Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for bringing back her Amendment 398. We broadly supported the intention behind her amendment in Committee, and we echo that today. It is of course not acceptable that there has been no independent review of the quality of the more than £400 million spent annually on training for eight years, and the statistics on police officer experience and unsolved crimes bear witness to that fact.

I am grateful that, since our debate in Committee, the Government have brought forward a White Paper that covers many aspects of policing, including training. That is a welcome step, but perhaps the Minister could outline some more specifics on the form that this reform will take? I am conscious that the College of Policing is still working on precise proposals, but an update would be very much appreciated. It is a positive sign that the Government recognise this gap in our policing and seem to be acting on it. As such, while we support the noble Baroness’s intention, we believe that letting the Government carry out their work is a more practical next step.

As we noted in Committee, while we also support the noble Baroness’s intention in Amendment 399 to provide the best possible care to those with mental health problems, we cannot support this specific measure. The Government made it clear in the Mental Health Act last year that they want to reduce the role of police in mental health decisions. We broadly support that. It reflects the belief that health workers, not the police, are the right officials to deal with mental health issues. Any police training must not blur this clear distinction. That said, I understand that police officers are often the first responders to situations concerning mental health patients, so I acknowledge the complexity of the issue and would welcome the Minister underlining the Government’s position on this in his reply.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for these amendments, which bring us back to the important issue of police training.

Amendment 398 would require the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police training. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, the College of Policing is responsible for setting national training standards, including the police curriculum and accreditations for specialist roles. Our police reform White Paper set out our commitment to develop a licence to practise for policing. It will seek to create a unified system that brings together mandatory training with consistent professional development and well-being support.

As we work with the sector, we will examine the existing training landscape and look to the findings of the police leadership commission, led by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert. We will also consider how this model can build on the accreditations and licensing already delivered by the College of Policing in specialist operational areas.

As has been noted, both this evening and in Committee, the College of Policing is also developing a national strategic training panel, which will provide further sector-led insight into existing training. We would not want to pre-empt the outcomes of this work or create a burden of extensive reviews for the sector when much activity is under way through police reform. We therefore do not believe it necessary for the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police officer training and development, as proposed in Amendment 398. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, as these issues have been examined comprehensively through existing work. I can assure her that it is a key element of our police reform agenda. Having published the White Paper, we will obviously progress that at the appropriate time and produce further reforms that may be necessary, which there will be further opportunities for your Lordships’ House and the other place to debate at length, whether through a legislative vehicle or not.

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was rather dismissive of introducing the licence to practise. Officers deserve a clear and consistent structure to empower them to learn, train and develop as skilled professionals. Once implemented, a licence model will provide greater assurance that the police have the correct training and well-being support to do their jobs and that there are regular reviews to ensure that they meet national standards. We recognise that we will not be able to introduce a licensing model overnight, but we have set out the first steps for a licensing model, including mandatory leadership standards and a strong performance management framework.

Amendment 399 seeks to ensure that police officers have the training required to deal with people suffering through a mental health crisis. As I indicated, the setting of standards and the provision of mandatory and non-mandatory training material is a matter for the College of Policing. It provides core learning standards, which includes the initial training for officers under the Police Constable Entry Programme. This underpins initial learning levels around autism, learning disabilities, mental health, neurodiversity and other vulnerabilities. Through forces utilising this established training, officers are taught to assess vulnerability and amend their approaches as required to understand how best to communicate with those who are vulnerable for whatever reason, and to understand how to support people exhibiting these needs to comprehend these powers in law and continue to amass specialist knowledge to work with other relevant agencies to help individuals.

We consider it impractical to expect, or indeed require, police officers to become experts in the entire range of mental health and vulnerability conditions, including autism and learning disabilities. Instead, the College of Policing rightly seeks to equip them to make rational decisions in a wide range of circumstances, and to treat people fairly and with humanity at all times.

I have said this a number of times: all forces are operationally independent of government. To seek to impose requirements on mandatory training risks undermining that very principle. Furthermore, each force has unique situations—different pressures, priorities, demographics and needs. To mandate that a small rural force must undertake the same training as a large urban force will not give it the flexibility it needs to best serve its local communities. Furthermore, the College of Policing is best placed to draw on its expertise to determine the relevant standards and training that the police require.

The training already provided equips officers with the knowledge to recognise indicators of mental health and learning disabilities; to communicate with and support people exhibiting such indicators; to understand their police powers; and to develop specialist knowledge to work with other agencies to help individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, this is not about replacing real experts and mental health workers, in the NHS and other agencies, who are best placed to provide that specialist knowledge and expertise.

I hope that, on the basis of these comments and the work already under way, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think it matters who is responsible for training. What matters is that training is appropriate and that officers are trained.

I spent most of last year talking to chief constables in the whole of the UK. Their view was very different from what the Minister just said. Their view was that they do not get sufficient training, that training is piecemeal and that they have virtually no training in anything to do with mental health. I do not think they were just making that up; this was something that they genuinely believed. In fact, I am pretty certain about it.

Also, HMICFRS has reported time and again that training is inconsistent, the quality is weak, there are weak checks on force-run programmes, there is poor support for new officers and obvious risks in forces marking their own homework. These gaps demand independent scrutiny. That is not similar to what the Minister just said. Training is a vital ingredient for officers. We sit in this House and in the other place, and we make rules and regulations as to what should happen. But we do not make sure that the people on the ground facing these problems every day are equipped to deal with them. That is, frankly, a disgrace. The fact that there has been no independent check on police training since 2012 is almost beyond belief. However, it is late, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments raises two significant issues for modern policing: transparency in the use of algorithmic tools and the modernisation of police data and intelligence systems.

I turn first to Amendment 400, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We on these Benches recognise the intention behind the proposal. As policing increasingly makes use of complex digital tools, such as data analytics and algorithms, it is entirely right that questions of transparency and public confidence are taken seriously. However, as discussed in Committee, we should be mindful that policing operates in a sensitive operational environment. Any transparency framework must strike the right balance between openness on the one hand and the need to protect investigative capability and operational effectiveness on the other.

Amendment 401, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, addresses a different but equally important issue: the state of police data and intelligence systems. Few would dispute that technology within policing must keep pace with the demands of modern crime, and the challenge is not simply identifying the problem but determining the most effective mechanism to address it. Modernising policing technology is a complex and ongoing task that already involves national programmes, investment decisions and operational input from forces themselves.

For these reasons, while we recognise the important objectives behind these amendments, the question for noble Lords is whether the specific legislative approach proposed here is the most effective way of delivering them.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Cash seek to require the police to record the ethnicity and sex of a suspect. These are steps that these Benches wholly support. The importance of these measures can hardly be overstated. Recording ethnicity data has been recommended by experts of all professions, parties and associations. It is a requisite for enabling police to track and measure crime trends within certain communities and serves a secondary purpose of allaying or affirming arguments and claims about offending statistics, which currently are regrettably too often reduced to conjecture. Similarly, we support the recording of sex data as part of a larger drive to secure the rights of women by delineating sex from whatever gender identity an individual assigns themselves.

We are entirely supportive, therefore, of my noble friend Lady Cash’s amendments and are grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken in support of them tonight. I hope the Minister agrees that these are issues that should be above the political divide and that these amendments will improve operational efficiency. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate on a wide-ranging group of amendments.

I begin with Amendment 400, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I fully agree—indeed, we have cross-party consensus here—with the importance of transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by the police and acknowledge the current lack of a complete or consistent national picture of police use of AI, as has been highlighted by the noble Baroness. However, the algorithmic transparency recording standard, or ATRS, was designed for central government and arm’s-length body use and is simply not the most effective or proportionate mechanism for delivering meaningful transparency in an operational policing context.

As we announced in the policing reform White Paper, the Government are taking forward a national registry of police AI deployments. The registry will be operated by the new national centre for AI and policing, which will be launched later this spring. This police-specific registry approach will address directly the concerns raised in Committee, and again this evening, about patchy disclosure, public confidence and accountability, while respecting operational independence.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly noted the importance of having a flexible approach when it comes to operational policing. Locking policing into an inflexible statutory mechanism to disclose tools under the ATRS, even as an interim measure, would risk duplicative reporting, unclear disclosure expectations and putting additional administrative burdens on forces without improving public understanding or oversight.

The policing registry is an active programme of work designed specifically to close the transparency gap. It will adopt a tiered approach to transparency. All operational AI deployments will be recorded nationally, while a robust exemptions framework will protect genuinely sensitive capabilities from public disclosure, in a similar manner to how the Freedom of Information Act operates. This approach is designed to deliver clear narratives for the public, with named officers accountable for AI deployments in their force and strong compliance incentives. The Government fully expect police forces to utilise the registry and be transparent with the public about the algorithms they are using and the steps that have been taken to ensure they are being used responsibly. This is vital to building and maintaining public consent for the use of these powerful tools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward this group of amendments. Together, they address a theme that will be familiar to many across the House: the need to ensure that police officers are able to focus their time on policing rather than bureaucracy.

Amendment 409D concerns the publication of enforcement data for a number of offences that have become a source of considerable public concern, including shoplifting, offences involving blades, phone theft and fare evasion. We lend our strong support to the amendment. Greater transparency around enforcement activity can only help to strengthen public confidence and provide a clearer picture of how policing resources are being deployed.

Amendment 409E addresses the volume of paperwork that officers are required to complete. In Committee, it was rightly observed that administrative burdens can too often draw officers away from the front line. A review of the scale of those requirements and how they might be simplified would therefore be a sensible and constructive step.

Finally, Amendment 409F raises the question of data sharing and the efficiency of the systems that underpin case preparation and charging decisions. As many noble Lords will know, delays and inefficiencies in the exchange of information between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can slow down the progress of cases and place additional strain on already stretched resources.

There is a significant amount of work that goes into the redaction of police documents before they are sent to the CPS, often for the documents simply to be sent back because they are overredacted. Furthermore, many of the cases the police redact may not end up being prosecuted. It is clear that this is a significant waste of police time and money, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right: it would make more sense for the CPS to take charge of the redaction of documents that may enter the public domain, given that it would have a far smaller number of documents to trawl through.

Taken together, these amendments all speak to a wider objective: ensuring that the system surrounding policing work is as efficient as possible, allowing officers to focus on preventing crime, catching offenders and protecting the public. The police should be spending as much time on the front line as possible, rather than being encumbered by unnecessary paperwork. I hope that the Minister will give them careful consideration and, as always, I look forward to his response.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for returning to these issues, which were thoroughly debated in Committee, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this short but nevertheless important debate. I know that the noble Baroness takes a keen interest in improving how police handle data and utilise their resources effectively. We share that objective and appreciate her constructive contribution to that discussion.

On the noble Baroness’s Amendment 409D, as announced in our police reform White Paper, the Government will introduce a police performance dashboard this year, which will allow chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse transparent and operationally significant data. This will allow forces to understand where they are performing well and where they can improve. The Home Office and the Office for National Statistics already publish extensive data, of course, on police-recorded knife crime, shoplifting and theft, and the outcomes assigned to these crimes. The published outcome data provides detailed information on what happened after a crime was recorded by the police, such as where a result is a charge or summons, out-of-court disposal, et cetera. Essentially, it links crimes to their investigative and judicial results, giving insight into how offences progress through the criminal justice system. Additional data is available through police.uk, where members of the public can access monthly crime maps and stop and search statistics. Transport authorities such as Transport for London also publish enforcement data on fare evasion. This is to say that the dashboards are still in development but will build on what we already provide in the public domain.

I know from her contributions to the Bill that the noble Baroness has concerns about how police are enforcing the law particularly around offences involving cyclists and e-scooters. The Home Office has recently established the police performance framework, which provides a strong mechanism for monitoring enforcement activity across all police forces in England and Wales. This framework is flexible and is currently scheduled for review in 2027-28. Mandating which offences the police publish enforcement data on through a fixed list in statute, as her amendment envisions, does not offer the necessary flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted, as to how the performance framework operates. In addition, it risks duplicating the work already being undertaken that I have outlined.

Turning to Amendment 409E, the Government have already gained valuable insight into how police time is used, through the 2023 Police Activity Survey, to which the noble Baroness referred. Given the usefulness of the results, the Home Office ran the survey again this year, with fieldwork taking place just last week. We expect to have results in the next few months and will consider how to ensure that they can enable police productivity improvements. From this activity, we expect to gain a detailed profile of how police time is used, as well as insights into productive and non-productive uses of that time. We have sponsored the Centre for Police Productivity in the College of Policing and launched the police efficiency and collaboration programme in 2024 to improve productivity and efficiency across police forces.

Furthermore, our recently published White Paper presents an array of the most significant reforms to policing for nearly 200 years. It outlines our plans to modernise the entire workforce, establish a new performance system to drive improvements in forces, strip out duplication and inefficiency and deliver £354 million of efficiency savings through a police efficiency and collaboration programme. I know that the noble Baroness is keen on efficiency savings, so I hope she welcomes that announcement.

Finally, on Amendment 409F, we support the noble Baroness’s desire to free up officer time by removing administrative burdens such as unnecessary redaction and improve the efficiency of case file preparation and the charging process. A large part of the redaction burden is driven by current disclosure practice, so we have collaborated with criminal justice partners to pilot a more proportionate approach to disclosure. The pilot, running in the Crown Prosecution Service’s south-east region, aims to reduce the redaction burden by reducing the unnecessary sharing of unused material and refocus efforts on what meets the test for disclosure. This should make case preparation more efficient and enable more timely and effective charging decisions. We are also working with policing to support the adoption of AI-enabled redaction technology. The majority of forces now have AI-enabled text redaction tools, and we are supporting those forces to adopt audiovisual multimedia redaction technology in the most efficient way.

In conclusion, we support the aims of these amendments, but given the work in train, I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that they are not necessary at this stage. However, I will be very happy to meet her request to facilitate a meeting with the most appropriate Minister, so that we can take the discussion forward. In the meantime, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his courteous reply. The prospect of a meeting is most welcome: I will be able to clarify one or two outstanding points in relation to the material that he has kindly set out. I was glad to hear about the pilot on redaction in the south-east. I hope that, in due course, that will either solve this problem of redaction, which we and the Lib Dems agree is a big problem, or show that some sort of legislation needs to be brought forward. However, in view of the Minister’s response and the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, although the movement of abnormal loads may seem like a niche and marginal activity, my noble friend Lord Attlee, who recently retired from your Lordships’ House, laid out a compelling argument in Committee for why that is not the case. The heavy haulage industry is a vital component of our national infrastructure and construction sectors, yet the framework governing when police escorts are required and how much may be charged for them is inconsistent.

It is wonderful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has now taken up the mantle on this matter. He began his contribution by outlining his concerns about the use of heavy haulage by the heritage railway industry, an issue also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The issues are wider than that. In Committee, Earl Attlee spoke with considerable authority on this matter and set out the difficulties that parts of the industry have experienced. In particular, he highlighted the sharp increase in charges in certain areas and the absence of any national framework governing those fees. In some cases, police forces have charged for a full shift of officers, even where the escort itself may take a very short period of time. Industry representatives have raised understandable concerns that such practices can result in costs that far exceed the cost of the haulage operation itself.

The overwhelming majority of police forces apply the relevant legislation in good faith and without difficulty. The problem appears to arise in only a minority of forces, where the absence of national guidance has led to practices that the industry considers disproportionate. The result is uncertainty for hauliers, increased costs for major infrastructure projects and, ultimately, inefficiency within a system that should be operating smoothly.

Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that there is a clear national framework. It sets out when police escorts are truly necessary, as opposed to private self-escorts, and would establish a transparent schedule of fees. It also sensibly seeks to allow police forces to apply to the Secretary of State for flexibility in genuinely exceptional circumstances. Put simply, the amendment balances the need for consistency with the operational realities that police forces face. For those reasons, I am grateful both for the tireless campaigning of Earl Attlee and to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for continuing to push the Government on this matter.

