Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and I congratulate her on the campaigning work that she has done on some of the issues that we are addressing in this Bill. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on opening the Second Reading of this juggernaut of a Bill—she is a welcome addition to the Front Bench.

As other noble Lords have said, there is much to welcome in the Bill, but we must also recognise that there are deep concerns too. Non-governmental organisations that I hold in high regard, and across a wide spectrum, have expressed deep reservations. Therefore, it is vital that the Government get the equation right and ensure that there is a balancing of rights and protections. The opportunity, as other noble Lords have said, to widely address concerns and omissions will be in detailed Committee work. I eagerly await amendments that will be introduced by the Government to make all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. I will also address omissions in relation to the needs of the Traveller, Gypsy and Roma communities.

Hate crime continues to rise and therefore government action is to be welcomed. Those who encourage and promote hate crime, whether online, in print or on the streets, empower the thugs who ultimately take violent action. The litmus test of any civilised country is that we all enjoy the equal protection of the law and the universal freedoms and obligations that are basic human rights. Yet online hate crime increases and is, sadly, often defended by those who should know better, Elon Musk among them. People are routinely grossly misrepresented, defamed and victimised because of their religion, their belief, their disability, the fact that they are transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual or gender non-conforming, because of their race or more. To attack and denigrate such people and portray them as a threat to others is, in my opinion, to debase the very society in which we live. Freedom of expression is not the freedom to incite violence. Whoever incites hate or violence, or carries it out, should be held accountable and the law must be applied equally; therefore, I have no hesitation in encouraging the Government in their attempts through the Bill to create a better and more equal society.

Like other noble Lords, I have concerns, not least in relation to the Bill’s public order provisions, and I share reservations expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. The right to protest is an essential freedom. Protests often offend and often discomfort, and that is a price, I believe, worth paying in a democracy. And to counterprotest is not un-British; it is how protests are undertaken and conducted that matters. I am one of 16 Members of your Lordships’ House who voted against the proscription of Palestine Action because the case was not and has not been made. All restrictive actions by the state must be open and transparent and the evidence for such decisions clear for all to see.

In conclusion, if the Bill helps to make our country safer and stronger, then it is to be welcomed, but it must strike the right balance in protecting the essential freedoms that underpin democracy, otherwise it will do more harm and create further division. I associate myself completely with the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. We need to return to being a country where we are more comfortable with one another, where we respect difference and celebrate somebody else’s right to disagree with us. No one has anything to fear from equality, the equal protection of the law and the equal obligation to abide by the same laws. That is the litmus test of any decent, civilised society. It is not defined by draping oneself in a flag, the proclamation of patriotism, the defining of Britishness by the claim of some right or another, or how and when we make our voices heard. The essence of a civilised society is defined in its treatment of the most defamed, the most disfavoured, those shunned and misrepresented. Britishness is when we return to being a better, fairer, more generous country. If the Bill can help us move in that direction, it is to be welcomed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

At least I had this debate in Committee, my Lords, which the Government failed to do with this amendment, so I should have the right to reply to it. The amendment goes beyond what is valuable and on to what is political and dysfunctional. I urge the House not to support it.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly, because the one thing I agree on with the previous speaker is that it is late. I was not going to speak, but the amendment directly affects me. It affects the kind of country I want to remain living in. I have to say to your Lordships that I wake up most mornings wondering why our country has become so mean and why hate is so promoted and why hate crime is rising. I speak because I am a member of the LGBT community. I have had bricks through my window in the past. Sadly, if it were done now, it would be properly prosecuted.

A civilised society has nothing to fear from the way it protects minorities, particularly vulnerable, dehumanised and misrepresented minorities. Indeed, I would argue, looking at past legislation that has made my life better in so many ways, that the way we treat minorities is the litmus test of any decent, civilised country. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to get into the Content Lobby behind the Government and support this vital and necessary government amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on this group. It is a very large group with a number of significant amendments.

As a preliminary, my Amendments 346 and 348, and government Amendment 347, are about an issue relating to emergency workers which we on these Benches have been highly critical of throughout proceedings on the Bill in relation to trying to leave out the clauses that create new criminal offences relating to abuse towards emergency workers. We have stated our opposition to those in Committee, and I do not seek to repeat those points today.

My main concern today is government Amendment 334 and its consequentials. The broad thrust of my argument is around, first, the lateness with which the amendment has appeared, and secondly, the overlap with the sentencing regime.

We are very disappointed that the Government have brought forward such a significant amendment at this late stage in the Bill’s proceedings. We have not had the ability to discuss it in Committee, and the Government are now asking us to accept an amendment for the first time which has not been adequately scrutinised. We have had several general debates about some of the issues raised, but tonight we have had a two-hour debate where lots of different points and arguments have been made, and we now have to decide not only whether the intent behind the amendment is sound but whether the Government’s drafting of it is workable. That is a tall order, given that this is our first—and if the Government have their way, our last—debate on the amendment. In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is absolutely right.