Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 222 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, which she has so ably explained. All the amendments in this group seem to be a good idea. I also acknowledge the help of the Children’s Commissioner and the children’s coalition.

This is a very simple amendment: there is a concern that the offence of child-criminal exploitation, as written in the Bill, gives the perpetrator a defence if he or she reasonably believes that the child is over 18. We understand that this is a common part of legislation around other forms of abuse and exploitation; we believe that it will hinder the prosecution of perpetrators. During the Jay review into child criminal exploitation, many witnesses pointed to the role of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation. However, the Jay review found that perceptions of children’s complicity in their exploitation meant that some groups of children, and black boys in particular, were not receiving an adequate safeguarding response. We strongly recommend that this part of Clause 40 is removed. It is a small piece of text that would have a profound effect on young victims.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was happy to put my name to Amendments 218, 219 and 222. The Minister mentioned that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has Amendment 222A. She apologises for not being here this evening, but said that she thought that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, were so much better than her own, that she would not move them anyway—so that deals with that.

I am a governor of Coram, and used to be a trustee there. Coram is very involved in some of the activities that we are talking about. The Jay review is like a gut punch to the stomach. I had heard of it; I had not actually read it, but did so last night, and did not have a particularly undisturbed night’s sleep. What it contains is pretty horrifying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“to engage in actions that support or facilitate”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Cross-Bench.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, says “Cross-Bench”. I will take that as a bonus point for the Cross Benches. It is a noble approach to take towards the amendment. So I will not deliberate on those points as I would potentially have done, but I ask the noble Lord simply to pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness for her self-awareness on that issue, which is commendable.

I hope that, with those comments, my noble friend and other noble Lords will not press their amendments, will reflect on what I have said and, if need be, will consider this outside the Committee. I commend the amendments in my name to the Committee.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Russell of Liverpool]

27: Clause 6, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 104 (review of response to complaints about anti-social behaviour), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Where a person has made at least three qualifying complaints about the anti-social behaviour and irrespective of whether the person applies for an ASB case review, the police must undertake an impact assessment which determines whether—(a) the alleged behaviour exceeds the threshold of criminality, irrespective of whether the police intend to pursue criminal charges, and(b) the level of harm inflicted on the person is low, medium, or high.(1B) Following an impact assessment under subsection (1A), where the threshold for criminality has been met or exceeded and the level of harm is assessed as medium or high, the police must refer the person to local victim support services, pursuant to the Victim Code of Practice.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires police officers to undertake an anti-social behaviour impact assessment when a victim meets the trigger point for an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review, so that those who are assessed as having experienced medium to high levels of harm can receive appropriate support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hampton for putting his name to these five amendments, which seek to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are swiftly identified, protected from further harm and, above all, given the opportunity to have their voices heard. These amendments have the full support of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.

Although the Bill forms part of the Government’s very welcome determination to crack down on anti-social behaviour, it fails to address some of the underlying issues victims currently face and risks maintaining the status quo, leaving many victims without meaningful recourse and allowing harm to persist. So the status quo, in effect, does not bring about the degree of change called for by the Victims’ Commissioner herself and by HMICFRS in its October 2024 report, just 12 months ago, called The Policing Response to Antisocial Behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his amendments. I also thank the Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, both on the amendments and for her work on this issue over many years. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for the comments on this area from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Clement-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, from His Majesty’s Opposition.

Amendment 27 aims to ensure that all victims of repeat anti-social behaviour are subject to an impact assessment, even where the individual has not requested a case review to be undertaken. The Government believe that there is a more effective response to this issue, in that we can ensure that victims are aware of their rights to request a case review. That has been included in updated statutory guidance for front-line staff, which we published in September. The proposals in the amendment would significantly increase the resources required to review anti-social behaviour incidents. The wording of the amendment would mean that even in cases where the victim is satisfied with the response, the police would be required to conduct an impact assessment.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has approached this by saying he wishes to work with the Government to look at this. I am happy to have further dialogue with him and the responsible policy Minister in the Home Office post Committee. We can return to it then and examine the nuances. I hope that my initial comments give him a flavour of where the Government currently are.

