Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we believe that this ban is proportionate and we support it. Sword-related deaths are rare but even one, such as the tragic loss of Ronan Kanda, is too many. I join the Minister in his admiration for the family and how they have behaved. However, for this ban to be truly effective, it must be robust and well implemented. I have a number of concerns; I would be grateful if the Minister could address them when he winds up.

First, if the people we most need to reach are not even aware of this ban or the surrender scheme, they are unlikely to have the desired impact. The Youth Endowment Fund says that this was a key failing of the previous scheme to ban zombie knives. Even some individuals working in this field were apparently unaware of the process. Clear and targeted communication is essential. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that those who are the hardest to reach, who may not be easily identified or contacted, are made aware of these changes?

Secondly, I have a real concern that people surrendering zombie knives were asked to provide their personal details. Youth workers believe that this prevented many people coming forward, in particular those possessing weapons illegally, who already distrust the police completely. Will people be asked to provide their personal details this time?

Can the Minister clarify why the ban is limited to blades of up to 24 inches? Although most ninja swords are between 14 and 24 inches, knife enthusiasts are already bragging online that blades longer than 24 inches will remain legal. Was this intended to protect legitimate uses? From what the Minister said in his introduction, I assume that it was. If so, does the legitimate use exemption not already provide adequate protection? Is the Minister confident that criminals will not simply switch to longer blades to evade the law, which they seem to suggest online they would or should do?

I also want to ask about the exemption for fantasy swords. After the zombie knife ban, the BBC found that retailers were still selling them by claiming that they were for cosplay and could not cause harm unless modified. Is the Minister confident that this exemption will not create a similar loophole?

Furthermore, the legislation is narrowly drawn. The Home Office itself acknowledges that it may simply shift demand to other types of swords. It is unclear whether most swords used in recent homicides would even be covered by these new rules. What mechanism will be in place to review the effectiveness of this ban after it comes into force?

Finally, this law will make a difference only if it is enforced. The Clayman review suggests that the police currently lack the training, expertise and resources to police this effectively. Can the Minister provide information on how enforcement will be strengthened and what steps are being taken to improve police capability?

I would be grateful if the Minister would address these issues when he winds up.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister’s expressions of gratefulness towards the family of Ronan Kanda for the way that they have taken forward this campaign. I also thank the Minister and his Home Office team for the really careful way that the order has been drafted. They have considered thoroughly the representations made by members of the antique trade, collectors, historical re-enactment groups and martial art practitioners, when the easiest thing would have been to have a blanket ban on every straight-bladed sword. This would have criminalised people involved in land management, antique collecting, living history and sporting activities. I am therefore very grateful for the care and trouble that the Home Office team have taken.

I am confident that this definition is precise and specific to just these swords, but it is complex in nature and needs to be accompanied by illustrated guidance notes, as was done with zombie knives. A great deal of very well-informed amateur effort is available to help the Home Office compile these notes. Perhaps, given the enthusiasm in some bits of this Government for AI and the progress that they are making, we could equip each constable with an app on their phone that, based on the detailed knowledge that can be provided, the illustrations and other details, would enable instant identification—at least in principle—for police officers, who would not have to receive deep, separate training. Maybe there is something that we can do here to improve enforcement. There is so much complexity in this area that the idea that we are going to train constables in how to recognise whether a knife is within or without this legislation is not practical, but there are ways in which it can be done.

I am delighted that the Government have recognised the importance of historical items by including defences that are identically worded to those in previous legislation. The role of amateur collectors and people who are interested in preserving our history is really important at a time when museums are strapped for cash and resources. That being recognised and supported is enormously appreciated.

I hope that we will—well, I am sure that we will—have an opportunity when the Crime and Policing Bill comes through the House to consider extending this defence consistently across the entire area of historical weapons. There is a set of inconsistencies at the moment, particularly around World War II items, such as the sort of stuff that the SOE used—I declare an interest as someone who is descended from the political head of the SOE. It is really important that this aspect of our history is preserved. There will be an opportunity with that Bill—not, as I say, to extend the idea of the legislation but to extend its ambit—to make sure that what has been done in this order can be extended to weapons of historical significance generally.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by making it clear that we support the order before the Committee. The use of offensive weapons, such as so-called ninja swords, in violent crime is a matter of profound concern, and we recognise the devastating circumstances that led to this legislative action. The tragic death of Ronan Kanda was a heartbreak that no family should have to experience. We pay tribute to his family’s dignified and determined campaign, and acknowledge the Government’s response in bringing forward this measure.

As the Minister outlined, the order makes it an offence to manufacture, sell, import or possess ninja swords, a specific category of bladed weapon characterised by their tanto-style points and multiple cutting edges. It also introduces a surrender and compensation scheme modelled on the previous amnesty for zombie knives and machetes. These are measured and proportionate steps, and we recognise the effort that has gone into ensuring that this is a targeted and carefully drafted order.

However, we must consider what else is necessary and required beyond this intervention if we are serious about tackling the wider and more complex challenge of knife crime. We must be clear about what the order can and cannot achieve. Banning a specific category of weapon, although entirely sensible, will not address the root cause of knife crime. Tragically, those intent on violence will find other means. We must not fall into the trap of believing that legislation alone—in particular, legislation focused on the design or appearance of a blade—can resolve a problem that is systemic and growing in scale.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

140: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Notice periodsWhen—(a) an employee’s contract of employment contains a notice period of more than two weeks,(b) the employee gives notice of their intention to leave, and(c) their employer enforces any part of the notice period beyond two weeks,the employee may require the employer to pay them, for the enforced notice period beyond two weeks, at whichever is the higher of their current rate of remuneration and the remuneration offered to them under any new contract of employment that they have secured.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to incentivise shorter notice periods.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I thank Tim Leunig for drawing my attention to this proposal. The standard in the UK when a person has a job and contracts for a new one is that he or she has to serve a three-month notice period. In the United States, notice periods are typically two weeks. There is no legal requirement, but that is the convention and any longer is considered unreasonable. It is quite clear, looking at things in the round, that three months is not necessary to run a dynamic and effective economy—it is inefficient. Shifting the notice period down would be a contribution to productivity and a benefit to workers. Most people get a pay rise when they move jobs. Getting it 11 weeks earlier would mean a direct rise in the individual’s income, as well as a rise in GDP and tax revenues. It is of all-round economic benefit.

