Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Amendment 26 to Schedule 2 to the Bill, which permits a registered social housing provider to issue a closure notice in respect of premises they own or manage, under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have stated, a closure notice under Section 76 of that Act is a notice which prohibits a person from accessing specific premises. Currently, such a notice can be issued only by the police or the local authority, but Schedule 2 permits an RSH to also issue such notices.

My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the RSH provider is able to issue a closure notice for an individual flat in the premises it is responsible for. Given that paragraph (2)(b) of Schedule 2 does not specify that fact, I look forward to the Minister’s answer and hope he might clarify that point.

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

I thank all noble Lords for this short but focused debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing his amendment. As he has explained, it seeks to allow registered social housing providers to issue a closure notice in relation to an individual flat within a housing block that they own or manage.

The closure power is a fast, flexible power that can be used to protect victims and communities by quickly closing premises that are causing nuisance or disorder. Clause 5 and Schedule 2 extend the closure power to registered social housing providers. Currently, only local authorities and police can issue closure notices. This is despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from anti-social behaviour. Now, registered social housing providers will be able to issue closure notices and apply for closure orders, to enable them to close premises that they own or manage which are associated with nuisance and disorder.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned a specific landlord. Without going into the facts of that case, it is clear that registered social housing providers have to meet regulatory standards set by the regulator of social housing. There is statutory guidance in place, and registered social housing providers are expected to meet the same legal tests as set out in the 2014 Act that the noble Lord mentioned. This will ensure that all relevant agencies have the right tools to tackle anti-social behaviour quickly and effectively. In turn, this will save police and local authorities time, as housing providers will be able to make applications directly, rather than having to rely on the police or local authority to do so on their behalf.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised his concerns about risks of abuse. For instance, he was concerned that extending the power to housing providers might risk it being misused to evict tenants, such as those in rent arrears. There are robust safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of misuse. Like other agencies, housing providers will be required to consult with relevant partners prior to the issuing of a closure notice. This requirement is in addition to the legal test having to be met and the fact that the process will go through the courts.

I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others that premises here means any land or other places, whether enclosed or not, and any outbuildings that are, or are used as, part of the premises. This could therefore already include an individual flat within a housing block. Indeed, that would be the expectation: that this targets individual households, rather than whole blocks of flats. We are confident that the current legislative framework and the Bill will cover that and make that clear. On the basis of that clarification—of course, I will reflect on Hansard and the points he specifically raised about the 2014 Act, and I will write to him in more detail if I need to—I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I am quite happy with all the standards and powers, and I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones; I know there are robust standards. The only thing I was interested in was whether the word “premises” includes individual flats in a housing block. I have the Minister’s 98% assurance on that. I would be very grateful if he and his officials would reflect on that and, at some point, confirm absolutely to the House that the power exists to close an individual flat or a couple of flats, and not just the whole shooting match of the block. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we are debating again the Crime and Policing Bill—the second day in Committee—which has as its core purpose making our communities safer, protecting victims from harm and ensuring that they secure the justice they deserve, so it is fitting that I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hanson earlier today, when he spoke on the border security Bill, by paying my own tribute to that doughty campaigner for victims’ rights, Baroness Newlove. Her tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and the bereaved was truly inspirational. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I was deeply saddened to hear of her most untimely passing. She will be much missed, and I am sure all noble Lords will join me in passing on our condolences to her family and friends.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the Opposition’s position on Clause 9 and fly-tipping more generally. Fly-tipping is a serious issue, as both the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. It is environmental vandalism, and you have only to consider the enormous pile of illegally dumped waste by the A34 and the River Cherwell in Kidlington, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred, to see that this is a very real problem, which the Government are absolutely committed to tackling.

On that particular, egregious example of fly-tipping, noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to hear that the Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on this specific case. I understand that an investigation is under way. An Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping, and the local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities with multi-agency support.

In 2023-24, local authorities in England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents and 60% of fly-tips involved household waste. Fly-tipping is not only an eyesore, blighting our streets and open spaces, it can pose a serious public health hazard when not effectively dealt with. It really impacts the quality of life in communities across our land, often the most deprived areas, urban and rural, and that is why we as a Government are committed to tackling it.

The current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regulatory regime is not fit for purpose and the Government have announced plans to reform this regime and move the regulation of waste management and transport from a light-touch registration scheme into environmental permitting. We committed in our manifesto to forcing fly-tippers to clean up the mess that they have created, as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, and will provide further details on this commitment in due course. We are also carrying out a review of local authority powers to seize and crush vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, to identify how we can help councils make better use of this specific tool.

We want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the centre of local efforts to combat the problem, which makes full and proper use of the available powers. I stress that we think that this is appropriately done at the local level, because it is local people, local communities, and indeed local councillors, who are elected to represent those communities, who are best placed to understand the specific needs and issues in those areas. Clause 9 will help achieve that by placing a legal duty on councils across the country to have regard to forthcoming guidance on fly-tipping enforcement.

I recognise the significant burden that clearing fly-tipping waste places on landowners. However, I do not believe that Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are the right way to tackle the issue.

Through Section 33B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where local authorities prosecute fly-tippers, a court can mandate that a costs order be made on the convicted person in order that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. Such a cost order is a criminal penalty and, as such, is properly imposed by the independent judiciary under the relevant provisions of the 1990 Act. Where there is sufficient evidence, fly-tippers can be prosecuted and, on conviction, a costs order can be made by the court so that those landowners’ costs can be recovered.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister help the Committee by telling us how often such an order has been imposed?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, with that detail. But I stress that there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed for an offence committed by an offender aged 18 or over. However, in determining whether to make a compensation order and the amount that should be paid under such an order, the court must take into account the offender’s means. If they are limited, priority must be given to the payment of compensation over a fine, although a court may still impose a fine. I suppose 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, if I can put it that way.

Having said that, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which is a group chaired by Defra that includes a wide range of representatives from interested parties—central and local government, enforcement authorities, the waste industry, police and fire services, private landowners, and the devolved Administrations—sets out that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. Defra will consider building on this advice in the statutory guidance that will be issued under Clause 9 once the Bill becomes law.

Noble Lords will also be interested, I hope, to hear that local authorities can already issue fixed penalties of up to £1,000 to fly-tippers, the income from which must be spent on clean-up or enforcement. Local authorities issued 63,000 fixed penalty notices in total for fly-tipping during 2023-24, and these were the second most common enforcement action, according to Defra data.

I fully understand the sentiment behind these amendments and entirely accept the principle that the polluter should pay but the Government believe that the sentencing framework, as set out in primary legislation, is the proper place to deal with this issue. I recognise, however, that there may be benefits in providing the court with an alternative disposal relating to penalty points, as proposed in Amendment 46 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Defra remains committed to considering such a move and will provide an update in due course.

I also stress, and in response to Amendment 47, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, that there is an existing power for local councils and the police to seize a vehicle where there is a reasonable belief that it is being used or had been used for fly-tipping, which can lead to the vehicle being sold or crushed if it is not claimed. If the vehicle is claimed, the council can prosecute and a court can order that ownership rights are transferred to the council, under which it can keep, sell or dispose of the vehicle. There were nearly 400 vehicles seized in 2023-24 as an enforcement action.

When such an order is being considered, it is appropriate that the court must consider certain factors that Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to remove. The duty on the courts to consider these factors, such as the financial impacts of the forfeiture or the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes, embeds principles of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of—our friend—the European Convention on Human Rights. This entitles a person to a peaceful enjoyment of their possessions but allows the state to enforce laws to control use of that property when it is in the general interest. Any such interference with this right must be lawful for legitimate aim and be proportionate. Amendment 40 would remove these safeguards, and we should always tread lightly when considering long-held rights regarding property, something I am sure I would not have to tell the Benches opposite.

In light of my explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to all those who have spoken in this short but interesting debate. I start with the problem: fly-tipping does not sound as bad as the crime actually is. Many people say, “Oh, fly-tipping, that is just dumping a mattress or a fridge in the countryside”, but as we have seen recently, there are 30,000 tonnes of contaminated garbage in Hoads Wood, with probably around 900 or 1,000 tonnes left at the weekend. It is not fly-tipping: it is rubbish racketeering. I am not going to suggest an amendment to change the title of it, but we really need to take it seriously.

Now, the other point that my noble friend on the Front Bench and I—and, I think, nearly all of us—agree on is that, ideally, the landowner should not have to pay the cost of clearing it up. He or she is the victim by having it dumped on their land in the first place, and then they are the victim the second time around in having to pay for clearing it up. But it should not be the ratepayers who pay for it either.

Ideally, of course, it should be the people who do it, but in many cases, we cannot catch them; we do not know who they are. In those circumstances, it seems grossly unfair that the landowner then has to bear the cost of doing that. We may discuss this in the next group of amendments, but I would hope that on, say, the Kidlington thing, a couple of forensic experts can crawl over that and find something. There must be addresses; there must be some data—that rubbish has not come from 200 miles away. There must be intelligence to pin down who has been doing it and then we should hit them hard.

I do not accept that the European Court of Human Rights would say that we need all those safeguards before taking away the vehicle of someone who has been involved in heavy crime. I challenge the Minister on that. I like the idea of three points on the licence, although I would go slightly further and make it three points for every load the person has dumped, but there are various penalties we can add there as well.

So I think we are all on the same side here—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the Front Bench, myself and the Minister—and we are all searching for slightly tougher penalties. I hear what the Minister said, but perhaps if all of us on this side of the House could agree some simple, concerted amendment for Report where we can toughen up on this a bit, maybe adding the penalty points thing, maybe finding some way to make sure that the landowner does not pay and some way to penalise the organised crime behind this, it may be worth while coming back on Report. But in the meantime, in view of what the Minister said and his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendments. As he said, they include requiring the Secretary of State to designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic threat; to create a national action plan to collect and publish quarterly information on waste crime; and to provide for an independent review of serious and organised waste crime.

On the strategic priority designation and the national action plan, of course I support taking fly-tipping and organised waste much more seriously. Fly-tipping goes far beyond simple domestic waste and is a widespread practice of criminals; I point to the comments I made in the preceding group. I earnestly hope that the Government take this amendment seriously and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on a national action plan.

On the publishing of quarterly data, we on these Benches are always sympathetic to the principle of transparency, which in turn drives government accountability. More granular and consistent data assist the Government in formulating their efforts to tackle fly-tipping.

On the third and final amendment, although I recognise the noble Earl’s thought process behind an independent review and the importance of scrutiny, my one worry is that it may divert scarce government resources away from tackling the problem at hand. Too large a focus on reviewing may unduly delay action. In our view, this Government are already all too keen to launch a review to solve every problem that comes their way. We do not need to give them any more incentive to do so. It is our priority to give the police the power to act as soon as possible. None the less, I hope the Government take all the noble Earl’s amendments seriously.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, the purpose of these amendments is to take forward some of the recommendations of your Lordships’ House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee to tackle serious and organised crime in the waste sector. At this point, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the work of her committee, not just in their detailed examination of the issue but in the whole way their report has raised the profile of this important issue.

I am glad we have had an opportunity to discuss waste crime in the round. As we have noted, and I think we are all in accord across the Chamber, this is a serious issue. At the end of the debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mooted that perhaps we need to rebrand fly-tipping to make people take it more seriously. From reflecting on this debate, nobody can be in any doubt, as the committee’s report demonstrated, that this is a serious business—and it is a business. It incurs huge costs in terms of the damage done. It is obviously a very profitable business to those who engage in it and I think we are all determined to tackle it. We argue that there are certainly provisions in the Bill, as well as other government actions, that will help to address this.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, waste crime costs the economy an estimated £1 billion annually. We are determined to tackle it, why is why we are preparing significant reforms to the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime and to the waste permit exemptions regime. Bringing waste carriers, brokers and dealers into the environmental permitting regime will give the Environment Agency more powers and resources to ensure compliance and to hold operators to account. Changes will make it harder for rogue operators to find work in the sector and easier for regulators to take action against criminals. Our planned reforms will also introduce the possibility of up to five years’ imprisonment for those who breach these new laws.

We are also introducing digital waste tracking to make it harder than ever to misidentify waste or dispose of it inappropriately. By digitising waste records, we will make it easier for legitimate businesses to comply with their duty of care for waste and reduce the opportunities for criminals to operate. Furthermore, better data will help us manage resources more sustainably, reduce waste and protect the environment for future generations.

As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, noted, the Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators. This year, we have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% to £15.6 million. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which is hosted within the Environment Agency, has nearly doubled in size thanks to that extra funding. Overall, the EA has been able to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and area environmental crime teams by 43 full-time equivalent employees. They will be targeted at activities identified as waste crime priorities, using enforcement activity data and criminal intelligence. That includes tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity, closing down illegal waste sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on the terrible incident at Kidlington, which we discussed in the previous group. All I can do is repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. The Government are engaging with the Environment Agency on the case with the utmost seriousness. An investigation is underway, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further tipping. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; it is bad now, but at least this way it cannot get any worse. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support. Noble Lords may be aware that there was an Urgent Question in the other place this afternoon asked by the local MP Calum Miller; I believe that my honourable friend the Minister Mary Creagh offered to meet with Mr Miller to discuss this further. This is an issue that we are taking very seriously.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will appreciate, the Environment and Climate Change Committee wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as recently as 28 October, to set out the conclusions of its inquiry into waste crime. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that it will necessarily take a little time to consider fully the Government’s response. Having read the letter that the committee sent this morning, I know that it is a complex letter that raises many points, and rightly so. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, offered from the annals of classic British comedy, we do not want to rush our response, and it certainly would ill behove me to shoot from the hip in my response when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will respond to it. I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State is carefully considering the report and will respond in due course.

Noble Lords will be aware of two facts, and I will put it no more strongly than this. First, the committee asked in its letter for a response by 9 December. Secondly, we are due to continue in Committee on this Bill until the end of January at the earliest—

[A noble Lord]

Hooray.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Hooray indeed. I will not commit any more strongly than that. I will let noble Lords come to their own conclusions about the ability to take on those considerations ahead of Report.

In the light of the action that we are taking already to tackle waste crime, and without pre-empting the response from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State Emma Reynolds to the Environment Committee’s report, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Before the noble Earl responds to the debate, I ask the Minister: when he comes back to the Committee with an update on the Kidlington issue, will he explain how it unravels in open sight? As we have heard, there must have been hundreds of lorry loads and, no doubt, many complaints and missives to the police, the Environment Agency and the other bodies responsible. To the man and woman in the street, it seems that if we cannot deal with something as enormous and obvious as this, what hope is there for smaller fly-tipping incidents?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for that point. I appreciate what he is saying. I am not aware of the events that led up to the time it took to issue this enforcement action, and it would be wrong for me to speculate. I am afraid I have not yet had the time to review the Hansard report of the Urgent Question, but I suspect we may have some of the answers to that question if we review the Commons Hansard report of the Urgent Question that Calum Miller asked of the Government today.

I understand the point the noble Viscount is making, and in the future should I be in the position to report back, I will offer more information. All I will say is that one would hope—I am not speaking out of turn, I simply do not know the facts—that there would be community action and community reporting of this in strength. The Environment Agency only has so much resource; it cannot be all-seeing and so it cannot take enforcement when it does not know the action there. I am not suggesting that that was the case in this situation in Kidlington, but it is important for us to take wider societal responsibility to address these issues.

I am fortunate that the London Borough of Camden, my home borough, has an app through which I can always report fly-tipping, which is nowhere near on the scale of Kidlington. I am an avid user, and therefore I take responsibility. My kids hate me stopping to take pictures of rubbish when I am walking along with them, but I use it because that means that the offence is noted and recorded, and then action is taken. In tribute to Camden, it is usually taken quickly.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank all those who have spoken in this group and the Minister for his response to my amendments. I recognise that the Government have inherited this problem, and I recognise that they are putting more resources into it through the plans for brokers and dealers and through digital waste tracking, which I hope are brought forward as soon as possible. That will start to make some concrete changes to these issues.

That said, however, this problem is out of the Government’s control and more needs to be done. It is not acceptable that these serious organised criminal gangs are exploiting loopholes in the system, destroying our countryside and leaving a mess behind them. Therefore, I want to see action on that.

I fully recognise that the Select Committee report came out only two weeks ago and that the Government are not due to respond until 9 December, as the Minister said. I am sure that the Minister also recognises that, if I did not raise these points in Committee, I cannot bring them back at Report. I think there is a commonality here on the need to address these issues, and I hope that between now and Report we can have further conversations and co-operate on these issues.

Returning to Kidlington, I know there was an Urgent Question. I had an opportunity to have a word with my honourable friend on that prior to the Statement. It is important that this site is cleared up and that the Government help meet the costs for that. I encourage the Minister to consider using a ministerial direction, if needed, to make sure that that happens. That said, I hope that, when the response to the committee’s report comes, the Government recognise that it is a serious job of work and that it takes a unique and forward-thinking perspective on genuinely trying to find ways to address and resolve these problems. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra when introducing these amendments.

There is an urgent need to ensure that the mechanisms we put in place under the Bill are both workable and effective. My noble friend’s amendments seek to ensure that the person appointed as the co-ordinating officer is simply the most qualified regarding the internet and online sales. There seems to be broad agreement that those responsible for enforcing penalties for illegal online sales must have the right skills. Whether or not such individuals wear a uniform is less important than whether they understand the digital channels through which harmful goods are marketed and moved, and criminals should not be able to exploit technological advantage to stay one step ahead of enforcement. I therefore hope that the Government take these amendments seriously as practical suggestions to help tackle a serious problem.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments to the clauses that implement this Government’s manifesto commitment to hold senior managers of online platforms, be they social media platforms, online marketplaces or search engines, personally liable for the failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons. His Amendment 55B would require the co-ordinating officer—that is, the person appointed by the Home Secretary to administer these new powers—to have the necessary internet and online sales experience and skills, stating that they need not be a warranted officer. Amendment 55F would make these criteria explicit in the statutory guidance for these measures.

I agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. It is of course important that the co-ordinating officer responsible for the administration of these powers be suitably experienced. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are providing £1.7 million for a new national police unit to tackle the illegal online sale of knives and weapons, including the issuing of content removal notices. The unit will be dedicated to co-ordinating investigations into all aspects of online unlawful knife and offensive weapon sales, and to bringing those responsible to justice. It will also improve data collection and analysis capability in order to expand police understanding of the knife crime problem and how enforcement activities can best be targeted. The intention is that a senior member of this specialist unit will be appointed as the co-ordinating officer, and they will have the necessary skills and resources to administer the powers.

Whoever is appointed as a content manager must be experienced in both aspects of the problem we are trying to tackle. They should have experience not only of online sales but of the investigation of illegal online sales of knives and weapons—that is, they must be able to understand the investigatory and evidential process as well as having experience of the internet. This will, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not be any old bobby with a warrant card but someone highly experienced in internet sales and the investigatory and evidential role. That is why, in short, we feel that the role must be held by a warranted officer. It is a police role. They will be issuing enforcement notices and, as part of the criminal process, they need to have that experience as well as the essential online experience that all noble Lords who spoke in the debate mentioned; we agree that that is necessary.

Given the assurance that we are not neglecting the online side of things, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be sufficiently reassured and is content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, first let me say that I am almost overcome with deep emotion, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Lib Dems have supported a Blencathra amendment—I wonder where I have gone wrong.

I say to the Minister that I am not totally reassured. I was not suggesting any old bobby; I was afraid that the police would automatically look for someone of senior rank: inspector, superintendent or chief superintendent. But the absolutely crucial thing is that that person must be fully qualified on internet sales and online stuff. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set it out with rather elegant detail; I called the person a computer geek. If that superintendent is a senior investigating officer and he or she is a computer geek, then I am satisfied. I do not suggest that I will take this back on Report, but the Minister’s answer did not totally satisfy me that the best person will necessarily be recruited for the job. Yes, of course the person must have an understanding of investigation techniques, but that does not necessarily mean that it has to be a high-ranking police officer. The police already have civilians investigating things that do not require an officer.

As I say, I am slightly equivocal about the Minister’s answer. It is slightly disappointing that the Government will not countenance the possibility that this person may not be a warranted officer. It is quite simple: if you recruited the right computer geek, you make him or her warranted officer—you can do it that way. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Knife crime and its associated sales should be thought of not as back-alley transactions conducted by a small handful of criminals but instead in the more accurate context of modern supply chains, marketing strategies and online commercial structures that enable weapons to reach young and vulnerable people. The digital world has dramatically shifted the landscape of enforcement. As we know, criminal enterprises operate across borders and platforms, and enforcement agencies must be equipped with powers and sanctions. I hope that the Government will reflect thoughtfully on the arguments raised.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his explanation of the amendments in this group. As he said, Amendment 55C would set minimum fines for companies that fail to comply with an appointment notice that requires them to designate an executive to be held liable for failing to take down illegal knife and weapons content. Amendments 55D and 55E would set minimum fines for companies and liable executives that fail to take down illegal content when requested to do so. As he explains, his proposed minimum fines are proportionate for companies; they are set at 500% of the value of the knife or the weapon for companies, and 100% of the value for individuals.

I hate to disappoint the Committee or to ruin the spirit of accord that has broken out across the Benches opposite, but while the logic of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is good, I am afraid it does not reflect the actual behaviour and experience of the marketplace. If I can, I will try to explain why it would not be as effective or as impactful as he no doubt intends.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I hate to interrupt the Minister—well, I do not really—but can he explain what he means by that about the market? I did not grasp what he meant by that.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Well, that is a very good segue into the words that are just following—I was about to get there.

Many knives and weapons that are sold illegally are sold relatively cheaply, in the order of tens of pounds. Some sellers who sell knives and weapons over social media tend to hold and advertise small stock numbers. Therefore, we contend that the suggested minimum penalties are simply too low to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content. The independent review of online safety of knives shows a case study as an example where an individual bought 30 knives to sell illegally over social media for under £50 each. Should the social media company not take the illegal content down, the proposed minimum fine under these amendments would be £1,500 for the executive and £7,500 for the companies. Those penalties, as I am sure noble Lords would agree, would be too low for large tech companies and executives to be worried about at all. Not having a minimum penalty will leave full discretion to the police, who specialise in investigating illegal knife sales online. This will allow them to use their judgment to issue fines that are commensurate in each case.

The penalties for failing to comply with these are, as already noted, issued in the form of civil penalty notices by the police. They can be up to £60,000 for companies and £10,000 for individuals. I remind noble Lords that these penalties are for single violations and will add up if companies and executives repeatedly fail to comply with removal notices. The measure is intended not just to punish companies but to facilitate behaviour change. I trust that the police administering these measures will issue fines of an appropriate level to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content.

I note the experience, which I found instructive, of the independent review of the online sale of knives, that a lot of the activity is undertaken through very small stocks that are cheaply sold. If we used the regime of a proportionate measure, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we simply would not generate enough. Noble Lords may not think that £60,000 is worth much, but we certainly would not generate anywhere near £60,000 in those examples.

It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of the grey market sellers do so over social media websites. The recipient of the fine is the tech company that does not take down the illegal material, rather than the person selling the knives or the weapons. We understand the intended recipient of the punishment—the fines—which is why we think that having the £60,000 or £10,000 level is appropriate, because that is for single offences. Any time a company fails to remove the content for which they have received a notice, the fines will add up and accumulate, which will make an impact—and we would all agree that that needs to be done.

In response to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we feel that the Sentencing Council is unlikely to comment on the level of a civil penalty. That may be a little speculative from my perspective, but I think that it is probably what the experience bears out.

Given this explanation and the clarification of our view of how the environment—I should not have used the word “market” earlier—in which these sales take place, I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently assured that these penalties will have an impact in the way they are set out in the Bill and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I almost had palpitations for the second time tonight when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported my amendment.

I hear what the Minister has to say. I had not intended for the 500% penalty to apply to just two or three individuals selling a few knives; I intended that it would apply to the supply of the whole shooting match. The individuals who are selling a few knives have got them from somewhere: there is a supplier or a big source making these by the thousand. For someone at the centre who has a warehouse with £100,000 worth of knives, a penalty of £500,000 would clean them out completely, whereas a penalty of £60,000 would still leave them with £40,000 profit. However, I accept the point that, if the case involves small-scale individuals, the 500% penalty might not be as great as the penalty in the Act. I wonder whether it is worth looking at the possibility of offering “either/or” as an option—I think that is a possibility for the future.