Amendments 28, 29 and 31 look at the anti-social behaviour case review process and mandate the requirement for there to be an independent chair, for victims to be invited to attend their case review, and to reduce the ability for authorities to add additional caveats that reduce the victim’s abilities to request a case review. I am pleased to say—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will accept this and the way that I put it to him—that we have recently updated the statutory guidance to front-line professionals, which already reflects the proposals he has put to the Committee today. I believe that this will create the impact that his amendments intend to bring while still allowing for greater flexibility for circumstances to be treated on an individual basis. Again, if the noble Lord would like further information on the statutory guidance, I am happy to provide that to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, but we think that it meets the objectives of Amendments 28, 29 and 31.

Amendment 30 seeks to require relevant bodies involved in case reviews to publish details on why they have determined that the statutory threshold for a case review was not met. Under existing legislation, it is already a requirement for the relevant bodies to publish the number of times they decided that the review threshold was not met. I highlight to the noble Lord that, through Clause 7, the Government are introducing further requirements for local agencies to report information about anti-social behaviour to the Government. That is for the purpose of us understanding how local agencies are using the powers and tools provided by the 2014 Act, including the question of case review.

If the noble Lord looks at Clause 6 in particular—it is buried in the depths of the undergrowth of Clause 6 but I assure him that it is there—he will see that there will be a new duty for police and crime commissioners to set up a route for victims to request a further review where dissatisfied with the outcome of their case review. This includes where the relevant bodies determined that the threshold was not met for the initial case review. I will give further explanation of Clause 6 when we reach it, but I hope that it meets the objectives that the noble Lord has set out in Amendment 30.

The recently updated guidance on case reviews address many of the same points as these amendments and I hope that it will have the opportunity to bed in. I am happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the guidance, if I am able to, and I assure him that we will monitor the effectiveness of that guidance in improving good practice. He has my commitment that, if necessary, we will revisit the issues again in the near future. Until then, I submit that it would be premature to legislate further on case reviews beyond the measures in the Bill. I hope that with those assurances, the invitation to further discussion and the offer of further information, the noble Lord would be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the tenor and content of what he just said. The devil is quite often in the detail, so I, with others, would be happy to sit down with him and try to make sure that we all understand it in the same way and are talking the same language.

I have concerns about guidance that is, in theory, flags up to people in a slightly different and slightly more lurid way what their rights are. In evidence, I would state the experience of the victims’ code, which has been around for a very long time. On numerous occasions, when officers of various agencies who are, in theory, responsible for knowing the contents of the victims’ code are quizzed on it, they no absolutely nothing or very little or get very confused about it. Having guidance does not in itself solve any issue if people do not understand the guidance, are not trained in it and do not have sufficient experience of how to apply that knowledge in a sensible way.

However, I hear what the Minister is saying and I think we are moving in the right direction. I feel strongly that trying to look at, and perhaps reverse-engineer, some of the examples of best practice that are around would be informative and helpful, since we have a habit of reinventing the wheel in our 43 different police forces. Then of course there are all the local authorities and housing associations as well, so there is quite a muddle of people and agencies looking at this and the evidence suggests that we need to pull that together much more coherently and effectively than we are doing at the moment. But I take and accept the Minister’s kind invitation to discuss this issue further, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, while I broadly welcome this Bill, I do not welcome how large it is. Its scale and complexity were referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, with whom I find myself agreeing. It is in, a sense, a testament to how many of our public bodies live in silos and have inconsistent, changing leadership, and how much they have a selective interpretation and enactment of regulation or guidance. In some senses, this Bill is well intended, but it is also a manifestation of a systemic malaise and testament to our continuous failure, under Governments of whatever colour, to enact and/or enforce existing law or regulation and guidance.