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

My Lords, I join all the speakers in the debate on this small but important issue in praising the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who, after almost 34 years of service in this House, retired just a few days ago. It would be remiss of me not to join in paying tribute to him, his work and the tenacity with which he pursued this issue, including recruiting the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester to take up the cudgels on his behalf. He was a true champion of the heavy haulage industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, said, it is important that we focus on this not just because of the impact on the Heritage Railway Association—as dear as it is to many hearts in your Lordships’ House—but because of the importance it has to our economy, including all the construction and infrastructure that we wish to provide.

Earl Attlee took great pride in being the only Member of your Lordships’ House to hold an HGV licence. I hope that, in his absence, he is pleased to know that that knowledge gap has been bridged in some part by my newly introduced noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham. By virtue of being a firefighter, he holds—or at least held—an HGV licence for the purpose of driving fire engines. I think that Earl Attlee would have appreciated that.

Moving to the matters before us in the amendments, as noble Lords have explained, the amendment relates to setting criteria specifying when a police escort is required and charges levied by the police for escorting abnormal loads and would require the Secretary of State to establish a framework to regulate such fees. While I recognise that the aim of the amendment is to improve consistency and predictability for operators moving such loads, we do not believe that a new statutory framework is necessary.

Changes have already been made to support greater consistency. In May last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published new guidance outlining when police escorts should be provided for abnormal loads. This was developed in collaboration with policing, industry and national highways. The NPCC Abnormal Load Guidance 2025 is the national framework used by all UK police forces to determine whether an escort is required and, if so, whether that escort must be provided by the police or can be undertaken as a self-escort. Furthermore, a national framework setting out charges for escorting these loads already exists. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 contains a power for the police to recharge the cost of policing in specific circumstances. Fee levels are set out in the guidance on special police services by the NPCC, and this is updated annually.

Introducing a standardised regulatory framework—as I said in Committee, and I will repeat it here—undermines the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs. We cannot escape this fact. The operational demands placed on police forces by abnormal load movements can differ across the country and are influenced by a range of local factors, including geography, road infrastructure, traffic additions and the availability of police resources.

To be clear, the Government take this issue seriously. As we have heard, following a meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, my colleague, Policing Minister Jones, wrote to West Midlands Police to pass on her concerns. I am grateful for the commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner, of that correspondence. As a result, I understand that West Midlands Police is undertaking an independent, expert evaluation to assess the force’s compliance systems and processes against the NPCC guidance.

It is important to allow time for the recent guidance to have effect before considering further action. Furthermore, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, the NPCC has committed to formally review its abnormal loads guidance 12 months after publication; that is, in May of this year—a couple of months’ time.

I understand noble Lords’ concerns around the adherence of police forces to this guidance. Therefore, I can confirm that the Government will write to the NPCC following Royal Assent of the Bill to remind forces of the need to follow the guidance I have mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and, in the same spirit, my noble friend Lord Faulkner asked what weight could be given to the guidance issued by the NPCC and what actions might be pursued by West Midlands Police as a consequence. As I have already said, West Midlands Police is undertaking a review. This is NPCC guidance, which it is itself reviewing to make sure that it remains current and responsive to issues that emerge over time.

There is always a balance between having inflexible statutory guidance, inflexible statutory regulation and guidance that is operated locally. We are currently on the side of the latter. Within that, this is national guidance. Police forces will pay great attention to that. They will pay even greater attention to the idea that, to quote my noble friend Lord Faulkner, the Policing Minister is “on the case” with this. With respect, I think that is an appropriate level of intervention. The Government are aware that it is an important issue. We will always keep our eyes on it and make sure that we can have a level of scrutiny to ensure that police forces behave respectfully toward hauliers while maintaining their local operational independence.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. Will the letter that the Minister mentioned make the point that it is unacceptable in principle for police forces to seek to make a profit via the imposition of these fees?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I would need to go back and check on the correspondence for the noble Lord, but this is about making sure that this is covering costs, rather than anything else.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her absence, as well as to my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their support on the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, for the engagement that we had in recent days and for the meetings he had before that with my noble friend Lord Attlee. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this ought to be a no-brainer. We need consistency from police forces, and we have not seen that. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly added that it is important that industry and all the sectors affected see that, where charges are applied, it is merely to cover legitimate costs and not a useful revenue stream for police forces, as many suspect it has become.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and also addressing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am concerned that the noble Lords feel, “What’s the point?” That is one of the reasons we are where we are in this country, which is in a terrible place. What I am suggesting is a small amendment that would make it a bit more of a deterrent to these guys; to start making life more difficult for them; to extend these closure orders so that we are being a little more efficient about use of police time and our courts. We are hearing that we are going to lose our juries because of lack of court time. This is an example where, if we had longer periods of closure, it would allow our enforcement agencies to actually start doing something other than just the few attacks that Machinize has carried out so far. We need to find as many opportunities as possible within the criminal justice system to start taking this on. What message will it send to the public if we do not bother to do some of the easy bits to get this going?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will just say that was quite a long intervention, particularly for Report stage.

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

My Lords, I will answer very briefly, and perhaps on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as well, because I suspect that what we are saying is roughly the same. I am entirely with the noble Baroness on the question of juries, and on the question of needing to do something to reduce the kind of crime, particularly by organised criminal gangs, happening in our villages, towns and streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the need for more resources for policing. But the problem with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that there is no evidence that I can see, or that has been shown to us, that extending these periods would do anything significant to reduce crime.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

388A: After Clause 164, insert the following new Clause—
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require child cruelty offenders to notify specified matters to the police.(2) “Child cruelty offender” means a person who, in England and Wales—(a) is convicted of a child cruelty offence,(b) is found not guilty of a child cruelty offence by reason of insanity,(c) is found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against the person in respect of a child cruelty offence, or(d) is cautioned in respect of a child cruelty offence after the person has admitted the offence,on or after the day on which the regulations come into force.(3) A “child cruelty offence” means an offence listed in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences).(4) The regulations may in particular make provision—(a) about the period for which a child cruelty offender is subject to notification requirements (which may be an indefinite period);(b) about the occasions on which, or intervals at which, a child cruelty offender is required to give notifications;(c) about the time limits for giving a notification;(d) about how notifications are to be given to the police (which may include provision for notifications to be given to persons authorised by the police in accordance with the regulations);(e) requiring a child cruelty offender to allow photographs and fingerprints to be taken for the purposes of verifying the offender’s identity; (f) requiring or authorising a person with parental responsibility for a child cruelty offender to give notifications, where the offender is under 18;(g) for specified notification requirements to apply to a child cruelty offender only if the offender has been given notice by a police officer, in accordance with the regulations, that those requirements apply;(h) for reviews of whether a child cruelty offender should remain subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements;(i) for a child cruelty offender to cease to be subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements, following a review.(5) If the regulations make provision for a child cruelty offender to be subject to notification requirements for an indefinite period, they must make provision under which the child cruelty offender may cease to be subject to the notification requirements following a review.(6) The matters which may be specified in the regulations as matters which must be notified include, in particular, any matter a relevant offender is required to notify to the police by or under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as it has effect in England and Wales).(7) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and(b) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by the regulations;“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations imposing notification requirements on persons who commit child cruelty offences.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to move the government amendments in this group, which will establish the powers needed to introduce a clear and robust regime for managing those who have committed appalling child cruelty offences. Before turning to the detail, I pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of campaigners, including Tony and Paula Hudgell. Their tireless advocacy, grounded in personal tragedy and driven by a determination to protect other children from harm, has been instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront of public debate and legislative action. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Helen Grant MP, for their constructive engagement in helping us to deliver this important step forward.

We continue scrutiny of this Bill at a pivotal moment for the management of dangerous offenders. The police system underpinning the sex offenders register is transitioning from the legacy ViSOR database to the new multi-agency public protection arrangements, which will deliver modern, integrated risk-management capabilities. At the same time, as part of the Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, we are examining how best to strengthen community-based offender management across the system. In that context, and in recognition of the complexity of this area, we have taken the decision to provide for the framework of a new scheme in the Bill, while setting out the operational detail in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

The Government’s amendments therefore create the power to establish a set of familiar tools for police to apply in managing such offenders: notification requirements; clear rules about what must be notified, when and how; and the powers necessary for the police and partner agencies to assess and respond to risk consistently and proportionately. Important safeguards and parameters are built into the structure of these powers to ensure that the scheme adheres strictly to the framework approved by Parliament. The qualifying offences and thresholds in the new schedule introduced by Amendment 395A ensure that the regime is squarely focused on serious harm to children arising from their own caregivers, including offences such as child cruelty, causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm, and female genital mutilation. This is a coherent and tightly drawn list which will close the safeguarding gap identified by campaigners.

The regime provides for maximum penalties which are consistent with those faced by registered sex offenders and proportionate to the gravity of deliberately evading such monitoring. It ensures that any entry or search must be authorised by a justice of the peace and used solely for the purposes of risk assessment. Regulations establishing the scheme will be developed in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. We believe that this approach strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and the operational flexibility that is required to respond swiftly to the evolving landscape and potential changes to patterns of offending or evasion.

For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, not to press his Amendment 389 and to join the House in supporting the Government’s approach. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, concerning the creation of a child cruelty register. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of this proposal over the course of the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House and the other place.

I remind all noble Lords that the reforms before us today, as we have heard, are the result of determined campaigning over a long period. I place on record the sincere thanks of the Opposition Benches to Helen Grant MP and her constituent, Paula Hudgell, whose tireless advocacy has brought this issue to national attention. I am incredibly pleased that Parliament has responded to this campaign and I welcome very much the Government’s decision to accept our proposals and bring forward their own amendments to establish a notification regime for child cruelty offenders. I put on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for his engagement on this matter.

As noble Lords will appreciate, there remain differences of view about the precise scope of the register and the offences that should fall within it. From these Benches we have consistently argued that the register should cover a broader range of offences to ensure that the system captures a full spectrum of conduct that poses a continuing risk to children. While the Government’s proposals do not go as far as we might have wished in that regard, they nevertheless represent real progress and a clear acknowledgement that the existing gap in the law must be closed.

We welcome the Government’s willingness to move in this direction and hope that, as the policy is implemented, there will remain scope to review and strengthen the regime where necessary. I have one question for the Minister. Because it is vital that the register is established as soon as possible, can he give from the Dispatch Box an indication of possible timelines for when that might happen?

Once again, I thank Paula Hudgell and Helen Grant MP, who have performed a tremendous service in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament and the wider public. I hope that all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House will join me in recognising their efforts. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be moving Amendment 389 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the consensual approach taken by the Liberal Democrat and the Opposition Front Benches. I will answer the questions in the order that they were given.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the offences listed in proposed new subsection 6 to be inserted by the Opposition’s Amendment 389. The offences that are covered are listed in government Amendment 395A and largely overlap with those in the opposition amendment.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we will set up the register as soon as practicable when the new MAPPS system is up and running. I cannot commit to a more solid timeline than that, but I hope he will take the way that the Government have responded to the campaign and the amendments as a promissory note, shall I say, that we are taking this matter very seriously and will act with as much speed as we can practically muster. With that, I beg to move.

Amendment 388A agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

388B: After Clause 164, insert the following new Clause—
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: enforcement(1) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may provide for a person to commit an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they—(a) fail to comply with a specified notification requirement, or(b) in purported compliance with a specified notification requirement, notify information that they know to be false.(2) The maximum penalty specified for an offence must not exceed (but may be less than)—(a) on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term of the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term of 5 years or a fine (or both).(3) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may confer on a constable power to enter and search relevant premises.(4) The regulations must provide for the power to be exercisable only—(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace (which may authorise the use of reasonable force),(b) where it is necessary for a constable to enter and search the premises for the purpose of assessing the risks posed by a child cruelty offender who is subject to notification requirements, and(c) where a constable has sought, and been unable to obtain, entry to the premises for that purpose on at least two occasions.(5) Premises are “relevant premises” if there are reasonable grounds to believe (because of a notification given under the regulations or otherwise) that the child cruelty offender resides, or may regularly be found, at the premises.(6) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders);“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause allows regulations under my previous new clause to create offences, and to confer powers of entry on constables.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in R v ABJ and R v BDN has thrown the law of public protest into even greater confusion. That case relates to two protesters prosecuted under Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 for expressing public support for Hamas, a proscribed organisation. The appellants claimed that their charges under the Act represented a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court unanimously dismissed this appeal and, in doing so, ruled that the Section 12(1A) offence in the Terrorism Act does not represent a disproportionate interference with the convention rights.

I raise this ruling because it highlights the confusion around protest law ever since the Supreme Court delivered a different ruling in the case of DPP v Ziegler in 2021. We have discussed the implications of the Ziegler ruling in this House on a number of occasions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has again reminded us of the details in that case. There is a clear tension between the court’s ruling in Ziegler and its ruling last week.

The court has made it clear that the Ziegler logic does not apply to the Terrorism Act defence but has not yet rectified the damaging consequences of the Ziegler decision. The basis of the court’s reasoning in Ziegler was the lawful excuse defence in Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and I tabled amendments to remove the reasonable excuse defences from a number of Acts that are used to prosecute highly disruptive protesters, including the Highways Act and the Public Order Act 2023, and from this Bill.

When I spoke to those amendments, the Minister said that,

“the reasonable excuse defence is necessary in these instances to ensure an appropriate balance between protecting the wider community and the right to protest”.—[Official Report, 13/1/26; col. 1633.]

It is clear that the balance has not been made. I have not tabled those amendments to remove the reasonable excuse defences again, apart from Amendment 377B, which would remove the reasonable excuse defence from Section 137 of the Highways Act. I can think of no possible excuse for anyone purposefully to block the highway unless they are authorised to do so, such as the police or officers of National Highways. Removing that defence would render the issue in Ziegler null and void since that defence was the issue under consideration by the court.

However, I accept that the problem has now grown. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Ziegler case means there is now judicial precedent, and defence lawyers up and down the country have been lining up to utilise that argument so their clients can get off scot free. That is why I will be supporting Amendment 377 from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. While I would prefer to remove those defences entirely, it would be better that the clarity in the law provided by Amendment 377 was made. His amendment would apply more widely than mine and therefore, I am happy to admit, provides a more substantial solution to the problem.

I would like to pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in Committee:

“much of the criticism of Ziegler fails to recognise that the courts themselves have understood that Ziegler went too far, and that what Parliament has determined in relation to the law is the governing law”.—[Official Report, 13/1/26; col. 1623.]

I accept his interpretation that the courts by subsequent decisions have recognised the issue of Ziegler, but the decision in Ziegler still stands as case law. It has not yet been overturned. I think that serves as one of the strongest arguments for Parliament to pass Amendment 377 and rectify the error that the courts have themselves acknowledged.

If the European Convention on Human Rights prevents the application of the law as passed by Parliament or prevents the conviction of those who should be convicted, that demonstrates that we should leave the ECHR, but while we remain within the purview of the Strasbourg court and while the Human Rights Act remains on the statute book, the decision in Ziegler needs to be reversed. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, wishes to divide the House on Amendment 377, he will have our full support.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling these amendments which seek to narrow the existing lawful or reasonable excuse defences that may be used for public order offences.

It may be helpful to set out how a lawful excuse works in practice. A person is automatically treated as having a lawful excuse only under two specific circumstances. The first is if the defendant honestly believes that the person who is entitled to consent to the damage has given consent or would have consented if they knew of the circumstances—for example, an honest belief that the owner of a car in which a child was locked on a hot day consented, or would have consented, to the defendant smashing the window to get the child out. The second is if the defendant acts to protect their own or someone else’s property and they honestly believe both that the property needs immediate protection and that their actions are reasonable—for example, a person damages one person’s property while accessing the property of another to prevent a fire. It does not matter whether a person’s belief in those circumstances is reasonable or justified; it just needs to be honest.

