Lords Probe Protest Powers Amid ODA Funding Debate

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords conducted introductions, oral questions, a short debate on Official Development Assistance (ODA), and the ninth Committee day on the Crime and Policing Bill. Ministers were questioned on meat labelling and animal welfare, the Youth Guarantee, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the implications of United States withdrawals from international bodies. In Committee, peers debated protest-related clauses (face-coverings, pyrotechnics, memorials), a new cumulative disruption duty for police, restrictions near places of worship, and other public order measures; several clauses were agreed and some amendments withdrawn. The ODA debate urged reversal of aid reductions, while Ministers emphasised reform, prioritisation, and protected humanitarian allocations.

Detailed Summary

Introductions and Leave of Absence

Baroness Shah and Lord Forbes of Newcastle were introduced and undertook the Code of Conduct. The record states each was “introduced” and completed the oath/affirmation [ref: a1585.0/1; a1585.2/1]. The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) sought leave of absence to attend the Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers Conference: “I seek leave of absence … from tomorrow until I return next Monday 19 January” [ref: a1585.5/1].

Meat labelling and animal welfare – Oral Question

Baroness Hoey asked about labelling to indicate whether animals were stunned before slaughter [ref: a1585.7/1]. Baroness Hayman of Ullock said the Government prefer all animals to be stunned and will work with stakeholders on labelling to support consumer transparency: “We encourage the highest standards of animal welfare… We will continue working with relevant stakeholders to explore how food labelling can support consumer transparency” [ref: a1585.8/1]. She recognised religious sensitivities and said Ministers are considering the best way forward on labelling [ref: a1586.0/1]. Peers raised scheme completeness and non‑discrimination, CO2 gas stunning of pigs, small abattoirs, import standards, and non‑lethal stunning for halal. The Minister called CO2 stunning “incredibly cruel” and said it is included in the animal welfare strategy for phase‑out [ref: a1586.2/1]; noted grants to support small abattoirs [ref: a1586.4/1]; affirmed import/export deals are expected to meet UK animal welfare standards and that labelling will be part of the strategy [ref: a1587.1/1]; and endorsed the “demonstration of life” protocol as compatible with halal and supportive of welfare and trade [ref: a1587.3/1]. On enforcement, she stressed: “official veterinarians in the Food Standards Agency are present in all approved slaughterhouses” [ref: a1588.0/1].

Youth Guarantee Scheme – Oral Question

Baroness Curran asked how the Youth Guarantee’s success will be measured [ref: a1588.10/1]. Baroness Smith of Malvern said it will be judged by improved employment outcomes, reduced inactivity, and increased participation in education and training, monitored nationally for participants [ref: a1589.0/1]. She described the guarantee as a top priority and promised updates and outreach with employers and communities [ref: a1589.2/1]. Peers pressed on apprenticeship funding and displacement effects. The Minister said engineering apprenticeship costs will be monitored and bureaucracy reduced, including reforms to end‑point assessment and removing separate maths/English requirements for adults [ref: a1589.4/1]. She highlighted “an investment of £1.5 billion into the youth guarantee” and “50,000 more apprenticeships for young people” [ref: a1590.3/2], and confirmed evaluations will track progression to permanent work [ref: a1591.4/1]. On timings for Universal Credit claimants, she clarified: “The backstop at 18 months is a guaranteed job of six months”, with earlier support via work coaches and opportunities [ref: a1591.6/1].

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – Oral Question

Lord Cryer asked whether the Government would reconsider not proscribing the IRGC [ref: a1592.1/1]. Lord Hanson of Flint reiterated the policy not to comment on proscription considerations but stressed constant review and condemnation of regime violence. He noted existing measures: “we have travel bans, so no known member of the IRGC can travel to the United Kingdom” and assets are frozen [ref: a1592.4/1]. He said the Iranian ambassador had been summoned and the Foreign Secretary was making a Statement on further measures [ref: a1593.0/1]. Peers cited the Intelligence and Security Committee and MI5 assessments of the Iranian threat. The Minister highlighted the foreign influence registration scheme placing Iran in tier one, making it “a criminal offence to support foreign activity from Iran in the United Kingdom” [ref: a1593.4/1]. He confirmed Jonathan Hall KC is reviewing relevant legislation and that the ISC would be kept informed [ref: a1594.3/1]. He added that 550 Iranian individuals have been sanctioned by the UK [ref: a1594.5/1] and restated opposition to capital punishment in response to concerns about specific cases [ref: a1595.1/1].