I was at a dinner last Monday for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Armed Forces and a very impressive gentleman, who is in charge of all of our cybersecurity, talked about the appointment of Mr Rupert Pearce as the National Armaments Director to try to sort out once and for all our rather lamentable track record in major defence procurement. If I ruled the world—which unfortunately is not a hereditary role—I would be tempted to appoint the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the national joined-up government director, as his wonderful father, Sir John Timpson, created the concept of upside-down management. So many areas of our governance would benefit from focusing on the people at the bottom, who are the subject of all sorts of things happening to them, and working upwards to find out how to remove the blockages which continuously fail to remedy what repeated laws and new regulations fail to do.

At the beginning of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, that I would be all over the first part of the Bill like a rash. I make the same promise to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for this Bill, because there are many areas of interest. I will work closely with the office of the Victims’ Commissioner—the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, regrets that she is unable to be here today—on a variety of amendments to try to make more sense of the attempts to deal with anti-social behaviour. I shall continue work with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others on stalking. I will work with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and others on trying to deal with the difficult issue of exploitation of children, because there is a difficulty that we have in differentiating between the individual as a victim and the individual as a perpetrator. If you are a child, you can be one and the same thing, and it is very complicated to try to deal with that.

I shall deal with mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, again to try to make that more forensic and efficient, and with AI-generated child sexual material. I shall, of course, support the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on all her amendments around pornography. It is a tribute to the women in this Chamber—how often it is women—who speak up about these issues. I am afraid that not enough men do. I thought it was very interesting that a large number of men have commented on the rights of women and what they do with their own bodies during the course of this debate, and rather fewer women. With that, I will sit down.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendments 176 to 178 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I cannot call Amendment 179 because it is an amendment to Amendment 178, which was not moved.

Amendment 180 not moved.

Child Houses for Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that there is a violence against women and girls strategy that is being brought forward, and the prevention of child sexual abuse will be a considerable part of that strategy. The Home Office has accepted all the IICSA recommendations. I responded on a Statement in this House on Thursday of last week, on the work that is being done on grooming gangs. We are trying to ensure that we examine the lessons produced for us, not just by Alexis Jay in the IICSA report but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her report. There is an ambitious government programme not just to put resources into that but to try to learn those lessons and better co-ordinate how we respond and prevent. That includes training for police and social workers and the duty to report that is in the Crime and Policing Bill that is coming up shortly. There is a range of measures. Again, I welcome the noble Lord’s support for those measures, and his suggestions as the Crime and Policing Bill goes through this House. It is an important issue; it should not divide this House. It is one where we have an ambitious programme to help prevent future child abuse and to support victims who exist already.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I think I am like everybody across the Chamber in that we are all very favourable to some of the noises the Government are making about how they are listening on this and how they understand the issues and the problems. The issue I, and I think many others, have is it is invigorating to hear the Government say they understand the problems, but what so many of us are waiting for is action resulting from that level of understanding. As others have said, other countries have many more Lighthouses than we do; they roll them out a great deal more quickly. There appears to be something endemic in our inability to move quickly. In the interest of those children—and to echo the words of the Children’s Commissioner that every area that has had the grooming scandals should have a Lighthouse project on its doorstep—could the Government act more quickly?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Government are trying, as I know the noble Lord knows, to respond to the long-term recommendations of the Alexis Jay report, which lay relatively idle until July of last year. We have tried to re-energise the approach to those very severe areas where grooming-gang activity has taken place. We commissioned the national report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. There are a range of recommendations that we have accepted in full. Also, as I mentioned to my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, we have an ambitious programme to expand that therapeutic support, of which the Lighthouse is an extremely good model. To do that requires cross-government activity. I will happily report back to this House when plans are forwarded. I hope the noble Lord will rest assured that this Government intend to help prevent future child abuse and give support, solace and help to those people who have been victims in the past.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. As I said in my previous paragraph, we are making day-one rights such as this and consulting, and the review will look at all the issues that the noble Baroness has brought forward. Until we get the review done, I really cannot commit to anything at this stage.

