Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, yet again we are being asked to digest a lengthy criminal justice Bill which covers far too many diverse areas of conduct. Churchill might have said that this Bill has no theme. Before the Bill began its progress through the other place, the Government proclaimed that it contained 35 headline measures. Andy Slaughter, the chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said the Bill introduced 27 new criminal offences. I think he was congratulating the Government.

Had I been discussing the Criminal Justice Bill—that is to say, the Bill that my noble friend Lord Davies referred to, which fell at the last election—I would have said of that what I now say of this Bill. It covers too many subjects. It makes criminal activities that are already criminal. It has 430 pages, 203 clauses and 21 schedules. Just look at it: it is like a telephone book. It is a catalogue, in my view, of Early Day Motions rather than a practical answer to the problems it seeks to identify. It reminds me of the Criminal Justice Act 2009, which included provisions for, among other things, the appointment of senior police officers, prostitution and lap dancing, the supply of alcohol to children, gang-related violence, aviation security, border controls and extradition, and more besides.

I am sure that many of the measures in this Bill are, on their face, worthy, and, assuming they are not already criminal offences, no doubt good measures are taken from the Criminal Justice Bill. But passing laws is not of itself a solution to an actual or perceived problem. Movement is not productivity. Too often, Governments of all political persuasions think that sounding vigorous is a substitute for action.

Between 1815 and 1914, remarkably few laws—about 15 or 20 statutes—were passed that affected the criminal law. Several of them are still in force, in whole or in part. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, between 1997 and 2007, more than 50 criminal law statutes were enacted. The Criminal Justice Act 2003—another doorstop of a Bill—even repealed earlier sections of earlier Acts of Parliament passed after 1997 that had not even been implemented. I tabled Written Questions in the other place, asking how many criminal law provisions had been implemented, how many had been repealed before implementation, and how many had been brought into force. The answer I used to get was roughly one-third had been implemented, one-third had not been implemented and one-third had been repealed before implementation or soon afterwards. I am not making a politically antagonistic point: I am simply pointing out that the early 21st century legislative equivalent of Dreadnought building is ineffective unless the Government—any Government—do more than pass laws and pat themselves on the back.

The court system is under strain. The police are under strain. Our prisons are under strain. Yet we blithely pile more and often repetitive legislation on them for political effect, without calculating whether the new provisions already exist or can be managed within the present creaking criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor recently promised 1,250 new Crown Court sitting days. With the Crown Court trial backlog leading to serious criminal trials now being scheduled for 2028 or 2029, and with literally hundreds of courtrooms unused, 1,250 additional days is insignificant. A senior Crown Court judge recently told me that he could use those days in just his own court centre.

The Home Secretary’s Second Reading speech in the other place in March amounted to empty jargon interrupted by loyal Back-Benchers reading out interventions drafted by her spads or by Government Whips, and by the Opposition complaining that she was ignoring the previous Government’s achievements or claiming that they were her own. This is not a satisfactory way to amend the law, still less to create new law.

Of course, this Bill will—either in this version or some other version of it—pass into law, and the Government will proclaim its enactment as one of their great achievements at the next election. In the meanwhile, the IPP scandal continues, despite the heroic efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and other noble Lords from across the House to release the ghastly grip of its talons around the lives and hopes of those hundreds of prisoners still in prison well beyond their tariff. Governments and Ministers say a lot. The voters watch carefully and remember what they actually do.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend was gracious enough to make a reference to me, in the sense that he suggested that I have some concerns about his drafting. Indeed, I do. I shall take the liberty of expressing them, and I shall also deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about his dirk, which I will come to in a moment.

Machetes are my particular concern, but so, too, are cleavers, defined in this amendment. We need to understand that both have legitimate purposes. The fact is clearly recognised in the exemptions contained in proposed new subsection (6) in Amendment 214E, where the fact that they have legitimate purposes is fully recognised.

