarily the best way in which to force the publication of statistics. Ideally, we would not have to go down the legislative avenue to get the Home Office to publish these statistics. However, when my noble friend has repeatedly asked the Government to do so and they still refuse, this is the only option that we are left with.

There is a very simple solution to all this—just publish the data. The Home Office must know how many visas it revokes and how many people it removes from the country. Surely, it knows how many of those revocations and removals are of foreign students. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend in trying to force the publication of this data and, should he decide to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling his amendment, but I hope that I can persuade the House that no Division is required. We will see. I hope to persuade the House of that in due course.

The Bill returns to this House having been considered in the other place on Wednesday 19 November, during which the government amendments to the Lords stages of the Bill were approved by the elected House of Commons. As the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Jackson, mentioned, migration policy is a fluid issue. There are always issues that we are bringing forward. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals that I spoke to in this House on Thursday 20 November, and there is a further Statement on legal migration issues tomorrow evening in this House, if Members wish to participate and hold the Government to account still further.

As noble Lords know, Amendment 37 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, was taken to the other place having been approved by this House. The other place rejected that amendment, which would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following revocation of their student visas and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.

I maintained at the time—and, dare I say it, without wishing to provoke the noble Lord to press this to a Vote, I maintain still—that there is no requirement in primary legislation and it would be unnecessary. It would undermine the mechanisms in place to ensure the appropriate publication of statistics in full so that the context of migration statistics already published is known. I note the view put forward by the Liberal Democrat Benches in the debate in the other place that the amendment would not help to tackle organised crime nor improve border security, nor would it strengthen the Bill. As I set out when debating the amendment in Committee and on Report, the Government see the value of transparency, hence the vast quantity of statistics that the Home Office already publishes on a regular basis, in line with the Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

The Home Office regularly reviews the official statistics being published and takes into account a number of factors including user needs, the resources required to compile the statistics, and the quality and availability of such data. I again confirm for the House that having requirements in legislation is not needed or appropriate. While I recognise and value transparency, it is critical to ensure due process for the accuracy and quality of data, which can be achieved within existing mechanisms for official statistics to be released.

However—this is where I come to my “however”—I note the interest in this topic and am anxious to try to make some progress. I do not wish to have further ping-pong between both Houses, if at all possible. I can therefore make the commitment to the House tonight that, subject to the proposed new clause not being included in the Bill—in other words, the amendment to the Motion not being pressed this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—the Government will review and publish the data held on the number of students who have had their visas revoked due to criminality. These statistics will cover a defined period and will be broken down by nationality of the offender, as was stipulated in the noble Lord’s original amendment. I hope that this commitment will provide Members of the House with reassurance that the Government take seriously the importance of transparency in the immigration system through the publication of statistics.

The proposal I put to the House tonight provides what I would argue is an achievable, non-legislative solution to what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others have called for. This approach will embed publication of the requested data in the wider mechanisms for Home Office publication of statistics, ensuring that the outcome is of high quality and is appropriately produced along with other data. I urge Members of the House to support this approach by approving Motion A.

Non-Crime Hate Incidents

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that question from the noble Baroness. The issue is that non-crime hate incidents are not currently fit for purpose. That includes a range of mechanisms relating to how the police interpret that, what they do with the information and indeed whether any information is collected incorrectly. I would love to give an answer today, but it is important that we listen and work with the police on the review they have commissioned. That will be with me shortly and, when it is, we will be able to come to some definitive conclusions and put a regime in place that meets the noble Baroness’s objective of assessing anti-social behaviour and racial concerns, as my noble friend has mentioned, but does so in a way that does not lead to mistakes, does not lead to false use by the police and is not a waste of police time in collecting that information.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but, to pick up on the points made by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch, non-crime hate incidents are just one of the instruments used by the police to investigate online speech. Open-ended and subjective language in legislation such as the Public Order Act 1998 and the Communications Act 2003, and unclear guidance, are also used to chill free speech. Given the public’s view that crime is on the rise, do the Government not agree that legislative changes need to be made, and that guidance and leadership need to be crystal-clear that the police should stop policing online speech and start solving real-world crimes that have a genuine effect on people’s lives?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has a point. Guidance for these incidents was put in place by his Government in 2023, and it is that guidance that has proved ineffective and led to the review. We are looking at the framework for this. We have commissioned the College of Policing to look at it, as well as the police, who have to deal with this matter and who themselves have said that the regime is not fit for purpose. We hope then to be able to update the guidance, depending on what the police and the College of Policing come forward with.

I challenge the noble Lord’s contention that crime is rising. In many areas, crime is falling; murder rates in London are at their lowest levels for many months. Crime is falling generally, and the work that we are doing to put extra police on the ground will help improve community support and community action on crime. However, we will wait for the review and report back to the House in due course.

Asylum Policy

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary’s Statement to the other place announced a number of reforms which are very welcome. When the Government bring forward strong measures, we will support them. The Home Secretary should be praised for accepting a simple truth—that Britain’s asylum system is far more generous than that of many other European countries.

It is a truth that, unfortunately, many Labour Back-Benchers cannot seem to grasp. The true test to these reforms will be whether the Government can face down opposition from within their own ranks and implement them.

There is another welcome truth that the Home Secretary has implicitly accepted: up to now, the Government’s measures to tackle illegal migration have failed. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we have spent many hours debating in this House, is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue. It is a shame that it took the Government so long to realise this, but we are where we are. We will have to have another immigration and asylum Bill next year because the Government were too slow to reach the logical conclusion that their plans are not working. These new announcements are at least a tacit acceptance that that Bill did not go anywhere near far enough to seriously tackle small boat crossings.

There are a number of proposals here that are very similar to amendments I tabled during the Report stage of the border security Bill—amendments that the Government completely opposed. It is heartening to see that they have finally come round, but it might have been easier for all of us if they had compromised earlier.

For example, the Government opposed my amendment to create third-country removal centres. The Minister criticised it for wanting to rehash the Rwanda policy, but that is a complete falsehood. The Rwanda policy would have sent illegal migrants to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. The amendments I brought to the border security Bill would automatically reject that asylum claim brought by an illegal migrant and then return them to either their home country or a safe third country. Their claims would not be processed in Rwanda because they would never be allowed to make a claim in the first place.

That amendment was about having safe third countries where we can send failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants who cannot be returned to their home country. Now, in their policy statement, the Government say:

“We will continue to explore the use of ‘return hubs’ which are safe third countries that failed asylum seekers can be sent to instead of their country of origin. Negotiations with a number of countries are ongoing”.


This is precisely what we were pushing the Government to do, and I am pleased that they have announced that they will look to send failed asylum seekers to safe third countries, but this all could have been much easier if they had come to this conclusion earlier.