For businesses, this kind of support fosters loyalty and improved retention in a competitive hiring environment. Demonstrating a commitment to family-friendly practices helps attract and keep skilled employees. We also encourage proactive workforce planning. Cross-training and flexible staffing arrangements can mitigate disruption during short absences. Many small employers already manage similar situations around holiday leave or illness, so this policy is not about adding burden but about building a workplace culture where staff feel valued from the very start. We are committed to working with small businesses to ensure that the transition is smooth, supported and sustainable.

I hope I have reassured all noble Lords of the Government’s commitment to parental leave and respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I, first, just make an observation? Having listened to him reading from his brief, I wondered how many members of the team who prepared the brief have themselves ever been able to take paternity leave, because it certainly did not sound like they had. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said in her intervention, she was very happy with the support from across the House for paternity leave being changed, and quickly. Those of us in the House who are in front of and to the side of the Minister were able to witness the body language of his Back-Benchers. Having seen that, I will say only that I suggest that going and sitting down with them as a group between now and Report might be helpful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, and I will probably take up his idea.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I remind noble Lords that we are on Report, we are not in Committee. It is very clear in the Standing Orders that you can speak only once on Report unless you are the mover of the group, in which case you can respond to the Minister. It is not within the rules to have this sort of debate. That is for Committee, not for Report.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Our focus will be—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)]

If this amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 6, 8 or 27A by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to one of the many amendments in this group, Amendment 13, which in essence is perhaps a more balanced version of the amendment tabled in Committee. This more balanced amendment seeks to ensure complete and utter equivalence and transparency, whether the Government decide—for reasons that have to be stated, clear, transparent and the result of consultation—to align with the EU or with any other country or group of countries. It is simply to try to make sure there is complete equivalence and transparency, with no hidden agendas, no constitutional crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, described it, in understanding the rationale behind the decisions that are taken. As I stated at Second Reading and in Committee, however people may interpret my intentions, they are decidedly Cross-Bench and apolitical. I have no interest in revisiting some of the painful politics and turbulence of the last decade or so, which this country has willed on itself.

In relation to the specific amendment, what is really driving this is what I think should be paramount: the interests of the country, obviously. In an instance such as this, I personally regard the interests of the country to be predominantly to do with the views of the businesses most directly affected by these regulations. The organisation that I think has taken the closest interest in this and has been talking to its members in great detail about it is the British Chambers of Commerce. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that I should declare an interest in that its president is a fellow Cross-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. It did an extensive survey of its membership, which was published just before Christmas. I remind your Lordships that the chambers represent about 50,000 businesses across the UK, which employ about 6 million people and have an aggregate turnover across all the companies involved of about £600 billion per annum—a not inconsiderable part of the economy.

The views of the membership are pretty clear. They are in no way ideological about this, but there is a clear view on the part of a majority of the businesses that, in many instances, alignment with the EU is in the direct interests of their businesses and employees, particularly if they wish to grow their businesses. Many are involved in exports—and imports—to the European Union, which continues to be their single largest export market. They have an understandable wish for the ability to grow their businesses to be as easy as possible. What has happened over the past few years has, in many cases, made it a great deal less easy than they would wish.

There is, therefore, a very clear stated wish. They have come up with a wish list that they hope the Government will focus on. It is interesting that one thing they said should be a medium-term view relates specifically to the Bill that we are discussing. They say that the UK should build on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill to facilitate alignment of UK regulation with relevant—but only where it is relevant—primary, secondary and tertiary EU decisions in the traded goods sectors. That does not deny the fact that, in some areas and in some sectors and instances, it will not make sense to align with the EU. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made—and I am sure others will make—about having the ability to align with other countries or groups of countries is entirely open to the Government to do. I think, however, that they will do that only as a result of careful consultation with the interested bodies. They would then have to make a judgment call on what is in the best economic interests of the UK in terms of which direction they go in.