I have a number of machetes. I have used them all my life and I still do. They are essential for clearing brambles and thorns when you cannot get at them with a strimmer or another mechanical instrument. I have not actually got a cleaver, but I know that people interested in cooking—not me—use them. Butchers certainly use them, as do gamekeepers and gillies when preparing carcasses from animals shot on the estate. Let us face it: these things have legitimate use. It is in that context that we must come to the detail with which we have been provided.

Proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 214D states that any person marketing or selling, et cetera, any of these instruments is committing an offence. That means that any hardware store in my former constituency which happened to be selling a machete would be committing an absolute offence. That is a very bizarre proposition. It means that any decent catering shop that sells cleavers is committing an absolute offence.

In proposed new subsection (2) these are absolute offences—no mens rea whatever. Then in proposed new subsection (3), anybody guilty of any of those offences faces imprisonment for up to 10 years. Proposed new subsection (4), the most bizarre of all, states that the police or the National Crime Agency can come into a private house to see whether there are any machetes or cleavers in it. That is all very bizarre stuff.

We then come to an even more interesting set of propositions in Amendment 214E.

“Any person over the age of 18”,


that is me,

“in possession of … a machete … in a public place is guilty of an offence”.

I have brambles and thorns in the adjoining fields to which I have to get access to cut—armed with my machete —by going along the footpath, which happens to be a public way, or by crossing the street, which happens to be a public way. In doing so I would be committing an absolute offence. That, I regret to say, is absurd.

I notice in proposed new subsection (3) that the police can come into my house to find these offensive weapons which I have had all my life. That is absurd. Proposed new subsection (4) states:

“It is assumed that the possession or carrying of”,


these things,

“is for the purposes of unlawful violence”.

When I am going along the footpath or crossing the street to cut down some brambles or thorns, it is to be presumed that I am intending some act of unlawful violence. Is that really sensible?

Proposed new subsection (5) on zombie knives is acceptable. However, proposed new subsection (6) deals with the “Hacking” point, if I may so call it. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, possesses a dirk. I do not know how long the dirk is, but I can imagine that it is of a length to make it a sword. If this amendment is accepted by your Lordships, should the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, go for a stroll on Whitehall carrying his dirk, he will be committing an absolute offence, and it will be assumed that he is intending some violence to third parties. Let us assume it is a sword. What happens if he stores it at home? Is it displayed for historical purposes? I rather doubt that; I do not suppose it is hanging on the wall to be shown to the public. Is it worn by uniformed personnel, as part of their uniform? Well, I am looking forward to seeing the noble Lord in his uniform, but I fancy that the answer to that is also no.

The truth is in a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in an earlier debate. If you go to any country house like mine, my friends’ or my neighbours’, they are stuffed full of these things, like swords from previous campaigns, that their great-great-grandfather carried at Waterloo, or that their great-grandfather carried at the Boer war, or whatever. These are not displayed for historical purposes; they are family possessions, and it is an absurdity to say that the police can come into my house and take these things. Oh no, no, no—this will not do at all.

The truth is that if somebody wishes to walk down Whitehall waving a machete, I am not surprised that the police get upset, but if they come to Lincolnshire—Kettlethorpe in particular—and find me crossing the street to cut down brambles and thorns with a machete I have owned for 50 years, I shall be passing annoyed. My noble friend’s purpose may be splendid, but his drafting is defective.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, there have been two things which were splendid. First of all were the intentions behind the proposals of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and secondly, the content and tone of the speech of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Blencathra is essentially saying that there needs to be greater attention paid by the public authorities—I include legislators as a public authority for this purpose—to the increase in the incidence of machete and cleaver crime, and that we need to make sure there is less of it. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said, there is some deficiency here. I think he was making what we used to call a pleading point, but let us leave it there.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

It was more than a pleading point.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

There we are. Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, I suggest that the answer to this is a sentencing question. My noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out that, in some of the particularly nasty cases he referred to, very lengthy sentences were awarded for the people who committed these crimes with these particular weapons. As I said at Second Reading, I have a horror of legislating to create new offences which are already offences. It is already an offence to do something criminal with one of these weapons, no matter what it is called. Although I entirely understand my noble friend’s motives, the better way is to consider whether the sentencers have sufficient powers to deal very seriously with these very serious crimes. By the sound of it, they already do, but the Government may want to look to see whether the criminal courts should be given greater powers of sentencing when dealing with crimes committed with these particular weapons.