Whatever the failings of, or, indeed, one’s views on, the Ziegler judgment, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in his sagacious contribution, case law has moved on and the Supreme Court has made subsequent rulings which chart a clearer path. It is the case that the right to private property will always need to be balanced with other convention rights, such as the right to protest and freedom of expression. This will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, but leading case law has set out the parameters, and the Court of Appeal did not say that the exercise of a person’s convention rights could never form the basis of lawful excuse for criminal damage.

While I acknowledge the concerns of noble Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to decide what may constitute lawful or reasonable excuse in individual cases. Further, the current scope of the defence allows the CPS the necessary flexibility to consider the full circumstances of each case on its merits. The types of behaviour that noble Lords have suggested, such as intimidating or harming members of the public or the risk of damaging property, are unlikely to be considered a reasonable excuse. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I am grateful to all those who took part in this debate. I think the issues have rather narrowed between those who have taken part in it. For the first time during the course of these debates on this issue, we had some drafting points from the noble Lord, Lord Marks. They have come late, but none the less I will deal with them.

The first point is that the noble Lord did not like my proposed provision that says that it is not an excuse if you intend

“to intimidate, provoke, inconvenience or otherwise harm members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity”.

That does not seem to be a very reasonable excuse to me, so it seems a very sensible thing to put in the amendment.

Secondly, the noble Lord did not like subsection (3), where it says that it is immaterial that there may be other purposes. If the defendant does not have a good excuse, it is no good saying, “My overall excuse, because I happen to support Just Stop Oil, is a good one”. You cannot rely on that.

In his final point, the noble Lord stuck to his argument that this was an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act 1998. I repeat the point that it is not that. Whatever the future may hold, we are still part of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the convention requires the balancing of rights, including that they have to be treated as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This provision reflects all those factors in a perfectly appropriate balance. Therefore, it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.

I come finally to this point. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, quite rightly said, pointing to a recent judgment of the President of the Supreme Court, that the courts are backing away from Ziegler. I am not surprised. It sits very uneasily with the jurisprudence in this area generally. The decision is almost moribund. But it is time to give it a decent burial. It is time to conclude that the law should be clear, that we can understand what it means and that the police can understand what it means, so that the whole business of putting forward spurious excuses will cease and we can have a proper and sensible law in relation to protest. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I do not accept that that is the same as 50 million innocent drivers being put on a database. However, I have given all the arguments and we have had this debate twice. The noble Lord is gesturing. I am sorry; what does that mean?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I was simply saying that, as the noble Baroness has already indicated that she is going to divide the House and given the hour, it would probably be quite useful just to go to that stage.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I think that is very unfair, because my speeches are probably shorter than those of anybody in this House. The noble Lord should not pick on me because he does not like what I am saying. I do not like being bullied.

I do not believe that what the Government are doing is right and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we have started the fourth day on Report with a wide-ranging and interesting debate on the general landscape of public order law. The noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Strasburger, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fox of Buckley, have argued that there are too many statutory limitations on protest in this country. I do not agree, and I suspect I will find myself in much agreement with the Minister on those amendments.

First, I will speak to my Amendments 377C and 377D. Amendment 377C would extend the notification period for public processions from six to 28 days. Currently, Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 requires any person organising a protest to notify the police of their proposal to hold it with six days’ notice. The purpose of this period is to ensure that the police can plan their resource requirements effectively. They need to examine the route, number of attendees and timing, gather intelligence on the groups and people involved and assess the likelihood of violence and disorder. If the procession is likely to be large or the cause highly contentious, or if those involved have a history of causing disorder, they may very well need to make contingencies and possibly bring in more officers.

The short period of six days causes significant problems for the police, the public and the organisers of the protest, and it may take the police a substantial amount of time to gather all the available evidence and set conditions so the organisers can often only be notified of those conditions the day before the protest is due to take place. This does not give them adequate time to ensure that they can comply with those conditions, nor does it allow the public and businesses adequate time to adapt.

Policy Exchange’s polling demonstrated that the medium level of notice that respondents believed protest organisers should have to give to the police is 28 days. In its survey, 51% said organisers should have to give at least three weeks’ notice while 45% said the period should be at least four weeks. The 28-day period is also incidentally the same notice period as exists in Northern Ireland, and while I appreciate the different historical and political context in Northern Ireland, it does not seem unreasonable to extend that to England and Wales—especially given the substantial time and effort that police must pour into planning for large-scale protests.

Amendment 377D concerns the criteria on which the police may prohibit a protest. Currently, Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 permits the police to prohibit protests if there is a likelihood that the protest will result in serious public disorder. However, that is the only criterion included in that section, meaning there is no ability for the police to prohibit a protest if there is a risk of serious disruption to the life of the community, nor does it allow the police to take into account their own resources and ability to maintain public safety when making their assessment. My amendment would extend the criteria for the prohibition of protest to include where the chief officer of police has a reasonable belief that the protest could result in “serious public disorder”, “serious damage to property”,

“serious disruption to the life of the community”

or that it would

“place undue demands on the police”.

Given the Government's commitment to reform of public order law, I would think they should be able to accept these two amendments. Before the Minister says they need to wait for the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, into public order and hate speech to report, I gently remind him that the Government were perfectly happy to pre-empt that review and legislate to extend the legislation aggravators based on characteristics last week. If they were happy to do so for that provision, I do not see why they cannot accept mine. However, if the Minister finds himself unable to do so, I am minded to press them to a Division when called.

I will also briefly comment on the other amendments in this group. Amendment 369, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and others, would create a new statutory right to protest. While the attention behind this is understandable, it is difficult to see what legal gap it is intended to fill. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has already explained, the right to protest is already protected through the common law and currently through Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated domestically through the Human Rights Act.

However, it is important to recognise that we do not derive our rights in Britain from international treaties or even from domestic statute. The right to protest was protected before Parliament passed the Human Rights Act in 1998 and before we joined the ECHR. It is a right derived from ancient English liberty and our common law inheritance, so placing it into the Crime and Policing Bill in 2026 will not change a thing. I dare say if we were to leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, we would still have our ancient freedom to protest intact.

What is more, creating a new declaratory clause risks adding greater complexity without adding meaningful protection. Indeed, by restating rights that are already well established, we may inadvertently create new areas of legal uncertainty rather than clarity for the police, local authorities and the courts, and for those reasons I cannot support that amendment.

A similar concern arises with Amendment 369A, which would introduce a reasonable excuse defence relating to concealing identity at a protest. Clause 133(2) already contains these defences. They include when a person is wearing a face covering for health reasons, religious observance or a purpose relating to their work, and that is a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic list of exceptions.

Amendments 372A and 372AA seek to narrow the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on protests in the vicinity of places of worship. In doing so, they replace the current test by which a protest may intimidate with a requirement to demonstrate a specific purpose to intimidate. That is a significantly higher threshold. The difficulty is obvious. In practice, intimidation often arises from the circumstances and impact of a protest rather than from an explicitly stated intention. Requiring the police to prove purpose before acting risks tying their hands precisely when communities may feel most vulnerable.

On Amendment 373, as I stated in Committee, we on these Benches are supportive of the introduction of police powers to take into consideration cumulative disruption when placing conditions on protests and assemblies. I do not therefore agree with removing Clause 140. After all, the previous Government tried to introduce this in 2023 and it was the Liberal Democrats and Labour who voted it down in this House at the time, so it is good to see the Labour Party finally has come round to the Conservatives’ way of thinking.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Marks, Lord Strasburger and Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for affording us this further opportunity to debate the right to protest and public order measures in the Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate.

The Government fully recognise the importance of peaceful protest in a democratic society. However, Amendment 369, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would place in statute a right that is already clearly protected in domestic law—and it is not only me saying that, as we have heard from the formidable legal troika of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. As they said, public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act to uphold Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights which cover freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. These rights are qualified and may only be limited when restrictions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Common law also provides strong recognition of peaceful protest. Introducing an additional statutory provision risks creating overlap and uncertainty, particularly for operational policing, without offering any meaningful new protections.

In their contributions, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the risks of, shall we say, a more extreme Government and this paving the way for further restrictions on the right to protest. I can only agree with comments made by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Faulks: I hope the occasion never arises, but that is democracy, and any incoming Government that have that kind of mandate would not find it hard to overturn not only provisions that the Government are making in this Bill but the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, proposes, should it make its way on to the statute book. I am therefore not sure that argument really washes.

The Government remain firmly committed to safeguarding the right to protest. That is one reason why we have asked the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, to review the current legislative framework. One of the matters being explored as part of the review is—to quote its terms of reference—whether the current legislation

“strikes a fair balance between freedom of expression and the right to protest with the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe”.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is expected to report later in the spring. I assure noble Lords that we will consider very carefully all his recommendations, including any proposing a strengthening of the right to protest.

Amendment 369A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, would provide a reasonable excuse defence for concealing a person’s identity at a protest in a designated area and shift the burden of proof away from individuals within that designated area on to police. Instead of requiring a person to justify why they had a valid reason for wearing an item to conceal their identity, as set out in the specified defences, it would place the responsibility on the police to assess, during a live protest, whether the explanation provided was reasonable or not. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that is not necessarily always an easy thing to do.

Clause 133 currently provides three statutory defences for concealing identity at a protest within a designated area: relating to the health of the person or others; religious observance; or for a purpose relating to that person’s work. The offence carries a reverse burden of proof, meaning it is for the individual to prove they concealed their identity for one of these reasons. I consider this a proportionate and carefully balanced offence.

It is important to highlight that any decision to designate an area and arrest a person concealing their identity must take into account Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, meaning that all decisions must be necessary and proportionate in relation to the right to peaceful protest. It is important to bear in mind that a locality will be designated only when it is thought that a protest activity is likely to involve or has involved criminality, so it is expedient to do so in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

So is the Minister saying to the protestor at the Iranian embassy that he or she has only two choices: not to protest, or to protest not wearing a face mask and thereby run the risk that their relatives in Iran may be killed or tortured?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

In that example, I revert to what I said about the locality being designated only if the police suspect that criminality is likely to occur or has occurred on previous occasions. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that a largely peaceful protest outside an embassy and at an appropriate distance would not fall into that category of protest.

As I was going to say, clear operational guidance from the NPCC—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It might well be that that protester is just on a general demonstration. If you are an Iranian or Chinese dissident, you might be on a civil rights demonstration, arguing for the right to protest. That would equally be the target of the ire of your authoritarian, anti-protest, anti-civil liberty regime. Can the Minister explain how this cannot possibly chill their right to go on a protest? It is not just the transnational example—other examples were given. Some people will not go on protests because they will be frightened of the consequences.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

On this having a chilling effect, the new offence will cover only people in the locality who are

“wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their identity”.

As I said, the police will use this power only if they can say there is going to be criminality on a particular protest, such as a march. That is not a power they are going to be using lightly.

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

I am sorry to keep pestering the Minister, but the difficulty is that there is absolutely no reason why the criminality has to be connected with the attitudes of those Iranians who are frightened. The criminality simply has to be connected with the protest as a whole. It may be entirely separate from the views, attitudes or desires of the Iranians who, in the example of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are likely to be deterred from attending a protest.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the noble Lord. What I am saying is that the police designation of a locality where this offence would apply would be made only in cases where they thought that criminality and an offence would occur. It is not related to the fact that, in this case, there are Iranians protesting. I reflect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who, to paraphrase, said that the reasonable defences we list in the clause are common-sense and easily explicable.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

May I test the patience of the Minister? I am very grateful to him. The defence he is offering—that this applies only if there is criminality—does not explain why Clause 133 recognises the defences of health, religious observance or a person’s work. If the Government recognise those defences, even though they are in the context of criminality, surely the clause should also cover the type of example I have given.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord can never test my patience too far. I simply say that, in terms of the police’s operational use, there are three clear, easy-to-understand, easy-to-interpret defences one could use in this situation. Fear of dissident reprisal does not necessarily fit into that category so easily. Notwithstanding his inability to test my patience, I am going to make some progress, as we have more to discuss.

Under Amendments 372A, 372B and 372C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, Clause 139 would apply only where a protest is directed at or connected with the place of worship, before conditions could be imposed. Additionally, Amendments 372ZA, 372AA, 372AB, 372BA, 372BB and 372D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would raise the threshold for police intervention by requiring proof that a protest has the explicit purpose of intimidating individuals accessing a place of worship and that it would, in fact, intimidate them. The amendments also propose limiting police powers to protests occurring

“within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”

of a place of worship.

As seen with recent demonstrations, protests can have an unintended impact on the lives of a community and those seeking to exercise their freedom of religion without intimidation or fear. I want to be clear that Clause 139 seeks to address a clear legislative gap arising from such protests. Police currently have powers to intervene where there is a serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation. However, we have already heard consistently from both the police and religious communities that these thresholds are too high to protect worshippers who feel too intimidated to attend their place of worship, even though the protesters do not intend to have such an effect. Requiring officers to demonstrate both the purpose and effect of intimidation would restrict their ability to act at an earlier stage, reducing operational flexibility.

Clause 139 responds directly to that problem. It does not ban protests; it simply gives the police the ability to impose proportionate conditions where a procession, assembly or one-person protest may create an intimidating atmosphere in the vicinity of a place of worship. This will protect the freedom to worship without undermining the fundamental right to protest. Both rights are essential, and the clause is carefully designed to balance them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, herself said, the duty to protect minority communities and their right to go about their lives—whether it is their freedom of worship or any other aspect—is indeed paramount. The clause seeks to do that.

The noble Baroness’s proposal to introduce a rigid 50-metre boundary would further constrain the police, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The noble Baroness calls the proposal in the Bill vague, but I put it to her that the rigidity of a 50-metre boundary goes too far. For example, let us consider the practical example of the proximity of St Margaret’s Church to both this House and Parliament Square. Having this rule in place, notwithstanding any particular provisions on protests in Parliament Square, would make that sort of protest impossible. To use one of the examples promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, any protest outside churches or cathedrals would presumably also be limited in that way.

Activity occurring outside that distance may still create an environment that discourages worshippers from entry, yet the police would be unable to impose conditions unless the protest moved closer. This would undermine the clause’s purpose of enabling proportionate intervention where there is a risk of an intimidatory atmosphere near a place of worship. As noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, that includes the comings and goings—going to and from a place of worship, as well as actually being within the building.

I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, who, I am afraid, is not in his place, for meeting me and members of Jewish community organisations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, CST and the Jewish Leadership Council, to discuss the clause. As I reiterated at that meeting, I want to make it clear that the Government will write to police forces and local authorities following Royal Assent to remind them of their existing powers to protect community centres, schools and places of worship. This will ensure that all agencies are fully aware of the tools they already have to respond to intimidatory behaviour in these settings.

Amendment 373, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to remove the cumulative disruption clause from the Bill. I have been clear that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right in this country. However, it should be balanced with the need for individuals and communities to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. Over the past few years, we have seen the impact of protests on the lives of communities and, of course, the tragic antisemitic terror incident that took place at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation’s synagogue on 2 October, which led to the unfortunate murders of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz. Protests subsequently continued, which highlighted concerns around the protection of specific communities, including Jewish communities, which are affected by the cumulative impact of protests.

There are other examples where communities face serious disruption from protests taking place in the same area week after week. On this, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. On the streets of London over the past couple of years, we have seen protests almost weekly. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is right that the cumulative impact has the effect of forcing home a particular message that those protesters want to make. However, that should not come at the price of other citizens not being allowed to enjoy their regular rights.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

I remind my noble friend that in Committee a number of us raised the statement that was issued by a whole range of civic society organisations, whose members often live in the communities in which they carry out protests. He will recall in particular that the TUC supported that civic society statement.