The most important effect is indirect. If notice periods are short, a dynamic company can scale up more quickly and easily than is currently possible. It can go out and bid for contracts knowing that it can get the staff in time to honour them. If an entrepreneur has a good idea, they can make it happen. If demand rises for one firm, it can respond more easily. Making it easier for dynamic firms to grow quickly is definitely an economic benefit.

Finally, knowing that employees can leave more quickly would give firms an incentive to think more carefully about them. If their leaving is a big nuisance, firms will want them to stay, and will therefore have an incentive to think more about pay rises, promotions, new training opportunities and other things that make the employee feel that his current job is worth having. In contrast, allowing firms to set long notice periods helps incumbents, particularly firms not seeking to grow and that do not want to respond to growth opportunities. That is not a productivity-enhancing strategy.

My amendment suggests a gentle way of seeking to change current practice in the UK—to incentivise a change without requiring anything. If the Government can see a better way of getting to the same outcome, I should be delighted to support them. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment raises questions about notice periods and how they are handled under employment contracts. I make no particular case for or against it, but it draws attention to a more pressing issue: the complexity introduced by this Bill around notice periods and contractual exits. For many employers, particularly those without specialist legal support, understanding and implementing these new requirements will not be straightforward.

I am appreciative that this amendment attempts to bring some clarity and firmer parameters to that part of the framework. Striking the right balance is crucial: while shorter notice periods can support quicker recruitment and flexibility, they may limit employers’ ability to ensure a smooth handover or maintain continuity in key roles. Any reform should therefore weigh the benefits of agility against operational realities.

If the Government want compliance, they must ensure that the legislation is not only sound in principle but clear in practice. That means providing details on how these provisions interact with existing arrangements and what precisely is expected of employers. A complex system with vague guidance helps no one. That is not the first time we have made that point to the Government tonight, and we will keep doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 140.

When we were developing the plan to make work pay, we were clear in our ambition to establish a fair deal that balances employees’ rights and protections with employers’ confidence to hire the talent, skills and expertise they require to grow their business. A notice period is a period of time put in place to ensure a smooth transition, allowing the employer to manage minimum disruption to business requirements while the employee hands over their responsibilities. We therefore feel that, in the round, our proposals are beneficial to employers and fair. Many employers do not want their staff to leave too quickly, so that fairness is built in. Although the statutory minimum notice period that an employee must give an employer is currently, after one month’s employment, no less than one week, often a longer contractual notice period is agreed between the employer and their employees. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I do not recognise three months as the standard; for many workers, it is considerably less.

This is all about fairness and balance. In practice, employers and employees recognise that both parties require stability and certainty to maintain a fair agreement. Of course, if an employment contract specifies a notice period longer than the statutory minimum, an employee is entitled to receive that longer period of notice, but the employer sets that out in the contract at the outset.

The current minimum notice periods legislation entitles an employee to their normal contractual pay rate during a notice period, as you would expect. This measure would require an enforcement mechanism of employees’ rights to increased notice pay, which would result in more disputes being taken to employment tribunals or the fair work agency. It would create a requirement for an employee’s current and future employer to confirm their salary offer, adding an additional step in the process of offboarding an employee. It also presents the possibility of increased financial burdens on employers.

So, the Government feel that it is not necessary to make a further assessment of this. They have not made an assessment of the costs and the impacts of making this change to employment rights. To do so would require careful consultation with employers and employee representatives. However, we have not received lobbying or any suggestion from employers that they particularly want the sort of proposal that the noble Lord has put forward.

The Bill is delivering the commitments made by the Government to improve workers’ rights in the plan to make work pay. I have listened to the noble Lord, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, that we want a simple process. Our process is simple. It is also fair to both sides: to the employer and to the employee. If those arrangements need to change, by and large, that can be done within the workplace, based on negotiations—so we do not feel the pressure to make the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing, but I thank him nevertheless for the suggestion.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sorry she does not feel sympathy for the direction I was taking. It seems to me that when you are addressing the question of productivity in the economy, there are no big solutions. It is rather like the way British cycling came to win: you make a very large number of very small improvements, all in the same direction.

This was intended to be one of those, to increase productivity but at the same time to make life a bit better for employees. I am inclined that way. I spent last weekend at a Premier Inn. Premier Inn does not provide toilet brushes. I do not see why the cleaners who come after me and other people should have to scrub out the toilet bowls when I could do that myself. Having a campaign with Premier Inn to change its policy on that would be worthwhile. It is a small change but, by making small changes enough times, you make some progress. Indeed, one of the secrets of this House is to make small changes. So I am sorry that this small change has not appealed to the Minister, but I will try again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 140 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will write to noble Lords about when the regulations will be available. This may well be part of the implementation plan, which is still awaited. Noble Lords can genuinely take it from me that they will receive it as soon as it is available.

We will consult on the contents of the draft regulations and engage with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether we could have further discussions about this. Of course I am happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply, because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility they seek is already in the Bill in its different formulations of wording. But I am happy to have further discussions about this.