I come back to my points. I understand my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s motives; I equally understand my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s enthusiasm for the points he has made. But, essentially, we are here dealing with a matter of sensible sentencing for particularly vicious crimes. If we concentrated on that, we would not clutter up the already over-lengthy legislation with yet more provisions.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I absolutely accept much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said about the awful nature of historic child abuse and the reasons why there is often a delay before bringing forward complaints, but it is important that we do not conflate civil proceedings and criminal proceedings. The earlier group was to do with people claiming damages, where the defendant is not usually the perpetrator. There may be reasons why we have reached a stage where there cannot be a fair trial. I will leave that aside for the moment.

This amendment is concerned with criminal offences. There is not a limitation period for criminal offences generally, subject to the prosecution deciding that so much time has elapsed that it is not appropriate to bring forward a claim. The noble Baroness has experience of occasionally making those decisions in very old cases. The Minister is pointing at me and is going to give a longer and more authoritative answer than I will attempt to do now. I make the point in general terms.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. While I entirely understand the motivation behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am not entirely sure that it is necessary. As the noble Lord said, there is no limitation for the bringing of this particular Section 9 offence.

I do not wish to get into my anecdotage, but I remember that, as a law officer, one very often had to deal with historic offences whereby a mature person, in their 50s, 60s or 70s, was being indicted or prosecuted for an offence they committed many years ago against a minor. Had the problem existed that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, envisages through her amendment, that would have been a matter we would have had to consider. As the Minister will no doubt tell us from her experience as someone who worked at a senior level in the Crown Prosecution Service, you have to consider whether there is an adequacy of evidence and whether it is in the public interest to bring that person to trial. The age of the offence might be considered by the prosecutor, but there is no time bar, as I understand it. While I may well be corrected for being out of date and ignorant, I certainly do not think that there is a need for this amendment, although it is well motivated.

I have a suspicion that I have got this entirely wrong and that the Minister is going to tell me that it would have been better if I had kept to my place, but there we are. There are plenty of things that we could do with the Bill—make it shorter, for example—but I am not sure that this amendment is one that we need to add to it.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in strong support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I do not know whether it is necessary. I declare an interest as a victim. My concern about the historic sex offences is the prison population. We have large numbers of historic sex offenders in prison. It creates great problems for the Prison Service. However, a custodial sentence is the only sensible disposal. We need to work out what to do with historic sex offenders within the prison system.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 337A, which is about consistency and common sense. The same standard of protection should apply wherever a child is taught, whether in a classroom, online or in their own home. Parents assume that safeguards already exist, and they are shocked when they learn that someone barred from working with children can still legally offer tuition. In my experience, the vast majority of parents do not know this. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, this is a huge loophole, and something needs to be done about it as a matter of urgency.

The targeted change would simply ensure that the law reflects modern patterns of learning and closes an indefensible gap without adding either bureaucracy or cost. It would strengthen public confidence in the DBS system and in the integrity of child protection as a whole. Tutoring is now a central part of many children’s education, especially those who are already vulnerable or struggling, and the law really does need to keep pace with this reality. By backing the amendment, the Government can demonstrate that safeguarding principles are applied consistently across all settings, formal and informal alike, and that known risks will never again be allowed to fall between the cracks of overlapping regulations. It is a modest step, but one entirely consistent with our shared commitment to protect every child from exploitation and harm. In the end, it is simply a test of resolve. If we know where the danger lies, we have a duty to act before another child is placed at risk.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, just to demonstrate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, this is a cross-party matter and he has my support. I would be interested—he may or may not know—in the number of children affected by the failure of the regime to make sure that these tutors and so forth are properly registered. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a common-sense measure and needs to be brought in as soon as possible.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, one area that is of great concern to me is private music tuition. I have had some pretty horrendous safeguarding cases to deal with in churches, where a church musician who has committed some serious offences has gone on to privately tutor underage pupils. That particular form of tuition—which is very often done privately, arranged by parents who see an advertisement on the internet or in a newspaper—needs to be included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I understand the point that is made, but the system is about evaluating, classifying and giving information—in the current case to institutions—about the worthiness of the individual to work with children or with anybody in a safeguarding situation. We are levelling the playing field so that anybody who wants to engage someone in that capacity can do that and have the same knowledge and security that they are engaging with somebody who is—