I will make another general point. I woke up about a week ago at 2 am and thought of this proportional system. It may not be perfect for knives, but I think there is some merit in this concept of proportionate fines for certain offences, whereby rather than having a maximum penalty imposed by law, the penalty is a percentage—100%, 200%, 300% or 1,000%—of the value of the goods being advertised or sold.

Bearing in mind what the Minister said, we would like to look again at the possibility of offering a fine and some proportional penalty. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Before the Minister replies, I will briefly respond to the very kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. To continue the love-in, I say that he was not only an excellent commissioner but a superb chief constable. He was a hands-on bobby as chief constable.

One night, he decided to go out in a squad car in plain clothes. He was sitting in the back, and a call came in for the officers about an incident around the corner. The officers said, “You just sit there, sir, we’ll go and have a look at it”. No sooner had the officers disappeared than the back door of the car was wrenched open, and a Geordie stuck his head in and said, “It’s okay, mate, you can scarper now—the rozzers have gone”. The noble Lord did not scarper.

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

Maybe this should be called the “afternoon of the long knives”.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for explaining the intention behind them.

We can see the merit in Amendments 211, 212 and 214, but making changes like this would first require thorough consultation with the police and officers. Obviously, we are very privileged to have the testimony and experience of—I am not sure whether “brace” is the right collective noun for two former commissioners—the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarked on how you learn something new every day: indeed, I had no idea that truncheons have so many uses or non-uses. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, opposite for explaining the ingenious uses that he put his truncheon to from time to time.

While I am referring to comments from noble Lords, I say to my noble friend Lord Hacking that his issue depends on the question, “How long is your dirk?” I am not sure whether that is something I would want to say at any point in time, let alone at the Dispatch Box, but there we are.

More seriously, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the rest of the Committee that the Government will consider further the issues raised in the discussion that we have had on this group of amendments. In doing so, we will ensure that any changes to the existing defences and exemptions are made after thorough consideration of the impacts. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they all deserve serious thought and thorough consultation. Although I am not suggesting for a minute that anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested otherwise, we must place the safety of the public in a paramount position. As such, I cannot undertake to bring forward any proposals in time for later stages of the Bill. However, I stress that, in any event, it would be possible to give effect to the sort of proposals that the amendments intend through existing regulation-making powers. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, therefore, would need to be debated in and approved by both the House of Lords and the other place.

Amendment 213, on items used for agriculture, gardening or similar purposes, was tabled by noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and discussed by the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Goschen. We believe the legislation is clear that it targets curved swords, and, if that is contested, it is ultimately for the courts to decide. We will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that police officers have access to appropriate guidance. I am sympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and other noble Lords, and the proposed amendments require further consideration and consultation.

Regarding Amendment 214—indeed, all the amendments—I stress that it is at the discretion of the police, the CPS and ultimately the courts to decide to take action against those holding weapons or items on the Schedule’s list for legitimate historical reasons, or indeed those using them for legitimate cultural sets of reasons. It is at the discretion of the police and the courts in taking a case forward. But I equally stress that we have existing powers to change the relevant law through secondary legislation. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister for both the tone and the content of his response. I agree with him entirely that the main purpose is to keep people safe, and I would never want to do anything to compromise that in any way. One reason for the amendments is that sometimes, the discretion of the police and the prosecution services that he urged has not always been exercised in a way that businesses and collectors have felt is appropriate. This has probably left them to manage that risk themselves. They are not trying to break the law, but they sometimes feel they are at risk of doing so. With all that said, I am reassured by the fact that the Government may be able to consider secondary legislation appropriate. That may be the best way to deal with this. I of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a group of relatively straightforward and common-sense amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. It tends to carry out the Government’s own consultation results in a careful and measured way.

Amendment 214A, moved by my noble friend Lord Brady, is a simple procedural measure that implements the Government’s own recommendations. As my noble friend set out, this amendment would not impact, let alone endanger, the public. Sound moderators are inert objects that contain no moving parts. They do not enhance the ability of a firearm, nor is there significant evidence of them being used in crime. The Government have themselves concluded that removing regulation of them will not pose any risk to public safety. I understand the original logic of including them in many firearms regulations, but, in practice, it means that police firearms officers must now obtain a certificate. It is an administrative burden that is not necessary.

Amendment 438 acts much in the same vein. It would require a review of the administrative burdens that noise and flash accessories place upon the police. The Government’s own previous consultation on the latter demonstrated that there is scope here for reform; to expand that to cover other accessories seems a very logical step.

We should aim to remove bureaucratic and administrative hurdles wherever they appear. This is particularly the case for the police, as our forces are under strain. This measure is evidently a small reform among many that should be made and is based on the right principle.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, for setting out the case for his Amendments 214A and 438. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who attached their names to Amendment 214A. As the noble Lord, Lord Brady, has explained, the aim is to deregulate the devices known as sound moderators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I too must out myself as a townie. As with the previous group, it has been a bit of an education finding out about these items and their uses. They are currently subject to control as they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm set out in Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968. This means that firearms licence holders with a legitimate need for these items are required to apply to the police to include them on their existing firearms licence, and this is obviously at a cost to both the police and the licence holder.

As many noble Lords have noted—indeed, every noble Lord who spoke—removing these items from the legal definition of a firearm would alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments. Because these are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts, they do not of themselves create a risk to public safety, as the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and others have said. The Government have already set out our intention to remove these items from the legal definition of a firearm, and I am therefore sympathetic to the intent behind these amendments.

However, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a commitment at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to bring forward the necessary legislative changes to the Firearms Act in this Bill. If he would agree to withdraw his amendment, I will undertake to update the noble Lord ahead of Report. I will say no more.

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive response and grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I feel almost ashamed to be moving an amendment that is so widely supported and has no opposition on either side of the House. I reassure the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I am a bit of a townie as well, but there is hope for all of us—we can learn. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to a further conversation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for bringing forward this important amendment. It would ensure that this House does not overlook emerging and deeply troubling patterns of abuse that fall outside traditional definitions.

The amendment seeks to expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who are recruited into residential care institutions overseas for the purpose of financial gain, commonly referred to as orphanage trafficking. As my noble friend highlighted, this is a practice that too often disguises itself as humanitarian intervention, while in fact it enables systematic exploitation and harm. Many so-called orphanages operate as profit-making enterprises, intentionally separating children from families and communities to attract funding and donations. The children involved may be subject to physical and emotional abuse, forced labour or trafficking into other forms of exploitation.

It is right that we recognise the growing international call to confront this practice and that we consider whether our legislative framework needs strengthening to support that effort. Ensuring that the Modern Slavery Act accurately reflects contemporary forms of exploitation is a legitimate objective, and I commend my noble friend for shining a spotlight on an issue that has far too long remained in the shadows.

We are sympathetic to the intention of the amendment and welcome the opportunity it provides to examine how the UK can play a stronger role in protecting vulnerable children globally. At the same time, we look forward to hearing from the Minister about the practical implications of such a change and how it might interact with existing powers and international co-operation mechanisms. I hope the Government will engage constructively with the concerns he has raised, and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.

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

My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this short but vital debate on an issue, which, speaking personally, I was not tremendously well aware of before looking at the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Many noble Lords have commented that it is the hard work of people such as Claire Wright and others that has brought to light this pernicious activity or—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—this evil trade.

As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has explained, Amendment 247A seeks to include so-called orphanage trafficking within the meaning of exploitation under Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act. I know the noble Lord has concerns about modern slavery and trafficking in his wider work. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery for highlighting this evil activity and the wider concerns around modern slavery.

As the noble Lord described, in our case, concerns about orphanage tourism would be about volunteers from the UK visiting orphanages overseas, fuelling this activity and contributing to a cycle of harm and exploitation of children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made a very relevant point: a lot of it is done in good faith. However, it can be undermined and exploited by those who are acting in bad faith.

I make it very clear to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the Opposition Front Bench—that the Government share the same concerns. That is why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides travel advice warning British nationals of the risk of volunteering with children and highlighting how volunteer visitors may unknowingly contribute to child exploitation and trafficking. The advice that the FCDO gives signposts travellers to the global standard for volunteering, which helps organisations provide responsible volunteering. By adopting the global standard, organisations commit to promoting child-safe volunteering in all environments, which includes not facilitating visits to orphanages or other institutional care facilities.

Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the specific vulnerabilities of children and encompasses the exploitation of children for the provision of services of any kind and to enable someone to acquire benefits of any kind, including financial gain. Therefore, orphanage trafficking is already captured by the broad terms of the existing legislation. It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, anticipated that that may be the tenor of my contribution.

I point out to noble Lords that on 16 July this year, the Home Office launched a public call for evidence on how the Government can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery, human trafficking and exploitation. The call for evidence closed on 8 October, and the Home Office is now analysing responses received. A report summarising the key findings and themes from the call for evidence responses will be published in due course. Of course, the Home Office will consider the evidence gathered to explore any further changes that can be made to improve the identification of victims.

We are seeking to introduce new modern slavery legislation as part of our efforts to review and improve the modern slavery system. This new legislation will enable us to clearly articulate the UK’s responsibilities under international law regarding modern slavery, allowing us to reduce opportunities for misuse while ensuring the right protection for those who need it.

I make no commitments here to your Lordships’ Committee, but that may well be to an opportunity to revisit some of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, floated the suggestion of a wider round table; I will certainly take that back to colleagues and discuss it.

For the reasons I have outlined about Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act already capturing orphanage trafficking in the broad terms, we do not believe it is necessary to amend Section 3 any further, as the conduct in question is already captured. In light of this explanation, and hoping that it does not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and other noble Lords too much, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, one of the many benefits of this place is having people who know much more than I do about a subject and who are certainly much more eloquent. Everybody who spoke after me fit that description. It was extremely good to have the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointing out that it is not every orphanage, and so forth.

However, it is an important issue. My friend—I call her that because we work very closely together—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is right: we did not spot this in our debates during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act, but that is because modern slavery in all its forms is always developing; the traffickers and exploiters are always looking at something new.

I am very grateful for what the Minister said. If I could predict the lottery numbers as well as I can predict ministerial responses, I would be a very rich man. We will come back to this, not necessarily in this Bill, but we should be looking at it. It would be good if we could perhaps at some stage get a Minister—they are very busy at the moment with this Bill and goodness knows how many other things—to meet the lady we mentioned and others, just to get an idea of the scale of it. But there is so much of this exploitation—we have only to look at Ukraine and the children who are being trafficked into Russia. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for introducing his amendment. This is an opportunity to consider cuckooing more broadly.

We on these Benches recognise the need for a cuckooing offence, and we did so last year before the general election. I am glad to see that the Government are now following our lead. Data suggests that cuckooing offences have quadrupled in recent years; given that it is a crime largely associated with child exploitation, it is all the more pertinent that we tackle it head on now.

Children are used to conceal and traffic illegal drugs in order to fund the activities of criminal drug gangs. Some 22% of people involved in county lines drug trades are children—that is almost 3,000 vulnerable people under the age of 18 being made to do the dirty work for criminals. These county lines trades are often run out of the dilapidated homes of vulnerable people. Criminals appropriate and transform them to use them for their own ends. Children are ferried in and out; they are sent to similar locations all over the country. It is a very specific crime that requires a very specific law. We see force in my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment, but we would not wish to tie the prosecutor’s hands.

Amendment 259, which addresses the offence of causing internal concealment, would prohibit cuckooed houses being used to house people who hide and then transport drugs. These people, as I have pointed out, are often children. Amendments 260 and 261 address that more broadly. Cuckooing—using children for criminal purposes—is a heinous and exploitative crime and it is right that it be given its own offence. However, while we welcome the Government agreeing to come with us on cuckooing, it is a shame that they have failed to address another root cause of the issue. As we have said, cuckooing is a crime primarily committed by gangs who co-opt homes to run their criminal operations. If you could break up those gangs, you would reduce cuckooing; the two feed off each other.

On the previous day of Committee, His Majesty’s Opposition had two amendments that would have done this. The first amendment would have created a statutory aggravating factor for gang-related offences. The second would have created an offence for specific gang-related graffiti. We appreciate the Government following our lead to create the offence of cuckooing, but if they are serious about this, they should do the same with gangs. Our measures would not, as some noble Lords suggested, criminalise fence-painting or church symbols. Neither is a gang sign. They would, however, deter gangs from their activities and lock up members who partake. This would be just as effective as this new offence.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this short debate. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I was not agitated—if he thinks that that is me being agitated, he has not yet seen me agitated. I hope that noble Lords never will. I was just reflecting the conventions and guidelines to respect each other and the courtesies of the House. We will move on. I welcome the brief and succinct way in which he introduced his amendment, but if he will allow me, I will first deal with the government amendments in this group.

Amendment 262 would make it clear that controlling another person’s dwelling for the purposes of the new cuckooing offence may be carried out via another person. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the principle behind them. While the existing drafting would already allow for the prosecution of a perpetrator who uses a third party to exercise control over another’s dwelling, the amendment would put this point beyond doubt, which we felt was important.

In cuckooing cases, particularly within the county lines context, gang leaders may exploit children or vulnerable adults to control another person’s home, as noted in the debate. The amendment would make it clear that the new cuckooing offence can, and should, be used to pursue the perpetrators who are responsible for directing the cuckooing rather than the individuals who may well be victims of exploitation. We will issue statutory guidance to the police to support the implementation of the offence.

Amendment 259 would add the offence of coerced internal concealment created by the Bill to the list of offences in Schedule 6, which are relevant offences in England and Wales, for the purpose of the cuckooing offence. Similarly, Amendments 260 and 261 would add the offence of child criminal exploitation, also created by the Bill and which we discussed earlier today, to the list of relevant offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the purpose of the cuckooing offence.

As noted, cuckooed properties may be used as a base for criminal exploitation. These amendments would therefore ensure that, where cuckooing is carried out for the purpose of enabling the commission of the coerced internal concealment offence in England and Wales, or the commission of the child criminal exploitation offence anywhere in the UK, the cuckooing offence will apply.

I turn to Amendment 258A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As he explained, the amendment seeks to remove the ability for cuckooing offences to be tried as a summary offence in a magistrates’ court, thereby limiting the offence to being tried in the Crown Court on indictment. While I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s intention of ensuring that the perpetrators of this harmful practice receive appropriate sentencing, we, like the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, consider that the provision for the cuckooing offence to be triable either way is fair and proportionate.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts, and we do not want to see that approach restricted. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of each individual case. The courts may also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The cuckooing offence is designed to capture a range of actions that may be involved in controlling another person’s dwelling, from occupying the property through to directing delivery of items, such as drugs, to and from the property. It may therefore be more proportionate for some cuckooing cases to be tried in a magistrates’ court.

More broadly, allowing offences to be tried in magistrates’ courts helps reduce the burden on the Crown Court and can enable quicker access to justice for victims. It is a sad fact that the lack of investment in the court system over recent years has meant that there is huge strain on the court system. As we always say, rightly, justice delayed is justice denied, so restricting the trial of a cuckooing offence to the Crown Courts would not necessarily deliver the justice that victims deserve and that society would seek to be meted out on the perpetrators.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am sorry that I could not be here at the beginning of this group. My noble friend has given a very encouraging response to the many amendments—

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

My Lords, the Minister has gone over time, but in any case the noble Lord needed to be here at the start of the group to be able to intervene during the debate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful. This Minister would not have gone over time had he not given way, but he now has gone over time and so will sit down. I commend the course of action that I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

337: After Clause 105, insert the following new Clause—
“Safeguarding vulnerable groups: regulated activity (Northern Ireland)(1) Schedule 2 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1351 (N.I. 11)) (regulated activity) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 1 omit—(a) in sub-paragraph (2A)(b), the words “(disregarding paragraph 2(3A) and (3B)(b))”;(b) in sub-paragraph (2B)—(i) in paragraph (a)(ii), the words “(disregarding paragraph 2(3A) and (3B)(b))”; (ii) paragraph (b) and the “or” immediately before it;(c) sub-paragraph (2C);(d) sub-paragraph (13).(3) In paragraph 2 omit—(a) sub-paragraph (3A);(b) in sub-paragraph (3B), paragraph (b) and the “and” immediately before it;(c) sub-paragraph (3C).(4) Omit paragraph 5A and the italic heading before it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland which is equivalent to that made by clause 105 for England and Wales.

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

My Lords, Amendment 337 replicates for Northern Ireland the provisions of Clause 105, which apply to England and Wales. Amendments 520, 550, 559 and 561 are consequential to Amendment 337.

Currently, the definition of regulated activity—that is, roles that are subject to the highest level of enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS, check, such as those working closely with vulnerable adults and children—includes an exemption for work which is

“subject to the day to day supervision of another person”.

This means that people in roles which involve close work with children are not in regulated activity if they are working under supervision.

In its final report, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommended that anyone engaging an individual to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis should be able to check whether they have been barred by the DBS from working with children, including where the role is supervised. The Government agree with this recommendation, and, at the request of the Department of Health, these amendments make the same change to the law for Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has Amendment 337A in this group. I will respond to that once we have heard from the noble Lord and others. For now, I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 337A, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Doocey. As ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher and as a level 2 ECB cricket coach, which is relevant here. I tried to table a similar amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill but was told that it would be better here, so here we are. I give thanks to Alistair Wood of Edapt, who has doggedly pursued this issue.

I was astounded to learn earlier this year that someone who has been barred from working with children can still privately tutor without having to reveal their conviction, as it is a private matter between tutor and parents or carers. Amendment 337A therefore seeks to address a simple but significant safeguarding loophole in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 that allows individuals who have been barred from working with children to operate entirely legally as private tutors, coaches or instructors in out-of-school settings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments tabled by the Government and to Amendment 337A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Amendment 337 provides Northern Ireland with provisions equivalent to those in Clause 105. As with similar amendments earlier in the Bill, we recognise the need for aligned protections across jurisdictions, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the engagement with Northern Ireland departments and confirm that operational partners are prepared for implementation. Similarly, Amendments 520 and 550 ensure appropriate territorial extent and commencement powers for Northern Ireland. These are direct drafting and procedural changes that appear entirely sensible.

Turning to Amendment 337A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, we are supportive of the principle it raises. Closing a loophole that allows barred individuals to tutor children through so-called private arrangements seems an important and proportionate step, while the amendment sensibly preserves the long-standing exemptions for family and friends. I recognise, however, that extended regulated activity in this way may raise practical questions about enforcement and the potential impact on legitimate private tutoring arrangements, and it would be helpful to understand how these concerns would be managed in practice. I hope the Minister will respond constructively to the issues highlighted here.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for his Amendment 337A. I pay tribute to his advocacy on this issue and on many other related issues as a teacher and—I did not realise this until tonight—as a cricket coach as well. I hope he is doing good work churning out a better set for the next encounter we have with the Australians, because I am afraid I have fears for the third Ashes Test, which is due to begin.

I also pay tribute to other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, to demonstrate the cross-party nature of the issue that we are talking about and the consensus, we must make sure that there is protection for families and young people in every scenario and every setting. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing the specific issue of music tutoring to the Committee’s attention, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for sharing his experience from his years as a youth worker.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has explained, this amendment seeks to prevent individuals who are barred from working in regulated activity with children from working as private tutors when hired directly by a parent. It does this by specifying that private tutoring is a regulated activity, even when provided under a private arrangement. I can assure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary because the existing legal framework already achieves this outcome. Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, teaching, including private tutoring, that meets the statutory frequency criteria—for example, on more than three days in a 30-day period—is already a regulated activity. It is already an offence for a person on the children’s barred list to undertake such activity.

It is certainly the case, as the noble Lord pointed out, that parents are currently unable to check whether a private tutor is barred from working with children. This is because, under the current legislation, self-employed individuals cannot access higher-level DBS checks, which may include information on spent convictions, cautions and barred list status. However, I am pleased to inform your Lordships that on 20 November, the Government laid a statutory instrument, which was debated in the other place this very evening and is due to come into force on 21 January. It is an affirmative statutory instrument, so your Lordships’ House will be discussing it early in the new year.

This SI will allow individuals who are self-employed or employed directly by an individual or family where they are engaged in regulated activity with children and adults to access enhanced DBS checks, including checks of the relevant barred lists. As a result, private tutors who meet the statutory frequency criteria for regulated activity with children will be able to obtain an enhanced DBS certificate, including a check against the children’s barred list. Parents will be able to see this check before deciding whether to engage the tutor and will not become regulated activity providers by doing so.

This statutory instrument delivers the core safeguarding purpose of the amendment, enabling parents to check whether a prospective tutor is barred by the DBS from working with children and giving them the information that they need to make confident and informed decisions. I have already spoken about the government amendments, but in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, around engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive, they approached us to ensure that there was UK-wide coverage of the enhanced scheme. We have been working very much hand-in-glove with them to develop the regime that the government amendments put in place.

I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will not move his amendment but will support the government amendments.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I am not quite sure that I understood properly. The statutory instrument will allow parents to check whether somebody is on the barred list, but it does not seem to affect the critical bit. People can still work with children or say that they are tutors even though they are on the barred list. Am I correct? This seems to be the crux of the whole thing more than where parents sit on this and whether they are regulated providers.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The important change that we are making is that it enables parents to access checks at the higher level, so they will be able to decide on whether to engage somebody. The parent will be able to access the check, see their history and, based on what the DBS check throws up, decide whether they will be engaged without necessarily becoming classified as a provider as in the current regime. That is an important distinction. It does not pull them into a different sphere of activity but allows them to ask a crucial question: is this person fit to be a tutor for my child?

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I am still not clear. There are 90,000 names on the DBS barred list. I understand the Minister to have said that parents will now be able to access the enhanced barred list, therefore things that would not be picked up in a lower-level DBS check will be picked up with the enhanced one. However, if somebody asks, “Is Fred Bloggs okay?”, can they just ask for his enhanced records or will it say that “Fred Bloggs is one of the 90,000 people that are on the DBS barred list”?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, they will have the same rights and access as a school has at the moment. We are equalising the scheme, so yes, they would be able to see that he is on the barred list and have access to the record. I hope that clarifies it for the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

It would say, “This person is barred”.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Absolutely.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the right reverend Prelate were saying, the fact that these people can set themselves up as tutors or much respected musical educators is what I find astonishing. There seems to be no way of stopping these people posing as those even when they are on a barred list. They cannot work in a school or somewhere where they would be regulated, but they can work in people’s homes—in people’s bedrooms.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I appreciate the points that the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, are making. To be absolutely clear, anyone who is on the barred list who works with children is committing an offence. What we are doing by laying the statutory instrument is to allow anybody easy access to understand the nature of the person they are engaging with, whether that person is on the barred list or not. We are not trying to make life easy for bureaucrats here, but we are not trying to invent a whole new system. We are trying to make a system that is effective in all settings.

Obviously, we will have a debate on the statutory instruments, so there will be another opportunity in the very near future for your Lordships to come back to this discussion. But it is clear that this, as we have all agreed, is about safeguarding children. We do not want to disrupt a system or have different tiers and levels of access, or different ways of operating, depending on whether you are talking about private tutors in one setting or another. We are just trying to make a level playing field, and that is what the system we are proposing does.

The Northern Ireland Executive want to buy into it, and that is why they have asked us to lay the government amendments in this group. So I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—we are all speaking from the right place and with the right motivation—so I hope he understands and will not move his amendment.

Amendment 337 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 398, in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee, would expand police powers to breath-test drivers, allowing them to proceed without prior suspicion or an accident or offence having taken place. These are just two measures that could be taken to curb drink-driving, and they are not at the expense of the public at large. I wonder whether the Government have considered any similar measures, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say on this.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I shall briefly set out the Government’s plans for road safety. As many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate will know, the Government are currently developing the first road safety strategy in a decade. The safety of road users is a top priority for the Government, and we are fully committed to considering the range of existing motoring offences and police powers, while implementing policies that will improve road safety for all. Our intention is to publish this strategy soon. Many of the issues raised in these amendments fall under the purview of this strategy, and I encourage noble Lords to study the strategy once it is available.