I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in saying that I would really appreciate the opportunity to look at how this Bill deals with lumpy demand— not only predictably lumpy but randomly lumpy. I ask the Clerk at the Table to transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a request to tell us how the Bill will affect the House’s employment practices, because we are a great generator of lumpy demand, not least on the Public Bill Office. I would really like that immediate understanding of how the Bill affects a substantial organisation, but one with a very unpredictable set of demands such as the Houses of Parliament.

This lumpiness is a characteristic of, say, the NHS, which may suddenly get a demand and have to do things. Suddenly something emerges and the pattern of working has to change. Will the Bill fix those longer hours so that they become set and cannot be rowed back from when the lump disappears? A good understanding, before we reach Report, of how the Bill will work in practice and interact with a range of real businesses would be really valuable, and I hope the Minister can offer it to us.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had already offered to have further discussions, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

21A: Clause 2, page 19, line 11, after “notice”, insert “of no more than 24 hours”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I hope this amendment will come under the “lumpiness seminar” we have been promised. It is about what “reasonable notice” means in the Government’s intentions and how this will work in practice.

This again comes back to my request to the clerk. How did this work in the case of Parliament being recalled to deal with the Government’s rescue of the steelworks? How would it work in connection with the NHS’s response to a train crash in its neighbourhood? What about the need to change working patterns suddenly and quickly and for the workforce to be flexible? Although I have kept this amendment simple, I would like to reflect in our meeting on the equivalent provisions in Schedule A1, which deal with agency workers. How is this all going to work in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention. I can say only that I thought we were all agreed that flexibility is a good thing, and I am sure we do not want anything in the Bill that would restrict either an employee or an employer from making a reasonable judgment on a case-by-case basis. On that, I rest my case.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his analysis of my amendment. I certainly do not intend to press it today, but I very much look forward to taking up the issues when we sit down with the team to discuss lumpiness.

On the noble Lord’s preference for keeping “reasonable” broad, I can see the attractiveness of that. If a business is wiped out by a flood, postponing employees’ work for the next day at zero notice but saying, “We’ll want you in the day afterwards so you can start the clean-up” would presumably be reasonable. At the same time, giving very little notice when it is obvious that more notice could have been given would obviously be unreasonable. But allowing the whole pattern of this to be developed slowly through individual cases in tribunals does not seem to be the right way of going about it.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

29: Clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert—
“(l) the withdrawal from sale of products of a type concerning which Trading Standards have raised concerns, until such time as the seller has satisfied Trading Standards that those concerns are unfounded.”

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the market we have at the moment is such that, if there is, say, an orange teddy bear on the market, it may appear in a hundred or more different guises from ostensibly different sellers. Perhaps it has a different label or name attached, but it is, in essence, the same product. If we insist on trading standards proving that each of these instances is dangerous, we will find ourselves unable to enforce this legislation properly.

Amendment 29 suggests reversing the process so that, when trading standards become aware that, say, an orange teddy bear of a particular description appears to be dangerous, they can stop them being sold and put the onus on the sellers to prove that they are safe. In that way, we can achieve the protection of the public quickly and simply, without overwhelming trading standards. I beg to move.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31, 85, 97, 98 and 109, all on enforcement issues. Amendment 31 in my name and Amendment 98 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, deal with the subject of fulfilment houses. Yes, it sounds like a slightly dodgy building, does it not? Anyway, I have been educated.

Amendment 31 addresses Clause 2. At the end of line 14 of page 3, it would insert

“a person who controls fulfilment houses in the United Kingdom”.

This amendment adds to the list of persons in Clause 2 on whom product regulations may impose product requirements. I thank the Chartered Trading Standards Institute for its advice on this issue.

Fulfilment houses or centres store, pack and ship products for other companies, which are third-party sellers, often from overseas. Without clear rules, these products easily skip safety checks, creating risk for consumers. It is important to aim for compliant products only to enter the market, and these fulfilment houses should play a critical role in ensuring that.

There is presently a lack of clarity regarding the specific obligations of fulfilment houses, as their operations may not fall directly under the role of traditional retailers or manufacturers. This amendment makes it clear that fulfilment houses must meet safety standards, just as regular shops must, and are accountable if they are storing and passing on products for delivery that are unsafe or dangerous.

Amendment 98 aims to close a critical gap in the supply chain and protect consumers from non-compliant goods from third-party sellers. The amendment seeks to define “fulfilment houses” because at present the Bill does not. This is needed as these houses are, as I said, a key loophole for unsafe products entering the UK market. The amendment also outlines how fulfilment houses will have to keep records showing that the products they store meet all necessary product safety requirements. These houses are also to work with enforcement officers if that is needed. Although fulfilment houses already register for tax due diligence, this extension to product safety is a necessary logical next step towards ensuring safe consumer products across the board.

Amendment 85 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is on enforcement of metrology regulations. This amendment, advised by trading standards officers, makes it the duty of weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and a similar body in Northern Ireland to ensure that products are accurately measured and to add to the list in Clause 6 on page 6, line 30.

Although the Bill currently includes rules about measurement units and product quantities, it does not, according to weights and measurements officers on the ground, fully cover the checking of equipment used to make these measurements. Accurate measuring equipment is essential for ensuring fair trade, so expanding the regulations to include equipment testing, as our amendment suggests, would help authorities to enforce those rules more effectively. There are also concerns that the Bill may allow people other than trading standards officers to carry out enforcement, even though trading standards officers are already trained and authorised to do this work.

This amendment clarifies who is responsible for enforcement, helping build consumer trust in fair measurements, which affects consumers UK-wide. It will also ensure that local authorities will be responsible for regularly checking products to ensure accurate measurements, investigating complaints and taking action if they find issues. This will mean that all sellers follow the same standards so that consumers can trust the quantities they are buying—whether groceries, petrol or other goods—and that they are measured fairly.