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is doing his best and this is not meant to be a controversial debate, but surely the paramount concern must be the welfare of the children. Sharing information is not just a mechanical exercise. It requires trust by the parent who is employing the music teacher in a private space that they are approved—that they are permitted to engage in one-to-one teaching activity in somebody’s home. The parent could be downstairs or in the next room, but I know that music teachers can get up to all sorts of tricks while the parent is in the next room. We need to be a little bit more robust in ensuring that this regime is there to protect children and not simply to make life easy for bureaucrats.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

This supposes that a parent has the wherewithal, time and skill to interrogate this list. It is not making a level playing field. I have been a governor of many schools. We have people who are employed specifically to do these things. I have never met a parent who has done them. We should be sending a message to people who are deliberately trying to trick parents that they will be held directly responsible, not that the parent will have to catch them out. It only takes one predator to get lucky once to devastate a child’s life, whereas a parent will have to be lucky every single time to stop this. The emphasis is in the wrong place.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I do not want to prolong this, but the purpose of this amendment is not to regulate the speed of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on his field. The concern is e-bike riders on pavements, and I suggest that the answer is to ensure that people cannot ride more than a specified speed on the pavements, if at all. Of course, they are not allowed to ride on the pavement at all, so they should not be doing so. The point, surely, is that if there is a specified speed limit, it is already a criminal offence to conspire to provide a battery for the specific purpose of enabling e-bike riders to break the speed limit.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard some jolly clever speeches. It seems to me that the general point of this group of amendments, and indeed the previous one, is to bring this matter of great public concern to the attention of the Government during this debate. We are not now, this afternoon, looking for statutory perfection; we are looking for the Government to pay attention, and every one of us, be it my noble friend Lord Goschen walking here, or my noble friend Lord Hailsham riding at a reasonable speed from King’s Cross to this place, has our own experiences and anecdotal stories to inform the House and this debate.

I really do not think we need to get stuck in the weeds; we just need to get the Government to be a little braver. Yes, they should read out the departmental notes they have in front of them, but they should also realise that this is a matter of real and pressing public concern. The use of e-cycles by drug dealers and others, who wear the stolen uniforms of respectable companies to deliver drugs here, there and everywhere, with no lights on their bikes, wearing balaclavas and dark clothing, at night, placing themselves and other road users in danger, is a matter of deep concern. That is what we need to get across to the Government, and I hope they will take the general point on board, even if they disapprove of the niceties of the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we discussed earlier, we have seen a huge rise in fast food and other deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters across our cities, and of course internationally too. The whole model for these deliveries is based on time— carrying out as many deliveries as possible in as short a time as possible. This constant pressure can lead to riders taking risks that endanger not only themselves but other road users and pedestrians. These risks include installing bigger batteries.