The Government have also announced changes to the appeals procedure. The Statement says that the Home Office will

“create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators”.

However, it does not mention whether this appeals body will run alongside the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or replace it. Could the Minister please clarify this?

Would the Government run this new body alongside the judicial appeals tribunals? If so, how would they decide whose appeal is heard before which body? Or are they proposing to abolish the immigration and asylum tribunal and replace it with the Home Office review body? If so, then that was exactly what I proposed by way of Amendments 46 and 47 to the border security Bill. On Report on 5 November, 128 Labour peers voted against that. If they have changed their mind on this, it is very embarrassing to say the least; it is disappointing for them to vote against that proposal and then come up with something very similar.

The Home Secretary has claimed that she is following the lead set by Denmark, but this is only a partial truth, because Denmark requires asylum seekers to prove full-time employment for several years before they qualify for permanent residence.

The Government’s plans extend the waiting time to get indefinite leave to remain to 10 years once a person’s refugee status has been granted and if they entered legally. This would be 20 years for those who entered illegally, but this does not impose any conditions. Theoretically, a person could enter illegally, languish on benefits for 20 years and then be granted the right to indefinite leave to remain. While I am pleased to see asylum status become temporary, and for anyone whose home country becomes safe to be returned there, it is absolutely wrong that a person could enter illegally and still be allowed to remain, especially given the Government’s opening of new safe and legal routes. If we are to have legal routes for refugees, we absolutely cannot reward those who enter illegally. That would make even more of a mockery of the whole system. Why would a person bother to apply for the legal route if they know that they can board a boat and be allowed to stay here? The Government need to follow this plan to its logical conclusion and ban asylum, human rights and protection claims from any illegal migrant.

Finally, the plan to reform Article 8 is all well and good, but the Government have to know that this will not be enough. While we have the Human Rights Act in force and are party to the ECHR, we will face the same barriers to removals that we do currently. Reforming the interpretation will simply allow crafty human rights lawyers to find innovative new ways to circumvent it. Only a wholesale repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR can finally remove the legal barriers to deportation.

The Government have started moving in the right direction. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we will support the Government in making these changes. But I fear that they will not be enough and that the Government will end up coming back to us next year with further changes. If they simply accepted that now, and went even further with these changes, it would save us all a lot of time down the line.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, and I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I am minded to think of the title of that great film, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”; I am afraid that these proposals have all three within them. I will go through some of those.

Starting with the positive, we support the Government’s intent to bring order in the asylum system, and we welcome the announcement of new, capped, safe and legal routes for refugees. These pathways, with security checks and controls, are the correct way to fulfil the UK’s responsibility to those in need. Confirmation that the Government will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights is welcome, as is the recognition that early legal advice should be a core part of the appeal system.

Moving on to the bad, or impractical, the argument that asylum seekers should contribute is undermined when they are denied the means to earn their way. Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. Why are the Government persisting in stopping asylum seekers from working when there is no evidence that this is a pull factor? We question the assumption of the UK as a magnet, given that we receive far fewer asylum seekers per capita than our European neighbours. Home Office analysis itself found that asylum seekers have little to no understanding of welfare policies before arrival. Shared language, diaspora communities and perhaps even colonial connections are the primary drivers for asylum seekers taking irregular routes to the UK. Can the UK Government provide evidence, rather than simple assertion, on this matter?

Revoking the duty to support risks creating more destitution and pushing more asylum seekers towards illegal working and exploitation. What assessment has been made of this risk? What action are the Government taking to avoid passing the financial strain onto already struggling local authorities? The use of immoderate language is also unhelpful and risks stoking division. Why do the Government feel the need to create a whole new asylum appeals structure? Why not simply expand the existing system?

The most severe criticisms target the core protection model and its administrative fallout. Core protection requires a status review every 30 months and delays permanent settlement for 20 years, which in our view is unnecessary and cruel. This prolonged state of instability will inhibit successful integration by making it difficult for refugees to secure tenancies, employment or higher education. The Home Office is currently struggling with a backlog, yet this policy would impose what has been called bureaucratic madness, requiring a huge increase in capacity to review the status of an estimated 1.45 million people by the end of 2035, potentially costing £872 million. Do the Government accept these figures or have they alternative ones to offer?

Scrapping the refugee family reunion route pushes children and spouses into the hands of smugglers, directly contradicting the goal of safe migration. Has this risk been assessed? How will the long-term separation from family impact refugees’ ability to contribute and reduce their reliance on state support? Will the Government be detaining and deporting children who were once accepted as refugees but will subsequently not be when their home country is deemed safe?

Given that Denmark’s temporary protection scheme clearly failed to result in returns for Syrians, how do the Government justify the massive cost and profound uncertainty imposed by the UK version? What is the timescale for these changes? When will they be implemented and what method will be used to implement them?

Finally, do the Government agree with the report in the i newspaper that deportations will be retrospective? It says:

“It means that, if a refugee has not already been granted indefinite right to remain before the Home Secretary’s new legislation comes into force, they will be deported if their home country is subsequently deemed safe by the Government”.


I look forward to the Government’s response to these questions.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that digital passports or driving licences can be approved documents. There is a power by regulation to add other documents; at the moment, the PASS card is not added to that as a form of identification, but obviously it potentially can be in due course, if Governments decide to add that. That will again be subject to regulation. I apologise, but the noble Baroness asked me a question and I gave her the answer in good faith, but it is best that we clarify that point now.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties for the offence in Clause 28 in Scotland, and for extending the provision in Clauses 31, 32 and 35 to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I have no issue with the government amendments about the bulk sale of knives.

I do, however, take issue with government Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 110, 111, 129, 130, 141, 142, 170, 171, 185, 186, 187 and 188. These amend the Bill to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying further forms of identification that can be used for age-verification purposes relating to the online sale and the delivery of knives and crossbows. That might seem innocuous at first, but all it takes is to look at the explanatory statements to realise what these amendments are really about. The explanatory statement for Amendment 71 says that the amendment

“allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID)”.

That is the point.

What is happening here is that the Government are attempting perhaps to sneak in provisions permitting digital ID by the backdoor. I say that the Government are sneaking these in, because they have not only tabled amendments to change clauses already in the Bill but included the regulation-making power permitting digital ID in the drafting of the new clauses that extend provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland. On top of that, they have lumped these amendments together with all the others in this enormous group. I can only assume that the Government hoped that perhaps no one would notice their attempts to take the very first step towards legislating for mandatory digital ID. That is why we cannot support these amendments.

The Government will perhaps attempt to play this off as a small and practical change to allow Ministers to retain flexibility by allowing new age-verification processes, but that is a red herring. Digital ID is an affront to our rights, and the Government have repeatedly stated that it will not be mandatory, that it is no big deal and that it will simply make things easier. Yet here we are with the Government seeking to insert provisions for digital ID into the Crime and Policing Bill. They have not even enacted the policy, yet they are already trying to expand its purpose. Does this not tell us all we need to know? They say that it will not be mandatory, but how can we ever be sure of that?