I shall now speak to Amendment 97 in my name and those of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. The explanatory statement says:

“This amendment inserts safeguards to ensure non-regression from existing legal protections, as well as providing for the due consideration of the precautionary principle when scientific evidence about a possible risk may not yet be fully available but there is a need to be cautious given the potentially serious consequences for the safety of individuals”.


In current legislation, Regulation 10(5) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, for example, includes the duty that

“An enforcement authority … take due account of the precautionary principle”.

That point was relied on by the organisation Which? in its campaign to persuade the Government in 2019 to take action and require Whirlpool to recall dangerous tumble dryers that were responsible for starting hundreds of fires. When the scientific evidence was not fully available, the precautionary principle kicked in. At that point, scientific evidence is not completely collated but, when there are hundreds of fires, something needs to be done.

The Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to introduce new regulations that will upgrade consumer rights, but we believe there needs to be a more encompassing principle to keep consumers safe and underpin all future regulation with key consumer protections. With this amendment, we are seeking to ensure that the primacy of a high level of consumer protection is built into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. We would expect regulators and authorities to carry out enforcement in line with the regulators’ code, which I am happy to share with noble Lords.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the debate ranged a long way beyond my amendment, and I shall not attempt to summarise it. I suspect that I shall be listening to many of the arguments again at Report, specifically those from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, too. In his reply to my amendment, I felt that the Minister rather missed the point, which is that, no, they do not have the powers at the moment. That is why this amendment has been tabled, because they are saying that they do not have the powers. Yes, you can name a product and have it taken off, but if it appears in 100-plus different guises, which all claim to be different but are actually the same, you are stuffed. That is what I am trying to get at. I shall come back to this at Report, after taking further advice.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of how overregulated our nuclear industry has become and that allowing it to continue to be the subject of such a ridiculous free for all—resulting in us paying five times more than it costs the Koreans to build a nuclear power plant—is not something that should be waved away in the breadth of the powers that we have in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

20: Clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert “with information including their origin, the identity of the local representative, their value and beneficial ownership”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will enable discussion of what information might usefully be marked on the product, such that the liability for regulations and charges can be clearly established.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 20 and speak to the others in this group. Each of these amendments has a role, I hope, in improving or at least elucidating the provisions of the Bill, but they are also put together from the point of view of “Let’s collect the tax”.

This Government have not been shy of hurting people in pursuit of a few hundred million pounds in tax per year. They have threatened the basis of family farms, chucked children out of school in the middle of their exam years and frozen old age pensioners. Why, then, are they leaving a billion pounds a year lying on the floor, uncollected, from scamming Chinese and other—Asian, by and large—traders? It is quite extraordinary. It not only fails to collect the tax but damages the British businesses that would be doing the business if we were not giving a 20% price advantage to the likes of Shein and Temu. Now we see that Amazon has to follow them down this track because it has been so damaged by Shein and Temu that it has to go into the same business. This is economically illiterate and ridiculous.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for arranging a meeting to discuss this. He very kindly invited a Treasury official along. I have had a reply now from the Treasury saying basically, “Don’t ring us, we’ll ring you”. I find this extraordinary, but I do not particularly blame this Government. The last Government was just as bad on it. However, it is extraordinary not to collect tax when the Government are going to such lengths to collect additional tax now.

I will add one more thing: for goodness’ sake, make the marketplaces liable for VAT. Stop trying to make the individual traders liable for VAT. They are here today, gone tomorrow, registering 500 new companies with Companies House, with lots of new VAT numbers. As soon as you put your finger on them, they are gone. Make the marketplaces collect VAT. It would be simpler and easier for them and for us, and much more effective.

Amendment 20 asks that we get a sensible amount of information on the origin, the identity of the local representative, the value and the beneficial ownership of the goods, so that everybody involved can see where the liability for product regulation sits, where the liability for any charges can sit and how things can be enforced. The more difficult you make it to track down who should be collared, the less it will happen. In these regulations, we must make it easier to chase people.

Amendment 24 basically says, “Make sure the representative who is appointed has the financial strength to stand behind what’s going on”. If the Minister cares to browse Amazon when he has the time and looks for, say, a three-terabyte drive—the sort of thing I shall need to pack up my 30 years in this place and carry it away with me—he will find that there are some very reputable products on the market for around a hundred quid. That is astonishing. I remember buying my first serious computer, which had 20 megabytes of hard drive, and thinking that was extraordinary. So—three terabytes for a hundred quid from a good manufacturer.

However, there are also products on the market for fifty quid from weirdly named companies. The game being played there is that the products do not contain three terabytes. They probably contain only 256 megabytes. But it does not show on the outside and by the time that anyone gets around to complaining and putting bad reviews in place, the company has changed; it has gone; it is someone else and there is no one to pursue. With a product such as a hard drive, it takes a while for someone to realise that it has been mis-sold. If you are going to pursue these people properly, you need to know that you can go after them for several months of turnover and succeed, which means that the representatives in the UK have got to be good for the money. Otherwise, you just do not have effective product regulation.

Amendment 25 also relates to “Let’s collect the tax”, since we are creating these structures to look after product quality, which could quite easily be used to help collect tax. Amendment 26 says, “Look, we’ve got a trading standards system that is really short of money, so let’s make it easier for us to extract money from the process we are creating in the Bill and feed it through to trading standards so that we get an effective and efficient system of enforcement”. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his proposed amendments to Clause 2, which, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, has been recommended for removal due to the broad and vague nature of the powers it grants. The liability for regulations and charges related to products is a matter of extreme importance. Without clear guidelines and transparent information, businesses could face significant uncertainty, which in turn undermines their ability to comply effectively.