Amendment 345 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on his behalf, seeks to make provision for a pilot to help tackle the problem of non-compliant vehicles on our roads—that is, vehicles which are uninsured, unregistered, untaxed or without an MoT. The police already have robust enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002, including the ability to seize and dispose of vehicles for offences such as driving without insurance or a valid MoT. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, the College of Policing provides authorised, professional practice guidance on roads policing, and the strategic policing requirement prioritises this nationally.

Enforcement on the roads is a matter for the police, given their operational independence, and should remain so. We have already talked earlier at some length this evening in Committee about the impact of Operation Topaz on focusing efforts of all partners in improving road policing, and certainly the Government, as we have heard, are investing in this. It is for police forces to enforce road traffic legislation, with chief officers deciding how to deploy available resources, taking into account any specific local problems and demands. Given his experience in road transport matters, it is good to be on the same side of this argument as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at least on this one amendment tonight. For future days we shall see. Additional statutory guidance, as envisaged by the amendment, is therefore unnecessary. Mandating new guidance and pilots would place further strain on police resources without clear funding or staffing provisions.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intends that the pilot would provide a self-funding solution, but it is not immediately apparent to us how this would be the case. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that enforcement pilots will deliver better outcomes than existing measures such as the automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—systems and intelligence-led approaches.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the APPG report, which talked about ANPR. Of course, we welcome the contribution of the APPG’s report on the issue. I note that the ANPR system is, of course, a valuable tool—as we would all acknowledge—to help the police tackle crime and keep the roads safe. The Government assure your Lordships’ Committee that they keep the effectiveness of police use of ANPR systems under regular review so that it remains a robust tool for identifying vehicles of interest and drivers who break the law to the police. The DVLA and National Police Chiefs’ Council work closely with trading standards, local authorities and other government departments to improve the identification and enforcement of number plate crime.

The danger is that the well-intentioned amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would duplicate existing frameworks, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing guidance. The focus should remain on optimising the use of current enforcement powers and technology rather than introducing a duplicative statutory provision. Having said that, I will arrange for Home Office and Department for Transport officials to meet the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the new year.

I turn to Amendments 350 and 398, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bailey, and discussed with some thought and care by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The Government fully share their—all our—commitment to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and to ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, along with our highly respected and effective THINK! campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving, reminding people of the serious consequences such practices have for themselves and others.

I assure my noble friend that the upcoming road safety strategy includes serious consideration of lowering the drink-drive limits, as well as testing of suspects, and penalties. As part of this, we are considering concerns raised by campaigners, parliamentarians and bereaved families whom my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport have met. The Government are listening closely to the concerns of those affected by tragic cases of death or serious injury on our roads and want to put them at the heart of this work.

Amendment 356B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to extend the alcohol ignition interlock programme to drivers convicted of certain drink-driving offences. Obviously, there is a very strong argument for alcolocks, not skipping over the fact that they have a lot of popularity with voters. I could not possibly comment on that in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord said, alcohol ignition interlock programmes are widespread in many jurisdictions. I reassure the noble Lord that the road safety strategy will consider the case for the use of alcolocks in dealing with drink-driving offenders.

It is worth considering the current regime in place for higher-risk offenders: those who have already engaged in what may be seen as repeated drink-driving or been involved in those alcohol misuse issues. There is a higher-risk offender—HRO—scheme for those who refuse to provide a breath sample, have had two drink-driving convictions in 10 years or were two and a half times over the legal limit. Currently, the practical consequences of becoming a drink-driver HRO is that the driver’s licence is not automatically reissued upon application once the period of disqualification has ended. Instead, the HRO must apply for a new licence, and the DVLA will issue a licence only after the HRO has proved their medical fitness to drive. Having said that, these alcolocks will be considered in the road safety strategy. I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance and that he will look out for it and study it carefully.

Amendment 416B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, related to the confiscation—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Before my noble friend goes on to the issues that will come under the strategy, can he confirm whether, if anything is agreed along any of these lines, separate legislation will be brought in? Our fear otherwise is that this Bill goes, and it is then a long time before any legislation is brought in.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The road safety strategy review is being undertaken by the DfT, so it is a little outside my bailiwick to speak on it. There may well be lots of provisions in the strategy—this is more my speculation than anything else—that do not require primary or secondary legislation. The strategy will be out soon, and we are about halfway through Committee.

My noble friend’s amendment on confiscation of uninsured vehicles was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who spoke with considerable knowledge of the insurance industry and the costs of free riding in car insurance and those who do not act responsibly. As I have indicated, the police already have powers under Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize vehicles that are driven without insurance. This amendment goes further by making confiscation automatic and permanent after 28 days.

Under the existing regulations, the process for reclaiming a seized vehicle is clear and time-bound. Once the vehicle is seized, the registered keeper or driver has seven working days to reclaim it by paying all recovery and storage charges and providing proof of valid insurance. This ensures that enforcement is firm but fair, giving owners a reasonable opportunity to comply. If the vehicle is not reclaimed within the seven-day period, the police may proceed to dispose of it. Disposal can mean sale, destruction or other lawful means after issuing a formal notice of intent. This step ensures transparency, and due process for ownership is effectively transferred. These provisions strike an appropriate balance between enforcement, cost, recovery, and fairness to vehicle owners.

Having said that, my noble friend has indicated that her underlying point is about the inadequacy of the sanctions for driving without insurance, which the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was discussing as well. My noble friend has pointed to the fact that at £300, the maximum fixed penalty notice for this offence is about half the cost of average annual car insurance. As I have said, we will soon be publishing a new road safety strategy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this will, among other things, set out our proposals for changes to motoring offences. I invite my noble friend to study the strategy and accompanying consultation documents once they are published.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Clearly, the intention of noble Lords is to bring this forward because the feeling is that the power is not being used very often. Will this road strategy put in place the existing data or encourage its use to its full effect if this amendment is not required?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am at no greater advantage than other Members of your Lordships’ House regarding what will be in the road safety strategy. There is a good reason why these amendments are grouped together: they all raise issues which will be covered in some way by the road safety strategy. As I said to my noble friend Lady Hayter, there could be things in the strategy that do not require changes to the guidance, or action in primary or secondary legislation that allows us to act quickly. However, I would be speaking well beyond my responsibilities in speaking for the DfT, for which I have absolutely no responsibility.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister understands that he speaks for His Majesty’s Government and not the Home Office.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Of course I do—I slightly misspoke there. All I can say is that while I have been slaving away over the Crime and Policing Bill, I have not been slaving away over the road safety strategy. I can provide only so much clarity and guidance on the progress of that piece of work.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

Before the Minister goes on, I think there is a real worry about the current situation on the face of a previous Bill and the insurance that is paid by law-abiding citizens today. I would like some reassurance that that is going to be seriously considered when this comes forward. It is way too far apart today and there is no incentive to buy insurance, which we all desperately need to be bought should anybody get hurt.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes his point well. I am sure that it is a point that has been noticed and, indeed, there have been representations made to the DfT in the process of developing the road safety strategy. Once it is published, there will be a consultation and further opportunities for representations by organisations such as the ABI. I am sure that, as part of the process of preparing the new strategy, the DfT will be poring over the Hansard for this evening’s Committee to understand the debate and the issues raised.

Finally, turning to Amendment 416C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, the Government are well aware of tragic instances where police officers have been injured by drivers during traffic stops. I thank him for speaking about and raising the tragic death of PC Harper, which demonstrates the real dangers that our police put themselves in every day of the week, doing something that you would think was quite humdrum and as everyday as attending to a vehicle that they had stopped. We are always right to remember the vital contribution they make to our safety by putting themselves in danger.

This behaviour is unacceptable, and we are determined that all such drivers are caught and punished. We are determined that police officers can do their vital jobs in as safe an environment as possible. As I said in response to a previous amendment, the Government are considering concerns that have been raised by the Police Federation on this issue and will look to address them in the road safety strategy.

In conclusion, I have sympathy for many of the points raised in this debate by noble Lords. We all want to see our roads safer for all road users, as well as the police in their vital role in enforcing our road traffic laws. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, for this to be effective, it needs to come as a package. We need the right laws, the right enforcement and the right awareness and education. Again, I would encourage all noble Lords to examine our forthcoming road safety strategy and respond to the associated consultations. Given the imminence of the strategy, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I think all noble Lords can agree that we have had a fabulous debate which we can be proud of, but can the Minister explain why he is considering lowering the blood alcohol level when the Scottish experiment shows that it does not work?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Without going into the detail of the Scottish experiment, I will say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that for the road safety strategy to do a complete job, it is going into the exercise while keeping options on the table. I am not going to prejudge what it is going to say, but it would ill-behove it to rule everything out, just as we are not ruling out the potential measures on alcolocks or those on insurance. I will simply say—I feel a bit like a broken record in responding to this group of amendments—watch this space.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin in what I might say was rather a poignant way.

The amendments probe the liability of courier companies, specifically for the actions of their employees who use cycling as their method of transportation. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin spoke of the threat posed by these cyclists to a disabled person, for example. Amendment 346C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, asks for a review looking at how the law could be changed to ensure that bicycle courier companies are held accountable for their riders.

Noble Lords will be aware of the explosive growth of bicycle delivery and courier services, and many of those courier companies are not held responsible for the dangerous manner in which their riders behave. Many of the most dangerous incidents are caused by delivery riders under pressure to meet tight deadlines and often operating fast, heavy e-bikes. Holding companies responsible, or at least requiring a public review of their practices, would help deter irresponsible riding and shift the burden back on to the companies that profit from high-speed delivery models. A review of this kind would also allow us to examine the employment models used by these companies, the incentives placed on riders and the adequacy of training, supervision and enforcement mechanisms. It would provide a valuable evidence base for any future legislative change, rather than relying on piecemeal responses to individual incidents.

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for Amendment 416K and the passion with which he spoke in support of it. It would give the police power to issue fines of an unlimited amount to delivery companies for dangerous cycling offences

“under sections 27A (causing death by dangerous cycling), 27B (causing serious injury by dangerous cycling), 28B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) or 28C (causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) of the Road Traffic Act 1988”.

We support the intention behind the amendment, whose aim is to hold companies that hire large numbers of delivery drivers to account for the actions of their hired staff. This is an important principle and touches on the important points of what frameworks and policies companies have in place to ensure that their own staff are abiding by the laws of the road. While questions would clearly need to be addressed around proportionality, enforcement and evidential thresholds, the amendment raises legitimate concerns about the status quo. I hope the amendment has made the Government reflect on whether current penalties fall too heavily on individual riders, while the companies that benefit financially from the delivery model escape meaningful consequences. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendment 481, tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich, proposes a review into bicycle and motorcycle delivery services and their potential links to criminal activity. We are broadly supportive of the principle behind the amendment. It seeks to shine a light on a range of issues that are often raised by residents and local authorities, including concerns about organised crime, exploitation, immigration compliance and the impact of delivery riders on community safety.

Taken together, these amendments raise serious and timely questions about accountability, public safety and the responsibility of large delivery platforms. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is absolutely right that the Government must acknowledge the argument and come up with answers. The words of my noble friend Lord Goschen summed it up perfectly: this is an opportunity to do something positive about a very real problem, and to do it now in this Bill. I hope the Government will engage constructively with the issues raised and set out how they intend to ensure that the rapid growth of this sector does not come at the expense of safety and public confidence.

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

My Lords, these amendments, in their different ways, seek to extend liability for the unlawful actions of cyclists to their employers or contractors. Amendment 346C, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, proposes a review of the new cycling offences provided for in Clause 106 one year after the clause comes into force. He set out its provisions with clarity, his customary humility and his personal perspective, and we are all grateful for him doing so. As I understand the noble Lord, the intention of such a review is to assess whether the new offences have impacted the standard of cycling by delivery riders, and whether further changes in the law are required to ensure that their employers or contractors take greater responsibility for the cycling standards of their workers.

To be clear, these offences apply to all cyclists regardless of the purpose of their journey or whether they are paid to do it. I, of course, recognise the very real concerns around the behaviour of delivery riders that we have discussed in this group of amendments, but I completely reject the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that we are somehow being complacent and ignoring the issue. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about the importance of using the opportunity to do something positive, and I will come on to that in a second. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for sharing her experience from City Hall of the Greater London Authority, the mayor’s office and TfL.

We of course recognise the concerns about the behaviour of delivery riders, but it is harder to find firm evidence to suggest that their behaviour is so demonstrably worse than that of other groups that it is necessary to single them out for review—hard evidence, I would say, looking at the faces of some noble Lords opposite. Furthermore, it is not clear what such a review would achieve. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance already makes it clear that those who drive or ride for work should have the skills and expertise required to be safe on the road. The key thing here is that the Department for Transport—we discussed this on Monday in Committee; certainly, I spoke to it on one of the later groups—is also developing a new road safety strategy, and we will set out more details shortly. That will be a holistic strategy around all elements of road safety including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, road users and public transport drivers—the whole gamut. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that is the opportunity for us to do something positive and take a holistic approach to improving road safety. We are not playing down these issues but just trying to find the best way of approaching them in a sense that is complete and wholescale rather than piecemeal.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. In previous Bills, the Department for Transport has made exactly the point that he is making, which is that a strategy is coming. It was due in the summer of this year, we are now at Christmas and there is no date, so I am not reassured by that general point.

I was surprised to hear the Minister say that we are struggling to find evidence of the problem that we are all talking about, because you only have to walk outside. Our newspapers and broadcasters are carrying out surveys showing what we all know to be true—not to blame cyclists for everything in the world, but there is clear evidence it is happening, so I am surprised he said that.

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister would like to look into the health data. We have talked only about the police data. The health data is completely different. When people go to A&E, their GP et cetera for injuries caused by cyclists, it is not recorded in the same way as it is by the police. We have two sets of data which we are not bringing together; we only ever talk about the data collected by the police. I was surprised to hear the Minister say they could not find the data.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, I was talking about evidence of causality rather than necessarily data on incidents. Let me make some progress, and maybe the noble Lord will be a little mollified by the time I get to the end of my contribution—or maybe not.

The fundamental purpose of the new offence is to—

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am sorry, but I am afraid that saying that there is no evidence of causality is just what the Department for Transport wants the Home Office to believe. The evidence is quite clear; there are no better words than from the Mayor of London himself, Sadiq Khan, who said it is a Wild West out there. Many other councils in London are now trying to ban bikes from their areas because of the danger they cause, and those heavy, gigantic food delivery couriers are the worst offenders of all.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Again, I say to the noble Lord that I will make some progress and then he may come back at me again before I finally sit down.

The fundamental purpose of the new offences is to appropriately punish offenders and deter dangerous cycling behaviours. There is no carve-out or special provision for delivery riders. To be clear, all road users will face equal treatment before the law under these provisions. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that, like all new government enactments, the Crime and Policing Act will be subject to post-legislative review three to five years after Royal Assent, so there is the opportunity to review the action.

Amendment 416K from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would allow for food delivery companies to receive an unlimited fine should any of their riders be convicted of any offences under Clause 106. A complicating factor around this, as many noble Lords recognised, is that many such riders operate in the gig economy—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, set that out particularly well. We are not always talking about the relationship between an employer and an employee, so using what we would consider normal working relationship incentives and rule structures is not always the easiest thing to do.

It is worth stating, particularly as the Employment Rights Bill finally finished its passage through Parliament yesterday, that as part of that wider package of employment reforms, there will be a major consultation on employment status which will help to clarify these grey areas. Again, I cite the contribution that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that is probably the best place to have a review of the grey areas around contractors and employers working in the gig economy. A problem has clearly been identified in the delivery driving sector, but there are many other sectors— I remember from my time spent in Committee on the Employment Rights Bill that there are lots of areas where the lack of clarity on employment status is causing all sorts of consequences.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am so grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again; I hope this will be the last time. If he and my noble friend Lord Hailsham are correct that the current law on vicarious liability might mean that Deliveroo and Uber Eats are not liable for the agents they are using, does he accept my noble friend Lord Goschen’s point that we are Parliament and, if the current law does not cover it, we can amend the law as we suggest to make sure that those companies are liable for the people who deliver food in their name, with a great big bag on their back advertising that?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the proposition that the noble Lord makes. Of course, we are Parliament, but I suggest that we should legislate in a slightly more deliberative way than simply shooting at ducks ad hoc as they come up in the stall.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

On that point, does the noble Lord accept that there is an essential distinction between vicarious liability in civil law, which is to pay compensation for people injured by employers or whoever, and vicarious liability for criminal actions, which is something quite different and very rarely imposed?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am certainly happy to defer to the noble Viscount’s legal experience and expertise. It is worth the Committee noting that distinction and I am grateful to him for making that point.

To that point, the individual must bear responsibility for their actions and face consequences for them, which is fundamentally the purpose of Clause 106. There is no hard evidence to suggest that the working practices of these companies either cause or contribute to serious injuries or fatalities involving cyclists or other road users. That is a relatively rare occurrence. We understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made on the rareness; obviously, any death is one too many, but it is a relatively rare occurrence compared to, say, collisions involving cars and pedestrians. Where that happens, however, we are determined to ensure the individual is held fully to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Before my noble friend responds to the Minister’s wind-up speech, I put a gentle challenge to the Minister that the Committee was looking for a substantive response. I believe he was supportive, in principle, of the need for enhanced road safety but was not seriously acknowledging that there is a specific problem around delivery drivers, often riding e-bikes, and that we need to do something about that. I did not note a wave of support around the Committee for his contention that there was no evidence that there was a specific problem. Frankly, that is not a credible response. There is a problem. Every Peer in this Committee and everybody outside these gates knows that there is a problem. We need to do something about it.

I very much hope that my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl, when they come to give their intentions, will continue to press the Government hard. I hope that, on Report, if there is no movement—perhaps there are grounds for a discussion before then—they will bring forward amendments and see whether the Government have support or whether those who are seeking to change the law have support. Essentially, large companies are sponsoring and benefiting from law-breaking, and the Government are turning a blind eye. That is not acceptable.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

In response to the noble Viscount, and perhaps anticipating what the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, will say, we are of course happy to do that. We have had a fair bit of engagement on many different aspects of this Bill, both before Committee and during it, and I imagine that will continue. Our collective doors remain open to discuss all the issues that the Bill raises. I would be very happy to meet all Peers interested in these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as was mentioned earlier in Committee when speaking to Amendment 346, we take the issue of bike alterations very seriously. My noble friend Lord Blencathra raises a similar issue with these amendments, and, in placing the onus on suppliers, a two-pronged approach to tackling the issue is welcome.

We know that many of the most dangerous e-bikes on our roads are not the result of amateur tinkering alone. They are enabled by a market that supplies batteries far in excess of the 250-watt limit set out in law, or batteries that fail to meet even the most basic safety standards for lithium-ion technology. These batteries transform what should be a pedal-assisted cycle into something much closer to an unregistered electric motorcycle, which is often capable of significant speed and acceleration, and frequently used in dense urban areas, on pavements and in shared spaces.

There is also a wider public safety dimension. Unsafe lithium-ion batteries are not merely a road safety issue; they are a growing fire risk in homes, flats and shared accommodation. The London Fire Brigade and other services have repeatedly warned about fires caused by substandard e-bike batteries, often supplied online with little oversight and no meaningful accountability. This amendment would reinforce the message that safety standards are not optional, and that those who profit from ignoring them may—indeed, should—face consequences.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am grateful to the nobleLord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments on the regulation of e-bike batteries. Your Lordships’ House may recall the recent passage through this House of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, which received Royal Assent in July and underlines the Government’s determination to take action on this point. Amendment 346D would provide for the prosecution of any person who had supplied an unsafe battery to an individual who was subsequently convicted of any of the offences in Clause 106 of the Bill.

While an unsafe battery—and by this I mean one that does not comply with existing product safety standards—could put the e-bike at risk of catching fire, particularly while placed on charge, as we have heard from many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, this would not directly lead to a person riding their cycle carelessly or dangerously. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, anticipated my argument and posited it more eloquently than I might have done. The battery is simply that which powers the e-bike: it cannot, on its own, enable the rider to overcome speed or power restrictions provided for in regulations. This would come from a broader set of modifications concerning the electric motor and other component parts, and I will come on to that in a bit. As the battery would not play a direct role in any incident leading to a prosecution of the kind provided for at Clause 106, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will see that this amendment is not required.

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord also talked about the chips that allow bikes to be driven at frankly hair-raising speeds that make them unsafe for the user, let alone others. To be clear, those modifications are already illegal: e-bikes with those chips do not comply with the electrically assisted pedal cycle regulations. Therefore, there is already a law in place to cover this.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

The Minister talked about taking action. Those are very fine words, but every day, many of us watch e-bikes and ordinary bikes going past the outside of this building, driving through red lights. Many of us have experienced driving up and down roads with people coming down one-way systems at us in the wrong direction. We have watched police at the side of these road, including here, taking no action whatever. What does “taking action” actually mean, in practice and in detail, even outside this building?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord was here for the previous group, when we talked at length on the wider issue of the use of e-bikes. As I said then, the DfT is undertaking a road safety strategy consultation, which will take a holistic view of road safety across all motor transport, including, very importantly, protecting pedestrians and those in mobility scooters and wheelchairs. That is the right way to approach this and is at the heart of the discussion we had on the previous group.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I recollect that we have always had a robust exchange of views. I did not in any sense seek to alarm the noble Baroness, but, from memory, she arrived late for a group of amendments, pontificated for a few minutes on issues that she had not heard and then—

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

My Lords, I am going to call a halt at this point. This is remembrance of things past. We have an important amendment to discuss today, and we should focus on the amendments.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Whip. I was merely elucidating for the benefit of the Committee the context of the noble Baroness’s rather strange intervention on my remarks. I do not quite have the same recollection that she does—

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for explaining the purpose of this amendment. He is right to highlight the importance of the issue that it raises. The Met estimates that electronic devices are used in approximately 60% of vehicle theft, so I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate Clause 110 and the important measures it takes in relation to vehicle theft.

I certainly understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to make the offence in Clause 110 as tight as possible, but I hope to persuade him, and your Lordships’ Committee, that the amendment is unnecessary. In particular, I do not believe that there is a gap in the offences provided for in Clause 110. Further, the amendment would require the police and prosecution to prove intent, rather than the burden being on the defendant to do so. This would have the effect of weakening the offence, as it would place a higher bar on the prosecution to secure a conviction.

By way of background, Clause 110 provides for two new criminal offences in relation to electronic devices used in vehicle theft. The first will criminalise the possession of such devices and the second will criminalise the importing, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply these devices. Both offences require a reasonable suspicion that the device will be used in connection with the theft of a vehicle or the theft of anything in a vehicle.

This amendment seeks to extend those offences to include a person concerned in the supplying of an electronic device for use in vehicle offences. However, Clause 110 already makes provision for it to be an offence to possess a device where it appears that there could be an intention to supply. It outlines that the court may assume that the defendant possessed the relevant article where it was on the premises at the same time as the accused, or on the premises of which the accused was the occupier or a habitual user other than as a member of the public. I point out that the amendment would require the prosecution to prove intent to use the device to commit theft. As I have already said, this is a higher bar than the clause as drafted.

Clause 110 outlines:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence … to show that the person did not intend or suspect that the device would be used in connection”


with the theft of a vehicle or anything in a vehicle. A court can therefore infer that the articles in question are intended for use in vehicle theft. This reflects the fact that there are likely to be few legitimate uses for those specified articles. It is appropriate to expect that those who are involved with such articles should be alert to the possible use of the articles for criminal purposes. The amendment states that it would be

“an offence for a person to … be concerned in the supplying of, or the making of an offer to supply, an electronic device”.

I am not sure that such wording materially expands the scope of the offence. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine who may be captured by such wording who will not already be captured by the existing wording in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked a specific question around whether offenders could be charged with going equipped to commit theft under Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. These existing offences put the burden on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s intention to steal a vehicle or something from inside the vehicle. This new offence places the burden on the defendant to prove that they were not intending to steal a vehicle, or that the device would not be used to steal a vehicle or commit vehicle crime.

I note that, in his contribution, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked about the online sale of devices. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, there is a new duty placed on social media and tech companies to prevent the advertisement of stolen goods and devices that facilitate crime. Online sales platforms will block adverts and listings for items that are illegal to sell; sales platforms already do this for other illegal items.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, with respect to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, it is fair to say the offence deals with a different set of circumstances from the offences in that Act. However, we will take away the comments and ensure that there are no gaps in the offence. I appreciate him raising the point.