United States: withdrawal from international organisations – Oral Question

Lord McConnell asked about implications of US withdrawal from 66 international organisations, conventions and treaties [ref: a1595.3/1]. Baroness Chapman of Darlington said such decisions are for the US, but affirmed the UK’s commitment to multilateral co‑operation and international law [ref: a1595.4/1]. She said allocations for affected bodies would be announced “in the coming weeks” [ref: a1596.0/1] and urged perspective, noting the impact amounted to “about 3% of the UN’s overall budget” [ref: a1597.0/1]. She stressed support for reform and efficiency while maintaining commitments, including to the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement [ref: a1598.2/1; a1597.4/1]. Peers raised OCHA funding, peacekeeping value for money, and genocide prevention; the Minister referenced recent US OCHA funding [ref: a1596.2/1], strong UK backing for the Secretary‑General [ref: a1597.2/1], and meetings with OCHA leadership [ref: a1598.0/1].

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill – Order of Commitment discharged

With no amendments tabled or requests to speak, Lord Bach moved to discharge the order of commitment: “I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged” [ref: a1599.0/1]. The Motion was agreed [ref: a1599.0/2].

Crime and Policing Bill (Committee Day 9): face‑coverings at protests (Clauses 118–120)

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb opposed Clauses 118–120, arguing they enable pre‑emptive area designations and criminalise presence and attire rather than behaviour, risking a chilling effect and incompatibility with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR; she queried necessity given existing powers and suggested narrowing triggers and adding a front‑end reasonable‑excuse protection [ref: a1599.3/1; a1599.3/9; a1599.3/11]. Lord Blencathra supported the clauses as targeted powers aimed at preventing criminality while protecting lawful assembly [ref: a1600.0/7]. Other peers raised concerns over narrow defences, overbreadth, facial recognition, and enforceability [ref: a1601.0/3; a1602.2/3; a1603.0/7; a1605.0/3]. For the Government, Lord Hanson said he had certified ECHR compliance and explained the police had sought the powers due to difficulties identifying offenders who re‑mask after removal orders: “people often comply but then replace a face covering later” [ref: a1609.1/2; a1610.1/3]. He said designations would apply where an inspector reasonably believes criminal behaviour is likely and that written notification is required [ref: a1610.1/4; a1612.0/5]. He noted specified defences carry a reverse legal burden [ref: a1612.0/6] and indicated Lord Macdonald’s review could consider issues raised. Outcome: Clause 118 agreed; Clauses 119 and 120 agreed [ref: a1617.5/3–a1617.5/5].

Crime and Policing Bill (Committee Day 9): pyrotechnics at protests and reasonable excuse (Clause 121 and related amendments)

Lord Davies of Gower sought to exclude “an honestly or sincerely held political belief” as a reasonable excuse for possessing pyrotechnics and to constrain or remove reasonable/lawful excuse defences in protest and criminal damage law, criticising the Supreme Court’s Ziegler decision [ref: a1618.0/1; a1618.0/12]. Lord Faulks proposed a cross‑cutting clarification of lawful/reasonable excuse, including that specified conduct would not be excused and an HRA necessity statement [ref: a1619.0/1; a1619.0/6]. The Bishop of Manchester cautioned against over‑specification and noted traditional processions that temporarily close roads [ref: a1621.0/1; a1621.0/3]. Lord Pannick pointed to later case law clarifying that proportionality need not be assessed in every case [ref: a1622.0/4–a1622.0/8]. Minister Lord Hanson argued that removing or narrowing defences would reduce flexibility and operational independence; he maintained the “good reason” defence for climbing on memorials (e.g., repair/cleaning) and the necessity of reasonable excuse for offences such as locking‑on or tunnelling. He illustrated existing lawful‑excuse scenarios, such as “smashing the window to get the child out” of a car in an emergency [ref: a1633.0/11], and stressed the law does not allow wanton damage for political aims [ref: a1633.0/17]. Outcome: Amendment 369A withdrawn; Clause 121 agreed; Clause 122 agreed [ref: a1637.1/8–a1637.1/12].

