Lords Weigh Protest Curbs, Facial Recognition and Hate Crime

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords held introductions and then took oral questions on national preparedness (Exercise Pegasus 2025), the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet, protections for children from loot boxes, and a potential Ministry of Defence budget shortfall. Peers questioned the Government on a proposed Chinese embassy at Royal Mint Court and scrutinised a Commons Statement on Iran. In Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill (10th day), the House examined protests near places of worship, cumulative disruption from protests, live facial recognition, speech and hate‑crime law, new powers to search for electronically tracked stolen goods, extraction of online information including at the border, and access to DVLA data; several government and one back‑bench amendment were agreed. Later, concerns were raised about high police escort charges for abnormal loads; Ministers cited guidance and arranged further talks.

Detailed Summary

Introductions of new Members

Baroness Hyde of Bemerton and Lord Roe of West Wickham were introduced and took the oath. Each signed the undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct and was supported by named Members: “was introduced and took the oath, supported by Baroness Twycross and Lord Katz” [ref: a1823.0/1]; and “supported by Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Twycross” [ref: a1823.2/1].

Exercise Pegasus 2025: cross‑government preparedness (Oral Question)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke‑on‑Trent said the exercise tested pandemic response across the UK, with evaluation under way and interim findings to inform a draft pandemic preparedness strategy “due to be published in early 2026… The final exercise phase… is planned for this summer… [and] the Government have committed to communicating the findings… this winter” [ref: a1823.7/1]. She highlighted participation and engagement: “6,000 professionals… 16 focus groups and four population surveys, and 2,000 members of the public… specific focus groups with the voluntary sector and key businesses” [ref: a1824.0/1]. On mobilisation planning, she said the Chief of the Defence Staff indicated a national defence plan will be developed across 2026 in line with NATO commitments [ref: a1824.2/1]. On Local Resilience Forums, she cited the LRF trailblazer scheme and a protocol “due for testing in March” [ref: a1825.0/1]. She stressed inclusive democratic oversight across the UK and learning from previous events [ref: a1825.4/1], and linked Pegasus to the Covid‑19 Inquiry’s module 1, noting a commitment to one major tier‑1 exercise per year and published findings [ref: a1825.6/1]. On realism, she said focus groups helped “stress‑test” scenarios, with initial findings due “imminently” [ref: a1826.3/1].

Royal Navy: nuclear‑powered and nuclear‑armed submarines (Oral Question)

Lord Coaker stated nine submarines are in service: “four Vanguard class nuclear‑powered and nuclear‑armed submarines… [and] five Astute class” with “two more under construction” [ref: a1827.0/1]. He reaffirmed the continuous at‑sea deterrent and the transition to Dreadnought: “backed by £41 billion… We expect the first Dreadnought submarines to be in service in the early 2030s” [ref: a1828.0/1]. On availability, he referenced the First Sea Lord’s “submarine recovery plan” to improve maintenance and docking [ref: a1827.4/1]. He said the sovereign warhead programme was on schedule, while being cautious on figures [ref: a1827.6/1], and emphasised meeting “harmony guidelines” for crews and families [ref: a1828.2/1]. On decommissioning, he reported HMS “Swiftsure” will be the first dismantled by end‑2026, with “around 90%… reused or recycled” [ref: a1828.6/1]. He welcomed engagement with the AUKUS APPG on supply chains [ref: a1829.1/1], maintained the Government’s deterrence policy position [ref: a1829.3/1], and noted jobs dependent on the deterrent in Scotland and across the UK [ref: a1829.5/1].

In‑game purchases and protections for children (Oral Question)

Baroness Twycross said industry guidance on loot boxes was published in 2023 with a 12‑month implementation period to July 2024; the Government commissioned independent research and “will publish the report and set out our next steps in the coming months” [ref: a1830.2/1]. She confirmed loot boxes are not currently legally gambling but that “possible future legislative options” are kept under review [ref: a1830.4/1]. She undertook to ensure the ASA and Gambling Commission are liaising “very clearly and in detail on this particular point” [ref: a1831.0/1], and highlighted school mobile phone policies and forthcoming guidance on under‑fives’ screen use [ref: a1831.2/1]. She stated the grey market is illegal and action can be taken [ref: a1831.4/1], said the Online Safety Act applies to online services and that the Government keeps “all options under review” [ref: a1832.3/1], and noted increased funding “to tackle the illegal market” alongside remote duty changes [ref: a1832.5/1]. She confirmed the research would be published with a Government response and offered a departmental briefing to interested peers [ref: a1833.1/1].