We notified the Government of our opposition to these amendments in advance to let them know that we would not accept any amendments to this Bill, or for that matter any Bill, that enables digital ID. It is in that spirit that I tabled my Amendments 72A, 72B, 87A and 131A to remove provisions in the Bill that permit the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify other identity documents. My Amendments 75A, 75B, 75C, 76A, 76B, 76C, 190A, 190B, 191A and 191B amend the government amendments for that same purpose. If the Government accept these proposed changes to their amendments—that is, if they accept that there can be no power to specify digital ID for the purposes of these clauses—I have no further concerns with them. However, if they do not want to accept my changes to their amendments to remove the ability to specify digital ID for age-verification purposes here, then we will not be able to support them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has done it. We are in the 21st century; digital ID is becoming a commonplace issue. I understand that we are going to have steps to have age verification, such as acceptable digital ID, as the norm in future.

As I set out earlier, it is to allow different forms of digital ID to be used to verify purchasers’ identity information. When changes to the acceptable proofs of identity, digital or otherwise, are proposed, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would have been an opportunity for the noble Lord, and in both Houses, to oppose or question at that time, but I understand where he is coming from. I am of the view that as technology progresses, there will be different types of digital ID which might be acceptable. It is not an attempt by the Government to speed up or usurp the process; it is just future-proofing, because there may be digital ID on a range of issues.

As an example, I have a digital and a hard copy of my railcard. I show both at different times, depending on which one is easiest to get to. Digital ID is progressing, and it will continue to do so. There are potentially new digital documents, such as the recently announced digital ID card, coming downstream. As with any new legislation, that is still a matter for Parliament to consider, but if a Bill comes before the House—after the outcome of a consultation, it might be in the next few weeks—that is something we are trying to future-proof accordingly.

I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord is prepared to support all the amendments, but I guess that he will not—that is a reasonable position for him to take and one we must look at. To help him today, in a genuine spirit of trying to help, if the noble Lord remains unpersuaded, which I think he is—he confirms that he is—I will move only Amendments 57 to 70 and Amendments 193 to 209 to Clauses 28 and 29, respectively. I will not move Amendment 210A, which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland to that contained in Clause 36 and, in due course, the related consequential and drafting amendments to the Bill, so that we can look at these matters on Report and not have that debate and discussion today. At this stage, I will not move the amendments to Clauses 31 to 35 and the associated back-of-the-Bill consequential amendments. The Committee should rest assured that I will bring them back on Report, and if the noble Lord has his disagreements then, we will test the House. If the House votes one way, we accept it; if it votes the other way, we potentially test the House again. That is a matter for discussion and debate downstream.

There is nothing to fear from the proposals for someone having a digital ID and showing it when receiving a knife or weapon through the post. That is not something to be afraid of. We are in the 21st century—I am in the 21st century at least, let us put it that way. We will go from there.

I also assure the noble Lord that paper documents such as passports and driving licences will be acceptable as forms of ID, as well as potentially any digital versions of those in due course. I hope that satisfies his question.

I welcome, in a spirit of co-operation and consensus, the agreement from both Front Benches to the provisions for Northern Ireland and Scotland, so that in those areas there is a United Kingdom response from the three Administrations who deal with these matters in a devolved or non-devolved way. I commend the amendments I said I would move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing forward this thoughtful group of amendments relating to the controls on offensive weapons. Each of these amendments raise practical questions about the application of current laws that relate to offensive weapons and seek to ensure that legislation designed to protect the public does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate, historically important or professionally supervised activities.

Amendment 211 proposes a defence where a weapon is of genuine historical importance. The reasoning behind this amendment is eminently sensible and aligns the treatment of such items with existing defences relating to antiques and curated collections. This is a meaningful distinction between dangerous modern weapons intended for misuse and historical artifacts preserved for cultural or heritage purposes. There is an important question here on proportionality and the scope of reasonable excuse. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether existing provisions fully address the concerns raised.

Amendments 212 and 213 relate to the traditional straight police truncheon and agricultural tools. I can tell the Committee that in my 32 years as a police officer, I did not use my truncheon on anybody, but it is very useful for silencing alarms in business premises in the middle of the night when you cannot get the keyholder out of bed. Here too, we recognise the practical issues that these amendments seek to resolve. It is not a controversial belief that items with legitimate ceremonial, historical or agricultural uses should not inadvertently fall within criminal restrictions where there is no evidence of misuse. The examples provided in support of these proposals make clear that the law must operate with fairness and precision, and I hope the Government consider them with due regard.

Amendment 214 addresses a wide range of potential exemptions for visiting forces, emergency services, theatrical and film productions, museums and antiques. These are complex areas with operational realities that deserve serious thought. The amendment raises legitimate questions about how the law accommodates professional and historical circumstances without undermining public safety. I look forward to hearing the Government’s thoughts on, and response to, this amendment.

These amendments rightly probe the intersection of criminal law with the heritage and cultural sectors. These are sectors that must be protected. We cannot allow well-meaning legislation unintentionally to criminalise legitimate historical and cultural activities. We look forward to the Minister’s response and assurances that these matters will receive the careful consideration that they merit.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I stand to ask for guidance from the Dispatch Box. When I was doing my national service in the Royal Navy in March 1957—I can date it precisely—I became a midshipman. With that ranking, I was awarded a midshipman’s dirk, which I still hold today. I cannot find that dirk falling under any of the exceptions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Do I therefore have to table a special amendment to make it lawful for me to continue to hold my midshipman’s dirk?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the education of townies such as myself continues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, for his Amendments 214A and 438, which aim to deregulate sound moderators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders. It had not occurred to me that they would be caught by the legislation, so this measure, explicitly designed to alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments without increasing risk or danger to the public, seems eminently sensible. Police resources are already stretched, and we are demanding an increased focus on neighbourhood visibility—we have talked about this during the passage of the Bill—so we support sensible deregulation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy without compromising public safety. We support these amendments.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a group of relatively straightforward and common-sense amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. It tends to carry out the Government’s own consultation results in a careful and measured way.

Amendment 214A, moved by my noble friend Lord Brady, is a simple procedural measure that implements the Government’s own recommendations. As my noble friend set out, this amendment would not impact, let alone endanger, the public. Sound moderators are inert objects that contain no moving parts. They do not enhance the ability of a firearm, nor is there significant evidence of them being used in crime. The Government have themselves concluded that removing regulation of them will not pose any risk to public safety. I understand the original logic of including them in many firearms regulations, but, in practice, it means that police firearms officers must now obtain a certificate. It is an administrative burden that is not necessary.