For all these reasons, I am not persuaded that the amendment is required, and I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goschen and to the Liberal Democrats for their support for this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is not to widen the offence indiscriminately but to ensure that Clause 110 operates as Parliament clearly intends. Without explicitly including those who are concerned in supplying these devices, the offence risks capturing only the least sophisticated actors, while leaving untouched those who organise, promote and enable the trade from behind the scenes.

The reality of modern vehicle crime is that it is technologically advanced and often commercially organised, and those involved in supply chains are frequently well aware of the criminal end use of the devices they help distribute. Yet they structure their involvement precisely to avoid possession, and that is a gap that criminals will exploit if we allow it to remain. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the constructive nature of this proposal, given that the Government are aware of and have acknowledged the potential gap in the legislation. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In the other place, the Government opposed this amendment, arguing that existing powers to impose theft-related fines were sufficient, as courts already have the power to impose fines up to an unlimited amount. I therefore hope that the Government’s response will not once again be that sentencing is a matter for the judiciary. It is clear that the Government do not believe that this principle is sacred. That is, of course, their right. But, given that this is the stance of the Government, they cannot use judicial discretion and sentencing independence as reasons to oppose amendments calling for tougher actions against criminals. Tool theft is not a minor inconvenience; it is an attack on both work and aspiration. I hope the Minister will engage constructively with the issues raised in this group and recognise the strength of feeling both in this House and beyond. I look forward very much to what he has to say in response.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this debate and raising these important issues. Turning first to Amendment 357, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I can confirm that the Government remain committed to the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and fully support the intentions behind its introduction. Informed by responses to the call for evidence and direct consultation with industry, the Act will cover the forensic marking and registration on a database of new all-terrain vehicles, quad bikes and, I am pleased to say, removable GPS systems.

The NFU Mutual Rural Crime Report 2025 highlights that GPS theft cost an estimated £1.2 million in 2024. GPS units are particularly vulnerable to theft and their theft massively disrupts day-to-day farming operations, which is exactly why we have included them in the legislation. I am pleased to echo the acknowledgement by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, of the progress that has been made in this important area, with, as she said, falling insurance claims thanks to the concerted efforts of the police and other parties.

The Act requires secondary legislation before it can come into effect and we intend to bring this forward as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, the Government’s response to the call for evidence was published quite recently, in October 2025. We are very grateful to all those who took the time to respond, and we carefully considered the views and evidence provided in those responses. Significant technical concerns were raised and we needed to assess the impact before we committed to introducing secondary legislation. We did not want to introduce regulations that were not fit for purpose or, more importantly, that would adversely impact vehicle safety.

The noble Lord talked about the comparison between smaller vehicles and larger, more expensive farming machinery, such as tractors. We have carefully considered the benefits and implications of including other agricultural equipment in the regulations. The installation of immobilisers into other large pieces of machinery post manufacture poses a similar risk to ATVs, so there is a delicate balance to be struck between the costs to businesses and the achievability of the ends of the regulations.

Should the Act become more effective in tackling rural theft, the legislation would be widened in the future by introducing other large agricultural machinery in a further tranche of regulations. We are looking at the situation and the way the regulations operate, and will see whether we can apply them further.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Can the Minister give a rough timescale for a consultation on extending this to include heavy agricultural machinery or contracting equipment?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not want to commit to any particular timescale. It probably ill behoves me to do so, but I will point out that, having published our response to the call for evidence a couple of months before Christmas, we are obviously trying to motor ahead with it, if noble Lords will forgive the pun.

I turn now to Amendment 368, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which proposes two changes: first, to expand enforcement provisions under the 2023 Act and, secondly, to introduce a statutory aggravating factor for theft of tools from tradesmen under the Sentencing Act 2020. The Government recognise the distress caused by tool theft and its impact on tradespeople and small businesses, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke to. As he said, these tools are essential to livelihoods, and their loss can cause real financial and emotional harm. That is why we are already taking action through the National Vehicle Crime Working Group, which brings together specialists from every police force to share intelligence and tackle emerging trends in vehicle-related crime, including tool theft.

On sentencing, the current framework is sufficient and robust. Courts must follow guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council, which already require consideration of harm, culpability and aggravating factors such as financial loss, business impact and emotional distress. Courts also have powers to impose compensation orders to ensure that victims receive financial compensation. Introducing a statutory aggravating factor, as this amendment calls for, would duplicate existing provisions unnecessarily and have limited impact on outcomes. Indeed, I am reminded that a wise man once said,

“I am sceptical of the need for more aggravating factors”.—[Official Report, 15/12/25; col. 585.]

That was of course the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, speaking just three weeks ago, on 15 December, in response to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to Clause 102 on self-harm. I could not have put it better myself.

I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that we accept the spirit of her Amendment 357 and we are working to give effect to this issue. I hope too that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will understand why we do not consider his Amendment 368 to be necessary, and forgive my light ribbing a moment ago. For all these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Davies of Gower, for their support. We all want this legislation to be effective, but we want swift implementation of the Act, not in the fullness of time, and stronger rural crime prevention, including forensic marking, to deter the theft and resale of tradespeople’s tools.

GPS theft cost farmers over £1 million last year. Frankly, this just cannot be allowed to continue. There is legislation ready to go—there is an Act of Parliament—and it needs to be implemented now. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this short but important debate, and raising these important issues. As we are discussing rail issues, I should first draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests, as declared in the register. I am former employee and current shareholder of a transport operator, FirstGroup, and a former employee and current member of a rail union, the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association. So I am both staff side and management: it balances out.

I turn first to Amendment 365, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which seeks to increase the fines for fare dodging. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who travels on the railway pays the correct fare for their journey, and train operating companies have multiple mechanisms in place to prevent passengers travelling without the correct ticket. This includes the provisions set out in the Railways Act, but also use of the civil enforcement regime for penalty fares. In 2022, the penalty was raised from £20 to £100, and this has had a positive impact on reducing fare evasion and preventing fraud on the railway, which of course we all want to see.

Issuing penalty fares is one way of tackling fare dodging, but other measures can be taken. I am pleased to say that we had quite an extensive debate on these. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, acknowledged, the Office of Rail and Road has been asked to consider improvements to the industry’s revenue protection practices. Last year, it published its review setting out five recommendations, which my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport accepted in full.

It is probably worth very quickly going through the recommendations, which were: make buying the right ticket simpler and easier, strengthen consistency in how passengers are treated when ticket issues arise, introduce greater consistency and fairness in the use of prosecutions, make information and revenue protection easy to access and understand, and provide greater co-ordination, oversight and transparency of revenue protection activity. I hope, to an extent, those address the very valid concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, expressed about complexity, which were shared by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We all want to encourage rail travel; we do not want to discourage it by making the system too complex, and we do not want to penalise those who are truly acting in good faith. At the same time, it is important that we prevent fare dodging and make sure that there is a proper regime to prevent it.

Fare simplification is at the heart of this, as many noble Lords said in the debate on these amendments. I can confirm that this is very much part of the Government’s plans for rail reforms as part of the creation of Great British Railways. It is probably up to individual train operators and other public transport operators to promote their own campaigns on fare dodging but, to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, it is the case that whether you are travelling on the Tube or national rail, you cannot go far without seeing posters and public information about fare dodging. This is about the balance between promoting responsible behaviour and a penalising and enforcement regime.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and others talked about enforcement. On TfL, I share his experience. Maybe I use the Tube a little more than he does, but multiple times I have seen plainclothes crews both on Tube trains and at ticket barriers. I saw one at King’s Cross Tube station ticket barrier just last week. There was a large gang of enforcement officers waiting to catch people trying to get in by tailgating those who were paying fares through the automatic gates. So transport operators are very much aware of their responsibilities.

To be clear on the ORR review, a number of contributions focused not on national rail but on the Tube, and obviously that is operated by Transport for London, a devolved body that is overseen ultimately by the Mayor of London. I want to inform noble Lords that the ORR spoke to TfL as part of its review and it is of course up to TfL whether it takes on its recommendations. When it comes to national rail operators, the ORR has a full purview.

On Amendment 368A, the Government are very aware of the rising frequency of freight crime and the significant and damaging impact it can have on businesses and drivers. We are determined to crack down on it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked very much in the context of rail freight, but of course this is a problem for road freight as well. The incidence of cargo theft, where criminals are ripping the sides of lorries and taking the goods inside, is frightening for dedicated HGV drivers across the UK, and the perception that this crime is low-risk and high-reward is unacceptable and one that we want to change. Whether it is on the rail or the road, we share the noble Lord’s determination to do something about it.

Working with the police, the Home Office has agreed to create a freight crime flag which will be attached to any applicable crime, whether it is on the road or on rail. It will apply across all police forces, including the British Transport Police, which of course polices the railways. The data will be collected as part of the annual data return to the Home Office. The flag is currently being piloted in a small number of forces and, following this, the intention is to roll it out across all forces. The benefit of using a flag, as opposed to creating new crime classifications, is that in a case where, for instance, a driver has their vehicle or load stolen and violence is used or threatened against them, the crime that would be recorded would be robbery, as opposed to vehicle crime. The flag, however, would identify the robbery as a freight crime.

However, we will monitor the implementation of the flag. We are about half way through the six-month pilot, so we will keep a close eye on how this is panning out and consider whether further steps are required in the future. We know that having a code or a flag would not of itself solve the problem. Victims should always report crime to the police, and we expect police to investigate. However, as noble Lords would expect me to say, it is for chief constables to allocate resources for such investigations in line with local policing priorities.

I also acknowledge the worrying involvement of serious and organised criminals in committing freight crime. These individuals are damaging this country’s global reputation and are costing us billions each year. The Government are committed to tackling serious and organised crime in all its forms and are working with policing to that end. We are working closely with the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service and with Opal, the police’s national intelligence unit focused on serious organised acquisitive crime, including a vehicle crime intelligence desk which covers freight crime.

I hope in my response I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord, Davies, that we accept the spirit of his Amendment 368A and are working to address the issues he has raised in tabling the amendment. I hope too that the noble Lord will understand why we do not consider his Amendment 365 to be necessary. For all of these reasons, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions: my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Goschen, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his very interesting examples.

I hope we have been able to impress on the Government the importance of tackling railway crime. I have travelled for over 50 years now on the London Underground, and things have improved immensely with the new security gates, et cetera, but still we see people avoiding payment by tailgating, which is something we have to challenge and stop. I hope the Government will look at addressing these issues, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for bringing forward this amendment, which addresses a very important issue. According to UK Finance, authorised push payment fraud accounted for almost 41% of fraud losses in the first half of last year, while unauthorised fraud decreased by 3% on the year. APP increased by 12%. It is clearly a pressing issue, and I am grateful that we have the opportunity to debate it.

The proposition in question would require technology and telecommunications companies, first, to owe a duty of care to their customers to prevent fraud occurring on their platforms and services in general. I do not see an issue with this in principle. Companies should attempt to protect their customers from fraud by implementing general safeguarding measures that prevent against common tactics such as impersonation. I would rather that this did not come from government intervention but was instead the product of a competitive industry, but I recognise that there is only so much that the market can achieve in the short term. I look forward to hearing the Government’s position on this.

I am a little more hesitant to offer support to the second condition of the noble Lord’s amendment, which would require technology and telecommunications companies to contribute to the costs of reimbursing victims of APP fraud that has occurred on their platforms or services. While I acknowledge that there is already an existing framework for company reimbursement in the form of the PSR’s mandatory reimbursement measures of October 2024, I am not certain that the policy is transferable to technology and communications companies.

The PSR requires banks and payment firms to split reimbursement costs evenly between the sending and receiving institutions, and it is very easy to discern which companies are responsible and therefore liable for payment. Adding technology and communication companies into that framework is not so straightforward. These companies are essentially a third party in the actual fraud occurring: they are neither the sender nor the recipient of the defrauded money; they are the medium through which fraud is made possible but not through which it actually occurs. Responsibility for the fraud and subsequent reimbursement does not seem to me to be as clear cut with technology companies as it is with banks and payment firms.

Secondly, the second measure in the noble Lord’s amendment is not thorough enough to support, even if my worries were addressed. The PSR mandatory reimbursement policy, enacted a year and a half ago, was the product of almost seven years of deliberation and policy-making; extending this measure to a whole new industry should face more scrutiny than that which can be achieved for a single amendment. The amendment itself raises questions as to which companies will qualify, what will their contributions be, and how these will fit within the existing requirements placed upon banks and payment firms. These are just a few questions, but there are many more that will need answering if we are seriously to consider this measure as a law.

That is not to say that APP reimbursement has not proved an effective tool in mitigating the harmful effects of fraud. According to the 12 months of available data since the PSR introduced mandatory reimbursement for APP fraud victims by banks and payment firms, 88% of lost money in scope has been returned to victims. Nor is it to say that technology and communication companies will not in future be the vehicle by which APP is committed—ever-popular social media and the ever-increasing AI industry will make sure of that. It is simply to say that we do not know enough about the implementation of this measure to support it. I appreciate its aim, and I agree that something must be done to tackle this specific type of APP, but at the moment I am not sure that the amendment adequately achieves that, so I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say in closing.

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

My Lords, this Government are deeply concerned by the devastating impact online fraud can have on individual victims, both financially and emotionally. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for tabling this amendment, to the noble Lord, Lord Young, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for helping us to understand and acknowledge the importance of this issue. The Government recognise the importance of preserving trust in digital communications and online spaces in order that all our hard-working businesses operating in the UK can grow and prosper. We recognise that incentives are important for accountability for all stakeholders.

The Government have seen a significant contribution from the banking sector in preventing fraud and supporting victims in response to the Payment Systems Regulator’s new authorised push payment scams reimbursement requirement. In the first nine months of the APP reimbursement scheme, 88% of eligible losses were reimbursed, with £112 million returned to victims. These figures reflect a strong and sustained commitment to protecting consumers—a positive trajectory that deserves recognition. While we are on the PSR scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about the transition of PSR into the FCA. It is worth noting that we consulted on that planned merger of PSR into the FCA in September and October last year. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation and will bring forward further proposals in due course. He would expect me to say that we want to manage this process in a way that very much does not undermine the work that the Payment Systems Regulator is already doing to ensure that this system works well.

However, every part of an ecosystem must play a meaningful role in fraud prevention, including the telecommunications and tech sector. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that the tech and telecommunications sectors are rightly incentivised to proactively tackle fraud on their networks. The Online Safety Act requires in-scope companies to take proactive steps to stop fraudulent content appearing on the platform and to remove fraudulent material quickly when they become aware of it. If they do not, they risk facing the full regulatory costs of failing to comply, which can extend to 10% of their global revenue.

Ofcom’s duties on user-generated content are now in force in relation to several online harms, including fraud, and the regulator is already assessing platforms’ compliance. Further duties concerning action against fraudulent advertising will be consulted on this year and are likely to come into effect in 2027.

The telecoms sector is subject to regulation that requires providers to block calls that appear to be from scammers and to prevent scammers from using telephone numbers. It is fair to point out that there has been a fair amount of success already in that effort. Voluntary action has proved effective, and under the first telecoms charter operators have introduced firewalls that have stopped more than 1 billion scam text messages since January 2022, so that indicates the scale of both the problem and the progress that has been made.

We are also working with the sector and Ofcom on a number of innovative further actions to tackle the criminal abuse of telecoms networks. The Government launched the second Telecoms Fraud Charter in November 2025. This is an ambitious charter that covers 50 actions the telecoms industry will implement to tackle fraud within the sector. It includes developing new AI systems to detect and prevent fraud, building a new call-tracing system to track down fraudulent communications and upgrading the UK’s networks to enable new features to protect customers from spoof calls. This is a voluntary commitment from the telecoms sector that aims to strengthen efforts to further identify, block and disrupt telecoms fraud through enhanced industry collaboration and robust duty of care towards UK consumers and smaller telecoms businesses that have themselves been victims of fraud. The previous Telecoms Fraud Charter helped UK mobile network operators to block over 1 billion scam messages through the implementation of firewalls. We want to go further than that, which is what the new telecoms charter seeks to achieve.

In addition, Ofcom launched a consultation in October, outlining new rules on how mobile providers must stop scammers sending mobile messages. These proposals draw on existing best practice in the mobile sector and are intended to both prevent scammers accessing mobile messaging services and stop their activities where they have gained access. Last July, Ofcom also published a consultation on new rules to stop scammers outside the UK reaching people and businesses with calls that imitate UK mobile numbers, and these are likely to be introduced this year. We expect these measures to address gaps in the industry’s existing counterscam measures, and to significantly reduce the risk of individuals and businesses receiving scam messages.

Furthermore, in the upcoming fraud strategy, which we discussed earlier in Committee, and which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the Government will explore options to make it harder for criminals to exploit UK telecoms networks to commit fraud. The noble Lord tempted me to stray off the primrose path of prudence when it comes to timing; I am afraid I cannot do any better than repeat what my noble friend the Minister said: it will be coming in due course. Obviously, we have some time left even in Committee, let alone further stages of this Bill, so I am afraid I can make no commitments there.

The Government will continue monitoring developments in this area to ensure the telecommunications and tech industries remain accountable for delivering on their commitments to tackle fraud and the criminal abuse of their services, in line with the plan we will set out in our soon-to-be-published fraud strategy. However, where insufficient progress is being made in reducing abuse of telecoms networks or tech platforms for the purposes of fraud, the Government, and regulators, will not hesitate to take necessary measures to compel further action. I am on common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who critiqued the amendment, describing the concern it shows for the intermediary nature of the liability some telecoms platforms would be under. It is a fact that a tech sector reimbursement scheme would undermine the UK’s long-standing intermediary liability regime, which means that platforms are not liable for illegal content posted by users provided they are unaware of the unlawful activity, and which underpins the interactive internet and is a cornerstone of digital innovation. I share his concern that a departure from intermediary liability would leave the UK out of sync with our international partners and potentially threaten growth of the UK’s digital economy.

Therefore, in view of the clear plan we are putting in place to tackle fraud, it is the Government’s assessment that the measures set out in this amendment are not necessary at this time, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in this short debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, who both pointed out the question of incentivisation, which is core to this. We need to incentivise the people who are facilitating or enabling fraud, or enabling the fraudsters to make contact with the victims, to do the right thing.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Now, this is not—

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

This is a slightly delayed response, but I have just realised that the noble Lord was speaking to Amendment 371AA. I realise that there are a lot of amendments in this group, and there have been some changes in the groupings since the previous day in Committee. Amendment 371AA is in group 6. I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I wanted to make that clear for the Committee.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I will leave the clerks to unpick that mess. Forgive me. Does that mean we all have to stay incredibly late for group 6? It probably does, does it not?

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very large grouping, and I shall be as brief as I possibly can, but there is quite a bit to cover. I support the principle behind Amendment 370A by the noble Lord, Lord Walney. We have seen a growth in the number of protest groups who engage in severe criminal activity to further their ends and yet, as organisations, are shielded from the full force of the law. There is a spectrum on which protest groups sit, from peaceful and non-violent to those proscribed as terrorist organisations. Inevitably, there will be groups that sit towards the more extreme end of the spectrum and yet do not meet the criterion to be designated as terrorists.

Bash Back is a transgender activist group which has used vandalism and intimidation to attack those who might disagree with its views. We have heard first-hand from my noble friend Lord Young of Acton as to their criminal activities. Whether this group’s behaviour qualifies a group as a terrorist organisation is a matter for the Government’s lawyers. But when Bash Back’s action guide, now taken offline, provides a step-by-step manual on how to commit extreme criminal offences and evade prosecution, there must be legal recourse that goes beyond targeting the individuals responsible and attacks the structure of the group. The noble Lord’s amendment provides a good framework for this, and I hope that the Government take it away and consider it further.

Similarly, I support the principle behind Amendment 370AA in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Austin of Dudley and Lord Polak. For far too long have our cities been occupied on a weekly basis by angry and unruly marches that go well past their stated aims. Too often are innocent members of the public intimidated by calls for an intifada or for jihad. We have been too lax, I am afraid, in reining this in.

I broadly support the amendments tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and my noble friend Lord Leigh to Clause 124. Regardless of the merits of the clause in question, the measures would greatly clarify the legislation and remove the inevitable conflicts of interpretation that will currently result from it. I hope that the Government consider these improvements before Report, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendment 486B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, raises the important issue of public funding. We support the principle that organisations that promote, support or condone criminal conduct, or seek to undermine our democratic institutions through violent or illegal means, should not be eligible for public funds. Public money should never be used.

Amendment 486C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, speaks to the deeply troubling rise in antisemitic offences. I am sure noble Lords are united in complete condemnation of the events at Bondi Beach last year. The proposal for a dedicated CPS unit reflects serious concern to ensure that such crimes are prosecuted effectively and consistently.

I turn to the two government amendments. Amendment 381 creates a new criminal offence of making representation outside a public officeholder’s home. The offence contains two elements. First, it criminalises a person being present outside a public officeholder’s dwelling for the purpose of representing to or persuading that public officeholder to do or not to do something in connection with their official duties. The second element is that a person will be committing an offence if they are present outside public officeholder’s dwelling for the purpose of representing or persuading them in relation to something

“otherwise than in connection with their role as a public officeholder”.

In other words, the amendment criminalises representations in relation to their public capacity and in a personal capacity.

I completely understand that the Government are seeking to take action against the intimidation or harassment of public officeholders, but serious concerns arise from this amendment. First, proposed new Section 42B(2) and (3) state that a person is to be considered as making representations

“by the person’s presence or otherwise”.

This implies that a person simply standing or holding a sign without saying anything could be criminalised. Can the Minister confirm that this is true?

Secondly, there is a distinct possibility that these provisions might capture political campaigners within its scope. As I have understood it, the second prohibited purpose in the offence captures making representation in relation to a public officeholder’s capacity as a private citizen, meaning that attempting to convince them to vote for another political party by campaigning could in theory be captured by the offence. For instance, say I am a party activist canvassing on the doorsteps, and I knock on the door of councillor of an opposing party. Would that, by my presence or otherwise, not be sufficient to constitute an offence? Let us say I post a leaflet for my party through the letterbox of the PCC of an opposing party. Would I be liable to arrest? Are the Government now saying that people should not be able to canvass or campaign? Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether this would be the case.

Thirdly, it is the case that the law already provides significant protections for people in their own home. Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 permits a police officer to force a person to leave the vicinity of another person’s home if the officer believes the person is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident. It is a criminal offence to breach such a direction, and that covers both members of the public and officeholders. Does the Minister agree that this already provides quite a substantial protection for public officeholders from intimidation, harassment and abuse outside their own homes? On the basis that we do not need duplication, as the Minister said earlier, I suggest that this may well be the case here.

I have today posed a number of questions to the Minister regarding the amendment, and I look forward to what he has to say in answering them, but I must add that we do not think that this amendment should be made to the Bill today. The proposed change is a serious legal issue with profound questions about the nature of democracy and the relationship between public officeholders and those we serve. It has been introduced in your Lordships’ House in Committee and debated among 24 other amendments. It has not been considered by the other place, and it certainly has not received sufficiently detailed scrutiny in this place. I therefore do not believe it is appropriate simply to wave this through after so little consideration, and I hope the Minister will be willing to withdraw the amendment for now and bring it back on Report, when we can have a full and proper debate.

Finally, Amendment 372 would ensure that the police take into account the cumulative impact of protests when deciding whether to impose conditions on demonstrations and assemblies. We completely support this, but I am surprised that the Government now support this too. During the passage of the Public Order Act 2023, this exact same proposal was brought forward by the then Conservative Government. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who was the Minister at the time, moved Amendment 48 on the first day of Report on that Bill. While not identical in wording to Amendment 372, the government amendment to the 2023 Act would have permitted the police to consider the cumulative disruption to the life of the community.

The Labour Party opposed that amendment, and 133 of its Peers voted it down. Now the Minister comes back to the House and asks us to support the very thing that his party was previously opposed to. It would be eminently helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why his party has suddenly had a damascene conversion and now supports these measures.