Ministry of Defence: budget shortfall (Oral Question)

Lord Coaker said a Defence Investment Plan would be “coherent, fully costed and affordable,” adding that over this Parliament “over £270 billion” goes into defence, with an ambition to spend 3% in the next Parliament and a NATO commitment to 5% on national security from 2035 [ref: a1833.4/1]. Citing the Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Young highlighted that “we are forecasting to spend more than the budget we have” [ref: a1833.5/2]; Lord Coaker replied that choices must be made within the budget and noted planned increases, saying the 2024‑25 budget was £60.2 billion and, on current plans, it will be £73.5 billion, with “Billions of pounds of additional money” [ref: a1833.6/2]. On GDP percentage, he emphasised absolute increases while acknowledging capability choices and lessons from Ukraine [ref: a1834.1/1]. He referenced “more than 1,000 defence contracts since July 2024… 86% with British‑based businesses” and over £31 billion spent with UK industry [ref: a1834.3/2], pointed to procurement reform via the National Armaments Director [ref: a1835.0/1], affirmed support for GCAP while specific contracts await the investment plan [ref: a1835.2/1], underlined the importance of reserves [ref: a1835.4/2], and listed funded programmes and recent operations, including “DragonFire laser” and other capabilities [ref: a1836.0/1; a1836.0/2].

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025 – Motion to Approve

The draft Order laid on 20 November 2025 was approved without division: “Motion agreed” [ref: a1836.2/4].

Proposed Chinese embassy at Royal Mint Court – Lords questioning on a Commons Urgent Question

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, answering for the Government, declined to comment on a live planning case but underlined national security responsibilities: “it would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application… National security is the first duty of government” [ref: a1837.1/1]. She said all relevant planning considerations, including embassy size, would be taken into account [ref: a1838.3/1], confirmed submissions from the Foreign Office and Home Office had been made [ref: a1839.5/1], and noted that police views on protest management for the site could be considered through representations [ref: a1839.7/1]. The preceding Commons Answer set out the quasi‑judicial process, including a final decision “on or before 20 January 2026” and that reference‑back material will be available when the decision is issued [ref: a1836.4/3]. She reiterated the Government will not tolerate transnational repression [ref: a1838.1/1].

Iran – questioning on a Commons Statement

Peers condemned violent repression in Iran and asked about UK actions. Baroness Chapman said estimates were “around 2,000 dead, and around 10,000 being detained,” cautioning figures may rise as communications improve [ref: a1845.0/1]. She confirmed the UK embassy in Tehran had been temporarily closed and that consular assistance was “incredibly limited… We advise those there to make plans to leave” [ref: a1845.0/2]. On further measures, she said the Government is “actively considering what next steps we need to take… considering proscription‑like measures in respect of the IRGC” [ref: a1845.0/4]. She paid tribute to BBC Persian journalists and said their safety is kept under review [ref: a1847.1/1], confirmed there is currently “not… a formal safe route… with regard to Iran” but that claims will be considered fairly [ref: a1847.7/1], and stressed that Iran’s future “is for the people of Iran to determine” [ref: a1851.1/1]. From the Statement text, the Government also pledged further sectoral sanctions: “the UK will bring forward legislation to implement full and further sanctions and sectoral measures” [ref: a1840.5/11].

Crime and Policing Bill – Committee (10th Day): protests near places of worship

Lord Leigh of Hurley proposed extending Clause 124 to cover faith schools and faith community centres, citing recent intimidatory protests and impacts on Jewish community sites [ref: a1851.8/11; a1851.8/12]. Supporters argued the need to protect children and gatherings beyond places of worship [ref: a1853.1/6; a1854.1/4]. For the Government, Lord Katz said places of worship are not defined, giving police flexibility where community centres are used as such; detailed lists risked constraining discretion and College of Policing guidance would assist [ref: a1855.0/6]. He pointed to expedited public space protection orders to protect those attending schools and offered to meet to discuss concerns [ref: a1855.0/8; a1855.0/7]. The amendment was withdrawn and Clause 124 was agreed [ref: a1857.0/5; a1857.0/7].

Crime and Policing Bill – Committee (10th Day): cumulative disruption

The House agreed a new clause (Amendment 372) requiring senior officers to take account of cumulative disruption when imposing conditions on processions and assemblies: “Amendment 372 agreed” [ref: a1858.1/4].

Crime and Policing Bill – Committee (10th Day): live facial recognition (LFR) and protests

Baroness Doocey’s Amendment 379 sought to bar LFR at protests unless a statutory code had been approved by both Houses, citing bias risks and a lack of a clear legal framework [ref: a1859.2/2; a1859.2/3]. Peers differed: some urged safeguards but warned against pre‑emptive bans [ref: a1861.0/2], others described current deployments as intrusive mass surveillance [ref: a1862.0/7], while a former Met Commissioner supported regulation by Parliament but not via this Bill [ref: a1864.0/4]. The Minister said the Government had launched a 10‑week consultation on 4 December to develop “a new legal framework that sets out rules for the overt use of facial recognition by law enforcement organisations,” with legislation to follow “when parliamentary time allows” [ref: a1874.0/6; a1874.0/7]. He rejected that Clause 125 pre‑empted the consultation: “I do not think that it does” [ref: a1875.1/1]. The amendment was withdrawn [ref: a1876.2/8].