I speak as one of the perhaps few people in this House who has had responsibility for organising mass national demonstrations in central London. Can my noble friend reassure those organisations that this is not, as they fear, in effect, a quota on national demonstrations in London? Can he also give some guidance to the police on how they pick and choose between those different organisations if there is to be a quota?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that and for all the work that she has done in organising those national protests, at least one or two of which I am sure that I have attended.

It is absolutely not a quota. It is simply to say that if you are regularly marching in areas side by side with other communities, that repeated activity should not impede their ability, for example, to come and go to a synagogue. It cannot be right, as I know is the case, that synagogues should have to alter their regular service times on a Saturday morning to allow for protests. There must be a way that police can accommodate the needs of the protesters and of those worshippers. I want to be clear: this is not about imposing a quota on protests. The provision does not allow police to ban a protest but places a duty on senior officers to consider cumulative disruption when deciding whether the serious disruption to the life of the community threshold in Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is met.

Amendment 377C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to extend the notice period required for planned processions from six days to 28 days. As I explained in Committee, six days provides the police with adequate time to work with organisers who are planning protests to ensure that any conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. The noble Lord’s Amendment 377D seeks to amend Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 to enable a chief officer of police to consider

“serious damage to property, or … serious disruption to the life of the community”

and the demands on police resources when determining whether to apply for an order prohibiting public processions.

Section 13 of the 1986 Act rightly sets out a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. Widening the scope of this power, including to take account of police resources, would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest under Articles 10 and 11 and the legislation becoming incompatible with the ECHR. The noble compared this with the measure we discussed last week around aggravated offences. The latter was a clear manifesto commitment announced before the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven.

I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords who have spoken in this group. They have raised some very legitimate issues about whether existing public order legislation and the measures in Part 9 of the Bill strike the right balance between protecting the right to protest, protecting communities and preventing disorder. As I have said, there is an ongoing review examining just this issue, and I put it to the noble Lord that we should wait for the outcome of that review. Accordingly, this is not the occasion to press any of the amendments to a vote today. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw his amendment.

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

My Lords, I will be very brief in explaining why I do not propose to withdraw my amendment. First, our amendment would introduce a dynamic right, with a duty on local authorities and public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest. Secondly, of course the margin of appreciation is indeed an international concept, but this Government are planning to legislate on the application of Article 8, and they may be right to do so, but we need to have proper concern about future legislation within the context of the margin of appreciation.

Thirdly, I am not suggesting for a moment that we can entrench legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right to say that Parliament cannot bind its successors. However, we can, by legislation, make it unattractive to reverse a public duty to support the right to protest. Finally, nothing I have said undermines the balancing of rights between the right to protest and the rights and freedoms of others; but the right to protest is at the heart of our democracy. If the Conservatives are not going to support us on this, so be it: that is very disappointing, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Parkinson for tabling these amendments that seek to ensure that our memorials of national and historic importance are afforded the respect and protection they deserve under the new offence created in Clause 137. As was noted in Committee, the offence of climbing on specified memorials was introduced to address gaps revealed by recent protests around war memorials, such as the Royal Artillery Memorial and, indeed, around the statue of our great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill just outside this place. It was first introduced as part of the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, and it is welcome that this Government have taken up the mantle.

Under the current drafting, however, only grade 1 listed memorials are specified, together with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, but the list does not capture other memorials of equal national significance. As my noble friend has argued so eloquently, using grade 1 listed memorials does not serve a real practical purpose. It is much more about administrative ease. Why does Sledmere get two specified memorials but the Women of World War II Memorial gets no such protection? Amendment 370 would broaden the definition of “specified memorial” to include any war memorial that has been listed or scheduled, not just those that happen to be grade 1 listed.

That approach aligns with the fact that the significance of a memorial is not solely a function of its listing grade but of the history it commemorates and its role in national remembrance. Expanding the scope in this way provides a more objective and inclusive basis for protection and avoids arbitrary outcomes based on historic listing decisions.

Amendment 372 complements Amendment 370 by adding two memorials of particular national importance: the monument to the women of the Second World War in Whitehall, which honours the immense contributions of millions of women during that conflict, and the Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park, which stands as a poignant reminder of the horrors of genocide. Including those memorials recognises the breadth of sacrifice in the diverse stories that make up our collective history. I hope the Government will concede to this. If they do and my noble friend is content, so will I be.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke in this short but important debate, particularly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who spoke very movingly about the power of memorials in every community and the hurt that communities feel when they are damaged or disrespected. Amendments 370, 372ZZA and 372ZZB, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seek to expand the list of war and other memorials covered by the new offence of climbing on a memorial provided for in Clause 137. I am grateful to him for taking the time to meet with me and officials last week on this issue and for his thoughtful consideration of how best to achieve the Government’s aim, which I think is shared across the House.

As regards Amendment 370, I fully acknowledge that many of the listed and scheduled memorials covered in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 commemorate events and individuals of great national importance. The Bill intentionally sets out a clear and fixed list of memorials which provides certainty for the public, policing and the courts. By contrast, Amendment 370 would link the offence to memorials listed or scheduled under two separate heritage Acts. Those Acts encompass a far wider range of structures than the focused list in this measure and can change over time. Therefore, this would introduce an uncertainty about which memorials were captured at any given point, undermining the clarity and consistency that the measure is intended to achieve. For this reason, I cannot support the amendment.

The noble Lord, and perhaps the House, will be pleased to hear that I am much more disposed towards his Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB, which seek to add the monument to the women of World War II and the Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park to Schedule 14. Our aim is to ensure that memorials that have been deemed at threat in the course of a protest are covered by the offence. As the noble Lord has explained, these two memorials have been targeted in recent years. They are both culturally significant, and I agree with him that we need to protect them under this new offence. I am therefore happy to confirm that the Government support these two amendments.

The Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park is of course designed to be enjoyed as a garden and people are free to walk within it. I have given consideration to the practical issue of whether the police will be able to enforce this offence. The intention of the offence is to capture the action of climbing and I am confident it will not capture walking on an installation such as the Holocaust memorial garden. There are other memorials listed in Schedule 14 which have steps that may be sat on by members of the public, such as the Royal Artillery memorial in Hyde Park. I am content that, in enforcing this offence, police officers will use their discretion to consider whether an offence is committed.

As I have previously stated, the provision includes a power for the Home Secretary to add further memorials by secondary legislation. This might include the statue of Florence Nightingale in Waterloo Place, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. This Government will be able to add to the list of protected memorials should a site be identified that requires inclusion. I remain of the view, however, that not every memorial or every war memorial can be included. To do so would make the measure unenforceable due to the number of memorials and many, by their nature—for example, commemorative plaques—cannot be climbed on. That said, I accept we need a clear process for deciding whether to add further memorials to Schedule 14.

We will commit to setting out the process through which the Government will add to the specified list of memorials through secondary legislation. We will ensure a methodical and structured approach to consider which memorials have a significant public interest in being included. We will set out the process shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As the Home Secretary has already indicated, this will include the national Holocaust memorial when it has finally been built. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and that the combination of the addition of the two memorials specified in his Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB and the process I have outlined for considering the case for adding further memorials will persuade him to withdraw Amendment 370.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and I thank him again for the time that he and his officials gave me last week to discuss this in detail. I am grateful too to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for their support. As the right reverend Prelate said, these memorials stand very often on hallowed ground, but they are cherished and sacred to people of all faiths and none and inspire new generations to learn about the sacrifices of the past.

I continue to think that the solution in Amendment 370 is the more logical one, but I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said in support of my other two Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB, which gives an indication that the Home Secretary is willing to use the powers in Clause 137 where needed to make sure that these protections can be afforded to statues that are targeted by protesters and criminals. I will not press my Amendment 370. I look forward to seeing the two additions to the list and the vigilance of the Home Office and police in the years to come to see where others may need to be added, alas, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

371: After Clause 137, insert the following new Clause—
“Protests outside public office-holder’s home(1) A person (“P”) commits an offence if—(a) P (alone or with other persons) carries on a protest outside, or in the vicinity of, premises that are used by a public office-holder as a dwelling,(b) P carries on the protest for the purpose of representing to, or persuading, the public office-holder that they—(i) should or should not do something, or(ii) should or should not have done something, and(c) P carries on the protest because of, or in connection with, the public officer-holder being a public officer-holder.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises that are an official residence.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that they did not know the premises were used by the public office-holder as a dwelling.(4) A person is to be taken to have shown the matter referred to in subsection (3) if—(a) sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (or both).(6) In subsection (5) “the maximum term for summary offences” means—(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.(7) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section.(8) “Public office-holder” means—(a) a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975);(b) any of the Welsh Ministers;(c) any of the Deputy Welsh Ministers (within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 2006);(d) the Counsel General to the Welsh Government;(e) a member of the House of Lords;(f) a member of the House of Commons;(g) a member of Senedd Cymru;(h) a member of a local authority;(i) an elected mayor of a local authority within the meaning given by section 9H (elected mayors: England) or section 39(4) (elected mayors: Wales) of the Local Government Act 2000;(j) a mayor for the area of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;(k) a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;(l) the Mayor of London or an elected member of the London Assembly;(m) a police and crime commissioner;(n) a candidate at an election for an office mentioned in any of paragraphs (f) to (m).(9) “Local authority” means—(a) in England—(i) a county council;(ii) a district council;(iii) a London borough council;(iv) a parish council;(v) the Common Council of the City of London;(vi) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(b) in Wales—(i) a county council;(ii) a county borough council;(iii) a community council.(10) “Dwelling” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Public Order Act 1986.(11) “Official residence” means—(a) 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street, London;(b) Admiralty House, Whitehall, London;(c) 1 Carlton Gardens, London;(d) the Palace of Westminster, London;(e) Chequers, Missenden Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire;(f) Dorneywood, Dorneywood Road, Burnham, Buckinghamshire;(g) Chevening House, Chevening, Sevenoaks, Kent.”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence relating to protests outside the homes of public office-holders.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to achieve a similar aim to an earlier amendment tabled in Committee, which the Government withdrew following concerns raised by the Benches opposite. In bringing back these amendments, I hope the revised drafting directly addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords who felt that the initial offence was drawn too widely.

Amendment 371 explicitly requires a protest to be taking place outside a public officeholder’s home for it to be an offence, rather than the broader activity reflected in the Committee amendment. Importantly, a person must be carrying out the protest because of, or in connection with, the public officeholder’s role. Amendment 376 further amends Sections 42 and 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which confer powers to direct protests away from a person’s home, so as to remove the requirement that protest activity must be linked to a specific future action. As I said in Committee, this change ensures that harassing or intimidatory protests outside the homes of individuals are captured, regardless of whether they relate to past or future conduct.

I recognise the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, about whether additional legislation is truly necessary to protect the homes of public officeholders. The Government’s view is that there is an unequivocal need. We are not just talking about providing a feeling of safety to elected representatives; we are talking about the safety of their families too. This principle is foundational to the resilience of the public officeholder and thus to democracy itself. Under the Defending Democracy policing protocol, drafted and agreed by the former Minister for Security and the then Prime Minister, the previous Government set out a clear expectation that any protest outside the homes of elected representatives should be treated as harassment. That intent of the previous Government is what this amendment now achieves.

The role of elected representatives is the backbone of our democracy. Yet the Minister for Security has heard first-hand from colleagues who have tempered what they say or even how they vote because of intimidating behaviour targeted at their homes and their families. We know too that some, particularly women or those from minority backgrounds, are choosing not to stand for office because of the abuse they fear they will face. That is not democracy thriving; that is democracy shrinking. This legislation will give public officeholders and their families an additional layer of protection. It will help ensure that they can carry out their duties without fearing what awaits them at their front door and it will allow their partners, their children and their loved ones to feel safe where safety should be most assured: in their home.

Let me be absolutely clear: protest is a fundamental democratic right, and this Government defend it vigorously. There are proper, powerful places for protest: outside constituency offices, outside Parliament, at town halls, at political events, at rallies. But the home is different. It is where family life happens, where our children sleep, where our partners work, where people retreat from public life. It must not become an area for intimidation or a no-go zone. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, protests outside officeholders’ homes are in a special category. These amendments are plainly directed at harassing or intimidatory behaviour towards public officeholders, and they affect the families as well, so we are happy to accept these two amendments.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in Committee I raised some strong objections to the amendment that the Government were proposing then. We were concerned that the proposals could inadvertently criminalise canvassing and leafleting an officeholder from a rival political party. We were also concerned about the proposed second aspect of the offence, which could criminalise making representations about a matter relating to the officeholder’s private capacity.

I still have reservations about the principle behind Amendment 371. I do not accept the Government’s argument that all protests outside a public officeholder’s dwelling constitute harassment. That is the stated view of the Government, but I think it is demonstrably false. If a protest outside a public officeholder’s home becomes actual harassment within the meaning of the law then that should be prosecuted as such, and if the protest breaches the peace or becomes highly disruptive then there are already laws to deal with that, but simply saying that any person who wishes to make representations to a politician about their actions or policies outside their house is harassment and therefore unlawful seems a disproportionate infringement of liberty.

Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for taking our comments on board. The amendment that the Government have tabled on Report is much improved and far more tightly drafted, and I welcome that. Could the Minister confirm that the definition of a protest in the amendment will not include canvassing and leafleting or asking someone to sign a petition? I think we would all benefit from that being on the record. Given that the Government have listened to our concerns, while we are not completely content, we will not oppose this amendment.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I particularly thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because I feel that at this Dispatch Box I do not always meet the high bar that she sets for defending the Government’s position, so it is always good to win her praise.

To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the Government are committed to defending democracy. I therefore assure him that Amendment 371 does not restrict political campaigning. It is perfectly legitimate for campaigners during election time to door-knock and speak to their local public officeholders about different political opinion. Where this crosses the line is when these people choose to protest against the public officeholder at their home.

These government amendments are vital to protecting our democracy. As my honourable friend the Security Minister has made clear, harassment and intimidation must never be accepted as part of a public officeholder’s role. This cannot become the new normal, and the scale of the problem cannot be overstated. It is not simply MPs, either. The Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate survey in 2025 found that seven in 10 councillors had experienced abuse or intimidation in the previous year. The Speaker’s Conference reported that an astonishing 96% of MPs who responded to their survey had suffered at least one form of abuse, intimidation or harassment. This demonstrates that it is a real problem. Harassment is not simply confined to online spaces; it is very active in the real world too. We must therefore put protections in place not only to keep public office holders safe but to ensure that they feel safe, and that their families are protected. With that, I beg to move.

Amendment 371 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 373 not moved.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this seems to be a convenient time to break for dinner break business. We will therefore not return to the Bill before 8.38 pm.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing back his amendment on Report. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain our support for his measures, and I thank him for continuing his campaign.

I understand that the Minister refrained from supporting the amendment in Committee for fear of unnecessary duplication of legislation. I gently urge him that this provides an opportunity for the opposite. It is common practice across Governments to use new legislation to amalgamate old pieces of legislation into a single draft. This seems the perfect time to do so with digital identity theft.

There is an array of Acts that creates a puzzle from which a digital identity theft offence appears, but it is somewhat distorted, if not fragmented. At least five Acts cover areas of digital identity theft; a wide purview is by no means a bad thing, but they were all designed for a different age. Just reading out the years of our primary Acts demonstrates this: 1968, 1990, 2006 and 2010. Even the Data Protection Act 2018, the most recent application, is for an era without AI.