Amendment 438 acts much in the same vein. It would require a review of the administrative burdens that noise and flash accessories place upon the police. The Government’s own previous consultation on the latter demonstrated that there is scope here for reform; to expand that to cover other accessories seems a very logical step.

We should aim to remove bureaucratic and administrative hurdles wherever they appear. This is particularly the case for the police, as our forces are under strain. This measure is evidently a small reform among many that should be made and is based on the right principle.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, for setting out the case for his Amendments 214A and 438. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who attached their names to Amendment 214A. As the noble Lord, Lord Brady, has explained, the aim is to deregulate the devices known as sound moderators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I too must out myself as a townie. As with the previous group, it has been a bit of an education finding out about these items and their uses. They are currently subject to control as they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm set out in Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968. This means that firearms licence holders with a legitimate need for these items are required to apply to the police to include them on their existing firearms licence, and this is obviously at a cost to both the police and the licence holder.

As many noble Lords have noted—indeed, every noble Lord who spoke—removing these items from the legal definition of a firearm would alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments. Because these are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts, they do not of themselves create a risk to public safety, as the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and others have said. The Government have already set out our intention to remove these items from the legal definition of a firearm, and I am therefore sympathetic to the intent behind these amendments.

However, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a commitment at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to bring forward the necessary legislative changes to the Firearms Act in this Bill. If he would agree to withdraw his amendment, I will undertake to update the noble Lord ahead of Report. I will say no more.

--- Later in debate ---

In closing, I say that I do not disagree with anything that noble Lords have said, but we must be particularly careful that we do not just choose some people to protect while unintentionally giving the impression that we do not really care about others.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward Amendments 214F and 214G, which address a gap in the protections afforded to retail workers under Clause 37. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.

The amendments seek to ensure that delivery drivers who are employed as part of the retail and distribution process are fully included in the scope of the proposed offences against retail workers, and that delivery vehicles themselves are recognised as an extension of the retail premises. We understand and support the underlying principle behind these proposals. Delivery drivers in many cases are the face and point of contact between businesses and consumers and they often work alone, sometimes at unsociable hours and in circumstances where they may be exposed to heightened vulnerability and increasing levels of aggression and abuse.

The safety of delivery drivers should not depend on whether they are standing behind a shop counter or stepping out of a branded van. The rise of home delivery as a core component of modern retail means that this work is an integral part of the sector, and it is only right that the law reflects that reality. It is regrettable to read that certain major supermarkets have rolled out bodycams for their delivery drivers in an effort to protect them. I therefore hope the Government will consider carefully how these protections might sensibly be extended to those whose job it is to ensure that goods reach the customer.

Turning to Amendment 351 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I fully understand the principle and intent behind this amendment. It raises significant questions about whether the current scope of legal protection is sufficiently broad. The question of whether other public-facing workers, such as in transport, hospitality or civic buildings, face similar risks is one worth raising and discussing. Many of those workers play a crucial role in maintaining order, ensuring safety and supporting essential public functions in spaces accessible to the public.

I similarly thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 214FA. This would include premises used by the hospitality industry for the supply of food or drink as part of the definition of retail premises for the purposes of this offence. This is also an important question to pose to the Government, and I hope they consider it with care.

The issues raised by this group of amendments deserve serious consideration. They invite the Government to reflect on whether extra provisions are needed to protect certain public-facing roles and, if so, which roles specifically need to be highlighted. The question that needs to be answered in response to all the amendments in this group is why only retail workers should be afforded a special criminal offence. Does the A&E receptionist not face the threat of violence and intimidation too? What about the bar staff at a nightclub? A wide range of people are at higher risk of assault during the course of their work. If we are to create a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, it would make sense to expand this. I hope that the Government will give this careful thought and return the clarity in how they intend to address the concerns expressed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their amendments. I should note—if not declare an interest—that I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 46 years now. That is a long time. I think it is worth noting that I have an interest in this matter. Indeed, I spent many years trying to raise this very issue when a Member of Parliament and outside Parliament before coming to this House.

I should also say at the outset that I am meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to discuss this matter, and am very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as well. I had a request from my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton to meet him and the USDAW general secretary, Joanne Thomas. I am also happy to do that between now and Report; it may not be immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 39 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled this notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 39 stand part of the Bill, to correct what has become serious misinformation. By way of background, Clause 39 repeals Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. That section was inserted into the 1980 Act by Section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 provides that where a person is charged with a shoplifting offence where the value of the stolen goods is under £200, the offence is triable only summarily. Accordingly, low-value shoplifting cases will only be heard before magistrates’ courts and will not go before the Crown Court. This alteration has become the subject of significant misinformation, largely perpetuated by the party in government. In the 2024 election manifesto, it claimed that this had created

“effective immunity for some shoplifting”

and the Government’s policy paper in the Bill, published on GOV.UK, calls it “perceived immunity”. This, of course, is absolutely false. There is no immunity in any form for any shoplifting offences. Allowing an offence to be tried only in a magistrates’ court does not give anyone immunity.

The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for sentencing a person guilty of theft from a shop state that the starting point for low-value shoplifting, with little additional harm to the victim, is a “high-level community order”, with the maximum being a 12-week custodial sentence. For low-value shoplifting, with significant additional harm to the victim, the starting point is 12 weeks’ custody and the maximum is 26 weeks’ custody. It is clear, then, that magistrates’ courts can impose community orders and terms of imprisonment on offenders found guilty of low-value shoplifting. If the Government believe that is immunity, they clearly need to have a serious rethink. I therefore ask the Minister why the Government are making this change, since there is absolutely not immunity for low-value shoplifting. What can they possibly hope that this will achieve?

The reality is that Clause 39 is purely performative. Worse than that, it is performative politics with negative ramifications. Where an offence is triable either way, it is up to the magistrates’ court and the defendant to decide which court finally hears the case. If the magistrates’ court deems itself to have sufficient powers to try the case, a defendant is able to elect the court that their case will be heard by. Are we seriously saying that we will be permitting a person charged with stealing £50-worth of chocolate to be hauled in front of a Crown Court judge and jury? In such a scenario, the most likely sentence would be a community order for a few months’ imprisonment: that sentence would likely be the same whether the case was tried in a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.

Why enable the possibility for a person charged with low-value shoplifting to elect to go to a Crown Court, simply for them to be handed the same sentence they could have been given in the magistrates’ court? There are around 73,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard by the Crown Courts. Many people are waiting years for their case to be heard. The last thing we need now is for more minor offences to be sent to the Crown Courts, adding to their already sizable backlog. This is not a solution to shoplifting. It is simply another way for a defendant to string out their proceedings. Permitting low-value shoplifting to be tried only summarily does not give shoplifters immunity but will serve only to clog up our already stretched Crown Courts.