The amendments in my name to government Amendment 372 are simply probing amendments. The text of the government amendment as it stands permits the police to consider only the cumulative impact of protests in the same geographic location. It does not permit them to consider the cumulative impact on communities arising from the content of the protest, nor the cumulative impact of protests organised by that same organisation in the past. The potential impact of permitting the police to consider only geographical location is that protests organised by completely different groups on entirely different matters, but held in the same place, could see conditions imposed on them that have no bearing on their own behaviour.

We see many protests down Whitehall by different groups protesting about completely different issues. Would it be right for the police to be able to restrict a protest by farmers in Whitehall simply because there has been a pro-Palestinian protest there the day before? We must also remember that certain groups are far more disruptive and prone to disorder and violence than others. If only geographical location was considered, the police would be forced to treat all protests the same regardless of the conduct of the protest group in question.

It is clear from polling conducted by Policy Exchange that a significant proportion of the British public believes that police should consider the cumulative impact of particular groups protesting for the same cause. Yet this is not what is proposed by the Government’s amendment.

In conclusion, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking as to why they have included only geographical location and not the subject matter, the context or the content of the protest in this amendment.

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

My Lords, this has been a long and wide-ranging debate, and rightly so. The issues that we are discussing in this rather large group of amendments go to the heart of who we are as a nation. I will try to do justice to the sincerely held, if somewhat, at times, diametrically opposed views expressed across the Committee.

Let me deal first with the two government amendments in the group. First, government Amendment 372 places a duty on a senior police officer to take cumulative disruption into account when assessing whether the serious disruption to the life of the community threshold is met and, in turn, whether conditions should be applied to a public prosecution or public assembly.

This Government are committed to upholding the democratic right to peaceful protest. However, this must not come at the expense of the right of others to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. Over the last few years, we have seen the impact of repeat protests on the life of some of our communities. We saw this in the wake of the antisemitic terror attack on the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester on 2 October 2025, which resulted in the tragic murders of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, as mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Polak.

As the noble Lord pointed out, protests continued in Manchester over the subsequent days, highlighting concerns around the need to protect specific communities and others impacted by the cumulative impact of protest. At this point I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for praising not just Rabbi Walker of Heaton Park Shul—who I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting during Hanukkah; he is an amazing individual and the way that he has held his community together is truly inspiring—but the CST, which continues to protect our Jewish community and lead the fight against antisemitism in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for taking the intervention, but my question was not about protest. It was more that, if an officeholder and a constituent met outside and had a conversation, I did not want that sort of interaction to be criminalised—not a protest, just a conversation.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

That is a helpful clarification. Ultimately, there are still the basic safeguard backstops of the CPS decisions to prosecute and police decisions to make arrests. There will always be discretion and flexibility, and one might posit that the CPS would not risk a prosecution where it was clear that there was not necessarily any offence caused. If the officeholder is engaged in mutual conversation, there would be no wish to see a charge brought, so I hope that addresses the concern the noble Lord raises.

Amendment 382 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would seek to strike out the new offence from the government amendment. The new offence gives the police clearer and broader powers to act swiftly to deal with protests outside the homes of public officeholders. It is right that we protect them and their families from the harassment, alarm and distress that such protests inevitably give rise to. We have purposefully limited the offence to the homes of public officeholders; as such, it would remain open to anyone to protest outside an MP’s constituency office, a council chamber, a town hall or indeed the Houses of Parliament.

I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of the need for the new offence in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 381. The new offence is targeted and proportionate in defending those dedicated public servants, in this House and elsewhere, who put themselves forward to take part in our democratic institutions. They should be able to do this without a fear of being harassed in their own home. If, however, the noble Lord continues to have concerns about Amendment 381 then we will not move it in Committee, but he should be clear that we will bring the amendment back on Report.

Let me now respond to the other non-government amendments in this group. Clause 124 strengthens police powers to impose conditions on protests in the vicinity of places of worship. I put it to noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we have seen a clear need for this measure as a result of the protests we have seen following the conflict in Gaza, and indeed thugs targeting mosques as part of the disorder in the summer of 2024.

Frequent large-scale protests since 7 October 2023 across the UK have significantly impacted the Jewish community, particularly in London and in Manchester, Leeds and other cities. We have heard reports of fear and disrupted access to places of worship. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, it is absolutely clear that this is related to the impact that we have seen in the wake of the protests arising from the conflict in Gaza, in the wake of 7 October 2023. I am slightly surprised that that was news to him, but fair enough.

Current police powers under the 1986 Act are insufficient to address the intimidating effects of protests that are currently being experienced by religious communities. Let me be clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this is the lived experience of the Jewish community over the past two years. It is not about assuming the potential of harassment; it is about assessing and preventing the actual impact of harassment. Again, I commend the clarity and force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who spoke forcefully about the fact that it is about intention and impact. I am also grateful to him for raising the rationale for the Court of Appeal ruling out the judgment on cumulative impact in the previous secondary legislation. It had nothing to do with the cumulative nature of those regulations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, touched on a number of things. We will probably not get to it tonight, but we are talking about facial recognition later in Committee, and indeed we have a consultation on it. We are not ignoring that, and we can attend to it. A number of Peers mentioned Palestine Action and the proscription. I am not going to relitigate discussions that we have had. My noble friend Lord Hanson has dealt with that very well on a number of occasions, but I will just add my tuppence-worth. You can very easily support the cause of Palestinian statehood and freedom and criticise the Israeli Government by supporting a range of organisations that does not include one such as Palestine Action, which has been proven to organise and behave like a terrorist organisation. I will say no more on that.

I fully appreciate the intent behind Amendments 371A to 371F, tabled by my noble friend Lady Blower, but the law must be clear to all concerned. I put it to my noble friend that this is already the case. The term “in the vicinity” is already used in Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 and is clearly understood in that context. Substituting reference to

“within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”

of a place of worship could be unduly restrictive.

Moreover, the power to impose conditions purposefully applies regardless of whether the organisers of the protest intended for the protest to have that effect. What matters is the impact of the protest on worshippers, not the intentions of the protesters. There is a question that arises from the formulation that my noble friend Lady Blower uses in her amendment. If you are using a place of worship but not necessarily for the act of worship—say, you are taking your child to a Sunday school or to a youth club at your synagogue, your mosque or your gurdwara—would that be covered by her amendment? But that may be dancing on the head of a pin slightly.

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, of harm having to occur for the offence to have taken place and the formulation of the wording gets the cart before the horse. He saying that harm has to occur for the offence to have been caused. I say that this is about preventing harm and harassment being caused in the first place.

The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Walney, and my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn have put forward various other new public order-related proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks to give effect to various recommendations contained in the report Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, which he submitted to the previous Administration. Of course, I pay tribute to his long-standing work in this area on political violence and extremism.

I do not propose to get too far into the detail of these particular amendments, given that the Government have commissioned a review of public order legislation led by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. It seems like hours ago—actually, it was hours ago—that he showed perspicacity in guessing that I might pray this in aid. His review will publish its findings in the spring, and it is right that we wait for the outcome of the review before bringing forward further public order legislation.

On the cumulative impact proposals that we are adding to the Bill, the Government consider the need, as demonstrated by recent events, to impose a duty on the police to take into account the impact of cumulative disruption. Because we have had these repeated protests that have left communities, particularly religious communities, feeling unsafe and intimidated, the legislation is an important step in ensuring that everyone feels safe in this country, while protecting the right to protest. This is a first step, but we will of course await the words of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, in the spring to see how we might develop these issues further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene, particularly because of the time, but to clarify, I said that there are many individual laws that one could use to pursue individuals. It is incredibly difficult for the police to do that. They exist, but they are not applied in the way that we need them to, hence the need for the amendment.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I appreciate that clarification. Considering the time, I say to the noble Baroness that the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is forthcoming. I dare say he will be reading this debate in Hansard with some interest.

Amendment 380, from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks to apply the changes made by government Amendment 372 to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. I simply say that, in a democratic society, the threshold for banning a protest should always be markedly higher than that of imposing conditions on a protest. That is why, sadly, we will resist his amendment.

Amendment 382E, from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, similarly touches on one of the guiding principles of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—namely, whether our public order legislation strikes a fair balance between freedom of expression and the right to protest with the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe. The ability to impose conditions on, or indeed ban, a protest based on the cumulative impact of protests on policing resources goes to the very heart of how we strike that balance.

Finally, Amendment 486B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is concerned with access to public funds for organisations promoting or supporting criminal conduct. I understand from what he said that this amendment may stem from comments made by the Irish hip-hop group Kneecap, which previously received funding from the Government through the music export growth scheme. I want to make it clear that I unequivocally condemn the comments that were made, which the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others mentioned. In the light of that case, DCMS has made changes to the scheme, including requiring applicants to declare activity that may bring the scheme into disrepute, introducing further due diligence processes, adding a clawback clause to the grant agreement, and, where concerns are raised, escalating decisions to Ministers.

This has been a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate. We recognise the vital part played by peaceful protest in the functioning of our democracy. For the Government’s part, the measures in Part 9, together with Amendments 372 and 381, address gaps that we and the police have identified in the current legislative framework. We stand ready to address other operational gaps in the law, but before doing so we should await the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I hope that that addresses all the questions that have been posed tonight. We will of course review Hansard and write if we need to. In response to the specific request from my noble friend Lady Blower, we are of course always keen to have conversations, and we can take that offline outside the Chamber.

We all have a part to play here and I observe that those organising, stewarding and attending protests, as well as having a right to protest, have a responsibility to ensure that what they chant and the placards they wave are not racist and do not threaten communities or intimidate fellow citizens. Sadly, that has not always been the case. With that, I commend the government amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have two small points to make. First, there seems to be a lot of prejudgment of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—the Minister seemed to say that the noble Lord will not disagree with anything that has gone through in the Bill. I do not understand why we did not wait for the report to be published before the Bill was introduced. Secondly, I did not hear an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about why Labour has done a complete 180-degree turn on Amendment 372.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

In answer to both the noble Baroness’s points, the lived experience of the Jewish community, and that of other communities—the actions we saw against mosques and the Muslim community in parts of this country during the summer and since October 2023 provide a different context and this was recognised in the Metropolitan Police and GMP statement on chants to “Globalise the intifada”—over the past couple of years leads one to draw different conclusions. It is absolutely the case that the Home Secretary saw the importance of putting cumulative impact and providing reassurance to communities as a priority that could be folded into part of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and that there was no need to wait for it and we could use the Bill to do it. That is what we have done, and I will be proud to move those amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay for highlighting the importance of protecting the public realm. We support fully the inclusion of Clause 122 in the Bill. The prohibition on climbing on specified memorials was first introduced by the previous Conservative Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, and I welcome the current Government carrying this forward.

My noble friend Lord Parkinson has, in his customary eloquent way, spoken to the rationale and the substance of his amendments. In light of the late hour, I am going to very briefly comment on a few of the points made. I was going to select from his list in the amendments of the various people whose statutes he seeks to protect, but, given the lateness of the hour, I will just comment that these amendments do not ask us to agree with every decision made by the individuals whose statues we have. They simply ask us to recognise that our history is not something to be curated by omission or protected only in part. If the purpose of Clause 122 is to protect memorials and monuments from desecration and safeguard, in so doing, the shared inheritance of this nation, the memorials and statues in the amendments plainly belong within its scope. To exclude them would not be an act of neutrality; it would be an act of judgment by silence. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will give my noble friend’s amendments very serious consideration.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 370B and 370C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seek to expand the list of war and other memorials covered by the new offence of climbing on a memorial, which is provided for in Clause 122.

I fully acknowledge that many of the memorials listed in these amendments commemorate events and individuals of great national importance. However, the lists of war memorials in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 12 include only those on Historic England’s list of grade 1 war memorials, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, pointed out. This provides an objective basis for inclusion in the legislation, as being those of the greatest historical interest, and ensures consistency and avoids arbitrary additions.

The one exception currently—and I will not go into all the variations that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned, because of the lateness of the hour—is the statue of Sir Winston Churchill. This is included in Part 3 of Schedule 12 because there have been repeated incidents of intentional targeting of this statue during protests. The Government consider that as a prominent national symbol of Britain’s wartime leadership, and due to the targeting of the statue by protesters, it is right that Churchill’s statue is included.

The Government are also committed to including the national Holocaust memorial and the national Muslim war memorial, once they are built. The provision includes a power for the Home Secretary to add further memorials by secondary legislation, and she will no doubt want to ensure that any further additions follow a methodical approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, specifically mentioned the issue of inserting “animals” as well as “individuals” in the legislation, and he got it in one—that is around the potential consideration of the national Animals in War Memorial on Park Lane that he mentioned. But, again, that is about leaving options open so as not to rule out including that at a later date.

In the knowledge that we have a power to add to the list of memorials to which the new offence applies, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, that group took 21 minutes. I apologise for keeping the House five minutes past 11 pm, but after four and a quarter hours on the last group, I do not think it was unreasonable to ask the Minister to respond to my amendment, which I have sat and waited patiently to move, and I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for allowing his noble friend to do so.

Sadly, the noble Lord did not have much longer to set out the Government’s case, but, even if he had taken longer, I do not think he would have persuaded me. This sounds like very curious logic. As I say, the problem with picking two dozen memorials that are presently listed at grade 1 is that those may not always be listed at grade 1, and future memorials may be added in. He curiously said that they might add the memorial to the animals of World War II, but not the monument to the women of World War II. I urge him to take that away and reflect more coolly.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have stayed to listen to this and I will reflect on this as we head to Report, but for tonight, and given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 370B.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to this short but focused and important debate on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to extend the power for police to restrict protests near places of worship to cover faith schools and faith community centres. The amendments were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Marks and Lord Massey of Hampstead, and from the opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

I acknowledge the wider societal problem that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, powerfully described in moving the amendment. I think it is fair to say that he acknowledged the need for Clause 124 and hence its inclusion in the Bill. We are as government very aware of the problem. In the discussion on the previous mega group of amendments on public order on Tuesday evening, there were some assertions by noble Lord that synagogues are not impacted by marches or protests. I neglected to say it at that time, but this is an opportunity for me to say from the Dispatch Box that that is clearly not the case. We know that there are synagogues in central London that have been directly impacted by marches. They have had to change their service times and have had their normal pattern of worship disrupted by those marches. It is clear proof that, in respect of the Jewish community over the last couple of years at least, we need the provisions of Clause 124.

Before I move on to the amendments, I hope that, in responding to those in Israel and the US who raised with him whether it is safe for Jews to live in Britain and to be in Britain, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, provided them reassurance that this is still one of the best places to be Jewish. We have fantastic values of tolerance and a liberal approach to enjoying any lifestyle that you wish and any religion that you wish to follow. As a British Jew, I am certainly very happy still, despite the concerns that we are discussing, to say that Britain is a great place to be a Jewish person. I hope that he responded in a similar manner.

On the amendments, under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, the police must have a reasonable belief that a public procession or assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or that the purpose of those organising the protest is the intimidation of others. The police must have a similar reasonable belief under Section 14ZA in respect to noise generated by a one-person protest.

Clause 124 will strengthen the police’s ability to manage intimidatory protests near places of worship by allowing them to impose conditions on a public procession, public assembly or one-person protest, specifically if they have a reasonable belief that the protests may result in intimidation and deter those seeking to access places of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities or conducting religious activities there.

Clause 124 does not define places of worship, which means that, where community centres may be used as a place of worship, there is flexibility for the police to consider using this measure and imposing conditions if appropriate. We believe this is a proportionate approach, because it allows the police to exercise their independent operational judgment rather than being constrained by prescriptive lists in legislation. Non-statutory guidance from the College of Policing will assist in clarifying marginal cases without removing the police’s discretion.

I appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made—and has made in previous debates—on police discretion. To respond to him directly, I am of course very happy to meet him with department officials to discuss this as we move through Committee and before we get to Report. That offer is open to him and to other noble Lords who would care to discuss the issue.

Regarding faith schools, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there is particular sensitivity around schools because it involves young people. I declare an interest; I have two daughters who attend a Jewish faith school. It is incredibly concerning that they could be exposed to this in the manner of going to school and that the most normal everyday activity that a child or young person undertakes could be so disrupted. We very much share his concern, and his concern that it is not simply about Jewish faith schools; we are talking about all manner of faith schools, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, Muslim schools—they are very much at the cutting edge as a very visible place in a community where protests could be mounted and could be a focus for local community opposition or aggression, which is why we need to be careful about it. However, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gave local authorities the power to make expedited public space protection orders which protect those attending schools from intimidation, harassment or impeded access in the course of a protest or demonstration. Combined with the wide range of powers the police already have to address intimidation and harassment, these amendments would, I submit to your Lordship’s Committee, unnecessarily duplicate existing law.

Given that, I hope—although I am realistic—that I might have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, a little. I hope that, taking an account of the offer of a meeting and further discussion on the points that his amendments raise, he would agree that his amendments are not necessary and, at least for the time being, that he will not press them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution. I was tempted to add restaurants to the amendment, but I had already tabled it. I have instead just made a booking there. Members of the House of Lords are welcome to join me to support the restaurant.

I thank my riparian neighbour, down the river at Henley-on-Thames from Hurley, for his most welcome contribution. Of course, I thank my noble friends Lord Massey and Lord Cameron.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Katz, that I told everyone who made that comment to me that the UK was a very safe space for Israeli citizens to come and visit. However, it really was a concern that was expressed to me, quite shockingly. I assure him that I am totally in agreement with him on that.

I would argue that community centres could not be defined as places of worship. The JW3 centre specifically, as the noble Lord knows, could not be described as such, so it would not come within that definition. However, I can see that he is sympathetic and understanding, and I am very grateful for that. I am grateful to the Government for putting in Clause 124. Clearly, the 2022 Act was not sufficient, which is why they had to put in Clause 124, so perhaps there is a discussion to be had. I am grateful for his agreement to do that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Before the noble Baroness finishes, I did not want to interrupt what I thought was a very helpful contribution that laid out the kind of dilemmas that we face, but I will just ask for a couple of points of clarification to see where we might agree or disagree. In relation to John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, does she recognise that the concept of harm has now become so broad—in terms of psychological harm, for example—that it has become possible to say that any speech is harmful, and that this has led to the mess that we are in? There is physical harm, as opposed to, “I think that speech is harmful”. Anytime I have been cancelled from speaking, it was on the basis that I would cause harm to the students or pupils. It is a concept of me turning up with a baseball bat, about to do some harm to them, whereas actually they were anticipating, ahead of me speaking on issues usually related to free speech, that I would harm them psychologically and they would be damaged. Is that not a problem for legislators in the context of this amendment? Secondly—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I remind the noble Baroness that while she is able to ask questions for clarification, interventions are meant to be brief and I urge some brevity, given the progress we have made in Committee so far this afternoon.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I will ask this very briefly, then. Is there a problem that young people and the police do not appear to be able to distinguish between microaggressions and genocide? Is it one line?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. She clearly demarcated our difference in view as to where the line should be drawn. I suggest to noble Lords that it is important to draw the line at the threat of imminent violence. That has been a principle in the past, but it has been breached by recent laws and actions by the police.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, kindly supported this amendment—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I hate to interrupt the noble Lord’s flow, but I thought this an apposite time to point out that Members should normally be brief when pressing or withdrawing an amendment. The Companion is clear that you do not have to respond to all points raised in the debate. We are now over five minutes. I urge the noble Lord to conclude his remarks.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I remember the noble Lord, Lord Katz, taking almost 30 minutes the night before last when he had a time limit of 20 minutes. His remarks were so interesting that I did not feel like repining. I certainly would have finished by now had there not been interventions.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for kindly and eloquently supporting my views and turn finally to the Minister who, although speaking as always in the kindliest way, gave a most disappointing reply. I hope that, after the debate on the next amendment, he might reconsider. I was surprised that he still supported criminalisation of offending feelings after such a comprehensive listing by many speakers of the problems created by that in the various laws. I will talk more on this on the next amendment. In the meantime, and for now, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this group addresses the extension of warrantless search powers for electronically tracked stolen goods to the service police, in Clause 129, alongside civilian police, in Clause 128. While we recognise the need for police to tackle high-tech crime, such sweeping powers, particularly warrantless searches, must be meticulously governed to avoid abuse and uphold civil liberties. I have tabled Amendments 386 to 389, which would ensure that robust governance and accountability mechanisms are embedded in these provisions.

Amendment 386 would require the Secretary of State to produce a code of practice for the operation of Clause 129, specifically mandating consultation with civil liberties and human rights organisations and relevant service police bodies. This would ensure due process regarding the authorisation, seizure, retention and disposal of evidence.

Amendment 388 would require the Secretary of State to provide appropriate training for service police personnel on how to exercise these powers proportionately and lawfully.

Amendment 387 would mandate the establishment of an independent mechanism for handling, investigating and reviewing public complaints arising from the exercise of these powers, giving complainants similar statutory rights to victims reporting to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Amendment 389 would mandate that the Secretary of State produces an annual report detailing the exercise of these warrantless search powers under Clause 128, ensuring transparency and accountability to Parliament. Further, these new obligations would require the affirmative procedure for their governing regulations, ensuring full parliamentary debate before they are enacted, as sought in Amendments 499 to 501.

We on these Benches are opposed to Amendments 383 to 385 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which seek to remove the requirement, as we have heard from the noble Lord, for an officer to even possess electronic tracking data before conducting a warrantless search. By stripping away this technologically justified threshold, these amendments would transform a specific investigative tool into an arbitrary power of entry, undermining the core principle that a person’s home is his castle.

In contrast, Amendments 386 to 389 provide the necessary basis for these intrusive powers to be overseen. Specifically, Amendment 386 mandates a statutory code of practice for the Armed Forces to ensure that their exercise of these powers is necessary, proportionate and strictly compliant with the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, Amendment 387 would establish an independent mechanism for handling public complaints, ensuring that any misuse of power is investigated by a body demonstrably independent of the service police.

Finally, my amendments would require post-implementation reporting to Parliament every 12 months. We must see the data on the demographic profile of those targeted and the subsequent criminal justice outcomes to guard against disproportionate application or mission creep. Without these safeguards, we risk creating a shortcut—as other provisions might do—to a surveillance state, where convenience is prioritised over constitutional protection.

The safeguards that I have proposed in Amendments 386 to 389 regarding service police are only as strong as the parliamentary scrutiny that would underpin them. We must ensure that these powers are exercised with not just efficiency but a regular check of parliamentary accountability.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses Clauses 128 and 129 granting new powers to the police to enter premises to search for and seize stolen items that can be electronically tracked there, without the need to first apply to a court for a warrant. I welcome the welcome given to these new clauses by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on behalf of the Opposition.

These new powers are intended, as he said, to be exercised where a stolen item is electronically tracked to a specific location. This is in direct response to public concern that the police are not able to act swiftly in response to crimes such as mobile phone theft, even when victims have clear, real-time electronic evidence of the phone’s location. It will reduce the risk that stolen goods are quickly moved on or used to facilitate other crime. I suggest to the Committee that the main benefit of these clauses is ensuring that mobile phone theft is addressed and combated.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, is no longer in his place, but when speaking to an earlier group he suggested that there is an impression that the police do not prioritise criminal behaviour such as mobile phone theft but instead concentrate on other issues, which I will not go into. I suggest that the police being able to more quickly and effectively tackle very common criminal behaviour such as mobile phone theft would also very much enhance the reputation of the police. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, said, it is sometimes at risk of being downplayed.

I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Amendments 383 to 385 would remove the requirement in Clause 128 that the power may be exercised by police only in relation to stolen goods electronically tracked to specified premises. They would also remove the condition that before the use of power is authorised by a senior police officer, he or she must be satisfied that there is electronic tracking data linking the stolen item and a specific premises. These amendments would significantly broaden the scope of the proposed powers and remove important safeguards.

Powers of entry are inherently intrusive, and there is a balance to be struck between ensuring that the police can act quickly and decisively against thieves, and retrieve victims’ stolen property, and safeguarding the right to a private and family life. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put it very well when he referred to it as a technically justified threshold. I contend to the Committee that people generally accept the need for warrants to be used in detecting stolen goods, but some devices can be tracked electronically in real time. The police turn around and say, “We can’t do anything about this because we have to go and get a warrant”, but you can point to the address where you know that phone is and you know that, if the police do not act quickly, there is a good chance that phone will be moved out of the country. It is only right that we use that as an apposite threshold to introduce these powers, rather than saying that they should be used for any stolen good of whatever nature, where there is no electronic tracking data involved. It will do much to improve confidence in the police in catching up with the 21st century and current technology, but we do not see the need to go further.