It is not worth repeating the statistics that we have heard throughout the course of the Bill. A simple fact will suffice: 60% of all fraud cases are identity fraud, and the recent increase has been driven by the internet and artificial intelligence. The Government talk about being ahead of the curve on AI safety and online regulation. That is commendable, but to claim one thing and then refuse to act on it is not. I hope the Minister can at least acknowledge the scale of digital identity theft and its growing prevalence. If he cannot support it now, I hope that he will commit to look into it in the future.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for returning to this important matter. As I set out previously, although digital identity theft is not a stand-alone offence, the behaviour the noble Lord highlights is already captured by existing legislation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, predicted some of the response that I would give; it has not changed hugely since Committee. This includes the misuse of personal sensitive identifiable information. The Fraud Act 2006 criminalises the use of another person’s identity with the intention to gain or to cause loss. Unauthorised access to personal data, including biometric information, is covered under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

I fully recognise the concerns raised, which is why the Government are already taking clear action. The new Report Fraud service has replaced Action Fraud, giving victims improved reporting tools and providing police with stronger intelligence and better support pathways. A full review of police skills has been completed and its recommendations will be reflected in the upcoming fraud strategy, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be pleased to know will be published imminently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am actually very pro-digital ID, as long as it is not mandatory, but one of the things to improve take-up is the fear that people will have fraud committed against them. This amendment introduces an offence not necessarily to reduce the likelihood of that, but to provide potential weapons that can be used against criminal forces. That is why I am so keen on this amendment.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

While I understand the point the noble Baroness is making, I do not want to presage the content of the fraud strategy, which will be upon us really quite soon, or indeed what is in the legislation that will introduce national digital ID. I absolutely take the point that some people want to encourage digital ID because it gives security of identity in a digital form for deployment in a number of different areas, whether claiming a benefit, voting or whatever use it may offer—I will stop there because my expertise on digital ID does not extend much further. All I will say is that, given the comments I have already made about the Fisher review and the forthcoming fraud strategy, which will address emerging fraud risks, including identity theft, I hope that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and very much appreciate what she had to say. In particular, I thought the phrase “precious digital identity” was extremely important, as well as her reference to deepfakes. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his support. As he rightly identified, I said 59% and he rounded it up to 60%. That is the figure for the percentage of identity fraud in our landscape.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said that the Government need to answer what they are planning to do. The Minister threw the kitchen sink at that question but did not really answer it. We have police training in AI and digital, but I am not sure what I am expected to understand when he starts off by saying there is perfectly adequate criminal law on this, but then tells me that they will look very carefully at this as part of the Fisher review. Which one is the answer that I should take from the Minister—that he is taking it seriously or that he is not?

We seem to keep getting the same answer. The Minister starts off by saying that there is enough criminal law to cover this—completely contradictory to the Fraud Act Select Committee—and on the other hand he says that the review will consider this very carefully. That is a series of mixed messages, quite apart from the fact that the police will prioritise their response to digital crime. How will they prioritise their response to digital crime without the tools they need—i.e. a proper criminal offence of digital identity theft?

There is some confusion on the part of the Government. I still think they have not taken this seriously, and our citizens will suffer as a result, particularly in the age of AI, which both the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, were clear about.

If I wanted to talk to the Chief Whip or the government roster at this time of night, or if we were in prime time, I might push it to a vote. But I will not; I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for bringing back this amendment on Report. As was our position in Committee, we recognise the need to update the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and bring it in line with the online reality in which we now live, 36 years after the Act.

I am grateful that, in Committee, the Minister acknowledged the need for the Government to examine the pro-innovation regulation of technologies review by the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and come to their own conclusions. He was right then that it is entirely reasonable to expect cyber security to be updated with the growth in internet use and the corresponding growth in cyber attacks.

Little more needs to be said, other than that we support the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on the changes to the Act that the Home Office has considered.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment and for returning to this very important subject. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for contributing to this short but vital debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for taking the time last week to meet with myself and officials to discuss this issue.

Cyber security professionals play a crucial role in protecting the UK’s digital systems. I support the intention behind this amendment; we broadly agree on the benefits of introducing a statutory defence. That is why we have been developing a limited defence to the offence of unauthorised access to computer material, provided for in Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act, that will allow trusted cyber security researchers to spot and report vulnerabilities in a responsible manner.

We have made significant progress in shaping a proposal, but some details, including ensuring adequate safeguards, still need refinement. To date, we have briefed over 100 industry and expert stakeholders, including both cyber security firms and system owners, to finalise the approach. Engagement to date has revealed strong support for reform, alongside clear calls to ensure that the defence is workable for a range of cyber security researchers. We will provide a further update once that work is complete.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said that the principle of a limited statutory defence risks creating a hacker’s charter. I stress that we are working with the whole industry—including, of course, the system owners—to develop a nuanced approach that is future-proofed and allows for responsible work in this area.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Government intend to legislate for a statutory defence against Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act once this work has been completed and when parliamentary time allows. We are not quite there yet, so this Bill is not the right vehicle, but we are committed to delivering a solution that is proportionate and practical for both researchers and law enforcement. Like his colleague on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—did earlier, the noble Lord tempts me to somehow forecast what might be in a future King’s Speech. I cannot be that precise.

As a possible response, the noble Lord mooted the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will be a carry-over Motion. I am not going to get into the detail of that tonight, but I am very keen that we stay in communication. The noble Lord has asked some complex questions. He is going to write to me, and I am very happy to respond in kind. In light of the progress we made at the meeting we had last week, and the progress we were making on developing a proposal that has acceptance across the industry and is future-proofed and nuanced—we are, of course, very keen to continue the dialogue—I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The Minister just said that he will exchange correspondence with the noble Lord. Will he make sure that that is copied to everybody who is participating in this debate?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Yes.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for their contributions. As the Minister says, this defence is at the behest of the cyber security industry. That is a very important point. This is not just a group of hackers who have decided that they need to cover their tracks; this has long been demanded by the cyber security industry. I very much hope that when the industry sees the policy paper produced by the Government, it will see that the movement towards a defence is constructive and particular and does not have the kind of loopholes that it fears.

I thank the Minister for his reassurances about future legislation. I am obviously in very good company with my noble friend in providing temptation for the Minister about the King’s Speech. We look forward to the future legislative opportunities that the Minister has described. In the meantime, I withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, before we go through the listed amendments, I would be grateful if I could make a short intervention.

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

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been called to move his amendment. The debate will proceed from there.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 318 I will speak to the other amendments in my name. Amendment 318 is a revised and strengthened version of a proposal that was kindly spoken to in Committee by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. It has been modified in light of comments made then, particularly from the Government Benches. It bears on disqualifying persons convicted of a serious cycling offence.

I suspect most of us, particularly those of us who spend any time in London, have experienced the enormous discomfort of being ridden past on the pavement at speed by a cyclist who has absolutely no interest in your comfort. If one has spent any time outside this Palace, one will also have noticed that the police have no interest in enforcing the law in these circumstances. It is up to us to do something to tighten the screws on cyclists like this. They make life for pedestrians extremely uncomfortable. The practice of continual and open law- breaking just brings the whole of the law into disrepute. It is really important that we tighten things up.

Amendment 319 would insert a new offence of riding or attempting to ride a cycle while disqualified. Such an offence requires accompanying sanctions. A licensing system seems to me entirely disproportionate; it would be a heavy weight of bureaucracy. I prefer the solution adopted by the Government in their approach to cycling offences in the Bill, which is to leave them to be enforced if circumstances allow—for instance, where somebody has been involved in a serious incident that the police have taken an interest in, or a member of the public makes a complaint that the police choose to follow up. That would sit easily with current policing practices. Continuing enforcement along these lines, though limited, would, if and when a prosecution or conviction was reported in the media, send a warning message to disqualified cyclists generally.

Turning turn to Amendment 321, the thrust of Clause 121 is to bring cycling offences pretty much into line with those applying to motor vehicles, but it leaves out disqualification. This is a missed opportunity to provide a substantial deterrent to offending. Proposed new subsection (9A), to be inserted by Amendment 321, prescribes that the period of obligatory disqualification for the two most serious offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling will not be less than five and two years, respectively. As for the other two offences of causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling, where the culpability is less, they will be subject to obligatory disqualification for not less than 12 months.

Proposed new subsection (9B) extends the definition of “disqualified” so that it can apply to cycles in a manner that is in conformity with the wording of the new cycling offences already created by the Bill. Amendments 323 to 325 add “obligatory” to the entries inserted by subsection (11) in Part I of Schedule 2; without them the amendment of Section 34 set out in Amendment 321 would be of no effect.

Amendment 333 would prescribe the penalties and mode of prosecution for the offence created by Amendment 319, and it inserts a new schedule containing minor and consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act which is fine-tuned as it applies to persons disqualified for riding a cycle. Sections relating only to mechanically propelled vehicles are omitted.

As someone who frequently obstructs and remonstrates with pavement cyclists, I very much hope that my amendments will attract the support of the Government. I approve of the other amendments in this group and will listen to them with great interest. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we have spent many hours in your Lordships’ House debating the issue of dangerous cycling and the misuse of e-bikes. In Committee, I welcomed the Government’s measures to create offences to criminalise causing death by dangerous cycling, and it is right that offences relating to cycling are brought in line with those for driving. I am also aware that there are significant concerns about criminality arising from the use of e-bikes and that courier companies are not being held responsible for the actions of their riders. There is very evidently a problem here. It is for the Government to now come to Parliament with solutions to these issues. We do not need report after report, review after review and trial after trial. We need to need to know what the Government wish to do in this space, rather than simply what they do not want to do.

Fundamentally, there is a serious problem with enforcement. A large number of laws, rules and regulations already apply. E-bikes have legally prescribed specifications and cyclists are supposed to obey the rules of the road. The crux of this issue is enforcement—or the lack of it. Cyclists frequently flout the rules of the road with impunity and owners of e-bikes are illegally modifying them to go far faster than they were intended to. This presents real and very serious concerns for public safety. It is time for the Government to act and not prevaricate. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, so aptly put it, cycling is one of the issues that your Lordships’ House likes to debate at length. It is an important issue and I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Blencathra, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Davies, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pidgeon. Some of them, though not all of them, were a very interesting supporting cast at a meeting in which I very much played junior partner to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I also thank them for that. There, we had a helpful discussion about some of the wider issues about the way that we frame some of the vehicles we have been talking about this afternoon.

We can all agree on the need for all cyclists, as with motorists, to obey the rules of the road so that our roads and pavements are safe for all users. As the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, put it, we can all say—at least, I hope we would—that we are pro-cycling but anti-lawbreaking. The issue is whether the proposals in these various amendments are workable, proportionate and do not have the unintended effect of deterring cycling and other forms of micromobility.

I will address the amendments in turn. Amendments 318 to 325 and Amendment 333, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would allow for persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 121. As we made clear in Committee, our fundamental concern is that such a disqualification could not be adequately enforced without some form of licensing for cyclists. Licensing for cyclists would be both costly and complex, and would mean the majority of law-abiding cyclists would face additional costs and barriers to cycling. It is a disproportionate response, given that these new offences are to deal with those rare cases in which cyclists have caused the death or serious injury of another road user.

I do not accept that the cycling disqualification would be an effective deterrent without effective enforcement. Moreover, it would place an unreasonable burden on the police or, alternatively, raise unreasonable expectations if your Lordship’s House were to give the courts the power to impose a disqualification without an accompanying effective enforcement mechanism. It may well be the case that the only way the police could identify whether such a disqualification was in force would be if the person was found to have breached it after being involved in a subsequent incident. This would entirely defeat the purpose of the disqualification and would not have prevented another incident. It would, in fact, likely be discovered only after another incident has occurred.

I turn to Amendments 326 to 332 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, starting with the amendments that would enable a person to receive up to 12 points on a driving licence upon conviction of any offences in Clause 121. Reaching 12 points on a driving licence would result in a person being disqualified from driving a motor vehicle. Section 163 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a general power for the criminal courts to impose a driving disqualification on an offender convicted of any offence. In addition, Section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2026 provides courts with the power to impose a driving prohibition requirement as part of a community sentence or suspended sentence. I hope these go some way to meeting the noble Lord’s objectives.

Amendment 343, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would create a registration scheme for the purpose of enforcing the new offences in Clause 121. Although I accept that a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier, the absence of a registration system does not, of course, make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry open to them. As he said in his own contribution, there are some forces that are very effective at this, in particular the City of London Police, which he has direct experience of.

As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, we cannot escape the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists. Around 1.5 million new cycles are sold every year. No data is collected on this, but some estimates say that over 20 million cycles are in existence. It would therefore be a gargantuan task to introduce such a registration scheme, or indeed a licensing scheme. It would, for example, require all existing cycle owners, potentially including children, as well as those making new purchases to submit their information to some form of central database, and for some form of registration plate to be produced and affixed to each individual bike. Even if that were deemed proportionate, it is not realistic to suggest that detailed regulations could be delivered on this within six months of Royal Assent, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes.

Amendment 341, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the misuse of e-scooters, including their impact on safety and an assessment of the appropriateness of the legislation within 12 months of Royal Assent. At this point, as others have, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done previously in this area. The safety of all road users is, of course, an utmost priority, and no one should feel unsafe on our streets. It is essential that new transport technology works for everyone. That is why we must crack down on those using e-scooters irresponsibly and in an anti-social way.

However, I do not believe that, after more than five years of running e-scooter trials, the Government should tackle that issue by undertaking yet a further review. I remind noble Lords that private e-scooters remain illegal to use on public roads, cycle lanes and pavements. Rental e-scooters can be used only as part of the Government’s national rental e-scooter trials. Last year, we announced an extension to the rental trials until May 2028, to ensure we have the best possible evidence base to inform any future legislation. We have collected some evidence, but it is still relatively new technology and there remain things we need to learn. We will use this additional time from extending the review to supplement our evidence and draw on further experience.

As I mentioned in Committee, the Department for Transport has already announced that the Government will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, we want to pursue a joined-up approach. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles, which will include e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, tempted me to go down a path of speculating what might be in a forthcoming King’s Speech, which is several rungs above my pay grade. I am afraid I cannot do that but, as I said, this is something we wish to pursue when parliamentary time allows.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I find it a little concerning that he does not agree to a review but the Government have now extended their own review for another four years. We had a very useful meeting with him and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. We are approaching Report on the English devolution Bill. When are we going to get a definition of micromobility vehicles?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I again thank the noble Baroness for the meeting, which I found useful. On the definition of micromobility, I will take that back and write to her on where it will come during the passage of the English devolution Bill, because I am not sufficiently across the details now. I will get back to her on that. I can confirm that, as was mentioned in the noble Baroness’s amendment, the Department for Transport will consult on any new regulations before they come into force, so that all interested parties will have a chance to shape any new regime on micromobility.

Amendment 342, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the number of people charged with dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, as provided for in Clause 121. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concerns about the extent to which the police act on cycling offences—indeed, those concerns were expressed by many noble Lords today—but I reiterate that the offences in the Bill are the most serious in nature, including where a cyclist’s actions have resulted in the death or serious injury of a person. In such cases, we should expect the police to pursue them to the fullest extent possible.

I highlight to the noble Baroness that the Government already publish a range of statistics on criminal offences, notably the quarterly and annual reports on criminal justice system statistics, alongside annual statistics setting out information on those killed and seriously injured on our roads. That provides breakdowns by road user as well as some of the contributory factors such as speeding, the presence of drink or drugs, and non-seat-belt use. As this information is already available in the public domain, we are not persuaded on the merit of producing such a report for cycle offences.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am so sorry. I have just received from the Library the figures to which the Minister referred. There is not a separate category for e-scooters, which I find quite scary. There is a global category of “motorcyclists”. Does that embrace e-scooters or not?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will have to go back to check the definitions. We spent some time in our meeting discussing these categories and definitions. As I understand it, that category does include e-scooters, but I want to go back to confirm that for the noble Baroness. As I said, these statistics are produced regularly. That does not mean that any future work on micromobility cannot allow for greater granularity in those statistics, if they are collected in a way that would permit that.