What does create an effective immunity for shoplifting is the Government’s Sentencing Bill. Noble Lords will know that the Bill creates the presumption that a custodial sentence of less than 12 months be suspended. Even if a person is given a custodial sentence for low-value shoplifting, they will not serve any time in prison. If that does not give would-be shoplifters more incentive to steal, I do not know what does. Clause 39 is pointless and performative, and would be damaging to the swift passage of justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the intention of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, to oppose Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. I have listened with care to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but we firmly believe that the inclusion of this clause is necessary. There is one thing that we can all agree on: shop theft has risen at any alarming rate in recent years. It is a blight on our society; it causes loss and distress to retailers and it undermines the safety of retail spaces.

This Government are committed to restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, and to protecting businesses from escalating losses. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics are stark. Shoplifting almost doubled over the past five years, increasing to 530,643 cases in 2025. While multiple factors have contributed to rising retail crime, one persistent issue is the perception in many quarters that low-value theft has no real consequences, and some regard it as having been, in effect, decriminalised.

The noble Lord is right that Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act converted theft of goods worth £200 or less from shops to being tried summarily. I completely understand that the argument of the previous Government was that this would increase efficiency by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low-value theft and keeping the cases in the magistrates’ court, but it has not worked. Instead, it is not that there is immunity, but there is a perception that those committing theft of goods worth £200 or less will escape any punishment. My noble friend Lord Hannett referred to this in relation to the previous group of amendments.

Clause 39 will rectify this, and it really matters. Evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that only 36% of retail crime is even reported. Many retailers choose not to do so; they think it is a waste of time, because they believe that the police will not do anything. The underreporting masks the true scale of the problem and leaves businesses vulnerable.

We must act decisively to support retailers facing this growing challenge, and Clause 39 does exactly that. It closes a critical gap by sending a clear and unequivocal message: theft of any value is a serious criminal act and will be treated seriously. By removing the financial threshold for so-called low-value shop theft, we are sending a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that this crime is not going to be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. We are also making it clear to the retailers that we take this crime seriously, and they should feel encouraged to report it.

I acknowledge the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that by making shop theft triable either way there is scope for some cases to end up in the Crown Court. However, there are two reasons why the noble Lord does not need to worry about this. The first is that Sir Brian Leveson highlighted in his independent review that the risk is mitigated by the existing sentencing guidelines, which provide a clear and structured framework to ensure that the penalties remain proportionate. This means that, in practice, the vast majority of such cases fall well within magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers, meaning that they are highly unlikely to be committed to the Crown Court, for either trial or sentence. We anticipate that the effect on the backlog will be negligible. Secondly, as far as defendants electing trial in the Crown Court is concerned, they already have the ability to do this in relation to the so-called summary only offence. In practice, elections occur only in marginal numbers. There is no evidence to suggest that Clause 39 will change this.

I urge the noble Lord to join us in sending this very clear message—we entirely accept it was always the intention of the previous Government not to decriminalise this—to make it clear to everybody what a serious offence this is. I hope that he is willing to withdraw his opposition to Clause 39 standing part.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am, however, very disappointed by her continued defence of Clause 39. It is absolutely clear that the changes made by the previous Government do not create effective immunity for low-value shoplifting. All shoplifting offences are able to be tried in a magistrates’ court, where the court can impose a custodial sentence if necessary. Drink-driving offences are tried summarily only. I do not see the Government proposing to make that offence triable either way.

The fundamental point is that this change will not help anyone. It will not deter shoplifters. I hardly think a potential shoplifter will suddenly decide to stop because he might be tried in a Crown Court as opposed to a magistrates’ court. It will simply increase the Crown Court backlog without any benefit. This is a matter that I am sure we will return to on Report.

Clause 39 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

215: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after “subsection (10)” insert “and sections 208A”.(3) After that section insert—“208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—(a) a curfew requirement;(b) an exclusion requirement;(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.(5) In this section—“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.(7) Where—(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied, notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).”.(4) After section 292 insert—“292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—(a) a curfew requirement;(b) an exclusion requirement;(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.(7) Where—(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 215 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie speaks to a growing and deeply felt concern shared by communities and retailers across the country—that the persistent and habitual shoplifter is too often left to reoffend, with little intervention, limited consequences and insufficient support to break the cycle of offending. There has been a 13% increase in shoplifting offences in the year ending June 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The first thing we want to do is Clause 39, which, of course, was opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But in addition, this is about making it clear to everybody that it really does matter, and driving it through to the police that there should be no immunities—that there are no levels below to which this should not apply.

For all these reasons, I do believe these amendments are not required, but I would be very happy to discuss the matters further with both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I encourage them to speak with me if they feel there are matters that I have not fully taken into account. But, for now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her kind offer.

The amendment of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe focuses on enforcement. If the police do not investigate theft, if they do not take measures to deter and prevent shoplifting, no amount of legislation will change that. Creating a code of practice for low-value shoplifting could be a step in the right direction. Together with my Amendment 215—and I am grateful, I think, for the implied support of the Liberal Democrats—these measures target enforcement and punishment. This is in stark contrast to what the Government are proposing in Clause 39. The effective immunity for shoplifters comes from the inability of the police to catch those who shoplift. It is an issue of enforcement and investigation, which in turn all comes back to police funding and officer numbers—a point made by the noble Baroness Lady Doocey. Better enforcement is what will drive down shoplifting offence rates, not putting those cases before Crown Court judges. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 215 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, put forward a number of alternative approaches to reduce shoplifting. However, they fail to address practical realities and risk creating more issues than they resolve.

The proposal in Amendment 216A would allow shopkeepers to circulate photographic evidence of suspects, including on social media. This raises significant questions about privacy and misidentification. If the accused turns out to be innocent, the shop must pay compensation, but this is fundamentally unworkable and could cause serious harm to innocent people, damaging reputations in ways that money cannot fix.

The noble Lord himself said that this is likely to be able to be worked only in large stores rather than small shops, but the shops most affected by theft are small businesses run by one or two people. Shopkeepers in my area are busy enough running their shops without spending hours reviewing camera footage, creating digital copies and ensuring timestamps.

Clarifying the arrest powers of security staff, as proposed in Amendment 216B, may seem helpful, but increasing their authority to arrest and detain risks misuse and legal challenge. Security staff do not have the same training or accountability as police officers, increasing the chance of wrongful or disproportionate arrest. Video evidence and procedural protections are helpful but not adequate substitutes for professional policing standards.