The Government’s focus on clarity in other areas will ring hollow if they fail to address the critical need for clarity in liabilities—an issue that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to address directly. Regarding Amendment 20, by ensuring that products are marked with clear and comprehensive information, such as origin, local representation and ownership, we can establish clear responsibility for product compliance. This would not only improve regulatory transparency but foster trust with consumers and businesses alike.

I urge the Government to take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of clear liability and responsibility frameworks. Although these amendments are to Clause 2, and we continue to discuss its broader issues, nevertheless the noble Lord’s proposed changes are a necessary step towards ensuring both accountability and transparency in product regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have given sufficient explanation. We think the main issues that the noble Lord has raised are covered by this and other legislation, but I look forward to his comments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s comprehensive reply. On Amendment 24, I remain unclear whether the powers in the Bill allow for representatives to have to demonstrate deep pockets. I would be happy to be written to if the Minister cannot reply now. If he could point me in the direction of homework related to Amendment 25, such as the OBR analysis and so on, I would be most grateful.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I would be very happy to do that.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

21: Clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert “, including a requirement that the name, address and email address of the seller is provided prominently next to the price with a statement that the customer is not buying from the marketplace;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that people are aware that they are often buying from China when buying on Amazon/eBay and the product hasn’t undergone any quality checks.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I will also speak to Amendment 22. Amendment 21 is fairly self-explanatory. It asks that people be made aware of where the goods they are buying come from and, therefore, what confidence they can place in their quality. Secondly, it explores whether we might place liability on marketplaces for the quality of the products they allow to be listed there, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

My view is that Amazon makes a great deal of money out of selling what are, essentially, counterfeit products. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Amazon is quite well enough off to do a bit of investigation, which does not take long with these products, to make sure that they are what they say they are. This would result in greater stability and higher quality of companies doing business through Amazon. I do not think it would lose Amazon any business, but I am prepared to be shocked to find that the Government disagree with me. For now, I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 45 in this group is in my name. I also support my noble friend Lord Foster’s Amendments 117 and 122.

I come back to an issue debated at some length on the first day of Committee. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in his place because my amendment relates directly to his Amendment 33, which questions whether Clause 2(3)(h) should stand part of the Bill; my amendment also looks at paragraph (h). He spoke about it in the context of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, but my focus is a different one: I am trying to look at how it will work in practice. During our debate last week, my noble friend Lord Fox said that

“the wording of Clause 2(3)(h) is ‘any other person carrying out activities’. All the other items refer to the activity of the sale and marketing of that product. This does not refer to it but any person carrying out activities unspecified”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 40.]

We are moving from products to people in this debate.

At Second Reading, I asked the Minister who is caught by this very wide, catch-all paragraph. In his letter of 17 October, in which he responded to issues that he did not have time to cover at Second Reading—I thank him for it—he said:

“These supply chain roles may be undertaken by individuals as well as by businesses. The Bill will enable the responsibilities of supply chain actors to be rationalised and modernised, including to reflect the development of new business models that were not anticipated by current legislation, such as online marketplaces”.


I read his reply carefully, but it did not answer my question. That is partly because “actors” could mean anybody; it does not necessarily mean somebody mentioned in one of the clause’s previous paragraphs. I remain concerned about that in the context of Clause 2(3), which identifies the

“persons on whom product regulations may impose product requirements”.

It appears that paragraph (h) can include absolutely anyone involved in selling a relevant product, without limitation. This matters because a private individual selling an item with a lithium-ion battery, for example, on eBay or Vinted may be an actor at the very end of a long supply chain, but that does not mean they are a professional in the business. The wording is important.

Where does the responsibility for satisfactory compliance lie? In our Second Reading debate, there was some discussion about online marketplace platforms having responsibility for ensuring compliance but, frankly, eBay and Vinted cannot check the detail of a regulated item—in the case I gave, a lithium-ion battery in a bicycle—or how it meets the regulations. Also, the individual at the end of the supply chain has no obvious way of finding out whether they are responsible for ensuring that the item they wish to sell meets the regulations. Of course, there is a future actor in all of this: the person who buys it.

Which?, in its very helpful briefing prior to Second Reading, pointed out that the Bill needs strengthening in a number of areas, including clearer definitions of key terms, so that existing and future online marketplaces cannot take advantage of gaps to avoid responsibility. Clause 2(3)(h) is one such area. Will the Minister help by making it clear who is covered? Can he also explain exactly how the online marketplaces can manage the extension of liabilities for defective products sold by individuals, which those online marketplaces have not seen themselves? Alternatively, if individuals selling items are covered by Clause 2(3)(h), how do those individuals become aware of their responsibilities under the Bill for ensuring that the goods they sell meet the requirements and are not defective? Frankly, eBay sending them an email saying, “You are entirely responsible” is not good enough for compliance. If this is not clarified, we have a gaping hole in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The Bill is drafted in this way to address who is going to be accountable. My invitation to all noble Lords to a meeting stands, and I welcome each and every one of them. I hope this amendment can be withdrawn.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the long and detailed reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Leong. I recommend a meeting with him to anybody. He is a most welcoming and courteous Minister, and you get good results out of a meeting with him. If, on rereading what he has said, I have any further questions, I shall attend the meeting. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

King’s Speech

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow three such powerful speeches from noble Baronesses. I am duly put in the shade.

I have very happy memories of facing the Labour Front Bench on these issues in its last incarnation. I mention in particular Lord Williams of Mostyn, for whom I had the highest possible regard, and the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, in their roles as Prisons Ministers. I perceive that the current Front Bench is up to their standard and I am absolutely delighted by that. Not only that, but we have the prospect of a Prisons Minister who will stay in role for a decent length of time. That will make such a difference. I really think that a Government being prepared to use this House to put specialist Ministers in place and allow them to really command their subjects—because these roles are never good for MPs; they are always something they are trying to escape from—is a good thing. So, please, let us enjoy the company of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for a good long time.