The requirement for electronic tracking data linking at least one stolen item to the premises before powers can be exercised provides a further layer of reliability in their use, while ensuring, as I said, that the police can act swiftly when they need to. I say again that removing these requirements would dilute the safeguards intended to ensure that police officers use these powers lawfully, proportionately and only in specific circumstances.

That brings me neatly to Amendments 386 to 389 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I commend his intent to ensure that there is strong accountability, independent oversight and scrutiny of the use of these powers. As I have said, the Government recognise that these new powers are intrusive by their nature, particularly as they can be exercised by officers without them first needing to seek authorisation from a court by obtaining a search warrant. We have, accordingly, built in appropriate safeguards to ensure that the new powers are used appropriately and within well-established independent oversight and scrutiny mechanisms.

Amendment 386 would require the Secretary of State to issue a statutory code of practice to which the service police must have regard when exercising the new powers. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that these new powers will be subject to the relevant provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its codes of practice. The Government will amend PACE Code B, and Code B of the service police codes of practice, to reflect the new powers, providing clear and detailed guidance around their use for both territorial and service police. These revisions to the codes will be completed before the powers are commenced. This will provide robust statutory guidance to police and will be complemented by the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice.

Amendment 387 would require the creation of an independent oversight mechanism to investigate public complaints about the use of these powers by service police. Any complaints about their use by territorial police would be addressed in the normal way through internal police complaints procedures and referrals to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, where required.

The service police are the focus of the noble Lord’s amendment, and any complaints would be dealt with under the complaints system for service police. As set out in the Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023, this is overseen by the Service Police Complaints Commissioner, whose role is similar to that of the IOPC. The commissioner is independent of the service police and the MoD, and has a statutory duty to secure, maintain and review arrangements for procedures that deal with complaints and conduct. They deal with the most serious complaints and set the standard by which service police should handle complaints. The Service Police Complaints Commissioner has the same powers as the service police where it has been determined that they will carry out an investigation, and they can also determine that a complaint can be reinvestigated, if they are satisfied that there are compelling reasons to do so.

Amendment 388 would require service police to undertake training before they could exercise the new powers. All members of the service police undergo training that addresses each element set out in the noble Lord’s amendment, including on the legal requirements and limitations of search and seizure powers, proportionality, maintenance of clear records and compliance with Article 8 of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. Service police trainees are tested on arrest, entry, search and seizure before they can exercise these powers. Training is updated in response to any change in legislation that would affect service police officers’ exercise of their powers. Specifically, training will be updated in light of the new powers in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the bad news is that not all service personnel are absolute angels: it could be one junior soldier stealing a mobile phone from another junior serviceman. These arrangements are very sensible, and I agree with everything that the Minister has had to say. My only question for him, while I am on my feet, is this: is there any evidence that the service police make mistakes on the procedures when they are exercising their powers? I am not aware of any problem.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will take the last one first. I am not sure there is any evidence; I would have to look into that. To answer the more substantive intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as to why service police need the powers to deal with electronically tracked stolen goods, while service police deal with crime in the defence context, it is important that they are equipped to respond effectively to current and future trends in criminal behaviour. Obviously, the provisions in the Bill help to ensure that service police can respond with lawful, fair and proportionate action, now and in the future, to the full spectrum of criminality that threatens the cohesion and operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. These new powers will give officers more chance of quickly finding and retrieving stolen items that are electronically tracked at premises, and reduce the risk they are lost or moved on. Maybe put it down to an overabundance of caution but also an acknowledgement that crimes that affect and have to be investigated by civilian forces can also affect and be investigated by the Armed Forces.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, all I will say is that, faced with an abundance of caution—that is to say, if in doubt— “give the police powers” is not an approach that is particularly favoured on these Benches.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

That is a point well made and well taken. I add that the powers would, of course, be exercised only within the jurisdiction of the service police, so service police would not suddenly be moving into areas of activity that you would expect the territorial police to be pursuing.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, anticipated that I was winding up. I hope that my comments have reassured the noble Lord that the spirit and intention behind his amendments have been incorporated within the proposals in the Bill. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I give thanks to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will reiterate my opening speech by saying that I know we all have the same end goal of arresting criminals and preventing thefts. We may have different roads that we believe to be the best way of arriving at that goal, but I am confident that this debate has taken place in a productive and open-minded manner.

At the risk of repeating myself, phone theft and shoplifting, frequently targeted at electronic stores, are not just epidemics but growing ones. Crime is thriving, businesses are closing, and the public are becoming increasingly anxious. A phone is stolen every seven and a half minutes in our capital city. We cannot simply look on at the situation with the hope that it gets better.

The Government must resolve to adopt the framework from our 2023 Bill, and they must now go further. Amendments 383, 384 and 385 in my name would achieve this. They would remove the requirement that a stolen good be electronically traceable and would permit senior officers to use discretion to search premises without a warrant. These amendments answer a problem that requires immediate action. The Government must get a grip on the theft epidemic. Our measures provide them with one of many necessary solutions, and I hope the Minister takes them away for consideration.

Moving on to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I largely agree with his principle that the new clause that introduces new powers should be accompanied by checks and balances. Establishing a code of practice, having an independent mechanism for investigating complaints, providing mandatory training for senior officers and requiring an annual report on the use of the powers in question would act to safeguard the heightened powers officers will gain. This especially holds should the Government incorporate our amendments. We trust the judgment of our officers and believe that they will always make the judgment they think best, but I am conscious that we are entrusting them with more intrusive powers. Mechanisms must exist that counteract any tendencies for this power to be misused, and I believe that the noble Lord’s amendments would achieve that. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

389B: Clause 132, page 161, line 34, column 2, after “Military” insert “Police”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with my other amendments to clause 132, correct references to members of the service police forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his long-standing commitment to this very important issue. I would venture to say that there is not another noble Lord in the Committee who cares as deeply as my noble friend does about the topic of abnormal loads.

Amendment 403 seeks to allow the police to authorise an abnormal load driver to break normal traffic rules in order to negotiate the chosen route for the load. Amendment 404 seeks to repeal the power of the police to grant certain police powers to a person escorting an abnormal load. It seems that the original intention of Schedule 5 to the Police Reform Act 2002 was that the police have the powers to direct traffic and permit regulations to be broken where necessary. However, few accreditations have made it, as it would effectively allow a self-escorter not to comply with the rules of the road.

Amendment 403 and 404, taken together, would repeal this problem and offer a more flexible solution. Instead of accreditation, Amendment 403 enables the chief constable to grant a traffic regulation dispensation order to a person escorting an abnormal load. It seems common sense to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility needed to decide which regulations should be dispensed with. Moreover, the chief constable would have the authority to outline any conditions they consider necessary, such as the number of escort vehicles to be allowed. These amendments are well thought out, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Amendment 413 would require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions. This amendment has industry support. A regulatory framework will ensure that the fees charged by police forces are consistent among forces across the country. I know that my noble friend has spent much time engaging with industry stakeholders, so I hope the Minister takes his remarks and amendments seriously. I look forward to the Government’s response.

On Amendment 414, I declare myself as an owner of a shotgun. I associate myself completely with the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. I will leave it there.

I support the principle behind my noble friend’s Amendments 416D and 416M. They are, in essence, clarifying amendments that ensure that the scope of the original measure in question is not used for the abuse of police services for personal gain. The provision of special services is a helpful law that chief officers should be able to draw on with discretion, but the compensation for the use of those services should not come at the expense of the police force’s integrity.

Compensation should ideally be monetary, with, if necessary, the short-term loan of items for specific use, as my noble friend’s amendment lays out, but it should not be equipment for personal use. Similarly, as my noble friend said, it should not be the officers making the decision on the use of special police services who gain financially from overtime payments; it should be those actually working overtime. My noble friend has laid out cases where both these incidents have happened and, once again, we hear of malpractice in the West Midlands Police.

My noble friend is infinitely wiser in his knowledge on this subject than I am, so I will defer to him, but I hope the Minister can address his undoubtedly well-informed points in depth, especially given the questions certain police forces currently face. I once again thank my noble friend for bringing these amendments forward, and I look forward to hearing both his and the Minister’s closing remarks.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and his engagement with me and officials from the Home Office and the Department for Transport on abnormal loads. He brings huge—abnormally large, perhaps I should say—expertise to your Lordships’ House on these matters, and certainly expertise that is unique for this House. I thank him for raising his concerns.

It is good to hear from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester on this, bringing his experience, particularly as it pertains to the operation of heritage railways. Committee on a Bill is not complete, as far as I am concerned, if I have not talked to my noble friend Lord Faulkner about heritage railways. I have done so a few times—at least on the Employment Rights Act, I remember. Obviously, I note with added respect the new status of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as a social media influencer, so we should freight his words with even greater import.

On the broader issues raised by these amendments, I am aware that the noble Earl has previously written to the DfT with a report that highlighted specific concerns about the interactions between the West Midlands Police and the heavy haulage industry. He made comments about the chief constable, which are obviously relevant and topical. I think we know what he is talking about, and I will just leave it there; it does not really pertain to the issues in these amendments. That report was appreciated, but it will come as no surprise to the noble Earl—although it may sadden him—that I remind noble Lords that the police are operationally independent from government. Therefore, individual police forces are responsible for making decisions on vehicle escorts based on an assessment of risks to infrastructure and the safety of all road users.

As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, acknowledged, the majority of police forces are making those decisions using their operational independence in a way that he is very satisfied with. The final decision in each case is for the relevant chief officer in discussion with interested local parties. That is set out in public guidance produced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, National Highways and the College of Policing. However, I fully recognise the importance of constructive dialogue on these operational matters. In that spirit, the policing Minister and I are pleased to have arranged a further meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which I believe is going to happen next week, as he said, along with the national policing lead for abnormal loads, so that these concerns can be discussed in more detail. This would provide an opportunity to ensure that the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council is being applied consistently and that any unintended consequences for the heavy haulage industry are perfectly understood.

As a further general observation on these amendments, I reassure the noble Earl that the Government keep the special types general order 2003 under regular review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and reflects operational needs and legal requirements. Where improvements are necessary, these can be made via an amending order, using existing powers under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This approach ensures that any changes are subject to the established processes for regulatory scrutiny, including impact assessments and public consultation. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, sought in her remarks.

In addition, I acknowledge the representations made by the Heavy Transport Association on this matter in support of the noble Earl’s amendments. The Government recognise the importance of the abnormal load and heavy haulage industry to the UK economy and its critical role in delivering major infrastructure projects across the country, be they in transport, civil engineering or housebuilding. We as a Government are committed to growth, and this is an important part of delivering that commitment. In recognition of this, the Government have supported the efforts made by the NPCC to standardise policing practices for abnormal loads. We strongly encourage police forces across the country to make full use of the new guidance on abnormal loads that was published by the NPCC in May 2025, to ensure that abnormal load hauliers receive a consistent service from the police, no matter where they are operating from. Given this ongoing work to support the industry by the NPCC, I contend that we should allow sufficient time for the new guidance to bed in before considering whether changes to the 2003 order are needed. The guidance is due to be reviewed in May 2027.

As to the specifics of these amendments, as the noble Earl explained, Amendment 403 seeks to confer on the police a power to make traffic regulation dispensation orders. This would allow abnormal load drivers to break normal traffic rules to negotiate their chosen route. While I understand the intention behind this proposal, the Government are not persuaded that it is necessary. Traffic authorities already have the power to make traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and these can provide for precisely the situations described. The Government’s view is that traffic management should remain the responsibility of traffic authorities, which are best placed to consider the wider implications for road safety and network efficiency. Giving this power to the police would blur responsibilities and could lead to inconsistent decision-making.

The Government are also unpersuaded of the case for repealing the provision in the Police Reform Act 2002 that allows the police to accredit certain persons with limited powers to control traffic for the purpose of escorting abnormal loads. Removing this power would mean that only police officers could direct traffic during these movements. The noble Earl has suggested that few accreditations have been made by chief officers utilising these powers. That may be the case, but where such designations have been made, it is inevitably the case that the repeal of these provisions would shift the burden back on to warranted police officers, reduce flexibility in managing abnormal load movements, and lead to delays and higher costs for the haulage industry. These movements often support major infrastructure projects and time-sensitive logistics, so any additional delays could have serious economic consequences. The current system strikes a sensible balance by allowing accredited persons to assist under police oversight, ensuring safety while avoiding unnecessary demands on police time.

I turn to the amendments relating to charges levied by the police for escorting abnormal loads. Amendments 413 and 502 seek to require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework for fees charged by police forces, while Amendment 416D details how payments should be made and received, and Amendment 416M seeks to prevent individuals who could be financially impacted by a decision concerning escorting an abnormal load from being involved in that decision. While I recognise that the aim of these amendments is to improve consistency and predictability for operators moving such loads, we do not believe such a statutory framework is necessary.

Further, a national framework for charging for escorting these loads also already exists. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 contains a power for the police to recharge the costs of policing that has been requested by an individual or organisation. Fee levels are set out in NPCC guidance on special police services and updated annually. Introducing a standardised regulatory framework as envisaged in Amendment 413 would also risk undermining the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs. The operational demands placed on police forces by abnormal load movements can differ across the country, influenced by a range of local factors, including geography, road infrastructure, traffic conditions and the availability of police resources.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 415 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which seeks to introduce a new safeguard for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 regarding the potential future use of digital identification by law enforcement. I too am grateful for his explanation about the single identifier. I remind your Lordships that there were a number of amendments in some Home Office Bills about three years ago when the Home Office was trying to get access to DVLA data and, indeed, to personal medical data for anyone who might have been present at the scene of a possible crime—not the victim or the possible perpetrator, but anyone who was literally just present. I am glad that, in opposition, his party has decided to change its approach on this. It is very welcome.

I also echo the good news that the amendment is, I hope, fully redundant because of the Government’s announcement, but I look forward to making sure that some of the very minor concerns being expressed are recognised by the Government.

This amendment would provide the protection to individuals, should the Government introduce a digital identity document scheme, that a constable would be expressly prohibited from requiring a person to produce such a document on request or asking for it to be produced for inspection. Crucially, it would also prevent the police using

“any information contained within, or obtained from, a digital identity card for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence”.

That echoes the amendments that our Benches tabled to earlier Home Office Bills.

We on these Benches are fundamentally opposed to any form of compulsory digital ID. We must ensure that a digital identity scheme does not become a tool for “papers, please” policing in a digital format. As organisations such as Big Brother Watch have warned, the expansion of digital identification, such as the proposed access to the DVLA database for facial recognition, risks creating a huge and disproportionate surveillance power that, in effect, places the majority of law-abiding citizens in a permanent digital police line-up without their consent. Can the Minister confirm that it is the case that surveillance will not be used?

The Government have previously suggested that digital ID could serve as an alternative form of ID for specific purposes such as age verification for online sales. However, without the explicit prohibition contained in Amendment 415, there is a significant risk of mission creep. If we allow the police routinely to use digital ID as part of their investigative toolkit, we fundamentally shift the relationship between the individual and the state. This amendment is not about obstructing modern policing; it is about ensuring that privacy rights and civil liberties remain the default. We must codify these protections now to ensure that any future digital identity framework cannot be weaponised into a widespread surveillance system.

From these Benches we are glad about the Government U-turn, but we need more detail to ensure that those protections remain. It is for Parliament and not for operational police discretion to set the boundaries for how the state identifies its citizens. I urge the Committee to support this amendment and hope that the Ministers will give us an encouragement that it is not needed.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the case for Amendment 415. He says a week is a long time in politics, but I am going to take him all the way back to the announcement on 26 September from the Prime Minister that the Government were intending to introduce a national digital ID scheme for all British and Irish citizens and those with permission to be in the United Kingdom.

The national digital ID will empower people in their lives and their interactions with the state. It will make it easier to access public services, cut back on bureaucratic processes and support fairness across society. The national digital ID scheme will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in due course. In the short term, we will examine options for appropriate oversight and safeguards of the digital ID, with a public consultation set to launch soon.

As has already been said publicly, the digital ID will not be required when a person is stopped by the police using stop and search powers. This was picked up in this debate and the debate on the previous amendment by, among others, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It will not be mandatory for those eligible to obtain the digital ID and, as such, there will be no penalty for not having one.

Law enforcement use of data is governed by Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This places a range of obligations on law enforcement, including requirements that law enforcement processing of data must be necessary and proportionate, for a specific purpose and not excessive. All three noble Baronesses who spoke raised concerns over a move towards a surveillance state—certainly, that was the theme of the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. To be clear, the new digital ID will not be used for mass surveillance of the population and will be designed in accordance with high standards of security and privacy. We will ensure safeguards are in place to make sure that any access to data is both necessary and proportionate.

As I said, the public consultation will be launched in the coming weeks. This will ensure that any legislation includes appropriate safeguards. I am sure that, without much prompting, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, will be first in the queue to contribute to that public consultation.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Can the noble Lord clarify something? Initially, those of us who spoke suggested that possibly this amendment was not needed because digital ID was not an immediate issue and was not going to be brought in as a single identifier. So far, the Minister’s arguments have been a justification for digital ID. Is it back on? It would be useful for campaigners to understand that, let alone those of us here. When campaigners argue that digital ID is part of a surveillance state and so on, one wants to say, “Don’t be too paranoid”. I am now getting paranoid myself, having been told that the digital ID scheme had been put to one side, that it has sneaked back into the House of Lords in response to an amendment that most of us thought was not necessary.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am going to try to stay roughly on the topic of the amendment, rather than turn this into a wider debate on the introduction of digital ID, because I am not entirely sure that my briefing will cover all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has addressed.

To be absolutely clear, we are not stepping back from the idea of introducing a digital ID. On 15 January, there was an Urgent Question on the issue in the other place that was repeated here. We have been very clear that we are introducing a digital ID programme. There are two core objectives: first, to make accessing public services easier and to make the state work better for ordinary people, and, secondly, to aid with right-to-work checks and catching those who are working illegally. To be clear, that is still happening. As I say, there is a public consultation coming that will set out the scope of the scheme, and those who wish to respond will be able to respond in those terms.

To respond directly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, around the use of ID by policing and enforcement agencies, there are already safeguards in place to ensure that the use of any such measures is balanced against the need to protect individual privacy rights. That will be the same for digital ID as it is for existing police access to information contained within the passport and immigration databases, for example, which is done in specific circumstances where that is lawful, necessary and proportionate. An example of a legal safeguard already in place is contained in the UK Borders Act 2007, which makes it clear that holders of e-visas cannot be required to carry them at all times.

I think I have already touched on the issue of stop and search, but I cannot quite remember because of the flow of the interventions. To be clear, the digital ID will not be used as part of stop and search, and police officers will never demand to see it as part of stop and search. However, consistent with current powers where immigration enforcement are carrying out an enforcement visit or warrant, they have powers to ensure that all those who are employed have the right to work in the UK. These powers include the ability to demand ID, take biometrics, and detain, search and seize property to assist their investigation. I hope that provides some clarity on that point.

Given the considerations that I have set out, particularly the fact that the introduction of the digital ID scheme will require its own legislation in future, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

At the time when this amendment was tabled, the Government were pressing ahead with plans that would have fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state. The prospect of compulsory digital ID, coupled with the possibility of routine police access to digital identity data, raised serious concerns about privacy and subsequent state overreach. It was precisely because of those concerns and the lack of apparent or clear safeguards that the amendment was necessary. Indeed, I am still not clear from what the Minister said in his response as to whether it will be introduced in future or whether it will be compulsory.

Since then, as we have heard, the Government have performed a U-turn, announcing that digital ID will no longer be mandatory. The amendment before us was therefore not speculative or hypothetical; it was a direct response to a live and deeply unpopular government policy. We can only hope that this sudden enthusiasm for reversing course is not confined to digital ID alone. While the U-turn means that the immediate threat that prompted it has receded, the wider issue remains unresolved. The Government’s approach to digital identity remains unclear and may change again before Report. For the time being, I will withdraw the amendment, but it is something that we will continue to consider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling Amendment 416, which I entirely support. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution.

The amendment, as my noble friend ably set out, would give constables the power to stop individuals cycling while wearing a face covering. Failing to do so would constitute an offence liable to a month’s imprisonment or a fine of up to £1,000. While I know that opposition to this amendment has claimed that this means police powers encroaching into an entirely innocuous activity, it is unfortunately now a necessary measure. What previously would have been a harmless and inoffensive act has been perverted by criminals into a means by which to commit crime and escape justice. We are facing a theft epidemic in this country, largely concentrated in our cities, where youths, often in gangs, shoplift and snatch phones.

Our capital city is now the phone theft capital of Europe, where a phone is snatched every seven and a half minutes. The United Kingdom accounts for almost 40% of all phone thefts on the continent. I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property. The same is true for shoplifting. CCTV footage consistently shows offenders using face coverings to evade detection, then using bikes and scooters to flee the scene. The cost to retailers of this shoplifting inevitably is passed on to consumers, and last year amounted to £2 billion.

The police must have the power to stop these criminals, and this amendment provides the grounds for it. It is often impossible to see where a thief has a stolen item on their possession, so we must look for other pointers as to who is committing these crimes. Allowing the police to intervene when they are in public on a bike or scooter is the next necessary step. It would dramatically increase the chances of victims being returned their stolen property and allow the police to begin to tackle the epidemic that we find ourselves in.

I once again thank my noble friend for her amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for tabling Amendment 416. I recognise the concerns that she set out, and those set out very clearly by the many noble Lords who contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, about the use of bicycles and scooters in facilitating crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Government have committed to the winter of action initiative, which is running from 1 December 2025 to the end of January. This initiative is intended to focus on making town centres across England and Wales safer by building on the safer streets summer initiative and continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, while addressing retail crime and night-time economy offences, particularly during the darker evenings that we have in winter, when there are higher risks to public safety.

I say directly to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that we are setting a framework. We always say, and I think all sides of the Committee agree, that it is for good reasons of operational independence that the police decide their priorities and how they deploy their resources, which will always be scarce however much we want to give them—there will never be enough. These initiatives give us confidence that the police are treating these sorts of offences as a priority and understand the concerns not only of this Committee but across wider society about the sorts of offences that the noble Viscount and other noble Lords set out.

The police do have powers to act here, and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about police powers to stop any vehicles, which is a good point. However, the powers to which I am going to refer are different, and this goes to the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 requires individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas where they are being used for the purposes of concealing their identity and gives police the power to seize the face covering. Areas can be designated when an officer of the rank of at least inspector reasonably believes that crime is likely to take place there. We encourage police forces to make full use of these powers in areas they know to be crime hotspots. This includes any road users or cyclists, including those working for food delivery companies, as my noble friend Lord Shamash set out, when the police have due course, and irrespective of the type of vehicle being used, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, went to some lengths to describe.

In addition, local authorities have powers to make public spaces protection orders, which can prohibit specified acts in designated areas. I understand that a number of local authorities already have in place PSPOs that ban the wearing of face coverings in the area covered by the order, to deal with exactly this kind of anti-social behaviour by Balaclava-wearing cyclists.

This is probably as good a point as any to mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, mentioned live facial recognition. I am not sure that either was in their place for the debate we had in Committee last Thursday, but I reiterate that there is a live consultation on live facial recognition, so I once again encourage noble Lords, if interested, to contribute to that and set out their views on live facial recognition.