Finally, Amendment 216C proposes a new offence of conspiracy to commit theft. The noble Lord is right to point to the growing involvement of organised crime. The police have said that international criminals are targeting UK shops in what a Co-op boss describes as “organised looting”. However, I disagree with the noble Lord in respect to the solution he proposes. It seems likely to disproportionately target those committing relatively minor thefts, potentially imposing severe sentences on them of up to 10 years, while doing little to address those orchestrating and controlling those criminal activities.

Shoplifting is undoubtedly out of control, and a new direction is desperately needed. The Liberal Democrats believe the current epidemic is the result of years of ineffective police resourcing, which has left local forces overstretched, underresourced and unable to focus on solving crimes such as shoplifting—I stress the words “unable to” rather than “unwilling to”. We want to see a return to genuine neighbourhood policing, with more police visibility and a staffed police counter in every community. That is why I have tabled Amendments 429 and 430 later on in the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the intention behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is absolutely right to refer to it as theft. It is theft, under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. He is right that there is no such offence as shoplifting.

We have all heard the same stories from businesses, large and small: prolific offenders walking out with hundreds of pounds of stock in broad daylight; staff frightened or, in many cases, not allowed to intervene; police too stretched to attend; and, time and again, the same individuals returning to commit offence after offence because they believe, with some justification, that nothing will happen to them.

My noble friend’s first amendment in this group deals with the ability to share clear evidence of theft with those who need to see it. At present, retailers might be reluctant or legally uncertain about whether they can circulate images of offenders, even to neighbouring stores, to their own head office or to crime reduction bodies. Yet, these are precisely the channels that allow patterns of offending to be identified and prolific offenders to be caught.

The amendments set out a lawful, proportionate system. Images can be shared where a theft has occurred, provided the originals are preserved, time-stamped, unedited and sent to the police. This ensures the integrity of evidence and prevents misuse. Importantly, it provides a remedy and compensation if a photograph of the wrong individual is mistakenly published. My only concern here is that being required to pay £300 per day in compensation might deter the shop owner from circulating the evidence.

I am particularly supportive of Amendment 216B. We know that a number of retailers have told their staff to not intervene when they see a person shoplifting. This has led to numerous instances of brazen theft, whereby people walk into a shop, grab armfuls of products and walk out in full sight of security guards and staff. Such scenes make a mockery of law and order. The amendment permits the lawful detention of suspected thieves by trained security staff. Shopkeepers should not have to look on helplessly while brazen thieves simply walk out of the store. What my noble friend proposes is eminently sensible: properly trained staff equipped with body-worn cameras, using only minimum force, operating under strict rules and with constant video recording. This is not a free-for-all; it is the opposite. It is a controlled, transparent, safeguarded process that both protects the rights of suspects and gives retailers the ability to intervene proportionately when theft is happening before their eyes.

The amendment also places obligations on the police when they are called. They must attend promptly, take custody of the suspect, secure the evidence and make decisions based on a full review, not a hurried assessment at the store door. This is entirely right. Retail staff are repeatedly told to detain no one because the police will not come. The amendment would send the opposite message. When retailers correctly do their part, the police must do theirs.

Finally, Amendment 216C addresses a growing and deeply troubling phenomenon, whereby organised gangs loot shops, raid entire streets or retail parks and steal thousands of pounds-worth of goods. These are not opportunists; they are organised criminals. Yet, the system too often charges them with individual, low-value thefts rather than with conspiracy or organised crime offences. The amendment establishes that, where there is reliable evidence of at least 10 thefts involving two or more individuals, a full investigation with conspiracy charges must be instigated where appropriate. The sentencing framework my noble friend proposes is proportionate and targeted: higher penalties for organised groups of five or more and the automatic confiscation of vehicles or property used in the crime. These are necessary deterrents: the current penalties are not.

Taken together, these amendments represent a robust but balanced response to an urgent and worsening problem. They support shopkeepers, empower security staff and assist the police with the collection of evidence.

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

My Lords, I begin by, in part, sharing the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I agree with him. It is not shoplifting; it is shop theft. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on that same point. When I began my working career 45 years ago after university with the Co-op on a management training course, we called it “leakage”. I found that term offensive then, and I find it offensive now. It is shop theft. So I agree with him that there needs to be an effort made by the Government to tackle this issue.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the Home Office is working with police representatives through the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make it easier for retailers to report crime. The current Policing Minister and the previous Policing Minister are now both supporting a Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy launched by the chief constables and industry. We had a summer of action on shop theft, which involved visible policing on the streets and targeting hotspot areas.

This winter, the Home Secretary plans for police forces across England and Wales to partner with local businesses, local councils and police and crime commissioners to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season. There are plans to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground, from neighbourhood policing through to special constables and PCSOs. The measures in Clause 39, which we debated earlier, try to raise the level of importance of shop theft. As a Government, we recognise that we want to take action on that.

Where I disagree with the noble Lord is on some of these proposals. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who, again, has great experience of the retail world, I take the issue of shop theft extremely seriously. Probably like him, I am one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who have apprehended a shoplifter and reported them to the police, along with the manager of the shop, and I have been present at the shop theft interview as part of my duties. It was shop theft then and it is shop theft now, and it should not be tolerated, whatever the level of that shop theft.

On the measures the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, brings forward, such as Amendment 216A, which seeks to enable deterrent actions by shopkeepers through the use of video or photographic evidence, it is important that we have evidence such as that supplied by CCTV. Widespread introduction and publication, which is one of the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment, would meet the objectives of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. However, it would potentially impinge on the rights of individuals, who may or may not be guilty, and could well incite vigilante action and undermine the fundamental presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. I have no objection to CCTV, but the noble Lord needs to be careful with that, which is the reason why I cannot support the amendment.

Before I move on to the noble Lord’s other amendments, let me say that I appreciated his support for Operation Opal. Retailers are able to refer cases of organised retail crime to Operation Opal, and the national police acquisitive crime intelligence unit then investigates. It is unnecessary to specify that in the legislation because it is an operational issue, but again, it shows the importance we place on the issue of shop theft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, which strengthen and clarify key issues. Amendment 218 from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, would define how children are affected by child criminal exploitation. This should help police and reduce the chances of inconsistent decisions. It is necessary because, as seen with other crimes where the police or CPS have latitude to define such matters, it often works to the detriment of the child or young person.

Amendment 219 is equally helpful. It would make provision for the occasion when a child has committed something that may not be illegal, but which might lead them into future criminal behaviour. The way that child criminal exploitation works is often very similar to grooming. Without support and education, a child or young person may end up in trouble.

Amendment 222 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, clarifies that a perpetrator of child criminal exploitation does not have to believe that the child or young person was under 18. This makes sense as Clause 40 currently provides an easy get-out for perpetrators to say, “But I thought they were 18”. The Joe Dix Foundation welcomes this new stand-alone offence but has also called for a national register for all perpetrators who are convicted of child criminal exploitation. Can I ask the Minister whether this is something the Government might consider?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The group largely seeks to clarify the Bill as it stands and that is important when we are addressing child exploitation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the amendments tabled in his name. I know we may not always see eye to eye at the Dispatch Box, but I can wholly support the principle behind his amendments in this group.