That is quite simply what this amendment is about. It is meant to promote growth. Those businesses are looking for greater predictability, transparency and consultation—the feeling that they have actually been listened to. Above all, what I think they are looking for—and what sometimes one senses, from some of the interventions on this Bill, is missing—is rebuilding a sense of genuine trust between those who may have slightly different views about the direction that we should take on issues such as this, as well as a relationship that is more trust-based and transparent and where dialogue is easier with some of the bodies, including the EU but also those other countries that we might align with, than has been the case hitherto.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to Amendment 20 in this group, which is in my name. It is an opportunity to restate an argument, which I will not dwell on at length but which noble Lords may recall from Committee: there is an inherent advantage and desirability that, when we are determining product requirements and regulations, we should, wherever possible, do so by reference to international standards and agreements.

This is of course something that the Government, like the previous Government, are committed to, not least under the latest statement of public policy in relation to standardisation, which was published this year. It gives very useful examples of how this country, the British Standards Institution, some of the organisations to which we contribute and the innovations that we have led have been the basis of the establishment of many of those international standards. I am convinced that it is not absolutely necessary to put it into the legislation in order for this to be the case. I hope that, in response to this debate, the Minister will again restate the Government’s intention that international standards should be the basis.

However, I wanted the opportunity to add one further thought. If we were to arrive at a point where EU legislation or regulations diverged, in our view, from an international standard or agreement or from sound science—for example, the precision breeding legislation and statutory instruments that have just been brought forward, which technically diverge from where the European Union is now; I hope, declaring an interest in the European Union context, that the EU will change its legislation to bring it much closer to us, rather than the other way round—there should be a presumption that adherence to international standards would be the priority. We should look to that as the basis on which we set our standards and not treat the decisions made by the European Union as ones to which we should necessarily incline.

Terrorism: Glorification

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with the glorification of terrorism and terrorists in the United Kingdom.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness starts, I remind noble Lords that this debate is time-limited. We have one speaker in the gap. If any speakers go over their time, that will eat into the time for the Minister to respond to the points made by noble Lords.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords who have stayed to take part in this debate, late on a Thursday afternoon. It is a timely debate because, as we all know, this week sees the beginning of the Omagh bomb inquiry. As it has begun, we have heard from the families of the victims of that bomb about how terrorism has destroyed their lives. The families of the victims have always behaved with decorum and dignity; my prayer is that they finally receive the answers they have been searching for and a modicum of closure. That dreadful day in August 1998 has much been in my mind this week.

I particularly want to thank the Minister, who is very knowledgeable of the threat of terrorism. This is in no small part due to his service as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and I look forward to his response later. Of course, he is not here today as an NIO Minister but rather as a Home Office Minister, because the glorification of terrorists and their organisations is certainly not confined to my part of the United Kingdom but is a threat to the security of the nation as a whole.

I want to speak principally about Sinn Féin’s continued glorification of the terrorist organisation the Provisional IRA, and the consequences of that. However, recently, on the streets of some of our major cities, we have seen other proscribed organisations, such as Hamas, being lauded. That too has its consequences, particularly around radicalisation. I am sure that other colleagues will want to speak to that issue.

As someone who has lived with and through terrorism, I am always alert to anything that would encourage it and bring back those dark days of intimidation, murder and mayhem. Unfortunately, in the years since the cessation of IRA violence, there has been a strategy to lionise terrorists, putting them and their actions on a pedestal. There are many examples of Sinn Féin politicians, many of them senior people, attending commemorations and celebrations of the lives of those who sought to murder their neighbours. In the interests of time, I bring noble Lords the most recent example of a senior Sinn Féin figure glorifying the past deeds of terrorists.

Before Christmas, Michelle O’Neill, the vice-president of Sinn Féin and the current First Minister of Northern Ireland, attended a Provisional IRA commemoration in County Londonderry. The men she was commemorating before Christmas were killed by their own bomb as they travelled through Magherafelt in December 1971—long before Michelle O’Neill was born. Their names were Jim Sheridan, John Bateson and Martin Lee, all members of the self-styled South Derry Brigade of the IRA; it was announced after their deaths that they were on “active service” at the time. Here were three young men with murder in their hearts, who had been dead for 53 years in December, and the current First Minister of Northern Ireland thought it appropriate to commemorate them.