There are of course legitimate reasons why cyclists may wear a face covering, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, including health reasons or just to keep out the cold. That is often, but not always, seasonal. Notwithstanding the Stakhanovite efforts made, at least in London by the mayor, to tackle air quality through ULEZ and other measures, it is sometimes about protecting cyclists from inhaling particulates and the like. It would be disproportionate to introduce a blanket prohibition of the kind envisaged by Amendment 416 or, for that matter, to extend the Section 60AA powers, to which I have already referred, to situations where there are no grounds to reasonably believe that criminal activity may take place in a particular location. Given these considerations, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

We are saying here that the requirement to remove this would be accompanied by some sort of reasonable suspicion that that person had been committing a crime, so it is not just a person who has a cough or a cold.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I completely agree. I was talking more about the rationale for wearing face coverings. Without too much speculation, one could contend that some seasonal conditions might pertain to somebody wearing a full face covering or a balaclava. More importantly than anything else, this being accompanied by anti-social or suspicious behaviour would give police the rationale to use the powers I have already set out. I am not in any sense trying to make light of or excuse the situations we are talking about. I am just observing that there are reasons why people would wear a partial face covering, such as a mask, when cycling. It was just an observation; I agree with the point the noble Lord made.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the concern across the Committee—it is a serious problem—and for trying out his winter of action. However, I am disappointed by his response. The existing 1994 Act powers and the local authority arrangements he mentioned are too narrow and specific.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that I am not against cyclists or masks. I am trying to make sure that, where they are being used by criminals to hide from the police, it is easier to take action. It is quite a light amendment. It is stop, not search, which we were discussing earlier.

I am grateful for the support I have had from my own Front Bench: from my very experienced noble friend Lord Davies of Gower; from my noble friend Lord Jackson, whose evidence that face coverings in particular are an issue I liked; from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke about the scale of the problem, of which there are lots more examples; and from my noble friend Lord Goschen, who spoke about his concerns around lack of enforcement, which I know the Government are trying to address but which is a serious priority. I appreciated the moral support, if I might put it like that, of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. I will take up his offer to talk to him further about the exact character of this amendment before we get to Report—something may need to be added, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. It sounds as if there is a definite lacuna in relation to e-scooters, presumably because they are not usually regarded as vehicles in all legislation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his gracious response. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for co-sponsoring the amendment and for his excellent contributions to this debate. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a speedy recovery. I thank my noble friends Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that the police, under very difficult circumstances, do an excellent job on the whole and I admire what they do. But I think he is right that having to record and investigate non-crime hate incidents is as unpopular with ordinary police officers on the front line as it is with free speech campaigners. They do not want to be wasting their time in this way. Many of them have reached out to me to tell me that and to support this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution.

If you look at proposed new subsection (4), you will find that nothing in the amendment would prevent the police recording information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motive in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. I am sceptical whether the police should be allowed to record incidents that clearly do not meet the threshold of being crimes for intelligence-gathering purposes, not least because there is very little persuasive evidence that that is helpful when it comes to preventing crimes, and I am generally suspicious of the concept of pre-crime—of trying to nip potential crimes in the bud by monitoring carefully incidents that do not quite meet the threshold of criminal offences. However, I am not going to die in a ditch and say that the police should never, under any circumstances, be able to record incidents that do not meet the threshold of being a criminal offence for intelligence-gathering purposes, provided that the recording of those incidents has no adverse consequences for the people they are recorded against.

That brings me to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which, on the whole, were very welcome. I am pleased that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council recognise that NCHIs are not fit for purpose and that the regime should be scrapped and replaced with something much better, but I want to respond briefly to two points made by my noble friend.

First, my noble friend acknowledged, I think, that the recording threshold for NCHIs is currently too low, and that when the regime is replaced by another, such as the anti-social behaviour incident regime, the threshold as to what incidents should be recorded will be higher. The implicit acknowledgement that the threshold has hitherto been too low strikes me as a persuasive argument for scrapping those incidents that have been recorded under the lower threshold. If the threshold was too low, that is an acknowledgement that the incidents should not have been recorded. That is a good argument for why they should be deleted once this system has been overhauled.

Secondly, my noble friend Lord Herbert maintains that, even though chief constables have the discretion to disclose NCHIs when responding to enhanced DBS checks, the College of Policing could not find a single example of chief constables having done that. If that is the case then there is no cost to the Home Office agreeing that, henceforth, under the new regime, anti-social behaviour incidents—if that is what we are going to call them—should not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. The fear that they might be—that, not having committed a crime, that is recorded against your name and could stop you getting a job or volunteering at a school or for a charity—is why the current regime has had such a chilling effect on free speech. If none has been disclosed, why not go that one small step further and say that, henceforth, they will not be disclosed?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord is coming to the end of his remarks. When responding on amendments, you are meant to be relatively brief. He has had five and a half minutes now.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I apologise to the Committee for taking up its time. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said, we have spent much time in our previous debates in Committee on provisions regarding the use or misuse of electric cycles and scooters. Much of what can be said has already been said, so I hope not to detain the Committee for long.

As always, my noble friend Lord Blencathra raises a strong argument in favour of his amendments in this group. I thank him for his tenacity in this area. There are strong feelings on this in your Lordships’ House, as many of us have had negative experiences with users of electric bikes and scooters, but these amendments address a slightly different problem.

Amendment 416H would permit the police to confiscate electric bikes and scooters that have been abandoned in a public place. As other noble Lords have said, if one requires any evidence as to the extent of this problem, they need only take a stroll down any major road in London. The pavements seem to have become obstacle courses of undocked electric bikes. All this presents serious challenges; they block users of wheelchairs and parents with pushchairs, as well as those with visual impairments, creating hazards for pedestrians, who may be forced into the road. For this reason, these Benches see no reason to object to the police being given greater powers to confiscate such scooters and electric bikes. If the Government have any objection to this proposal, I look forward to the Minister outlining precisely what they plan on doing to tackle this issue.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I was slightly sad to hear that this is the last of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on tackling e-bikes and scooters and, as someone coined, the Wild West that is our streets. Before he rides into the sunset on this subject, I would like to say that we share the intention behind these amendments, which seek to tackle obstructive parking and other use of hire e-scooters and bicycles. It may not surprise the noble Lord to hear, however, that the Government are not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.

I have to be very unfair before the dinner break and say that, if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is Butch Cassidy, we had the Sundance Kid of this debate in the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. Once again, he asked about action being taken. I repeat what I said earlier, on Amendment 416, and say to him and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the police are taking action. I refer again to the winter action initiative, running from the start of December last year to the end of January. That is focused on making town centres across England and Wales safer as a whole by building on the summer streets initiative, continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. This is not an issue that the police are blind to. Ultimately, we cannot want them to have operational independence in theory but not let that be carried out in practice.

I will not detain the Committee any further and will move on to the meat of the amendments. Amendments 416H and 416I would risk creating confusion in an area where the Government are already establishing a clear and proportionate regulatory framework. We are empowering local leaders to license shared cycle schemes, and potentially shared e-scooter schemes, in future through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, as we speak, has started its Committee stage next door in the Grand Committee. This licensing framework, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred, will empower local authorities to set parking requirements and act quickly and decisively where these are not met. To respond to the noble Baroness directly on micromobility, this is something that we have signalled an intention to act on when parliamentary time allows. I am afraid that I cannot be any clearer on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. If the powers exist, are the police actually using them?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

They are, but we always leave it to chief officers to direct their police forces to use the full waterfront of different powers and regulations under their purview. We can always encourage them. I am sure that a number of chief officers will be looking intently at the debates in all the days of Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill and will understand the priorities the Committee voices. Certainly, with no little thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others, we have had plenty of debate on this issue and they will have heard that it is one of extreme concern.

Clause 8 will allow the police to act immediately to stop offending behaviour and confiscate vehicles without delay. In addition, the Government have consulted on changes to secondary legislation to enable quicker disposal of seized vehicles, and our response will be published in due course. These measures demonstrate the Government’s commitment to effectively tackling the illegal and anti-social use of micro-mobility devices such as e-bikes and e-scooters without duplicating powers that are already in place.

I want to stress that riding a privately owned electric scooter on public roads is illegal, and the police have powers to take enforcement action against offenders, including seizure of the e-scooter for the offence of driving without insurance or a licence. The enforcement of road traffic law remains an operational matter for chief officers, who are best placed to allocate resources according to local needs, threats, risks and priorities. The Government will continue to support the police with the tools and powers they need, but this amendment would add unnecessary complexity without improving public safety. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords and the Minister for speaking in this short but important little debate on cycling. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—and, for the first time, a Lib Dem spokesperson has supported, in concept, one of my cycling amendments. I am either on the right side, maybe, or I am doing something terribly wrong if the Lib Dems are backing me.

Over the past few weeks, as we debated various amendments that I put down on bikes of all sorts, and looked at delivery couriers cycling on pavements on these big, fast, heavy, illegal bikes, and the scooters and bikes dumped on the pavements, the general mood was, “Well, your amendments are not perfect, Lord Blencathra, but there’s a problem here and something needs to be done about it”. I hear what the Minister has said, as far as these big, illegal bikes like motorbikes are concerned: they are already illegal and the police have power to do something about them. He suggested that the powers in the devolution Bill will deal with all these cycling problems. Between now and Report, I shall look more carefully at the Bill to see if it does cover all the gaps, but it may be that on Report we will still want to bring back some little amendment on one of these issues—possibly on the precarious criminal liability of delivery couriers, which we discussed last time. A lot of colleagues thought this was terribly wrong and that something needed to be done about it. However, if the Government do something about it, I will not need to, but if they do not do what we think we need to do, I will do something on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I did not say that the noble Baroness did. My point is that after a public inquiry, where it was found that W80 had lawfully killed Jermaine Baker in 2015, and a series of further hearings that led eventually to the Supreme Court, W80 appeared before a gross misconduct hearing by an independent body—nothing to do with the police; it was ordered by the IOPC—and was found to have no case to answer. It was not found that there was an arguable case, or that there was mitigation. There was no case to answer, 10 years later. It had been through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and nobody had noticed that there was no case to answer.

One of the central problems in these cases is that they are rare. Every time an officer waits years to be cleared, there is an outcry asking why they were charged in the first place or why it took so long to resolve. Every Government affected by this has said, “We will review it, and improve”. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has just mentioned the latest example of that.

My broad point is that all the reviews in the world have produced absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed. I have given two examples but there are many more, where people have been waiting 10 years for something to be shown to be not a criminal offence. I am afraid that the reviews have not produced anything, which has led to me tabling this amendment.

The officers are under a triple jeopardy. First, the IOPC considers whether there is a criminal offence or an offence of misconduct. That can take around 18 months. If there is a claim of a criminal offence, that is considered by the CPS, which probably takes another year. In the event that there is a criminal charge, the officer will go to court. During this period, the inquest into the person’s death will have been suspended. If there has been no charge, the inquest, usually with a jury, will be resumed. Those juries can find, and have found, that there was an unlawful killing, which then must be reconsidered by the CPS, usually leading to a criminal charge to go through a criminal court and then back through the IOPC. It has been hard to establish the facts, but by my calculation there have been around five officers charged with murder following cases over the last 20 years, each leading to a finding of not guilty at a Crown Court. The people who seem to be able to appreciate this issue, and deal with it with some wisdom, are called jurors.

My amendment is designed to give some comfort to firearms officers that their case will have to reach a higher bar before a prosecution can be started. It is modelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has mentioned—he is the one who pointed this out to me—on the householder defence to murder that already exists in criminal law. If a householder is attacked in their home and, in the process of defending themselves, kills the intruder, there is a higher legal threshold to pass before a prosecution for murder can follow. All I am asking is for the same to apply to a firearms officer.

I have talked to the Attorney-General about this. He reminded me that lawyers generally have concerns about this because it creates a unique group, a group of people who are treated differently by the criminal law, but I have two points in response to that general principle. First, householders are already a unique group. The criminal law has decided that they are a unique group and that is okay, but that it would not be all right for police firearms officers, who—I argue—are also a unique group. Why can we not add one more group? This was decided by Parliament on the advice of lawyers. What is different about this group? More importantly, for the reasons that I have given, they are a unique group. They the only people in society who use a firearm to prevent a crime, save a life or make an arrest. We say that no one can carry a firearm for that purpose, even if they are a legal firearm owner.

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

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I end with this. I know that it is late. All our firearms officers are volunteers. They cannot be ordered to carry a gun. Unlike in the USA, it is not a condition of service. We rely on their honour and willingness to come forward and take on these roles. There is evidence that this is not happening in the numbers we need. There are not many noble Lords in the Chamber, but I ask those who are here whether they would do it. Could they do it? Would they take that responsibility, facing the inevitable inquiries that would follow? It involves not only the officer but their family.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I know, but I have waited all day as well.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

If the noble Lord could conclude his remarks, that would be helpful for everyone.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

There are just too many times when officers are faced with the challenge, which is unfair. The solution I propose is that we should treat firearms officers fairly and differently. I am not a lawyer. The Government may be able to come up with a better proposal, but the position that we have at the moment is untenable and something that I am not prepared to let rest. I ask for support from the Government in some respect.

My final point is that I support, to some extent, the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Jackson. My concern is that it might lead to more people being charged more often, and I am arguing that they should be charged less often for doing their job.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

It is certainly a first for me.

I thank the Minister for his reply and other people for their comments. I thought I might make only a couple of points in response. I indicated that although the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, suggests a mandatory limit, there may be difficulties with that. I wonder whether the Government, might consider three things in their review, which the Minister mentioned. First, they could set an expectation so that, for example, cases should be completed within 12 months unless, for example, the director-general of the IOPC or some arbiter concludes otherwise. Secondly, I raised the sequential nature of the decision-making. That compound effect gives a longer time than I regard as necessary.

I am trying to work out now whether I should let the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, speak—

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

The noble Lord was not here for the start of the group, so I am afraid that he cannot contribute.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I will conclude. I wonder whether, in the review, the Government could consider this sequential decision-making, which I do not think helps speed. Thirdly, if they are really adventurous they could look at whether police officers should be employees, because then you would get lawyers out of the system—I sit surrounded by them, but they never make it quicker or cheaper. Everyone else who is an employee can go to the employment tribunal, but officers cannot; it is on these grounds that lawyers get involved. I am afraid that is one of the major factors in why this takes so long and is expensive. I have taken my life in my hands, so I will sit down and withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 431 deals with the use of algorithmic tools in policing. While the Government agree on the importance of transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by police forces, we do not believe that the amendment would be the optimal means of delivering either meaningful improvements in public confidence or operational benefits for policing.

The proposed duty would require police forces to disclose all algorithmic tools through the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard—the ATRS. The ATRS was designed for government departments and arm’s-length bodies, not for operationally independent police forces. While it is an effective tool for those organisations, its high level of technical detail and lack of narrative explanation mean that disclosures would not provide the clarity expected by the public and would risk burying key information in jargon. More importantly, mandating disclosure of all tools beyond the exemptions policy of the ATRS could inadvertently compromise operational security and policing tactics.

The Government are, however, keen to encourage transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by police forces in England and Wales to maintain the support of the public for their use and in keeping with the core tradition of policing by consent. In line with this, the Government have commissioned work on transparency measures for police use of AI and are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s AI portfolio and the National Policing Chief Scientific Adviser to develop policies encouraging and supporting appropriate levels of transparency while safeguarding operational integrity. This approach will ensure that transparency is meaningful, proportionate and does not undermine the effectiveness of policing.

It is important to recognise that we are listening to the public in dealing with concerns that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, around policing encroaching on civil liberties. Indeed, the Government commissioned and published research into public attitudes on the police’s use of AI last year. The research demonstrated strong support for AI use by the police. There are rightful concerns about the need for AI use to be underpinned by rigorous oversight, humans always being clearly involved in decision-making and transparency. These findings have been supported elsewhere; for example, in recently published research by CENTRIC, which surveyed 10,000 members of the public. That is why we are working closely with the NPCC to build upon and implement the principles of the covenant for the use of AI in policing, to which all forces in England and Wales have signed up. Of course, it is important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to the use of gait analysis, and there was a comparison to live facial recognition. It is important that we understand the risks of bias and discriminatory outcomes from using any policing tool.

To be clear, police deployments must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and data protection law. Forces are required to assess potential discrimination risks and should be able to evidence that tools are necessary, proportionate and fair. Humans remain clearly involved in decision-making, and forces are expected to monitor performance against protected characteristics so that any bias is identified and addressed. Where tools cannot meet these standards in practice, they should not be deployed or must be withdrawn pending remediation.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to black box systems. To be clear, we are not comfortable with black box systems being used in policing. Policing requires—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank the Minister. Much of what he said about developing an alternative to the ATRS has been encouraging, but, obviously, quite a lot will also depend on—and he went on to talk about data protection—whether officers are trained in how Article 22 of the GDPR operates in terms of automated decision-making. What assurance can the Minister give about the level of knowledge and training in that area?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As I said, police deployments must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and data protection law, which, of course, include the latest data protection law under the GDPR. In relation to that specific point on Article 22 of the GDPR, I will have to write to the noble Lord to give him the full details, but, as I say, the general principle of compliance applies.

Just to finish the point I was making in reference to the noble Lord’s point about black box systems, where a system is inherently opaque, forces must have compensating controls such as rigorous testing, performance monitoring and strong human review, or not use that system.

Given these assurances—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he was encouraged, and we will wait to hear from his colleague as to whether she is encouraged by these responses—I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am very interested in this area and supportive of the right use of AI in policing, because it can be enormously helpful to the police in terms of resources. I remember when I was at the Cabinet Office, they were doing a trial where they were using AI instead of officers to look through CCTV of abuse and child abuse, and that was saving a lot of resource and a lot of difficulty for police officers. The Minister did not mention what kind of use the police were making of AI. Does he have any information on that, or can I be referred elsewhere?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

A range of use is made by police forces at individual force level. Each force makes operationally independent decisions as to what tools they test or deploy. Sometimes it is around administrative tasks that we see across lots of public services and sometimes it is specifically around operational issues and investigation. It is probably best that I do not go into too much detail, but I can certainly go back and talk to officials to see what we might be able to follow up on in writing with the noble Baroness, if there is more detail we can provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment, which seeks to require the Government to publish a national plan to modernise police data and intelligence systems in England and Wales. At its heart, this amendment speaks to a very practical and pressing concern: that our policing infrastructure must stay up to date with modern crime, particularly the most harmful and insidious forms of abuse.

Outdated and fragmented information systems can frustrate effective policing. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, which noted that some police forces are still operating antiquated legacy systems that inhibit real-time data sharing and hinder co-ordinated action across forces and with partner agencies.

Group-based child sexual exploitation is a complex crime. Our response must therefore be equally networked and technologically capable. Recommendation 7 from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, made it clear that improving data systems is essential—I emphasise that word—to ensuring children’s safety and enabling earlier intervention and more efficient information exchange. I look forward to the Minister’s outline of the steps the Government have already taken to address this issue.

This amendment seeks to take that recommendation forward by requiring a national plan with clear steps and milestones to modernise police data and intelligence systems. We strongly support the idea of having clear milestones not just for police forces and agencies but for the public and Parliament. Transparent targets allow for progress to be measured and debated, and provide operational leaders with something concrete and tangible to work towards.

We also welcome the requirement for annual progress reports to be laid before Parliament until the plan’s objectives are achieved. That level of ongoing scrutiny is important if we truly want to drive systemic improvement rather than to allow good intentions to gather dust. I therefore echo the helpful contributions of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford; we really must do better.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment. I would be grateful if he would outline how the Government intend to address the problems identified in the national audit and how they will respond to the constructive challenge that this amendment presents.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for explaining the rationale behind her amendment, which would require that a comprehensive national plan to improve police data and intelligence systems is set out within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

While I am sympathetic to the intent of this amendment—I think probably everyone in the Committee is—I stress that Parliament already has a role in holding the Home Office to account on policing systems. The Public Accounts Committee has oversight of the Law Enforcement Data Service and has required the Home Office to provide detailed information on its development. The Commons Home Affairs Committee also regularly scrutinises Home Office digital transformation and policing technology, and it is open to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House to do likewise.

Additionally, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services publishes State of Policing: The Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales. This report is laid before Parliament, ensuring that Parliament remains informed about the performance, challenges and progress of police forces across England and Wales. This provides information on police efficiency, effectiveness and progress on reforms, including those relating to IT and crime data integrity.

Work to improve access to policing data is already under way. For example, last June the Home Office conducted a preliminary market engagement to better understand what solutions the market could offer policing to improve data integration. We are currently evaluating those responses against the existing policing landscape to determine the best way forward. We also awarded a contract to deliver a police technology strategy and road map.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I am obviously delighted to hear about the White Paper. We are really looking forward to it being published. He helpfully mentioned a contract that has been let to look at this whole area—a police technology strategy and road map for intelligence and the technical use of it. I wondered who that contract had been let to and what the timeframe was for delivering conclusions. The other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was the question of having enough capital for the IT. Being a businesswoman, I know very well how expensive that can be. If the Minister could say a little bit more about that, that might help us before Report.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not have details of the contract in front of me. I am, of course, aware that there could be commercially confidential issues at play which might prevent the level of disclosure that she wants, but, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, I will certainly go away, take it back and write to the noble Baroness if I can.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very sorry. I am recalling the passage of the Procurement Act, where we discussed at some considerable length what contract could and could not be kept from the public. The detail can be confidential, but the fact of the contract and who it is let to should surely be part of the public domain—it should be on websites.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will certainly defer to the noble Baroness’s knowledge of the Procurement Bill because I think it went through the House before I was in the House. I am happy to share what detail that we can under the details of that Act. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.

I will also go away and look at the issue of capital funding. I am afraid I do not have the figures in front of me, but of course it is important that we fund all these systems adequately. We would contend that, unfortunately, for the past 14 years some of the investment in policing that we would have liked to see has been lacking, and we have been very clear about our wider approach as a Government to investing, particularly in neighbourhood policing but in policing at all levels. We want to improve on recent experience.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I am, frankly, gobsmacked at his suggestion that my amendment was not needed because the Home Office had a role in deciding what IT the police had and making sure that they had what they needed. For more than two decades, report after report has documented the same weaknesses: fragmented systems, wasted effort, and vital intelligence lost between agencies. People who did not understand would find it almost impossible to believe that vital intelligence can be lost between agencies, but it has been happening for years and years. We cannot keep treating this as a series of isolated IT upgrades that are needed when what is needed is a national strategy, with clear responsibility and sustained investment. There is no way past that; that is what is needed and it is what must be provided. This amendment does not prescribe the solution. It simply asks for leadership and for a timetable to deliver what everyone thinks is now essential.

The Minister mentioned talking to different people and finding out what was needed. All you have to do is talk to 43 chief constables and they will tell you exactly what is needed, for free. We do not have to go out to thousands of people and run various inquiries, taking days and months trying to work out what is needed. Everyone knows what is needed: the money, the will and the leadership. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

It is Front-Bench speeches.

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

The noble Lord has the right to speak in Committee, of course. Conventionally, we tend not to hear from Back-Benchers after the Front Benches have started winding, but of course he has the right.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz. I will make three very brief points. The first is that the Supreme Court judgment had a logic behind it, and it is very difficult to see how that logic does not roll out across a whole bunch of issues such as this one. So this amendment relates very strongly to that Supreme Court judgment.

The second point is that the three noble Baronesses talking against the amendment were trying to say, “Well, what point would it have?” Yet the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, stated that there had been reports that the amount of crime, including violent crime, committed by females had increased, and that this had caused some kind of minor moral panic in society. Now, we know that women—biological women—have far lower rates of offending than men, whether non-violent or violent. Our understanding of the role of women in society is very much driven by that understanding of the civilising impact of womanhood on society. It is fundamental to our ideas of how society works.

If we are persuaded by false data that the role of women is changing—that women are becoming more violent, that women are becoming more criminal—our view of society will be very different. That would be unfortunate, if it is false.

Finally, the objections made by the noble Baronesses to this amendment, other than those of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did not fundamentally dispute the premises but merely argued about the practicability—indeed, as did some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. If we are to talk about practicability, first, we have the evidence that Scotland has already implemented this, so arguments against practicability fall away.

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti —that you are putting an onus on a policeman to respond to somebody claiming a particular sex or gender, when in fact that may not be correct—was given the lie by her own statement that there are lots of people who are happy to come to a police station and confuse things by deliberately giving the wrong information. Basically, she is saying that, when a policeman is confronted by a six-foot bloke who says that he is a woman, it is difficult to confront that person. This is set against the very correct concern she had about a woman with short hair or whatever who looks a bit man-like, as many do, being challenged on saying that she is a woman.