Finally, Amendment 344, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would allow for food delivery companies to receive an unlimited fine should their riders be convicted of any offence under Clause 121 and where those companies do not have sufficient procedures to prevent those offences occurring. Amendment 344A would require the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of any such procedures within one year of Clause 121 coming into force. Although I absolutely recognise the very real concerns that we heard both in Committee and today about the rogue behaviours of food delivery riders, we need hard, documented evidence to understand this in detail. I understand the straw poll point that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made, but, with the greatest respect, I am not sure how it would hold up in terms of statistical reliability.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I really cannot let the Minister get away with that. I think that all Members who have spoken in today’s debate, and in previous debates, are absolutely unanimous about the degree to which there is a problem. I do not accept the Minister saying that the problem is that there is no data. He represents the Government. I have stood at the same Dispatch Box when I had some responsibilities for transport, so I know that it is the Government’s job to gather that data when there is obviously a problem. The Minister really cannot stand there and say that no action will be taken because there is no data showing a problem.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I think it will please the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to hear that that is exactly not what I am about to do—I ask him to hold on a second.

As I was saying, we want to understand this in detail, including evidence on the extent to which the business practice of food delivery companies may influence the rogue behaviours of their riders—that is very much the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. To that end, the Department for Transport is commissioning research to look into that, which we expect to start at the end of this month. It will take about one year, and the DfT will publish its findings. This research will look at the impact of the business practices of food delivery companies on rogue behaviours and illegal bike use. In effect, it will be a non-statutory version of the review that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, proposes in his amendment. I hope that that will satisfy his concerns—I will find out now.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. Can he give an undertaking to the House that this non-statutory review will consult disabled people on their experiences? Can he write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, saying which disability organisations will be consulted?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library with further details of the research and how it is being commissioned by the DfT.

In addition, the DfT’s road safety strategy, which has been referred to already this afternoon and which was published on 7 January, makes a clear commitment to the Government piloting a national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them, whether using cycles, e-cycles, motorcycles, cars, or light or heavy-goods vehicles. The charter will aim to promote good practice and improve compliance with current requirements. It will be developed in collaboration with businesses and industry and will be informed by existing schemes. The pilot, which is voluntary, will run for two years and will be monitored and fully evaluated.

Before I conclude, I want to pick up a point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in Committee and repeated this afternoon on issues around the employment status of some of these delivery drivers. The Government are absolutely clear that bogus self-employment is unacceptable. Employers should never seek to deny people their employment rights and avoid their own legal obligations by claiming that someone is self-employed when in reality they are not.

We understand that many delivery riders in the platform economy value the flexibility that that kind of employment status can bring, but new technologies and ways of working have made it more complex for businesses and workers to understand and apply the current employment-status framework. That is why the Government are committed to consulting on a simpler framework which allows to properly capture the breadth of different employment relationships in the UK and ensure that workers can continually benefit from flexible ways of working where they choose to do so without being exploited by unscrupulous employers. We understand that this employment space of delivery drivers is a particular issue, which is why this is very much an important issue to act on.

In conclusion, I am afraid that I cannot follow up the call of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for all-out vigilante action from pedestrians. I am not entirely sure that even he and his chariot—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—might expect me to. However, I want to take this opportunity to really acknowledge the frustration and fears of all noble Lords, and, indeed, many members of the public, about the abhorrent and dangerous behaviour of a minority—I stress that—of cyclists.

However, I come back to where I started. Any new legislation in this area must be proportionate and must be mindful of the potential adverse impact on law-abiding road users. I want to encourage micromobility to reduce congestion and promote healthy living— very much the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We need a clear evidence base, and, as I have indicated, we are undertaking research concerning the road behaviours of delivery riders. I just want to repeat what we were saying. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility in the round, including on e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. For now, therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to withdraw his Amendment 318 and other noble Lords not to move their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, that was disappointing reply, but it ended on a more encouraging note, and I am grateful for that. It is a simple thing. If a company sets terms for its riders that encourage, incentivise and reward law-breaking, we need to control that. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is quite right about that. He and I are going to have to continue our vigilante efforts to deal with the more ordinary personal misbehaviour of cyclists. There we are—that is something we have taken on—and, thanks to the Government, I shall have more time for it than I have had recently. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

To clarify, in the first example I gave, of Helen Joyce, it was called criminal harassment for the tweets and the aggravated factors. The police actually dropped it in the end, but they—not me but the police—called it criminal harassment with transgender aggravators. In the example I was giving, the lesbian in her work group was then labelled a bigot. In other words, it is the L in LGBT, not the T, that will often take the hit. I mentioned that because she was threatened by the person, who said they would go to the police, and then she was visited by somebody who said that the police would be involved. I am making this point because I am worried about it spiralling out of control. I would say that that is misogyny: demonising a biological woman for expressing her sexuality as same-sex attracted. I want to be sure that the amendments in this group navigate such clashes and do not avoid them.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise but, a little unusually, this is a convenient time to break for dinner break business. It is mid group, but I assure noble Lords that we are taking a note of who is in the Chamber so that we can continue the group in an orderly fashion after the dinner break business. Before I hear some sedentary tutting, I note that this has been agreed through the usual channels.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

178: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of Firearms Acts to sound moderators etc(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.(2) After section 2 insert—“2A Possession of a sound moderator or flash suppressor(1) Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person to have in their possession a relevant accessory unless the person holds a firearm certificate or a shot gun certificate.(2) “Relevant accessory” means an accessory to a firearm to which section 1 applies which is designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the firearm.”(3) In section 57 (interpretation)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit paragraph (d);(ii) in the words after paragraph (d) omit “, and accessories to,”;(b) in subsection (4)—(i) after the definition of “registered” insert—““relevant accessory” has the meaning given in section 2A;”(ii) in the definition of “shot gun”, omit the words from “and any” to the end.(4) In Schedule 6 (prosecution and punishment of offences) after the entry for section 2(2) insert—

“Section 2A

Possession of relevant accessory without certificate under this Act

Summary

A fine of level 3 on the standard scale”.

(5) Schedule (Sound moderators etc: exemptions) amends the exemptions in the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to the requirement to hold a firearm or shot gun certificate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes sound moderators and flash suppressors from the definitions of “firearm” and “shot gun” in the Firearms Act 1968 and creates an offence of possessing a sound moderator or flash suppressor without having a valid firearm or shotgun certificate, or without an exemption applying.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, will recall that he tabled an amendment in Committee which sought to deregulate devices known as sound moderators and flash suppressors. These items are subject to control by virtue of the fact that they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm, set out in Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. These measures were rightly pressed for in Committee by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, so I am glad the Government have taken his points on board and are now implementing them. These amendments will remove an administrative burden currently placed on the police—something we all support—and will pose no threat to the public. They are wholly reasonable, and we support them.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very rare to have both unanimity and common sense break out across the Chamber. I thank all noble Lords for their comments, including those among townies—I associate myself with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as a fellow townie. It was an education and I have learned an awful lot. I thank everyone for their support.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I would say to the noble Lord before he sits down that unanimity and common sense do not always go together.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

That is the point that I was struggling to make, which is put more eloquently by the noble Lord.

Amendment 178 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments, and I fully appreciate that they are concerned with the protection of children and young people. The amendments would restrict the new offences of cuckooing and coerced internal concealment so that they applied only to those aged 18 and over, and they would require the Secretary of State to issue statutory safeguarding guidance in connection with these provisions.

Let me say at the outset that we all recognise the deeply exploitative nature of cuckooing and forcing or coercing individuals, particularly vulnerable people, into internally concealing drugs or other items. The purpose of these new offences in the Bill is precisely to target that exploitation, and we on these Benches have a lot of sympathy for that principle. The clauses are designed to disrupt organised criminal activity that so often preys on the vulnerable.

However, we cannot support the amendments in this group. They would, in effect, create a blanket exemption for 16 and 17 year-olds from criminal liability for these offences. In this country, the age of criminal responsibility is 10. Parliament has long accepted that young people under 18 can, in appropriate circumstances, be held criminally responsible for serious criminal conduct. To carve out a specific exemption here would create inconsistency in law and risk signalling that certain forms of serious exploitation-related offending are less culpable when committed by older teenagers.

That is not to deny that many young people involved in such activities are themselves victims. The courts already have extensive powers to take age, maturity, coercion and vulnerability into account at charging and sentencing. Prosecutorial direction and the youth justice framework provide mechanisms to distinguish between a hardened exploiter and a child groomed into criminality; a blanket statutory exclusion would go too far.

As for the proposed requirement for additional statutory guidance, safeguarding responsibilities are already embedded in existing legislation. Public authorities with safeguarding duties are well aware of their obligations, and we should be cautious about layering further statutory guidance unnecessarily. We must ensure that exploiters are prosecuted, victims are protected and the law remains coherent. For those reasons, while I very much respect the intentions behind these amendments, I cannot support them.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—and I start by welcoming her genuine recognition of the progress that we are making through this legislation by introducing the new child criminal exploitation and cuckooing offences in this Bill. We are grateful for that. As she explained, her Amendments 195 to 197 seek to restrict those who commit the cuckooing and internal concealment offences to those aged 18 or over.

The Government fully recognise that children, particularly those exploited by county lines gangs, are often used to carry out cuckooing activity or to persuade others to internally conceal items such as drugs for a criminal purpose. The act of turning these children into exploiters themselves is particularly appalling and is why this Government’s work to target child criminal exploitation is so important. I think that everyone across your Lordships’ House recognises that. While I appreciate the spirit of these amendments and believe that it is absolutely right that children, when they have been exploited and groomed into criminality, should be protected as victims, this does not in itself override the age of criminal responsibility, where the law holds children over a certain age responsible for their actions. It is possible for a child to commit cuckooing or internal concealment without having been exploited to do so.

Let us be clear that decisions as to whether to charge someone should be taken on a case-by-case basis. As with all offences, the police exercise operational judgment when investigating and gathering evidence to establish the facts of a case, and the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test will of course apply. This includes consideration of the child’s culpability and whether they have been compelled, coerced or exploited to commit any potential crime of cuckooing or internal concealment. We will also issue statutory guidance to support implementation of the cuckooing and internal concealment offences, including on how the police should respond and identify exploitation when children are found in connection with cuckooing or internal concealment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, posed the question why we are not creating a statutory defence for children against their prosecution for crimes, including cuckooing and internal concealment, committed as a result of effectively being a victim of child criminal exploitation. When a victim of proposed child criminal exploitation offences also meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery, they may retain access to the statutory defence contained in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Many victims of CCE will continue to be able to access the Section 45 defence, as they do now. However, we consider that creating an additional stand-alone statutory defence for victims of child criminal exploitation beyond that which already exists in Section 45 of the 2015 Act for victims who are also victims of modern slavery and/or human trafficking could have unintended consequences, given the breadth of the proposed offence. The child criminal exploitation offence is to address the imbalance between children and those individuals who criminally exploit them.

I add that we are working with partners in the criminal justice system to improve awareness and understanding of the Section 45 defence, which will support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings being brought against victims. It is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the Section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance that will accompany the new offence.

I turn to Amendment 198. We similarly sympathise with the intention behind the amendment to introduce statutory guidance for multi-agency partners. It is essential that agencies work together to safeguard and protect children and vulnerable adults from criminal exploitation. However, statutory safeguarding responsibilities are already set out in statutory guidance, principally in Working Together to Safeguard Children, which includes guidance on child criminal exploitation. To supplement this, we will issue non-statutory guidance for partner agencies on the child criminal exploitation offence and orders and on cuckooing and internal concealment to support them to identify these harms and recognise how their statutory responsibilities apply. Issuing separate statutory guidance with additional legal burdens for safeguarding partners on these specific crime types alone risks duplication and a siloed approach to protecting children and vulnerable adults—something that I am sure we would all wish to avoid happening.

More broadly, the Government are taking a range of actions to strengthen child protection through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will introduce new multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority in England. This will ensure stronger join-up between police, health, education and children’s social care when responding to harms such as child criminal exploitation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned stalking offences, which are committed mainly against adults, so it is appropriate to have bespoke guidance. Here we are talking about safeguarding children where the DfE guidance will apply, so it is appropriate that we take this approach, given the range of agencies involved for children. I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I said in my contribution that I hoped that the agencies might extend beyond the usual ones, and the Minister certainly named the usual ones. Would it, for example, include working with the local gangmaster operations as well?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will not speculate. I suspect that would be the case, but I had probably best undertake to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that detail.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his answers. I recognise the points he made, and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but quite honestly, when you have so many children’s organisations saying that the Government have got something wrong, the Government ought to listen. Although I am not going to push this to a vote, I feel like tackling the various Ministers in the corridor sometime and making sure they understand the depth of my care and passion about this. We all want to protect children, and the Government will be responsible if there are gaps. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

11: Clause 7, page 16, line 28, at end insert—
“(6A) The requirement in subsection (6) may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to section 105A of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (inserted by clause 7 of the Bill) allows pre-commencement consultation to satisfy the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on regulations about information about anti-social behaviour.

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

My Lords, the Government’s amendments in this group all relate to certain of the delegated powers in the Bill. In the main, they respond to recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee in their reports on the Bill. I am very grateful to both committees for their scrutiny of this legislation. Your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat all the arguments made by the Government. Instead, I point noble Lords to the responses to each of the committees’ reports, which are available on their respective web pages. However, let me briefly explain the various government amendments that address the committees’ concerns.

First, Amendments 15 and 25 to Clauses 9 and 24 provide that the guidance on fly-tipping enforcement and the new civil penalty regime, in respect of a failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons, are subject to the negative procedure. I stress to noble Lords that the Government’s general position remains that it is not necessary or appropriate for the generality of statutory guidance to be subject to any parliamentary procedure. However, there are limited exceptions to that general rule, and we agree that the guidance provided for in Clauses 9 and 24 should be two such exceptions, as per the DPRRC’s recommendation that in both cases the guidance should be subject to the negative procedure.

Secondly, Amendment 382 to Clause 154 provides for driver information regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, in line with a recommendation by the Constitution Committee.

Thirdly, the amendments to Clauses 85, 129 and 134 narrow the scope of the regulation-making powers provided for in those clauses.

Fourthly, Amendments 415, 416 and 417 to Clause 196 ensure that all iterations of the guidance in respect of youth diversion orders are laid before Parliament, including in cases in which revisions are insubstantial.

Finally, Amendments 11 and 381 do not stem from a committee recommendation. Rather, they simply provide that pre-commencement consultation on the regulations relating to the provision of information about anti-social behaviour and the code of practice about access to driver licence information satisfies the requirement to consult under this clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we have come to the first of two groups containing a large number of government amendments. I find myself having to express my strong frustration and disappointment with the number of government amendments that have been brought to this Bill on Report. As we broke up for recess, the Government tabled 243 amendments to the Bill. Then, on Monday, two days before the first day of Report, they tabled a further 73 amendments. This completely flies in the face of the accepted norms and conventions whereby the Government are supposed to table amendments a week before.

Most concerning is the introduction of entirely new amendments that have not previously been discussed, most notably the Government’s amendment relating to aggravation of offences. We will spend much time debating that amendment later, but suffice it to say that it is a very wide-ranging and incredibly worrying matter—never mind the fact that the amendment has not been debated in Committee in this House, nor in the other place, and as such will not receive the proper scrutiny it deserves.