It goes without saying that, as on every occasion when this happens, the deep offence and hurt to those who have suffered at the hands of the IRA is revisited. The retraumatisation of victims is unforgivable and needs called out on every occasion it happens, but this public act of commemoration also sends a very clear message to young republicans that what these young men did was honourable. It glamorises what they did and, to young and impressionable people who have little knowledge or life experience of the brutality of the IRA, it makes them sound like heroes, which patently they were not.

The often-chanted “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a symptom of the continuing republican glorification of dead terrorists. It is, some argue, just a bit of fun, but nothing could be further from the truth. I will never forget being at a black-tie event in Belfast and being asked for a picture by a glamorous young woman, only to have her sing “Ooh ah up the Ra” into my face as she took a video. The fact that my father had survived an IRA attempt on his life, or that as a teenager I was on a school bus that was blown up by “the Ra” because our bus driver was a member of the security forces, was irrelevant to her. She thought that it was funny. I did not.

There is the issue. If we allow people in positions of authority to glorify terrorism in the way that the current First Minister of Northern Ireland does, it normalises and sanitises terrorism, and, in a cyclical way, this will lead to young people being radicalised again. Witness the radicalisation of those currently on our streets supporting the actions of Hamas. Many of the young people doing so know little about the Middle East but think it is quite hip and trendy to support Hamas, because they hate Israel.

A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. If all you know about the IRA is that they took on the Brits and that the First Minister said they were a “great bunch of lads”, you will think that “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a grand wee chant. These young people know little of the devastation, murder, intimidation and barbarity of the IRA, because it is not something that the current First Minister talks about.

There have been conversations in the past about making the glorification of terrorism a criminal offence. Indeed, the Terrorism Act 2006 makes provision for a person to be charged with an offence if they make a statement that encourages a person to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism. There have been no prosecutions under this section, to my knowledge, in Northern Ireland to date because, when challenged about such behaviour, Sinn Féin will argue that it is just honouring its dead. But of course it is much more than that. Its senior leadership is sending a message to wider republicans that violence and terrorism can be justified and that what the IRA did was justified. Of course it was not; there was never any justification for the violence, despite what the current First Minister claims. She will continue to claim that, and indeed to support the actions of these terrorists publicly, until she is prevented from doing so under law.

On Tuesday in the other place there was an Urgent Oral Question on the Government’s extremism review. During that Question, the member for North Antrim, Jim Allister MP, asked the Minister for Security about the glorification of terrorism by the current First Minister of Northern Ireland. The response he got from the Security Minister was disappointing, as he said:

“I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to delve into matters in Northern Ireland in the context of this response”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/25; col. 165.]


Why not? If the current First Minister of Northern Ireland is intent on continuing her glorification of terrorism and, at best, is reckless about the consequences, surely that should be a matter that a Security Minister should delve into. I hope the Minister here will be able to be a little clearer on that issue.

The IRA were defeated by the security services across the United Kingdom, not least the brave men and women who served in the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the PSNI, the Ulster Defence Regiment and then the Royal Irish Regiment, and of course colleagues in the mainstream Army. As the daughter of an RUC officer, I was always incredibly proud of how he served without fear or favour. For him and for many others to have their memories sullied by glorifying the terrorists who sought to murder them makes me very angry. We cannot allow the propaganda of the IRA’s political wing to rewrite what happened in Northern Ireland. That is why a change in the law is required, especially to deal with those in authority who continue to exalt and deify terrorists who have caused so much hurt and pain.

I am aware that, in 2023, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation considered whether the legislation on the encouragement and glorification of terrorism under the 2006 Act should be amended. He concluded that it was not possible to formulate a mere glorification offence within acceptable limits, and therefore recommended against amending Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. However, this conclusion was before the onslaught of the glorification that we have seen on our streets in respect of Hamas, and perhaps Mr Hall KC may want to review this section again. However, I acknowledge his expertise and instead propose a more nuanced approach.