Crime and Policing Bill – Committee (10th Day): speech offences and hate crime

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea’s Amendment 382F proposed repealing offences covering “grossly offensive” communications and removing “abusive or insulting” from several Public Order Act provisions, arguing over‑criminalisation of speech [ref: a1877.2/2; a1877.2/3]. Supporters cited rising arrests for online offences [ref: a1884.0/3]. Baroness Brinton argued the balance is to prevent harm to others within Article 10 limits [ref: a1886.1/2]. The Minister resisted, saying the framework provides proportionate tools to manage disorder and protect the public, with established case law: “These provisions provide police with proportionate tools… The existing legal framework already ensures that enforcement decisions are made proportionately” [ref: a1892.0/4]. The amendment was withdrawn [ref: a1895.3/2]. A further amendment (382G) to abolish hate‑crime offences and aggravating factors prompted divided views. Baroness Hunt opposed repeal, noting the framework enables measurement and response to spikes in hostility [ref: a1902.0/4; a1902.0/6]. The Minister rejected repeal, arguing identity‑based hostility has heightened impact: “Hate crime legislation exists because offences motivated by prejudice inflict deep harm on victims and on entire communities” [ref: a1910.1/2]. He signalled that, on Report, the Government will propose adding transgender identity and disability as protected characteristics for aggravated offences: “we will be bringing forward amendments… to give transgender and disability as protected characteristics” [ref: a1911.3/4]. The amendment was withdrawn [ref: a1913.2/6].

Crime and Policing Bill – Committee (10th Day): search for electronically tracked stolen goods

Lord Davies of Gower sought to remove the Bill’s requirement that warrantless searches of premises be based on electronic tracking data, arguing criminals can evade tracking and that signals often locate to multi‑occupancy buildings [ref: a1914.2/5; a1914.2/7]. The Government opposed broadening the power, calling electronic tracking a “technically justified threshold,” and said removing it would dilute safeguards for intrusive entry powers [ref: a1917.0/5; a1917.0/7]. On service police, Ministers said Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code B will be updated before commencement, with existing complaints and oversight mechanisms applicable [ref: a1917.0/8; a1917.0/9]. Clause 128 and Clause 129 were agreed; proposed additional governance amendments for service police were not moved [ref: a1920.2/7; a1920.2/10].

Crime and Policing Bill – Committee (10th Day): extraction of online information and border powers

Government amendments clarified authorisations for police access to cloud‑stored data when monitoring compliance with terrorism/state threats prevention measures and the new youth diversion orders, and confirmed that Data Protection Act duties continue to apply [ref: a1921.2/2; a1923.1/2]. These technical amendments were agreed [ref: a1924.1/7]. Lord Anderson of Ipswich probed Clause 135 with amendments to require reasonable suspicion for retaining data beyond three months and an objective necessity test, given strong no‑suspicion border powers now extend to cloud data [ref: a1925.2/12; a1925.2/14]. The Minister said safeguards would be set in revised statutory codes of practice subject to affirmative approval and offered to meet, but did not accept changes on the face of the Bill: “we would not seek to implement the clause until the codes of practice were approved by both Houses of Parliament” [ref: a1931.0/5]. Baroness Butler‑Sloss questioned why such limits were not in primary legislation [ref: a1932.0/1]. The amendments were withdrawn, with agreement to further discussions [ref: a1933.3/7].

Crime and Policing Bill – Committee (10th Day): DVLA driver data access and facial recognition

Government amendments added a consent requirement from the Northern Ireland Department of Justice for regulations covering Northern Ireland policing bodies [ref: a1936.2/2]. Baroness Doocey’s Amendment 396 sought to bar use of the DVLA image database for facial recognition searches, arguing this would repurpose “55 million facial images… collected in good faith” and risk “population‑scale surveillance” [ref: a1937.0/2; a1937.0/3]. The Minister said Clause 138 is a legislative tidy‑up to allow the DVLA to provide information to police for serious crime investigations and “is not designed to allow the police to send an image to the DVLA and for the DVLA to search its database for the identity of an unknown person,” adding that regulations and a code would be subject to the affirmative procedure [ref: a1940.0/3; a1940.0/4; a1940.0/5]. Government reporting and consequential amendments were agreed; Amendment 396 was not moved [ref: a1941.1/3; a1941.3/5].

Abnormal loads: police escorts and charges

Earl Attlee raised concerns about inconsistent and, in some forces, high police charges for escorting abnormal loads, citing West Midlands Police’s income rise “from £14,000 to £1.1 million in five years,” and describing repeated, time‑consuming checks and a case of funding police cars by a project [ref: a1942.2/7; a1942.2/8; a1942.2/17]. Lord Faulkner of Worcester described significant cost impacts on heritage railways, with some escorts costing “between £2,500 and £5,000 per trip,” sometimes exceeding haulage costs [ref: a1946.3/3; a1946.3/4]. The Government cited police operational independence and recent NPCC guidance (May 2025), and arranged a meeting with Ministers and the national policing lead to address consistency: “the policing Minister and I are pleased to have arranged a further meeting… [to] ensure that the guidance… is being applied consistently” [ref: a1951.0/3; a1951.0/4; a1951.0/6]. The amendments were withdrawn [ref: a1954.0/3; a1954.0/4].