It may seem like semantics to clarify that offences may differ in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an important point. We must ensure that the legislation allows crimes to be prosecuted only where they are crimes. His Amendments 217 and 220, and the many consequential amendments, aim to ensure that this is the case. Similarly, his Amendments 487 and 493 extend the devolutionary power to make regulations for the area of child criminal exploitation. It is right that this is consistent. Those who create the laws should have the legislative right to make provisions within their remit.

We also broadly support the principles behind the other amendments in this group, which aim to give more protections to children. Amendments 218 and 219, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek further to define what constitutes child criminal exploitation and extend the provisions to actions that may support criminal activity while not being criminal themselves.

Amendments 222 and 222A aim to narrow the scope of reasonable excuses that offenders can give when claiming to believe that the child was over the age of 18. The sentiment behind these amendments is a noble one. Whether the adult believed they were a child is largely inconsequential to the exploited child. Therefore, if the adult is not to be prosecuted, the court must be absolutely certain that they did not believe the child was under 18. That being said, I am slightly wary of completely disapplying reasonable excuse as a defence. It would take away the opportunity of defence in the very rare cases where the adult had a genuine and proven reason to believe the child was an adult. As I say, this is very rare, and it is still criminal exploitation, but we must still account for it.

Overall, this group is sensible, procedural and necessary; I therefore offer my support to the Minister’s intentions.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top for their amendments, and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for putting his name to them and for his supportive comments.

Before I lose the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about a national register, I will just say that the Police National Computer and the child criminal exploitation prevention orders can impose notification requirements on persons subject to orders requiring them to inform the local police of their name and address. I had that on my phone before I peered at my notes, and I did not want to lose that point.

I will start by welcoming Clause 40. It is a positive, forward-looking clause that will help support the reduction of child exploitation. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled, and I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the amendments I have tabled.

Amendment 218, tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would require that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to have been committed, the perpetrator had used

“threats, physical force, intimidation, persuasion or any other means”

against the child. In doing so, my noble friend seeks to illustrate the ways in which children can be criminally exploited. However, I put it to her that, in specifying the required means by which an adult gets a child to commit criminal conduct, the way in which the amendment is phased risks narrowing the application of the offence, because the prosecution would have to additionally prove those means of exploitation took place. Currently, the child criminal exploitation offence does not require proof that the child was subjected to threats, physical force, intimidation or any other harmful ways in which the child’s compliance was obtained by their exploiter. This is because, as a Government, we are very clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, so the offence could be committed regardless of whether and how the child was compelled to engage in the intended criminal activity.

Although my noble friend’s amendment includes the words “any other means”, which mitigates against any narrowing of the scope of the offence, I do not consider it necessary to include an illustrative, non-exhaustive list in this way. It would cause courts potentially to wonder about its purpose as a legal test and may have the unintended consequence of limiting the circumstances in which the child exploitation offence may be made out. I want my noble friend to think about that. I suggest to her that the prosecution wants to get the best case, and, by accepting her amendment, we might end up narrowing the potential success of legislating against this offence.

My noble friend also tabled Amendment 219, which would more specifically capture adults who intend to cause a child

“to engage in actions that support or facilitate”

crime. My noble friend indicated in her speech that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the offence of child exploitation also includes causing a child to commit an action which, while not itself illegal, can lead to future criminal behaviour. We have looked at this amendment in some detail, but I consider the objective is already met by subsection (1)(a)(iii) of the clause, which captures where the adult does something to the child now to facilitate or make it easier to cause the child to commit a criminal act in the future—the noble Baroness can find this on page 59 of the Bill as currently drafted. I hope she will look at that and reflect on it as part of these discussions, before any further discussion takes place on Report.

Furthermore, actions that support or facilitate crime may already amount to an offence, such as the offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Where an adult intentionally causes a child to commit an offence, the child criminal exploitation offence may be committed.

I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in support of his Amendment 222. This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, it must be proved that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim is aged 18 or over. My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned the issue of migrants—we are currently examining facial recognition issues in relation to migrants, and we had a discussion about that in the other Bill that I am taking through the House at this moment on immigration very recently. But she makes a very important point. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that all adults who target children to draw them into crime can be caught by this offence, but that is precisely why the reasonable belief test is important—to ensure that perpetrators who deliberately and intentionally target children to commit crime are correctly identified and prosecuted. If there was no requirement to prove a lack of reasonable belief that the alleged victim was a child, it would risk criminalising people as exploiters of children who genuinely did not intend or contemplate involving a minor in criminality.

We must remember that the child criminal exploitation offence requires no proof of harmful behaviours against the child, such as coercion, force or threats. This goes back to the first point that I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s first amendment. It is committed simply when an adult engages in any contact or conduct towards or in respect of a child intending to cause them to commit a crime. The exploitative nature of this offence is the imbalance of power, which is exercised by an adult in deliberately and purposely seeking to involve a child in crime. Where that is not a factor in a case, as demonstrated by what they believed about the child’s age, there are other more appropriate offences that might be charged. For example, where a person encourages or assists someone to commit an offence regardless of their age, there is already an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

Again, I welcome the discussion that we have had this evening, I welcome the contribution of Action for Children, and I welcome the discussion that we have had from the Children’s Commissioner for England, who called for this amendment due to concerns that perpetrators will seek to take advantage of considerations around the reasonable belief of age to undermine the credibility of victims and potentially escape prosecution. I welcome those contributions to the debate. I want to give them, with my colleagues in the Home Office, serious consideration. However, I make the point to the noble Lord that at the moment we do not consider reasonable belief of age to be a loophole, as is suggested—and in support of that I make a number of points.

First, there is a test of reasonable belief that does not necessarily require that the defendants have specific knowledge about the victim’s age, which would be a higher burden. Secondly, a perpetrator’s claim as to their belief alone will not be enough to escape prosecution, as prosecutors can and, I hope, would establish either that they did not believe the victim was 18 or, even if they did, that that belief was not reasonable. Thirdly, it only applies to children aged 13 to 17, not the most vulnerable children aged under 13. Finally, it follows established precedent in other offences, where the core offending relates to an adult’s conduct towards a child—for example, to child sexual exploitation offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on Amendment 222A—she is not here today. It is commendable that someone has looked at other amendments and decided not to move their own; it is a very un-egotistical way of approaching this business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I should start by declaring my interest in the register as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which probably these days should have changed its name to the Modern Slavery Foundation, because that is in fact what we are really dealing with. It was the late, great Lord Field of Birkenhead who first came up with the expression “modern slavery” and I think it is something we should have as a tribute to the late noble Lord, who was a fantastic Member of this and the other House.