I submit that the Government should consider an amendment to the legislation so that persons in authority or holding a particular office, such as a Minister in government or in the Northern Ireland Executive, should not be allowed to glorify past acts of terrorism, or terrorists, and that if they do so, they are committing an offence. This amendment is narrow in scope but would deal with the specific issue of people in authority sending skewed messages to young people about terrorism and the terrorists of the past. It falls within the counterterrorism strategy’s first principle of Prevent,

“to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”,

and therefore aligns with the Government’s strategy. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on that proposal.

I also note that there is a new interim Prevent commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who was appointed very recently, and I am more than happy to discuss this matter with him. He is here today, and I am very glad about that. I will leave my remarks there, and I look forward to hearing from noble Lords in relation to this issue.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as two founder members of the Lister terriers pack, I pay tribute to the leader of our pack; I am privileged to stand up and support her Bill. I thank the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, as the former chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, because one of the few strengths of the House of Commons is the Select Committee. It looked at this matter in great detail and came out with a recommendation to do precisely what the Home Office has just done, so I pay tribute to her and to the committee’s effectiveness.

I wish to speak specifically about the issue of age-disputed children; I also have some questions on it. Between April and June this year, 2,088 age disputes were raised. There are several specific challenges that age-disputed young people face in navigating this process. Clearly, there are vulnerability and safety issues. Although the Home Office works with organisations that provide some support, it is not always done terribly effectively. Those organisations are often not specialists in supporting age-disputed young people and often direct them back to the British Red Cross. Migrant Help, which is contracted to provide move-on advice, told us that it does

“not provide this service to age-disputed young people”.

However, it added that it would be willing to provide this service outreach in some cases; perhaps the department could get in touch with Migrant Help and see whether there would be some sense in trying to make that systematic and part of the process.

The move-on process is often the starting point for engaging with family reunion, which is a highly emotional and sometimes mildly traumatic process. For age-disputed young people who are sponsoring family members—some of them are—that makes it particularly complex. Can the Minister look at those specific issues? I do not expect an answer from the Dispatch Box; perhaps he could write to us so that we can follow up on that. I would be most grateful.

So I entirely agree with the purpose of the Bill. I also entirely echo the third cheer of my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, not least because many of us have a vivid memory of this being discussed at great length in this House, with a significant amount of support in particular from the then Government’s ranks, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I seem to recall her saying that allowing migrants to help is entirely in line with what she regards as a core Conservative value.

Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, and to Her Majesty the Queen; I saw the documentary and thought her unforced, natural empathy had huge power.

I applaud the Government for their commitment and focus to reduce violence against women and girls, and I commend them particularly for the appointments of Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones. As a head-hunter for 31 years, I could never understand why previous Conservative Governments did not immediately put the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, into a position to deal with domestic abuse, on the basis that she was far better qualified than anybody else in that Administration. However, the Conservative Government did many things that I did not fully understand.

I pay tribute to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, and her team for all they do. What a legacy this Government have inherited. Nicole Jacobs’s six priorities for the Government encompass: domestic abuse service provision and funding; the policing and criminal justice system; children and young people, and the trauma that domestic abuse can create; family courts; migrant survivors; and domestic homicide and suicide.

Turning briefly to domestic abuse services and funding, her submission to the Autumn Budget and spending review has some significant requests in it, including £303.8 million for community-based DA support, of which £187.8 million should be ring-fenced to ensure that it delivers what is planned.

I am particularly concerned about how we tackle the policing and criminal justice challenges, with only 6% of domestic abuse crimes reported to police resulting in a charge and even fewer resulting in a conviction. Multiagency and cross-geography co-ordination and co-operation are simply not working. With 43 police forces and police and crime commissioners, it is “Let a thousand flowers bloom” and priorities are all over the place. The police force data quality is inconsistent and our ability to measure the effectiveness of measures to reduce domestic abuse is severely handicapped by systemic shortcomings—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale.

The Minister may remember the interchanges we had last week about the new initiatives on stalking and independent stalking advocates. Can he commit to ensuring that this strategy is truly cross-governmental? It needs to bring in health, education, welfare, communities and local government. Can he use his best efforts to ensure that we have far more effective and focused metrics to measure success and, equally helpfully, to measure failure?