If they can sort that out in Scotland, they can sort that out in the UK. But, in the meantime, which would you prefer: that data is falsified and moral panics emerge, or that police have a slightly bigger onus to try to ascertain the true biological sex of an individual?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her Amendment 438B and the subsequent Amendment 438EF, which seek to mandate the collection of sex data on perpetrators of crime. I thank everybody who spoke with some force and passion on a debate that certainly was not dry and simply about data. We heard the views of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the opposition Front Benches.

Before I go any further, as referred to by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, we are absolutely resolute in our goal, expressed in the violence against women and girls strategy published before Christmas, to halve violence against women and girls over the decade. We recognise that it takes a whole-government, indeed a whole-society, approach, but we are resolute in doing that and the issues that we are discussing in this group are germane to that effort.

However, there are already powers available to the Home Secretary to obtain data from police forces. The question is whether these are adequate. Section 44 of the Police Act 1996 gives the Home Secretary powers to obtain relevant data from chief constables. This power, which noble Lords have mentioned in the debate on this group, is exercised through an annual data requirement which sets out what data should be recorded and provided to the Home Office. Such data is routinely published as official statistics to provide a window on the work of government and the police service.

The content of the annual data requirement is reviewed annually and, where new requirements are made out, it allows collections to be added or existing ones amended. However, we accept that these powers fall short of what is required. Not to presage the next group too heavily, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, will be aware that, in December last year the Home Secretary announced that we will legislate to mandate the recording of suspects’ ethnicity data. This will happen at the earliest opportunity as part of our wider legislative proposals on police reform, which we announced in the White Paper on police reform published yesterday.

As announced in that White Paper, we are introducing key proposals to address the fragmentation of data across police forces and recording formats. In that White Paper, which I commend to your Lordships, we say that we will work with the police to introduce a number of measures around data—for instance, developing new technology to integrate data nationally; mandating national standards on data to create consistency in recording data across police forces and improve the quality of datasets; introducing a single national decision-maker with authority over key national datasets; and removing unnecessary barriers to data sharing across police forces and agencies. This will provide the necessary statutory powers to ensure the delivery of recommendation 4 of the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and will improve the integrity of the data that the police use, collect and analyse.

Furthermore, I agree that consistent and accurate data on sex needs to be recorded, and we are carefully considering the implications of the Supreme Court ruling that clarified the definition of sex in the Equality Act.

In replying directly to my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s question about thinking about it from the individual’s perspective, and what they may or may not want to happen in terms of their gender identification, it is still fair to say that the data collected will be anonymised and treated as per current GDPR and other data protection terms. This is about collecting data for wider analysis rather than thinking about what might happen to that individual from the way that that data is collected.

I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, of the work going on in this area. In light of this and our commitment in the White Paper to bring forward legislation in the context of our wider reforms to policing, I ask that she withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

May I just clarify one question? Could the noble Lord explain the Government’s attitude to the Sullivan review? When are they going to act on it? It is very comprehensive and I understood that the Government, particularly the Home Secretary, were perfectly positive about it but, like too many reviews, it sits there, with all that hard work, data collected and intellectual energy, and is not acted upon. If it had been, these amendments would not be necessary. Maybe the noble Lord could give us a timeline to clarify that.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, there was certainly a lot of work done. I believe that it was commissioned by the previous Government, so it overlaps from the previous Administration into ours. I am not sure that I can provide a concrete timeline from the Dispatch Box, so I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness with those details.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to everyone who has spoken and to the winding speakers today. It is such an important question, and it is such a pleasure to have a debate like this and to engage with former colleagues and noble Peers to discuss an often emotional or passionate issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have known each other for such a long time, but not everyone knows that. I believe that I may have referred to the noble Baroness with a pronoun during my speech, and I am very sorry if I did that; it was a lapse from knowing each other and I want to put that on the record. I am very grateful to her for speaking with her typical compassion and empathy for everyone—a testament to her time as the head of Liberty, and the principles that she has lived by ever since.

I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and I am very grateful to her for engaging in this debate and being present. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for citing the data, and noble Peers who supported the amendments. I am very grateful to everyone.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, referenced Scotland. I would like to end on that thought. There is, of course, a direction of travel by the Government, which we welcome and support, but in his response the noble Lord, Lord Katz, did not address what data is going to be collected in relation to sex. I know we are coming on to ethnicity next. I say to the Minister that this is an opportunity to grapple with this issue and to do something by accepting this amendment, which would really support the violence against women and girls strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also made some very sensible points about the common-sense approach of the police, and we have confidence in them to be able to act in a sensible way. For the record, there is no suggestion in this amendment that anyone would be embarrassed or outed. It is about the police recording the data, not publishing the data. We know that data, when the statistics are processed off it, is anonymised.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

“true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of Amendment 449 from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and Amendment 454 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I do so on the grounds, really, that—

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

Apologies, I did not mean to put the noble Baroness off, I was just trying to recall whether she was here for the start of the group.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I came in just as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, got up.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Apologies: please continue.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I was simply going to say that I agree with the reasons given by noble Lords, but in particular I want to stress the importance of having checks and balances in the constitution. We need, particularly where our constitution is unwritten, to pay particular attention to the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive. It is so simple for the Executive to bring in proscription, but it must be equally simple for Parliament to be able to scrutinise it and afford a proper check.

It is really for that reason that I support these amendments, at a time when constitutional liberty is under threat, on both sides of the Atlantic, from executive power, whatever the Government in power. We heard earlier this evening from a US Supreme Court judge who spoke of this happening under recent Presidents, going back some time, and it has happened under Governments of all complexions here. Therefore, I commend these important amendments because of the centrality of the separation of powers.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I would be grateful for clarification—

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

Order—that was an intervention.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I have not quite finished.

I understand exactly what the noble Baroness is saying. I was not a criminal judge; I do not think I ever sent a woman to prison, so I am not qualified to speak on those issues. All I am really asking the Committee to reflect on is that we are principally being asked to change the law to support those who are not guilty of offences, and because the police are not behaving as they should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, it is Committee. Everyone can have a turn, as long as they stick to the speaking limits, so perhaps we could just take it around the Committee.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I would just be grateful, and I will be brief, to get a clarification—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Before the Government Whip sits down, could he please remind the Committee that interventions have to be brief and cannot go on into speeches? Can he also remind the Committee that those who have put their names to these amendments should be heard prior to those who have not?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

First, there are no points of order in our self-regulating House. Secondly, the noble Baroness makes the point about interventions very ably. Thirdly, as I said, there is time for everyone in Committee to both move their amendments and speak to other amendments, so I suggest we just take it in a reasonable order. I will leave it to the Committee to decide who speaks next.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief—I would just be grateful for a clarification. I strongly believe in women’s rights, including reproductive rights, and I do not want women in distress subjected to criminal investigation, if at all avoidable. But I am struggling to understand why Clause 191 is considered not to amend the Abortion Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, among others, asserts. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said it would be “toothless” if Clause 191 is agreed.

If I have understood it properly, people other than the pregnant woman concerned would still be committing a criminal offence if they gave any kind of assistance. That is why it is considered that the Abortion Act 1967 is not in fact amended. The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, referred to repealed abortion offences, so we seem to be relying on the fact that only the woman herself would be regarded as decriminalised. I am not generally happy about decriminalisation, such as in relation to drugs. I prefer dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s and having legalisation—or not.

Have I understood that correctly? Maybe it is only when we come to the Minister that I will get full clarification as to whether or not we are amending the Abortion Act 1967, which I broadly support, even though it is a compromise. I have never supported the simple but simplistic “a woman’s right to choose”, because there are other considerations. I support the Abortion Act as a compromise on a difficult subject, as I think many people do, but I seek clarification that the Abortion Act is not being amended and that we would simply decriminalise the woman concerned while supposedly leaving the rest of the Abortion Act as it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

The noble Baroness has had one intervention, and only one is allowed.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, the noble Baroness can take as many or as few interventions as she wishes.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

Well, that is not the information that was given earlier, but there we are. I think I have answered the question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

I have not finished. That was an intervention. Sorry; I have nearly finished.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I ask the noble Baroness to conclude her remarks: it is well over her 10 minutes.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

Yes, sorry, it is. I will just read the last paragraph. It is the interventions that have taken time.

Some of these examples may sound fanciful or seem extreme, but the worst consequences of a policy rarely announce themselves plainly at first sight; otherwise, we would always pass perfect laws, and we do not. We would be foolish not to learn from evidence in other jurisdictions. I contend that it would be far wiser to reject Clause 191 altogether. Doing so would protect women—both baby girls in the womb and the mothers who carry them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, and I respect his expertise, but I think there is a debate about how successful scans are and from what stage. We can debate that on another occasion, but there is evidence that scans can be used successfully. I will not take any more interventions, because my time is running out and I have one more amendment to go through after this.

There is evidence that first-trimester scans are generally safe, non-invasive and commonly used to confirm pregnancy, identifying due date et cetera. At the moment, the requirement is that the medical practitioner believes in good faith that the pregnancy will not exceed 10 weeks when the medicine or the first dose of a course is administered. I contend that the condition stretches the idea of belief and good faith unreasonably widely, so the medical practitioner simply accepts what they are told, perhaps by the pregnant woman who may be speaking in perfectly good faith—we have seen tragic cases of this—but is mistaken, or else that it is only after the gestational age of the baby has been reliably ascertained that the medical practitioner is in a position to believe in good faith that the pregnancy meets the conditions stated. My amendment would not change the Act.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Would the noble Baroness come to her concluding remarks?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I will certainly bring my remarks to a conclusion. I will just briefly introduce my last amendment to Clause 191 if I may because of those interventions and, I have to confess, my loss of notes. Amendment 461K, my last amendment, proposes to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

Well, they are not. Many of us have not been parliamentarians for long, and we have not been at the right schools that have debating societies. If we want to say something important for the good of the common—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Order. We need to return to the debate. I suggest that the noble Baroness concludes her remarks imminently so that we can carry on with the debate.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 461K agrees that the people who support this clause say that they are not trying to legalise abortions that would otherwise be illegal. If that were to happen, it would be extremely important to ensure that proper mechanisms exist for prosecuting the party culpable—that is to say, the abortion provider—so that they are not above the law or beyond the reach of the law. We should not forget that, for the most part, it is non-medical clinics that provide around 80% of abortions, with taxpayers funding the bill. Like all service providers—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has had a lot of the Committee’s indulgence. We will take that as her finishing.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was in danger of no longer wishing to be heard. That is where the Committee was moving. When the Whips tell us to conclude, we really should conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I am speaking late in the debate and others have made many points. I just want to speak to the amendments in my name in this group and say a few brief words about the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, to which I am a signatory. I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bailey and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stroud, Lady Eaton and Lady Lawlor.

I consider myself very fortunate to have never had an abortion, and I wonder how many of us in your Lordships’ House have actually had one. I want to make it clear that I do not oppose abortion altogether. No woman would choose an abortion lightly, and I fully recognise the points that have been raised about the distress of police investigations for women at that time in their lives. But we owe it to ourselves and to the women affected to be honest about the reality of what we are discussing.

In 2022, 260 abortions in England and Wales took place at or beyond 24 weeks’ gestation. These abortions must be performed in NHS hospitals. The woman is awake—she goes through actual labour, including painful contractions; she will deliver a fully formed infant via a vaginal delivery. We may wonder whether every woman going through this is fortunate enough to be in a bereavement suite with specialist care, or will she be in the next room to someone delivering a healthy baby? At 24 weeks, a baby is 12 inches long, weighing about 1.5 pounds, with a fully formed face. The NHS website tells us that at 32 weeks, an unborn baby is perfectly formed and just needs to put on weight. Once delivered, we wonder what happens to the infant. They are classified as clinical waste to be incinerated; at earlier gestations, women are advised that they can take the remains home, bury them in the garden, flush them down the toilet or place them in household rubbish.

There is no extensive research on the long-term emotional impact on women of late-term abortions, but natural human empathy tells us that this must carry significant emotional impact and distress. My heart goes out to those who are in this position because of foetal abnormalities, but I ask your Lordships whether extending this experience to any point in pregnancy, including up to full term, is truly in the interests of women and girls, many of whom are victims of reproductive coercion, domestic abuse, child rape, trafficking or modern slavery, when we have so little understanding of the long-term effects.

In fact, there is complete silence around late-term abortions. It is a taboo subject associated with complex feelings. There is hardly any information about what it actually involves or how it will impact women and their bodies. Removing any legal deterrent, as this clause does, means that we put more women in a world of scary and unsafe unknowns, and we leave our public services to pick up the pieces without any plan. These are almost certainly not women with significant resources, resilient mental health or strong support systems. We are leaving the most vulnerable at greater risk of exploitation.

I come at this, respectfully, from a totally different perspective from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and others, because we know that abuse often takes the form of reproductive coercion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, explained in the case of Stuart Worby, and we know that this is a pattern for grooming gang victims as well. I fully accept that this is not the design or intent of the policy, but it very much is the unintended consequence. How many of us can genuinely say that we always pass perfect laws without unintended consequences? It is not the case. This situation could happen via the pills by post scheme, or by coercion or other reasons.

Those who support this clause present it as a feminist fight for women’s rights, and accuse those of us on the other side of the debate of ignoring the suffering of women. They tell us this radical law change is necessary because dozens of women are facing life in prison under a Victorian law. But almost every part of this claim is questionable. The law in question, the Offences against the Person Act 1861, may be old, but it is still the basis of our laws today against GBH and manslaughter, and nobody would suggest that they are obsolete. The idea that women are facing life in prison is also fanciful. The one high-profile conviction in recent years under the Offences against the Person Act resulted in a short prison sentence that was suspended on appeal. As for the numbers, the groups who are campaigning for this tell us that six women have been prosecuted over the past three years. Given that there are now almost 300,000 abortions a year, it is hard to see why this justifies such a significant change. Of course, it is regrettable if there are women who have been wrongly investigated, but that is a police matter. We do not disapply other laws simply because people are sometimes wrongly investigated. It is critical that we make the distinction between babies who would and would not be viable outside the womb; that is why we have the 24-week limit.

The Member in another place who tabled Clause 191, Tonia Antoniazzi, is on record as saying in an interview that she was comfortable with women being able to abort at 37 weeks without committing an offence. Are people really comfortable with passing a law that means a woman could abort at full term for any reason without committing an offence, as would be the effect of this clause?

Many have spoken about the dangers of telemedicine, so I will not expand on that, but we discussed that in the assisted dying debate. Under that Bill, two doctors would at least have to make sure that the person applying for an assisted death was actually terminally ill by examining relevant records. But the pills by post scheme permits women to obtain abortion pills with no reliable way of ascertaining whether they are under the limit before which it is legal and safe to take pills or even pregnant at all.

I turn briefly to my Amendments 459B and 461G. While I sincerely hope that this Committee will support the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in case it does not, I have tabled Amendment 459B to introduce a sunset clause requiring the Secretary of State to renew the legislation after each of the first three years. The related Amendment 502A is to make the regulations in proposed new subsection (3) subject to the affirmative procedure. In so doing, it encourages awareness and scrutiny of the provision and provides an opportunity to reverse the effects of Clause 191, should the consequences be as I fear.

I have also tabled Amendment 461G, which would require an annual report concerning abortion drugs that have been obtained illegally, maybe online, which I worry will become more likely under Clause 191. Of course, this need not relate solely to women considering an abortion themselves—it might relate to third parties or traffickers who obtain pills illegally to coerce an abortion or cover up abuse. It establishes ongoing transparency and oversight concerning what I fear will increasingly become a matter of public health and a safeguarding concern.

I should mention that I was unable to table any amendments to require the Government to collect numbers of pills by post that are issued or to require that this is captured on women’s medical records because those issues are not in the scope of the Bill. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would look at those issues because I think they are very important.

There is a genuine worry that with the numbers of abortions rising and young women turning to that option more frequently, the future consequences for their reproductive health are simply unknown. We have many noble Lords in this House who practise medicine, yet we could see women coming to them and not disclosing that they have taken pills by post in the past. The cases that have led to the clamour for decriminalisation up to birth have resulted from pills by post and the inability to ensure that safeguards are maintained. Taking these pills outside the 10-week gestational limit is a dangerous course of action. The Department for Health and Social Care consultation found that the risks of this would include an ongoing viable pregnancy, reduced efficacy of abortions and death. I hope the House will consider my amendments as additional safeguards for women and girls, and I commend them to the House.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am afraid it is clear that there are still a number of Back-Benchers who wish to speak on these amendments as well as the Front-Benchers, so I now propose to adjourn the debate on Amendment 455, move to dinner break business and then resume the debate on the Bill. I advise your Lordships’ House that notice has been taken of those who are here for the debate on Amendment 455, so when we resume, we will be able to continue the debate in an orderly fashion.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.22 pm.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is not true.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

Amendment 11 agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

“Section 2A

Possession of relevant accessory without certificate under this Act

Summary

A fine of level 3 on the standard scale”.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

Amendment 178 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

238: Clause 75, page 102, line 28, leave out from “to” to end of line 29 and insert “66B, 67 or 67A of that Act (offences relating to exposure, intimate images and voyeurism),”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends subsection (6)(d) so that it does not include offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as only adults can be victims of those offences).

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all minor and technical in nature. Amendments 238 and 251 modify provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10, which provide for the new grooming aggravating factor and relate to the duty to report child sexual abuse respectively. In each case, the provisions refer to a run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. When the Bill was originally drafted, this run of offences all related to offences against children, which are relevant to the provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has since added two adult-related offences into the run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the 2003 Act, specifically at Sections 66E and 66F. These two amendments simply remove the new adult-focused offences from the list of relevant offences in Clause 75 and Schedule 10.

Amendment 388 to Schedule 18 adds to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill an amendment of a provision recently inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code. Finally, Amendments 447, 453 and 454 provide that the provisions on child sexual abuse image generators at Clause 65, costs protections at Clause 162 and anonymity for firearms officers at Clauses 168 to 171 all have UK-wide extent, as was the original drafting intention. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They seem to be entirely reasonable and we support their implementation.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Official Opposition’s support for these amendments.

Amendment 238 agreed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

308: Clause 108, page 147, line 4, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (1), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (2), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.

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

My Lords, following consideration of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in Committee, the Government have brought forward amendments to the stalking provisions in Part 6.

Amendments 308 to 313, 314 and 315 explicitly provide for the civil standard of proof to apply when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement to an order in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This includes when the courts are deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order. This will promote consistency and improve clarity in understanding of the standard of proof applicable in cases of stalking protection orders.

In addition, I am very happy to accept Amendment 316 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will convert the power conferred on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about stalking into a duty to do so. This will align the provision on guidance in the Stalking Protection Act 2019 with that in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, promoting consistency in the legislative provisions which aim to tackle violence against women and girls.

My noble friend Lady Royall also has Amendment 313A in this group. I will respond to it once she and other noble Lords have contributed to the debate, but in the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 313A, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendments in response to my amendment in Committee. These amendments clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with the domestic abuse protection orders, so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders, and it will make a real difference to the protection and safety of victims.

I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for meeting me, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to the Victims’ Commissioner and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their support.

Amendment 313A is very similar to the one I moved in Committee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would introduce stalking protection notices—SPNs—to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is granted, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices. In response to the debate on that amendment, my noble friend the Minister suggested that the amendment as drafted would be disproportionate, since it would criminalise the breach of a police-issued notice without court oversight. I have therefore updated the amendment so that a breach of an SPN would not be a criminal offence, ensuring that it reflects the framework for DAPOs.

Why is this amendment necessary? Because, as highlighted in the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super-complaint and its report on experiences of the CPS and the courts, the use of full and interim SPOs is currently inadequate, including lack of applications by the police and the time that it takes to obtain one, given that both the full and interim orders have to be granted by a court. Victims say that when police do apply for SPOs, the judiciary do not recognise the need for an SPO, particularly if other orders are already in place.

In response to the super-complaint, HMICFRS highlighted the arduous application process for the police and their frustrations over their inability to issue orders themselves. It called for the Government to use the DAPN framework as a template to legislate for a new stalking protection notice, which, like the DAPN, would not require an application to the court and could be issued by the police to offer protection in stalking cases.

The length of delays in cases varies from months to years. For victims of stalking, a delay in taking their case to trial means a continuation of the stalking behaviours, especially if no protective orders are put in place. The failure to put in place an interim or full SPO at the earliest opportunity puts victims at risk of further acts of stalking, which increases the potential psychological and physical harm that they are likely to suffer. Data on SPOs is also limited and outdated, making it hard to establish how many are refused by the courts.

It is both right and logical that SPNs should be enabled and put in place following a similar approach to DAPNs. They would offer immediate police-applied protection in stalking cases and set a timeframe for the courts to consider a full order. It cannot be right that, at the moment, a woman who is at risk of violence from a stalker has less protection than a woman at risk of violence at the hands of her domestic abuser, so steps must be taken to bring this into line.

The hour is late, but I will cite one case study from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust relating to delays in SPOs and the harm caused. This case opened in January 2025. The client was subjected to criminal damage, vexatious complaints to her employer and an online campaign aimed at discrediting her. The offender also moved house to be closer to the client. This has had a significant impact on her quality of life. The case has had four different OICs and different teams from the outset, which has caused considerable delay—to the detriment of the client. An SPO has been considered throughout the investigation, but there has been little progress or ownership of responsibility across the police force.

The advocate has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Several complaints have been made to the police and the local MP but, as far as the advocate knows, no response has been received. Legal services within the force had been contacted about an SPO in February 2025. Multiple witness statements had been obtained to support the application. The police stated that the SPO application was submitted in March 2025, but this turned out to be incorrect. The judge, in a separate non-molestation order request hearing, asked why after six months the force had not secured an SPO. At the time of writing, the SPO application was sitting with the force’s legal services awaiting a court date. Due to the time that has elapsed, the perpetrator has now been on bail for so long that it has required a magistrate’s application to secure a bail extension.

This and hundreds of similar cases demonstrate the need for swift action and the introduction of stalking protection notices. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as a preliminary point, when we debated this part of the Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower made the point that the Government are not taking a strong enough line on sentencing for those convicted of stalking offences. That remains the case. I hope that Ministers will heed that warning. Violence against women and girls is unacceptable. We can all agree that and we must have a zero-tolerance approach. Strengthening stalking protection orders is just one step, but we need to take a tougher approach on sentencing and enforcement.

Amendment 313A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is a reasonable proposal which Ministers should consider. It sets out the structure of the SPN procedure. The noble Baroness also spoke to existing flaws in the current SPO system. I have a couple of questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could consider. Do the Government feel that the existing stalking protection order system is dealing with orders sufficiently quickly? What steps are Ministers taking to speed up the process when issues arise?

Given the hour, I do not intend to detain the House further. We accept the government amendments in this group on the civil standard of proof, which respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. They have the effect of clarifying the position on the standard of proof used when imposing SPOs. Clarity of the law and its application are essential parts of any just legal system and we welcome them.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. As my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon set out, Amendment 313A would introduce a stalking protection notice, which could be imposed by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent. I am grateful to my noble friend for continuing to raise the operational issues impacting how well stalking protection orders work in practice and the differences between existing protective order frameworks for addressing violence against women and girls.

I am also grateful to my noble friend, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for meeting with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, to discuss their amendment. I understand and sympathise with the intention of noble Lords to address this issue. In our violence against women and girls strategy, published in December, we committed to launch stalking protection order intensification sites into select police force areas. These will aim to drive up the use of stalking protection orders and provide opportunities to test innovative approaches to enforcing conditions and monitoring breaches which could be adopted nationwide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have just had a look to see whether I can find any data on the number of stalking protection orders issued to those under 18, and the answer is that they are not disaggregated. The Minister is drawing this great distinction about those aged between 10 and 17. We have just had a debate on another matter where we think there is a very small number involved. It would be useful to know if we could have some help from the Minister on the likelihood of numbers.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

It may not entirely surprise the noble Baroness that I do not have that data or the awareness of what we can do with the data to hand, but I am certainly happy to undertake to write to her with as much detail as we can summon.

I hope that my noble friend will be content not to move her Amendment 313A and, with other noble Lords, will support the government amendments in this group.

Amendment 308 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

314: Clause 110, page 155, line 13, at end insert—
“(ii) after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (3), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

“serious disruption to the life of the community”

or that it would

“place undue demands on the police”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

“within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”

of a place of worship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

Amendment 371 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 373 not moved.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

Amendment 388A agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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