I declare an interest as a patron of Safe Ground, a charity working in prisons that my wife founded about 30 years ago and which is now part of the Social Interest Group. I am also a patron of the Better Hiring Institute, which the Minister will have come across. It is an offshoot of Reed, which is a very Timpson-esque company in its attitude and a real pleasure to deal with; it is very much dedicated to getting prisoners into jobs and persuading companies that this is a good idea.

I remember, in my early days with Safe Ground, trying to persuade the noble Lord’s ministry to take on one of our graduates as an employee. It refused to take on a prisoner, so perhaps things have changed—but, if not, I very much hope that the noble Lord will quiz his ministry and bring it up to Timpson standards. The prisoner got a job with me later, so he turned out all right; he was a great man.

The many underlying causes of offending cannot be solved through punishment alone. Prisons are there to house the most dangerous, obviously, but they also provide opportunities to initiate reform. You take advantage of the fact that people are abstracted from the surroundings that have fed their criminality. You have them in front of you. You have their time. Going back to the early days of the last Labour Government, time out of cell was really quite extensive. Prisons would facilitate the education and the bringing out of prisoners who showed promise for redemption. The current state of affairs is not that way at all.

Safe Ground specialised in building up family ties. It is my observation, looking at its work, that by the time men are 25, but not much before, they begin to develop a sense of responsibility and interest in the world. At that point, you can really activate their interest in being part of their families, whichever bits of their families are still prepared to work with them—their children, often their wives, mothers, cousins or whatever—and you can build that into a structure that will nourish the prisoner once they get out of jail. A job, family and housing: get those three right and you have a real chance of getting someone on the right road. That was the experience with Safe Ground. Not only did it reduce reoffending, but what was really noticeable was that it improved the behaviour of prisoners in prison, so it was very much supported by officers because having Safe Ground in your prison made it a much nicer place to be.

If I were to give a few other suggestions to the noble Lord, they would be: focus on making life good for prison staff. Focus on the programmes in prison being of good quality. Get prison governors to stay in post for seven years like a good headmaster, not two or three years like a professional civil servant. Have a look to see whether all that money that is being spent on the central bureaucracy might not better be spent in prisons.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the order before us adds zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes to the list of prohibited offensive weapons, by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to include them. The purpose of this draft order is to maintain public safety by restricting the supply of weapons which can be used in violent crime or to create fear in our communities. The Government keep legislation in relation to prohibited offensive weapons under review and we will act when the police raise concerns about specific weapons. For example, zombie knives were banned in England and Wales in 2016, followed by cyclone knives in 2019.

We are now concerned about the availability of certain types of machetes and large outdoors knives, which do not seem to have a practical use and instead appear designed to look menacing. The police tell us that these bladed articles, which can be purchased for as little as £10, are favoured by those who want to use them as weapons to perpetrate violent crime. While sales of these weapons are relatively low, they have a disproportionate effect because their appearance creates a fear of and glamorises violence.

We are aware that machetes and other large, bladed tools such as scythes, billhooks and large outdoor knives have traditionally been used as tools in farming, gardening, clearing land and waterways, as well as in outdoor activities such as bushcraft, hunting and camping. However, unlike more conventional knives and machetes, zombie-style knives and machetes have no legitimate purpose. In our conversations with manufacturers and retailers, they have been clear that, in their view, these articles are not designed as tools but as weapons. If these dangerous weapons remain available, there is a risk that they could be used to intimidate or cause fear. Worse, they could be used to perpetrate serious acts of violence. The Government will not tolerate such a risk.

This brings me to the details of the order before us. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. An offence under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 currently carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, but we have introduced provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the maximum penalty to two years.

A number of descriptions of weapons have been specified under Section 141 and therefore prohibited, including butterfly knives, knuckledusters, telescopic truncheons and certain types of swords with curved blades, commonly known as samurai swords. Using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Government wish to add zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes to the list of offensive weapons to which Section 141 applies. These weapons are defined as a bladed article with a plain cutting edge, a sharp pointed edge, and a blade over eight inches in length. This length was chosen to exclude knives designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen and outdoors knives. To be within the scope of the ban, the article should also have one or more of the features specified in Article 1(1)(a), namely, a serrated cutting edge, more than one hole in the blade, spikes, or more than two sharp points in the blade.

It is right that we take the firmest possible action to prevent violence and to stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, and we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. There will therefore be defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is one of historical importance, is made by hand, is possessed, sold or imported for religious purposes, or was given as a gift by a Sikh to another person at a religious ceremony or ceremonial event. Antiques are already exempted from Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Furthermore, we are providing a defence for blunt items to protect the fantasy knives market. We have also taken the opportunity to extend this defence to curved swords.

There are a couple of further points to mention before I finish. First, Parts 3 and 4 of this instrument are concerned with the surrender and compensation scheme, through which owners with weapons in scope of the ban will be able to surrender them and claim compensation if they so wish. Secondly, in terms of territorial scope, the statutory instrument will only apply to England and Wales. We very much hope that the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that these dangerous knives are prohibited across the United Kingdom. To this effect, officials have engaged with the Governments in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.

In summary, nothing matters more than public safety. That is why we are bringing forward this order, to prevent dangerous weapons being used in violent crime or to create fear in our communities. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I say thank you to the Minister and his Home Office team, which drafted this order, for including a clear and comprehensive exemption for objects of historical importance. Carving out a space for history is not the easiest thing to do when you are dealing with people being killed and seriously hurt but it is really important, and to have done it in a way that the ordinary citizen—rather than just museums—can take advantage of is particularly appreciated.

History is real. Iconoclasm is not a virtue. We have a long history of our ancestors carrying blades into armed conflicts, not just as weapons but as tools of utility and survival. Preserving these items is important. Museums have a limited capacity, so the role of preservation falls mostly on the amateur collector and the descendants of our brave veterans. I am delighted that the Government recognise that.

Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime—they are far too expensive for that—so excluding them from the order does not in any way decrease the protection that it offers. By way of illustration, it was not so long ago that a curved sword was sold for £400,000, possibly because it belonged to Lord Nelson. Generally, these articles fetch a decent price—far more than it costs to purchase a replica on the net or elsewhere.

Ministers have not always been so perspicacious. The historical importance exemption is not available for items prohibited by Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so there are items from World War II—obviously, they are not 100 hundred years old yet—issued to, for instance, the commandos and their SOE, as well as to their equivalents in other nations, that are not protected. I very much hope that the Minister and his team will make a note on the file that this is something they might set right when next an opportunity occurs. We ought to preserve these objects for just the reasons that have motivated the exemption in this order.

I also believe that there is scope for clarifying the law on truncheons. As it is at the moment, I am not at all clear that the police practice of presenting long-serving officers with engraved, old-style truncheons is legal; it would be nice to know that it is. There is also some scope for looking through the guidance that the police use when applying these rather convoluted regulations on prohibited items, so that they really understand how the various descriptions and exemptions work and so that things are made clear and easy for them.

I look forward to further conversations on these matters, both directly and as a result of the Home Office’s most helpful interactions with both Bill Harriman of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and John Pidgeon of the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, in 2021-22, 282 people lost their lives to knife crime—the highest number of people killed with a knife in over 70 years. The biggest increase was among boys aged between 16 and 17, going from 10 in the previous year to 24. Approximately four in 10 of all homicides were committed using a knife or a sharp instrument—the highest annual total since the homicide index began in 1946. There were 69 homicides where the victim was a teenager; in around three-quarters of those, the method of killing was a knife or sharp instrument, compared with 41% of all homicides.

Campaigners have been calling for a ban on zombie knives for several years, but progress on achieving one has been slow and several high-profile incidents have occurred since it was promised. These include the tragic killing of 15 year-old Elianne Andam, who was stabbed on her way to school in Croydon in September with what was believed to be a large zombie knife.

Meanwhile, this is the Government’s third attempt at banning zombie weapons since 2016. Bizarrely, the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 banned zombie knives only if they had threatening words on the blade. This proved a major loophole. Can the Minister explain why this loophole was not addressed sooner? Where was the sense of urgency then and where is it now? This ban will not come into effect until September, by which time, tragically, more lives may have been lost.

The Policing Minister, Chris Philp, told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme that although some swords will come under the new rules, some will not qualify owing to the difficulty of differentiating between those that could be used for violence and those kept for historical or religious reasons. He said that

“a regular sword, like the sort a historic soldier might carry, would probably not qualify. It would depend on the design”.

Is this still the case? If so, why could these swords not be included, given the availability of the historical importance defence? In any case, is not a sword, historical or not, capable of being used in violence?

Reducing the circulation of these weapons is not just about bans and sentences, important though both are. It is about cracking down hard on the sale of knives and swords of all kinds. Campaigners rightly want tech companies to introduce safety measures to stop knives being advertised online, so can the Minister update us on the progress of the relevant measures included in the Online Safety Act? How many prosecutions have there been in this area so far and how has this been policed?

I also want to speak about youth services, which have been cut by 77% over the last decade, despite the fact there is overwhelming evidence to show that youth centre closures are closely linked to youth crime. In 2020, the APPG on knife crime focused on the impact of youth centre closures across the country and found that each reduction in the number of youth centres corresponded to an increase in knife crime. This trend is confirmed by recent work from the University of Warwick, which reviewed London youth centre provision and found that crime participation among 10 to 15 year-olds increased by 10% in those London boroughs affected most by youth centre closures between 2010 and 2019.

Increasing jail time and banning zombie knives are welcome to increase deterrence and give police more tools, but they do not address the reasons why children and young people are carrying knives in the first place. As the representative of a Bristol school that had lost two of its teenage pupils due to knife crime said:

“Halving knife crime will not be achieved by banning machetes or … zombie knives. You can kill someone with a knitting needle or a screwdriver. You’ve got to deal with the anger, the fire, the rage, the angst, the trauma inside the person”.


That goes to the heart of this, and I hope that the Minister, as well as answering my specific questions, will also address himself to that challenge, because this is about tackling not just knife crime but the causes of knife crime. The British public and so many grieving families are looking to the Government to do both.

Right-to-Work Checks for UK Nationals

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lucas]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to end online right-to-work checks for United Kingdom nationals.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, from 21 June, right-to-work checks will revert from the Covid-19-adjusted measures to face-to-face physical document checks for those who cannot use the Home Office online checking service. We are currently evaluating the potential for introducing specialist technology, including identity document validation technology, into the right-to-work checking service. This would provide a permanent digital option for those unable to use the online checking service.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what has the feeling of being, perhaps, an encouraging Answer. The online verification of right to work during Covid has been a huge success for the Home Office. The system works really well; no one I have spoken to is aware of any serious issues. It avoids frauds; it is much more efficient and effective for companies; and it really promotes remote working, helping people in unemployment blackspots get jobs many miles away. What is the reason for junking it? Who benefits? I really do not understand.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I am glad my noble friend feels he got a positive Answer because, in fact, employers have been very positive about the temporary measures we have put in place. It is not about “junking it”; it is about the fact that it has been a temporary measure. Obviously, legislation has not been changed in this regard, and we made it clear that we would revert to the full checking regime in line with the lifting of social distancing measures. But I hope that my noble friend is encouraged by the moves we intend to make going forward.

Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome these regulations and I hope that they indicate that the Government are in a mood to consider further changes to our arrangements for weddings in this country—as, it is clear, does the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. My particular request to the Government is that they should look again at the restrictions on where a wedding can take place. We will be faced, I hope, with a considerable surplus of weddings once the restrictions are lifted but anyway, if we were allowed to hold weddings in the open air much more easily or in moving locations, that would provide creative venues and a much-needed increased capacity for ceremonies and would be a contribution to the recovery of places such as Sussex after the Covid epidemic as well as a great delight for those who were allowed to take advantage of them. If the Government are prepared to think of going in this direction, would they be prepared to hold an online meeting with me and officials from Sussex to discuss what might be possible?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have supported this amendment on the basis that it shows what the general definitions reveal and include. I do not think that it will be necessary to pursue it, if we have a clear understanding that the sort of behaviour that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has described is covered by the phrase “controlling or coercive behaviour”.

There is another important definition that deals with children being used as weapons against their parents. It points out that activity towards a child may well be against the parent. Clause 1(5) says:

“For the purposes of this Act A’s behaviour may be behaviour ‘towards’ B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).”


I am certain that there are a large number of cases in which one parent, using his or her relationship with the child, seeks to damage that child’s relationship with the other parent. It is a natural weaponising in a conflict, which is apt to come forward in this sort of fighting between parents. When they are antagonistic towards each other, they are apt to try to bring children to their side of the dispute, which strikes me as extremely dangerous.

I believe that the attempt to use one parent’s relationship to damage the children’s relationship with the other parent is an obnoxious type of controlling or coercive behaviour. I verily believe that, if allowed to persist until the end, you will get parental alienation, because the operation of trying to damage the child’s relationship with that parent ultimately succeeds. That is what alienation is: by that means, the child has been successfully cut off from the other parent’s company, love and support. As we show, the law as it stands includes that.

The reason for the amendment is to illustrate that that is so, simply to make it possible to have this debate on Report. There was a tremendous amount of debate in Committee suggesting that parental alienation should not be contemplated. Sadly, I fear that, if the conduct that we have described succeeds, it will continue to happen. The Bill already, properly, includes a definition that deals with the kind of behaviour that underlies attempts to alienate the other parent from their child.

I strongly believe that this broad definition should not be restricted. I felt that the addition of qualifications in other amendments restricted the wide definition presently in the Bill. That is important, because domestic abuse is a large area and the definition manages to encompass it with great success. Therefore, the reason for the amendment is to illustrate that the conduct in question is included in the definition. Once that is accepted, as I hope it will be, the amendment will not be unnecessary.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as one would expect, that was a fascinating contribution. In some ways, it answers a lot of my questions. I am completely behind the purpose of this amendment. To my mind, as someone who is experienced but not expert, there is nothing about the phrases in Clause 1(3)(c) and Clause 1(3)(e) that naturally covers alienation behaviour. If one were to describe this in plain English, neither of those concepts would comfortably accommodate controlling behaviour which by its nature takes place remotely. Once you have got into the business of alienation, the two parents, typically, are not together. It is difficult to see what element of control or coercion can be exercised by alienation or how, in the context of domestic abuse, the wide phrasing of

“psychological, emotional or other abuse”

could certainly be construed as covering alienation. I hope that the Government will make it clear to me and the public in general, by what they say and do outside the Bill, that alienation absolutely is covered. But I need to see that in clear and unambiguous terms.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my support for this amendment comes without the personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, or the legal expertise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Like him, I hope that this amendment is unnecessary in reality. I cannot proceed without paying tribute to the noble Baroness for her unstinting efforts to ensure that alienation of children by one parent against another is accorded its proper place in discussion of the Bill. Her efforts and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have been inspirational.

My concern throughout is for the protection of children and intervention in abusive situations at as early a stage as possible to ensure that their life chances are best fostered. It is well understood by psychologists that perpetrators of controlling and coercive behaviour will often try to separate their victim from outside contact—from friends, family, religious or social groups and even by preventing the means of communication necessary to seek help. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, perpetrators are often the most confident, plausible and convincing of people. Their victims, by comparison, are often confused, anxious and timid. Both may have deeper attachment issues.

Here we are concerned with a different direction of travel, namely conscripting the innocent as proxies to alienation as part of a contest with a partner. There are doubtless many versions of this, commonly using a weak or compliant adult proxy, but there is one type that warrants special attention and that is the deliberate enmeshing of the children of a relationship by one party as a tool or lever against the other. No other identifiable category so conveniently presents itself as a vehicle for this leverage; no other proxy is so trustingly vulnerable to exploitation or so readily damaged, both in the short and long terms, by such actions.

It may be a self-justification of the perpetrator that it is for the better protection of the children from the other partner, and it merely invites retaliation by precisely the same means. I have mentioned before the perils of a wholly adversarial and corrosive no-holds-barred approach to sorting out these domestic contests. The resident parent is clearly in a strong position to influence, and issues such as access to children and much else may hang on this. The very presence of children may, paradoxically, prevent the sort of clean break that some might wish for. Typically, the children are and remain the biological offspring of both partners. What they receive from ancestors may influence what they pass down to their own offspring in turn. The toxic adversarial circumstances of a relationship breakdown of adults seems capable of rendering them particular harm. Children, as minors, are entitled to the protection of their parents and, where that fails, to the protection of society. In my opinion, society is bound to take note of those impacts on them that might lead to perpetuation of abuse in future generations.

I have been surprised by the degree of antipathy that I have experienced following the parental alienation amendment in Committee. I did not think that this was in the least bit controversial, nor worthy of such sustained criticism. But I have been heartened by the comments of many others—from male and female viewpoints—and I thank them all for the trouble they have taken to write to me.

The first criticism is that parental alienation is not defined, but it is accepted that alienating activity does exist and has long been recognised, so I take it that the use of children as proxies in the process suffers, in this instance, from a liability to multiple interpretations.