I welcome the Government’s intention to address criminal exploitation through the child criminal exploitation offence and cuckooing offence and commend them for doing so; it is very important. However, the offences will not apply to the exploitation of vulnerable young adults over the age of 18 or with issues of cognitive impairment, as far as I can see. I am not a lawyer, as I explained in the last group; I have more skills on marking things down in a sale—and thank goodness we did not have Black Friday in my day.

This is a probing amendment. I believe—I have the figure here—that, in 2024, 774 young adults aged 18 to 24 were referred to the national referral mechanism for criminal exploitation, including alongside other forms of modern slavery, and that 65% of all victims referred were in that age group. As far as I can see, they are not covered and perhaps they should be. What I do not understand—I am very willing to be lectured and taught on this—is what happens if this criminal child exploitation has started for somebody at, say, the age of 15 and a half but does not come to light until they are 18 or 19, which could easily happen. Will they be treated in a different way? As I mentioned very briefly, there are obviously young adults who have cognitive impairment and who in effect—I am sure that this is not the correct expression—have the mental age of a child.

I fully support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones also put her name to my amendment. I fully support them and I think that this should go into the Modern Slavery Act, for all the reasons that have been given. I would, however, like some clarification on what can be done about those young adults and where the law we are creating is going to put them.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for introducing this group. These amendments speak to deeply serious issues concerning child criminal exploitation and the protection and coercion of vulnerable people who are manipulated into criminality. The stories behind these legislative questions are tragic and demand considered and compassionate policy-making.

Amendment 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would ensure that children criminally exploited under Clause 40 continue to be identified within the modern slavery framework. The intention behind this amendment is clearly to safeguard exploited young people who are groomed and coerced into offending, and we on these Benches recognise the importance of ensuring that systems designed to protect victims do not inadvertently overlook those most in need of support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to this amendment.

Police Reform

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Before I conclude, I stress that the decision we are announcing today is based on the shortcomings of the PCC model, not the PCCs themselves. PCCs have done and continue to do important work, and I will engage constructively with all of them until the end of their terms. I specifically thank the chairs of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners past and present for their endeavours: Nick Alston, the late Sir Tony Lloyd, Mark Burns-Williamson, Katy Bourne, Paddy Tipping, Marc Jones, Donna Jones and the current chair Emily Spurrell. We recognise that this is a significant change, especially for the policing and local government sectors, but it is necessary. As a Government, we have a responsibility to do what is right for our communities. If there are steps we can take to improve outcomes for law-abiding citizens, we must act, because in the end, whatever police reform measures we pursue, our primary motivation is, and will always be, to keep the public safe. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I remain confused as to the true purpose of this Statement. The Government announced a police reform White Paper last year, but this has not yet materialised. We now see the Government announcing the abolition of police and crime commissioners. Why have the Government made this particular announcement now, ahead of the publication of the full details of their plans for police reform? More importantly, why is the Home Office fiddling about with PCCs rather than taking real action to reduce crime?

Turning to the content of the Statement, there were two main arguments deployed to support the abolition of police and crime commissioners. The first is that the PCC model has led to the politicisation of the police. But the proposals in the Statement are for oversight of police forces to be moved to the directly elected strategic mayors or local councils. Directly elected mayors are party political, as are councillors. The Government’s solution to the problem of the politicisation of the police is to move control from one elected politician to another. That argument is completely nonsensical. There is no world in which this policy leads to a decreased politicisation of the police.

The other argument the Government have put forward is on accountability. The Minister said in her Statement to the other place that

“the PCC model has weakened local police accountability”,

but there is no evidence for that assertion, and nor did the Home Secretary explain how the Government’s new model would rectify that. We know that where there will not be an elected mayor, the functions of oversight will be undertaken by policing and crime boards. How will transferring the functions of PCCs to boards of councillors and bureaucrats increase accountability?

Further to that, the Minister said that

“we have seen the benefits of the mayoral model, including greater collaboration, visible leadership and local innovation”.

Yet here in London under Sadiq Khan, knife crime is up 86%, five police front counters are being closed altogether, and a 24/7 station front counter is being removed from every borough. The total crime rate has increased from 89.3 per 1,000 people when he took office to 106.4 per 1,000 people in 2024-25. I would hardly call that a success story.

The simple fact is that policing is not overly complicated to get right. It requires common sense, good leadership and practical training. We cannot pretend that everything is rosy, but embarking on some police reform crusade will simply distract us from the real task at hand. The Home Office needs to focus on boosting police numbers, keeping front counters open, stopping officers policing tweets, and cutting crime.

The British people feel that crime and disorder is certainly on the rise. Do the Government seriously think that these changes will have a material impact on the daily lives of the British people? I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, police and crime commissioners were an innovative idea, but experience has shown they have not delivered as intended. Instead, they have proved to be a costly and flawed experiment, so we welcome their abolition. However, I hope the Minister will be able to provide the House with rather more clarity on what will replace them. We do not believe that transferring PCC powers to mayors is the answer, as this would concentrate even more power in single individuals, with too little scrutiny or accountability.

The proposal for a police and crime lead, described as

“akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime”,

risks being a rebadged PCC. Unless the legislation is crystal clear, this role could again become a focal point for political leverage over chief constables. It must be made abundantly clear that chief constables retain full operational independence, and that these new leads and boards will not have hire-and-fire powers. If not, we risk repeating the mistakes of the PCC model, drawing policing further into politics rather than strengthening impartial policing by consent.

The Government say that these boards will not be a return to the invisible committees of the past, but this assurance needs substance. How will they work, and how will their work be accessible and visible to the public? The former Metropolitan Police Authority may offer some useful lessons. Having served on that body for seven years, I can attest that no one could describe it as invisible. Its meetings were in public and widely reported, and its scrutiny of senior police officers was robust. Will the Home Office carefully consider what worked in that model before finalising these new arrangements?

I was particularly disappointed to learn from the Minister’s Statement in the House of Commons that the £100 million that could be saved in this Parliament through the abolition of PCC elections will go to the Treasury rather than to front-line policing. An over- stretched police service will find that a very difficult pill to swallow. The Home Office says that reforms to police governance will save at least £20 million a year —enough to fund 320 extra police constables. Can the Minister give a clear undertaking that this money will definitely be spent on recruiting those 320 extra police officers? Saying that something can happen is very different from saying that it will happen.

Finally, rebuilding public trust in police goes far beyond governance. True accountability demands transparency. Will the Government require police forces to publish data on officers under investigation for sexual or domestic abuse, and will they now act to bring police record-keeping in England and Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, ending the discretionary destruction of police records, as recommended by the Hillsborough Independent Panel?