Crime and Policing Bill (Committee Day 9): new offence on road transport infrastructure (Amendment 370)

Lord Davies of Gower proposed a new offence for intentionally causing serious disruption to road transport infrastructure, citing extensive disruption and costs [ref: a1639.0/1; a1639.0/2]. Minister Lord Hanson said existing offences under the Public Order Act 2023 already cover obstructing major transport works and interfering with key national infrastructure, and cautioned that creating a similar offence “risks unnecessary duplication” [ref: a1642.0/1]. Outcome: Amendment withdrawn [ref: a1644.3/5].

Crime and Policing Bill (Committee Day 9): extreme criminal protest groups, places of worship, cumulative disruption, and protests outside homes

Lord Walney proposed a designation regime for “Extreme Criminal Protest Groups” (ECPGs), criminalising membership, promotion, fundraising and material support, arguing it would allow earlier intervention short of terrorism proscription [ref: a1645.1/2; a1645.2/5; a1645.2/8]. Baroness Blower opposed Clause 124 as drafted or sought to tighten it, proposing to define “vicinity” and require intent to intimidate; she warned of a low threshold and potential chilling of protest [ref: a1649.2/2; a1649.2/12]. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb opposed Clause 124 standing part, arguing “may intimidate” and undefined “vicinity” could create rolling exclusion zones despite existing powers [ref: a1652.0/4; a1652.0/7]. Lord Pannick welcomed Government Amendment 372 to require police to consider cumulative disruption when imposing protest conditions, noting competing rights: synagogue access versus protest routes [ref: a1658.0/2–a1658.0/4]. Baroness Chakrabarti cautioned against vague terms and proscription‑like regimes that chill lawful association [ref: a1662.0/1; a1663.1/1]. Lord Blencathra proposed placing a statutory duty on the Metropolitan Police to ensure access to Parliament, recalling that Articles 10 and 11 are qualified rights [ref: a1683.0/26; a1683.0/29]. For the Government, Lord Katz said Amendment 372 “amending Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 so that the police must take the cumulative impact of protest activity into consideration” would not enable blanket bans, and guidance will follow [ref: a1701.0/6; a1701.0/7]. He defended Clause 124 as addressing the “lived experience” of intimidation around places of worship [ref: a1704.1/5]. On a new offence of making representations outside public officeholders’ homes (Amendment 381), he said the Government “will not move it in Committee” and “will bring the amendment back on Report” [ref: a1704.1/3]. He resisted establishing an ECPG designation, noting the ongoing review led by Lord Macdonald of River Glaven [ref: a1704.1/15]. Outcome: Amendment 370A withdrawn [ref: a1710.0/5]; Government Amendment 372 and Clause 124 debated (no decisions taken at this stage).

Official Development Assistance – Short Debate

Opening a QSD, Lord Bates described the humanitarian impact of ODA reductions, recounting an experience in South Sudan and warning that cuts to health and core multilaterals risk lives. He urged support for the UN’s humanitarian reset and appeal led by Tom Fletcher; a simple sachet “costing around 50 pence, could have saved” a child’s life [ref: a1663.4/2; a1663.4/11]. Replying, Baroness Chapman argued that “less money need not mean less action”, emphasising reform and impact over inputs, with allocations to be announced soon [ref: a1674.0/4; a1674.0/7]. She cited an estimated £1.6 billion for humanitarian spend in 2025–26, protection of funding for Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, and efforts to secure humanitarian access in Gaza [ref: a1674.0/9–a1674.0/10]. She praised OCHA’s leadership and said the UK will focus on prioritisation, efficiency and locally‑led delivery [ref: a1674.0/6; a1674.0/13].

Crime and Policing Bill (Committee Day 9, resumed): specified memorials

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay proposed adding further statues and memorials to Schedule 12’s list protected by the offence of climbing on memorials, arguing the current approach was inconsistent and unduly limited [ref: a1711.0/2; a1711.0/5]. Minister Lord Katz replied that Parts 1 and 2 list grade 1 war memorials, with Churchill’s statue added due to repeated targeting, and that further memorials can be added by secondary legislation; he noted that the Animals in War Memorial could be considered in future [ref: a1717.0/2–a1717.0/5]. Outcome: Amendments withdrawn; Schedule 12 and Clause 123 agreed [ref: a1718.0/4; a1718.0/6–a1718.0/7].