Having said that, I do welcome some of the changes the Government are making. Amendments 15, 16, 17, 25, 26 and 267 all enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise some of the regulation-making powers granted to the Home Secretary. Requiring the draft guidance to be laid before Parliament for a period of 40 days is welcome and, we hope, will ensure that Parliament can diligently hold the Government to account. On Amendments 362 and 363, I am naturally cautious about the Government granting themselves more powers via secondary legislation, which in this case permits them to specify different articles that may be considered as “SIM farms”. My concern is slightly allayed by Amendments 364 and 365, which do place limitations on the Secretary of State’s power, but it would be useful to know what types of devices the Government envisage being brought into the scope of Clause 129.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, to an extent, for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The vast majority of the Government amendments that have been laid before your Lordships’ House are either in response to issues raised through discussion in Committee, or subsequent to that discussion, or, as I said in my opening remarks, in response to the issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee. It is also important to say—and we will come to this in a large group coming up shortly—that they are large in number but they are all, in a sense, because of the nature of the legislation, making the same changes around devolution to many parts of the Bill. This is how the issues were understood and discussed. It followed discussion in Committee on that group, when the Opposition Front Bench presented their rationale for opposing this. We decided not to move the Government amendments that were tabled in Committee at that time.

This is an iterative process. I think it fair to point out that the point of Committee is for the Government to hear concerns and to be able to respond to them. I think there will be many areas where we will table Government amendments throughout Report stage of the Bill, not least the ones we are discussing in this group right now. I am grateful for the words of welcome for these Government amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Concerns were raised by both committees about our approach to statutory guidance and secondary legislation, so we have responded to them.

The Government’s new clause on aggravated offences, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, referred to, as well as delivering on a manifesto commitment, responds directly to the debate on the issue in the other place. It was touched on in your Lordships’ House at Second Reading and in Committee, where we reiterated the Government’s intention to bring forward an amendment on Report. Moreover, the issues raised in the Government’s new clauses do cross over to those raised in what are now Clauses 122 to 124, which were thoroughly debated in Committee. I would be happy, in addition to this, to carry on the conversation, if the noble Lord is happy to do so, by writing to him on the specifics he raised concerning Clause 129. But, given that explanation, I reiterate my moving of Government Amendment 11.

Amendment 11 agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to kick off what I very much hope will be the last day in Committee—not to jinx it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out the case for these amendments, which relate to the provisions in Clauses 192 to 194.

International law enforcement information-sharing agreements are a vital tool that provide law enforcement officers with access to new intelligence to fight crime, increase public protection and reduce the threat of societal harm posed by international criminality. To clarify, these measures provide the appropriate national authority with the power to make regulations to implement both new and existing legally binding international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. Such regulations may, for example, make provision for the technical and, where appropriate, operational detail to facilitate the information sharing provided for in a particular agreement.

The UK is recognised globally for having one of the most robust data protection regimes, anchored in the Data Protection Act and UK GDPR, which ensure that privacy is protected even in the most complex areas of law enforcement and international co-operation. This Government are committed to maintaining these high standards and ways of working to ensure that data protection and privacy are not compromised as we strengthen cross-border security. UK law already requires data controllers to conduct a data protection impact assessment for any activity that is likely to result in a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms. Public bodies and law enforcement authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act, and they must duly assess activities accordingly.

Existing data protection principles and statutory requirements, particularly data protection impact assessments, already cover the concerns raised by the noble Lord’s amendments, making new duties duplicative and unnecessary. As is required under Article 36(4) of the UK GDPR, regulations made under this power as they relate to the processing of personal data will require consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The international law enforcement information-sharing agreements preceding the making of regulations under Clause 192 are subject to the usual treaty ratification procedures, including the provisions regarding parliamentary scrutiny provided for in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Any such agreement will be laid before Parliament with an Explanatory Memorandum, which would include the background to why the Government are entering into the agreement, its implementation and a note of any existing domestic legislation and human rights considerations. Additionally, an overseas security and justice assistance assessment will be required. Introducing additional scrutiny requirements would risk duplication and provide no additional substantive information to Parliament beyond what is currently available.

We must also consider the operational sensitivity of such processing. Law enforcement data sharing involves sensitive systems and procedures. Publication of such assessments may inadvertently expose vulnerabilities or methods that criminals or adversarial parties may seek to exploit.

Ministers regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement co-operation, including data sharing. I have a long list of examples before me—I will not detain your Lordships with too many of them. The Cabinet Office issued the Government’s response to the EAC report Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU Relationship on 23 January this year and published it shortly thereafter. A couple of days before, on 21 January, my noble friend Lord Hanson appeared before the EAC to discuss the UK-EU reset, which focused on the LEJC, migration and the border partnership. You do not have to go far back for another example: on September 8, the Foreign Affairs Committee questioned the Cabinet Office and FCDO Ministers on post-summit implementation, co-ordination and future UK-EU co-operation frameworks. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to parliamentary oversight of these matters.

Law enforcement authorities and government departments work closely together to assess international law enforcement capabilities and their effectiveness. Such assessments, by their very nature, are operationally sensitive and would not be suitable for publication. Specifically singling out international law enforcement data sharing also risks presenting a skewed picture of wider domestic operational activity, given that law enforcement outcomes are often the result of multiple capabilities and instruments being used. Owing to the breadth of law enforcement authorities that may be engaged in such information-sharing activity, and the likely multiple data systems, sourcing and collating operational data that would be suitable for inclusion in a published annual report would create significant demand and risk diverting resource from other critical law enforcement priorities.

We must also consider the implications for the international parties to such agreements, who may have concerns about the publication of such data and assessment, particularly where it may relate to operationally sensitive matters. That, in turn, may affect and limit the negotiability of future agreements. Such reports could potentially expose operational practices that it may not be appropriate to place in the public domain. We must be mindful that agreements will vary in scope with international partners; to publish detail on the volumes of data exchanged may inadvertently cause concern from international partners on differing operating scopes.

Finally, as to whether regulations made under Clause 192 should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, I simply point the noble Lord to the report on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which made no such recommendation. We are usually held to the high standards of that committee and admonished when it finds us wanting. In this case, we were not found wanting, which I think is a very good tick that I pray in aid.

I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about these clauses, but I hope that I have reassured him that data protection remains at the heart of our approach. With that in mind, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. It was very cheerful, which I find quite extraordinary in the circumstances. It is almost as though he has been reading Voltaire’s Candide: everything is for the best in all possible worlds. I will read carefully what he said, but there was an extraordinary amount of complacency built into his response about the nature of sharing data across borders—specifically that the existing regime is sufficient to safeguard these transfers and that my amendments would introduce unnecessary friction into law enforcement co-operation. That is because the rules of the game have changed since the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

The Information Commissioner can operate only within the legislation provided, which is no safeguard in those circumstances. I have the highest regard for the Information Commissioner and his office, but they have to operate within the bounds of the law, which have changed since the Act was passed. I mentioned the European Data Protection Board and so on. The Minister has performed some kind of parliamentary jujitsu by seeming to say that sensitive data, which I cited as being one of the reasons why I tabled my amendments, makes it far too difficult to do what I am proposing. I admire his speechwriting but I must say that I do not think that is an answer.

I will withdraw my amendment, but I believe that the Act that we spent so long debating has changed the rules of the game and that these amendments are necessary to ensure that international co-operation does not become a backdoor for the erosion of privacy. I will come back to this but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, all the speakers have made a powerful case in support of these two amendments, not least of course the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who moved the lead amendment. I apologise to him for missing the first few minutes. I was caught out because I had not remembered that Amendment 471 had already been debated. I have had the advantage of reading that part of the JCHR report, both on the account of—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise, but the noble Baroness has just said that she was not in her place at the start of the group. Really, she should not be speaking to the group if she was not in her place. That is the usual convention and courtesy of the House and is set out in the Companion as well.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 472 and 473 from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, add a series of small but vital issues that would ensure that the UK can play its part in holding to account perpetrators of the most serious international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Above all, these amendments would give victims and their families the opportunity to achieve the justice that they deserve. I thank the British Institute of Human Rights, Genocide Response and Redress for their very helpful briefing.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the signatories to his amendments have set out in detail the legal reasons why the current laws in relation to these international crimes need to have certain loopholes closed ,and other noble Lords have spoken to them as well.

As chair of human rights at Liberal International, I attend the annual Geneva summit on human rights. Last February, I met people who had fled from Sudan, Iran, Cuba, Russia and Tibet, and Uyghurs from China, who had been on the receiving end of the most appalling crimes, from genocide to crimes against humanity, including torture and war crimes. All of them look to countries such as the United Kingdom to uphold the standards of universal jurisdiction. Sadly, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we do not do that fully and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, put it, we need to share the burden.

By not being prepared to empower our courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crimes are present in the UK, we let people down. Without the changes proposed in Amendments 472 and 473, the British courts lack jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators of international crimes—including leaders of the Iranian regime who may travel to the UK for medical treatment, despite there being credible allegations of their involvement in international crimes against humanity, and the alleged perpetrators of genocide in Darfur—because the alleged conduct falls under the Rome statute crimes but does not trigger universal jurisdiction under UK law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling this amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting their names to it and contributing today.

Although we understand the noble Baroness’s intention, we do not believe that this amendment is the right approach to ensuring that our water companies act ethically and serve the customer. Neither do we believe that increasing offences for companies or for individuals is the right approach to decreasing water pollution. They are already subject to the powers of Ofwat and the Environment Agency; additional measures will just drive up legal costs and encourage hostile behaviour.

The Water (Special Measures) Act of last year placed a new duty on companies to publish an annual pollution incident reduction plan, and we should wait and see what the outcome of that policy is before we attempt to legislate further. It is undoubtedly an important issue, but we simply do not believe that this is the best way to go about it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting her name to it and speaking to it. I enjoy—well, “enjoy”—sparring on issues of water ownership and water companies. Usually it is in Oral Questions rather than in the middle of the Crime and Policing Bill but, hey ho, you take your chances wherever you can. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for bringing his sense of history and active participation over a number of decades, if I may say so, on the issue of water ownership and stewardship. I found myself agreeing—which may not be too strange—in no small part with many of his comments.

Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I want to be clear: as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, the Government are not going to nationalise the water industry. It would cost around £100 billion.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is not true.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy to direct the noble Baroness towards Defra’s costings on this. You have to take account of all sorts of factors, including debt that you inherit as well as the equity stake of the companies that they are currently valued at. It is a very simplistic economics that leads you down the primrose path of the valuations that some people like to think it would cost. That is not the case.

I also gently point out to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the £104 billion that comes up in PR24 to which he referred is an investment commitment from the water companies. We are building new aqueducts now and we have not built them for decades, and that is one of the main reasons why we have continual problems of lots of rain but not enough water supply, to which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred. Anyway, I will take off my Defra Whip hat and put on my Home Office Whip hat, and I will speak to the amendment.

Performance commitment levels, including for pollution, are set for Ofwat in the price review process. Where companies fail to meet these commitment levels, they must return money to customers through reduced bills in the next financial year. Companies are therefore already penalised for failing to meet their performance targets. In addition, this Government have already introduced the toughest sentencing powers in history against law-breaking water executives. Provisions in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred, extend the sentencing powers of the courts to include imprisonment in all cases where the regulator’s investigations have been obstructed by individuals and enable obstruction cases to be heard in the Crown Court. As a company cannot go to prison, the provisions ensure that directors and officers are held to account. The threat of imprisonment will act as a powerful deterrent as water companies invest in upgrading broken water infrastructure and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.

The 2025 Act also allows the Government to expand and strengthen the current range of financial penalties available to the Environment Agency in a bid to clamp down on more water company offences. The Government have consulted on the scope for these new penalties and their value. The changes will make it much easier and quicker for the Environment Agency to hold water companies to account. Through the 2025 Act, the Government have also given Ofwat the power to ban executive performance bonuses where companies fail to meet certain standards. Since this was introduced in June last year, six companies out of nine—Anglian Water, Southern Water, Thames Water, United Utilities, Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water—have triggered the bonus ban rule, and more than £4 million of potential bonuses have been blocked. This is the legislation working in action.

The Government announced, in response to the Cunliffe review, that they will establish a single powerful regulator for the entire water sector, with the teeth to enforce the standards that the public rightly demand. We have also accepted the recommendation from Cunliffe to end the era of water companies marking their own homework through operator self-monitoring. We will introduce open monitoring to increase transparency and restore public trust. We have set out our wider vision for the future of the water sector in a White Paper published on 20 January. This marks the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. When parliamentary time allows in a new Session, we will introduce a water Bill creating the laws that we need to fundamentally change the system.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked whether the Government are committed to this. The Water (Special Measures) Act last year, our response to the Cunliffe review, the water White Paper and our commitment to legislate are a down payment on our commitment to do right by the industry, the environment, the consumer and those who wish to invest in our water system. I hope that the measures I have set out demonstrate that the Government and regulators are taking firm action to hold water companies and their executives to account for poor performance. For these reasons, in the knowledge that we will bring forward further legislation in due course, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

We need to teach these young people—largely young men and boys—that they need to take responsibility for their actions, their conscious decisions, their interventions. We should not be turning them into victims because one of the people that they hung around with acted out the violent rhetoric and took another life, while they did not but were held equally guilty. So, assuming collective intent or collective guilt is a terrible law and unjust. We need these young men to understand that the criminal justice—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I just ask the noble Baroness to come to her conclusion—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

We need them to understand that the criminal justice system is not targeting them personally for crime but is fair and proportionate. That is what we should do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling his amendment. We entirely understand the intention behind it and support its aim.

In government, we gave police forces the power to intercept or seize drones suspected of being used to break the law, and those that attempt to smuggle drugs or weapons into prisons. Before the 2024 election, we announced our intention to implement no-fly zones around prisons, extending the current provisions over airports. We therefore entirely support the aim of prohibiting drone use for criminal ends. Using drone technology as a reconnaissance tool for a crime is self-evidently wrong and that should be reflected in the law.

Similarly, using drones to carry drugs, stolen goods, weapons, harmful substances or anything similar must be tackled by the police. For the police to do so, they must be given the means. Nowhere is this more evident than in prisons, where drugs and weapons are being transported in by drones in order to run lucrative illegal businesses. Reports suggest that some offenders are deliberately breaking probation terms in order to sell drugs in jail, where they can make more money. Anything that enables this must be stamped out. If drones are indeed a means of transport for many of these drugs, we should target those who operate the drones and play a part in criminal enterprises. I hope that the Minister recognises this problem and will agree with me that the amendment is entirely correct in its aims.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for setting out the case for his amendment. In tabling the amendment, he wrote to my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint and to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill at the Department for Transport on the issue.

I think across the Committee we share the same concerns. I stress that the Government take the issue of the use of drones to facilitate illegal activity extremely seriously. However, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint set out in his letter to the noble Lord that the challenges of responding to these are not gaps in our criminal law so much as limitations on the practical enforcement tools available and in regulation to improve the visibility and compliance of drones. We are working to address these issues by supporting the development of counter-drone technologies and operational approaches, and ensuring regulations are in place that enable the legitimate use of drones while assisting operational responders in identifying illegitimate users.

Amendment 486A seeks to criminalise the use of drones for criminal reconnaissance and the carrying of illicit substances. The act of criminal reconnaissance is not in itself currently an offence, as proving intent, prior to an act being committed or without substantive additional evidence, would be extremely difficult for prosecutors. Criminal reconnaissance using a drone encounters the same issue. It would be impractical and disproportionate to arrest anyone for taking photos of a property or site, or for piloting a drone. In both instances, the act of reconnaissance would not be practically distinguishable from legitimate everyday actions, making the proposed offence effectively unenforceable. Where intent could be proven, it is likely that such acts could be prosecuted under existing legislation—for example, the offence of going equipped for stealing in Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.

The carrying of illicit materials, whether it is in and out of prisons or elsewhere at large, is already an offence, regardless of a drone’s involvement. There is already a comprehensive regime of offences relating to the possession and supply of drugs, weapons and other illicit materials. I do not think that the amendment would address any gaps in the criminal law.