This group of amendments is timely and of the moment, given the rise in these bikes and scooters. However, kits are increasingly being bought online that are used to adapt regular cycles into e-cycles. These are causing not only serious safety issues on our streets but fire safety issues, as we have already heard. Therefore, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, look to tackle both the fire and road safety issues associated with non-compliant lithium-ion batteries. It does feel like there is a loophole in the law whereby unsafe batteries are being sold in the UK and are having a devastating effect. These are important issues, and I hope we hear some clear progress in this area from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

In all the time that I have been arguing for this kind of abuse by psychotherapists or counsellors to be a criminal offence, no one has ever argued that it should not be so, nor that the offence should not be modelled on the Section 76 offence. The time has come to legislate. This kind of abuse by people in a position of trust who cynically set out to ruin the lives of those who trust them, by using falsehood in the guise of therapy to abuse that trust for their own gain, should now be held accountable for what must be seen for what it is: criminal behaviour. I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the wording and effect of Amendment 347, which I co-signed, are self-explanatory, but, if the amendment needed any further elaboration, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has just provided it. I cannot improve on what he said, but now is the moment when Parliament must, after several earlier attempts by the noble Lord and me to legislate, outlaw the quack counsellors who predate on vulnerable people through controlling or coercive behaviour in order to provide some sort of protection to their victims or intended victims.

I have been concerned about these quacks and tried without success to get previous Governments to legislate for some years. More than 10 years ago, I started work with Sir Oliver Letwin, then the Cabinet Office Minister in the Government of our noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and Tom Sackville, a former Home Office Minister, as well as parliamentary counsel and Ministry of Justice officials, with the support and encouragement of my noble friend Lord Cameron, the then Prime Minister, who had a constituency interest in the matter. I spoke about those quacks on Report on the Modern Slavery Bill in November 2014 and the Serious Crime Bill in February 2015 in the other place, in your Lordships’ House on 2 March 2020 in the debate on the unregulated treatment of mental health, and then again on 2 February 2021, with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on the Domestic Abuse Bill. Now, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we have another opportunity to make real progress rather than having a general discussion without resolution.

We have laws to protect children and those under a mental incapacity through intellectual impairment, disability or the effects of old age. We can prosecute those who dishonestly take old and frail people’s money, but we leave unprotected adults who may succumb to pressure exerted on them by others with malevolent intent, because their exploitative activities currently do not come within the criminal law.

For over a decade, I have had in mind the young adult women whose experiences were brought to my attention by their parents and families. In essence, they had been brainwashed or suborned by quack counsellors. They persuaded these young people to break off all contact with their families, infected them with false memories and got them to pay fees for the so-called counselling. Some of those young women were well off and suggestible, but all of them, for no apparent reason, broke off all contact with their families.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, I successfully acted in a libel action for Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Mail, who had exposed the activities of the Unification Church, commonly known as the Moonies, in brainwashing young adults and breaking up families for nefarious financial, political and bogus religious reasons. What the quacks I have in mind are doing is hideously reminiscent of the Moonies’ activities exposed by the Daily Mail over 45 years ago.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has just reminded us, France, Belgium and Luxembourg have laws to criminalise the behaviour of predatory charlatans who exploit others in a state of emotional or psychological weakness for financial or other gain. As he also reminded us, other countries require genuine counsellors to be registered as counsellors. It must be assumed that their laws do not conflict with the articles of the ECHR that protect the right to private life and family life, the right to freedom of expression and association and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

To take the French example, in that jurisdiction it is an offence punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines to abuse the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or of a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, sickness or infirmity due to a psychological or physical disability or to pregnancy is apparent or known to the offender. It is also an offence to abuse a person in a state of physical or psychological dependency resulting from serious or repeated pressure, or from techniques used to affect his judgment in order to induce the minor or other person to act, or to abstain from acting, in a way seriously harmful to him—for “him”, also read “her”.

This amendment is clearly different but just as useful. One way of considering whether the proposed offence and defence in Amendment 347 would work is to ask oneself the following questions. Would the offence be prosecutable in theory and in practice? Could each of the elements of the offence be proved in a real-life example? Would the measure deal with the mischief that was identified, and would it catch no one else? I suggest that the answer to those questions is yes. How would it affect partners, husbands, wives, teachers, gurus, salesmen, priests and employers, all of whom are likely to have power and influence? It need not do so. Would it allow the mentally capable who want to give away their fortunes and leave their families to do so? Of course it would. Would it make sufficiently clear what was criminal behaviour and what was not? Would it comply with the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes, I suggest it would. What effect would it have on religious freedom or freedom of expression or association? In my view, it would have none. Is the proposed defence just and workable? Yes, it is. It would place the burden of disproving the defence on the prosecution.