The Government have already made changes to the unmanned aircraft regulations to require drones to be equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, set out, with direct remote identification, which will improve visibility and accountability of compliant drones. This system will allow drones to broadcast identification and location information in-flight and will help identify drone operators who may be acting suspiciously or breaking the law.

I share the sentiment of the noble Lord and the Committee in seeking to curtail the use of drones for criminal purposes. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment and let me sit down—as I have a cough.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part; I am not going to namecheck—you all know who you are.

It would be an act of cruelty to encourage the Minister, with his cough, to say anything further. I was tempted to ask him to go into a lot more detail, but I do not think that is a good idea.

I suspect we may need to come back to this issue as drone technology continues to advance. I cannot resist mentioning that, more locally, the large giraffe fence that is erected in front of this building will be absolutely no defence against a drone attack—so let us hope it does not come. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

487: Clause 197, page 228, line 6, at end insert—
“(za) sections 40 and 41;(zb) section (Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1) and Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

492: Clause 197, page 228, line 15, at end insert—
“(za) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing amendments consequential on my new clause, (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

497: Clause 198, page 228, line 38, after “section” insert “51(6),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Secretary of State to amend the list of prevention orders in clause 51 (inserted by my amendment to clause 51, page 68, line 30) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

497A: Clause 198, page 228, line 38, after “81,” insert “(Obscenity etc offences: technology testing defence), (Technology testing defence: meaning of “relevant offence”),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State under the specified new clauses (inserted after clause 84) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

507: Clause 199, page 229, line 16, at end insert—
“(c) regulations under paragraph 10(4) of Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Scottish Ministers to amend the list of prevention orders in paragraph 10 of the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

508A: Clause 199, page 229, line 33, after “by” insert “Welsh”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts provision about regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to take account of Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (which is inserted by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025).

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments to the process by which Welsh Ministers will make regulations under powers conferred by the Bill. Recent legislation passed by the Senedd created “Welsh Statutory Instruments”, which are subject to three kinds of procedure in the Senedd that are similar to the affirmative and negative procedures followed in this place. These two amendments simply update the Bill’s provisions to reflect this new process, ensuring that the regulation-making power conferred on the Welsh Ministers by Clause 192 reflects the provisions of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 as recently amended. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

508B: Clause 199, page 229, line 35, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
“(8) Regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 192 are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts provision about regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to take account of Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (which is inserted by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

510: Clause 200, page 230, line 7, after “40” insert “(1) to (4)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes section 40(5), which should extend to England and Wales only, from a list of provisions having UK extent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

514: Clause 200, page 230, line 29, after “Sections” insert “36(1),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that clause 36(1), which inserts new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, extends to England and Wales and Scotland. At present it extends only to England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

519: Clause 200, page 230, line 33, after “Sections” insert “(Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(2),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Northern Ireland only.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

525: Clause 200, page 230, line 35, after “Section” insert “(Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1) and”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Scotland only.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

531: Clause 200, page 230, line 39, at end insert—
“(ba) section 36(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for clause 36(2) to have the same extent as the provision it amends. It is related to my second amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

537: Clause 201, page 232, line 3, leave out “section” and insert “sections 195 and”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes clause 195 (extradition) from the list of provisions that come into force on Royal Assent. The effect is that it will be commenced by regulations under clause 201(1).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

540: Clause 201, page 232, line 22, after “94(2)” insert “and (3)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

544: Clause 201, page 232, line 29, at end insert—
“(za) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(1) to (3), and section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(4) so far as extending to Northern Ireland;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for my new clause (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36, to be commenced by order made by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

554: Clause 201, page 232, line 34, after “Section” insert “(Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers to commence the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

564: Clause 201, page 233, line 13, leave out “an order” and insert “regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 201, page 232, line 25.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cash for tabling this important amendment, allowing for a debate on this matter. The link between ethnicity and crime has, for far too long, been a taboo subject, but the fact is that it always has been and remains to be a significant factor in explaining certain trends.

When ethnicity is ignored and underreported, observers are reduced to relying on conjecture based upon unverified connections. It does an injustice to the victims of crimes that go either unresolved or underreported because their causal factors are refused to be acknowledged. When the facts are obscured, it opens the door for accusations from both sides in bad faith. People are derided as racist, and uninvolved communities are implicated. The result, again, is that the focus is directed away from the victims.

Grooming gangs have been the case study most often referenced when discussing this topic, and I apologise for repeating the same argument, but we do so because they offer the best example of the consequences of ignoring this link. For decades, tens of thousands of white working-class girls were systematically groomed, trafficked and raped by gangs of predominantly Pakistani men. This is a fact that has only recently been accepted by mainstream politicians and media, despite years of campaigning and research conducted outside of Westminster.

We should not have arrived at this point where, after more than 30 years, Westminster is only just waking up to the scale of the tragedy. We should not have had to wait for the review from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which was commissioned only after the Government faced significant pressure, both in Parliament and online, for politicians to act on an overtly racialised crime. I understand that the failings surrounding the inability to bring these gangs to justice have been many, but a consistent factor is authorities overlooking the crimes for fear of being racist. In turn, the police have done nothing to allay their fears by providing accurate ethnicity figures.

The words of Denis MacShane, the former MP for Rochdale, a grooming hotspot, aptly demonstrate this. By his own words in 2014, he avoided the industrial-scale rape of working-class girls in his constituency out of fear of “rocking the multicultural boat” and offending his own sensibilities as a

“true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie”.

Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than that good men should look on and do nothing. Good men, in the narrow sense that they were not the ones committing evil crimes, were permitted to adopt Denis MacShane’s acquiescent attitude for decades, because there was no official empirical pushback for campaigners to draw from. If ethnicity data had been collected and released, the fact that these crimes were disproportionately committed by the Pakistani community —as we know from the fragmented picture that we now possess—would have been transformed from a racist trope derided as an inconvenience into a proven fact to be used by police forces for action.

We must learn from our failings. It is not enough simply to commission a review into grooming gangs and hope that acknowledging past crimes will put a stop to future crimes being committed. Crimes are still happening, and they are still happening along ethnic lines. Mandating the recording of ethnicity is a necessity for any Government claiming to want to reduce violence against women and girls.

Past the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and past grooming gangs, there is a great practical reason to introduce a requirement to record ethnicity. Crime trends differ from community to community, and identifying exactly what these are will help the police direct resources more effectively. This data—and I hope that many noble Lords opposite will support me here—would even reduce officers’ unconscious biases, as decisions would be based upon empirical evidence and not assumptions drawn from shaky data.

The administrative burden that would come with this change would be negligible. It is an extra tick in the box in an arrest report. The benefits, as explained, are numerous. If we are serious about organising a victim-orientated system that is empirically based, this amendment is absolutely necessary. I hope that the Minister will agree, and I very much look forward to hearing from him.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her amendment, which seeks to mandate the collection of ethnicity data in respect of the perpetrators of crime. I also thank all those who contributed to this debate: my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and, for the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

I will not repeat the point that I made in the last group—admittedly, this is a bit further away than I thought we were going to be—but I stress that the content of the annual data requirement on police is reviewed annually. We have also announced plans in the police White Paper, which we have already discussed in a previous group, to bring forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, on mandating the collection of suspect ethnicity data.

There has been a lot of discussion and debate on this amendment around the recent National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. For the avoidance of any doubt, I want to be absolutely clear that these abhorrent crimes must be pursued wherever they are found, without cultural or political sensitivities getting in the way.

I will just pause to correct the record. While I am not at all defending his comments, I believe that I am right in saying that Denis MacShane used to be MP for Rotherham rather than Rochdale—I am referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said—which is obviously where one of the gangs that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, looked into operated. I just want to put that out there. However, as I said, that does not undermine the abhorrence of these crimes; they must be pursued, irrespective of any cultural or political sensitivities getting in the way.

The previous Home Secretary wrote to all chief constables to make it clear that we expect that ethnicity data will be collected from all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases. As previously set out by the Home Secretary, we will be legislating to mandate the collection of ethnicity data in such cases. To be very clear, I quote directly from the police White Paper, which was published yesterday:

“we will work with policing to create a framework for mandating clear national data standards in a timely way, to improve how data is collected, recorded and used across England and Wales, and make sure these standards are applied across all forces and the systems they use. This will further support existing legal and ethical frameworks, ensuring data is managed responsibly and proportionately, and maintaining public confidence”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, referred to the importance of self-defined ethnicity, and this is how the ONS recommends that ethnicity be recorded in line with the census, which does ultimately provide the benchmark versus which all public service data should be collected. In light of this and our commitment to bring forward legislation in the context of our wider reforms to policing, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, the mandatory recording of ethnicity data was a recommendation of the Macpherson inquiry—it was that long ago—and it just has not happened; it has not been put on a statutory footing. So, due to the variability in collection of data up and down the country we have already heard about today and the many other sociological, criminological difficulties that we now have with assessing the data trends, I wanted to bring forward this amendment and invite the Government to use this moment, with the Crime and Policing Bill going through, to set this on a statutory footing. I do not feel particularly attached to what categories we use, provided they are not the old five high-level groups, which are very cursory and do not provide the granularity of detail needed.

I am grateful to those who have spoken in support, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Chakrabarti. I am grateful also for the winding speeches. But I would really welcome further conversation, because given the Government’s direction of travel and the comments of the noble Baronesses, I feel there is common ground.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referenced ICE. We must not let that happen in our country. People often say we are just a bit behind the curve of the US, and that is not what we want to happen. But we have an opportunity to take steps that prevent the lack of transparency and dictatorial authoritarian behaviours that we have seen recently in the US. In my view, this is an opportunity and I believe the Government are sincere about driving towards this. Putting it on a statutory footing would emphasise that and give the public the reassurance that they seek. On that note, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for this amendment and the case she put forward. It is absolutely axiomatic that we must honour and recognise those brave police officers who put their safety at risk to protect the public. During my police service, I saw many acts whereby officers placed themselves in the most dangerous of situations with little recognition. If I had time, I would be keen to relate some of those instances to noble Lords; some of them, of course, had consequences. There is certainly some merit in the proposal. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Home Office might suggest on this.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that we owe our emergency service workers a massive debt of thanks for the work they do to keep us safe and for always answering the call when we need help. When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is incumbent on us, as a state and as a society, to wrap our arms around them, so to speak, and ensure that they are given all the support they need.

I am sure we all agree that the list of public servants who risk and suffer injuries during the course of their duties is not limited to police officers; this was reflected in the noble Baroness’s comments. Other emergency services, such as our brave firefighters, ambulance workers and other emergency service workers, also face great risk of injury on duty. Any consideration will have to include them alongside police staff—I think the whole Chamber would agree on that—though I note that the text of the amendment refers to police officers alone. I hope the noble Baroness takes that in the spirit in which it is intended.

Noble Lords will be aware that the police are already eligible for a number of medals, including for long or exemplary service, for specific celebrations such as a Coronation or jubilee, and for gallantry. Individuals who suffer injury as a result of their efforts to prevent loss of life can and have been successfully put forward for formal gallantry awards. This includes Sergeant Timothy Ansell of Greater Manchester Police, who was injured coming to the aid of a colleague and received a King’s Commendation for Bravery in October.

Although I recognise that the threshold for these awards is high, and rightly so, there are many incidents which can and should be put forward but which currently fall below the radar. The Home Office has been driving work to increase the number of gallantry nominations for the police, and I encourage any noble Lords who have cases to put forward to do so via the Cabinet Office website.

Work to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency service workers who are injured as a result of their duties and whether it is viable is ongoing. However, I point out that in this country, all medals are a gift from the Government on behalf of the monarch. They are instituted by royal warrant and sit firmly under royal prerogative powers. It would therefore be inappropriate to legislate for such a medal, potentially cutting across the powers that rightly rest with His Majesty the King. On the understanding that this is a matter that is actively under consideration, I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his support. I also pay tribute to Tom Morrison MP, who previously highlighted this campaign in the other place. Those people who put themselves on the line for us in the course of duty really ought to be honoured. I take the Minister’s point that it is not in the gift of the Government to do this and that we should not legislate, but I hope that whoever has the power will be persuaded to do something like this. It does not have to be a medal, but it needs to recognise that people who put themselves on the line need to be appropriately rewarded—I do not mean monetarily; I mean a proper reward. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that we have a great deal for which to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her work in relation to the online space and its regulation when it comes to our most vulnerable citizens. It is so obvious that all child deaths are harrowing and deeply distressing for bereaved families that to say so seems almost trite. However that may be, I start my remarks by acknowledging this to make the point that the Government have this both front and centre. Anything I say this afternoon should be seen in that context.

I pay tribute to every brave family who fought to understand the circumstances that led to the death of their own child. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for telling me that some of the families are in the Gallery; I have not had an opportunity to meet them yet, but I extend the invitation to do so now. I also understand that for most, if not all, of them, this is not just about the circumstances of their own child’s death but about trying to ensure that this does not happen to other families.

We know that the data preservation provisions in Section 101 of the Online Safety Act continue to be a focus, both for bereaved families and parliamentarians who do not think that the process is quick enough to stop services deleting relevant data as part of their normal business practices. We agree that it is a proper and urgent objective to make sure that Ofcom has the powers to require, retain and provide information.

Section 101 was originally introduced following the campaign and amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. In order to support both coroners and services, in September, both the Chief Coroner and Ofcom published guidance on this new provision. Ofcom consulted on the draft guidance in parallel and published its finalised guidance in December 2025. The Chief Coroner’s guidance encourages coroners to consider requesting a data preservation notice early in the investigation if the relevance of social media or another in-scope service cannot be ruled out. This should safeguard against automatic deletion of the data by service providers due to routine processes.

The Government brought forward the commencement of data preservation notices, which came into force on 30 September 2025. Since then, Ofcom has issued at least 12 data preservation notices. On 15 December 2025, the guidance for Ofcom was updated in relation to information-gathering powers, including new guidance on data preservation notices themselves. The Government are therefore working closely with Ofcom and the Office of the Chief Coroner to understand how effectively these are working in practice, but we have heard the concerns about the speed and efficiency of this process.

Against this background, I begin with Amendments 438ED and 438EE. The police themselves accept that there should be better guidance for the application of powers to preserve and access digital evidence in investigations of child deaths in order to ensure consistency across forces. Forgive me, I have a bad cough.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are already working with the police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to create guidance to raise awareness of and promote the consistent use of powers available to the police to preserve and access data following the suspicious death of a child. Officials in the Home Office have been supporting this work where appropriate. That said, we can see why the noble Baroness’s idea of updating statutory guidance is attractive.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I can start again; I am very grateful to my noble friend for taking over. I say now that I would welcome a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as she and I discussed when we met briefly the other day. The Government do have concerns that being too prescriptive in legislation may create more problems than it solves because the legislation would need to be amended every time there were changes in technology or in operational practices. Your Lordships will be well aware, given our many late nights spent scrutinising primary legislation, of which tonight may be another, how clunky, cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to keep amending primary legislation.

For this reason, it is the Government’s view that our shared objective can be achieved using non-statutory guidance. Police forces are well used to applying and following guidance in a range of areas, from missing people to information sharing. Having said that, I make the point that I would welcome a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to see whether we can find a way through this by working together to do so.

I turn to Amendments 474 and 475. Again, this is an issue that the Government take very seriously. I reassure your Lordships that we are carefully considering the issues that these amendments raise and are grateful for the continued engagement of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the bereaved families. Taken together, these amendments would require coroners to notify Ofcom within five days of a child’s death, triggering a standard form to request data preservation.

Once again, we can see the appeal of such a requirement. The problem is that it would apply to all cases of deaths in the over-fives, regardless of whether social media may be relevant to their death. So, for example, where a child died as a result of a road traffic collision or of cancer, it is unlikely in most cases that social media retention would be of use to the police or the coroner. Therefore, while the Government are sympathetic to the aims of these amendments, it is our view that we need carefully to consider any possible unintended consequences.