The victims of these bogus therapists have been waiting far too long for Parliament to help them. The amendment, I suggest, is humane and practical and has nothing whatever to do with party politics or, as I have recently been asked, anything to do with youngsters or their parents caught in the maelstrom of the current transsexual controversies. If the laws of France, Belgium and Luxembourg can protect the people this amendment seeks to protect, the law of England can and ought to do so as well. We have, if I may say so, had enough of sophistry and feeble opposition based on a lack of courage, decency and drafting niceties. Too often we have heard it is the wrong day, it is the wrong Bill, this is the wrong way to approach this particular problem. Amendment 347 or something like it should be added to the Bill and I urge the Government to do that. If the Government will not do that, we must return to this on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the Government would be happy to consider evidence following today’s debate. I would certainly put that forward to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, as part of that examination of regulation. That is a productive way forward, without many of the pitfalls I have tried to describe that might occur if the legislative route was accepted in the amendments proposed today.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to criticise the Minister’s intentions and motives, but what he has just said is reminiscent of what I have heard on previous occasions from Ministers of my party and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, probably heard from Ministers in the Tony Blair Government back in 2001. We need to ratchet up the urgency here. Having further reviews is really a delightful departmental way of saying, “Not today, thanks, and possibly not even tomorrow”. We need to grip this. Calls for evidence are fine, so long as they are not calls for further delay or a “can’t be bothered” attitude. I know from my own knowledge of the Minister that he does not belong to the “can’t be bothered” department. If my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others who agree with him on this amendment are to be persuaded that we are not just being brushed off then we need to see some real action. That could mean the Minister, or a Health Minister, agreeing to meet with us, with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who has some views about the drafting, and with other Members of this House to have a very serious round-table discussion early in the new year. Otherwise, this will dribble away as it did under the previous Government, and I know that the Minister does not want that to happen.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a case to be made that if, on several occasions, members of the Conservative Party have used the same argument in government, my noble friends in the Labour Party have used the same argument in previous Governments, and I myself use the same argument, then maybe that same argument has some validity. I put that to the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

That is a logical fallacy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. I have tried to tell the Committee that the Department of Health and Social Care is taking forward a programme of reform to professional regulation and legislative frameworks for healthcare professionals. Responsibility for that lies with the Department of Health. On this Bill, I speak in response to the amendments on behalf of the Home Office. I am arguing, and I have done so previously, that legislation would not be the appropriate route forward. There may be a common thread with previous Ministers there, but that is the argument that I am putting to the Committee.

I am happy to reflect with colleague as to whether I can ask my colleague Ministers to examine the issues that the noble and learned Lord has put to the Committee, but it is ultimately for them to consider the evidence provided. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, thinks that that is a brush-off. I hope it is not, but he can judge that in reflecting on what I have said today. If he wishes to then there is the opportunity to raise this issue on Report; the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has already shown his tenacity in doing so on several occasions.

I am happy to try to facilitate for a Minister of Health to examine the issues put before the Committee, and I think it is reasonable that I draw this debate to the attention of the appropriate Minister for Health, including the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which test the assumptions of the proposed new clause as well. Ultimately, however, I am standing here on behalf of the Government and the Home Office, and speaking for all these matters now. The legislative route is not one that we consider appropriate. I have said what I have said, and I would be very happy, if the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment, to draw the attention of the appropriate Health Minister to this debate, including the noble Lord’s comments and those of other Members. I have heard the request for a meeting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and I will draw that request to the attention of the appropriate Health Minister. If Members remain unhappy after that process then there are a number of options open to them; they are experienced parliamentarians and no doubt they will exercise them.